Ludington's Workplace Safety Policy Turns Two Years Old

[XLFD]

Exactly two years ago today, the City Council of Ludington unanimously passed a policy that had the following implications:

1)  Any citizen of the City (or non-citizen) could be legally kept out of public places in Ludington, by the whim of the Ludington City Manager.

2)  That such punishment could be meted out without any due process offered to those who could be given a "Letter of Trespass", for any reason the City Manager deemed sufficient.

3)  That the Ludington Police Chief had the duty by this policy to arrest for the misdemeanor of trespassing one who entered upon such public property when they had an active letter of trespass placed on them.

4)  That a Manistee contracted law firm, paid a healthy retainer by the City fo Ludington, would decide any appeals of such letters issued, and be the City's final say unless criminal proceedings were began with someone who violated the trespass letter.

Read it all here, and weep for its implications to the citizens who pay the bills for the City Council to pass such a policy as law:  Workplace Safety Policy

But like almost all of the actions of Ludington's City Council and the rest of City Hall, the policy was drafted in the cloak of secrecy, it was passed on February 28, 2011 without revelation of its contents to the public, it was invoked on a citizen the next day, who received the letter, but no context of the policy behind it, their options, their rights (or lack thereof).  If you look for the WSP on the City's website, you will not find it, but if you want to spend nearly $40 on a FOIA request (as was done), the City may let you see it.  The letter issued the next day:

The records show that several attempts were made by the one who had to wear this letter to enter the City Hall by appeals to the City Manager.  Some early attempts were permitted, later ones were denied, including a FOIA appeal to the City Council (which has developed into an intriguing lawsuit currently in MI Appeals Court), attendance as a candidate for a candidate's forum, and several letters to the City requesting relief made from a lawyer retained by the belettered for this ignominy.

The one injured by the letter never received permission to enter the City Hall to vote in November 2011, nor for permission to vote in the primaries that occurred on the one year anniversary of this heinous policy  Primary Voting Exclusion, even after the original exclusion was investigated (half-heartedly) by the county prosecutor.

In April of 2012, the City Manager (and the City Council who received this letter) decided that it was time to revoke the policy on this person:

Even after fourteen months, the City Hall decision makers maintained their support of a policy that so evidently corrupts the ideals of America, and hold that policy over any citizen who displeases any member of City government and suppresses any legitimate voices of dissent to this non-transparent public body.  It is a disgrace and anybody who runs for City office this year who does not publicly condemn the covert policy of citizen intimidation and voter suppression contained implicitly therein, should not receive your vote if you want an accountable government.

I unfortunately, will have to stay my tongue on most of the topic pending the result of a lawsuit filed in the Western Michigan District of Federal Court  Rotta v. Shay 9-11-2012 Federal Complaint, but I will relate the continued abuse of authority that the City manager of Ludington, Mr. John Shay, did this very day-- our two year anniversary in the whole fiasco.

A simple request for the West End of Ludington Project application from last year and their current application for this year:

City Manager Shay's response, received at 8:36 AM this morning:

Do you honestly think they would charge citizen/public official Tom Coleman (or anyone else for that matter) $63.25 to make unnecessary copies of records they ask to inspect that should be readily available online to the public?  Records that they should show them to make any public hearing on the project meaningful.

I asked to inspect these records and my request has been flat out denied by someone who has willfully perjured themselves in our local Circuit Court .  The City has already made clear at the last meeting that the City Manager can violate a citizen's FOIA request and get away with it, without extending them the dignity of an administrative FOIA appeal.  How insulting it is to be represented by these public officials acting overtly against the public interest by denying them records-- and the right to utilize public facilities.

[AQUAMAN]

Since Tom Coleman says he has been involved and worked on this project for years, shouldn't he himself have some important details he can share with the public? Esp. public meeting dates, places, and discussions/logs of such matters? I also find it rather indignant and just plain out condescending that Shay has opted to include the number 179th FOIA request as point of reference in his reply letter. Suggesting abuse of the FOIA act is evident? By all his conduct of recent years, I can hardly believe he can count that high, at least without an Attorney's guidance and approval....lol. Lastly, how on earth can such a new/old small project proposal have 253 pages of content? A lot of wasted paper if you ask me. Plus, if that arithmetic is correct, then if $63 is required, the first $20 credit for indigent status applies, making the adjusted cost $43, with a $21.50 deposit required for all copies to be made. Or did you finally get rich overnight X, thus disqualifying you for that status?

