“Hot” Dogs, a “Sloppy” Joe, and One “Sweet” Pickle

[XLFD]

At around the same time the City Council of Ludington decided against rehiring the lifeguards and several city workers, and was in the process of raising and creating a lot of fees and utility rates, they did something very generous.  They agreed to set aside a portion of Cartier Park to be used as a dog park.

 

 At the 12-7-09 council meeting, former Councilor Dykstra made the motion to have this park situated between Rath and Slagle Streets in Cartier Park, and to accept the Dog Park Covenant a document that read: 
1.To provide a safe and secure area for dogs and their owners to run, play and socialize. 

2.  To raise funds necessary to build a dog park on property within the city limits of Ludington. 
3.  To partner with the City of Ludington on the design of the dog park and all related signage.
4.  To donate the funds raised by the dog park committee to the City of Ludington to endeavor construction of the dog park. 
5.  To raise funds needed for ongoing maintenance, repair and cleaning of the dog park. 

6.  To maintain a clean dog park that meets the City of Ludington’s standards. 
7.  Agree that if the dog park is not appropriately used or is not kept clean, the City of Ludington

has the right to shut down the dog park until the City of Ludington is satisfied that the issues have been resolved.

 

The motion was unanimously passed after being seconded by Councilor Holman, and favorably commented on by Councilor Castonia.  According to the minutes, Joe Moloney, a representative of a citizens group was available to answer questions.

 

“Now we’ll start our fundraising,” Joe Moloney, spokesman for the citizen group, said after the council’s decision. “We didn’t want the money in place until after the commitment was in place.”

 

  Joe had worked very hard last year to make the dog park a reality.  He held an informational meeting March 24, 2009 about a proposed dog park and brought it to the attention of the city council the prior night.  Moloney said no taxpayer money would be spent to build a dog park. He said it would be privately funded through donations.  He says officials are looking at several possible locations to build the park (WKLA, 3-25-09).  On 4-7-09, at one of his jobs, Joe reported he was working with a city sub-committee regarding a dog park.

 

 By 5-11-09, he had narrowed it down to four locations when he presented his idea to the City’s Parks Committee.  They were receptive and planned to look at all locations, but liked the current spot.  Joe told them that volunteers plan to raise the money it would take to build the park and maintain it. (LDN 5-12-09)

 

  I bear no grudge against dogs or Joe Moloney, I don’t even know him.  I do bear a grudge, however, against those who do not follow the law or standards of ethical conduct. 

 

Joe Moloney has two jobs that I am aware of.  He works for the City of Ludington as a member of the Planning Commission (PC) and a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).  In fact, he is the vice-chairman of the former, and the Liaison officer for the latter.  As such, he is a public official whose concerns involve city planning and zoning issues. 

 

Yet he presents himself to the public and the city council as a representative and spokesman of a citizen’s group in a private endeavor.  And the main advocate of a Covenant with the City that will likely direct all donated money going to this ‘citizen’s group’ to the city for this project, and grant the ‘citizen’s group’ no real power over the dog park (re-read the covenant to verify this).
 
In the City’s Charter Article III.  Conflict of Interest, Sec. 2-72.  Prohibited conduct.  (a)(5)   No officer or employee shall act as an attorney, agent or representative of a person (entity) other than himself or herself, before the governmental body of which such officer or employee is a member or employee, or before any other city agency for purposes of advancing a private interest. 

 

In a non-corrupted government, such actions would be worthy of reprimand, perhaps termination.  But Joe has worked alongside City Councilors Holman, Weston, Castonia, and Dykstra as fellow commissioners on the PC and ZBA since 2001 up to now, whereas CM Shay and (former) city attorney Roger Anderson regularly attend PC and ZBA meetings.  Mayor Henderson regularly re-appoints him to both commissions and the city council routinely approves his appointment.  Why did none of these people question him about any conflict of interest he may have had as a city officer representing a private interest, which the Ludington Dog Park Committee functions as and  purports to be?

 

If that isn't bad enough, here is something easier to understand.  The Ludington City Charter forbids the construction of this dog park, as proposed.  The city council did not only let Commissioner Joe Moloney unethically put forth this city-friendly covenant under the guise of a ‘privately funded’ dog park, but they also overstepped their authority (once again*) in violating section 14.3 of the city charter which reads:

 

“Regulation--Park grounds:  The City Council shall have authority to lay out, establish and enlarge public park grounds, and to provide for the improvement, lighting, and ornamentation of the same. The City Council shall have the responsibility to regulate the care thereof, and to provide for the protection of the same and the appurtenances thereof from obstructions, encroachments and injury, and from all nuisances. The Council shall not vacate, discontinue, sell, lease, trade, nor divert to other public use any public park grounds without first securing the approval of a majority of the electors of the City voting thereon in any election.”

