Ludington City Council Meeting 2-24-2014: Opacity and One-sided Opinions

[XLFD]

The February 24, 2014 Ludington City Council meeting lasted nearly an hour, fairly long for a meeting, but not a whole lot of things were accomplished.  Three departments, the water plant, the wastewater plant, and the utility maintenance department all gave their annual reports, with some councilor interaction, which accounted for roughly half of the meeting.  For those interested, the reports the council received are in this packet.pdf  p. 29-57. 

 

I wish to give Darryll Plamondon supervisor of the utility maintenance dept. a special shout out for doing a great job.  I recently had a service call to shut down the water so that I could fix a leaking gate valve.  He and his crew came over removed quite a bit of snow, manually and with a payloader, to get to the turn-off, did the job and was very friendly to the Terror of Dowland Street.  He also gave a great presentation at the meeting for it being his first time up in the spotlight.

 

The City Council did the busy work of approving the marina oil bid, and various road closures for events, including the traveling war memorial here for a week at the end of August at City Park.  Other than that, they set a public hearing for the West End of Ludington Avenue $500,000 beach sidewalk, for the next meeting, part of a $2,500,000 reworking of the south part of Stearn's Park.  If you think spending about $2,000,000 of our local tax money to experiment with the natural beauty and fragile ecosystem of this park, replacing it with street lights, sidewalks, pavilions, and a removal of the sand dune is insane when we have so much other street and sidewalk projects in need of doing.

 

 

I brought up three issues in my public comment (the only one that night, 2:30 in), which actually fell within five minutes:  1) the discreet change of policy that the City used for FOIA appeals  2)  The violation of the Open Meetings Act I laid out here initially and 3) notification that I had the costs and disbursements figured out for the FOIA lawsuit I won against the city, having just received the notification from the court this last week that they had the records back.  The transcript of that speech follows the video.

February 24, 2014 Ludington City Council from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

 

 

"On June 24, 2012, the head of our city's judicial branch, Richard Wilson, sent an E-mail to me about the FOIA appeal process of Ludington:  "As the appellant, you will be permitted to address City Council on each appeal for 5 minutes when they are called.  This will occur outside of the normal public comment period.  You will confine your remarks/arguments to the issues raised in the appeals... After you have completed your remarks, members of the City Council will deliberate and may ask questions of you or others present before making a final decision."

 

And that worked out fine during the Henderson era, until about four appeals ago when the City decided that the input of the appellant in the quasi-judicial proceeding was no longer necessary for them to have the council unanimously back the City Manager withholding records unlawfully from the public.  So what they have been doing is state their side of the issue without generally addressing my points of contention at all, and voting to affirm John Shay's decision.  Ignoring any form of the due process that Attorney Wilson said that FOIA appellants had, doing so without him or the city officially changing this policy, which is improper.

So...Is this the City honorable to its policies?  Is City Attorney Wilson honoring his written words on behalf of the city?  We will find out later on today when the FOIA Appeal comes up, and I walk up to that microphone ready to appeal another contracted City Attorney's ruling on my FOIA request to review records dealing with Ludington's reserve police officers.  Mayor Cox, you campaigned partly on the issue of increasing Ludington transparency and now it's time to show your commitment to that; you will have the option to recognize me or not, for I won't speak out of turn.

 

But as my second open meetings act lawsuit against this city is pending in the courts, another one is likely coming on the horizon.  John Shay and City Clerk Deb Luskin entered into a contract on behalf of the City of Ludington with the Land Information Access Association (LIAA) back in December, however, a necessary prerequisite for them doing so is to have the City Council deliberate and decide on it by vote in an open meeting. 

 

The records clearly show that the two meetings between when the City Manager received the contract with LIAA and when it was signed that the city council had no deliberations or vote on the issue.  John and Deb cannot sign those contracts without such approval, so either these two officials got some illicit approval from the council, like they did for the Brother Street sewer project, which those involved admitted violating the law in a stipulated judgment in the circuit court last February.  Or, John and Deb unilaterally signed this contract fraudulently on behalf of the City of Ludington and should be held to account by this council and by the law.  Either way, the public's trust has been violated.

