Ludington City Council Meeting, January 9, 2023: Taking No Hostages

[XLFD]

The Barnett Era/Post-Miller Era began officially last night with a very modest agenda packet and a couple of changes to the routine.  As predicted, new Mayor Mark Barnett reintroduced the meeting invocation, inviting a local minister in to divinely inspire the city officials, and it might have even worked since the council would surprise those looking on by reconsidering a totally uninspiring contract at the end of the meeting.  

The other minor change came shortly thereafter, when he insisted that those addressing the council to give their full address.  The first public comment period featured three regulars; Annette Quillan led off with some minor suggestions on the 5-year Parks & Recreation Plan and Chuck Sobanski thanking the council for not allowing marijuana establishments in the city.  

Between them, I spoke about a recent 'threat' I received from a city official at an official meeting:

XLFD:  "I didn't have nothing better to do Thursday, so I decided to drop by a meeting of the charter revision omission er commission.  I have a hard time saying c--omission because late last year the local circuit court decided that because this city omission er council neglected to fix the rates of compensation for the charter revision omission and fix the costs of the revision process, as they are required to do by law before the question is put before the public.  Rather than transparently let the people know what the costs were behind their vote, as required by law, this city omission er council decided to keep those numbers secret from the voters-- which is against the law.

The scofflaw members of the charter revision omission er commission met for 7 months and I admit going to it a few times and spoke at the first two meetings, telling the omissioners that the May 3rd vote was improper and that their service on the omission was ironically in defiance of state law that allows city charters in the first place.  It wasn't their fault that this city omission er council neglected two of their statutory duties before this question came before the voters, that blame lies within those I speak in front of now.  In those seven months, no other Ludington citizen spoke to the omission, nor did the omission elicit participation from the public in any way in their illegitimate agenda.

On Thursday, the first meeting of the revision omission after the judge's ruling in my favor saying there was material error that affected the election results and telling the city attorney that its only two alternatives are to appeal the decision or hold another election, omissioner Karen Nelson offered a diatribe at the end where she indicated it was time for the City of Ludington to do what needs to be done to stop being held hostage by one person who shows no concern for the city other than to tear it down.  Her meaningful glares at me indicated she thought I was that person and her words were explicit enough.  The City should do whatever it takes, whatever needs to be done to get me to stop holding the city accountable for its actions.  

Rather than use city resources, authority, and power to threaten me and my livelihood for correcting your mistakes, why can't we just have our city leaders commit to follow the rules, follow the laws, and act more like public servants than common thugs." [END]

A very limited agenda went forth where a public hearing was set for the next meeting for an OPRA district for the Foster School property and its new owner who brought it for a song and now hopes for a whole concert.  Two contracts were approved by ordinance for document management and floor mat cleaning.  They also chose a 2023 mayor pro tem in Les Johnson, who took the occasion to rebut my comment, in a way:

Councilor Les Johnson:  "This is something I wrote up today after I read an email we received.  The city, the council, the attorneys are all accountable for our actions and I have always felt that if we have made a mistake, we need to fix it and do it right.  As a council we have to rely on a city manager and our city attorneys to lead us down the right path.  I have no problem with members of the community coming forth and telling us we made a mistake.  It should be done in a respectful way, just like they would like to be dealt with.  Mr. Rotta has demanded a written apology from a member of our charter commission for the way that person spoke to him.

We are public servants yes, but we should get the same respect a citizen expects.  How can he think it's okay for him to call us frauds and thugs and many other names he has used to describe the council.  Basically, he's saying its not okay for a public servant to stand up to him.  Who is the bully here?"

To answer the question, Karen Nielsen is and anybody among her peers that doesn't denounce what she said are bully enablers.  Here is the supposedly disrespectful email I sent out:

And thanks to Mr. Foster, I was able to listen to the recording of Ms. Nielsen where she said in a menacing tone in relevant part:  "It is time that our city does what needs to be done to stop being held hostage by one person...". 

Okay, so what do you normally need to do to stop hostage takers, a name that doesn't apply to me?  If you're a city, wouldn't you send your police force after them and use force to free the hostages and take the bad hombre into custody to face serious crimes?  That's what needs to be done according to Thugsy Nielsen, and that's why I take it as a threat, particularly after being targeted this summer by the LPD, which they continue to deny even though it's clear they did.  

If you're a public servant, and you make threats saying your powerful gang needs to stop someone from holding them accountable, then you are a thug.  If you ignore laws, you're a scofflaw.  If you commit fraud, you are a fraudster.  These are appropriate labels, they are not implied threats issued by public servants looking to use their power and authority for pest control, as if I was a deer in the Ludington Elementary school yard that needs to be culled by council edict.  Johnson doesn't understand the difference because he has the hive mentality that develops in a city councilor over three terms that insulates him from figuring out that threats to individuals from public officials are much different than individuals pointing out lawless behavior in public officials.

