FOIA Appeal, March 12, 2012: Where are the Records?

[XLFD]

The following plea was made to my friends at City Hall to be considered at their meeting tomorrow night.  I don't expect any results, so that I will not once again be disappointed, but this is not something that really should be wasting the City Councilor's time. 

I had asked for nine specific public records and was given an incomplete set.  FOIAC/City Manager John Shay gave me most all of the invoices, although there was estimates and other documents included that I had not requested.  The fifth record definitely was not included, and yet his form stated he had fully complied with sending all nine records.  Because he claimed it was granted, while it was not, I appealed his decision.  This is more explained in the appeal. 

Since he has once again failed to give me timely written permission to attend the meeting without fear of my detainment, as per the dictums of the Workplace Safety Policy/Letter of Trespass, I will not attend.  At my last appeal, the City Council abandoned their duty to hold this appeal and say that I had abandoned it.  Will they do that once again, this time?

 

 

FOIA Appeal  (To be read into the minutes of the 3-12-2012 Ludington City Council meeting, please reproduce the first link for clarity):

 

This FOIA appeal deals with the simple case that Ludington's FOIA Coordinator, John Shay, refuses to certify that certain public records do not exist.  Section 5, subsection 4 of the FOIA says:  A written notice denying a request for a public record in whole or in part is a public body's final determination to deny the request or portion of that request. The written notice shall contain a certificate that the public record does not exist under the name given by the requester or by another name reasonably known to the public body, if that is the reason for denying the request or a portion of the request.

 

Requested were nine public records that deal with City Councilor Nick Tykoski's business dealings between his sign business and the City of Ludington that were part of the financial records of the Ludington Downtown Development Authority, but that City Manager John Shay declared in a sworn affidavit to the 51st Circuit Court did not exist in February of 2012.  He later recanted this story after this request, which is the subject of this appeal, was submitted to him.

 

He has now resworn that the set of records he has given to me is the complete set, and yet he hasn't provided me the fifth public record I requested, nor is it clear why certain invoices are sent as "Estimates" for other enumerated records.  Where have those public record gone, and why does he not certify that it either does not exist, contradicting the financial records, or that it has been inadvertently destroyed or lost.  That is the proper question for this body on this appeal, not any question beyond that which the City Manager may pose.  Let us not forget that John Shay and the staff at Ludington City Hall are mere stewards of the public records that they have in their possession.  The true owners of those records are the people.  That is the law. 

 

 Perhaps you are comfortable with knowing that the Community Development Director Heather Venzke and current husband, City Councilor Nick Tykoski, were both members of the Ludington Downtown Development Authority in 2008 when the City of Ludington decided to amend its Tax Increment Financing Plan (TIF) without proper notification to other agencies and the people that their taxes would soon be diverted eventually amounting to over $100,000 per year to the DDA.  And you may be comfortable also in the fact that according to this plan there would be $150,000 used for signage over the first few years of the ten year plan.  And that the initial signage project of $15,001 in 2009 was given to Councilor Nick's sign company without any bid and without any contract.

 

Maybe you are comfortable that when bids were actually sent out for a project a half year later, the other companies so contacted had three business days to respond to a complex project that Councilor Nick's company had already submitted a bid a week before the other 'request to bids' were sent out.  Comfortable, that at the next meeting of the DDA , not only was Nick given the "contract" (though no contracts between the City and Tye Signs have ever been produced despite countless FOIA attempts in the past), but also the rest of the numerous signage projects were granted to him.  All without the acknowledgment of Councilor Nick's or CDD Heather's apparent conflict of interest noted in the notes, or the mention of any of the two votes about that in the minutes of that meeting, both violations of the OMA law.

 

Do you continue to be comfortable with the fact that CDD Heather asked for a Letter of Trespass to be issued against me, Tom Rotta, in March of 2011, the same month that the following invoice for services was produced http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/photo/tye-s-that-bind?context=latest.  This had Councilor Nick's sign company, Tye's Inc, residing at the very house that both Councilor Nick and CDD Heather bought and reside in.  Her initials for the expense and her "Do not Mail" were an added touch of corruption that continues in about two dozen other invoices-- all with a total absence of any sort of contract between the two entities, and signed by CDD Heather and/or John Shay.  Having contracts and fair bidding practices is mandated by the City Charter, ethics are mandated by state and local laws.

