Ludington City Hall Stands Mute on City Attorney Blunder

[XLFD]

Seventeen days ago on Thursday, after an afternoon of being detained for nearly three hours in a deposition that effectively was part of the Ludington City's reaction to my FOIA request of September 7, 2011 (a request which was followed by a denial in the FOIA Coordinator's response and where an administrative appeal to the City Council happened where they spent exactly zero minutes in the deliberation of the FOIA appeal), I found the following addressed to me on my E-mail.  Mind you, I spent $150 to start an appeal in the Circuit Court over the non-issuance of public records that were denied us (me and fellow Torcher, Toni/Eve Alone) in violation of our rights to view them.

 

From: Richard M. Wilson Jr a href="mailto:[e-mail]" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">[e-mail]>
To: 'Tom Rotta' <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:40 PM
Subject: RE: APPEAL of ridiculous, unlawful fees charged for FOIA request

BTW, George says Ms. Swiger apparently didn’t show up for her dep this morning.  He’s not back yet, so I presume Rotta did appear and is still being grilled.  George’s last words on leaving this morning was that he wanted to make someone cry before the day was over! 

 

[Detailed more in George Deposey.]

 

By the end of the next day, we had took matters into our own hands, by doing three actions: 1) amending our prior 2012 1-19 Motion to Quash.doc with the 2012 1-26 Amended M2Q.doc 

2) amending our Dick Merlin Wilson interrogatory 2012 01-27 Amended Interrog RMW.doc

3) and began a letter to the principles of Ludington City Government to get their reaction to these two City Attorneys of Ludington from Manistee harassing two Ludington citizens, and wasting the taxpayer's money to do so.  This was finalized and approved by both parties late Sunday night.

 

From: Tom Rotta a href="mailto:[e-mail]" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">[e-mail]>
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>; "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>; "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>; "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>; "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>; "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>; "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>; "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>; John <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 1:42 AM
Subject: Fw: APPEAL of ridiculous, unlawful fees charged for FOIA request

After being in a small closed room in the Olmstead Building with Manistee-based Ludington City Attorney George Saylor for 161 minutes without a break, giving a deposition over the City's frivolous counterclaim for a FOIA appeal the majority of you should have handled legitimately back in September, I returned home and found the following piece of trash apparently misdirected to my E-mail inbox from another of our Manistee-based Ludington City Attorneys, Richard Wilson (the last one sent). 

 

We would appreciate any sort of public reaction to such deplorable behavior on behalf of your two attorneys, whose goals seem not to be in the City of Ludington's interest, unless that interest happens to be to make a pitifully poor Ludington woman who asserts her rights to see information by the FOIA sit in a small room getting grilled for three hours, being intimidated to the point of tears.  If we don't hear any sincere sort of public condemnation or sanction over such behavior we will seek further remedies. 

 

We estimate the amount of taxpayer money the City has used used to prepare the FOIA case up to this point is at least over $5000, just in legal fees sent to Manistee.  All that to block the flow of information that the City has a duty to provide when properly petitioned.  Do you care?

 

Tom Rotta

Toni Swiger

The Ludington Torch  for further info:  http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/g

------------------------------------------------------

 

Seventeen days with zero responses from any of the nine City officials elected to look after the welfare of all Ludington citizens.  No public apology or admittance of wrongdoing by any City official, including the attorneys whose only purpose seems to be to get more of your money while they up their 'special projects' income (at $185/hr.) in this exercise to try and intimidate two of those citizens into giving up their right to see (and everyone's right to see) the business dealings between current City Councilor Nick Tykoski and the City of Ludington (and the DDA that he is a member of and whose love interest is the chairman). 

They have a meeting tomorrow night; I can't be there without being arrested for trespassing at an Open Meeting, but I would appreciate someone bringing the subject up.  Anybody up for belling the cat? 

[AQUAMAN]

You can still email or drop off a letter to Deb Luskin, the minutes keeper of the meeting, to be read aloud during the public comment section. I would also ask why you should not be able to attend these open meetings, esp. if Heather isn't going to be in attendance on that date. Your 3rd ward councilor, Les Johnson, also has an obligation to the constituents to do so if you decide to contact him yourself.

