OMA-HA-HA: Officials, COLDNews Rationalize Bad Behavior

[XLFD]

COUNCIL TALK

Let us review what was said at the recent Ludington City Council meeting, what was given to the local press, and what the local press had to say about it all, and have a good laugh.  As usual, I bracket my commentary.  At the 25:10 mark we take up the conversation about the City's recently settled lawsuit among the City's officials:

City Manager John Shay:  As you are aware, Tom Rotta filed a lawsuit against the City, alleging the City violating the Open Meetings Act [OMA], with respect to a road repair that took place back in July 2011 [The repair took place in late August, early September, the problem was noted in mid July], back in that summer a portion of the sanitary sewer main collapsed [this 'collapse' was not part of the record, it was noted the street was settling then that the pipes were pulling apart allowing for roots and sand to come in] on Brother Street, it resulted in the street settling, and in order to prevent the backup of raw sewage into resident's homes [first mention that invokes this image] the potential collapse of the street itself [first mention of this potential danger], I took action to enter into a contract with Hallack Contracting to repair the sewer, and the street, because Hallack and its crews were only a block away, reconstructing North Staffon Street [They were also able to avoid an engineering study and competitive bids].  They were able to respond quickly to this emergency.

Mr. Rotta filed the lawsuit, alleging that the City violated the Open Meetings Act, by not having the City Council enter into approval of the contract with Hallack, and the City and Mr. Rotta's attorney have negotiated a stipulated judgment in which the City does acknowledge it "technically" violated the Open Meetings Act ['technically' is a word never found in the judgment, 'in violation of' two subsections of the OMA is]  by not having the council take an affirmative vote to enter into approval of the contract with Hallack to repair the sewer [or deliberate the spending of what amounts to 2% of the City's expenses of 2011].  The way I look at this , we are acknowledging that the City "technically" [technically v(adv) 1. "According to the facts or exact meaning"-- OK]  violated the Open Meetings Act, at least in my eyes it doesn't change the fact that the council would have unanimously approved [even Shay thinks the Ludington City Council is a bunch of mindless robots, OMA-HA-HA.] entering into a contract with Hallack to perform this emergency work [a month and a half elapsing between it being noticed and it being worked on, with three scheduled council meetings therein, is not an emergency].

And the City took the action it did upon what the City felt was an emergency to prevent the backup of raw sewage into resident's homes [the second time this image is invoked], and/or the possible collapse of the street [the second time this possibility is invoked].  As part of the stipulated judgment, the Open Meetings Act requires the City to pay Mr. Rotta's attorney fees and court filing costs which total $4650.  And that's part of the stipulated judgment.  I am recommending that the City Council approve the proposed stipulated judgment, and I will say again, the council, I believe would have unanimously approved entering into that contract [complete with no engineering study or competitive sealed bids], the Council unanimously approved paying Hallack after the work was done [great, they are not deadbeats with the taxpayer's money], I believe that the City prevented a situation where sewage backing up into people's homes [third time], which would have cost the City additional funds, not to mention the huge inconvenience that causes residents, and we were able to repair the road as quickly as possible to prevent it from collapsing [third time that].

So, my personal opinion is that I feel that there is "technical violation" [operative word is 'violations'], I just think that there would be better ways that this could have been handled rather than by a lawsuit costing the taxpayers $4650 [if you feel strongly about that, pay off the money yourself; you get reimbursed over $140,000 in wages and benefits per year]

Notwithstanding that, I am recommending that the City Council approve the proposed stipulated judgment.in the Thomas Rotta v. the City of Ludington Open Meetings Act lawsuit

(motion, second, discussion)

Councilor Kaye Holman:  Is it my turn?  OK.  On top of all the rest of the money we wasted in the frivolous [frivolous (adj) "1.Not having any serious purpose or value"; I seriously disagree] actions of Mr. Rotta, I use the term loosely [which term?!], we have now spent $4650 of the City's money, of the City's money, to take care of this[i.e. sweep under the rug as best we could]  and I just think that that's ridiculous [I agree].  That's all I've got to say; it's ridiculous [So is saying: "no objections here. Please do ASAP" in an E-mail back to Shay and the other councilors.  Councilor Holman's E-mail actually was the one that uncovered this scheme in the first place.  Thanks, Kaye, for exposing this web of violators.]