 

Are you content in that the Letter of Trespass police report had John Shay telling LPD's Sgt. Schultz the sole reason for a trespass letter was for Tom Rotta utilizing a publicly available website at the Ludington City Assessor's website:  https://is.bsasoftware.com/bsa.is/AssessingServices/ServiceAssessin....

 

And comfortable in knowing that the above link was provided by me, Tom Rotta, in an effort to show the causal link between the two principals, Nick and Heather, that had significant private financial gain through the series of business transactions unethically carried out between them in their position as public servants, not to threaten or intimidate anyone.  But are you then comfortable in knowing that I have been threatened and intimidated with arrest if I as much as step within the lobby of this building for over a year now, so that I can't even come to an Open Meeting like this and have the rest of my civil liberties taken from me in the process of defending my rights under FOIA? 

 

Of course, you are comfortable; or at least a lot more comfortable than you would be for acknowledging the law and ethical violations that have taken place right under your nose by your own colleagues, sometimes with your tacit understanding and approval.  And you feel definitely more comfortable that I, Tom Rotta, dare not enter into the Ludington City Hall or Police Station under the threat of incarceration, under a policy enacted by most of you in obvious ignorance of the rights provided to all citizens by the First, Fourth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.  Please, reread your oath of office to the Constitutions of this state and this nation to strengthen your resolve to do what's right.  Or be comfortable in the fact that you have failed in your duties to both your office and the people of this city.

 

Tom Rotta

The Ludington Torch

 

 

[Willy]

X

Has any Councilor the Mayor or the LDN contacted you to get your side of the story yet? My guess is no. If noone contacts you then that tells you where they stand and how interested they are in what Shay and his crew are up to. If I were an open minded, fair and concerned councilor I would have sat down with you when this all began and hashed this thing out way before it costs the City the $10,000 fee charged by the Manistee law firm. I wonder if the citizens know they are paying for all of this with their hard earned money. I hope, at the next election, the apposing candidates bring up the fact of all the wastefull spending this current group of politicians are forking over to prevent the release of public information.  I'll say one thing, these Councilors sure aren't earning their paychecks. I would say they haven't even earned a nickel yet. As a matter of fact they owe the public a rebate. Another thing, If there is a good explanation of why this all transpired, why hasn't any Councilor came forward and explained it?

[Willy]

 Dale

If I were a councilor I would have done everything in my power to find out both sides of this situation but that hasn't been the case since day one as far as I know. X can better answer that. You should read how LDN has covered this situation with half truths and lies. I wouldn't trust LDN to report a story on the Easter Bunny. Their reporting is just not reliable. And if I wrote a letter to LDN I would include that in the letter because that is the truth and you know they would never print that. It's sad to say that the LDN cannot be trusted, the City Council can not be trusted, the City Manager cannot be trusted, the Mayor cannot be trusted and it appears that the City Attorney and possibly the Judge cannot be trusted. That's a long list but an accurated one.

[AQUAMAN]

Hey Dale, why not get sober again, before your posts become, well, let's say, nauseating to the pallet....lol. I definitely now believe that you and your cohorts here believe in the Easter Bunny and friends, cause you sure don't make for any logic that can be esplained senor. Wher de factos senor. Your so accurated at us, it's not funny senor! Comprende....lol. The Benoche factor at the LDN was interviewed by me personally about 10 days ago, Mr. Benoche has a big one to grind with the creator here. Seems he feel like he kicked likey a Dog over and over, for not responding to every request for interview last year, so de Editor, he still upset, and he not happy, so go figure, you espect him to la la over Tommy....lol. He not do anymore, he in camp with Shay de Shyster, comprende.....lol. He likey in Shyster Camp, he get benefits too, likey I don't know yet, but he happy beyond happy, okey-dokey....lol.

[Willy]

Dale

My post started with "If I were a councilor". It was a hypothetical statement. Not a statement about me but about those in power who have failed to gather all of the facts and make a fair judgement. Why would they contact themselves when they already know what they think. My point was they have not contacted X to get his side of the situation. You must try and read the posted information and then make your statement. I really don't know how to answer your posts because they have no relation to what was said in my post. I don't care if you trust me or not. My question to you is why don't you call the Mayor and Councilors and get the other side of the story. You already have X's and you don't believe him so do some digging because everytime you post it shows that you don't have a clue even tho the information is right in front of you. What is your point of posting here if you keep insisting you don't believe what is going on. Aquaman may be right about you. Your statements are extremely suspect. Sorry, I said that as nicely as I can.