[XLFD]

Nah, I'm only getting poorer, but the City Council once again has decided that State and Federal law need not apply here in Ludington.  The recent change in FOIA policy this year was wording which required an affidavit of indigency to be filed every three months, one that complies to some arbitrary guidelines that are based on me being a homeowner.  WTF?  I have a sworn affidavit on file attesting my poverty (which I am under penalty of fraud if my status changes) and unlike this City Charlatan, I don't lie on sworn affidavits. 

But this FOIA denial is evident to the public at large and will eventually be righted; and as I am the eternal optimist this denial will also work in my favor, and in the favor of everyone who wants to protect Stearn's Park from the City Hall developers.  Can you imagine the MI DNR Trust Fund getting this denial of a proper FOIA request about this project along with a bunch of other documents showing that the public is being denied access into any information about what is planned?  That, to me, would show the public's input is not being fostered for this project by the people who stand to gain from this project:  City Hallers and their cadre of cronies. 

[AQUAMAN]

No doubt we are also going to need and have to endorse some more 22kt. gold signage in that area too after completion. And we ALL KNOW whom get's those contracts, good ole Tye's Signs, the new city councilman and wife Heather, that lets those particular contracts out for the entire COL.

[Lisa O'Brien]

XLFD,

I'm not understanding - because you are a home owner your not considered indigent.

[XLFD]

Instead of using the three normal, legal reasons of being indigent (either receiving assistance, having an income below 125% of the poverty level, or the ability to show that your monthly expenses for the basics leaves you effectively nothing left over) the City has adopted standards they use for homeowner poverty exemptions for property taxes. 

Problem is, part of the PE involves not only calculating your income and your assets, it doesn't take into effect the major asset you may have-- the home you own.  I don't own a home, I rent in Ludington.  Neither does the new indigent policy of the Ludington FOIA allow you to qualify if you are actually receiving public assistance, as the state law mandates.  MCL 15.234(1) clearly states:  "A public record search shall be made and a copy of a public record shall be furnished without charge for the first $20.00 of the fee for each request to an individual who is entitled to information under this act and who submits an affidavit stating that the individual is then receiving public assistance or, if not receiving public assistance, stating facts showing inability to pay the cost because of indigency." 

The few times this has been an issue with the courts, they have followed the wording of statute.  It states nothing about renewing an affidavit every three months and stating all your assets and your income for the past few years.  Therefore, they ignore my existing affidavit at their own peril, setting the City of Ludington up for many more expenses on account of Shay's and GockerManistee's hubris and arrogance and difficulty at following the law.

[Willy]

Every time I see Shay and the sh_tty council trying to charge you for public information it makes me want to put my fist thru my monitor. They are the most arrogant bunch of Constitutional shredders that have ever occupied City Hall. And as Auqaman says regarding Shays snide comment about the 179th FOIA it is extremely condescending and only shows that the City and Shay have forced a citizen to bow down and beg 179 times for the public's own information. Good points X regarding the MI DNR trust fund finding out that the City refuses to share the information with the public unless that public pays an extortion fee.

[XLFD]

Neither is that total entirely accurate, as at least 18 of those requests are duplicates, and many that he attributes to me were done by Toni or by quite a few other proxies that sent in requests for Baby Kate records this summer.  It just goes to show you how anal retentive the guy is, which probably led to his intestinal issues over the summer.  I surely won't forget to include material about how our City planners were officially caught  violating the Open Meetings Act already this year to emphasize several of the points to the Trust Fund. 

If they don't want to hold real public hearings over real concepts, I'll compensate by taking a public hearing directly to the Trust Fund decision-makers.

[XLFD]

I also want to notice that today marks another anniversary that many would like to wish never happened.  Twenty years ago today, the "James Street Fire" happened.  Mike McDonald was fire chief, Wally Taranko police chief, the fire was at 208 N. James Street. 

There were nine fatalities. All occurred in the two apartments on the second floor and all but one, the babysitter, were residents of the building. Three bodies were found in the north apartment bedroom and six were found in the south apartment living room, six of those bodies belonged to kids under the age of four.  The other three were girls the age of 6, 13, and 18.  FEMA has a full report on it. 

Whenever current LPD Lt. Bruce Pelletiere related the story, he having went in with a young firefighter John Henderson, you could always tell it was a traumatic tragedy to have had to deal with, and his heartfelt imagery and way of talking about what happened that night made one feel they were there, and empathize with what the fire and police personnel had to deal with that night, as well as what the relatives of the victims had to deal with.