“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.

[XLFD]

I sense frustration, something of what I've experienced in the last couple of years. The city can threaten you with a municipal civil infraction and extra costs when their waste management company fails to do its job and leaves garbage it should have picked up.

But how dare I expect them to live within their own laws, and how dare I expect them to give us the rights we legally deserve, as if the vote on a dog park would be somehow unsuccessful if put to the popular vote.

And trying to pass off the Dog Park Committee as a private group when the two main driving forces behind it are appointed city officers Joe Moloney and Fred Hackert, with the ensueing covenant being win-win for the city. Doesn't pass the smell test for me.

[AQUAMAN]

I haven't seen where the new dog park is proposed. I thought it might be the Rath Ave. side, where the traffic is minimal and it's quieter. Btw, if you drive over there, look at the fancy new docks and the old gazebo is now. Noone is using them at all. Alot more wasted tax dollars if you ask me. Interesting thread X, never thought about this conflict stuff here, good to see someone is.

[XLFD]

Unless I'm mistaken, the proposed dog park is situated right off Slagle Rd (the dirt road that parallels the water on the south side of the bridge) in between a couple of ridges just beyond the camping area, on the N side of the road.

Unlike the Summit Park debate, there is that local law in the city charter which prohibits changes in park uses without elector approval. This law is a bit stricter than the state law (MCL 100.3) regarding city parks and 4th class cities (which Ludville is). Compare this law to section 14.3 of the city code. The code was made to protect our city parks, and should be followed by our city council.
Michigan Legislature - Section 100_3.mht

[XLFD]

This local protection has saved portions of our city parks in the past from special interest groups and local politicians, when it has been followed.

[AQUAMAN]

Sounds like the new dog park is in the dog house area. Not what I would prefer from the descriptions. Btw, anyone find if the Bortell's are or what family donated Summit Park property long ago?

[AQUAMAN]

Pretty interesting old thread resurrected, especially when this is becoming real/lawful now. I do feel there is a need for a dog park in Ludville right now. Too many dogs have no place to go exercise and run for health/longevity. This has been tried and positive in many communities besides ours right now in the recent past too, in Michigan and many other States. I really don't know if this is a legal place though, X, has made quite a convincing case so far, so, is this the right place, or not? Either way, like I said before, it's long overdue, and the location may be at question, but the idea and purpose for such a place, still exists, and is warranted, imho. End result, I agree to disagree, especially since some want to invade this talk forum purely for chaos!

[XLFD]

It was too bad the Joe Moloney-led Dog Park Committee did not get this on the 2009 City ballot for approval by the citizens to leave no doubt about the legitimacy of a dog park in Cartier Park.

[AQUAMAN]

Sounds like Joe Baloney is just another pawn in the game of Ludington City's chess game, of which he may not even be aware of yet, or is he? The DOG PARK is an inevitable outcome of what is upon us, now, and into the future, whether it be at Cartier Park, or another locale. Simple as that! You, people without dogs, God Bless you too. For the rest of us 75% with animals we love and respect and cater too, we want a place to exercise and make our animals healthier and more social with other dogs and human beings as well. Are we to be dishonored and ridiculed for that? I surely hope not! Cause, man has one best friend, according to the rule of Hoyle, and please, don't make me give that notion up, just cause you don't like animals nor dogs, or maybe, just don't want the bother. I love my pet, and as such, will defend her to the mat, cause, that's just the way we were raised, and I strongly want to keep that in my personality and way of life. Don't like that, KMA.

[XLFD]

There's nothing wrong with liking veal or tuna fish either. But not liking the way the calves and dolphins are treated in the process of getting them to your table.

Respect other's rights, and follow the correct processes, and things will work out fine for all.

[AQUAMAN]

I really don't see the parallel there, but agree with following correct procedure and protocol on such parks. I think everything will come out in the wash in the end, hopefully clean and good smelling.

[AQUAMAN]

Btw X, where is the sweet pickle? I see Joe MO as more of a pickled herring, what we commonly call a meat rig/head in the charter industry these days, in this possibly fishy fiasco, how bout you?

[XLFD]

To be 'in a pickle' means to be to be in disagreeable position; to be in a condition of embarrassment, difficulty, or disorder. City officials are in one sweet pickle once we finish peeling back the layers of this onion, IMHO-- and I don't 'relish' being in their position.