Ludington City Council Meeting April 28, 2014: Love and Bullets

[XLFD]

At the April 28, 2014 Ludington City Council meeting, the following issues were deliberated and decided upon without issue:

1) Fireworks permit for Jaycee's Freedom Festival

2) Water Safety Day (May 31) approval

3) Ordinances to approve of contracts between the City and Larsen's Landscaping (for three years of fertilization of city grounds), and a two year contract with the county for assessment roll supervision

4) Resolution passed to authorize fire protection for about a dozen people living in PM and Hamlin Twp. who are better served by LFD protection.

5) Ordinance to adopt flood management provisions of the state

None of these were controversial.  The one controversial issue on the agenda at the meeting that night was whether to approve a resolution for the Love Wines, LLC liquor license, to be used at 219 South James Street by that LLC's proprietor, Jana Brockwell. 

 

Ms. Brockwell did herself no favors in this endeavor by publicly questioning the rationale of Police Chief Barnett, a public officer, publicly attacking a member of the public at one of these public meetings.  She did this with a letter appearing in the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) editorials page, and the Mason County Press.  This writer, however, appreciated her refreshingly bold objectivity. 

 

At the meeting (18:00 into the video below), Councilor Castonia brought forth the issue which mentioned she was to open a small winery at 219 S. James.  She made a case for herself in the public comment (2:40 in).  The committee when it met had split on the issue (Councilor Castonia for, Councilor Winczewski against, one absent). 

 

Councilor Rathsack wanted to table it due to the lack of a recommendation.  Councilor Marrison raised a question as to what the concern was.  Councilor Winczewski mentioned there was 'previous police contact' that made her vote against endorsing it.  She and Councilor Rathsack voted against it this night, but the other four present councilors passed it.

 

Knowing personally the vindictiveness Chief Barnett has shown in the past towards me and others, I would not be surprised if the chief decided to overstate any sort of 'police contact' Ms. Brockwell or her company has had in the past, and whether that made a big impression on Councilor Winczewski, who has publicly stated an impression of Chief Barnett that is opposite of mine.  One thing I do know is that Councilor Castonia, a former police officer himself, thought her past police contacts weren't significant enough to disqualify the permit. 

 

Love Wines has their permit, and I encourage all that enjoy wine and are old enough, to go taste some of her wares when she gets situated in her building-- which is next door to the old Pisczek's Paint and Glass, whose roof collapsed this winter.  She may have some roof repairs herself in the near future.

 

Love was not lost on the speaker that came after her (4:25 into the meeting), myself.  I fell 15 seconds short of five minutes, due primarily to Sergeant Mayor Cox announcing that the City had flubbed up on my FOIA Request and failed to get me some meeting rules made in February 2002, during Mayor John Henderson's second month at the job.  I find it very unsurprising that he would do so, John Henderson was never big on listening to others. 

 

In my speech's transcript, I include the last paragraph I decided to omit, since the Mayor had fairly noted that the City was at fault for the 'misunderstanding' I voiced last meeting.  Followed by the ending comments of Councilor Castonia and Chief Barnett responding to my comments (followed by a brief analysis).  Not answering any of the questions, or correcting the problems, but responding, nonetheless.

 

April 28, 2014 Ludington City Council from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

 

 

 

This Wednesday will mark the 225th anniversary of Constitution Day, where George Washington took an oath before his countrymen with his hand on a Bible to faithfully execute the duties of the office of the Presidency and to preserve, protect, and defend the newly drafted Constitution of the United States, followed by similar oaths made by members of the other branches of our government at the time.  When Michigan adopted its own original Constitution, our state's founders simililarly  set forth powerfully and plainly the nature of freedom and liberty, the purpose of civil government, the limits of civil government, the need for character in public office, and the accountability before God that every elected official has for their actions in office. 

It is not surprising that our City government has chosen to ignore the 225th anniversary of one of the most important dates in this constitutional republic, because they have often chosen to ignore not only those constitutions, but their own charter at times.  We can lead these meetings with a solemn invocation for divine wisdom and a heartfelt pledge of allegiance to the flag, but if what follows has no hint of those ideals, we have failed. 

