Ludington City Council Meeting 9-22-2014: Councilors Fall Against Democracy

[XLFD]

 In many of the Ludington City Council recaps, I have a tendency to spend more time with the public comments and issues over what the city officials have to say, since they usually don't say anything much more than what is on the agenda.  A resolution, ordinance, proclamation, etc. is made and then it gets unanimously passed usually without any debate.  This recap of the council meeting that happened on the first day of fall, had plenty of public comments, which were all very well done by the amateur citizens presenting their views. 

 

Their comments were to be expected, against mainly a proposed amendment to the charter that would have the city manager hand pick the city clerk and treasurer with council approval, rather than those positions being publicly elected.  These comments start at 2:50 into the meeting's video below when Don Fallis speaks and continues until 25:00 in. 

 

I disagree wholeheartedly with Fallis' assessment of John Shay, but agree with the rest  of his speech about the proposed amendment and followed up with some fine oratory by his wife Jan (7:50 in).   Tom Tryon and Deb Del Zoppo then both gave brief accounts of why they were against the change.  Tanya Kavala from Whitehall then spoke about the dangers of coal tar for five minutes.  I then got my five minutes over three topics, and C. Dale Bannon made some comments about the fire ordinance that was to be voted on.

 

 

After a few items of business were taken care of (which will be further analyzed in another thread), the councilors got down to talking about the proposed amendments, particularly the one the citizens keyed in primarily to, the one changing the clerk and treasurer to appointees.  This is where four of the councilors, including the three on the committee that recommended them, made some interesting comments that contradicted the five citizens who were so worried about democratic principles earlier.  I include their full statements with some [bracketed commentary] starting at 51:50 into the meeting: 

Councilor Winczewski:  "I've had three phone calls today from the newspaper articles on the proposed amendments, and I think that's great, because we really do want public input [that's why we are choosing a Fourth Ward Councilor without any input] and we are leaving it out there for a long time so that we can get public input.  But one of the comments made tonight, I think was very eye-opening.  Ms. Del Zoppo said "there must be a reason for the suggested change", and all of the changes we are looking at... there are reasons, behind all of them.  So I hope you'll keep your minds open and look at what the reasons might be, and so please talk to your councilors and ask questions, and see."  [Perhaps, someday they will tell us exactly what the reasons are, until then, it looks as if they wish to quell democracy, avoid taking oaths of offices, avoid publishing notices and minutes when possible, and give the city manager a blank check to cover undefined 'emergencies', such as an end of the year city council party perhaps.] 

 

 

Councilor Castonia:  "Yeah I have a comment on Mr. and Mrs. Fallis' statement that the city manager is going to appoint this position.  He can only appoint it after we approve it.  [That's still undemocratic and missing the point, Gary, because you hold ultimate control over the city manager's job you can help direct his choices] He's not making the appointment and saying "and this is who it's going to be.", the city council has to approve that, if this went through.  The second item is Mr. Tryon said it was 20 years, okay it's been twenty years,and we've been very lucky in having a good clerk and treasurer, but if I had the people to support me, I could run for city clerk and I don't know a thing about that job, but I could get that position [the people are smarter than to do that] .  How would the people and the voters feel about that then [We'd still like democracy, unlike you]?  How would the city feel about that?  There's no qualifications to be... I don't even think you can put qualifications on an election.  Unless the city attorney...

 

City Attorney Wilson:  "You can with judges, they have to be lawyers but other than that I don't know what other state law allows qualifications."

 

Castonia:  "The only way I could agree with... electing a city clerk and city treasurer is if there were qualifications they had to have, otherwise anyone of us out here could run for city clerk as long as we're a city resident, and get the job and not have to know a thing about it [a problem with democracy at times, but the jobs of clerk and treasurer are not rocket science].  And we'd be in big trouble.  We're not in big trouble now because we've got qualified people.