Councilor Gary Castonia:  I have a question for Mr. Shay.  Did Mr. Rotta ever contact you to discuss this and find out if this happened, or a way to settle this [Read the news release to find out, Gary]?

Shay:  No he never contacts me ---about really anything except for FOIAs [he sounds so sad; even without contacting members of City Hall (except for FOIA requests) I got a letter of trespass put on me, and a character assassinating write-up in the paper.  That kind of intimidation stifles two way communication, not that it would have done any good in this case, the way he candy-coats the crime.]

Holman:  (Loud sigh)

Castonia:  So the only person who made any money out of this is his attorney, and cost the City 4600 bucks.  [$4650, not to mention City Hall's own unmentioned legal costs, which are decidedly even bigger, so let's not forget that our City Law Firm and Risk Management Attorneys also prospered at the taxpayer's expense.]

Shay or Henderson (off camera):  Correct.

Castonia:  "I have a dream" too [...of billyclubbing a fur seal.  I am proud that Gary didn't cry this time that things didn't go his way, OMA-HA-HA].

Mayor John Henderson:  Alright, hopefully you can save that for another time.[... for pillow talk, OMA-HA-HA]

Holman:  That was a good one Gary [the two most senior councilors who violated the OMA are oh, so contrite about it, aren't they?].

Henderson:  Any other comments?  I think it is important to note, and we do have a press release that will follow. and will hand it out at the end of this council meeting, depending on the vote.  But I think it is very important to understand that the City at no time tries to get around FOIA [oops], simply this, Open Meetings Act, excuse me Open Meetings Act [when a City Attorney is consulted for most FOIA requests, you are trying to get around them, and the reason for subcommittees is to get around the requirements of OMA] .  And that this arise, came from an E-mail that was just an informational E-mail asking about the repair instead of stating that we were going to repair [the E-mail on 7-21 was just informational, but the follow up did lead to decisions being made, and votes counted].

Which has, one could draw the conclusion that we were asking instead of telling [at first], so instead of wasting probably another $15,000 to get a 50-50 judgment [unlikely that], we find it in the best interests, the council finds it in the best interest, to just end this thing and move on ['move on' is code word for "forget that it ever happened"].  The repairs when this came up at the next council meeting [note: according to the minutes of the meetings, it did not come up until 8 months later], there wasn't a councilor who stated anything of any, what the action was taken the bid, who we used, any of that [and that's really too bad; they should], and so I think it should be duly noted that this is purely a technicality [a technicality that is contrary to law] that I think, agreeing with the City manager, that it is in the best interest of the City to just move on from this thing.  We won't, we will, obviously we don't try to make these mistakes, we just need to be careful in how we are communicating  and how the communication's could be perceived by others [i.e. clamp down on FOIA requesters].  So with that, any other comments?

Holman:  This does not reflect in any way on the way John takes care of his job [then what does?].

Henderson:  No, John was truly, in this case trying to inform the council of an emergency situation with the sewage, and unfortunately some of you, some of you haven't found out yet, hopefully many residents don't find this out, those residents who get sewage backups [fourth mention of this imagery], it is not a pleasant experience, whatsoever.  And unfortunately, some of our residents experience that occasionally even though we try the hardest to keep the sewers running and we need to take any action possible to make sure we don't have any of these backups occur into our resident's homes or their businesses [fifth time]. They are critical and they are very time sensitive.  If not, there are a few residents who will enlighten you on how they felt when they had their basement full of sewage and those types of things [sixth time]. So with that, any other comments. With that there was a motion to settle...

