More Covert Cameras in Ludington Sneaked In

[XLFD]

On November 8, 2016, Ludington City Manager John Shay sent a memo to the mayor and councilors advising them that a directed $40,000 contribution had been given to the city, this was then put in the Nov. 14 LCC Packet on November 11. 

Early on the 14th, the Mason County Press said effectively the same thing in an article about the generous municipal donation derived from the memo (MCP Nov. 14):

"City Manager John Shay said, in a pre-city council meeting memo, that the new security system will replace the malfunctioning equipment that provides video images of public areas including City Hall, Ludington Police Department, Waterfront Park, Municipal Marina, and Stearns Park."

The meeting took place and the police chief introduced the topic.  As seen in the video, nothing substantive was added beyond what was said in the memo that was divulged.  The next day the local paper, the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) said (COLDNews Nov 15) :  

"At the meeting (LPD Chief Mark Barnett) said the money will go toward buying a new security camera system to replace malfunctioning equipment that provides video images of public areas in city hall, the police department, Waterfront Park, the Ludington Municipal Marina and Stearns Park."

The official memo, the councilor packet, the MCP and COLDNews articles all claim that the money will go towards replacing older, malfunctioning cameras at city hall, the LPD, the municipal marina, and both Waterfront and Stearn's Parks.  This was my level of understanding until I found this article several days later, but created on Monday for UpNorthLive, WGTU/WPBN's website, which is reprinted in full.  There has been nothing I noticed in local media about the topic.

LUDINGTON, Mi (WPBN/WGTU) — A plan to install a police surveillance camera at a busy intersection is causing some concerns with Ludington residents.

Some see the camera as a deterrent of sorts.

Others see it as an invasion of privacy – even in a public place.

The City of Ludington has had a network of cameras in place for years, covering Stearns Park, the City Marina, and other public areas.

The video is monitored at the police department.

The equipment is old, damaged by two lightning strikes, and needs to be replaced.

While replacing the old equipment, the city also wants to add a camera at the corner of James Street and Ludington Avenue.

People who live and work in the city have a variety of opinions.

“If it is a deterrent,” says Garth Lemere, owner of AGS on Ludington Ave. “Maybe for someone who’s going to vandalize property or breaking in to something, hopefully that will keep that type of activity from the downtown area or anywhere, actually.”

“I believe that it will deter theft and give all the other businesses a little peace of mind, too,” says Natalie Barrette, owner of Cedar Chest Consignment Shop.

“I walk, I live in town so I do walk a lot of places,” says Carol McKendrick who works at Snyder’s Shoes. “And I know of a lot of people that do walk through the town and do walk around to places and it’s safer. People do like to hang out and have a good time in town. And obviously they know walking home there are a lot of ladies that do hang out in groups. That is just a safer walk for them.”

There is concern by some about the cameras and the real or perceived invasion of privacy that comes with them.

“Ultimately would I want to see a camera on every corner, probably not,” says Lemere. “Even as an individual that’s not doing something wrong, you’re going to feel like wow I can’t turn around without being scrutinized for something.”

“I think the common good of preventing or being a deterrent outweighs privacy,” says Benjamin Jensen at 108 Threads. “I mean, you’re in a public space, expect to be recorded or seen. If you don’t want to be seen, stay home, I guess is what I think.”

Some folks, who hadn’t heard about plans for the new camera, really had to think about how they feel about it, sometimes changing their minds mid-sentence – from thinking it’s a great idea, to wondering if it’s opening to door to more cameras, and more questions about personal privacy in the future.

The new equipment is part of a $40,000 gift to the city from the former owners of Whitehall Industries.

http://upnorthlive.com/news/local/ludington-plans-new-cameras-downtown

The Facebook post for this article had the following comments:

Shar On, the answer is 'yes', Ludington is the same city that had police cameras hidden in their air vents in the bathrooms right over the stalls.  They also had inconsistent stories about whether these worked back in 2013 or not, where the city manager tried to sell edited footage of the previous weekend from a camera that the police chief said hadn't worked for years.

Yes, this is symptomatic of what ails Ludington.  The city councilors, the local media, and the public are told some donated money would be used to replace older cameras at public parks, buildings and the city marina.  Yet, a TV reporter somehow finagles the news that a camera is being put in a new location, a street corner, without any city official telling us why it serves a public purpose there, and interviews several people in the downtown.  It is, of course, news to them. 

Chances are, they got the news not from the Ludington City Hall, but from the Traverse City MDOT Center, which is in control of anything like a camera being put in the state's trunkline right-of-way, as this camera will be.  WPBN/WGTU operates out of Traverse City, and probably got the news directly from John Shay's MDOT friend, Richard Liptak (we've detailed both their parts in competitive bidding shenanigans, a massive competitive bid failure and bending the rules for curb cuts) who manages that facility.     

As can be seen in the comments inside the article and on Facebook, this is a controversial placement of a camera due to privacy and security concerns colliding.   But when you realize there is no city-owned land in that block, you begin to wonder what's up.  In fact, the only city-owned property within three blocks of this camera are parking lots, which can't be seen from the corner of James and Ludington. 

Why are they pursuing this placement?  Is Ludington wanting to enforce traffic through cameras?  Why aren't they asking the public before they even attempt to get approval from the MDOT?  Why must we once again depend on a news agency three counties away for information on what our leaders are trying to do?  

