Fact Check: Rotta, City FOIA Issues Continue

[XLFD]

The Ludington Daily News reports on Tuesday 3-13-2012, and Rotta, who was never contacted by the quality reporter known as Kevin Branisczeski once again, did not report the full story and broadcast some inaccuracies.  Those are footnoted in red, and commented on at the end:

 

A city resident is again challenging a Freedom of Information Act decision by Ludington City Manager John Shay, who is the city’s FOIA coordinator, and the Ludington City Council again upheld Shay’s decision Monday night.

Tom Rotta is the resident who challenged the decision — as he has for many FOIA decisions during the past year — and the council’s vote supported Shay’s contention that he did provide Rotta with all the records he requested.

At issue, according to Shay, is that the third, fourth and fifth invoices Rotta requested all referred to the same original 2010 invoice for $19,105.52 from Tye’s Inc. to the city for a lettered sign. 1

In a March 1 email to the council’s members, Rotta stated he was appealing to them because Shay failed to produce one of his requested records or certify that it does not exist.

Rotta statements

He did not attend Monday’s council meeting 2 and no one spoke in favor of his challenge during the meeting’s public comment period, but Rotta did provide an email to council members, other city staff and the Ludington Daily News Sunday.

In that email he states that current Councilor Nick Tykoski — who took office in January 2012 — was a member of the Ludington Downtown Development Authority in 2008, as was Ludington Community Development Director Heather Venzke. Rotta said the city council decided to amend its tax increment financing plan that year to provide the DDA with tax revenues for downtown improvement projects. 3

He stated the plan included spending $150,000 for signage during the next few years and stated Tykoski’s company was awarded a $15,001 signage project without a bid or contract in 2009. 4

Tykoski and Venzke are now married and Tykoski abstained from Monday’s vote on Rotta’s challenge.

Before the vote

Councilor Gary Castonia said he believes Shay went above and beyond his duty to provide Rotta with the information he sought and said he believes Rotta’s challenges are wasteful because the most recent caused at least seven 21-page documents about the challenge to be created when no one challenging the decision even showed up to voice their concerns. 5

City Attorney Richard Wilson said he believes the city did not have to provide Rotta with any of the documents he requested because the dates he asked for did not match the invoice dates, but were instead dated by when council took action to approve them. 6

In court

There is currently at least one civil case on the Circuit Court docket that involves Rotta suing the city for what he contends is a FOIA violation involving documents between the city and Tykoski, Tye’s Signs and Tye’s Inc. during a three-and-a-half-year period between Jan. 1, 2008 and Sept. 6, 2011.

51st Circuit Court Judge Richard Cooper, according to the court, has offered 7 to disqualify himself from that case if the parties do not reach a settlement agreement and the case is tried in court.

If that happens, a new judge would be selected.

___________________________________________________

1:  The records he says are the same are these I requested

3) Invoice for $9552.76 for "Downtown Signs" dated 6-14-2010 and given ref. #: 8009

4) Invoice for $9552.76 for "Downtown Signs" dated 6-16-2010 and given ref. # 8009

5) Invoice for $9552.76 for "Downtown Kiosk Signs" dated 8-09-2010 and given ref. #: 74

Gotten from this financial record of the DDA:

 

I would have thought there might be a voided invoice 8009, a non-void 8009, and an invoice 74, (a check is denoted as CK) but what we got was this voided check and check and a vague statement (not an invoice).  No invoice, check or statement 8009 or 74 was included.  Shouldn't this at least be explained?  This is what I was requesting in my appeal-- certify that the invoice's do not exist or have been lost or destroyed.  Was that difficult to do?

 

2- Perhaps the threat of arrest on entrance into the City Hall by the appellant was a factor?

 

3 & 4- I was surprised that the LDN disclosed this, but it was a very incomplete disclosure and colored by the fact that it was part of my statement not verified by the reporter to its accuracy.

 

5- Rotta maintains the City had no reason to create those documents or the power point presentation, as it was totally irrelevant to the point of that appeal they abandoned when I didn't show-- perhaps it was that whole threat of arrest and incarceration thing again due to that law you passed, Gary.  The City Manager even ignored my request to attend that meeting via written permission, but why engage in technicalities when it doesn't suit your purposes.

 

6- This is pure drivel by the purest driveler.  These are records described by the City DDA's own financial records, and if their dates don't match, perhaps the DDA administrator should be better at dates and organization, or is that asking too much, or threatening in some way?

 

7- This is true CC Judge has offered to disqualify himself, but the junior reporter makes it sound as if he did so because he didn't want to oversee the case, not that because his son was on the Defendant's legal team.  The offer was also accepted, and we had to remind the Circuit Court when we saw this in the paper, that they needed to find a judge, for there will be more litigation going on.

 

Once again, a great example of reporting by the Ludington Daily News... of what not to do.

[masonco]

When I saw these posts from "Dale", I wondered which of Shay's cronies "Dale" really is. Could it be the infamous TJ & Heather who complained cause the paper inadvertently stated they are married?Can't say the article about the volunteer was that complementary either.

Just a heads up...TJ rentals really tried to take advantage of me being female and renting equipment from them. First I was quoted a price, then when I returned things, they tried to sneak in my bill at a MUCH higher rate. Thankfully I reviewed the charge before signing it. So it has been obvious to me why he gets the contracts with the city.

[XLFD]

Dale,

Here's a task for you.  ^ Click on my name right here and you will see my discussions.  Go to where I initially asked that question and check out the  question(s) I asked "Dale" before that post.  Then answer the question(s).  It'll save me the effort of looking up and you avoiding the question(s) again.

Masonco refers to Tye One J Rentals I believe, which seems to have other bad reviews as found here Tye1J, but I also get that the owner is not anyone named Tykoski, but Jim Lacko. 

I would appreciate any other factual info on that business, as I believe Nick's dad once owned the business, and the family may still have some share in it.  So let's not blame Nick for anyone's bad rental equipment nightmares unless he was directly involved.

[XLFD]

Don't blame me for your own faulty skills at searching, Dale.   

[XLFD]

I believe this was the question I posed, Dale, that you didn't answer, it was the closest one to the original comment that was left unanswered by you and something I haven't figured out yet.  What is the FOIA fee that John Shay asks for in the attached file?  He and the City Law Firm says the fee is there, yet they never say what it is. 

[XLFD]

Dale, his reply is right there.  Suggest an amount that's owed.  Note that the fees he charged for the four prior requests, all of which were different than the 9-7-2011 request were all different, the first and second were over $200 and $300 respectively and did not specify what the charges were for.  The last two were both paid for and both were under $3. 

Both Toni then I asked for clarifications, and never got anything more specific, only this that mentioned fees, but never said what fees.  It appears the CM did not want to show us the documents, so gave us no recourse to do so by not following the FOIA. 

[XLFD]

The City's position throughout our half year court appeal is that they suggested a fee, but where that fee is no one knows.  This doesn't prohibit the inept City Law Firm from saying it has asked for a specific fee over and over again in their briefs and motions.  Yet has never revealed a figure when asked repeatedly, just like John Shay.  Both Toni and I are prepared for paying legitimate fees for our FOIA requests.  We just don't get them that often, and we don't have any control over what his capricious mind and his arbitrary spirit demands.