Ludington City Council Meeting 11-09-2020: Mayor Miller's Rules of Order

The agenda packet for the November 9th meeting of the Ludington City Council was deceptively devoid of anything that looked controversial, having only one action item.  Yet two major issues came up, one from within, one from without, which made it the most contentious meeting in recent memory despite its length of less than 50 minutes.  Mayor Steve Miller became involved in both situations and illustrated why many consider him lacking the skills and ethics of a good chairman.

The first came during the council's conversation over the one action item, whether to approve a preliminary sketch of a waterfront planned unit development (PUD) at 110 W Danaher presented by the owners of Hardman Construction.  Some discussion ensued after it was moved and seconded to approve the sketch, but it seemed that Mayor Miller wanted to be somewhere else when he interjected himself into Councilor Angela Serna's second question about the PUD, a question she would allege was posed by one of her constituents in the Fifth Ward.  Here is the video, the conversation is transcribed below that video:

Councilor Serna: (19:25 in) "And then I have one more question, if that's okay. Does anybody know what the cost... are these gonna be like the half a million dollar townhouses like those 'cottages' on Loomis Street that are $700,000?" At this point City Manager Foster didn't know and was hoping to get more info from remote participants, and asked the mayor if he could unmute Todd Schrader, one of the developers.

Mayor Steve Miller: "Is this relevant to our sketch approval? I'm just questioning if we can find out what the cost is later, but we're here to move through the agenda, and all we're looking for is sketch approval. The question could be asked and relayed a little bit later... "
Serna: "I have a question, I have a right to ask it, Steve!"


Miller: I agree... (cross talk by Serna) Council, I prefer to move on and approve this preliminary sketch plan and I will get your answer for you in a little bit, I don't think that has any effect on the sketch plan."
Serna: "I think it does, that's why I asked it."


Miller: "Then I'm willing to hear that argument... the cost of the unit has what to do with the plan itself?"
Serna: "If it's feasible for this area, that's why. If I have a question, if somebody from the Fifth Ward wanted to know and asked me if I would bring it up at the council (meeting), I have a right to answer that for someone from the Fifth Ward."


Miller: "Nobody's debating whether there's a right to ask questions, what..."
Serna: :You're stopping my right to ask a question!"


Miller: Ok, that's enough. We're not going to argue...
Serna: "Ah, fuck you." (clicks off video in disgust)


Miller: Any other questions council?
Serna (off-camera): "Fucking ass."


Miller: Could you mute that please?

The council would continue to discuss the issue and ask another question about the PUD for a couple of minutes before approving the sketch plan unanimously... with one absence. 

Councilor Serna's (pictured above) comments on her departure from the meeting were definitely inappropriate for one in her position, and later on in the meeting, Councilor Kathy Winczewski (31:05 in) and two other female councilors talked about a formal censure to be applied at the next meeting, without mention of any inappropriate behavior by the mayor at all.  The mayor would offer to meet with any or all councilors to coordinate the reprimand-- because talking further about it in front of the public at an open meeting wouldn't allow them to conspire as well against the councilor who dares asks questions for the people to understand city policy and projects better.

Mayor Steve Miller is actually more deserving of the reprimand.  The information Ms. Serna asked for was not in the packet, not available from fellow officials, and the info could have likely been received after Schrader was unmuted.  Instead of allowing that information to be given to Ms. Serna and the rest of the public, Miller actively blocked it and diminished it's importance.  One could even say he was blocking her ability to get the answer to a question many of the public had an interest in.  

The mayor was not only acting against transparency, he was interjecting himself in a manner that would be frowned on by Robert's Rules of Order, where chairman are not supposed to suppress discussion among members like he attempted, unless order needs to be preserved, which wasn;t the case.  If this council plans on censuring Councilor Serna at the next meeting, they should be considering a second against the mayor who overstepped his authority and provoked the discord that happened at the meeting.

