Ludington Campfire Games

[XLFD]

"Sometimes the Embers are Better Than the Campfire"

You may have heard of the latest brouhaha that has developed between me and the city in condensed version over the end-of-the-hour news over at WMOM radio today.  Here's the full poop. 

My campaign committee members put a bug in my ear earlier this summer to have a campfire at the beach in the off-season before the weather gets too bad, and settled on the last Thursday in September.  We figured the Ludington Convention and Visitor's Bureau (CVB) had already set up the same for the three scheduled beach bonfires for the previous months, so we might attract additional pyromaniacs to the proceeding who wouldn't know better that it was a political rally and/or debate. 

Of course, I couldn't rightly debate myself without looking even more crazier, so when I introduced the plans for a beach fire with free food in front of the Ludington City Council (and my incumbent opponent) on August 8th, I extended a cordial invitation for him to attend and "enjoy the amenities and debate the issues as generated by the people attending."

The council politely ignored touching the topic at the end of the meeting, but true to my words at the meeting I sent the city manager, the police chief, and the fire chief a formal request with the same parameters used by the CVB in their last request to set up their bonfires, but eschewing any help by the city's three departments that usually work at the bonfires (the LPD, LFD, and DPW) it was sent out on August 12th and looked like this (with salutations removed for brevity sake):

"The "Rotta for Third Ward Councilor Committee" is formally applying to use the Stearn's Park Beach for a campaign event on the evening of September 27, 2016.  We are cognizant that the City may have snow fencing up at this time, and will plan accordingly if that's the case.  Tom Rotta, former Ludington firefighter of eight years, and other volunteer helpers will be present during all times to make sure fire safety is followed for all participants at the event.  As noted at the last city council meeting, no city resources are needed, but we encourage DPW units to check out the beach on the day after and notify Tom Rotta if any further clean up is needed.  If bad weather is forecast on the night of the 27th, we hope to reserve the rights for the following evening.

Other Details:

Location:  the fire will be situated at least 100 ft. north of the breakwall, and at least 100 ft. east of high tide.  Activities will fall within this radius.

Construction and Materials:  The fire will be situated in a 3 or 4 ft. diameter metal fire ring using hardwood firewood from split logs.  An additional metal ring will go one extra foot around the fire ring in order to help keep participants from being too close to the fire.

Clean up & Removal:  The fire pit and safety ring will be removed by the committee, all ashes will be scooped up and repurposed as fertilizer, the immediate area will be swept flat.

Personnel:  No city personnel is needed, although we would be excited if Councilor Les Johnson and the candidates for councilor at-large would attend in order to enjoy the occasion and make their case to the attendants.

Other Details:  We plan on serving hot dogs (using the fire and spits for cooking), along with pop, bottled water, and chips.  A table or two will be set up for this purpose and containers provided for waste disposal.  Our committee will pick up stray trash created.

An acoustic mike or two may be used for talking and/or debating, the range of this noise will not extend much beyond the 100 ft. radius of the event."

Despite the early request, I heard nothing until the next meeting ten days later, which failed to have anything about it on the agenda.  As recounted in Wreck Les Speaking, incumbent Third Ward Councilor Les Johnson took some pot shots at the end of a meeting where I had wondered in my second public comment why the city had not responded.  Before Johnson's rant, the city manager abraded me for not having checked my E-mails for a late afternoon E-mail detailing their intentions on how to handle my beach fire, while making comments that it was as hard as herding cats to get some of these committee meetings scheduled.  I found this when I opened my mail later that night:

"A Parks Committee meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 1:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers to discuss your request to hold a bonfire at Stearns Beach on September 27.  I have attached a copy of the committee’s agenda.  The City of Ludington would appreciate it if you could attend this meeting in order to answer any questions that the committee may have on this issue.  Please contact me if you have any questions."  --John Shay

Shay also included a copy of the full application made by the CVB for their scheduled 2016 bonfires, which has been previously put in the councilor packets.  It should be noted at the meeting that City Attorney Wilson agreed with me that ultimately the city code has it that the city manager has ultimate authority over approval of such an event.  I talked things over with my committee the next day and replied the next morning:

"I thank you for the offer to convene a special C,P,& W committee meeting to discuss the issue of whether I can hold a campfire event down at the beach on September 29 (I mistakenly said September 27 in my last missive).  I have looked over the guest list for that meeting and if we consider the cost to the taxpayer of just the last four (of eight) officials (i.e. you, Chief Barnett, DPW's Stickney, and City Attorney Wilson) attending such a meeting for an hour, there would be prohibitively $350, conservatively speaking, spent on those officials.