Our City Manager has been on the job for over ten years and has yet to swear to an oath of office, and file it with the City Clerk.  Our City Attorneys, who are granted powers and duties by our city and state, refuse to swear an oath of office and file it.  The public officers appointed to our Planning Commissions and Downtown Development Authority likewise have not taken and filed oaths of office, even though state law directly says that they must.  When a public official believes that one law does not apply to them, then they can surely justify that other laws do not apply to them also.  This leads to corruption and tyranny.

Which brings me back to the Ludington Police reserves issue.  After numerous attempts to get any information about the reservists, I finally was allowed to see the recent rosters of people on the Ludington police force.  Note that I have been disallowed to see any job descriptions, rules, regulations, mandatory training, filed oaths of office, or any other public record of these officers who carry a gun, wear the uniform and badge of our city's police, and help enforce the laws of this territory. 

 

At the top of this most recent roster, which is less than a year old, there is listed 'Ryan Cox' as a sergeant of the Ludington reserves.  According to this roster, Ryan joined the force in 2012, and rose quickly to the sergeant position in Chief Barnett's reserve officer force, which consisted of 12 reserve officers.  This force is under no legislative or executive authority other than Chief Barnett, nor has he released those records making specious claims that may be challenged at the next level.  This was not a promotion done by seniority; four non-officers of the reserves have less experience than Mayor Cox on the reserve team. 

 

One can ask:  How did Mayor Cox rise so quickly in Chief Barnett's police force?  But you will get no answers, they have made that clear with their FOIA denials.  As I have stated four months ago, and will continue reiterating until it is corrected:  Mayor Ryan Cox and Reserve Officer Sergeant Ryan Cox serve on incompatible offices by law.  Furthermore, the Reserve Officer program of Ludington must be accountable and transparent to the people that they allegedly serve, and have rules and standards set by this city council. 

If we are to allow these reserve officers to dress, arm themselves, and wield the authority of actual trained and licensed police officers, is not our City of Ludington condoning the impersonation of police officers by these twelve officers, including the mayor?  Is this city council ready to allow the public's confidence in their police force to erode by allowing untrained, unscreened, unaccountable citizens to utilize authority they do not legally have?  Or will they just sit by and clap while the police chief degrades those who ask the tough questions?

 

As a citizen, I can only consider them a liability, not an asset.  If one of them abuses their authority with police brutality or unlawful arrests, is Chief Barnett going to finance their legal costs?   I don't think so.

 

[At the last meeting, I stated that the City did not have any rules or regulations for speaking at these meetings, basing my belief on a response to a FOIA request which showed there was none.  Since that time, I received an amended response showing that Mayor John Henderson helped pass the five minute public comment rule during his second month in office.  I would appreciate the City responding more accurately to my requests in the future, as this is at least the third time I have received incomplete and/or inaccurate record sets that I have requested, and the two other times were costly to both of us.]

 

Councilor Gary Castonia (27:25 in):  "Your honor, I have one thing.  To make a statement that I'm a veteran of the United States Army.  I served my country and defended the Constitution of the United States of America.  That gave you right, Mr. Rotta, to your freedom of speech.  Your welcome."

 

Councilor Holman, who turned around in her chair during the whole time of my public comment (to which I thank her; the back of her is more appealing), punctuated it with a "Well put!"  I always appreciate those who serve, but it seems odd that Councilor Castonia has to go back to his military service, which was conservatively about 50 years ago, to say that he defended the Constitution then.  He served as a Ludington police officer for his career, and has served on the city council for over eight years, and has about five more in front of him if the election-year-changing ordinance passes next week.  Has he not been defending, preserving, and protecting the Constitution during that time? 

Quick answer:  No.  The committee he chaired was responsible for making and passing the workplace safety policy, which can be used, even now, to violate three amendments of that Constitution, including the free speech he says he defended five decades ago.  What have you done for the Constitution lately, besides trampling it under your feet, Councilor, as you take more of your constituents rights and property from them?