The second controversy of the night began with my first public comment and a councilor's decision to object to the veracity of that comment as it applied to him.  The councilor succeeded in showing that he was corrupt, and likely a liar to boot.

XLFD:  (2:10 in, Mitch Foster, pictured, reading)  "I am going to the city council meeting tonight.  Not here in Ludington, that in-person meeting was called off "to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Ludington from Coronavirus".  I am going down to Scottville's meeting at 5:30, where they have chosen the inclusive and responsible policy of holding an in-person meeting while allowing live-streaming of the meeting via Zoom. 

According to DHD #10, both cities have similar incidences of coronavirus cases, yet only Ludington has chosen to disallow participation by the poor, the homeless, and the estimated 30% of all other citizens that have no access to the internet.  With very limited resources, Scottville has committed itself to engagement with the public while Ludington has embraced avoidance and expedient elitism.  

I was disappointed by the city council's defense of Councilor Joe Lenius' non-disclosure of his daughter's involvement in a process which came before the council for a vote and directly led to a financial benefit for her LLC.  Rather than transparently claim this involvement and monetary gain by his immediate family member, Councilor Lenius voted in his official capacity without informing the public, violating the city code in doing so.

The notes from the Finance Committee held just before the last meeting reflect that Joe Lenius, contrary to claims, did not formally announce his impropriety before making the motion and then voting to recommend approving the amendment to the Brownfield grant that allowed for additional activities to be covered by the existing grant for the new developer.  These activities cost money that would have not been available without the grant extension. 

Councilor Johnson led Councilor Lenius' defense at the last meeting saying effectively that there was no wrongdoing.  Over the course of many years Councilor Johnson served on the DDA while owning AJ's Party Port.  The various drinking events that the DDA sponsored during those years used Councilor Johnson's business exclusively for their purchase of wine, champagne, and hard liquor without Councilor Johnson ever disclosing that fact to the public at any meeting.  

City Attorney Hammersley was right in saying that the city council can gauge whether their fellow councilors act ethically in their undertakings by finding nothing wrong with Councilor Lenius' non-disclosure at the two meetings he voted for financial gains for his daughter, but they paint themselves as immensely corrupt officials when they defend or remain mute when the ethical lapse is revealed. [END Comment]"  

I spent my evening in Scottville enjoying their in-person meeting and viewing their streaming capacity; nothing prevents Ludington from doing the same thing as this neighboring city with 1/7 of the population. 

Councilor Lenius had no defenders of his impropriety in not disclosing his family's enrichment through his votes, they should know by this time that there is no excuse for it.  Councilor Les Johnson on the other hand, decided to defend his honor, and in doing so effectively admitted to his own corrupt act of benefitting personally from his public service without going through disclosure processes required by statute.  

Johnson (pictured above, 25:25 in): "I guess I just want to respond to one of Mr. Rotta's comments, the one he made about AJ's Party Port supplying the DDA for their drinking events. #1: They never purchased liquor because they don't usually sell liquor at the store... at their events... and they did purchase wine and champagne from me while I was on the DDA, but it was sold to them at cost to help the profits of the event. I never sold them anything at full price and I never, I guess I never tried to get them to buy the product from me, but when they came to me, I told them that I would be happy to sell it to them at cost.

So I guess you know what bothers me about this is that he's brought this up three or four times and he doesn't know the whole story of what, of how some of these things operate and he puts out false information and that's what is causing people to accuse us, the city council or the DDA, of not being transparent and being corrupt and I guess I just feel, and I don't know if there's anything we can do, this would be under Ross' thing probably, but if he's gonna have you give false information to the council in his public speaking comments, I don't feel that we should allow it; make him come up with the truth, when he's gonna put something like that out there.  I mean we have to be that way and I don't see a reason why he can do this to us like he does. That's all I have."

City Attorney Ross Hammersley agreed to look into it, but reminded Johnson of First Amendment protections, then:


Johnson: "I know that we can't do anything about what he puts on his blog, but I guess I feel that as a city council, we shouldn't have to take this abuse from him if it's false information."