 

Lastly, I wish to officially give the City my bill for costs and disbursements incurred during my prosecution of getting public records in the circuit court, and then to the Michigan Appeals Court after a variety of improprieties.  As you may recall, even though John Shay gave me records he knew did not fulfill my request four months into the process, and swore an affidavit saying they were the records sought, he eventually gave me about two dozen more records, many that he had signed himself, when we referenced these other records.  Yet, the judge who replaced Judge Cooper after Cooper admitted his son was representing the City for four months, effectively said our court action did not result in the disclosure of the records, not mentioning Shay's perjury and in disregard of the indisputable facts of the case.

 

This was remedied at the appeals court by them noticing our obviously prevailing in our case as per law, and so the costs of our victory should include the costs of the extra appeal.  This bill for $891 includes costs for filing, motions, publishing, postage, mileage and transcripts, but not interest.

 

You will note that this amount eclipses the City's counterclaim for FOIA requests that they charged us for but were never ever seen by us, but it is far surpassed by the amount our city attorneys charged the city's taxpayer to defend John Shay's misdeeds in the process of unlawfully keeping the records from the public, which is well over $20,000.  Thank you."

 

At 44:20 in, the FOIA appeal I had comes into question, and you will note that I go to the podium (where I stood mute), while Mr. Shay introduces it, City Attorney Wilson addressed the first point I made at about 46:40 in, and admits to the 2012 policy of the City, saying that it had subsequently changed with the change in FOIA Policy-- apparently the one that took place about a year ago.  But nothing changed in the official rules as a snapshot of the appropriate section shows that was passed January 21, 2013. 

 

Therefore since Attorney Wilson said in 2012 I had five minutes to defend my rights to see information and the city changed it 'willy-nilly', without anything in writing or policy to change it, Attorney Wilson is a liar, and his written words mean nothing, just like the words of the Ludington charter mean nothing to him, as we have seen often before.  I effectively did not defend my appeal in my request for appeal other than saying what points I appealed; I was fully prepared to fight the FOIA Coordinator's specious reasoning at the meeting for denying me ANY record concerning the Ludington reserve police force.

 

Mr. Wilson then goes on to mischaracterize my request, which was effectively for rules, job descriptions, and by-laws that the reserve officers conform to, as their powers are not on the charter of the code, or dictated by state law.  Tuesday's COLDNews had me asking for only field training manuals, which was far from my request, but for the first time both my 'Alias' and 'Willy' were mentioned in the same headline:

 

 

 

Patsi Klevorn obviously is not concerned about the facts, the correct spelling of my name (Rlotta), or the public's access to records, but again, history shows this.  The most surprising moment from the meeting was when Councilor Kathy Winczewski addressed me personally at 51:10 in, praised me and invited me to future meetings with LIAA.  I marked my calendar for the upcoming meeting, and for this meeting, since I can't remember the last time I was addressed by a councilor without anger or disdain in their rhetoric. 

 

Lastly, Attorney Wilson addressed my concern about the illegality of the contract with LIAA.  He is of the opinion that the City Manager and Clerk can enter into a contract as the "City of Ludington" without getting approval of the City Council if the contract is under a certain amount as indicated for purchases in section 2-4 of the City Code, and that there were no competitive bids in this case.  But if he reads that section further it says:  "However, when it is clearly to the city's advantage to contract without competitive bidding, the city council, by affirmative vote and upon recommendation of the city manager, may so authorize".  I stand by my claim:  like the three other public entities involved did with their legislative bodies, the City Manager and Clerk needed the City Council's approval for them to legitimately sign for the City of Ludington.  