[Willy]

Isn't there a part of the City Council meeting where they are obligated to read letters out loud that were  sent to them as per the senders request so that the letter can be entered into the public record? I see Aquaman has the same Idea. I just noticed when I posted this. 

[AQUAMAN]

Quite legally right and on cue Willy, it's the beginning of the meeting, the first 5 minutes or so, and unless the letter is full of vulgarity, or something of a nature that is unlawful, it MUST be READ to the council. Of course as we have seen since Shay is in the midst, not everything legal nor rightful is allowed, cause he says so. I would ask the letter writer to include the fact that, "since there is a trespass letter issued to me, not allowing my attendance in person, I do herewith respectfully request in my absence, that this letter be read aloud into the minutes of the meeting for the council and public's attention and actions".

[XLFD]

If the City Council believes it is legal and correct to ban someone from City Hall for providing a link to publicly-accessible assessor's records in the City of Ludington website, then you can believe they won't read something that shows the City wishes to violate their duties under the Freedom of Information Act in denying the public their records.

And if City Councilor at large Kaye Holman can get on the airwaves and proudly boast that she gets back to all of the constituents that contact her, and then has pointed out to her that Toni and I had contacted her 30 times in total with no reply at all from her, and can then rationalize that we don't deserve replies, then they can easily get by with not reading letters from us. 

That's why I would like some brave soul to ask about this, because I can't and I will not make Toni have to deal with these rascals any more than she has to.  Plus, she reads poorly.

[XLFD]

I had sent a letter to be expressly read at the City Council meeting on September 26 where this FOIA appeal was supposed to take place.  I had even got an E-mail from City Clerk Debbie Luskin saying that it would be read into the minutes and part of the permanent record of the meeting.  But it wasn't.  None of my previous written appeals to the City Council have ever made the public sphere, unless you want to pay top dollar to the FOIA Coordinator to see them yourself.  The City Hallers have decided to change the rules, and all because of little old me trying to get some information.  Here's her letter:

 

Tom,

This letter was provided in each of the council packets on Friday and distributed to each of the Council members as well as the media. Because it was provided and was part of the Agenda, a copy of which can be found out on the City’s website, it will become part of the permanent minutes. I spoke with the City Manager, John Shay, and asked why you were not able to attend the City Council meeting this evening. He stated that if you were to send him an email asking to attend this meeting he would allow you to attend. I believe that the information which you present and which will be addressed at Council this evening warrants your appearance at the public comment section of this meeting. I will make reference to this email at the meeting but will explain that each of the council members as well as the media were provided with this information and as such a reading will not be necessary as they will have already read it. Again, if you wish to attend the meeting to read your letter during public comment please make the necessary request to John Shay at [e-mail].

Please let me know if you have further questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Debbie Luskin

 

I had sent Shay a request the prior Monday to do just that, and read this Luskin E-mail, which was sent on the 26th, after the meeting.  My letter wasn't read, the contents weren't put into the meeting minutes, and the council abandoned their duty to judge the FOIA appeal, necessitating this Circuit Court action.  As has been demonstrated over and over again, City Hall has little honor, even the always-friendly Ms. Luskin.  Here was the content of the letter: 

 

Honorable Councilors,

In early September, the following Freedom of Information request was made to John Shay, the City's FOIA Coordinator: "All bids, contracts, agreements, receipts, and invoices since January 1, 2008- September 6, 2011 between the City of Ludington (including all public bodies within that entity, such as the DLB, the MMB, et.al.) and either Tye's Signs, Tye's Inc., or Nick Tykoski (the individual)."

He replied: "Your FOIA request below is similar to FOIA requests dated October 18, 2010, November 15, 2010, November 29, 2010 and January 24, 2011 that the City of Ludington received from Tom Rotta and/or you. Therefore, please refer to the City’s responses to those previous FOIA requests, as your current FOIA request is considered a multiple or duplicative request for essentially the same information in an effort to evade the cost reimbursement of the City’s FOIA Policy."

My original requests on the first three dates that FOIAC Shay's first response alluded to was to inspect: "the competitive bids for the DDA’s signage project that was eventually awarded to Tye Signs (Tye’s Inc.)this year. I would like to see a list of the other sign companies that were contacted or the actual correspondence sent to them for bids on the project. Also, I would like to inspect any document/file that explains how Tye Signs (Tye’s Inc.) and Fisher Fence were contracted for the dog park, including the competitive bidding process."

