Ludington City Council July 25, 2018: Old Minutes, New Agenda

[XLFD]

The July 23, 2018 LCC Agenda Packet looks a bit busy, but the majority of actions were rather rote which led to a meeting lasting just over 40 minutes even with some public comments and minor controversy.   Before the comment period, Mayor Holman closed a loophole that she made at the previous meeting, allowing former Mayor John Henderson the ability to be yielded another person's minutes to speak.  She said (3:35 into the meeting): 

"I did allow something that was interesting and also not legal, when I said someone else could take the minutes. When you have a three minute limit for your public comment, that is your three minutes, you can't give them to someone else, and I apologize to everyone for the fact that I did that; I just got carried away."

The Open Meetings Act requires (MCL 15.263(5)) that a public body's rules of meetings are to be recorded and available to the public, the City of Ludington adapts rules as it goes.  Ask them for those rules if you think otherwise and be shocked by their lack thereof.  The mayor says that what she did wasn't legal, but it's actually not illegal, nor would it be unethical if it was available for everyone to do.  But that meeting and this meeting had their share of rampant illegalities and 'unethicalities' as the city council learn to adapt to life after being led by John Shay.

The mayor had introduced the new interim city manager, Steve Brock (above), and his advent was noticed in the police chief's invocation, but it would be the city council's nemesis who would give the new guy his own invocation.  And if that was offsetting, he used the rest of the time to argue that the minutes of the last meeting were improperly done and that the change in the sidewalk ordinance went against the city's master plan.

July 23, 2018 Ludington City Council meeting from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

 

XLFD:  (4:15 in):  "Let me extend a welcoming hand to new City Manager Steve Brock and invoke a hope that he has the wisdom to operate amid the conflicting interests and issues of our times with a sense of the welfare and needs of our Ludington citizens. That he possess a keen thirst for justice, knowledge and the rule of law and the ability to work together in harmony among everyone even when there is honest disagreement in issues and personalities.

I'm troubled with the minutes written for the last meeting [here's a full analysis]. Minutes should be accurate, consistent and use neutral language when describing what happens at a meeting. In my two comments, I listed five specific events that were part of John Shay's accomplishments. Although I elaborated on each one, the minutes just says that I proceeded to list five points that were, in my opinion, his legacy. It was not opinion, it was part of the unrefuted record all backed by public documents.

Now that would be fine if the minutes reflected such summaries for other speakers, but the minutes go into great detail when former Mayor Henderson speaks subjectively about a citizen, calling him vindictive and saying that he twists the truth and leaves out the facts, and that on numerous occasions he has had to correct this citizen. In the minutes it shows these false and unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks allowed by the chair were more worthy of insertion in their entirety than true facts about real documented events. I will be disappointed but not surprised if these uneven, inconsistent and biased minutes are approved tonight without change.

It must be stressed that the amendments to the sidewalk ordinance you are to consider tonight goes squarely against the City's master plan. On page 70, that plan says: "Potential amendments to city law should be focused on creating more walkable and pedestrian-oriented development."

Making properties exempt from the sidewalk mandate on an unclear set of standards and the whim of an official, will not advance the goal of making Ludington a more walkable community, and create more conflicts than it resolves. Thank you." [END]

Nobody else spoke.  After the council approved the minutes without any discussion (surprise), they dispatched the six ordinances dealing with levying setting three millage rates.  This has become an annual ritual that only becomes less than routine when the council attempts to raise the rates of the DDA and/or the operating millage through a truth in taxation hearing.  City hall does this so they can bypass the protections of the Headlee Amendments that require millage rates to go down when valuations on real property go down.  

I raised a stink last July when they spent at least $300 in order to keep the DDA rate up to collect $49 more per year.  That insults every taxpayer in the downtown district, who instead of having their taxes reduced, had it raised quasi-legally and had to pay hundreds extra besides.  This year the Police Pension millage went up substantially, but there isn't anything a citizen can do about it; the rate is established by a special law which increases it or reduces it dependent on other factors.

