Lifeguards and Blackguards

[XLFD]

In this article from June 22, 2010 our City Manager finally quantified why the City of Ludington had ditched the lifeguard program for that year.  No City Official of Ludington ever had made any official statement about that budget cut before then, even during the budget debate (or lack thereof):

 

Ludington city manager John Shay said the city also cut its lifeguard program, saving about $27,000.

“This was just one of many cuts we made,” he said. “It was a decision made strictly based on financial reasons. If we had the resources we once had, we would probably still have the lifeguard program.”

 

Oh really.  Financial reasons.  Let's look at the savings we've reaped.

 

In 2009, the City had a lifeguard program that cost a little over $22,000 after paying a little over $23,000 the previous year of 2008.  In 2010, the City went cold turkey on 'beach safety' and wound up paying quite a bit for it.

 

 

First, the Anthony Goldsmith drowning, which would have likely been avoided by having lifeguards, had a multi-agency search for his body that lasted days and cost many thousands of dollars just for paying all the responders wages for the time involved in the search.  On Labor Day, another drowning occurred out near the lighthouse during inclement conditions also incurred days of recovery response.  The absence of lifeguards was bandied about the area, and few citizens I talked with argued against their presence being good for safety and for tourism.

 

After these tragedies, the City belatedly in February of this year put $40,000 into a beach safety program for this year.  This was to go into life rings and for beach rangers patrolling the beach.   No one drowned this year, and I would not argue that the life rings are a good thing to have on the breakwall for emergency use.   But I would doubt any would convincingly argue that the beach is more safe with a single ranger, usually, who is posted a ways away from the beach area than with a group of three lifeguards near the water's edge along the Stearns' beach area. 

 

But remember, John Shay assured us in 2010, that the decision to drop lifeguards was strictly for financial reasons.  Here's the proposed 2012 budget, including the 2013 and 2014 estimates for "beach safety":

 

 

 

 

You add up the columns for 2012-4, and its $27,300 each year.  If you add the $40,000 budgeted for this year, add to it the $27,300 for next year, you will have spent $67,300 for 2011-2012.  That's three years of having the lifeguard program at 2009 costs, and then the City is keyed into an amount that is   $5000 more than what that rate was. 

 

Why not save ourselves $5000 a year and bring the lifeguard program back?  The status quo is Less safe, more costly.

 

Why grid our beach with tire tracks from the ranger-mobile disturbing people's beach experience, when we can have the quiet and calming presence of approachable lifeguards ready to spring into action to save lives?  The status quo is Less tourist-friendly, more potential liability.

 

Why hire a couple code-enforcers with code-enforcement as their priority, when you can hire a crew of 5-8 of our local champion caliber swimmers hungry for summer jobs--all the while saving money and actually making the beach safe?   I don't get it, Mr. Shay, I really don't.

[AQUAMAN]

Very interesting investigation and find. This would be a treasure for the next CC mtg. to bring to both the attention of the public mostly, and to duel with Shyster Shay on this subject of safety and financial savings. Good work again X. Wonder what type equipment rental for $6400 we have, it's not the ranger mobile is it? I thought we owned that already. Besides, that type of rental is what that vehicle almost costs to begin with.

[XLFD]

I would love to go there myself and ask the proverbial WTF, but I can't without that threat of arrest once I step on City Hall property.  It would be a good question to ask, as well as this question here:  why was the budget not available to the public until after the December 5 meeting?  It wasn't posted on the web until late last week, and yet according to this November 14, 2011 Downtown Ludington Board meeting on top of page 2:  City Manager Report

Shay reported the city is presenting its 2012-2015 budget this evening, and will go to

City Council on the 28th for first presentation.

 

Why did the City Council not officially get this budget presented until December 5, when Shay had it already prepared for them on the first November meeting?  Why are the city residents being held in the dark until the last minute on such an important part of our city governance (the budget), particularly when the City Code says its supposed to be presented publicly in that first November meeting? 

[Lisa O'Brien]

XLFD,

This is your big opportunity. Follow the rules of the game and request for permission to go to the next meeting- and keep sending repeated requests (preferably through email) until you have an answer. If they ignore you or say NO to your request then I think that you would have a very strong case that they are denying you your Constitutional rights. Or you can be stubborn.

[XLFD]

I can't do that Lisa, because I live by my words, not like some others who say they will vote against rehiring Shay and then not only does but lauds praises on him.

On 9-26-2011 I wrote to the City Attorney and John Shay that "I will not be attending any Open Meetings occurring at Ludington City Hall, until the Letter of Trespass issued under the clear wording of the Workplace Safety Policy has been rescinded or repealed.  You both have the power to do so, by the WSP."  and said roughly the same thing earlier to the City Clerk, and a couple of city councilors.  I'm stuck until they rescind or repeal it, voluntarily or not.

I shouldn't need to beg to enter this public facility open to all other law-abiding citizens, and there shouldn't be a way for the "City Manager" to unilaterally block someone from doing so without any due process.

[AQUAMAN]

But X, you can always write a detailed letter with your evidence attached to make your point. To be read aloud at the comments section at the beginning of the meeting. Unless they censor it for some unknown reason, which would just add more credibility to your case in point. I would send it certified, and also ask if you could attend to address the case in person, and if not, why. And ask for a written answer. It's quite a bottom line to find we now spend more for beach safety without the lifeguards, in the name of financial savings, it will surely put egg on the faces of the CC and Mayor in the room, unless everyone is asleep.