Mayor Steve Miller: "If I can enter into this. I don't want to prolong this discussion any more than necessary. I don't have the same perspective of the councilmembers who have sat here for a number of years. I have observed for two years, close to three years before I came involved on city council and I saw a number of strategies used by council and city manager, previous city manager, of how to respond or deal with Mr. Rotta and any others.

Everything from arguing from the dais here back to him at that point of a contentious statement, to literally saying nothing. And that's the course we have generally taken and if it's called the high road, someone else can name it; I don't know if we have to defend ourselves each and every time someone makes a... even a repeated statement that we understand is not true. I don't think anything more than just letting him have his say, and just move on. To this point, it's worked well, but whatever council wants, however they would like to address this, is fine with me, but I would like to hear more from the city attorney and perhaps more input from other councilors separately to find out how they think this should be handled." 

First off, Councilor Johnson admits to selling hundreds of dollars of alcoholic beverages at cost, but the retail receipts I have received containing itemized lists and prices of Moscato, Brut, and Wine purchased from AJ's do not appear to be 'at cost' (no profit), nor has Les Johnson in the eight years I've been making the claim introduce any evidence on his behalf to show such an altruistic deal on his part. 

In all those years he was selling those and other drinks, there is not one DDA meeting showing they decided on Johnson's business because he was offering such a great deal.  It's required by statute to disclose and have that disclosure and vote abstention (if applicable) entered into the minutes.  I can and have gotten receipts from the DDA showing how much they spent at AJ's for several of their drinking events, he has not shown anything showing the elevated prices noted on these invoices are 'at cost'.  I will be asking Councilor Johnson for his exculpatory receipts showing he made no profits on his sales, I don't expect he will validate his claim. 

Councilor Johnson was calling me a purveyor of untruth, Mayor Miller continued that line without any specifics, saying I repeated untruths.  These liars have not explained why the City of Ludington continues to back DDA voting member Jason Adam and his unlicensed buddy contractor who have defrauded the Rental Rehab program with complicity from the DDA and Community Development Director Heather Tykoski.  The latter has committed multiple frauds and cheats on grant applications and has most recently lied about the splash pad having a discharge permit to dump untreated water directly into PM Lake. 

I have repeated these uncontroverted claims repetitively at meetings, their silence to all of us is violence to all of us.  Why aren't our councilors speaking of censure to people who violate the laws of our state, rather than one who was persecuted unfairly at this meeting by the pompous fucking ass who would not allow her to get a timely answer to her question?

Views: 1537

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I see where Lenius, Johnson, and Henderson/Miller's terms in office all expire the end of Dec. 2020. Were they all reelected for council now? And with no competition? As for past poor Mayors, we have had quite a few since 1980, and only 3-4 good ones imho. Of  more recent, the worst were Henderson, Holman, Cox, and now perhaps Miller too. The Code of Conduct is also of interest, council members are to act only in the best of interests for their constituent voters in their ward, questions and opinions of all the public and members are to be respected and never criticized, and conflicts of interest are not to be tolerated, every member is to be completely devoid of any suspicious actions whether personally or in business with city officials. Only ethical and legal conduct is acceptable to hold office. I don't believe "reprimands" are a good and ethical way to respect a fellow councilor when she left the mtg. voluntarily after she was criticized for her questions. That is petty, and disrespectful, esp. when she was absent to hear the accusations, and answer to them. The continuing "flock mentality" is surely alive and well during this mtg. as evidenced by the video stream that we all witnessed, sad, and easily avoidable by the chair.

Does anyone have a copy of this so-called sketch, and the details about abandoning the alley there? And what about the PUD rules/ordinance that might be broken by advancing this application? Thanks.

A sketch is on page 21 of the agenda packet, the material on this development begins on p. 16.

Lake Lady, the one good thing about Zoom meetings is that you can view the councilors face and body language easier and see them in real time.  

