Hiding Behind Signs, pt. 2

[XLFD]

Two cryptic replies by the City Manager and FOIA Coordinator John Shay led to an appeal to the City Council which met on September 26, 2011.  As originally related in Hiding Behind Signs. 

I had sent in a written statement supporting Eve's position, that the City Clerk confirmed would be in the normal packet given to the City Councilors and the "Media", put on the agenda, and made part of the public record.  It mirrored my E-mail in the above link as to the nature of the appeal.  I was appealing the fact that FOIAC Shay had not made any of the four determinations that City and State policy require of FOIA replies.  Nowhere in any of the discussions before were any fees discussed or related by him, nor us beyond the fact that I said we had paid a $2.75 fee in January for information that should have been free using the City's method of determining fees in a similar request. 

 

The meeting came that night, I missed out because of a Letter of Trespass restricting me from attending this open meeting at the City Hall.  Eve did because she was totally creeped out by a certified letter from Mayor Henderson, and another overture from the FOIAC through the E-mail inviting her to the meeting.  They were told through me, that she would only come if I was allowed to come too, a week before the meeting, but John Shay declined to extend me that amenity.  

 

The next day, I heard nothing on WMOM, and read nothing in the paper about the appeal although they had a bit on the other topics at the meeting.  I checked the Ludington Library's and found the video here:

 

At about the 1:40 mark, Mayor Henderson reports that the FOIA appeal would not be covered and that #9, a power point presentation, would be stricken.  The rest of the video has nothing more about it until the very end, when some guy comes up to the Johns and apparently asks about the appeal.  John Shay clearly replies "Ms. Swiger is appealing the fees that were charged..." and then it fades.  There were no appeals based on fees, but on process.  No fees have ever been assessed by the FOIAC on this request.

 

 

I decided to check the City's website, dig, and found the agenda for that meeting and here it is:

 

Notice that even though we asked politely for keeping Eve's own information private which one should be able to do when they are appealing a poor decision by the FOIA Coordinator to the appealing body, they used her name here (at 8-a-2) and in Saturday's LDN.  Whoever drew up the agenda said she was appealing FOIA fees, which was incorrect, but the most interesting thing is that power point presentation that was also stricken. 

 

"Summary of Rotta's FOIA Requests"  WOW!  Someone took the time to compile my requests and make a power point presentation of them.  Look, it was the City Manager making the presentation.  Why is the guy who is supposed to be running the city and raking in over $70/hour (when you include benefits) to do so taking the time to create a power point presentation summarizing a local e-journalists FOIA Requests? 

 

Do you really want to go there, John, particularly if you summarize what unethical and illegal behavior I have uncovered by this regime during that time with those records you have let me see?  Or didn't you include any slides for that?   Wouldn't it have been a lot easier having a clerk just do a search of City records for "Tye Signs" and complete the FOIA request?

 

I guess it might be his reaction to me compiling the FOIA replies I have got from him either illegally processing my requests, or unlawfully charging me for them that Eve mentioned to him recently.  The Attorney General's Office likes a recurring pattern of behavior by those officials who act in a corrupt manner.  But since Eve and I don't know what would drive City Manager John Shay to make or deliver such a power point presentaion, we did the next best thing.

 

We did a FOIA request for the PPP, any notes made for it, and any correspondence between any city  officials/employees concerning this PPP.  The results will be broadcast to all, once we get it.

[Eve Alone]

I just want everyone to know that what John Shay is doing is pure McCarthyism.  A citizen should not have to risk their own privacy and have public scrutiny invited just because they ask the government for information.

 

I have asked for my personal information to be kept that way over and over again during the requests I have made, mostly at the behest of another individual whose privacy and good name was ravaged by City Manager John Shay at public meetings and through the Ludington Daily News.  Do you think I'm proud of being indigent and have everyone make judgments about me? 

 

Let's make some judgments on John Shay, who charges an indigent mother over $100 just to see contracts and invoices of Carr Creek with Ludington over the last three years.  When the public record already shows that its owner was a Ludington official, and that the company has been unlicensed for at least part of that time.  This is something that everybody in Ludington should be interested in.

 

John Shay can cross out street addresses of individuals in FOIA replies, but he is all too willing to give out e-mails, traffic records, and slam a good man's name by putting an unwarranted Letter of Trespass on him.  

 

I totally back the efforts started by Tom Rotta (XLFD) to get corruption out of our City Hall (and beyond), and I encourage all who value the inalienable rights of individuals over the encroaching powers of government to do so as well. 

[XLFD]

Beautifully stated. 

[Willy]

Nicely stated Eve. I'm a bit curious about topic #9 on the agenda, "communications from city officials" is it  meant to be a communication to the Council or to the public? I would be very curious to know if #9 was something Shay wanted to get off his chest or something the Mayor or council members requested. What would be the purpose of a PPP about X's FOIA requests. It sounds like the City Manager is tripping over his shoe laces. It was a wise decision, X,  to FOIA request  the FOIA actions that FOIAC Shay decided to compile about the FOIA lunacy being played out by FOIA crazy Ludington officials.

