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]

Wanda

What I find amazing is that in all of Ludingtons history there has never been a WPS ordinance until recently and it is a peculiar coincidence that it was passed and used practically on the same day. And it hasn't been used since. My understanding is the WPS ordinance was instituted expressly for Mr. Rotta. It's also a coincidence that before Mr Rotta nobody that entered City Hall was ever threatening enough for the City to pass a WPS ordinance and since Mr. Rottas banishment noone  has been threatening or disruptive to employees at   City Hall, so that would make Mr. Rotta the  most threatening person to ever visit City Hall.  Are their witnesses to verify Heathers story? Also what is your opinion regarding the City spending all that money for attorney fees to appose Mr. Rotta regarding the FOIA issue?

[XLFD]

Wanda,

I was busy on some other matters while you were her earlier, but let me ask you one thing.  Where are the negative opinions you speak of.  I never had negative opinions of Heather Venzke, but I have been critical of the DDA for awhile. 

When the City's DDA spends up to $15,000 of tax money on the FNL program and the NYE Ball program each per year, and yet shows no revenue from those programs, it is reasonable to ask where the money went, and the financial records show a lot went back to the members of the DDA and for stuff that was sold at a profit for someone.  Where did the money go?

Please explain away the appearance of impropriety in the signage situation, and tell me that no laws were broken.

Tell me how Ludington's DDA followed the proper procedures of notification during the amendment to the TIF plan in 2008, and why Shay and Venzke are not complicit in the duplicity.

Tell me how Les Johnson can serve on the Board of Review, the DDA, and the City Council at the same time, and why he has not ever followed proper protocol for drafting minutes for that organization.

Tell me why the DDA members never take an oath of office, when they are required to by law.

Also go through the archives and post any and all "negative opinions" I posted on Mrs. Tykoski.  She sure didn't have much for Judge Raven in her PPO application.

I have more requests, but let's start with those.

 

[XLFD]

It's been asked and answered. Dale.  Three attempts to get written approval and/or revocation of the Letter by John Shay were ignored between May and September, followed by three attempts by my attorney.  These have been put elsewhere in this forum, and I advise you and Wanda to seek them out yourself. 

As for the times I did enter early in 2011 after the LOT was issued, the first was to interview for the Third Ward Councilor job.  I applied for it, and was given written permission to interview for it, after quite a bit of bother on my part to secure it.

The second time was an afternoon CC meeting with the Third graders where they picked the Third Ward Councilor, I was invited to that and given written permission by Shay via the original interview.

The third time , I needed to turn in my nominating petition for the CC at-large position I was running for.  Not something I could do outside the purview of City Hall, CM Shay approved that use.

After three ignored requests of mine when I was running for City Councilor after that were ignored, I realized, that the policy that Wanda Marrison passed and agree with, never allows me the dignity or opportunity to request written permission and get a reply from the CM and have since, not wasted the time to do so.

 

Obviously, you and Wanda are fine with not giving me the opportunity to vote or attend public meetings.  It doesn't matter how many times your side says it, the law says I can't enter the City Hall to do either.