To answer your question, Councilor Lenius and Miller and the Treasurer Tom Ezdebski did not run for office this year and each of them (nor the city corporate) did not make this information available to the general public to encourage folks to run for office.  This led to one inside-candidate running for councilor-at-large (CAL) and zero candidates running for treasurer.

I know one person who would have ran for CAL in a heartbeat if they knew nearly-unbeatable Brandy wasn't running, I know of another who would have probably sought the treasurer's spot, but the news was suppressed to suppress potential candidates.  That's not what a city that wants citizen participation acts like, it's what a city that wants to continue their history of corruption into the future looks like.

Thanks X, that too is what I expected and have to look forward too, it's purely Shameful Michigan imho.

Another 58 units planned for 509 Lake Street. A public hearing on Dec. 2 at Planning Commission.  See Planning Commission Agenda for Dec. 2.

Having trouble uploading file too. If you go into city Documents, planning commission agendas are just below city council. You may have to click on "folders" to open it. Dec. 2 Planning Commission Agenda. It is a Waterfront Planned Unit Development. My initial thought is, wow! Do we have massive sewer infrastructure to pull some 2000ish-plus gallons of wastewater per unit per month into our severely neglected sewer? Maybe the wishful thinking is ... get the development going, and fix it later? It just seem no matter how much new tax base the city gets
they never have enough to fix the sewers without increases cost to the little folk.

I totally agree about the Biden recession seems inevitable.

Try this:  https://ludingtoncitymi.documents-on-demand.com/?l=2a5ce6405abd4407...

That's right across the street from the Ludington Bot Club and Thompson's Marina, going west all the way to George Street.

All this commotion over a site sketch that looks as though it was drawn by a first grader. No offense to it's creator but a perfectly sound question was asked by Serna as to the cost of these units. After looking at the sketch myself, I to am wondering that if the owners of this site plan, who are conveying important information for their project in such a non professional  way, then what else will they be skimping on. 

Like the leftists who want to fundamentally change America because they do not like it, Ludington also has it's own crowd who do not like Ludington as it is and they also want to change it. If Ludington were a growing community, change would be necessary but Ludington has maintained a steadily falling population for decades.

Lordy, that so-called sketch is a joke that a 3rd grader could do a better job of drawing, can't believe that is even legal to apply with. And the bldgs. are all going to be 45' high? That's way over the zoning reqrmt's. for up to about 2 stories high of maybe 20'. And in about 45 days there will be no city treasurer, and a vacant ward councilor? Who's going to pay the city employees and bills after 1/1/21? Who is going to represent that vacant ward seat? My guess is that favored cronies hanging around will be appointed, and the confusion and corruption will escalate into the abyss.

Good discussion and points Willy and Lake Lady.  It's so frustrating, the exploitation of Ludington, but like most beautiful areas, it is doomed to happen unless there is strong management and leadership to control the growth.  In my opinion, that strong leadership will not come from a city manager, or this city manager, because for one thing, we have a young man, perhaps skilled in budget but handed a city budget with a huge growing debt and infrastructure that has been neglected for years.  (I'm trying to be nice and as diplomatic as possible.)  Then we have this new, young city  manager, linked into MML and the whole scheme of a city union which preserves the jobs of the city workers who get paid three times as much as local prevailing wage, and hellbent on preserving their benefits and retirement packages.  Beyond that we have a young manager, perhaps intimidated by powerful older women department heads and it's hard to keep your job in a city council whose interest is in building commerce over the greater population.  Where's Mitch?  Maybe he's contemplating his future after his contract is up, or maybe he's playing along with the status quo and enjoying a slip and the pool at the new non-public, public marina.

Look again at around the 20 minute mark on the last Zoom cc meeting.  When Mitch does try to answer Serena's question, Mayor Miller cut him off faster than a guillotine.  So he has to deal with a Mayor-dictator syndrome also.

Thanks, X. That link works!

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service