 

LPD Chief Mark Barnett:  "Against my better judgment, I will make just a couple comments.  Because I think it's important for people to know.  Mr. Rotta has made a couple of comments relative to the rogue nature of the Ludington Reserve unit, and just a couple pieces of information.  Each of the Ludington Police Reserves... those that have been registered and qualified with a firearm, are allowed to carry a firearm while in uniform as a Ludington Police Reserve, under the auspices of the Michigan Concealed Pistol.  Not by virtue that they are Ludington Police Reserve Officers. 

They do take an oath, but they are not sworn or entrusted with any police authority.  Their authority is derived from the uniformed police officer they work with.  Therefore, they have no legal right to make an arrest independent of another officer.  They are under supervision of, and work under the authority of the officer they are partnered with.  So I think those are important pieces of information that have not been forthcoming from Mr. Rotta's comments.  People need to know that."

 

I do need to thank the chief for giving the public more information, something he has been resistant to do for four months.  People need to know why Chief Barnett was not willing to put out any of this information before this.  I think it's important for people to know that none of these statements he made can be verified, because the Chief and the City operating together has made sure that you cannot see records of this rogue unit, as the Chief put it.   

People need to know the citizens and this city will be best served if the reserve officers are made legitimate by the council, that they would be as transparent and accountable as the general police department must be.   But neither former cop/councilor or police chief want to do this.  Ryan Cox wants to continue to ignore his own incompatibility to serve as reserve police sergeant and as mayor.  The big question is: why?

[XLFD]

Your perception is wrong, Johnny.  If Jeff Fiers would have done the same thing, his decision would also be questioned by me. 

When you are a public servant, like a sheriff, you need to be accountable to what the law says rather than what your own opinion is, and/or what the opinion of your undersheriff is.  The woman was forced to go through a court process for a decision which the Supreme Court has said is between her and her doctor, and has held that even for incarcerated women. 

Whereas there is nothing wrong with the sheriff talking to her about it and injecting his opinion, there is something wrong when his decision makes her have to go through the court process, which is inherently difficult and time-consuming to do while incarcerated, to do something that is an inherent right and must be done timely. 

[Willy]

The taxpayers should not have to pay for an incarcerated woman's abortion. The Sheriff had no business counseling the woman and should have kept his nose out of it. I am glad the baby found a home instead of being killed and I hope the mother will straighten out her life. I score this Baby 10 - Abortion clinic 0.

I am a strict believer in the separation of the church and state but have no clue as to how this would apply to the Sheriff if he is representing the department in this issue. There's no question that he could do this on his own time and out of uniform but there are questions in my opinion regarding his on duty behavior regarding this incident.  http://www.shorelinemedia.net/ludington_daily_news/news/local/artic...                      

[XLFD]

I agree that the taxpayers should not have to pay for her abortion, however, in Michigan they really have no choice (see this article).  Michigan, unlike Louisiana in that article has no strict law against it, and thereby falls (more than likely) under the previous Supreme Court rulings late in the last millennium. 

The Court has held that “[t]he States are not free, under the guise of protecting maternal health or potential life, to intimidate women into continuing pregnancies."  We only have Kim's side of the story, but some people might look at Sheriff' Cole's actions as intimidatory. 

[Willy]

He may be on call but his off time is his to do with what he pleases, as it should be. I have no problem with prayer day and I think it's a good thing especially for kids as long as the parents approve. It's the Government involvement in it that I have a problem with because as history has shown over the years one religious sect always wants to dominate and direct the beliefs and actions of others and when it involves a governing entity the personal freedoms of those that do not hold the same beliefs will be compromised. A lot of people think this Country was founded on religion when in fact it was founded "for" religious freedom. The freedom to practice religion without interference from a governing authority and the drafters of the Constitution knew that so part the Constitution was enacted with that in mind.

[Willy]

I thought that youtube clip was going to be about "Kill Bill" when I first saw the building at the beginning of the video.