Ludington City Council April 8, 2013 Meeting: Ignorance Inaction

[XLFD]

The City Council meeting was fairly uneventful.  Some communications about usual upcoming summer events, the awarding of a couple of  bids for stump removal, marina fuel, and alley paving.  Sure there was a couple of presentations by the Community Development Director (boring and self-serving) and the Senior Center Director (interesting and heart-warming), but no real resolution or ordinance, other than a portable yield sign ordinance.  The limited discussion they had of that ordinance actually pointed out the hazards involved when you have traffic control that doesn't fit the...  

 

       City Manager John Shay + Mayor John Henderson + City Attorney (1/7) Richard Merlin Wilson in their feature rolls 

 

The interesting parts of the business looked to be the two things at the end, but the City Council never permitted those to arise to that level.  The first involved a FOIA appeal, which usually at least has a bit of much needed divergence of opinion, one backed by laws and precedence, the other favored by the City, based on unlawful reliance upon faulty rules of closed government never envisaged by the State congressmen who ratified the FOIA laws back in the 1970's.  The City officials brought the issue up, chatted about a bunch of non-sequiturs among themselves for a few minutes including the usual how much time and money does it take the city to deny these FOIA requests.  This begins at 45:10 into the following video and goes for the next 5 minutes.

 

The second involved deciding what to do with the Burns v. Sailor lawsuit, which they decided to talk about in a closed meeting under section 8e of the Open Meetings Act.   This says a public body can call a closed session:  "To consult with its attorney regarding trial or settlement strategy in connection with specific pending litigation, but only if an open meeting would have a detrimental financial effect on the litigating or settlement position of the public body."   The language of the OMA was used verbatim, but of course this group did not further explain themselves.  If we review the lawsuit, it looks as if all they have left to do is approved the mediation or not. 

 

I don't see where there would be a detrimental financial effect for discussing this in public, but these guys don't want any of the details of this case to be made public, without some garnishment by the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews).  That means the only excitement of the night was wondering how the Mayor broke his arm, and listening to that Rotta (2:30 into the vid) at the beginning make four strong points about the veracity of Ludington's Chief Executive Officer, John Shay, fully transcribed below the video, because I was given the script.  The five pieces of paper I presented will be displayed in a future thread, as will some discussion about the end of the meeting.  You will notice on perusal of the video, that none of the points are discussed by the council in this meeting.

 

"Over two weeks ago, I offered via E-mail all the councilors and the mayor the opportunity to facilitate a power point presentation on something I thought was important for them to get all the facts on, the issue of apparent willful, perjury in a sworn affidavit of City Manager, John Shay, that he admitted to the local circuit court last year.  I have received no interest in such a venture, so as to quell their own doubts, supply any refutations, or establish what the truth actually is.  I believe, though I admit some bias, that perjury was committed, and so I direct anyone else who believes that their City Manager is not guilty to go to my website, the Ludington Torch, read the article complete with relevant records on this perjury, and debate that he did not willfully swear falsely. 

 

In the meantime, I would like to cover two topics that may interest you, the City Councilors of Ludington, because you are not being kept adequately informed by this administrator so that you can fulfill your duties. 

 

The first case is the topic of what you are going into closed session to discuss later, the Burns v. Sailor Federal lawsuit, that has been kept under wraps for quite a while.  Apparently, a couple of our police officers entered one of our citizen's residences without consent and without displaying a warrant, and followed that Constitutional violation by injuring an innocent bystander, also a City resident.   Some of the facts of the matter are disputed, but what is not disputed is that some settlement has been approved through facilitative mediation, as a March 19 order from that court has been drafted, which needs to be confirmed by April 16.

 

The superior courts of Michigan have ruled that if a police officer in service to the community is sued for some incident occurring while they are acting in their official capacity, the public entity they serve is not forced to defend their actions, nor are they forced not to defend their actions.  It is up to the discretionary powers of the board that oversees the expenditures of the public entity.  It should be noted that Officer Sailor is the only defendant in this case. 

