Ludington City Council Meeting 8-26-2013: Seven City Officials Defensive About Offensive Hidden Camera Policy

[XLFD]

A new Senior Center Director was introduced and the first reading of  a more restrictive fireworks ordinance occurred.  But beyond the ordinary order of business, two things occupied the attention of the Ludington City Council this Monday night involving the Pere Marquette Bayou dredging and the topic of surveillance cameras. 

 

The former was introduced by Jess Karboske, co-owner of Ray's Auto Marine, who called for cooperation between all parties to get the bayou area back from the dangerous place its been in the last few years starting with the flood and recession of 2008.  This was later touched on by the City Manager, the Mayor, and Councilor Castonia towards the end of the meeting under communications from city officials.  The involved parties will soon be making decisions that will affect the future of that area, and Ludington. 

 

The Ludington Torch has been the only news organization that has went to the two meetings between the City leaders, State officials and local marina owners, and will be reporting what is happening when it happens in the future.  But very little has been decided thus far other than some State involvement will occur in efforts to dredge some of the bayou's channel. 

 

The most provocative event of the night, however, was the presentation of an investigative report into hidden cameras in Ludington public bathrooms done by this reporter.  I would have to say, the internet presentation seen here ludington-city-government-they-see-you-poo-in-public, which is a lot easier to follow and see pictures than this video's interlude that started around three minutes in and lasted five minutes, by fiat of the mayor.  What followed was a variety of public servants coming to suggest that the Fourth Amendment is highly overrated, and that nothing wrong has been done.  I offer some commentary and rebuttal inside brackets, accordingly, to keep the record straight.

 

 

1)  Wallace Cain (11:00 in):  What offends me the most about Wallace Cain's speech which happened minutes after mine in the public comment section, is not that he says that there is no expectation of privacy in bathrooms, but that he does not mention the fact that he is a city official currently serving on both the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Board of Review.  Therefore, we are at our wit's end in deciding whether he is speaking on his own behalf, or on behalf of either or both of his public offices.  He definitely needs to clarify that in the future.

One could also be offended by the Mayor's appointing him to both of these boards, and the city council's acceptance of it, when the Ludington City Charter totally disallows anyone to serve on the Board of Review when they are in any other elected or appointed city office.  Our City leaders seem to believe rules are meant to be broken-- when they do it.

 

"Wallace Cain, 919 Mitchell Street, I would just like to, feel like I am compelled to rebut, Mr. Rotta.  Privacy vs. security is going to be a debate we have in this country for as long as the country exists.  As far as cameras in the bathroom, I support 'em.  I think it will cut down on vandalism, I think it will deter pedophiles, and it does say in the bathrooms, "surveillance camera in use" [Kind of like having a "No Trespassing" sign in the middle of your property; none of the six restrooms with cameras mentioned has signage at all entrances, and only one has signs on the door, only one has signs in the interior].  I do not expect, there is no expectation of privacy in the bathrooms [the law and the courts would differ with you Mr. Cain, read this legal article where your statement is refuted].  If you don't want to use them, you don't have to; it's your choice [Crap your pants, I don't care.].  Thank you."

 

2) John Shay (18:13 in):  City Manager/FOIA Coordinator reports to his bosses on the council recommends that they should deny the appeal, gives them false and incomplete advice.

 

"Attached in your agenda packet is FOIA request #199 from Tom Rotta dated July 15th, and he requested to receive the following video file:  'A video camera is placed, I'm quoting here, a video camera is pointed at the vestibule area of both restrooms east of the marina playground, a closed circuit camera warning is posted, he's requesting the following video files sent to this E-mail address unedited video footage of both of these cameras over this last weekend, July 13 and/or 14 during the daytime hours, and if for some reason one or neither of the video cameras were working these days please supply footage of the last previous day they were used.' 

 

The City granted his request in part and denied his request in part, the camera system there at Waterfront Park was set up to only provide footage of the common areas of the restrooms [Check out this zoomed picture taken at the three foot (groin) level in front of the waterfront park's men's urinal.  I see lens looking squarely at me!]  

