Ludington City Council Meeting 9-22-2014, pt. 2: Councilors Fall Against Fair Play

[XLFD]

This is a continuation of a recap of the September 22, 2014 meeting of the Ludington City Council.  The first part, LCC Meeting 9-22-2014: Fall Against Democracy  exclusively discussed the proposed charter amendments the Building & Licenses Committee (Councilors Holman, Rathsack, and chaired by Winczewski) and John Shay came up with.  The most dramatic proposal was the change of the city clerk and treasurer into an appointed, rather than elected, office.  The public unanimously opposed it, the council unanimously backed it at this meeting.

 

But other things both trivial and important were discussed at the meeting, and the agenda was even altered at the beginning to have a few more added.  The Agenda for 9-22-2014 Meeting had the council setting its approval for the LHS pep assembly and parade activities, and two special events taking place next year, a Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Walk for September, and a 'Pure Ludington Brew Fest' to take place at the end of January in the parking lot behind the James Street Plaza.  The latter being another brainchild of Brandy Henderson trying to expand the tourist season into the worst part of winter.  I am sure it will be labeled a success, as the councilors allowed it.

 

As usual, I believe that it is unethical and anti-business if we are to use public Downtown Development Authority (DDA) funds and Convention & Visitor's Bureau (CVB) dollars (mainly funded by a "room tax" on all businesses offering shelter) to compete with the regular bars, taverns, and pubs in the area for business.  As it is, everybody pays big bucks for the event even if nobody shows up, and if people do, there's a fair chance they are drawing business away from our downtown private establishments. 

The council approved a contract with their union employees with modest increases, rejected two bids for work on the proposed maritime museum as being too high, and approved a grant application to receive more money for the aforementioned museum.  A couple of proclamations for COVE and Tendercare were tendered to acknowledge their important work for the community.

 

The two remaining topics were special enough to attract my attention, though except for C. Dale Bannon (the last public commenter), they attracted no other discussion by anyone else including the councilors who voted for both measures unanimously. 

 

The first was the proposed Fire Prevention Code, which I believe is an overreach by the area law enforcement into an area they are not especially trained in or knowledgeable of.  Even though Citizen Bannon expresses himself differently than me, we both have come to the conclusion that the new FP code will be fine if our police (and fire) officers use it in a reasonable manner.  I have, however, a lot less confidence than him that our current and future officers will do that. 

 

The second was the commencement of the sale of city property at 420 South James to the owners of the Red Door Gallery, Nathan and Amanda St. Hillaire-Grubich.  This sham of a deal for the people of Ludington was previously exposed here:   Sweetwater Sweetheart Deal.  The text of my speech follows the video, I spoke starting at the 17:30 mark, and was interrupted in the midst of my charter comments.  The finished speech as prepared is included in this transcript:

"The council is ready to embark on a course that is somewhat troubling, starting this evening. First off, the council will likely pass a fire ordinance that adopts the 2012 NFPA Fire Code which is a good thing, but it adopts an amendment that allows our area police and fire officers to call a 'recreational fire' a public nuisance if they view it as such. The fire code is rather exacting on what constitutes a dangerous situation, and it never defines 'nuisance' as a term.

English law effectively states that a public nuisance is an offense that is suffered by the whole community rather than just one individual, but it is hard to judge a 'recreational fire' as defined by NFPA as any such thing, unless it violates one or more of the objective standards therein. A recreational fire is defined where the fuel area is less than three feet wide and two feet tall, a fire that maybe your neighbor might notice in your backyard, but probably not others.

The city's amendments give police and fire officers subjective power over what you may be doing safely and otherwise legally on your property. This goes beyond the scope most people would expect of their local government, opens the city up for liability if their subjective decisions are challenged in court, and should be voted against. Instead vote for the 2012 NFPA fire code without amendment other than defining the City as the authority having jurisdiction.

The City then finalizes the process of selling the lot at 420 South James for $5000, even though the people have spent $50,000 on the property demolishing the previous building and the lot was evaluated at a cost of $45,000 back in 2003 after that demolition. Even though the city has since said that the lot has lost value since then due to the real estate market crash and other factors, it doesn't explain why the assessments of the neighboring properties have more than tripled their taxes in that time. Sweetwater Holdings LLC is getting a Sweetheart deal and it will be finalized tonight without meaningful dialog by any official to address the salient facts of the deal.

One could say this transaction may have been one of the straws that helped make Councilor Wanda Marrison resign from her station, coupled with the unbridled corruption and cronyism running rampant in these halls. This council, all living outside the ward she served, will pick her successor tonight among two candidates ready for the job. At the open meeting where these two were interviewed only the candidates, city officers, and myself showed up.

I hope that indicates to you city officers how energized the citizens of this city are for you to pick between two folks that not even the area news organizations have bothered to find out how they would legislate. Unfortunately, we know how they will likely legislate, because they are being chosen not by the people but by six electors.

And our city officials will do this appointment based on them not fully reading their charter. The charter says that: "Any vacancy of an elective office shall be filled within thirty days by appointment by majority vote of the Council." But if you continue reading in that same section: "Elective officers so appointed shall serve until the next regular election, at which time an election shall be held to fill the remaining period of the term of office."