(unanimous vote)

They mention the prospect of sewage backing up into people's homes six times, something that did not occur at any point (except for one homeowner on Brother whose lateral line was clogged), and bring up inflections of the word "technical" about as often.  But not once are the words "we're sorry", "we knowingly violated the act", or "we take full responsiblity for this breach of the public trust" or anything related to that uttered.  The press release is as bad.

PRESS RELEASE

Much of what City Manager Shay said was here, this only adds a couple of points and infers that my "preference to pursue litigation" has accomplished nothing except using taxpayer dollars to pay his attorney and court fees.  John Shay, the City's taxpayers did not violate the OMA, you and your fellow City Hallers did, I am sure if we polled the citizenry that they would appreciate you lawbreakers paying your own legal bills.  When us citizens run afoul of the law (even if they are only frivolous acts of the police writing citations for bicycle infractions that "technically" cite violations that don't apply to bicycles passing stop signs that "technically" are misplaced and "technically" have no traffic control orders behind them, OMA-HA-HA) that's what we wind up doing.

It also addresses my 'standing', a typical tactic of the City's main attorney.   Standing is the name of the federal law doctrine that focuses on whether a prospective plaintiff can show that some personal legal interest has been invaded by the defendant.  Such a defense is specious at best in this case, and I invite any legal eagle that could argue the City's point to do so.

THE COLDNEWS

Lastly, the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) solidified its own standing in the eyes of City Hall by putting a basically parroted article of the City's statement in the paper the next day COLDNews p1  COLDNews p8.  The City paid no heed to my news release later that night, make any attempt to contact me, and waited only one day to put out a nicely titled editorial, which then went to the task of defending the City's actions and attacking the whistleblowing citizen.   The editorial board of the COLDNews had nothing to say about the City restricting FOIA rights further, any intent on chastising the lawbreaking public servants or commending the person who outjournalized them:

Descriptives of the guilty party and their actions:  "silly mistake", "effort to resolve an emergency", "meeting requires 18 hours... way too long, considering the situation", "18 hours wasn't a realistic option in the sewer main break situation".

Descriptives of the prevailing party and their actions:  "doggedly", "Vindicative" (by reference, I think they mean 'vindictive'.  Vindicative can be a positive reference), "unneighborly spat", "cost the city way too much time and money", "abuse FOIA with a constant bombarding", "fishing expeditions", "should get far more reasonable in what he seeks and his approach to public bodies."

This is the editorial board of your local newspaper.  The City wipes their boots on FOIA statute, is legally found to wipe their dirty bottoms with OMA statute, and they are given a pass; the paper even defends their action with outright lies.  The citizen is called vindictive, abusive, and unreasonable without any compelling evidence of the sort .  This isn't even worthy of a newspaper, and ultimately describes the view that the newspaper "vindicatively" (OMA-HA-HA) holds to that individual, and here's why.

If this was what the City (a year and a half later) labels a true "emergency" situation, the Open Meetings Act allows the public body to respond quickly to it.  In Section 5, subsection 5 of the OMA it says clearly:  "Nothing in this section shall bar a public body from meeting in emergency session in the event of a severe and imminent threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the public when 2/3 of the members serving on the body decide that delay would be detrimental to efforts to lessen or respond to the threat."

The chronicled records show (in O Brother) that the problem was defined on 7-13-2011, the problem noted to councilors on 7-21, the E-mail vote done on 7-27, and the work started over a month later, in a time that spanned three scheduled open meetings.  The period, even without the bother of a legal vote on it, was seven weeks.  If it takes the police, firefighters, and EMTs one thousandth of that time (about 72 minutes) to respond to "real emergencies" they are deemed to have took too long to do so.