 

 

There's always the possibility, we don't know this, that a person could go into the common area and change clothes in that common area, which could result in a camera capturing footage that could be considered an invasion of someone's privacy [That in itself sounds like an admission of guilt by the City then, doesn't it?].  Therefore the City denied his request to the extent that he wanted to review that type of footage [Here he tries to pass off the mantle of perversion to me].  The City granted the request but indicated that he would have to pay a deposit to reimburse the City's expenses to review the entire tape, and to ensure that no inadvertent footage was found [How noble; they are trying to protect the chastity of all those people whose privacy they invaded in the first place].  The recommendation here is to affirm the FOIA Coordinators response dated July 18, 2013 to Mr. Rotta's FOIA request dated July 15, 2013."

 

3, 4)  Senior City Councilors Kaye Holman and Gary Castonia (next):  These guys have been the City's most brazen Freedom (of Information) Fighters, Kaye doesn't miss a beat, Gary does set-up man work.

 

Councilor Kaye Holman (immediately):  "So moved." (supported by Councilor Marrison, the mayor moves it forward for discussion/approval)  "I have a question.  What happened to 200?  Didn't he do that two weeks ago?  What are we doing backtracking?

Shay:  He submitted his appeal for this one, after he submitted his appeal for the 200th FOIA request.

Holman:  OK.  Thank you.

Mayor Henderson:  Any questions, comments?

Councilor Gary Castonia:  "Yes I have one your honor.  I have one for the City Manager.  On these cameras, does anyone just review them here or there just to see if anything is going on?  Or, how often are these reviewed?

Shay:  They are only reviewed if there is a request to do so.  The only member of the public that has requested to do so to review the footage is Mr. Rotta.  Since Chief Barnett's been here, since January 2001, there were three instances where he was requested to look at the camera because of... the first instance was due to some vandalism issues at the North James Street bathroom and that was 7 or 8 years ago, and there was a second instance about a year ago at the James Street restrooms, and the third instance was at Waterfront Park, in response to Mr. Rotta's request to look at the footage of the cameras there.  So since 2001, Chief Barnett has indicated that there have been only three instances, and those are the only three times he has looked at the footage... of those cameras.  [So these cameras have been looping for nearly 15 years at the Waterfront Park, with no breakdowns, maintenance or checking of the product by anyone?  I wish I had that type of equipment.]

Castonia:  OK, and the next question is for the City Attorney.  Isn't there a law, and he's not quoting everything [true statement, I have to edit laws down to their essence sometimes to make them understandable and fall within my five minute deadline], that there's no expectation of privacy in a public restroom [spoken like a retired policeman, but I dare you to interrupt his bowel movement]. 

 

 

5)  City Attorney Dick Wilson:  Yeah, you're right, but you're jumping one item ahead of my agenda, but I'll jump into this stream.  Yes; Mr. Rotta correctly quoted MCL 750. 539(j) I think it was.  750.539(a) defines what a "private place" is for purposes of video surveillance is, and defines a private place as a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance but does not include a place to which the public or substantial group of the public have access [True, but section (j) does not include the definition "private place" in describing the felony of surveillance of a place where one reasonably expects privacy, he is looking at section (d), the grossly incompetent attorney he is]

There have been at least three Michigan Court of Appeals opinions on this issue, the most recent one was People v. Willis, which was reported in 1989 [the only People v. Willis of 1989 I could locate from the MI Appeals Court was a breathalyzer case with no reference to surreptitious filming.  You should also note that section (j)-- look at the bottom of the above link-- was added by the MI legislature in 2004, well after the cases he mentions.  This guy is amazingly inept.], but it found the same as two prior panels of the Michigan Appeals Court, that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of a public restroom, and therefore video surveillance of the common areas of a public restroom, does not violate anyone's privacy, does not violate the laws, specifically the laws that Mr. Rotta brought up, previously quoted [Great legal proof, you grand fool; it must be that Manistee water]. 

Castonia:  And my third item is, I agree with Mr. Cain, that is if we can't protect the City's interest from vandalism with cameras, then we might as well close the restrooms down [What is wrong with putting cameras outside pointing at the door, instead of unlawfully filming people doing private things?].  A lot of people watch this on TV, I'd like to hear from them, see what they think about this-- if we didn't have any restrooms for them to use downtown [No cameras pointed at potties means no restrooms period.  Neolithic thinking].  And that's all I have your honor.

The discussion closed, and the City Council voted unanimously to deny the public records once again.

 

6)  Mayor Henderson (36:00 in):  The mayor was pretty quiet about the topic until late, when he put on his concerned face and chided me, as usual.  But, as usual, he totally proved my point with his tactic.

