Contrary to what has been presented by the local print media, the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews), the new Open Meetings Act lawsuit I have with the City of Ludington's officials who knowingly broke the law on May 20, 2013, is about seven men and women who decided to ignore their duties under law and the Open Meetings Act requirements, then proceeded to initiate deliberations and decisions after having been warned of it.  Here is yesterday's editorial written by their editorial board (John Walker, Steve Begnoche, Patsi Klevorn) with some critiques by the man they critiqued unfairly with misleading information.  I am using color codes:

 

Editor's Bloc:  It's pretty sad when three editors get together and they make spelling and grammar mistakes in their editorial.  First column:  "spriit", not "spirit"; second column:  "techical" not "technical".  The first sentence in the first paragraph of the last column is mangled beyond recognition.  I sometimes create an overly complex sentence that would be better-served as smaller bits, but that is the major grammar blunder I see here, beyond a few sentence fragments.

 

Lead paragraph:  Rational people might agree that willfully breaking the law in front of third grade students goes too far.  If this City Council avoids using the legally proper posting of public meetings to accommodate any group (or no group at all), then it has violated the full public's right -to-know of what their government is doing. 

 

Hawking techical (sic) violations:  My dictionary might be limited, but 'hawking' used as a verb, is either 'clearing the throat', 'selling goods for sale by shouting', 'hunting with trained hawks' or 'to be hawkish (warlike)'. 

 

Beyond belief:  This is not what is intimated in the lawsuit, but it is not beyond belief that such a meeting could be used to shield some decisions.  Case in point, the local Medical Marijuana ordinance (which is effectively meaningless) was passed in 2012 on the day the kids came to the meeting.  It could be argued that they did so to avoid public comment against it.

 

The meeting time:  One cannot argue that the Mayor noted the earlier meeting at the May 6 meeting, and that the next day the COLDNews reported that.  Nor can they argue that it wasn't on the City website.  However, one cannot argue that it wasn't posted on the City's bulletin board, as according to the law, and that the councilors went through with the regular business of the meeting after being warned of that fact.  One cannot also argue that there was a meeting posted on this board and at the courthouse for that date, but at the time of 6:30 PM.  I went to that meeting too, but no one showed up, and the door was presumably locked. 

 

Laws are laws... and must be followed to the letter:  So, editors, something we can agree with.  Why don't you impose that strict standard on your friends in Ludington City Hall?  You editors are being self-contradictory, since you advocate for the City's innocence not only here but in all previous suits against them from me and others, but make statements like this in your weak arguments.

 

Individually named councilors:  As per law, section 13 of the OMA whose authority I am suing under, this action can only be against individuals acting willfully to violate the Open Meetings Act.

 

Reconsider... No favors:  The COLDNews wants the watchdog to reconsider; what about having the willful public officials reconsider their dedication to the laws of this land and their oaths of office?  They do the public no favors by continued breaking of the law in this and other matters, including the FOIA.  The COLDNews seems to be saying here that the public is not entitled to any or all information they need to know about their government.  I know one thing.  The COLDNews goes with what they are fed by this City Hall so they feel they have all you need to know.  That is ridiculous. 

 

Abusing laws, vindictive, threats:  Is this really a newspaper staff writing this?  I am inferred to be abusing the law by making a FOIA request on average less than once a week, on topics which I have questions about.  This action, instead of being touted as good citizenship, is described as vindictive.  Just like the headlines of this editorial and the front page article of the previous day, my action is said to be a threat.  Where is the threat, where is the abuse, where is the vindictiveness and the vendetta?

 

 

The threats, the intimidation tactics, the defense of non-transparency, is not coming from this media personality.  But the legal action is when the officials and the publicly-funded watchdogs (that sit on their hands and let the taxpayers money and other resources get wasted on a variety of projects that are not in the best interest of the public) do absolutely nothing about the problems. 

 

Here is the lawsuit that has been totally mischaracterized by the local press for their own agenda's purposes:  OMA TWO.pdf --also shown below.  The $149 spent on prosecuting this lawsuit coming from my pockets and in the spirit (not 'spriit') of this agency, the Ludington Torch.  Let me know if there is any questions about it. 

 

Views: 467

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

First reply, misspellings and bad grammar in your newspaper's editorial, written by three editors, is telling.  It makes the lack of any diligence in getting the facts right for the rest of the story more believable.  At this point, the only thing known by the COLDNews was what I said at the meeting, and they totally botched getting that information correct or verified.

