Ludington City Council Meeting March 5, 2018: The Wrong 'Len's

[XLFD]

The leprechauns messed with the video of the March 5th, 2018 meeting of the Ludington City Council to make it look as if you were wearing St. Patrick's Day shamrock lenses.  Commencing only one week after the previous regular meeting of the council, there was not a lot on the docket for this evening.  After the usual preliminaries were taken care of, I approached the podium as the first member of the public to comment transcribed below.

March 5, 2018 Ludington City Council meeting from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

XLFD (2:35 into the video):  "In my comment I will raise a point about an incident that happened during the course of the last meeting, and suggest that the city attorney mull over the point before the next meeting and issue an opinion, unless he feels comfortable doing that tonight with what I offer up. The minutes you will approve of tonight goes over what happened, starting with "The Downtown Ludington Board is requesting City Council to approve the fireworks permit for the New Years Eve celebration."

All councilors were present, so they likely remember the discussions that took place following, including a motion to table the vote until further discussion with the DLB which failed, and a vote that approved the fireworks after consultations with the police and fire chiefs. At this point I would suggest a subtle amendment to the minutes where it says: "Motion carried to not table the motion to decide on the fireworks permit" and instead word it more accurately as "Motion failed to table the motion to decide on the fireworks permit."

But beyond that, a legal issue arises in that the DLB made a request to the council to approve their events and their fireworks permit. The DLB is well represented on the council with Councilors Henderson, Lenich and Johnson all serving as voting members of the DLB. When officials serve on more than one board they have to be wary of whether their actions may violate the incompatible offices act.

“Incompatible offices” means public offices held by a public official which, when the official is performing the duties of any of the public offices held by the official, results in any of the following with respect to those offices held: the subordination of 1 public office to another, the supervision of 1 public office by another or a breach of duty of public office.

Councilors Henderson, Lenich, and Johnson took part in the discussion and voting on approving or disapproving issues brought forth from their other public office of the DLB where they deliberated and decided on sending these issues up to their other office for approval as DLB members. For the votes held at the last council meeting, the three councilors mentioned appear to be engaged in a supervisory role in relation to the DLB, of which any perceived loyalty to that group may have led to a breach of duty in their elected office.

The law for incompatible offices allows a person to serve as city councilors and DDA board members, but legal precedent and attorney general opinions indicate that an incompatibility can result when one office has to decide upon a matter affecting the other office. In Macomb v. Murphy, it was said, "the purpose of the incompatible offices act is to preclude any suggestion that a public official is acting out of self-interest or for hidden motives because of a conflict between his two offices... [Mayor Holman alerted me that my 3 minutes were up].

Like the cameraman, I had made a mistake this night that was somewhat related to his problem, see whether you notice it, like Councilor Johnson did later.  Be advised if you weren't aware that the Downtown Ludington Board serves as the Ludington DDA.  This was one night where I needed the second comment to finish my point.  Immediately following me was a plea by regular attendee Tom Tyron to consider the duty imposed on homeowners (especially on Ludington Avenue) of having yard signs littering their property's right-of-way at most times during the summer.  This was in reference to yet one more request this meeting of an event wanting to put signs up along the streets of Ludington.  

This would get a sympathetic response by several members of the council and the mayor later on when they considered and then unanimously permitted the signage.  They seemed willing to perhaps consider the issue at the committee level in the future, but I highly doubt this will amount to anything with consideration to the property owner, as the City claims to 'own' the right-of-way, when they don't.  Can you ever envision the council with their current makeup passing something which would give property owners more rights?  

At about 8:00 in, the two annual reports from the senior center and then Cartier Park Campground were given.  The people managing both, Vicki and Russ, gave their reports and responded to questions from the councilors over the next 17 minutes (about half of the meeting).  

Committee action was minimal, with the financial report and a change order for the Water Treatment Plant was all that was presented (see the council packet to review those).  After a discussion of the Moms 2 Moms signage, the public comments were once again opened, and I finished my previous statements.

XLFD (35:55 in):  "I continue with Macomb v. Murphy quote:  "This purpose is served by finding a breach of duty when an issue arises in which one constituency's interests may conflict with the interests of a separate constituency represented by the official. By preventing such situations, the public is assured that its officials do not suffer from divided loyalties."

A councilor who serves on the DLB should properly abstain in this body from the deliberation and decision making process when the direct benefactor of that decision is the DLB, as it was at the last meeting. If this ethical consideration was followed, and everybody else voted the same way they did, here's what the results of last week's vote would have been. The listed events would have been approved by a 4-0 vote. No change.

The motion to table the fireworks issue would have been tied at 2-2, without the mayor present to split a tie, the motion would have failed, as it did anyway. However, the same vote to approve the fireworks would have also deadlocked at 2-2 and would thus have failed rather than pass 4-3 as it did with the DLB councilors. Thus, if there is a reenactment planned to remedy what should have happened at the last meeting, the results could very well change. As noted, before the next meeting I would like the city's official opinion about whether these three councilors acted properly and lawfully in conducting deliberations and making decisions benefitting their secondary office in the DLB.

I would also like to hear their thoughts on how the DLB marketed last year's Cops & Robbers run and why the money never went to the Shop with a Cop program. Thank you."

