Ludington City Council Meeting 11-11-13: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Truth

[XLFD]

 

The City of Ludington promoted three people already working for the city to fill the large spots left over from the career changes of long-term city operational managers Shawn McDonald and Rob Allard; these folks all showed up.  The City also decided to rescind a sidewalk replacement order they previously placed on 501 North Rath, after they learned the new owners were agreeable to fix the sidewalk (more on this later). 

 

Such were the good trends of the City, but with the good also comes the bad.  A property tax abatement was to be considered for the House of Flavors, a public hearing scheduled for the next meeting.  I love tax breaks if they are spread out fairly among the taxpayers.  When one business gets a tax break, however, all other businesses and other taxpayers get an increased tax burden, as there is never a corresponding tax break.  It is simply favoritism and corporate welfare masked as business retention and economic development. 

 

The City also voted to exempt themselves from State health care reform law, as they did last year.  Simplifying the law, it made those who worked for entities like the City of Ludington either have the employees pay at least 20% of the premiums for their healthcare, or specifically exempt themselves each year by a 2/3 vote of their council.  Ironically, the two employees they recently lost to seek better employment still left even with the assurance that they wouldn't have to worry too much about their premiums.  So thank the taxpayers for footing the extra expenses, granting the City employees a lot better health care coverage than you have, courtesy of this unanimous vote by the City Council.

 

But we also had the ugly, no matter what your perspective.  If you feel the City is doing a great job, that detractors of City Hall in any way are evil, and that the officials are doing everything they can for you, then you probably think the ugly part comes about 2:00 into the meeting (below) when a citizen gets up and casts aspersions to the assemblage that seven of their number has committed a willful violation of the Open Meetings Act at an earlier meeting.  A technicality, you rationalie, that was ignored by your representatives as meaningless in getting the public's business done.

 

If you are more objective and feel the City has had its share of shortcomings over the last few years, then the ugly part comes from the allegations the citizen makes about these officials knowingly breaking the law by conducting a meeting without having proper public notice, even when it is brought to their attention.  The video is followed by a transcript of that speech, with links to relevant laws and articles for the reader's convenience for corroboration: 

 

November 11, 2013 Ludington City Council from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

 

"Before every City Council meeting, our city officials turn to the American flag and pledge allegiance to it, and to the republic for which it stands... then turn their backs to it for the rest of the meeting.  A republic is literally a government in which its affairs are a "public matter", where rules of law are codified and our public officials are bound by those laws just like the rest of us.  To keep our republic continuing as a republic, we need to foster participation in government, and make sure "public matters" are within the reach of any citizen.  

On May 20, 2013 at this venue at approximately 1:10 PM, I finished a speech in front of this body and a large group of Foster 3rd grade students, and added a point of order, I said:

"Section 5(4) of the Michigan Open Meetings Act states that for a rescheduled regular meeting of a public body, a public notice stating the date, time, and place of the meeting shall be posted at least 18 hours before the meeting in a prominent and conspicuous place at the public body's principal office.

A perusal of the City's meeting announcement board directly behind me had no such public notice at 11:20 AM this morning, or presently, for this meeting. Hence, to go forth and have deliberations and make decisions on public policy in this meeting would be a direct violation of the Open Meetings Act and I suggest the city council do what's morally right and amend its agenda accordingly"

 

At that point, no harm to the republic had been done, a simple clerical error was the only mistake.  A check of the public notice board would have found only a notice for a meeting that day to be conducted at 6:30 PM, a check of the lobby's cameras would corroborate that nobody tampered with that board's notices.  You officials could still have went through with a meeting where you could have refrained from making deliberations or decisions, deferring such to a proper meeting that would be considered lawful under the open meetings act.  You could have saved face in front of those third graders looking for a lesson in civics that day, because they got a very good lesson by what this public body did with this revelation by the public.

 

In the aftermath of this warning, Mayor Henderson said the public's point was "duly noted", and the regular, unamended order of business went forth without a second thought from the participants, or of the media in the audience.  At that meeting:

City Ordinance 260-13 and 261-13 were discussed and voted on by the Ludington City Council. 

A resolution to authorize fire service outside the city limits was discussed and voted on by the Ludington City Council.

A motion to approve a bid for City marina dredging was made and passed by the Ludington City Council.

 

These were decisions made by the public body known as the City of Ludington after deliberation.  So a simple, fixable clerical error was compounded into seven elected officials willfully violating the Open Meetings Act; coincidentally five of these same officials were involved with a similar violation of the Open Meetings Act involving making deliberations and decisions outside of an Open Meeting via a secret E-mail scheme.  This was determined in our Circuit Court in February of this year as per this stipulated judgment signed by Judge Cooper.  That was only three months prior to this willful violation, made after a citizen had made them fully aware of the law.