But are we going to wait until that happens, and we go, "What was that city council thinking of?"  That's all I have. [the people will ask that question when you pick a crony clerk or treasurer that can't do the job properly; right now, you're off the hook.]

 

Councilor Holman:  "I think we've been real lucky, I have to agree with Gary.  We did have one treasurer that, thankfully, left.  Sometime, some years ago.  But we've been real lucky.  We have very knowledgeable people; it's been a learning experience for them as it has been for us, because dealing with the city is different than a smaller business, and I think they have come through admirably, but, again... would you like me to be your treasurer (cackle)?  [Many are terrified that you are our at-large councilor.]

I'm not really laughing about it, but the idea that anybody can get out there and run for it, and we have so few people that get out and vote, I'm sorry to say, you really leave it open.  But because maybe... maybe the voters won't show up, so that you're not going to get someone who is really knowledgeable.  We have just been very, very lucky, so obviously you can tell I'm in favor of changing it.  But that doesn't mean... I only have one vote, that's all I have is one vote.  That's all each of you have [except for Fourth Ward Councilor and all these ordinances we six or seven pass that take your rights and property away].

So if you decide that you do or don't want to change something, you just have to vote.  It's that simple [you are voting to get rid of your right to vote for these positions, it's that simple].  And our elections are running with less than, in some cases with less than 20% of the voting public gets out and votes [the right to vote includes the right not to vote, particularly when there is usually no choice of candidates citywide]

 

Councilor Rathsack:  "The other aspect that you can look at is if the city clerk or the city treasurer is unable to perform their duties, the only alternative we have is to have a recall vote, and that is time consuming and expensive undertaking [Let's not forget, Richard, that the clerk and treasurer have helpers that should be able to give on the job training to all but the most dense of individuals (such as Kaye and Gary, sorry)].

The City council put their final stamp on democracy at this meeting when they voted for the Fourth Ward representative (1:06:30 in) to the city council and 'motioned' Michael Krauch into office after a motion for his opponent failed.  At 1:11:00 into the video, City Attorney Wilson made a statement about the city confirming with state officials about my assertion that the fourth ward seat would still get voted on in November citing a state election member's opinion about the topic, but we will see whether that was the case, as I sent almost immediately after the meeting for any such proof via a FOIA request. 

Attorney Wilson did list a law (MCL 168.642a ) which he says proves his point that the next regular election date is in November of 2016, but this talks only of a city's regular election, and if we use the definition of 'regular election' found in that section of law (in MCL 168.3) it means:  "an election ...to elect an individual to, or nominate an individual for, elective office in the regular course of the terms of that elective office " which to my understanding is what happened in August 2014 and is going to happen in November 2014. 

It doesn't matter that the city by its council's actions changed city elections from an odd year to an even year election, we still have a regular election in November and these two candidates need to be on that ballot.  Our city charter states plainly:  "Elective officers so appointed shall serve until the next regular election", and not "Elective officers so appointed shall serve until the next city regular election".  If you read section 5.2 the intent of the charter section is clear-- the people want a democratically elected councilor, clerk, or treasurer.  The city hallers don't get it.

 

They don't want appointed yes men or cronies motioned in by councilors living outside the ward the candidate represents.  Listening to Wilson and Clerk Luskin and the four councilors, it can only be inferred that they have a problem with allowing the people to make the choice that they did that night. 

[Willy]

Those tree Councilors are demonstrating just how ignorant they are. The scenario they describe is exactly the chance people take when voting in Councilors. Were any of them qualified when they started their lives as politicians? If we use their logic, the Mayor and all of the Council positions should be chosen by the City Manager. These people are truly unworthy to represent the citizens of Ludington.  I certainly hope the current City Clerk and Treasurer are not going to sit on their hands and let this slide. There are reasons for the Clerk and Treasurer to be independent of the Council, Mayor and Manager. One of the major reason for an independent Clerk is that an appointed Clerk does not have to be a citizen of Ludington. They could be from anywhere so we could have the same situation we now have with the City Manager who was an outsider.

