O Brother, Ludington City Hall, Where Art Thou Ethics?

[XLFD]

Prologue

Openly Disobeying the Open Meetings Act pt.4

 

Section 3  of the Open Meetings Act says:

(1)  All meetings of a public body shall be open to the public and shall be held in a place available to the general public. All persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting except as otherwise provided in this act.

(2) All decisions of a public body shall be made at a meeting open to the public.

Where from section 2 of the OMA:

“Public body” means any state or local legislative or governing body...

“Meeting” means the convening of a public body at which a quorum is present for the purpose of deliberating toward or rendering a decision on a public policy.

“Decision” means a determination, action, vote, or disposition upon a motion, proposal, recommendation, resolution, order, ordinance, bill, or measure on which a vote by members of a public body is required and by which a public body effectuates or formulates public policy.

It is hereby declared to be the policy of this state that the formation of public policy is public business and may not be conducted in secret. Every meeting of a public body shall be open to the public in order that citizens may exercise their democratic privilege of attending and speaking at meetings of public bodies.

 

Enter the Ludington Administrative Services:  A Timeline

July 13,2011: The Assistant City Manager Jackie Steckel informed John Shay that there may have been a collapsed pipe along Brother Street.  Steckel E-mail 7-13.jpg.  On

July 19, 2011 Rob Allard and Shay trade E-mails dealing with asking Amber Hallack of Hallack Contracting, who were working on Staffon Street, of this issue with the sewer.  E-mails 7-19 Allard-Shay.jpg

7-21: Shay introduces problem to council via E-mail, then 7-21 CC Gary Replies Twice.

7-21-2011: Hallack signs and sends out 7-21 Quote for over $90,000 plus about $5000 extra if parts are needed.

7-25-2011: City Council meets at regularly scheduled meeting; no mention of this action, nor was it touched on prior or after meetings, except as noted below.  Minutes on Demand  (search for Brother, Hallack, sewer)

7-26-2011: Shay E-mails all Councilors, Mayor asking for approval to sign contract.  City Councilor Wally Taranko (at the top) responds with his Blackberry.

7-26: By day's end, three councilors have approved, including Taranko, 7-26 Castonia, and Johnson (no record)  by phone or  E-mail.  Shay plans on signing, but doesn't.

7-27: Kaye Holman E-mails yes.  Quote-Contract  is signed by Shay (stamp) and City Clerk Luskin. a written note says all CCs but one has said OK, plus the mayor, as seen below:

7-27-2011: Last councilor says yes via E-mail, the fourth recorded to actually do so 7-27 Wanda Marrison.

9-12-2011:  Shay reports at the DLB/DDA Meeting that  Brother Street work is almost  finished.  This is the only mention of this work in any meeting minutes

10-5-2011: Invoice-from-Hallack arrives to City for just under $96,000.

10-17-2011 Allard Reports Invoice is OK

3-19-2012:  John Shay explains some of the amended budget of 2011 noted in that meeting's minutes, he mentions work on Brother and Mitchell.

The numbers as explained, do not match the $160,000 for doing the Mitchell and Brother jobs, minus the $75,000 number originally done to do Staffon, but when done in secret, who's to know?

By the way Mitchell Street's work came up in the 4-11-2011 City council meeting.  This project showed what should have been done for the Brother Street work to comply with the Open Meetings Act:

What should be incredible to understand is that the seven councilors, with over 30 years of public service as City Councilors, the two City Managers with over 30 years of public service as Village, Asst. City, and City Manager, and the Mayor with over 10 years of leading Open Meetings as Mayor of Ludington never questioned that this secret decision of how to spend nearly $100,000 was not ever talked about in a meeting opened to the public before decisions were made to spend taxpayer money.  It only begs the question of what else have these long-term administrators done in private, that should have been done before the public.

Is this the momentum you like to see, Committee for a Stronger Ludington?  Back-room deals, violations of the OMA that PTAs wouldn't make, votes made by E-mail or orally transmitted to unelected, well-experienced administrators?

Or do many of the Committee people who want John Henderson for eight more years benefit from such hidden deal-making where bids aren't required, engineering studies are overlooked, and the OMA law is broken without even a hesitant voice among the principles? 

If you like the momentum of rolling along a trail of corruption, over the wallets of the Ludington citizens, over the non-existent glass walls that should be in place so the public can look in and see what's going on, then go to your polling place on Tuesday (because John Shay allows you to) and vote for the City Proposal.  Continue getting angry at this Tom Rotta guy who points out this corrupt City Hall over and over again, and gets bad-mouthed, but never refuted.

If you want to brake the momentum, and have us go back to a less corrupt government, vote NO (if John Shay allows you to) and insure we at least have a new mayor in Ludington come 2014.

For further reading on the Ludington City Council violating the OMA, not including the Jack Byers lawsuit which was settled against the City for $250,000:

openly-disobeying-the-open 1:  Delves into the violation of the OMA by the City's Board of Ethics in 2009, and by the Letter of Trespass issued on March 1, 2011.

openly-disobeying-2:  On August 27, 2012, the Ludington city Council violated the law by going into closed session by not mentioning any lawful reason recognized by the Open Meetings Act for doing so.  They then refused to disclose the minutes of that unlawfully convened session.

openly-disobeying-3:  Showed that the City had not posted notice of special meetings, or publicly displayed the minutes thereof, for one that took place on Sept. 19, 2012.

[XLFD]

Brother Street?  Isn't that in Scottville? 

Actually, this looks like a City Hall job-- just think, how better to show that the repairs on Brother Street was an emergency done for a great cause when they can now say the water supply and sewer system worked perfectly.  This will not apply if the ladder truck gets caught in a street collapse, because of the lack of an engineering study; doh.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

It really is a transparency issue with government bidding, although I did read a paper that covered a phenomenon called the 300% mess around tax. When a job was handed to a contractor off the cuff. The so called facetious tax occurs when you rely on the contractor to do some of the leg work like architect studies and such as the person allowing the work to happen now has little control over the cost of the stuff the construction firm now gets to mess around with :) 

[AQUAMAN]

OMA laws are there for a reason, to protect the taxpayers from over-paying without fair bidding. Ask any paint signage company's in the area about the Tykoski fiasco, and you'll get a "real honest answer". The other fact that Shay knew months in advance of the possibility of back-ups and street collapses just compounds his irresponsible attitude of putting off until tomorrow, what could have been decided upon legally and ethically long ago, and why, because when it comes right down to the matter, his "last concern" is to protect and defend the "locals" first,  because they at City Hall always all protect the "tourists" first, except when it comes to Lifeguards at the Beach. The public "our view" article also said the CC couldn't meet for at least 18 hours after the emergency situation was known, do you folks really believe that lemon being fed to you on a tray? I mean really? CC members should be readily available on an emergency basis at the drop of a hat to answer, or let's be generous, how about 3 hours? If not, then how much time? How many more lame excuses for not being honest and available for the call of duty when the situation presents itself? Always seems the COL has another excuse and delay for integrity & duty, or is it just me? You decide!