Second reply, the COLDNews editors believe the infraction was simply not properly posting the meeting, and so do you. It is deeper than that; these 7 officials, plus John Shay, Attorney Dick Wilson, and City Clerk Deb Luskin, 'duly noted' the comment and continued as if it was a properly posted Open Meeting.  As far as notice for this meeting, the Mayor said it would be that way on May 6, the COLDNews reported that on May 7, the City website even put it up.  But the COLDNews never had this stated after May 7, the courthouse board stated the time for the meeting was still 6:30, and so did, most importantly, the City's notice board.  

Transparency means you need to be consistent with your facts, I showed up at 1:00 PM not sure of whether it had been cancelled, because the newspaper had no meeting noticed the previous week in their community board, the courthouse and the city hall both stated a 6:30 PM meeting.  This disenfranchised all those people who use these boards for their meeting information from participating in this meeting.  It also violated the posting requirements to satisfactorily comply with the Open Meetings Act. 

You asked four questions in that last paragraph.  The middle two are impossible to determine, and if you don't get the first and fourth by my direct answer and the other material I have provided, then you may never understand.  After all, you believe the LDN's raison d'etre is to turn a profit by offering  people something they will purchase for their amusement. 

You likely believe the City Council's raison d'etre is passing laws and raison your taxes.  Not being transparent and accessible to the people that they supposedly represent, and is mandated by laws that protect people from being shut out of their government.  The position you seem to advocate lacks character and soul-- no offense. 

The majority, for a time in this country, believed slavery was acceptable in our learned civilization.  You don't have a soul if you make your own decisions based on the will of the majority of others, instead of what's right.  That's why I worry about you, EyE, you claim to be very zealous, but are guided by the will of the mob instead of that little voice inside you that says what the City and COLDNews is doing is wrong.  

 People whose opinions I respect, including my humble self, are with me, and the monsters are still clearly defined to me.  The monsters are those who hear that they are about to break the law-- law that protects us from governments operating non-transparently-- and proceed to break that law brazenly and without apology.  Without any shame to the people they serve.  The new narrative from the City is that the notice was posted (from the City Manager) and that the City officials can't be sued (from the City Attorney).  Both are untrue, both are from people who are trying to pettyfog the issues.

EyE,

You might want to get more sleep; your latest posts don't make much sense, nor does it follow the line of discussion.  You made the inferences about following the will of the majority in your past posts, this is the slavery reference.  I am being sincere in my beliefs, and your traffic reference is way off. 

My traffic reference made at the meeting is closer to the truth.  But consider, "a public official who is convicted of intentionally violating a provision of this act for a second time within the same term shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $2,000.00, or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both." could apply to five of these defendants MCL 15.272, but I didn't go for that or even the first section when I had the opportunity:  "A public official who intentionally violates this act is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.00."  Am I called merciful?  No. 

The video then and now shows a willful violation took place-- that is, they were told what the law was, what the situation was, and some of the potential liabilities that could occur if they went forth--and that's what's got the other side sweating bullets and going after me with their continuing, personal vendetta. 

Eye.

 What if the meeting had been rescheduled for a group of business men and women who were donating funds to encumbents re-elction  or had been rescheduled for election officials working for the mayor or Council  on their election committees. The fact that there were 3rd graders is irrelevent to this situations. Wouldn't it have been better to show the kids the right way to legally hold a meeting or have the children attend the evening meeting instead of missing class time. The lesson the kids were taught was that it's ok to break the law if you feel like it and it's ok to make excuses to justify it.

You seem to be ok with the fact that the LDN "never" gets the facts straight on reporting about X. I have been following his situation for years and I have never heard the LDN report the real facts about X's conflicts with Government Officials. If you consider that as being treated "fairly" then I suggest you pay attention to what has been presented before you to read because you have it all wrong.

LDN's opinions are not really oponions but are twisted facts, half truths and lies that are used to justify illegal and unethical actions by local authorities and to persecute citizens for recognizing  and speaking out about the injustices and illegal behavior and actions by local Government. 

EyE,

Look at Thursday's news article on the front page, their diligence in contacting court officials and City Officials (not involved with the suit) and then see whether you can still say the LDN treats me fairly, when I wasn't even contacted and the comments they make are easily refutable.  Better yet, check out my critique of it later on, complete with the usual proofs and reasons.

Willy, the makeup of the audience is a red herring as you note, because it would have been illegal in front of any audience.  Except... these officials breaking the law in front of third graders, there for a civics lesson, is extra shameful for them.  Is this what we want to teach our children?  To be apprised of the law, then act directly against it?  Fortunately, I was there to teach them the right lesson. 

Glad to see they have hired a 2nd grader to proof read their editorials.

Excellent explaination X.

Eye

Good eye Eye.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service