While Looking at the photos you posted for the topic, it struck me Castonia looks like Holman without hair.

[XLFD]

Rumor is that Councilor Holman and Castonia are actually the opposite ends of a worm that you never get to see because the bench they sit behind obscures sight of their larval body.  This is why you don't see them ever standing, and why the rest of the council between them always walk carefully around their chairs.  Let me quell those rumors, it's just not true.

I really found their arguments non-compelling, just like you did.  They stupidly and ignorantly claim that the body elective of Ludington are too stupid and ignorant themselves to pick winners, while only they, the seven city councilors with their whipping boy city manager, are smart and wise enough to do that. 

They fail to realize that they themselves got their own positions not because of some objective set of standards they attached to their resume that was fed into a database and rated against others who wanted the job to see who wins.  They are products of democracy; and whereas I agree that the people could have done a lot better in choosing this current batch of loons who sit on the council, their winning at elections makes them have a popular legitimacy that an appointee will never achieve. 

[AQUAMAN]

I've been blocked posting my entire message, so here it goes, third try. COL CC members are truly out of touch with citizens, and proved it here more than is required for such conduct! Congrats for such complaints about anti-democratic actions, per the Fallis's and several others that went to bat for democracy, like Deb D., and the rest of the people awake enough to care! 

[XLFD]

They are not only out of touch with our citizens, they are out of touch with being an American.  How can four councilors come out with effectively one message (Councilor Winczewski does not actually mouth it, but as the chairman of the committee and as her body language indicated, she agreed):  the people are too ignorant to elect good people to office, only we and our appointees are the only ones qualified to do that.  Almost all don't use the right to vote, and we are just lucky they have not chosen lemons as clerks and treasurers. 

The proof comes directly from their mouths.  How elitist and condescending they appeared that day when I had the displeasure of seeing them dis my fellow citizens and their intelligence.

[Sandy Shore]

I'm new to this site and don't know all the history here . . . .  but I sure hope Ludington residents continue to speak up.  Makes you wonder what the motive is behind this change.  Do they want a clerk and treasurer appointed so that the manager can pick his own people? 

[XLFD]

Welcome to the Ludington Torch, Sandy.  Over the last five years, we have been providing a forum for local news, events, issues and people, and we have quite a history of looking at what motivates our local politicians and other officials.  This differentiates us from other local news outlets. 

[AQUAMAN]

Thanks for joining Sandy. A look at our archive threads should tell you a lot about this site. And again, don't be afraid to ask any questions you may have. Your respectful curiosity is always welcomed. Thanks, Aqua. P.S. I noticed that before the meeting started, both Shyster and His Honor both made some comment about X being anxious. I thought that condescending and rude, and also out of order, esp. since they were eyeballing X before the meeting even began. That is not "constructive, ethical, nor positive" to the event imho, and should tell us there is "another fixed agenda" about to happen again!  Which almost did, until some real patriots came forward for citizens' rights to vote, not be dictated to. 

[XLFD]

Just a couple of more things I wanted to add to the record for this topic from this meeting from the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) and its intrepid veteran reporter, Kevin Brasiczewski.  Kevin has a long history, highlighted over the last few years by his articles in the COLDNews and the actual videos of the meetings, of ignoring or misreporting the issues I bring to the table at the council meetings. 

Doing so and calling it 'journalism' is a topic that he can find plenty of support for with the current editorial staff at the COLDNews.  Whenever he does, it should affirm the reason why I call the local rag the COLDNews, rather than it's Christian birthname, The Ludington Daily News.  That name should have been retired a while ago, before its current editors decided to serve as a sounding board and propaganda instrument for the local governments instead of serving as a watchdog for the public's interest. 

I stood up at this meeting and commented on public issues for five minutes before I was interrupted by the mayor while in the midst of expressing my reasoned opinion against the proposed charter amendments.  I had already spoke of how the appointment of the councilor would be in violation of the charter if we did not put the position up for election, and was in the midst of bringing home more points against the proposed amendment to do that for our clerk and treasurer.