 

There has not been any such resolution passed by this council to defend Aaron Sailor up to this point, and yet the officer has used the services of the City's insurance and their lawyers.  John Shay has even attended the facilitative mediation session on Sailor's behalf.  As such, John Shay has overstepped his authority by not allowing such a resolution to be decided on by this council, using taxpayer funds for Sailor's defense without proper approval. 

 

The second case involves the DNR trust Fund grant applications of last year.  This city council voted to send two applications for two phases of the West End project last year, in a semi-open meeting last year[1] the first, the "trail" phase, was to be for $248,000 with the City match being $62,000.  The second was for the promenade phase. 

 

Unbeknownst to the public, and perhaps this council, our administrators decided on July 31 to [2] "withdraw the "promenade" phase grant and to amend the trail phase, as documented by this E-mail from Heather Venzke to the DNR, and an amended application to the "trail" phase prepared and certified by John Shay [3] on that same day. 

 

In August, the DNR notified Shay [4] that if the addition of supplemental materials to the "trail" project included an increase in the match amount being committed from local general funds, an increase in the grant request amount, or increase in the total match amount committed  necessitated a specifically worded certified resolution from the governing body.  In this case, the Ludington City Council.

 

The "trail phase" resolution from March stated the City match was $62,000.  The amended city match for this application [5] was $179,000.  The amended project cost was $479,800, the original project cost was $248,000.    These numbers are both increases for the "trail" application and demanded the City Council pass a resolution.  Was there a resolution passed in an open meeting before the deadline?  There was not. 

 

Need I also add that he lied about the handicap accessible restrooms being already in the area, and other easily refutable points on his application.  The wool has been pulled over the eyes of the citizens for a long time, but the wool is also being pulled over the eyes of the City Councilors too, by a City Manager this City Council defends despite all the evidence that points to a serial prevaricator."  

[Willy]

Another well thought out article X. Love the picture of the 3 stooges. You raise a lot of interesting points that the CC should consider. This boondoggle of a project that will cost the taxpayers nearly a half million dollars should be voted on by the citizens of Ludington. What in the World does Ludington need with this type of project. The tourist may like it but I doubt that there are many locals who would agree with it. And what good are yield signs  when kids are forced to walk in the street because there are no sidewalks. I hate to call the Council a bunch of fools but has any of them checked out how dangerous the situation is and has been due to a lack of safe access by means of sidewalks. What good are yield signs when your walking in the street? Wake up Council and do your job.

[AQUAMAN]

Dittos to that Willy, well said again. Ever think about why and how some of the most important and arrogant people on this panel of elected and appointed faces keep snickering and laugh going on, irregardless the significant and serious allegations being launched at them? Right in everyone's faces and on camera? I find it not funny, not amusing, not even curious, just shameful! It's totally unbelievable and condescending at best. And easily leads the observer, if they are awake, to notice, & to also question the innocence of the accused, as this is not a game, but however, they seem to want to make it one. Got a lot of sniffling noses in there too tonight, scratching and wiping noses, repeatedly, not really looking like flu either, along with covering up the face all too often, along with that broken wing nobody is asking about after a lengthy absence too.

[XLFD]

The mirth of City attorney Wilson after my public comments and the sheer indifference of the city council to the serious charges signals that the various officials have went back to 'ignoring' the pest that's eating away at their credibility; instead of trying to provide significant answers they resort to the arrogance of the elitists that they are. 

Mayor Henderson should know that as a firefighter you don't ignore a small controllable fire and expect it to go away by itself.  Sometimes it does, but sometimes it only keeps growing bigger, and less easier to control.  Even with continued negative coverage by the COLDNews or their own practice of ignoring the problems, the message is getting out.  Thanks to all who are paying attention, and keeping an open mind.  This includes none of the councilors present on Monday.

[XLFD]

Every single school in Ludington sits adjacent to property that are lacking sidewalks.  Our hospital area, and recent health care facilities, are significantly devoid of proper sidewalks, required by standing ordinances.  Putting up more signs and traffic controls cannot overcome this deficit.  Yet we want to spend hundreds of thousands on a completely unnecessary sidewalk along the beach. 

We are a city founded by geniuses, but ran by monolithic morons.