 

Failing to follow the Open Meetings Act, failure to follow their own written policy, failures of following the FOIA, is it any wonder why I think they will spend thousands more of taxpayer money trying to fight my lawful costs and disbursements I asked for instead of admitting they owe at least $891?

[Willy]

My God look at the expense and lengths  Ludingtons officials are going thru to keep public records secret. We have an unelected City Manager who signs contracts without permission, an expensive attorney to handle FOIA's and another expensive attorney to say "yep the expensive FOIA attorney has given an opinion and I agree with it, so there". That's some official statement calling the giving of a manual paid for by Ludington taxpayers to a taxpayer a "willy nilly" process. What is the matter with these people. One would think they are guarding top secret documents and that by letting the people see them would cause a Governmental chaos. City Hall, just give Mr. Rotta the information he is requesting and quit being such a bunch of tax wasting morons.  A complicated subject posted by Mr. Rotta in a very professional manner, although being kind of moronic myself I had some difficulty siphoning thru it. Your postings about the council meetings make LDN's article look like it was written for a 9th grade high school paper.

[AQUAMAN]

Very perceptive post Willy, thanks. I noticed right off the bat, and many times during the meeting, the "Shay Psycho Stare" was repetitive and back on track. $250/hr. "Slippery Dick" was also at bat twice to effectuate his latest bag of tricks. To confuse and detract from legal issues with more legal jargon and excuses of technicalities for being secretive with public documents. Coining the phrase "willy-nilly" makes for a cutsy-pie excuse, the best he can offer I suppose. Whenever any gov't. unit offers these cheap excuses for the sake of "security", the public should see it for what it is in reality, a red flag of distrust, weak stalls, vain condescension, which ALL on the council steadily and repeatedly support. I was also surprised, and grateful, that new Councilwoman Kathy W. thanked X for his vast knowledge of Ludington's ordinances/laws/zoning: and for inviting him and other citizens to become more active and in attendance for many committee meetings. I am also wanting of information of why Castonia and Marrison repeatedly cast aside their duty for perfect attendance. As usual, their absence was excused, I hope their excuse is important enough to warrant not representing their fellow citizens, whom elected them to do a part-time service to the community. Finally, nice recap and haircut X, thanks for coming to report even when it's obvious you were quite sick with flu. P.S. to LDN: what's a "recognized public poicy"? In too big a hurry for press attacks on the citizen to proofread your news again?

[Willy]

I agree Aquaman

[XLFD]

I was the man in black for this meeting.  Unfortunately I will probably be disappointing Councilor Kathy by going to these meetings, since I believe that our local people should have a better grasp of planning the future of our communities, rather than a global-warming-based organization from Traverse City, intent on brainwashing them into unquestioning acceptance of Agenda 21 socialistic principles.

As usual, the City Attorney was more bluster than beef; I do appreciate his acknowledging his E-mail to me in 2012 telling me what I could do at appeals, but was surprised he told me there had been a change to the policy, when I had been informed of no such policy, ever, and the change wasn't in the rewrite of overall FOIA policy. 

Just in case you missed John Shay covering it my request was:  "All information and forms given to prospective reserve police officers upon their usage/employment by the City/Police Chief , as well as any manual, handbook, SOPs, SOGs, and the like that the City gives out to them as a matter of employment or initial training."  So John Streeter's submission of a typical Michigan Police Manual wasn't really part of what I was looking for.  I was looking for what their job description was, job application forms, any by-laws, and any minimal training/employment records for hire.  If I wanted the book streeter shows, I could just look at that at the library or buy it. 

And this is what should scare anyone, ALL of these records were claimed exempt from disclosure because of the reasons Wilson said.  Does anyone believe an application or minimal standards for the job is against the public interest for disclosing?  This obstinate blocking of our current City Attorneys of public information (and denial of any wrongdoing, as in the OMA claim) is what gets me oh so motivated in proving the ignorant sycophant wrong, and making Ludington government more transparent.  Which Ryan Cox is proving he has no intention of correcting any time soon.