The City leaders did not treat this as an emergency in any definition of that term, and thus the only "raw sewage" I see is coming from the mouths of City Hall officials, their word processors, and the inkwells of the COLDNews editors.  But that is not an "emergency", it is just the same old $%^&* we have come to expect flooding our residences here in Ludington.  [No OMA-HA-HA]

[AQUAMAN]

This "our view" editorial is coming as NO SURPRISE to me at all. Begnoche himself has repeatedly stated in person that X's acts for FOIA requests are being abused, and that they themselves showed him how to go about getting FOIA's a few years back, and now regret it enormously. So, how can they, the LDN staff, make objective opinions on that citizen, when they themselves have axes to grind for him constantly??? "Our view" goes on to indemnify the City of all wrong doing in the name of an emergency, and lack of communication by the OMA plaintiff, citizen X. If they only knew the other side of the coin! Wake up Begnoche, citizen X has tried in vain for several years to properly and casually get answers to questions of city business with CM Shay, who usually just ignores X's emails, phone calls, and letters. That's when the only answer is to drop the other shoe, or just disappear and go home and cry. X isn't that type of citizen, unlike the staff at the LDN, whose poor and inept reporting of true news goes by the wayside. In effect, it's much cozier and convenient to just post articles from the sounding board at City Hall as real news, when in fact it's just a put-up story to hide their own deficiencies and callous break of laws. Citizen X's mission goes on, and all the crying by Shay and others in his corner trying to defend Shay's law breaking/bending/manipulating/libelous statements must be addressed, and so I say, keep up the good work and vigil for Ludington's citizens. Know ye all, this is how you are scorned and treated in the public eye when you ask City hall and Shay to comply with simple courtesy and reply to any City officials' business! Or is it the Public's Business, paid for by taxpayers, and duly and rightfully theirs to know for the simple asking? Ask Shay for a change why he is so defiant, arrogant, condescending, and abusive of his own position at the City, or just keep the LIES going to Defame the Innocent! Lastly, since when does asking your own little tiny berg of a City called Ludington for simple Public information a "fishing expedition"? I guess it's anytime they see fit, and LIE to make it Stick, with the help of non-credible journalists that are in collusion, that's when! And of course, when you are on a "need to know basis", cause NOT Everything at City Hall is as it appears, and is reported for us at the LDN.

[XLFD]

I've lost count as to how often I have contacted the City Council to apprise them of my side on FOIA appeals, ask questions, or state one thing or another, making sure to do so in a kindly manner (at least the first couple times per topic).  But I think it's around 50 times for the long term councilors (Holman and Castonia). 

How many times have I had a City Councilor take their time to send me a letter or E-mail me?  Zero.  Likewise, every time I point out the FOIA or OMA is violated here, which is quite often, I get ignored. 

And Begnoche is mistaken about talking with me about FOIA.  If he did, I surely don't remember it.

[Willy]

Wonderful article X. The City is run by fools and defended by an ignorant newspaper. The Council, Mayor and Shay are such liars. How can they face themselves in the mirror. I hope each and every one of them is defeated in the coming elections and Shay's rear end is kicked out the door.  I am also glad I cancelled my LDN subscription. I wouldn't want a single penny of mine going towards the support of that lying rag. What's amazing is the LDN refuses to seek out the truth. Not only is the LDN persecuting you but they are purposely distorting the truth. The LDN is keeping the public in the dark. It is a shameful thing they are doing. If I could flip a switch to make the LDN disappear, I would do it instantly and replace it with a fair and trustworthy reporting news agency. Ludington is showing the World the worst side of small town politics and the LDN is showing how a newspaper supports and promotes political corruption by concealing the truth and covering for inept and corrupt politicians. Keep up the good work X.

[XLFD]

Thanks for the support, Willy.  Everyone needs to ask themselves, why put up a headline saying "All public bodies need to follow OMA, FOIA" for an editorial and then work for a narrative that says despite all the controversy, Ludington's leaders are following the spirit and intent of the law, offering several untrue anecdotes to show their point, and insinuate without proof that the winning plaintiff is the main problem facing Ludington. 

As you say, this goes beyond bias, and I invite anyone with time and inclination to check out any meeting I have talked at, any single one, you can find it on 'Ludington TV' at the library site, or check them out in our archives, and compare what was said and done by me and the officials, and then check out the corresponding COLDNews article about what happened.  You will see true vindictiveness.  They are not working as the fourth estate, but the fourth branch of corrupted Ludington government.