Shortly after I sat down, Councilor Les Johnson, noticed the mistake I had made.  Have you figured it out?  City Councilor Lenius is not on the DLB, I confused his name with DLB member Mike Lenich.  Thus, as noted by Les, my vote count was off, meaning that the votes were not substantially changed.  It's always mortifying when I make such a goofy mistake, but I appreciate that Councilor Johnson somewhat-tactfully pointed it out to me.  You'll notice that just after the council is shortly adjourned after that correction, before the camera fades away, I go up and apologize for getting the names wrong to Councilor Lenich Lenius, and lingered to talk with the city clerk about the small error in the minutes about the tabling motion.  

However, even though the cameraman and myself used the wrong lenses and Lenius' for the meeting and are contrite about our silly errors, the city council never noticed their own errors that were brought up or tried to correct or explain them.  To whit, my notice of an error in the minutes, however minor it was over the motion actually made, may now have that error go down in Ludington history because the council approved the minutes immediately after comment without the change.  

And while Councilor Johnson offered to correct my mistake in regards to Lenius, he (nor Councilor Henderson) never made an effort to correct what was their ethical mistake in approving DDA projects and events at the council meeting.  Nor did they attempt to answer the serious defrauding the DLB/DDA has been rightly accused of for advertising an event as a fundraiser for a charity, and then using the proceeds for their own greedy purposes.  For those reasons, I must grant my even greater apologies to Councilor Lenius for lumping him with such an unethical group of villains.

[XLFD]

I gave Attorney Wilson a two week period to answer the legality and ethics of having those members cross-vote, so he could research the issue and provide his opinion.  I'll look for it in the next agenda packet unless he sends it directly to me, and share it.  If no opinion is offered by him or any other official, I'll press the issue further.  If it's a poorly crafted opinion without legal backing, I'll probably do the same.

For some odd reason, city hallers seem to believe that Heather Tykoski's admission of using the C&R funds fraudulently without using the term 'fraud' in her admission, is sufficient in getting the issue put in the rear view.  Unfortunately, we have no officials with any intestinal fortitude to do what's right.

[Brad]

I was obscured by what happened with the DDA/DLB voting and most everyone else probably would be too.(obviously council and city lawyer was too)  With your transparency I see the conflict of interest and agree that they should abstain from voting on DDA/DLB issues. 

Part of this confusion might come the 2 names for the DDA.  Downtown Development Authority seems to be the official name.  Though the "AUTHORITY" part might not go over well with businesses.  Downtown Ludington Board sounds more democratic, to businesses and the uninformed.  This must confuse council and city lawyer too.

Hope you keep on this X.  Thanks for the insight.

[AQUAMAN]

That green lens is really hard on the eyes, makes everything almost dark. Seems like the 39 signs for Mom 2 Moms is quite overblown to me, and in 6 blocks? And Krauch actually made it to two mtgs. in a row, new record for him of recent. But he still hasn't addressed concerns by locals about Copeyan Park yet either. was expecting some sort of rebuttal by CA Wilson too, but he stayed mute for now.

[XLFD]

Brad, it's somewhat confusing to everyone, but what it amounts to is that DDA's are legal entities, and often cities with just one will call it the 'Smalltown DDA' to avoid the confusion of calling it another name like the DSB (Downtown Smalltown Board).  In Ludington's case, I think they chose to take the confusion route to confuse the majority of the populace that pays none or only scant attention to local politics.

Here's something of note, in the December 2017 DDA meeting minutes it has the following:  

In Heather Tykoski's notes she suggests there was attacks on the DDA staff at the previous meeting where I was discussing the DDA making a stated donation to the Walk of Trees on the financial report.  Reviewing exactly what was said by myself at the Nov. 27, 2017 LCC meeting, I cannot locate an attack on the DDA staff rather than the process.  Had she referred to previous meetings for the 'attacks' I can only recall one (9-11-2017) where I voiced concerns about Doppel Dock party purchases at a bar where a contracted worker (Jen Tooman) for the city used a city credit card to make a sizable charge several months after the event, with the additional red flag that she had worked at this bar over a long period of time. 

As usual, our city leaders brushed the bizarre and unethical conduct off without explanation of why it wasn't in violation of multiple city policies.  Why should they when they can call it a personal attack in their cozy little meetings?

[stump]

As I see it if you raise your hand just above your head and move it quickly backward that's how the council listens to XLFD. Legal comments just are just not their forte.

[AQUAMAN]

Well, after all these 9 years of city council mtgs., I think Les boy should give a little slack to X for a very minor mistake. And, he doesn't explain his own conflict of interest and Brandy's as one of the DDA members voting last week. Instead of picking needles out of a haystack, Les boy can improve his own merits of office, and study the important issues council members should be attending to. He himself has a lot to improve imho. But I guess getting that little inconsequential jab in at the end is more his speed.

[XLFD]

The council is not so animated to offer such gestures, but whenever I look up at many of these last meetings and look over at Councilor Henderson during the time when I am talking about the DDA, she appears as if she is sorely in need of an antacid.  The City is getting better on being transparent, I will admit that, but their recent attempts to foster communications is falling flat so far, and Brandy's silence over the many DDA controversies speaks in a much higher volume than any attempt to deflect it. 

In observance of the International Brotherhood of Universal Women's Suffraging Day (or whatever it's called), I offer the above gif that shows what the women councilors often feel like doing whenever I or other citizens speak about an issue that doesn't involve being totally obsequious to city leaders. 

[Willy]

Scottville has the Clown Band while Ludington has the Clown Council.

[AQUAMAN]

Har har har Willy, that's funny, but all so true, lol.