Mayor Cox Goes Above and Beyond to Silence Criticism

[XLFD]

At the February 22, 2016 Councilor Krauch made a motion that was discussed both favorably and unfavorably but eventually passed unanimously by a city council who never touched upon the ramifications of the restrictions it would have on the public's interaction with the council or how the Michigan Open Meeting's Act seemed to prohibit it.

Council-appointed Fourth Ward Councilor Krauch (1:09:40 in) made "a motion to modify our public comment period so that we have a three minute public comment period near the beginning of our agenda where the comments will be limited to items on the agenda, and then one public comment period near the end of the agenda with public comments at that time open to any topic whatsoever.  I so move."

February 22, 2016 Ludington City Council from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

The motion only covered changing the public comment period that everyone has at every meeting of the Ludington City Council and not explicitly, or even implicitly, the length of time that people would be able to speak at public hearings within those meetings, which has been codified and implemented since 2002 to be five minutes.

But at 15:15 into the March 7, 2016 meeting, the mayor says that people at the public hearing could only speak for three minutes.  He does not say why.  I asked just afterwards as I took the podium.  "Only three minutes your honor?"  He clarified:  "yes."  I bristled but went for three minutes with my five minute prepared speech.

March 7, 2016 Ludington City Council from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

A three limit restriction at public hearings has never been stated or enforced ever before at Ludington City Council meetings.  On March 9, 2015, one year ago, Mayor Cox lays down the law for two public hearings, which includes a reminder to keep all comments within five minutes just after the 16:00 mark:

March 9, 2015 Ludington City Council from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

If we go back one year earlier on March 24, 2014, at a public hearing for some tax breaks for Brill Manufacturing, Mayor Cox specifically states we have five minutes and I take that much time to make my opinions known about corporate welfare, beginning at 9:50 in. 

March 24, 2014 Ludington City Council from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

Nor does this rule only begin with our current mayor, Mayor Henderson in his twelve years always had his public hearings allow five minutes.  Here's one from his last March in office, a March 4, 2013 where he makes it known that the speaker can only go five minutes (at 11:30 in).  I actually got some extra seconds in this West End Project hearing, going from 14:15 to 19:40. 

March 4, 2013 Ludington City Council from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

So how can our mayor decide to curb the voice of the public at these public hearings by making a new rule on the spot without getting council approval?  A simple mistake of what Krauch's new motion entailed?  Or worse, a violation of the public's free speech once again?  Now that the council has decided to follow an agenda all of its own making, isn't the public worth listening to, even when the city officials (in their infinite wisdom) don't heed it?

[Willy]

So, if I understand this, what you are saying is that the change in the amount of time citizens have to address the Council at the beginning of a Council meeting only applies to items on the Council agenda but does not apply to public hearings? If a public hearing is on the agenda then would that not be applicable to the new time limit because it is considered an agenda item. By having a public hearing at a regular scheduled Council meeting would not this be a way to avoid giving citizens their 5 minutes? Or as you stated a public hearing is a separate entity and needs to be treated as such and should be considered a meeting inside of a meeting and thus are separate from each other. If that were the case then the public hearing should take place either prior to or after the regular City Council meeting which clearly shows a lack of procedural knowledge by both the Mayor and the City Attorney. Good catch X.

[dowland]

This all coming from a guy who was never elected by the people. He is also the one who pushed for the forced unconstitutional rental inspections. He would be such a good brown shirt, back in the day. Some of his other council members call him little Napoleon. Course the other sheep give him a platform .

[AQUAMAN]

Well said guys, I think Councilor (past Attorney) Krauch has a narcissist complex, and it's being more revealed as time goes on after his suspicious and unfavorable appointment. Another fancy pants from now, Chicago, another twisted town of political people. Yup, showing his true colors, and brown shirt resembling isn't out of bounds on this guy. Needs to have an opponent in next election for sure!!!

[XLFD]

I would like to see landlord Chuck Sobanski (or someone of like mind) run for the Fourth Ward spot.  This long term Fourth Warder from Fourth Street would be a lot more likely than Krauch to actually work for the betterment of the Fourth Ward, rather than repeatedly vote for ordinances and projects that go against their interests.  The last two Fourth Ward councilors resided on Melendy Street, two blocks north of the bayou, and were not only detached geographically from the ward, but mentally therefrom. 