But COLDNews Kevin could not even count me among the dissenters, to the left is what was put on page one, and the next clipping continues the thought.  First, he misspells Don Fallis' name, which could have been very disrespectful to the man and his wife who spoke at this meeting if he had spelled it as "Phallus", instead of "Thallus". 

But when you get to the meat of the story to the right, you find that the other dissenters are Deb Del Zoppo and Tom Tyron, without a mention of the other Tom who spoke up for the concept of democracy and how the charter demanded it for about two minutes.  Jan Fallis' impassioned speech was reduced to saying she agreed with her husband.

So according to the COLDNews and its ace reporter, there were only four people speaking out against amending the one section, and only one commenting on putting notice in the newspaper of meetings.  Yet, I was citizen number five and two respectively.  And not a peep about my comments in the Red Door/Red-Handed land purchase, even though they are totally backed by the public record.  Has Kevin and his editors reached a new plateau of journalism by ignoring not only the issues of a certain citizen, but his very existence?!   Sorry guys, the only existential crisis I see is for ethics in journalism at the COLDNews.  

[Willy]

The LDN ignores you just as the Council, Mayor and Manager do. They all have this idea that if they ignore you then you will either go away or people will think that you are irrelevant and not worthy of any attention. This tactic could be added to Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" and the credit given to The City of Ludington Government. These are the same rules that Obama, the Democrats and Progressives use to influrnce people to think as they do.

Rules for Power Tactics:

  1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
  2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
  3. Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.
  4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
  5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
  6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
  7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
  8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
  9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its  counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

14. Ignore the guy who is making sense and pointing out the corruption that exists. [newly added by yours truly]

Because Alinsky was sensitive to criticism that he wasn't ethical, he also included a set of rules for the ethics of power tactics. You can see from these why his ethics were so frequently questioned.

Rules to test whether power tactics are ethical:

  1. One's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue.
  2. The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
  3. In war the end justifies almost any means.
  4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
  5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
  6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
  7. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
  8. The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
  9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition to be unethical.
10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments.
11. Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace."

These are just the highlights.  There's obviously a lot more to it. Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky is still available in most college bookstores and on Amazon and is worth reading.

[AQUAMAN]

Very well said Willy, thanks for that insight. I think the main critical point in the Clerk and Treasurer positions is that both require a multitude of requirements. These, like any other job, would be in the job descriptions to those that qualify only. You certainly would not except, nor approve for elective office, inexperienced nor non-certified applicants. "Only applicants with those qualifications need apply". These are as follows, just as they are for ANY other position of responsibility: 1) the applicant's experience, 2) the applicant's education, 3) the applicant's credentials in that field, 4) the applicant's certifications in required class/book knowledge, 4) the applicant's ability to be insured and bonded. There may be more I haven't touched on, but as we can see, these are essential requirements for scrutiny for these high positions with a municipality. The way Shay and Wilson portray the jobs is that anyone without any significant qualifications could be elected. I say that's nothing but a gangster scare tactic. They also have stated we, the COL, have been lucky so far with the elected officials. I also say that's BS. You don't get Lucky in this world of business pursuits, you make your own luck. Both the current positions have highly qualified and certified people that can do the job well. The only lack of luck, ethics, and experience we have aboard now is the City Manager and City Attorney. The Power Grabbers that will stop at nothing to achieve a warped means to an end. That of disenfranchising the voters of the city.  

[XLFD]

Very good for you, Willy, reading up on the opposition's tactics is a good idea.  My own rules for dealing with the area's kakistocracy is simple and from Gandhi's playbook:  "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Having achieved victory through the courts three times in 2013 versus the city, the corrupt city elders and their newspaper have gone back to square one with me.  The laughter will start coming in 2015, and with any luck and providence, they will fight me and I will win big again in 2016. 

Oops, I have given the corrupt opposition my own playbook.