I find that rather unacceptable when one considers that you, I and City Attorney Wilson knows it is just a meaningless formality.  The CP&W committee has no say in the matter, the DPW, police and fire chiefs are just window dressing, and the city attorney's attendance is overkill.  There is only one person by city law who has the power to okay such a venture on the beach, which has been noted by me, and confirmed by the city attorney and you at the meeting.  It's you.

So, for once, thinks about the utter waste of city resources for such a meeting, which I'm sure you are convening for the usual intimidatory tactics you've shown through your history here in Ludington, save the taxpayers $350+ in needless browbeating, pomp and pageantry, and use the power given you.  Feel free to consult any department head or attorney you want in order to justify your ultimate decision, that's what they're there for. 

In your packet of materials, you seem to have missed the latest request for a 'bonfire' from the LACVB, sent to the city on April 4 and put in the agenda on April 8 for the meeting on April 11 where it was approved.  There appears to be no meeting of the CP&W meeting held before that, and the council's approval only one week after the request, should have been done here, unless my campaign committee is for some reason being discriminated against.

I will gladly pick up and fill out a special event application if you want me to, even though I have already supplied most of that information, fill it out, begrudgingly submit the $25 application fee, and await your approval/disapproval with justification for the latter.  I would hope to hear back from you before the weekend, submit the application shortly thereafter if applicable, and await your final decision by early next week.

I had hoped the logistics and planning of the event by my committee could have began after this last meeting with your and the council's blessing; my committee cannot sit on their hands until the next CC meeting night of September 12 and what may be a 'no' vote from a council which has transferred that power to you, seemingly so that there would not be long delays in stuff like this.  We want an answer ASAP, and if that isn't forthcoming, we will choose alternate plans."  -- Tom Rotta, on behalf of the Rotta for Third Ward Councilor Committtee

Later that morning, he replied back:

"I appreciate your concern about the cost of City officials attending a committee meeting.  However, the Police Chief, DPW Superintendent and I are salaried employees, so there is no additional cost to the taxpayers for us to attend this meeting.  Likewise, with the City Attorney, his attendance at this meeting is included in the monthly retainer paid to his law firm.  Whether or not he attends this committee meeting will not change the amount of his retainer.  Therefore, there is no additional cost to the taxpayer for him to attend this meeting. 

I am not sure why you feel that convening this committee meeting is a form of “intimidatory tactics.”  You certainly and correctly have not shown any sign of intimidation in attending and speaking at every City Council meeting, so I would highly doubt you would be intimidated attending a committee meeting.  The purpose of the meeting is not to intimidate anyone.  Rather, the purpose of the committee meeting is to discuss your request and to allow the committee to ask you any questions it may have about your request, especially as it relates to the bonfire itself.  While the city manager has the authority to approve applications to use the City’s parks, there are many times in which the practice has been to discuss new events with the committee and, ultimately, bring those requests before the City Council for its approval, as was done with the CVB’s first request for bonfires.  While you are not obligated to attend the committee meeting, I do not recall any other event organizer that was hesitant, intimidated or frightened to attend a committee meeting to discuss his/her request to use one of the City’s parks. 

