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.

[Jane]

Oh, come on, why should they have to have a special meeting just to get bids on a project when a company is about a block away doing practically the same project. Why should things be bid when it is nearly 100,000 dollars, and a different company might have to hook there trucks to there trailers and haul their equipment over an unload it and then put it back on the trailer when done, that is just so much work that its just better to have the one already there just do the job, I mean it takes a whole ten minutes to hook a trailer up and take a dozer off and put it back on at the end, that might mean the cost would be tens of thousands of dollars more than the ones whose equipment is already off the trailers!

[XLFD]

No need for a special meeting when you had a meeting fall four days after the quote was made, and Shay's E-mail asking for acceptance at noon the day after that meeting.  Two possible rationales for conducting it this way:  to avoid competitive bidding process for this project (which goes against charter for such projects) and to avoid an engineering study. 

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

That's what open bidding determines. I have seen a company across the street from a job cost double one from another county. The industrial clean up company I worked for, often did out of state jobs, because we bid cheaper than local help.

[Sean]

XLFD, i hardly ever agree with anything you says, especially when it comes to City discussion, but this in some ways I do. I do feel that they shouldn't be having spending discussions via email for projects. Those discussions should be made at city council meeting so the city residents can’t hear the problems that are going on.  With how old our pipes are I feel that there are going to be a lot of project such as this in the near future and people should be aware of it.  Also, I would have liked to have seen a discussion about going out and getting other bids for the job.  Yes, it is convenient to have a company down the road do this job as well, but they also could be jacking up their price knowing that it would be more convenient to the city. 

[XLFD]

Thanks for keeping an 'Open' mind, Sean. 

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

Yeah what Sean said...

[Willy]

I can understand not obtaining bids if there is an emergency, however on a project this size they could have and should have called several other contractors to determine if the problem really existed and to what extent repairs would have been needed. Other companies could have given quick estimates as well. I wonder what other contractors think of Ludingtons methods of doing business? They probably think there's no reason to deal with the City because of the sweetheart deals with contractors the City favors. Taking the word of a single contractor on an expensive job like this is bad business. Add that to the fact that this was all done in secrecy shows taxpayers just how arrogant some of these people are. They think they have no obligation to inform the public, the same public that elected them, of what they are doing. And when someone points this out to them and they lash out and demonize that person. Ludington needs a change in leadership not an extension of it. Another fine job of reporting information regarding the public's interest X.

[XLFD]

Look forward to some more demonizing, since I have retained an attorney to pursue the prosecution of this violation. 

[Lisa O'Brien]

The county saved money by not obtaining an engineering package and sending it out to bid. Engineering packages cost huge dollars and create miles of paperwork. I just  purchased a changeable message sign (with custom graphics) for the company I subcontract for, the sign roughly cost $14,000.00, I contacted the engineering company to do up a package $22,000.00 The engineering package cost more than the sign. I have $36,000.00 into this and still need the installation quote. By the time this goes through it's going to probably run $50,000

So if they fixed the problem for $90,000 the county got one heck of a deal.

[XLFD]

I think you were swindled in your situation, Lisa, but...Saving a few dollars by neglecting to spend a few thousand on engineering costs may sound good, but could lead to costly repairs in the future.  They may have cut those costs previously, making Brother Street needful of repairs nearing $100,000.  When doing civil projects like this, an engineering study is a necessity, and the City code of Ludington says an engineer must be utilized, and since the cost is expected to be over $10,000, the competitive sealed bids are also needed.  Your private business, may not require such.

But the main dig (no pun intended) against the City is the process they used to OK this project, which is totally independent from the protocols they need to fix the sewer and street.  Deciding to spend $100,000 on this project without any vote in an open meeting, when laws maintain that you must, shows that this City Hall has no intentions of following the law if they don't feel like it.

[Willy]

Lisa

They got the repair work done by a contractor without an engineering report so obviously it was not required.  Why not have several contractors give the same type of estimate as the initial contractor. If I were a contractor I sure would have liked a chance to do that work. Who knows, the City could have save thousands. But now how will we ever know.

[Marty Redman]

X, I think you better have a good alibi, since water supply and Brother Street has been your recent issue, LOL.  I seen this on my facebook page a couple of minutes ago linked to your favorite paper.

Firefighters respond to fire on Brother St.
LDN Staff -

Friday, January 25, 2013

Ludington and Pere Marquette Township firefighters have responded to and are fighting a structure fire at 714 Brother St. in Ludington.  The homeowner and her two sons got out of the home safely.