[XLFD]

Aquaman,

I did that for the meeting of September 26.  That date we had a FOIA appeal, the appeal that's now inching slowly through the local circuit court, and I sent a request to attend the City Council to Shay on the 19th, an explanation of the nature of our appeal to the councilors on the 21st.  After having got no reply from CM Shay, on the 25th I sent to City Clerk Luskin a letter with instructions for it to be read into the record at the meeting.  She sent me back an E-mail that said verbatim:  "Tom,

This letter was provided in each of the council packets on Friday and distributed to each of the Council members as well as the media. Because it was provided and was part of the Agenda, a copy of which can be found out on the City’s website, it will become part of the permanent minutes. I spoke with the City Manager, John Shay, and asked why you were not able to attend the City Council meeting this evening. He stated that if you were to send him an email asking to attend this meeting he would allow you to attend. I believe that the information which you present and which will be addressed at Council this evening warrants your appearance at the public comment section of this meeting. I will make reference to this email at the meeting but will explain that each of the council members as well as the media were provided with this information and as such a reading will not be necessary as they will have already read it. Again, if you wish to attend the meeting to read your letter during public comment please make the necessary request to John Shay at [e-mail]."

I forwarded her my request to attend the meeting I sent Shay on the 19th.  I never got that permission from him to attend, and at the meeting the FOIA appeal was tabled, and my letter never became part of the permanent minutes.   So much for the word of the City Clerk.

 

This is what made me declare that I would never ask/beg ever again to attend their meetings, and had my attorney get three letters in the next month to get that illegal letter of trespass repealed or withdrew.  But it never happened, so I went through election day without being given the ability to vote, and I will be forbidden from entering the City Hall because the current "City Manager", who never took and filed an Oath of Office, doesn't want me to.

[Lisa O'Brien]

I understand where you are coming from - standing by your word and all. Maybe you can send someone in your place to argue your points.

[Willy]

 I'm not speaking for X but only as an observer. As I see it, his constitutional rights have already been denied. For him to beg to be allowed to enter a public building paid for with his and other citizens taxes would not only be demeaning but would empower the authorities to continue to increase their strangle hold on the citizens of Ludington. What more can X do? He already has taken a stand against the unconstitutional ordinance and has informed them of his intent to appeal but the City continues to play their game and to spend taxpayers money by continuing to deny X his rights and block FOIA attempts to access public information which should be readily available to all citizens who have already paid for it. Besides all they would need to do would be to have the person who is supposedly afraid of X attend the Council meetings and they would have an excuse to deny X access. They can use her in any number of ways to keep X in line with this banishment BS.

[AQUAMAN]

You know, I fully understand wanting to follow the law, not be attending in illegal territory, listen to lawyers, and all that Jazz. But, think for a minute. You did disobey the Judge's orders long ago to pay a simple traffic fine, and for contempt sat in lock-up for a day or two. You didn't die as a result. And surely a Judge has more power and authority than any CM Shay. What does that petty ticket have for substance over your own civil and constitutional rights? Methinks getting the attendance permit is a step in the right direction, irregardless of law or threats. It's protecting your rights as an American that should trump anything else you are dealing with these days. I say attend when such an occasion arises, not for petty bickering and publicity, but to question motives of such a beach patrol that is NOT in line with financial soundness. It would also seem to me to be a field day in your favor, if per se, COL or Barnett did take action to arrest you. Then this entire matter of LOT and denial of rights would be at the front burner, and a very hot issue that also should become a National headline and disgrace to Shay. If this illegal petty LOT becomes known to the public at large, nationally, it could bode well for it's banishment a lot sooner than later. After all, it's going on almost a year the way things sit now, and nothing has changed in your favor yet, and probably won't at the rate things are being delayed and covered-up.

[XLFD]

I really can't argue with a thing you just said, Aquaman, and I won't take such action totally off the table. 

There is just one difference I see between the two instances you mention.  Me disobeying the court order (which the district court has since effectively admitted there was no proper jurisdictional order for Judge Raven to serve as adjudicator that day) was a case of civil contempt, wherein I thought the court would repair its mistake in short order (it still hasn't been resolved).  I sat in stir, but as it was civil, nothing would go on my criminal record. 

If I enter the City Hall, the City has in their lawbooks that I will be violating a criminal charge of trespassing, and this will go on my permanent record since they have made it abundantly clear through their E-mails that they would play it up, and the local courts would love to help them out.  Until that charge gets effectively expunged, which could take years, if ever, it would be a blot on my personal record that I would have to endure with the City and the Ludington Daily Stooge pointing this out to the uninformed of the area. 

[AQUAMAN]

Nice counterpoint attempt, but I still say push the envelope, if invited in writing. You can't be arrested or ridiculed for attending any meetings with a copy of a written letter on your person, effectively inviting you and giving you permission to do so from Shay or Barnett. It should be signed too. That's a simple legal fact. The ONLY way to spoil that for yourself is to get roudy, mouthy, or rude and insolent in public. Otherwise, your normal demeanor of a tasteful and polite citizen questioning their financial motives and policy should be welcomed and appreciated. Maybe not by the CC and Shay, but the public at large, and possibly the LDN. To me, I say it's worth a try, and take several witnesses for proofs.

[XLFD]

 

Sometimes when you push the envelope prematurely... you push it off the table.  I'm currently pushing envelopes in different directions and if it looks to be in the best interest of getting things moved forward, I reserve the right to push more vigorously. 

The information on the cost of beach safety is out there, they will likely pass the budget unanimously without any consideration of logical reasoning, and we have another year to beat the drum of the whys of this policy.