If you choose not to attend the committee meeting, then the committee will discuss the request without your presence and bring forth a recommendation to the City Council at its meeting on September 12, which is 17 days before your scheduled event.  As a person who does a lot of research, I am sure that you can take the time now to plan for your event to take place at the beach and adjust accordingly, if necessary, based on the City Council’s decision."  --John Shay

If this was the same way he treated any organization looking to hold an event in Ludington, I am sure his employers on the council would not be happy with him; but since its my organization, they are probably ecstatic because of it.  The next day I sent this shortly after noon:

"Since I did hear back from you before the weekend, and as you haven't indicated an application needs to be filled out, I will have to presume I have already gave you enough information about the beach campfire for you to render a decision.  My marketing director insists, and I concur, that advertising two weeks before the event, considering my limited resources, would not be the best for maximizing turnout, so we cannot wait until September 13 to mobilize on the chance we are approved.

Being that you could not afford us the same courtesy you did for the fast-tracked April 4 bonfire request by the LACVB at this last council meeting, I do hope you can correct the agenda oversight by making a decision within your power by early next week.  Let's set a convenient deadline for Tuesday, August 30.  If you do not contact me by then with an approval/denial, I will contact you on August 31st to let you know that the special meeting need not be held, and save the taxpayer's from $350+ of salaried city officer's time.

Ergo, whichever way you decide to handle this, we will not need the special meeting whose only purpose seems to be to waste time, intimidate and/or delay our efforts with whichever decision you make by next Tuesday.  Any other questions you have on the campfire I haven't addressed, feel free to contact me via the 'E'."  -- Tom Rotta

How inefficient, expansive, and expensive has our government become from the practice of political buffoonery by our city manager of 14 years?  He responds on that Thursday morning:

"The City is attempting to handle your request for a bonfire at Stearns Beach in the same manner that it handled the CVB’s request for a bonfire.  The attached information on the CVB’s requests for bonfires in 2014, 2015 and 2016 produces the following timeline: 

·         3/27/14: The CVB meets with the Parks Committee regarding its request to use Stearns Beach for a bonfire as part of its Harbor Festival celebration.

·         3/31/14: In response to the Parks Committee meeting on 3/27/14, the CVB submits a letter to the City requesting the use of Stearns Beach for a bonfire.

·         4/14/14: The City Council approves the CVB’s request.

·         3/2/15: The CVB submits a request to hold three bonfires at Stearns Beach in 2015.

·         3/12/15: The CVB meets with the Parks Committee to discuss its request for three bonfires at Stearns Beach.

·         3/23/15: The City Council approves the CVB’s request to hold three bonfires at Stearns Beach.

·         2/24/16: The CVB submits a request to hold three bonfires at Stearns Beach in 2016.

·         3/7/16: The City Council approves the CVB’s request to hold three bonfires at Stearns Beach in 2016.  It did not go to the Parks Committee at this time since the CVB’s request in 2016 was essentially the same as it was in 2015.

·         4/4/16: The CVB submits a request to hold a fourth bonfire at Stearns Beach in 2016.

·         4/11/16: The City Council approves the CVB’s request to hold a fourth bonfire at Stearns Beach in 2016.  It did not go to the Parks Committee at this time since the CVB’s request was essentially the same as it was in 2015 and in 2016 for the original three bonfires.
 

As you can see, the CVB’s initial requests to have a bonfire were referred to the Parks Committee and then onto the City Council.  Only the CVB’s request to have bonfires this year after having them the previous two years was sent directly to the City Council without first going through the Parks Committee.  Therefore, the City is extending the same courtesy to you to meet with the committee for your initial request to have a bonfire, as the City did with the CVB.
 

In response to your marketing director’s concern that two weeks is not a sufficient amount of time to advertise for your event, I would be willing to render a decision on your request following the Parks Committee meeting on September 1 at 1:00 p.m. assuming that you attend the meeting to answer any questions that the committee may have.  This is only two days after your self-imposed deadline of August 30 and is still over 4 weeks before your event.  I am sure that your marketing director would conclude that these additional two days would not impact your ability to advertise for your event.
 