And while their master plan says walkability is a priority, and as PM Township adapts a rather progressive sidewalk policy  (which has little common sense behind it), the councilors unanimously took a step back in making Ludington more walkable by allowing them to use politics and fuzzy rules in order to allow people not to install a sidewalk.  What's crazy is that the property that is looking to get a waiver from the City's existing sidewalk policy (see highlight in picture below) is flat, without trees, without utility poles... perfect for a sidewalk at a place where a sidewalk is sorely needed.  

The only defense of the amendment was proffered by Councilor Kathy "Moonbeam" Winczewski, who thought this would save the City money, because they would have less 'difficult' properties to put sidewalks in.  Look to see people who don't have sidewalks and don't want sidewalks make their right-of-way more impassable and difficult.   This plan only makes sense if the City had an actual plan to make areas near school and tourist zones have sidewalks, but there is no leadership in doing that.

An engineering agreement between the City and Fishbeck Thompson Carr and Huber (FTCH) was made.  If you recall, an initial hiring of Fishbeck took place three years ago without any competitive bids.  As noted in that article, FTCH has a habit anyway of getting the nod even when they are not the low bidder.  This $1.6 million contract was again done without competitive bids, possibly costing the City many hundreds of thousands of dollars, but our city leaders say why change Fishbeck midstream?  More fiscal conservatism from Shay...

Brock was given the title of Street Administrator taken from his predecessor, and then the City allowed Joseph Ireland to split his property up on Seminole Street.  Ireland apparently wants to get even closer to John Shay than he did back when he got some other real estate from him near the Danaher water tower.  There was a legal question as to whether a survey took place, which made the approval tentative on whether there has been a survey done by Irelan.

The mayor welcomed more comments and after Chuck Sobanski introduced himself to the new hire, I said my second comment of the night:

XLFD:  (33:35 in):   "The reception held at the end of last meeting, as expected was paid for by the Ludington taxpayer, as reflected in the invoice report. We see our sewer rate doubling, we see our summer tax bills trending upward, we see city hall going tens of million in debt for infrastructure maintenance and growing unacceptable levels of pension liabilities. But sure enough we can foot the bill for more excess to celebrate a city manager running away from the problems he was instrumental in creating.

The invoice report also details that $500 was paid to musician Mike Lenich for Friday Night Live entertainment from the DDA operating fund. It should be noted that Lenich has been a member of the DDA since 2017, and received a similar payment in 2017 from the DDA for FNL entertainment. In neither year had the DDA's contracting with and employment of one of their officers at more than a de minimis amount of money been noted in their minutes as it should be, violating the city charter section 2-72(a)(3) and state law standards of conduct for public officers MCL 15.342(5).

Why do DDA officers continue to benefit directly from their public service and never have those conflicts of interest specifically noted in the DDA minutes as they are required to by law. I'm hopeful with a new city manager that we can change the culture that allows this."

John Terzano also welcomed the new CM and wished Sobanski an 80th birthday.  The mayor said they could have brought a cake if he had said something earlier, Fire Chief Funk said that he would buy it, and I clapped, the mayor said she would help.  Everybody would have helped if they had knew earlier, because it would have been brought with city credit.  

The mayor read a letter that showed an official in a good light, Councilor Moonbeam read an announcement for an AFFEW event, the coming of movies in the park were discussed, before Councilor Les Johnson launched an odd comment:  

Johnson: (39:35):  "Your honor I would just like to say I missed John Shay's last meeting and just wanted to say what a great job I thought he has done, and it's it's a shame that Mr. Rotta (meaningful stare) didn't get to know John on a personal note because he is so off-base on what he says and thinks about John Shay, but anyway, I just, I'm sorry that I missed John Shay's last meeting and I'm certainly going to miss him."

Sigh.  I found this rather insulting, since Johnson is aware of most of the personal contacts I have had with Shay over the years.  We started off in correspondence, Shay blocking and/or attaching unlawful fees to FOIA requests until the council finally took him off that duty.  He signed and served a "Letter of Trespass" on me in 2011, taking away a lot of my rights without any reason or any due process and directly making me lose a job I cherished.  He kept me from voting in 2011, disallowing me from coming into the city hall, my polling place, to debate for city office and to vote.  