Not only was I quoted different fees for this request each time, this was misrepresented in the public record, and likely to you, as reported in the LDN the day after my appeal was denied by your agency.

Ms. Swiger had a request that differed from mine on 1-24-2011, she requested to inspect: "1) any documents that contains all the "contractors invited to bid" on the signage project. If this is contained on only one document, that is sufficient. 2) the letter(s), or general template, the City had sent out to each Signage contractor invited to bid. 3) any replies from those Signage contractors to the City's bid requests from those invited to bid."

To this the FOIAC, replied that it would cost her $2.75 for making 11 copies to inspect at $.25 each. She had, at the time, an Affidavit of Indigency filed with the City that allows her a $20 deposit on all FOIA determinations.

But I really wanted to see these records, and when we purchased them at the illegal fee of $2.75, it confirmed that DLB/DDA Officer Nick Tykoski, affianced to DLB/DDA Chair Heather Venzke, had indeed performed $15,000 of signage work before any competitive bids were sent out, and had his own bid already prepared before any were faxed to other companies. The competition had less than a week to respond to a rather complex request, one that Tye's had already did at least $15,000 of base work already. Not to mention he was part of the subcommittee that decided how to make the signs. But let's ignore all that for the nonce.

Ms. Swiger's request on 9-7-2011, does not in any way duplicate her 1-24-2011 request contrary to John Shay's assertion. For all three parts of her FOIA request, there is no record from Tye's Signs called for. Tye's was not invited to bid, did not have any letter sent to them to bid, and did not reply to the bid request-- the rigged system by which he got the signage contract saw to that.

You will note that my original requests were somewhat duplicative of her 1-24-11 request, except that I asked for a public record that showed how the Dog Park Contracts were handled. The fencing for that project alone cost the City over $10,000 (of money 'donated' from the DPC) and deserved competitive bids, according to City Charter. Again, there is no overlap between this and Ms Swiger's 9-7-2011 Request, which I reiterate: "All bids, contracts, agreements, receipts, and invoices since January 1, 2008- September 6, 2011 between the City of Ludington (including all public bodies within that entity, such as the DLB, the MMB, et.al.) and either Tye's Signs, Tye's Inc., or Nick Tykoski (the individual)."

The FOIAC has four options for any request by State law (MCL 15.235(2))and by City FOIA policy (section 6). He did not: 1) grant the request (i.e. no info was given, or any means to get it was offered). 2) deny the request 3) grant part of the request and deny part of the request or 4) try to extend the responding time. He decided to use a 5th option, to use his discretion for this FOIA request to "take other action that the FOIA deems reasonable" to borrow the language from the recent reworking of the City's FOIA policy (sec. 3). This 'reasonable' action he decided on, was not one of the options that is statutorily defined.

Whereas the State and City has mandated only four options, the City FOIAC has decided on other options, which defy and go against State Law, to bypass a legal response to a FOIA Request on someone who is running for a position of public trust this fall-- Nick Tykoski.

I know I want to be serving the public alongside someone whose public service is not motivated on personal profits, and whose business dealings are beyond reproach. Let us not further cloud Mr. Tykoski's reputation by unlawfully withholding the records that were requested on 9-7-2011. 

[Willy]

The City Clerk has it all wrong. The reason for the reading of a letter is for the public to hear the information not the Councilors. This group of rulers actions boarders on tyranny and who knows what they are capable of doing. That Wanda sure was / is full of crap. Not a peep from her after she gets on here and tries to make like she gives a damn. Sorry but I won't be in town all week. I hope someone can stand up for you.

[XLFD]

You're right, Willy.  When I read your post, I re-read her E-mail and it says that as long as the media and the councilors have it in their packets, they don't have to read it publicly.  Therefore, I am effectively prohibited from making a public statement even in absentia, as per Clerk Luskin, because of the letter of trespass. 

On the good side of things, we're getting the legal side of fighting this LOT underway, and when it starts making some progress, I probably will become a little bolder as far as going to City Hall is concerned.  But the plea is still there for anybody else who wishes to test their boldness, and you don't even have to agree with me, to call the City leaders on it:  Why is the City wasting thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight a proper FOIA request and their duties to provide adequate responses?