 

Mayor Henderson:  "We have a report that someone is putting something up in the bathroom having them calling the police department if they don't like the cameras, is that a true statement?"

Shay:  "Well I know Mr. Rotta, I understand was, put up on his blog that he was putting those things up..."

Henderson:  "Tom, are you taping those things up in the bathroom telling people to call?"

Rotta:  (surprised at being allowed to talk again) Yes.

Henderson:  "I would ask you not to do that.  It is City property [correction, it's public property].  If you have permission, that's fine, but I don't believe you have permission to do that.  Any other comments?" [Yes, since his 'any other comments' was not directed at me.  He says I should have got permission to put up signs asking people to call the LPD if they thought the intrusive surveillance was wrong, but the City of Ludington should have gotten the people's permission (or not) to put up those cameras, especially the twelve hidden ones not acknowledged by signs.  Denying First Amendment rights, while infringing Fourth Amendment rights is how Mayor Henderson wants his Ludington run.] 

 

Shay:  Just one.  Mr. Rotta had made some kind of comment about there being some kind of smoke detectors that were hiding cameras in the newly renovated restroom at Stearn's Park and there is no camera system at the Stearn's Park restroom, and I probably shouldn't say that publicly, but there isn't.  (CA Wilson laughs) [These items I showed pictures of were later said to be humidity detectors for the fan, then motion-activated light activators, then a combination of both, to a gullible local media see below in its first incarnation]

 

7)  Captain Mike Harrie:  LPD Chief Mark Barnett was on vacation, leaving Capt. Harrie for council duty.  He didn't say too much during the meeting, but at the very end of John Shay saying his piece, and the City Council then adjourning, you will note on the video that I move to the right of the camera, and many of the official's attention is diverted to the right when it fades out. 

 

I had went to the Captain and invited him to go to Stearn's park with me to take a look at the "smoke detectors" near the stall area in the north bathrooms.  He didn't want to do it, I told him I believed a felony may be involved if it is indeed a camera, and that it was his duty to investigate it.  He assured me the people at the council said there was no crime involved even if the objects were cameras.  I further tried to cajole him to sayin ll we needed to do was remove the cage temporarily and have a look-see, but he was insistent on not checking it out with me to clarify my concerns, saying it was  waste of time. 

 

It became fairly obvious that he would not grant me access after a little while more, and I found it amusing that they gave the City of Ludington Daily News writer the "humidity detector" story and they took a long distance photo of it for the article above.  I checked "humidity detector", "humidity monitor", "moisture detector", etc. everywhere on the web I could, and got nothing that required multiple camera lenses or looked anything like the pervcam I took pictures of. 

[Willy]

Whenever the Council, Mayor or City Manager deals with a situation regarding Mr. Rotta their actions and decisions are always based on spite, vindictiveness, pettiness and yes revenge. Logic and the rule of law go out the window. We see the worst of human nature from these officials. Their judgement is clouded which makes their responses to Mr. Rotta seem so ridiculously and obviously biased to those of us observing the workings of Ludingtons unresponsive Government.

[XLFD]

Three things about Kaye Holman that should irk everyone: 

1)  In the 2011 election she made a big deal about how she was vote against renewing John Shay's contract that year.  Just after the election, she was harping about how much good he does for the City and how she didn't really understand all he does until after she talked with him.

2)  In the 2011 election she bragged about her accessibility to the public and said she always responds to her constituents.  When we debated on WMOM radio, I asked her why she had never responded to the letters and E-mails (30 total) of me and my proxy, she brushed us all off.

3)  In 2012, she wagged her finger at indigent people and threw out a bunch of errant numbers given to her by the City Manager, effectively chilling the waters for anyone who wants data about their untrustworthy and untransparent government. 

 

Almost every meeting she illustrates how out of touch she has become, and it's a sad tale, because she showed a lot of promise during her first years at the council.  Now, she's a poster child for every thing that is wrong with it.

[AQUAMAN]

Willy, you hit the nail on the head again for sure. As for Holman, she absolutely knows no shame nor respect for the public she pretends to serve. "Out of touch" is the understatement of the year on her mouthy outbursts that are repeated over and over at almost every meeting. I have a dog muzzle that would fit that thing if anyone wants to take one to the next meeting, lol.