While you have indicated that you are too intimidated or frightened to attend this committee meeting, there is no reason for you to feel that way.  The committee would like to discuss this issue with you and have you answer any questions that may come up.  Certainly, there is nothing wrong with communicating in person on this issue." --John Shay

Shay's sharing of materials did not work out well for his cause, however, I replied that afternoon: 

"Thanks a bundle for the supplementary materials you included with your last E-mail.  The 2014 records are particularly illuminating since this was the first time the City was contacted by the CVB for the bonfire.  The record also shows this is my campaign's first request for a more modest campfire.  Here is what I noticed from the records.

The CVB in 2014 was looking to have free support from the city for supplying DPW, LPD and LFD resources for the event, while we have eschewed these agencies aid for ours, looking for no public support other than approval for the event, which we all agree is totally in your hands by the city code.  The City provided that free support in 2014 at expense to the taxpayers; this was before the City started charging some fees for such help.  It is also enlightening that the April 14, 2014 agenda and minutes for the council meeting never mentioned anything about a bonfire, nor did the LDN until after the bonfire was approved.  The public didn't know this was approved in 2014.

The 2014 Bonfire was just one of multiple events in multiple public places in a busy Harbor Festival. The minutes of the committee meeting contains no dissent or questioning from the committee or others about the bonfire, just requests for public agency help from the CVB which was given and LFD Chief Funk stating there would be only hardwoods and no pallets used.  The recycled pine pallets they used almost exclusively at Thursday's bonfire go against what they said then and this year.  But Kathy MacLean is used to lying big on applications, isn't she?

If these same officials didn't ask the CVB any meaningful questions back in 2014 about a bonfire, had zero misgivings with all those officials present, and willingly supplied, for free, hundreds of dollars of City personnel time to this group that gets hundreds of thousands of dollars in 'room taxes' each year from our local hoteliers, why would the committee do anything different now unless the City wishes to be intimidatory or unfair?

I was a firefighter for eight years and entered into many hostile environments; to be frightened or intimidated by a bunch of corrupt bureaucrats with potentially dishonorable intentions is not in my nature. Don't hide behind your support group, that looks cowardly and wastes a lot of time and tax money.
 

You have already wasted enough of my time by mincing this issue and not putting this on the agenda at the last meeting for a thumbs up or down after a two week notice at the previous meeting and a written notice ten days prior.  Tuesday August 30, 2016 gives you plenty of time to consult any oracle you wish." -- Tom Rotta

A rather weak reply filtered back on this Monday, a day before my committee's deadline:
  

"Please note that written summary of the committee meetings are not transcripts in which every word spoken at a meeting is recorded in the written summary.  The written summary is simply that, a written summary of the meeting.  The committee asks questions at just about every committee meeting.

 

While this is the first time that I recall anyone refusing to meet with the committee to discuss their own request to use a park, the committee will still be meeting on Thursday, September 1 at 1:00 p.m. to discuss your request.  I hope you change your mind and attend the meeting."  --John Shay

During the lunch hour, I replied by reaffirming the generous ultimatum I had given earlier:

"Being that the campfire request, as per my August 25 E-mail, will be withdrawn if my committee has not received an up or down vote by the deadline proffered (August 30), the September 1st meeting will not be needed.  To the extent that you will have summoned all of these officials (some well-paid like yourself) to be at this conference despite the issue being moot, I will definitely attend the meeting just to record the futility and absurdity of the exercise. 

If I haven't heard from you by the end of Tuesday, I will send you confirmation by E-mail that the request has been abandoned due to you not fulfilling your responsibilities in a timely fashion.  Let me know after you receive that whether you still are holding the meeting, so I can attend, chronicle, and be awed by the official waste of time and money.  I hope to correct such inanity on my election to the council."  --Tom Rotta

By the end of the day he comes back and tells me that I am mistaken about other business they would handle at the meeting, even though the agenda only has my 'bonfire' request.  It's rather pointless arguing against a character who keeps defining things as they want to, but I do anyhow:

