Ludington City Council Meeting October 27, 2014: Tricks Without Treats

[XLFD]

The agenda for the Ludington City Council's October 27 meeting was rather bare of any action, and almost immediately after the proceedings began the main action that was to be considered was taken off it. 

 

The council was to consider approving the bid for interior work to be done at the proposed maritime museum at the old coast guard station.  The mayor amended the agenda to take it off. 

 

In the memo, Shay referenced a letter from the MCHS and a generous line of credit extended to the organization from West Shore Bank's Michael Jeruzal.  After the meeting, Shay related that they took it off the agenda because they had just got the finalized contract details earlier that day and wanted the council to look over the details before making a swift judgment.  It should be taken up once again at the next meeting; you may recall the exterior work bids were rejected prior because the two bids that came in were both higher than they wanted.  So they are in no big rush.

 

The only other agenda add on was to approve the usual 5k fun run (a Turkey trot) and to discuss another one of the seven proposed charter amendments in more detail.  None of the local news agencies broadcast which of the seven they were to talk about, but the one that Councilor Rathsack did wind up talking about was pushing the annual budget and its accompanying report back one meeting.  Here is how the council packet defended the proposal:

 

 

 

This justification for the amendment should seem rather ludicrous when one can get the current rate of inflation every month via the CPI.  What really needs to be codified and put into the charter is the actual statistics and numbers the City of Ludington uses to figure out their rate of inflation adjustments.  It is not clear in the ordinances that rely on such data, and an unscrupulous official could justify different rates of inflation at the end of the year if they take the change of inflation over different periods of time, then select the one that would get the most money from the taxpayers.

About 12:30 into the accompanying sixteen minute video Rathsack goes into slightly more detail, including striking a balance between keeping the people and council the budget quickly with providing the most accurate budget, but there is little denying that back in 2011, 2012, and 2013, the city revealed their budget and their budget message into the months of December.  John Shay and his budget crew have not met the deadline established by city charter once in the last ten years. 

 

It is not due to some concept of accuracy by the same guy who has charged four different amounts for effectively the same FOIA request, it is for some other reason which can't be good for accountability and transparency.  As noted, the public had access to the budget for two days before and after Thanksgiving Day weekend at City Hall before it was approved in 2013. 

 

Even though the meeting was only sixteen minutes long, I still got my five minutes, starting a couple of minutes in.   I tackled what amounted to old topics in a rebuttal of sorts of what was said at the end of last meeting:  the necessity of the November election including the Fourth Ward seat, questions about Steckel-gate, and the City Attorney billing overcharges. 

 

Even though I was stopped before I could finish the last topic, Ludington officials decided to leave all of the topics remain unanswered and untouched during their time to react at the end of the meeting.  Sometimes you just have to "Shay it Off". 

 

 

LCC 27 October from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

First off, let me address some old business from last meeting where city officials said some things toward the end of the meeting that must be corrected.  

 

As far as the city charter goes, I cannot fathom how anyone could read section 5.2 and think that the term "regular election" as used, is equivalent to "regular city election".  The charter was crafted by our Ludington ancestors who had a respect and love for the will of the people, and  wanted elected councilors over appointed ones which is obvious when the charter is read in whole.  They would want to legitimize a city councilor as quick as they could, which would be at the next regular election when the people of Ludington get to their six wards to vote whether it be for local, county or state matters. 

 

If you follow the crafter's logic behind section 3.3 about replacing a mayor who has to vacate their office, the charter says they will be replaced by the council's mayor pro tem until the next "regular city or county election".  Yet even with these directions and the next "regular election" occurring in November, our city officials have spent the intervening time trying to justify why they shouldn't hold an election for the fourth ward position that opened up in August at this first regular election since. 

 

Not surprising that just two meetings ago, four of our councilors were arguing against democracy in their reasoning for making our clerk and treasurers go from elective to appointive positions, and that our city attorney and clerk are relying on their specious interpretations of city law solely on six year old hearsay information from a retired election official commenting on a basically unrelated issue.  The other three councilors tactfully remained silent on the issue, which signifies that they have no strong feelings otherwise.

 

Then the City Manager started a meticulously prepared speech, to go with the meticulously prepared audience that applauded it afterwards, based on the city's financial involvement with a private charity for a former city employee.  Mr. Shay said the city acted as a fiduciary agent for the private charity, just like it does for other groups so that they can receive grants, but fails to explain 1) what was the rationale for acting as fiduciary agent for the Whitman charity, 2) who gave the authority to act as fiduciary, 3) where is any agreements between the charity and the city to be the fiduciary agent for the private charity, and 4) why did the city assume debts before there was any revenues in the fund and operate in the red at times thereafter? 

 

Furthermore, if we accept the fiduciary agent argument minus any sort of proof that any such agreement existed between the City and the private parties, then why did Assistant City Manager actively lie to the donors when she said on August 15 on social media:  "All (T-shirt) sale proceeds will go to Brian and Nicole."  When the record of revenues that John Shay gave to me at the last meeting shows that the City did not give all the proceeds to the Whitmans, but kept it. 

 

So what are citizens supposed to believe: 1)  a long term city official that assumes fiduciary duties for a private charity without authorization, agreement, public knowledge, or the public interest in mind, with all the potential liabilities and costs for doing so or 2)  a city official who makes a statement on Facebook to attract potential donors and then reneges on their written word.

 

Another question to ask our officials is why was the Facebook site for this charity took down just after my revelations became public, thereby destroying evidence of City Manager Steckel's involvement with this private charity during her normal shift in city hall, and her statement about all proceeds from T-shirt sales going to the Whitman's.  This seems to be the usual M.O. for this city when they are trying to hide their tracks and hide embarassing facts. 

(Richard M. Wilson morphed with Richard M. Nixon)

One also has to ask our manager and attorney why they failed to acknowledge their complicity in overcharging the Ludington taxpayers for legal fees in every special billing record over the previous three years.  When the agreement between the city and the law firm says you can bill only $185 for special projects, why did City Attorney Richard Wilson charge $330 per hour for legal work that his law partner, and Manistee/Benzie Circuit Court candidate, George V. Saylor the third, did for the city, and why did City Manager Shay sign such..."

 [Here's where I was stopped, I conclude the prepared statement as follows:]

 

"...invoices so that our treasury would pay him at this rate?  Why would this overbilling continue for dozens of invoices over a period of at least three years, with this same cast of characters performing their parts?

Just like in the Whitman charity, it is likely because there is no oversight on the activities of our management staff and no accountability required by their fellow officials.  Of course, the city attorney does not believe there was any violation of city ethics standards in either case, and has disallowed any sort of internal investigation by the city's board of ethics.

I apologize to the council for not bringing my own cheering section.  Thank you.

[Willy]

Excellent work XLFD. I'm sure glad you're able and willing to call City officials out in regards to their behavior and ethics.

[XLFD]

Yup, even when they and the COLDNews just Shay it off.  Which winds up even better since the minutes and video will show the controversies I bring up, and show the officials reluctance to touch it, while this website will lay out the facts of the matter for anyone who wishes to pay attention.