 

The city council never had the authority to allow a dog park in Cartier Park, that authority rested solely in the electors of this city approving this use of their land.  This could, and should, have been voted on by the city electorate this last November.  Instead, our city leaders tried to steal our rights and our public lands without any say from us and use our private donations to construct a new source of funding for themselves. 

 

City Official Joe Moloney, and his willing accomplices in the city government, need to be held accountable for this breach of ethical behavior and usurpation of powers contrary to the rule of law and the rights of the people of Ludington.

 

Below, Ludington's current lakeside dog park at the end of Loomis St.

[Sweater Cows!]

“Regulation--Park grounds: The City Council shall have authority to lay out, establish and enlarge public park grounds, and to provide for the improvement, lighting, and ornamentation of the same. The City Council shall have the responsibility to regulate the care thereof, and to provide for the protection of the same and the appurtenances thereof from obstructions, encroachments and injury, and from all nuisances. SEEMS LIKE ALL THAT FITS OKAY.


The Council shall not vacate, discontinue, sell, lease, trade, nor divert to other public use any public park grounds without first securing the approval of a majority of the electors of the City voting thereon in any election.” I DON'T THINK THEY ARE DOING THIS, IT IS STILL A PUBLIC PARK. THEY ARE JUST DOING THIS--->to lay out, establish and enlarge public park grounds, and to provide for the improvement, lighting, and ornamentation of the same. SEEMS THEY ARE IMPROVING THE PARK SO THAT MORE PEOPLE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO USE IT.


Unlike what they are trying to do in summit township, where that use is more just for the township board than the public, it's not like the new town hall would be unlocked and open to all people like a the dog park is just an extension of the park.

[XLFD]

The non-highlighted part of the statute does not affect the dog park, but the city is diverting part of the park into another public use, without first securing the approval of a majority of the electors. They do not have the legal authority to do so, according to the last sentence of the statute.

The rights of the people, under Ludington laws, dictate they have an opportunity to vote on this issue. If the majority see it as a needed improvement, then proceed with it. If the majority does not, then try again next election. FYI, Ludington's park-usage provisions in the charter are more restrictive than most municipalities have.

[Sweater Cows!]

Never looked at anything for city of Ludington as I don't live there so I won't address that other than to be specific as to this thread.

I will have to agree to disagree with you on this one.

I think the non-highlighted part is as important as the highlighted part (I would have highlighted the opposite from you for reasons different than yours).

I do not think they are diverting it into another public use, as it is still a park. I think they are doing this part --->"to lay out, establish and enlarge public park grounds, and to provide for the improvement, lighting, and ornamentation of the same"<--- which falls in there domain. Esp. improvement, as they are making the park available to a larger (i.e. improvement) group of the public.

Here we get into intent(this is why constitutional law is such a b*tch); What is the intent of the (charter/statute or whatever), I believe the intent is that it means they cannot decide to turn a park into a marina excavate boat slips, put up a building etc.. Here they are only adding some fixtures and fences. Sort of like when they got new playground equipment at the beach playground.

If I understand your premise I guess if you view the dog "park" as being "diverted" is where the thing gets subjective.

I looked at a few different definitions of divert online( just to be sure I was not incorrect before arguing my viewpoint), and I will leave you to your own research on that is it is to much to list here, But the bottom line definition that fit with most of the search(google) results was DIVERT ="To turn aside from a course or direction".

So are they "diverting" the land use? I don't think so because the property is remaining a public park, they are just expanding the use of it.


“Regulation--Park grounds: The City Council shall have authority to lay out, establish and enlarge public park grounds, and to provide for the improvement, lighting, and ornamentation of the same. The City Council shall have the responsibility to regulate the care thereof, and to provide for the protection of the same and the appurtenances thereof from obstructions, encroachments and injury, and from all nuisances. The Council shall not vacate, discontinue, sell, lease, trade, nor divert to other public use any public park grounds without first securing the approval of a majority of the electors of the City voting thereon in any election.”

[XLFD]

It's almost to the point of construction, they have cleared the area.

Sorry, I cannot cede the point that the "dog park", as defined, equals a "public park". You might as well say an industrial park could be plopped down on the rest of Cartier Park. I don't think you'd get popular approval on that, but you may just get at least 4 council members to see it that way.

Is there something inherently wrong about having the electorate decide an issue like this? I don't think so. Do we want to leave important decisions like this left up to seven people who see an 'unutilized' part of a park as a negative asset to the city? I hope not. Do we want to have any say on how our parks and natural resources are used or left unused? I would hope most would.

The intent of Ludington law as it stands, IMHO, is to protect the local parks from officials who may wish to exploit all or part of the natural gifts we, the citizens, have received from the Stearns, Cartiers, et. al. Having a public vote is the best way to guarantee that.