[AQUAMAN]

Yup, Big City Ideas are alive and well in tiny ole Ludington. The Big City guys like Shay and Barnett spearheading their kind of security for our residents again is unethical and violates basic liberties. I haven't ever see them mention even one instance where the spy cameras resolved any crimes either, so, another waste of money that could have helped the infrastructure elsewhere.

[Willy]

Why that corner? Why not on the corner near Shay's house? I for one do not like all this spying on citizens. That's what it  is, "spying". Also why do the citizens of Ludington have to hear about it from an out of town source. I agree Aquaman, Ludington is a little burg compared to most of the State's Cities. Just how much crime has been reported at James st. and Ludington Ave. that would cause officials to consider putting a camera there? Wasted money, wasted time and another chip off our privacy rights.

[XLFD]

A media personality on Facebook wondered what John Shay had to say about this, and I'm not sure what he meant about it.  It's clear John Shay contacted the MDOT about putting a camera at the corner before the last council meeting, yet he and Barnett failed to tell us about that, leaving it out of the councilor packet even in their memos and comments at the meeting.  So what he said about this, when it mattered, was nothing.  Sometimes what an official doesn't say is more instructive as to their character than what he does say.

[shinblind]

Why would the city replace the Polaris Ranger ATV that "has been breaking down frequently" with another Ranger when there are many other ATV manufactures to choose from?

Seems that if I bought a vehicle that frequently needed repairs that when I could afford to replace it I would explore other brands. 

Maybe a Ranger isn't best suited to meet the City's requirements?  Have they explored other options? 

[XLFD]

That's a good question, shinblind.  Hopefully, some more answers will come to light when I find out more about this donation.  The decision to purchase another Ranger seems to have been made without any sort of decision being made at the committee level, so credit Chief Barnett and/or John Shay for deciding to reward Polaris for having given them an undependable vehicle in the past.

Perhaps Dan Quinn, who doesn't feature the Polaris brand on his website and talked to the two after the last meeting will convince them of a better model.

[AQUAMAN]

What's the price on that Ranger type vehicle? If it's over $10K, shouldn't the COL, per the charter, get competitive bids on it first? And what's the cost to get the old one repaired over the winter months, how old is it anyhow? If it's less than 5 years old, seems like repairs are a better usage of funds than replacement to me.

[XLFD]

I originally got the above check for my FOIA request to the city for correspondence between the city and the Rahangdales pertaining to this contribution, along with an acknowledgment letter from John Shay to them (attached below) which thanks them saying that the money will be used for a ranger vehicle and the camera security system. 

I looked at the check and said to myself "Hmm, something is missing on this check; the memo line, the signature, along with the bank routing, serial, and account number."  None of these are exempt from FOIA requests (the Rahangdale's address could have been exempted, but it technically wasn't on the check, just a PO box), so I sent back my concern, which was great because they had said that the request had been fully granted. 

I have found throughout my experiences that when a public body as suspect as the City of Ludington goes out of their way in leaving something out of a FOIA request, it's generally because there was something they are trying to hide.

[XLFD]

The day after my concern was raised (Tuesday, Nov. 22), the City's FOIA Coordinator Carlos Alvarado sent me the revised check with the additional comments:  "Please be advised that the redacted information, checking account number, was deemed personal information not subject to disclosure.  Further, please be advised that while the City of Ludington does not claim the redacted information regarding the routing number as being not subject to disclosure, the document on the City records, copy of the original, has that redaction from the time the copy was made for filing."

Fair enough, however, the document, which happens to be the treasurer's copy of the check, seems to indicate that the donation will be used for security cameras and two beach patrol vehicles.  While this may have been the treasurer's interpretation of the check's memo, which appears to say "2 beach vehicle", there has been no indication that the City is planning on purchasing two in all of their releases and statements.

This thing surely remains mysterious.  With all the worthy causes these folks could donate to, local and otherwise, why would they decide to direct a donation the way they did to security cameras and beach vehicles?  And all without any fanfare.  I bet there's something extra hidden here, whether it be a quid pro quo or some other type of payoff.

[AQUAMAN]

These donation folks live in Rochester Michigan and don't think to donate where they live first before some town they tourist in now? Rochester is also a part of Detroit too. And those Ranger vehicles start at about $13,000 and go to $24,000 each for new ones. Here's a picture of the 2017 model that starts at $24K before options. Yes, the donation earmarked for this purpose is certainly strange and mysterious to say the least. There has to be another story yet behind all this we don't know of, and may never will if we depend on Shay and Barnett to tell the public.

[Anon]

Are you sure the check says "2" vehicles?  It appears to be something scribbled over something else.  The written info on the check appears to spell "vehicle", which is singular. 

Is the city obligated to follow the donor's specific wishes such as if the donor specifies the money must be used to purchase a Ranger?

[XLFD]

I noted that they left off the plural in their memo, however, the city-generated page that went with it wrote it out as 2 security vehicles, so whoever made that perceived it as a '2', while I think it may have been meant as an ampersand (&). 

One has to imagine some sort of oral contract was arranged as per the directed purchase, since any written agreement would have been part of the FOIA response.  If so, the donor may have some recourse if the COL didn't use the money as per the agreement.  The absence of written documentation in such a sizable donation also seems a bit 'mysterious' to me.

[Anon]

Thank you for your reply.

Sometimes the biggest mysteries of all are those where there is really is nothing else to the story.