Johnson's unfair critique encouraged me to change my message to the council on my corkboard to a more poignant statement, I just had to turn the poster around to show what kind of a threatening city I dealt with.  It had the desired effect; two other councilors would berate me before the end of the meeting for what was the council's act of inhumanity.  I put it in front of the podium before my second comment, just in case the message was missed and said the following:

XLFD: (at 36:50)  "I'm holding right here the DNR Damage and Nuisance Control Permit pertaining to the culling of 40 deer on the Ludington Elementary School grounds in the school forest.  Weren't we all told back in October that the cull would take place in 3-4 areas in the city, this is outside the city, we're spending $60,000 to conduct deer culls for PM Township over the next 3 years. 

Speaking of our friends in PM Township, they are conducting their own deer cull this winter.  They have contracted out for up to 150 deer to be culled by off-duty deputies and state troopers in their parks on Thursday evenings, not on school grounds, and the costs will be negligible as the bait has been donated, the shooters are volunteers, and the processing costs are being covered by a private entity. 

Back to this permit, the permittee's name is left blank, that's significant because the city as the permittee does not own, lease, or otherwise exercise direct control over the property where the cull is taking place, that's a requirement.  The permit further explains that the DNR is allowing:  "Cull with firearms over bait, day or night, static or vehicle, with permission of property owners."

First, weren't we all told that the cull would take place in the dead of night?  The DNR who may have no idea that these are school grounds are allowing the cull to take place when the kids or others may be walking to or from or at school (my time ran out here, I would have finished)

Second, I have been to all meetings of the school board, and they definitely have never given permission to Ludington for baiting, killing the first grade's spirit animal during the school day, or to use vehicles.  Mitch Foster not only misled this council into believing fantasies, he is doing the same with the DNR.[END]

The sign remained for a couple of other commenters, so when the council called for a closed session (and actually got the procedure right for once), I took it with me outside chambers and it was caught on video for a moment, establishing a nagging problem for the city should it conduct the deer cull in the elementary's backyard:

The council was actually discussing a recent lawsuit I served them and the school district regarding the deer cull which I will show in another article.  In the suit, I asked for injunctive relief for several unlawful activities and the rescission of a deeply flawed contract.  The court battle would have been very interesting since the legality problems I pointed out were encased in multiple federal, state, and local laws, the contract problems illustrated a careless disregard by federal and city officials (and that's not including the subsequent problems I noticed after seeing the DNR permit).  

Thirty-two minutes later, the council reconvened and talked about the deer cull, with Councilors weighing in on the topic and what the introduction of the lawsuit added.  In the end, Winczewski would change her initial vote to have the deer cull, and with Ted May's absence, a motion to negotiate the termination of the three-year contract succeeded with a 4-2 vote (the contract entry originally passed 4-3). 

Being forced to do this didn't sit well with a couple councilors, both former teachers.  Councilor Stibitz stated her displeasure with my sign before the vote, and I can agree with its disagreeability, but I'm not the entity that put weapons on school grounds to indiscriminately kill innocent life by high-powered firearms, i.e. to commit school shootings. 

Councilor Winczewski would leave her comments until the end of the meeting at 1:41:15

"Mr. Rotta, you have done some interesting things over the last 9 years I've been on city council, but the sign you brought today was below the belt.  That was, that was despicable from the fact that, this is nothing to make fun of, Tom.  This is beyond being bad, and so you've got to realize there is a line that you don't go below.  That was below the line; please think about that before you do something else.  You have a right to make a sign to express your opinion, but remember who you're hurting, and what you're saying on that, so please remember that."  She then transitioned to one good thing.

Councilor, with all due respect, your vote was the deciding vote to put assault rifles on school grounds in reckless disregard to the children's physical and mental safety, as a teacher you should be able to understand that despicable act you did and as a city legislator how it is in violation of so many laws.  Remember who you are hurting the next time you make a vote to contract out school shootings.  You need to be thanking me for eventually bringing you to your senses, except the only reason you changed your mind was to avoid the extra cost of defending a lawsuit.  That is beyond being bad that you can't figure out on your own why your initial vote was wrong. 

[Freedom Seeker]

Another EXCELLENT outcome, X, even if it did take a "offensive" sign (I don't think so). It got attention. You are absolutely correct in saying "if that's what it takes for the Councilors to come to their senses." You really appealed to the teacher's responsibilities. And in my opinion, you are making changes for the better, if that's the sign it takes. This is newsworthy and I hope some good journalists will get on the right side!