Krauch, the failed Illinois attorney recently transplanted here and representing another far away interest (MSU Extension), probably has no idea of the history of the place and the challenges it currently faces-- which cannot be solved by more punitive tax and fee hikes placed on them which have been going towards making other parts of the city more desirable.  

[XLFD]

Yes, Willy, the motion by Krauch was to affect the public comment section of the meetings, not the commenting period of citizens during these public hearings which are included in many meetings where they are mandated by the law.  In the meeting video supplied, the councilors including Krauch stated there would be no real reduction in the amount of time that citizens would be able to address the council in these meetings, which by implications would mean that if they really meant what they said, that they would have taken umbrage when the mayor limited the public hearing's time to only three minutes rather than the historic and otherwise codified five minutes. 

If one were to apply the meeting's comment amendment to a public hearing, they could say that the public would have three minutes to address the council, the council could talk about it and even vote on it, and then you would have two minutes to comment further before the hearing is closed.  But, once the last person comments, these public hearings, by their construction, close.  So if these councilors really mean what they said in February, one or more of them should have corrected the mayor and said the public has five minutes to address the hearing's issue. 

But none of them did because they're all public-deaf, dishonest politicians that Donald Trump keeps warning us about, and if they can do their business 40% more efficiently, without having to hear about why their vote is dead wrong and deleterious to the people they represent, it's all the better for them and their chain-bedecked consciences.

[Jasper]

Seriously XLFD?? Referencing Trump regarding the COL?? Trump incites violence, lies, promises his followers sh!t he could never accomplish as president. Trump will sell you steaks, wine, bottled water etc...which he claims he owns or once owned but guess what?? It is a lie or fabricated. Trump represents everything you have fought against with the COL. Shocking to say the least. Do you believe Trump is going to build that wall between Mexico? Have you watched any of his live rally's?? Trump is an egotistical, narcisstic, and promises sh!t he could never fulfill due to Congress. Seriously XLFD Trump is not someone you desire to reference in your cause.

[XLFD]

A reference to a candidate is not an endorsement of that candidate; Trump is just the best trumpeter of the 'don't believe what any politician tells you' rhetoric.  The irony with Trump is that he has become what he warns us about. 

The mostly-hollow populism of Trump is tempting to many, even without details, so permit me to tap into it to show a point, much like I might use Bernie Sander's observations if they have merit enough to show a different point.

[Jasper]

George Carlin said it best....garbage in garbage out..... http://www.youtube.comwatch?v=jpWrsEpWgrc&sns=em

[Jasper]

XLFD......more than positive you could find someone with far more creditability then the Donald to prove your point. Just sayin......

[Willy]

I think Trump is a perfect example along with many other conservatives. Trump has not nor does not incite violence, the goons hired by the left are the ones who are responsible. You do know that all of these demonstrations are planned. It is one of the many kinds of dirty tricks that the left initiates. The war on women, the wall street protesters, the Ferguson  riots, the Trayvon Martin fiasco, the hands up don't shoot bullsh_t, and many other anti democratic activities that are combative maneuvering orchestrated by the liberal and progressives anarchists. These are the same tactics used by socialist revolutionaries. All of these violent protests are taken out of the pages of the Communists and Nazi playbooks. How many conservatives riot or disrupt the Democrat rallies. One thing people don't understand about Trump is that he can be very persuasive regarding important issues and I dare say will help change a lot of elected officials minds about doing what's right for America.

[stump]

Just what politician actually does what he say's he's going to do. It's all BS . They all talk the same story but once they get elected the most important thing on their agenda is the smooth talk or scamming the people into money so they can run for re-election. If you listen to Cruz , he has the same agenda as Trump. The only problem with Cruz is nothing will get done as the Senate hates him as much as Obama. Trump on the other hand, if he doesn't get passed what he wants , it's YOUR FIRED!!!!!!!LOL

[Jasper]

I'm sayin' George Carlin had it right. The whole pack of 'em are nuthin' but bullshit scam artists. That is why I was surprised to see XLFD be using trump as an example, while Trump is against everything XLFD has lobbied and spent years, months, weeks, days and hours voicing his concerns in the local community. XLFD sincerely cares about the community in which we live. The Donald could give to shits less about anybody but himself. Just listen to him for five minutes and it is all about him. I frankly was mortified XLFD would even consider Trump as an example when there are far more outstanding persons both in the present and in the past to make his point. Did anybody see trump at his rally today in Ohio?