[Willy]

Isn't being a member of the Planning Commission and Zoning Board of appeals voluntary and are they not appointed positions which receive no pay? Also would those positions be considered "officers". If in fact he is a volunteer then he would not be considered an employee. The only part of the ordinance that I can see would be a problem is the "The Council shall not vacate, discontinue, sell, lease, trade, nor divert TO OTHER PUBLC USE any public park grounds without first securing the approval of a majority of the electors of the City voting thereon in any election.” The phrase " to other public use" would have to be defined.

[XLFD]

Very valid question RJE, they are appointed positions, voluntarily agreed to by the appointee, sworn to uphold the state constitution and city charter, that receive no salary. As you note, definitions are crucial to this issue, but the state defines a "public officer" in MCL 15.181(e) as follows:
“Public officer” means a person who is elected or appointed to any of the following:

(i) An office established by the state constitution of 1963.

(ii) A public office of a city, village, township, or county in this state.

(iii) A department, board, agency, institution, commission, authority, division, council, college, university, school district, intermediate school district, special district, or other public entity of this state or a city, village, township, or county in this state.

Hence, the title of "public officer" does not distinguish between compensated and non-compensated positions.

Let's all not also forget that the dog park committee has been repeatedly referred to as a 'private' group, not a public group, so when the council 'set aside' this area of Cartier Park to be used by a 'private' entity they are not only violating the public trust and the interests of the estates that donated the parks, but setting a bad precedent for 'setting aside' other portions of other city parks in the future.

[Barry]

As long as the dog park is open to anyone it's still public.The "private " group is only doing the fundraising to pay for the fence's and such,so the taxpayers don't have to pay for it.Was there a public vote when the bicycle path was paved through the park?And who paid for that?The reason for a dog park is so dogs can be allowed to run unleashed.

[XLFD]

There was no public vote before the multi-use path was paved through Cartier park, and there really should have been due to the stipulation in the city statute. The 'skate park', renamed the Plaza, after its construction should have also passed public approval, as it was part of Stearn's Park. As is (was!) the old dog park at the end of Loomis.

BTW, I have no problem with the existing dog park at all and I think it is a lot better than what's proposed. No fencing, a lake to run into, sand, very low-maintenance. The only problem I have noticed is that no one seems to take their dog there. I've went by there a dozen times this year during the day and evening and only once has there been anyone using it.

"Improving" parks should be a serious issue, seriously decided by the electorate, rather than only by those who may profit from the "improvements" in the local government, as the Covenant sees fit to do.

[Sweater Cows!]

It is a dangerous place to let dogs off leash, they can run off to quickly into traffic, swim off into the harbors boat traffic, get hit by boats and cars or possibly make a biker have to swerve to avoid collision and crash;).

I would not take my dogs there and let them off leash, it is to small and quite dangerous that is why no one goes there.

Are you advocating letting dogs run loose in town off leash with no fence to prevent their or someone elses injury? That is a bad idea.

Although I would not take my dogs to a dog park period. You never know what non-vaccinated, ill tempered pets irresponsible people may bring there. I would not want one of those yappy little purse dogs attacking my big mutts and my dogs getting blamed do to size.

I do take them out to buttersville as I can get far away from other dogs to not have any worries of fights or communicable disease.

[Sweater Cows!]

BTW I want to buy a cheap jeep cherokee or suburban type vehicle for dog carrying as I won't let them in my vehicle, it has leather seats and I don't want them scratched up and covers always slide off. like under 1000 dollars, don't care how it looks just need something junker-ish to fit the dogs and people to go to beach.

[XLFD]

I think that as long as the ramp leading down to the beach area at the Loomis dog park is blocked by the owner of at least a semi-trained dog, most of the fears you mention are minimalized when the leash is taken off.

A careless dog-owner at a Cartier Park facility would have much of the same problems, and the traffic moves much quicker on Lakeshore Drive. As do the bikers ; ) I definitely do not advocate dogs running off-leash in the city, that already happens inside city hall-- ouch.

I do not currently own a dog, but your concerns would be my concerns at a dog park. Plus, the times I used to take the dog for a walk, I did it as a quiet time activity; I would definitely not have taken it a couple of miles across town to interact with a bunch of strange dogs and their equally strange owners.

[Edie Lindsey]

I read the title yesterday and thought it was some Memorial Day thread, but was pleasantly surprised today when I looked closer.

X, did Joe ever publicly acknowledge his public position when he represented the dog park? If he did, I don't think that should hold against him. But the council should have recognized the potential conflict of interest either way, I believe. The biggest problem here lies with the council's overlooking two laws that govern the running of the city. But believe me, they ignore plenty more in their wisdom.

How do we hold these outlaws accountable? You come on here regularly and point out them passing new taxes, lying about RSOs, breaking laws of the state and even a few of their own-- yet it just continues happening. Our local paper sucks, LT drains the energy out of all discussions. Oh well.