Les Johnson, defending Karen Nielsen, "If you're a public servant, and you make threats saying your powerful gang needs to stop someone from holding them accountable, then you are a thug. If you ignore laws, you're a scofflaw. If you commit fraud, you are a fraudster. These are appropriate labels, they are not implied threats issued by public servants." (To quote your own statement ... I can't find a way to say it better right now, but I'll be thinking on it).

[XLFD]

The sign had the desired psychological effect on the councilors, much as a similar sign I brought to a committee meeting that said:  "THE LUDINGTON SCHOOL BOARD PROMOTES SCHOOL SHOOTINGS". 

They read it, they feel uncomfortable, and they want to address that the description of their action is erroneous... but there's a Catch-22 involved in formulating a response to the claim, so they inevitably go after the person putting the truth out before them rather than try to justify that they just didn't contract out for (or allow to happen for the LASD) reckless school shootings with the very weapons they established buyback programs for just a few months ago.  

For Terzano and Cain, the cull apologists it's been all about "Deer culls work, look at Dearborn" for John and "a citizen petition called for this big problem" for Wally.  Dearborn illustrates why culls don't work and a bigger petition was made against the cull, not to mention local surveys said culls were far from popular.  And if this is such a big problem this time of year, why have I not seen any deer in either of the 3 times I have walked and stalked for over an hour inside the school forest since late December? 

And why have we never seen any car-deer crash statistics or any other statistics that show deer are a bigger problem than they were a decade ago.  It's because there are much less car-deer accidents in Michigan over the last decade than the decade previous-- when nobody was calling for a deer cull.  These culls are scams and foolish cities are being caught in the crosshairs by the DNR and USDA marketing these charades by trying to grow their power and influence and discourage deer management by the public which makes a big difference.  Over 4000 confirmed kills last year in Mason County.

I appreciate your thoughts on bettering my statements; if anybody can improve the organized chaos of my pen, I think you can.

[Willy]

Excellent article X. Your sign states a correct fact. Since there is no true definition of what a "school shooting" is, one must use logic to define it. In my opinion a school shooting is anytime a firearm is discharged on school property. The fact that the Council is focusing on you and your sign instead of the fact that they are, many times, in violation of the law, shows how ignorant they can be. One only has to read Les Johnson's comments to see just how woefully ignorant these people are.

Councilor Les Johnson:  "This is something I wrote up today after I read an email we received.  The city, the council, the attorneys are all accountable for our actions and I have always felt that if we have made a mistake, we need to fix it and do it right.  As a council we have to rely on a city manager and our city attorneys to lead us down the right path."

Is Mr. Johnson claiming publicly that he and the other Councilors cannot read and interpret the laws and codes and that the City manager and city attorneys are to blame for the Councils poor behavior and bad judgement? Common sense will guide anyone who takes the time and actually reads the law. By passing the buck, Mr. Johnson is telling his voters that he does not have the ability to perform the basic functions and duties of a Councilor without being spoon fed bad information from expensive attorneys and an overpaid City Manager. I suggest that all Councilors who agree with Johnson put in their letters of resignation and let others who are more competent do the necessary work that will benefit the citizens.

As far as Councilor Winczewski is concerned she is one of those book educated people who lacks any semblance of common sense. God help this poor little town on the Lake.

Good points X on the issue of the brain dead citizens who are in cahoots with the City to approve the use of using high powered rifles on school grounds while at the same time trying to ban those rifles in the City. What a bunch of fools. And the fact that they don't seem to realize just how foolish they are acting says volumes about their intentions and character.

The motto for Ludington's City Hall should be Diversity, Inclusiveness, Equity, or DIE.

[XLFD]

Good points all, Willy.  I have found that boards, committees, councils, etc. have collective blindness at times, where the participants are so involved in being part of the group and groupthink that they can't see the school forest through the trees.  They occasionally need an electroshock to the system, like a crude sign from one of the unwashed public, to jolt them to reality-- before they hopelessly go back to the in-the-box-thinking collective in short order.

Thanks for expanding on Johnson's statement and recognizing the sad parts.  I don't expect every councilor to be a certified lawyer, though two are, but I do expect them to figure out what they can and can't do and be prepared for meetings.  What's sad is that I tell both the council and charter revision omission multiple times that they made a fatal mistake and these very learned people and ambulance-chasers just don't feel they're accountable. 

The big laugh when I heard it was when he used the word "fix"-- that's exactly what they forgot to do by the law-- fix the compensation and fix the charter revision costs.