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

[XLFD]

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?

[AQUAMAN]

Regarding the City Treasurer update, he is about age 64 now, and wants to scale back in work in the future. A Mary Lange is going to take over as an appointee I believe. She is the Treasurer for the county now, so is qualified and certified for the position I hear. Who is Gene Kyle? I noticed he did not stand or pledge allegiance to our flag, plus Mayor Miller substituted the word united for indivisible, which I never heard before.

[Willy]

Good catch Aquaman. I didn't notice those situations when I first viewed the recorded meeting. It's possible Kyle was unable to stand up for some reason. As far as the pledge:

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.

In its original form it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration.

I guess Mayor Miller wants to make history by adding his own change. Substituting one word for another. Both having very different meanings. I for one do not like Ludington's Mayor changing the pledge at an official meeting. If he wants to do that at home on his own time then be my guest.     

INDIVISIBLE

UNITED

Today the pledge reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

I guess there will now be a Mayor Miller version added to this list.  

[XLFD]

Willy, 

Maybe Mayor Miller has a hard time saying the word 'indivisible', it's five syllables after all.  Those in the know, know that Steve Miller is a closet Democrat and is likely ecstatic at the thought of a potential Biden presidency.  The mayor may have been inspired by a recent speech from Biden who said "one nation under God, united in our love of America."  Biden, well-known for his plagiarism back in college and early political career, has apparently hired speech-writers with the same propensity. 

'United' is such a weak term when compared with 'indivisible' and the two words are not synonymous.  Botching the pledge of allegiance is offensive, and I hope our city councilors take the initiative and impeach him for that offense and for his silencing of a city councilor doing her job.      

[AQUAMAN]

Check on that guys, it's offensive to anyone that knows the pledge, thanks.

[Willy]

At the least, Miller owes the citizens of Ludington an apology for his disrespect for the Pledge and for the people he represents. He started and ended the meeting with an arrogant display of self righteousness. He may have thought he had a good reason for his actions and if that's so then he owes an explanation regarding that behavior. While we're at it Kyle needs to explain why he sat for the Pledge. 

[XLFD]

It hasn't been formally recognized by other media outlets, but Angela Serna announced late Friday on her official Facebook page that she has filed for a recount in the Fifth Ward race where she lost by one vote.  We wish her the best of luck.

[Willy]

Good for her. I am glad to hear that, but I bet the mayor and the other bobble heads aren’t happy about it.