"The committee will be meeting on Thursday, September 1st whether or not you attend, as the committee has other business to discuss besides your request for a bonfire.  While it is your choice, it makes no sense whatsoever for you to withdraw your request to hold a bonfire by some arbitrary deadline that you set just two days before the committee meeting if you now plan to attend the committee meeting.  Because of your concerns that the committee may try to intimidate or frighten you, if it would make you feel more comfortable, please also invite the members of your committee and/or your marketing director to the committee meeting.  If you let me know who they are, I would be more than happy to extend them an invitation."  --John Shay

And the discussion is effectively over except for the notification that the request is withdrawn, because the city manager would rather play games than make a decision.  As for my committee members, they were all intimidated by the invitation as given above.  Wouldn't you be?  The notification followed late on Tuesday night:

"This E-mail will serve as notification that the "Rotta for Third Ward Councilor Committee" has officially withdrew it's application to use Stearn's Beach for a campfire campaign event at dusk on September 29, 2016.  The record shows that Tom Rotta expressed his intentions at the August 8 city council meeting and submitted a detailed written notice involving all aspects of the planned event on August 12 to numerous city officials. 

The record shows that it was ignored in the interim and left off the agenda for consideration at the August 22 council meeting.  The record shows correspondence between Rotta and City Manager Shay had city officials wishing to push any decision made on this campfire back until September 12, when an agency without authority could make a special vote on it.  The record shows that after disinterest in the petition for this event by city officials, a deadline of August 30 was chosen by the R43WC committee for the city manager to make a decision, as per his power.

The record shows that the City has not brought up any concerns against such an event occurring as planned over three weeks since the original request; this despite a fast-tracked request by the LACVB for a bonfire this April with costly assistance from three City departments and more complex logistics, where they received approval within a week.

Whereas the City through their chief executive's actions and inactions has shown no intentions at fulfilling their responsibilities for timely and fairly dealing with my committee's campfire on the beach request, we are officially withdrawing that request so as to plan for an event in which our campaigning actions will not have to be dependent on the whims of an unelected official who is effectively a tool of my incumbent opponent and other corrupt and crooked councilors." --Tom Rotta

So are the campfire games over?  I still plan on attending tomorrow's special committee meeting, not that I plan to do anything special, because the campfire at the beach with free hot dogs, pop, and chips will not happen this year. 

Yet in 2014, they mobilized personnel from three city departments at no cost to the organizer of the event (the CVB) to have a bonfire without any other considerations reflected in the record other than the serving of alcohol (which was disallowed).  In that case, the city actively pursued and praised the usage of our parks by a private group based outside of the city limits of Ludington. 

In this case, they ignore the request for ten days, rudely attack one of the requesting citizens at a public meeting with false data and innuendo, and then postpone any decision until after the group of Ludington citizens has notified them it would be too late.   Is this how you want your city hall to operate?

[Willy]

If the approval is solely up to Shay then all that is required is for him to talk to his "team" and if there are any requirements that need to be met, then all he has to do is notify you regarding those requirements. He is obviously stalling and wants to put you on the hotseat at that committee meeting. Your request was completely understandable and concise so what's Shay's problem? Of course we all know what his problem is. It's having to deal with Mr. Rotta and answering question put to him. I'm afraid lord Shay is trying, once again, to show everyone who's in charge. This could have been decided weeks ago.

[XLFD]

Perhaps the main point of this is that I had brought up this request twice at an city council meeting without anybody making any attempts at discussing it.  The only person who commented on it was John Shay, who said he sent me an E-mail that afternoon saying it come before a committee with the LPD and LFD Chief present, and then would be considered at the next meeting. 

Hello?!  We had all seven councilors present twice when I asked permission, not just two or three for a committee meeting, which isn't even really a legal 'meeting' since it does not have any of the rules of the Open Meetings Act, not to mention both chiefs being present.  They want to send it to an advisory panel ten days after the second real meeting just to send it back up to the original seven councilor committee I petitioned first to vote on it eleven days further in the future, even when their vote is academic because the only person with any say could nix it at any time. 

Pure Ludington Politics.  Exposed.

I went to the city council subcommittee meeting today, what a farce on display-- but farces are often amusing, so I will report on this later for your entertainment.