 

Consider yourself being stopped by a policeman and given a warning that you were driving twenty miles above the limit and to slow it down, and then, when you get back on the road, you continue speeding.  Would the policeman throw up his hands and say "Oh well, what else can I do, I did warn them about speeding." ... The stipulated judgment was that warning, the point of order was another warning.  The Ludington City Council and our Mayor obviously felt they were above the law of this republic, when they knowingly broke it in May. 

 

This lawsuit [papers] I would have filed today if the courthouse was not closed due to the holiday, is not against the City of Ludington.  It names all seven members of this public body present on May 20th and seeks only actual and exemplary damages, and so the public would appreciate the named parties to either capitulate to the fact that they willfully violated the Act, or fight the claim by themselves or with their own personal attorney, as what they did was repugnant to the republic...

 

My five minutes were up, which Mayor Henderson made clear in his refusal to allow me a summation; here is the finish, courtesy of the nearly unlimited capacity of the mostly uncensored internet: 

 

"...and using the people's money to defend such acts or settle the claim would be a deplorable nose snub at the public they supposedly serve.  In my three prior suits with the City, I have used no public funds in prevailing over a corrupt city that defends blatant opacity, nepotism, favoritism, and police brutality, and I will do so here.  They likely will not, because of that being ‘above the law’ thing. 

Holding public officials accountable in our republic, means holding them personally responsible for their willful violations of the law.  If you cannot fathom the concept of being a public servant in a republic, then by all means step aside and allow room for some that will.  Thank you."

 

And like a bunch of arrogant nabobs that care little about what the public perceives of them, they sat back and allowed these serious allegations no resistance, depending on their two tried and true allies, the City Attorney who was unusually quick in adapting a directive for the councilors to remain mum on any matter concerning this lawsuit. 

 

City Attorney Wilson:  (24:00 in)  "Mr. Rotta has indicated earlier this evening that he is intending to sue each of you individually... if that happens... please let us know right away when you get the paperwork and please do not say anything to anybody, except your attorneys, which presumably the City will be providing to you, as public officials."

 

The City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) in their provocatively, if not confusingly, titled: "Ludington resident Tom Rotta threatens city council with another lawsuit, this time as individuals"  In his usual reporting style, Kevin Brasiczeski not only mangles what I say, but he also manages to mangle what the City Attorney said. 

 

"Tom Rotta informed Ludington city councilors Monday night that he intends to file a lawsuit against the individual councilors for what he believes was a violation of the Open Meetings Act.

Rotta, who has filed other lawsuits against the city in recent years, contends the council did not properly post a meeting in May, when the council’s regular meeting time was changed to early afternoon to allow Foster Elementary School third-graders to attend the meeting.

He also said the city council could have been OK with the switch, until it approved actions during the May meeting.

Rotta also told the councilors that he intends to name each member of the council so they will have to hire their own attorneys to represent them.

City Attorney Richard Wilson, however, said he expects the city will pay to defend the councilors against the lawsuit because if the Open Meetings Act was violated, it would have been by the body of the council, not the individual councilors.

Wilson also told the councilors to let him know as soon as they receive paperwork connected with the suit, and not to talk to anyone about the lawsuit except for attorneys, which the city will provide.

Rotta said he planned to file the lawsuit Monday, until he learned the court was closed for Veterans Day."

 

Today I ran into some difficulty at the Mason County Courthouse trying to file this lawsuit properly, but that's another story about the sad state of our local affairs and officials.

[Willy]

The Council members are such arrogant fools. Top that off with LDN reporters who can't seem too get the story straight and you've a shining example of  incompetence and corruption right here in Ludville. Shame on them all.

[AQUAMAN]

Well said Willy, and soooo true.

[XLFD]

You're not telling me anything I don't know already, but thanks for the confirmation, guys. Brasiczeski's writing reads like a City press release more than half of the time, regarding affairs of the City.

[XLFD]

I've been denied such information in the past, but under my knowledge and beliefs, I believe the various costs are somewhere in the ballparks below, from what I have determined.  I invite someone to FOIA the City of Ludington and see whether they can get that information, because they use my adversarial position in court against them as a rationale to hold this information back and a broad interpretation of client-attorney privilege.  Likewise, the money doesn't come from City taxpayers directly (except for the expensive FOIA case, which the risk management attorneys would likely have taken care of right away), it comes from the City's "Risk Management" insurance.  I assume those premiums would go up if Ludington uses the service as often as they do for police brutality cases and my own, just as your auto insurance would go up if your a lousy driver.