I cross examined John for over an hour in a FOIA lawsuit hearing in 2011, hearing a lot of fictional testimony, that was just a little after he perjured himself on a sworn affidavit.  After I eventually won that lawsuit and another for the trespass letter, he slandered me repeatedly at the end of a city council meeting in 2013.  Councilor Johnson, you never told John Shay he was off-base on me even though his defamation was never supported by anything other than his false words.  He would repeat that libel and more at a press conference in 2016, repeatedly calling me bad names and saying I was lying about editing out an LT member's comment, when it had been established that I had not.

I sat with John at city hall for many hours in 2013 while our respective attorneys in my federal lawsuit against him and the City deposed each of us.  Shay's testimony, again under oath, conflicted with the record.  I have seen him dodge public issues that should be addressed for ten years, opting for secrecy over transparency, doing illegal acts in the process. 

My words at council meetings concerning him, unlike John Shay's against me, have always been concerning his acts as a city official and his off-based policy that was in large part inefficient, unlawful, and/or unethical.  I welcome Les or anybody else to research the record as fully as they like to corroborate my assertions, and refute them if you may.   Neither am I alone in that assessment of John Shay, because when the full record is reviewed, he had many flaws and few virtues.  That doesn't reflect badly on me, his critic, but on him and you, his boss over the last 7 years.

And you know what is even a worse reflection?  You and your other six bullies allowed flawed minutes to be passed without discussion, you all allowed a city official to yield public comments to another city official without argument, you all haven't suggested why the new sidewalk policy will achieve the city's master plan's ideals, you all have not explained why you spent taxpayer money on a reception, you all have not explained why Mr. Lenich can covertly claim DDA funds for himself when he is a voting member of the DDA, and you all cannot discern that officials directly attacking a citizen voicing his concerns on public policy and acts of public officials should not be a part of your agenda or your minutes.    

[Willy]

Very interesting find X. It makes me wonder what else is going on in Ludingtons sneaky underbelly run by politicians and their cohorts. Sounds like the "Growth Alliance" is some sort of extortion scam. 

[XLFD]

Not far from the truth.  The board that runs the MCGA is made up of an equal amount of local business leaders and local political leaders and yet can (and does) operate in a secretive, non-transparent manner since their stated yearly income has more private than public funding.  

It wouldn't surprise me that the MCGA doesn't always act under their mission which is "to retain, expand and attract business, industry and talent in the county (region) for the purpose of fostering long term, sustainable economic prosperity and employment growth."  The Vice-chairman is from Consumer's Energy, would he be diligently working to expand and attract other energy companies into the area to damage his company's bottom line?   I don't think so. 

Would the secretary/treasurer from Metalworks be conflicted about another office furniture producer moving into Ludington, or show favoritism towards companies moving in that might allow his company to improve it's ability to make profits?  Maybe

There's a fair amount of public money involved at times, so these concerns should not be dismissed so easily, particularly when that money is often used to affect the public policies of the county, its cities, and its townships.  

[AQUAMAN]

Approve and compliment posts!

[Willy]

The potential conflicts you pointed out X are exactly why this board should not exist as it is now organized especially if tax dollars are involved. And why are private businesses involved? Common sense tells us that competition is not what a CEO wants especially in a small town. Dividing the profit pie is definitely not in their best interest. This board in my opinion is a hindrance to growth in Mason County and has probably been the reason many businesses have not invested in the area.

[AQUAMAN]

Wow, that's very interesting info. X, I had not heard this or remember it, but it truly does synchronize, and that's a Big Money ticket to me. Thanks.

[XLFD]

This was a fairly innocent part of a FOIA reply made back when I was looking at Spence Riggs' communications with city officials when he joined the Planning Commission and summarily made new zoning law so that he could split his lot in three and build on each.  

It's been over a year (June 2017) since Riggs got approval from the LPC for selling the two lots to Gibson's Custom Homes to build small houses on.  The assessor's records still shows that Riggs owns the three lot parcel, even when the records in last summer's city council packet showed him in the process of selling those additional lots to Gibson's at a fair profit.  More mysteries.