Note the use of the term "regular election" which our city charter does not define, but in legal terms a "regular election" is a general, usual, or stated election, exactly what we are having in November this year. So you six can pick your choice tonight to serve for the October meetings, but the City Clerk better get to making sure both are going to be on our local ballots in one and a half months for the people of the Fourth Ward to do their own choosing. Otherwise, our officials will once again blatantly violate our charter.

Which brings me to the seven proposed charter amendments brought to us by our building and licenses committee and John Shay. I must quote John McEnroe, who probably said it best when he said "You can't be serious!" The preamble of our charter says: "We, the people of the City of Ludington, grateful to God for the blessings of freedom, peace, and justice, in order to secure the benefits of efficient self-government and to promote our common welfare, do ordain and establish this Charter for the government of our City, pursuant to authority granted by the Constitution and laws of the State of Michigan."

This committee believes that self-governance of we, the people includes avoiding democratic elections at all costs, avoiding newspaper publishing of council notices and minutes to reduce costs... [Here is where I was interrupted, right in the midst of talking about the proposed changes to the charter.  Contrary to what Councilor Winczewski and Mayor Cox said publicly, they apparently didn't want any more of my input as to their proposals, or they surely would have let me talk more, wouldn't they?  I conclude with what would have been the finish of my prepared speech.] ...avoiding checks and balances regarding purchases and contracts to increase the chances of cronyism and corruption for false emergencies, and avoiding allowing the public and councilors to actually look at the city budget before it is passed.

Yes, there is nothing here in these amendments that further the cause of democratic ideals, and they even want our officials to violate state law by not having many of them taking an oath of office, which our most powerful official has still not taken after 12 years as a city manager. It is hard to violate your oath of office if you never take one to begin with. The state says that all public officials and employees are to swear the oath, that is unequivocable.

 

John, how difficult is it to say: "I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of city manager according to the best of my ability." It’s not that difficult unless you don’t mean it."

A link to more salient points of the 420 South James thread will be available shortly (when the first half of this sentence turns blue).

[Willy]

It's a disgraceful display of arrogance that the "Mayor" will not allow you to finish your statement even though it is in his power to do so and will only cost the Council meeting a few short minutes of their time. I am extremely disappointed in the new members of the Council and the new Mayor for not hearing you out. It again shows the sneaky and underhanded method the Council members and Manager use to silence criticism. Conspiracy is the word that comes to mind. A conspiracy to squash criticism and a conspiracy to keep pertinent and important information from the public.

[XLFD]

Just before Councilor Winczewski said "we really do want public input", Mayor/LPD Sergeant Ryan Cox stressed how important it was to get public input and how willing our councilors were to discuss these (indecent) proposals offered before the meeting, and yet earlier he didn't want to sit one minute more to listen to my input on the proposals, which seems fairly universal among my immediate company. 

These seven proposals are all geared toward one purpose:  making our officials less accountable and our government less open to the people.  None help the city, unless you believe that our city leaders are infallible individuals, who operate solely for the public's benefit, which gets disproved almost every meeting in their actions and policies.  I cannot fathom that they are walking lockstep down this path as if any of the proposals would pass public muster.

[AQUAMAN]

Good points guys, I totally agree. If nothing else strikes the public as odd, the very point that the requirement to "take an oath of office" is being struck down sure does to me anyhow. An oath of office is simple, painless, ethical, and required by "we the people" that drew up that system of checks and balances to begin with for a city charter. The fact that one, like John Shay, refuses to do so, should come under more fire by the public imho. I mean, really? He gets to pass on that one? For 10 years now? How come? Not that he would change his ways and become ethical, but, he just might be more liable for his crony actions, or would he? The fact that if this is not to be voted on until 2016 also strikes me as very odd. Wth is this doing on an agenda now, in 2014, if that's the case. Have they nothing that needs more attention right now for the agenda? I think the charter is probably just fine the way it is now. I don't see ANY amendments that look needed, nor are positive! The need and push to keep amending it, without just cause, without better checks and balances, just the opposite, should send an important message to all voters. The council and mayor are over-reaching their elected authority, to gain even more power, and to keep voters out of their business. I say shame on them, even our new Mayor Cox, shameful. These hypocrites tell the public they want their input, and when it's given, they turn a deaf ear on it. The usual "fixed agenda of Ludington politics" is still alive, thriving, getting bigger, and not being fair to their public taxpayers. Recalls is what I recommend on the short horizon, recalls of any and every official that would force this down our throats. If we want to amend some charter rules, you can start with an elected City Manager, not an appointed crony that came here from Detroit, and filled his pockets with over $1MIllion in salaries, and treats locals that pay him like dirt! He's the dunderhead that needs replacement, first on the agenda! He's the one filling others' heads with lies, denials, changes to keep voters out of the process, and suspect contracts for the city. P.S. Very nice looking firepit, is it John Shay's?  And wasn't another amendment that he alone NOT be required to live in the city limits? Where is he going to move to? A mansion on Lakeshore Dr.? 

[XLFD]

 I've been taking a look at the Ludington City Charter lately, and plan on figuring out and revealing seven potential 'alternate' amendments that are more geared to what a citizen would find desirable in the oppressive climate that you have mentioned a little about in your reply. 

I invite any of our readers to look at and review the charter (Part 1 of the link, not Part 2, which is the City's code of ordinances), and submit to me via a message or otherwise as to what they might like seeing changed, and why.  Through proper changes, you could get rid of a city manager unaccountable to the people, for instance, and give more power to the elected mayor as many successful cities do.