 

Open Meetings Act pt. 1:  Filed 11-2012, Decided: 2-2013:   $10,000 ($4500 to my attorney, $150 to me, an indication of $5000-6000 for the Risk Management Attorney

 

FOIA:  Filed 9-2011, Decided:  9-2012 and 10-2013 and possibly in the future:   $20,000 plus (although they got a judgment upheld for $696 against me and my partner for FOIAs illegally priced and never seen to their credit, last years budget showed the City had spent in the first half of 2012 over $16,000 to defend this.  That was after several attorney hours of preparing legal briefs at the end of 2011, and before the Appeals Court action was filed and their responding brief.  This cost the taxpayers a lot more than my info requests ever did.

 

Workplace Safety:  Filed 9-2012, Decided/Settled:  5-2013:  $30,000 plus (my share, which a good portion went to my attorney and costs, was $15,000.  The City said somewhere in the media that the Risk Management bill was just under $17,000, but not paid by the taxpayers.

 

Again, I would appreciate anybody doing their own investigation into this and sharing it with the public.

[XLFD]

Your welcome.  I should add, for the record, that I have not used any public money in prosecuting violations by the City.  Every time I file a complaint or claim, it's the pennies in my own pocketbook funding it. 

Unlike some who wish to characterize me, the only time I have gained money is in the Workplace Safety case, and that came at a great cost.  I have never been on any form of public assistance, I have never been on disability.  I have received unemployment insurance twice in my life, once after being driven into by a drunk driver while working as a Park Ranger at the Ludington State Park, and once after losing my security job due to the repercussions of the Workplace Safety Policy.

My most fearsome aspect is that I will continue to try to finish the job of rooting out the people at Ludington City Hall, the Mason County Courthouse, and anywhere else who are trying to screw with my community and the common law concepts that make this country great; but I pledge I will do so peacefully, reasonably, methodically, and lawfully.  Concepts they don't seem to understand.

[XLFD]

If you liked the comments on the Facebook page of the COLDNews, just take a look at page four of the newspaper today, the editorial page, where the editorial staff goes well out of their way to mischaracterize my lawsuit (which has been filed this afternoon) and myself. 

This will be reviewed later tonight, with analysis.  Thanks for your support, and keep paying close attention. 

[Willy]

X. I read that editorial and all I can say is this is another hatchet job by LDN. It's starts off saying that the City should follow the Open Meetings Act then goes into a negative mode attacking you for standing up for yours and everyone else's rights. They made a big deal about how nice it was the meeting was rescheduled so that 3rd graders could attend. The Council had an illegal meeting to show children how a Council meeting is undertaken. Fine example for the little ones. And what is so irritating is the LDN thinks that is a good excuse for breaking the law and a bad reason for a citizen to complain. The LDN is a terrible newspaper run by corrupted reporters and editors who continually turn a blind eye to illegal behavior perpetrated by City officials. 

[Willy]

Eye

I would appreciate your opinion on what point or points I did not grasp in that article.

[XLFD]

What is the point EyE?  I see an editorial that is severely out of focus, where a citizen is attacked in many ways for wanting information through FOIAs and transparency for all citizens through the OMA.  Meanwhile, the COLDNews just recently advocated for more citizens to get involved with government-- remember that?  They stress that the OMA and FOIA need to be followed both in spirit of and to the letter of the law. 

But then they use a set of derogatory adjectives for the one person that does that, and lapdog support for Ludington City Hall who continually violate laws of transparency and whose actions dissuade those that come forth with opinions different from theirs-- as regularly chronicled here. 

[XLFD]

Willy, you got it right-- read my latest article.  Many of the points you express are right on the mark.  EyE, see if you don't agree after reading my article.  But if you don't, be specific on your critiques, or how will I learn? 

http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/oma-part-deux-the-law...

[XLFD]

The technicality was set up by the lack of a proper posting by whoever is responsible for that at the Ludington City Hall, and as I said at the meeting, nobody could tamper with that board without being caught on camera. 

The sue-worthy offense was created by them being apprised of that and going through and making deiberations/decisions, the latter violation of which is not a technicality but a willful violation of an Act meant to guarantee that meetings are to be properly noticed, and open to all members of the public.  If they can ignore the law once, they can ignore it often-- oh wait, five of these people were already involved in an OMA violation decided against them earlier this year.  This should be seriously taken into account by all.

[Willy]

s.todd

The incomplete and incompetent reporting is one of the reasons I discontinued by subscription to the LDN. X really opened my eyes. After reading his information which he always backs up with facts, I compared his information with what LDN reported and it was like day and night. LDN's information was incomplete, innacurate, biased and often times misleading. There was no way I would support LDN's type of reporting.