[Willy]

 Dale

Because it's their job. Most competent and thorough City officials would contact  a citizen who they consider is causing a lot of commotion regarding the Citys ethics and business so they could  understand exactly what his beef would be with the City.  It's their duty and job  because this situation deals with City policy, procedures, ordinances, personnel, tax dollars and a whole host of other City business. I don't know where you got the idea that X refuses to talk with them because he has been negotiating with them as we speak so unless you know something noone else does then please rephrase your question so it can be answered. You didn't answer my question. Are you associated with the City of Ludington Governmental agencies or it's City attorneys firm?

[Wanda Marrison]

Good Evening

I have read this forum almost everyday. If there is more to Mr. Rotta's side of the story he has been more than welcome to speak with me personally. He has my phone # and email.  Yes he has emailed me "bulk" mailings to the CC.

If I may, I have a question,

Mr. Rotta why  did you feel it was ok  to come to city hall for your interview, this was after the LOT.  You have asked many times now to come to meetings and I believe you were granted those request, via email I believe. But yet you lead this forum to believe that you are being refused.

Unless I am being lied to, this is not true.

It would be easy enough to find out.

I was at city hall the day of the LDN forum. I know you were asked more than once to join. Yet you chose to walk the sidewalk with signage and duck tape.

The terms of the LOT were even amended for city hall. This was done some time ago.

I just don't get it, if you wanted your side of the story heard besides on this forum I think you would need to at least make an effort.

[Willy]

Wanda

I believe everything revolves around the LOT, so my question to you is, do you think the LOT issued to Mr. Rotta was justified and why?  

[Willy]

Wanda

Have you bothered to contact Mr. Rotta to hear his side of the story. Under your own admission you believe the information you are being handed by other City officials is true. Your statement "Unless I am being lied to, this is not true." Have you actually looked at what City officials have done and compared their actions to the ordinances and laws to see if they have been lying. Like I have said before on this forum, you should read all of the information, get all of the facts  which in your case should  include sitting down and speaking to Mr. Rotta,  then step back and make a fair decision. I've always wondered how anyone can be banned for life from City Hall without any proof of wrong doing except the word of 1 employee. Doesn't that sound odd to you. Sit down and talk to Mr. Rotta. Look at the information he has compiled. Be a true representative of the people.

[XLFD]

Wanda has never bothered contacting me outside of this forum except when we briefly talked via E-mail when she had originally signed in, and I thought she was an impostor due to her E-mail and her lack of knowledge over a couple of things.

I would say I have contacted her around 15 times without response via E-mail. 

The terms of the LOT has never been amended by City Hall.  I recently found out about a "City Attorney Opinion" which was a joke, that was issued just after the November election, which is what she probably refers to.   This had no binding effect on anything.  With all due respect, review your Civics lessons, Wanda.

[Wanda Marrison]

Willy,

With the WSP in place yes I do.

I believe that Heather was really upset and scared of Mr. Rotta.

He was posting alot of negitive opinons about her.  I think this forum and Mr. Rotta

had and still are crossing the line with some of the statements being posted.

Investigating is fine, posting facts are fine, personality bashing is not.

She just happens to worked in a public place that he visited often.

If this all had happened at a private business or industrial plant

she could have asked the employer for help in some similar way.

[Sweater Cows!]

She is smart enough to know he was investigating city corruption type stuff and her name popped to the top by possible handing off contracts to her fiancee' with no bids so really she *knew* she was caught in her own  behavior.

I think you should consider she never was 'afraid of' XLFD, but was afraid of what he would find out about her bids(or lack of) from tye's and she really was not desiring  to be being found out, but by her and Shay trying to hide so much she opened up a can of worms.

I think she tried to use the PPO to stop the investigation and when that did not work went for the LOT, the judge on the PPO must have saw how baseless her statements were, but Shay et al  found a way to hopefully stop the investigations and in return only intesified the scrutiny.

I believe she was definitely afraid of "being found out" about the lack of bids and that is why she designed the LOT with Shays help. I do not believe she was ever scared or in fear of her personal well being but instead her work behavoir being made public.

Can you consider she was never afraid of Tom personally, but only afraid of being 'found out' from possible unethical dealling and knew her boob was in the ringer so did all in her power to stop the FOIA's?

[Dave]

You said boob.

*disclaimer... this post was meant solely for humor and really has no other point in this conversation*

Moving on.............