Ludington City Council Meeting, January 27, 2025: Funding, FOIAs, and Fabian

[XLFD]

The Ludington Torch stayed in town rather than traveling to Scottville for the bimonthly meetings of their governing councils (usually held at the same time (6 PM) to thwart full media coverage), there was even a special meeting held at Hamlin Township to appoint a clerk (Sheila Genter) at the same time.  It was a busy night all over the county, but it was a night for citizens of Ludington to speak up about what mattered to them.

The first January meeting in Ludington was so vanilla in character that we didn't bother doing a recap on it, Scottville's plans to disband their police department stole the oxygen from a half hour meeting in Ludington without any public comment or controversial topics.  This time a half dozen folks criticized multiple city policies and/or actions, and other than one weak attempt to defend themselves at the end of the meeting from one claim, the overall look of the council was not good, and this may have led to them not simulcasting the meeting on Facebook.

Pastor Ryan White of Cornerstone Baptist Church would give the invocation and stay for the meeting and one has to wonder what he thought of the various controversies that the city has got itself involved in, and whether any kind of invocation that ignores such issues helps the city to act godlier in its ways.  Generic praise of city officials and departments appease the city officials gathered, but it ignores the basic reason why we have open public meetings like this.

This reporter would make the first comment and focus on the recent FOIA malpractice more deeply explained here.   I would use a file folder clearly marked in red with the words "2024 Credit Card Records" as a visual aid.    

XLFD: (6:40 in) "This council is set to recognize retiring County Administrator Fabian Knizacky for his decades of service, and that is surely warranted.  My remembrance of him would be the responses he made to about ten FOIA requests I made to the county over his tenure; he would respond, quickly, fully, politely, and he would never ask for unwarranted fees.  I contrast his behavior with that of the city's over the years. 

John Shay and his willing police chief, Mark Barnett, would commit public extortion for a decade, setting illegitimate fees for FOIA requests in order to constructively deny them.  This council would back both scoundrels when they asked for $2500 for the Baby Kate police report several years after the fact.  They claimed a senior officer would need to take 100 hours to separate out exempt material. I had to waste the local courts time to knock this down and find that in the 96 page report I received, there were no exemption separations made other than the ones that are automatically taken off by the software on the first few pages.  It was definitely an attempt at public extortion and this council was fully behind the fraud.

You still are.  In the courts right now, the city is trying to say that two of the three body cam videos of arrests I requested need over $600 in redactions by a senior officer, whereas, private security footage and a deputy's body cam of those same outdoor arrests indicate that there would be zero redactions needed.  Zero, and that aforementioned senior police officer was present at the one arrest and would know there would be zero redactions needed.

Last week, you received my latest FOIA fee appeal which came from my asking to look at the 2024 transaction records of the city's credit cards.  Three illegal charges were imposed on my request, in a just city such a response would impose three criminal charges of public extortion on the city attorney.  Allow me to describe each of the three illegal charges.  

First, I was charged for two hours of a clerk's time to retrieve these records.  I don't know how the city organizes its records, but for many households they use a file folder like this to store the monthly transaction records of one or more credit cards.  For them, retrieving such records would amount to them going over to their filing cabinet and taking out the folder.  Successful retrieval in under a minute... [END Comment, as the timer was at 2 seconds, I stopped at this point as planned aforehand]

Following my presentation, Anna Nixon, who came to the council before in 2019, when the high-water issues at the time were pronounced in her neighborhood at the corner of Rath and Melendy Streets, respectfully addressed that topic again.  She has moved since, but she asked the council to solve the issue before it happens once again in the future due to the pollution that gets into the water system.

Ray Karboske, owner of a local marina, was the start of a small procession that demanded the city to take some kind of action over the protection of riparian rights and the public trust.  Jefferson Henry, would follow discussing the issue further and offering evidence from the past and dropping some big local names (Keith Wilson and Budde Reed) who got favorable power and privilege from the state in order to construct the two public marinas in Ludington.  Legal actions are in motion with the state with these gentlemen finding a lot of existential issues as concerns the city marina's state funding.

Katie Karboske, Ray's daughter, spoke of impacts to her own family and their business due to the city and state being able to operate the public marinas without any concern about whether they profit or not.  She indicated the failure of public bodies to do what was lawful and proper has had a major effect on her own family's life and citizens in general.  She made an appeal to fairness and truth.  It was a great speech, leading me to applaud.  

The Finance Committee had multiple actions, and the council would approve a frame repair to a roll-off truck, mostly cosmetic updates of the Personnel Policy Manual, and small changes to the MERS 457 Plans for three officials that are explored in the council packet. 

