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.

[XLFD]

EyE said:  "The LDN is responsible to turn a profit for its owner(s) so that they can afford to pay wages/salaries and still earn a fair return on investment.  Then, after that, they are responsible to report items of interest to their readership at-large*. "

 

Permit me to offer a better definition of what we should expect minimally from the Ludington Daily News, courtesy of this link.  The LDN could still fulfill your business model definition and fulfill these duties to their main readership; they don't, so they are appropriately called the COLDNews from their corporate sponsorship:

 

An independent and free press is one indication of a free, democratic society. The press has certain obligations to the public that it should always strive to fulfill. Different types of press have different duties, depending on its size and resources and what its consumers expect of it. But there are some duties that are standard of all press organizations

Truth Telling
The press and journalists have a duty to always tell the truth when reporting. The public should be able to rely on the press to get facts correct so they can make informed decisions based on those facts. When journalists report incorrect facts, which sometimes happen, it erodes the public's trust. Newspapers have an ethical obligation to correct facts when mistakes are made, and when journalists purposely report incorrect information, they should be terminated.

Loyalty to Citizens
The press has a duty to put the interests of citizens above other interests like advertisers and shareholders. In order for the press to remain credible in the public eye, journalists must be able to report both good and bad news about any subject, even if it involves advertisers or "friends" of the newspaper. Loyalty to citizens also implies news coverage for all citizens in the press' coverage area, not just certain groups or demographics.

[Willy]

Very good points s.todd. The fact the X is treated like dirt under a felon's toenail clearly demonstrates the LDN's biased and imcomplete reporting about City Hall.

[XLFD]

"treated like dirt under a felon's toenail":  Willy, you get the poet laureate award for the day with that imagery.  "Reading with a blind man's cane" is also good in your other post.

s. todd, I've caught the negative comments on Facebook, and they are lacking any meaningful relevance, most based on the execrable reportage of the COLDNews.  I see people who do not even know me making some sort of value judgment because of what they read in the paper or what they've been told by loyalists to City Hall.  

It's sad, but the cost of doing business when you fight a corrupted system.  I'm happy, however, that there are supporters of what's right that post here and elsewhere and contact me, including yourself.  It's always nice to know that some people are paying close attention.

[XLFD]

EyE,

I have to agree with s. todd.  If you honestly believe the Ludington Daily News has any shred of loyalty to citizens wronged by the local authorities then I call bullcrap.  Forget me for a moment, I could be an anomaly since I obviously represent a threat to them, since I have an abundance of loyalty to the citizens of this area, even if they don't reciprocate it on the fickle pages of Facebook.  And I go out of my way to get the truth-- ever wonder about those FOIA requests-- it's often to verify or refute my suspicions.

Instead, consider those who have been brutalized or bulldozed by the local police, such as Joe McAdam, Shelly Burns, Sue McAdam, Darius Van Brook, etc.  Instead consider the various misuses of bidding, public power, and public money that I bring up at meetings. 

As for truth-telling, if you can't see the bias that is so evident to those that are paying attention, you must be part of the story-weaving . 

[Willy]

Eye

You must be reading LDN with a blind man's cane. How could you be so completely oblivious to what has been taking place. It is so clear that City Hall and LDN have, at every oppurtunity, berated and mistreated X. All of your comments, especially "Has Mr. Rotta ever interviewed anybody from the LDN to get their side of the story?" borders on complete ignorance about what has been going on. You have failed to grasp the situation at hand either because you have not read all of the information or you have a clear bias toward the City and LDN. Either way it's a sad commentary that folks like you cannot or refuse to see how painfully obvious it is that the City Council and LDN are out to wreak havoc on X's reputation and people like you are willing partners and supporters of Ludingtons and LDN's goal to smear X.

[XLFD]

EyE,

The latter part of the thread head was the COLDNews treatment of what happened at the meeting.  Everyone can agree that printed media has more limitations than electronic media (with our ability to link to records, files, videos, etc. for support and documentation), so they generally have to condense a meeting down to a few paragraphs that leave a lot on the cutting room floor. 

But Kevin Brasiczeski's writing is way off base.  He makes my public comment into a threat, which it isn't.  I supported my 'belief' in my statement, which he misstates.  I never said all councilors were named in the suit, because it's not true, Councilor Rathsack was not present, and is absolved of any guilt.  Kevin apparently assumed the seven were all City Councilors.  It's not a good reporter trait to assume and present as fact. 

He then says I told them they will have to hire their own personal attorneys to represent them, but that is not what I said.

He then took CA Wilson's opinions as the final rule of law, when it is far from it.  He also failed to do that in his Thursday article, where Wilson elaborated on it.

Face it, EyE, writing of fairness and the COLDNews is to write of contrast, not comparison.