[XLFD]

Sometime between Monday morning and Monday evening, the decision was made not to view the appeal of the denial of her request.  Also in that time, the decision was made not to air the power point that had been made to be (misre)presented by the City Manager.  The politics behind both decisions is what intrigues me. 

[Sweater Cows!]

What was in the paper? I don't have a sub to it so have no idea what you speak of.

 

[AQUAMAN]

I don't know what's in the paper now Dag, but the video clearly shows that a public comment was censored, in essence, (i.e.), and that action/s with regard to said motions was not accepted, and quite denied. The exact wording was "stricken from the record". What has not been already entered into the record surely cannot be stricken before it's heard, or can it? Ask yourself! Which brings me to ask? Are more civil rights being broken and ignored intentionally and with unnecessary malice against Mr. X? Just wondering............and thinking........!

[XLFD]

Dagny, the paper mentioned that the council was scheduled to hear the appeal of FOIA fees by Toni Swiger.

Aquaman, my defense of her appeal was stricken from the record.  Hence, my chance at making a public comment by proxy was nixed just like my presence without special invite to this Open Meeting has been all along since March.  Isn't that some violation of the Open Meetings Act?  Yep, in this one section of the OMA, MCL 15.263, they have broken, just in case you have your scorecard out:

(1) All meetings of a public body shall be open to the public and shall be held in a place available to the general public  [I am the general public]

(4) A person shall not be required as a condition of attendance at a meeting of a public body to register or otherwise provide his or her name or other information or otherwise to fulfill a condition precedent to attendance.  [I have to notify Field Marshall Shay, and await approval]

(5) A person shall be permitted to address a meeting of a public body under rules established and recorded by the public body...  [This was nullified at this meeting, I haven't tested it before]

(6) A person shall not be excluded from a meeting otherwise open to the public except for a breach of the peace actually committed at the meeting.    [Enough said]

 

You would think that there would be some good, honest public servants amongst them that would come out and defend the rights that Americans, MIchiganders, and Ludingtoners hold dear.  But amongst them, no one comes forward publicly and says:

Why did we put a Letter of Trespass on someone only trying to get information?

Why are we charging unreasonable fees for FOIA requests?

Why are all these contracts made by the City without competitive and/or sealed bids?

Why did we pay all that money for water tower painting in 2010, without any bidding?

Why are we publicly castigating a blogger and his lady who have done nothing but try their darndest to expose obvious local corruption?

Why doesn't the City Manager look into these charges of illegality and unethical behavior and issue a clear statement?

[Marty Redman]

I'm thinking they lined up the PP before Mayor Henderson sent the invite.  So if 'Eve' (just because that creep Shay wants to not respect her privacy, we should) went there and made her case during public comments, they could defer to this part of the meeting and put up a stilted parody of Xs FOIA requests and get their holly jollies amongst themselves.  This is how public dens of corruption do things-- exaggerate, ridicule, and avoid the facts of the situation.

X & Eve, you should make your own PP on all the FOIAs he's butchered and send it to the council for the next meeting. 

[AQUAMAN]

I've never heard of striking public letters of comment in any public open meetings before this. Maybe you need to concentrate the next letter of just addressing one subject: 1) Non-competitive contracts for bids entered into for (a) work on lighting at the water depts. with C&I and (b) the water tower contract. Get away from the FOIA's for the next turn at bat for instance and see if this too is stricken.

[XLFD]

I did tell John and most of the other councilors the week before that I already had a complete list compiled of FOIA fee and policy infractions that he had made as an FOIA Coordinator in the last 3 years.  In fairness, maybe he just wanted to show his side to any of the Councilors who may have requested to see my list. 

John Shay has some crazy ideas, he believes passing a Complete Streets Resolution is for the public good because it may qualify the City for more grants.  Instead of having one to insure the safety of young and old, fit and handicapped, in using our thoroughfares without using automobiles.

He believes answering FOIA Requests is a service the City has in order to make money off those who dare use it.  He doesn't believe it is a duty that he should be performing to provide information to those who may actually analyze it and process it into something the public may find of interest.

[XLFD]

The deterioration of John Shay's professionalism continues.  My willing partner in crime (of getting public information) has just notified me she received the following reply to her request for the Power Point Presentation in her E-mail:

"I have attached the City of Ludington ’s response to your FOIA request.  Since Tom Rotta is actually submitting these FOIA requests under your name to take advantage of the $20 credit, the City will no longer honor the $20 credit.  Therefore, upon your payment in the amount of $5.75 (23 pages x $0.25/page), the City will release the records to you."

 

You may ask, "Does he have the power to do that?"  State law says no.  In his form he also denies me some records even if I do pay, by invoking Attorney-Client privilege. 

 

This is totally weird.  The A-C privilege does not block normal messages between City Officials and the City Attorneys (officially, 5 and counting) unless they pass a test of privileged content.  We are appealing this facet of the reply to the CC, and paying the illegal charge for the rest.  The State FOIA law clearly states what an Affidavit of Indigency allows you, and Mr. Shay has once again violated a new part of this law.

[Lisa O'Brien]

Wow - I can't believe he put that in writing. He has no facts to base his claim, she may share information with you but that doesn't mean she is not interested in the information for herself, It is purely assumption on his part.