More changes would be made to the city's Obsolete Property Rehabilitation Act (OPRA) guidelines "fostering equitable development".  More points would be given for projects that improved 'green' infrastructure and would offer amenities, like bike racks and other progressive ideals.  This was likely motivated by the recent changes to the zoning code, resulting in a UDO.

A late add to the agenda was to acknowledge the receipt of the FOIA appeal I sent to the council, and to extend their time to act on that appeal to the next regularly scheduled meeting in two weeks.  As I had filed the appeal late the previous week after I had got the response asking for three unlawful fees, I hadn't expected the council to decide the issue at this meeting, which is why I sent my appeal to councilors only. 

Expect the city attorney to offer ten or more pages of defending his unlawful fees and charge the city over $1000 for the document of deception.  That's a lot of money just to hide city official's unethical and unconstitutional multiple uses of the city's credit for private purposes and unauthorized public purposes.  I would explore that more in my continuation of my first comment leading off the second period of comments, emphasizing my nickname for our larcenous lawyer.  

XLFD: (1:01:00 in) "Ross Sewage certifies that it would take two hours for experienced clerks to retrieve this data.  Maybe our city clerk can tell us why it would take two hours to do what any citizen can do in under a minute at home, Ross Sewage didn't leave any hints for me.  I'll leave this folder for you (the folder is flung into the kiosk)

Second, I was charged even more clerical time in order to separate exempt material from non-exempt material in the credit card records.  The reason why this is illegal is that Ross Sewage never claimed any exemptions in the first place, in what should be totally non-exempt records.  If there's no exemptions claimed, there should be no work done in separating nothing out; that works for body cam footage too.

Lastly, I was given a fee under the section "other charges", where no explanation for the charge is given anywhere.  The state FOIA does not allow for speculative fees, fees without any basis, they need to reflect actual costs to the public body.  As such, it is repugnant to section 4 of the FOIA and is the third and final attempt at fraud and public extortion by Ross Sewage in this FOIA response.  

One has to ask the question:  "Why is the city so reluctant to allow their credit card purchases to be audited by the citizens?"  One need looks no further than this meeting's paying of the bills in council packet.  Credit card purchases paid by the general fund show a pattern: $106 to Jamesport Brewery, a couple of payments to the animal hospital for who knows what purpose since Thief Jones told us the new K9 would get nothing from the general fund, $312 to buy award plaques from Safety Decals, when a couple custom award ribbons can be made online for under a dollar.  But then a senior city official can't profit from that transaction.  You people could learn a lot from Fabian Knizacky." [pictured below, END Comment]

Katie Karboske reiterated some of her earlier points and questioned whether the council would act on the evidence and react to unlawful actions in accordance to their duties and the citizens' constitutional rights, politely thanking them for their time afterwards.  Daniel Jensen, would combine the actions taken at this meeting with the implications of the UDO passed in December and make connections as to whether they were being done in the public's interest.  

Before the council would adjourn, they ignored responding to everything said by Ms. Nixon, the Karboske's Mr. Henry, and concentrated only on my comment-- but only that part dealing with the K9 unit purchases made on the city's credit and at this very meeting, being paid by the council's approval of the consent agenda with money from the general fund.  

City Manager Aldritch: (1:08:30 in) "Chief Jones, the K9 expenses are paid by the Friends of the Ludington Police, correct?"

Thief Christopher Jones:  Yes Ma'am". 

Aldritch:  "And the funds are already in the account to pay the credit card bill that is currently receiving those charges, correct?"  (muted approval)."

This is not a winning argument.  Let's assume without loss of generality that the veterinarian charges were paid in December using the LPD's credit card, as the record shows; the city receives the LPD's card statement this month showing that charge was made with the LPD's card, and it comes to the council at this meeting in the general fund where they authorize the paying of the bills by council approval. 

Presuming the funds are already in an account funded by the FOLP, why isn't that money being used immediately for the purpose?  The city could so easily use that cash or create a debit card funded by the FOLP, so that city officials wouldn't have to effectively loan the city's general fund credit (in violation of the MI constitution) to pay vet bills with the LPD's credit card.  Then compound that later when the city council pays that bill with money in their general fund as they did at this meeting, and past meetings. 

And all that when they supposedly have enough money in their FOLP wallet to cover the expense.  Besides, lying Thief Jones told the press a different story when he wanted his dog:  "We are not expecting the funds for this [K9] unit to come from the city’s general fund."  Abusing basic accounting principles continues unabated, and city leaders are unapologetic with misusing the general fund.

Why is this so hard for city officials to understand, and why do they choose to highlight their own misunderstanding of the unlawful activity they are engaged in?  Perhaps it's because they have never understood the irreparable harm the city does to the Karboske family and many other families depending on the success of other private marinas when these officials engage in such unfair competition with these businesses and have been doing that for over a half of a century.