Open Meetings Act Violation by Ludington's School Board DENIED

[XLFD]

March 19, 2013 was to be the day when the second round of interviews for the Ludington Area School District Superintendant position.  According to their web page, that was to be the case LASD Board page, according to last weeks Mason County Press on March 11, this was also noted to be the case.  Even Keith Braniszeski had it in the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) back on March 12.  Even mentioned it just four days ago here.  He was even there in person earlier today, and beat me to the story with this:

"Tuesday’s scheduled interviews with two Ludington Area Schools superintendent candidates were postponed to Wednesday, with Karen Sherwood, who is superintendent and K-12 principal for Boyne Falls Public School, scheduled for 11 a.m. and Michael Ritter, who is currently principal of Foster Elementary School, scheduled for 1 p.m.

The interviews are also scheduled for completion Wednesday, with Peck Community Schools Superintendent Ryle Kiser at 4 p.m. and with Buckley Community Schools Superintendent Richard Heitmeyer at 6 p.m.

Tuesday’s interviews were postponed over a concern about whether the meetings were posted properly.

The school board had already interviewed candidates Andrea Large and Dan Mesyar on March 14."

As usual, Keith had left out the interesting part of this story.  It just so seems that a local citizen with prior experience with Open Meetings Act violations in Ludington, having successfully won relief from the City of Ludington in having them admit two Open Meetings Act (OMA) violations regarding an unlawful, non-transparent E-mail scheme of deliberating and making decisions, had decided to stand up during the public comment section of the meeting convened at 4 PM this afternoon.

Left to right: Susan Peterson, Tim Heinrich, Kelly Thomsen, Jackie Steckel, Mary Jo Pung, Ray Janish, Shawn McDonald.

Among the 20 dignitaries attending, he made a point of order, was recognized by the chair, and spoke about his concerns of the meeting of the LASD Board violating the Open Meetings Act.  He was rightly questioned about why he had thought so, he informed them that the meeting had not been properly posted at their business office.  

It just so happens that the OMA requires all special meetings to have a posting at a public body's office for at least 18 hours before the special meeting takes place, irregardless of how often it is broadcast in the newspaper, on the radio, or elsewhere.  It is a nod to the public that have no access to the other methods of a public body posting these special meetings.  It is a safeguard for public bodies to capture as much notice to the public as possible, otherwise people who regularly go to the administrative office may not even have any idea a change in the regularly scheduled meetings has taken place.  As noted here in the law:  MCL 15.265 subsec. 4

The chairwoman assured him that the notice was posted and was posted right outside the meeting place.  Respectfully, the citizen asked where were the postings, and she directed him to check the wall outside the conference room.  The citizen had noted the previous night, that there had been a notice for the already held March 14 meeting only posted on the window, and visited the building at about 8:30 that morning and saw the same post, and some extra papers for that same meeting on a wall holder nearby, along with a few other notices of things.  No posted notice for tonight.

So the citizen walked out and verified what he saw on the way in earlier that day, and asked for the floor again to ask where the posted notice was located.  A couple of people came out, one whom I guess would have been a clerk, she looked at the notice for the March 14 hearing, and the other notices for that meeting in the wall holder and removed them.  Our citizen was told that there had been notices made for the other meetings that were under the March 14 notice.  Oddly, there had been no indication of any recent postings on that part of the window, as it was dirty and had no tape marks.  Nor did the other notice have any tape marks on the bottom of it.

After the citizen talked with their legal eagle a little bit, several members of the board, including at times Ludington Assistant City Manager Jackie Steckel and Ludington DPW Supervisor Shawn McDonald went out of the room to discuss whether to go ahead with the meeting.  The citizen waited for an answer and counted the number of members going in and out just to make sure their were no other violations taking place regarding quorums and the OMA.

After about a half hour, a decision was finally reached to postpone the interviews until 11 AM the next morning, which would give the board the opportunity to actually have a notice posted for the proper time, in compliance with the Open Meetings Act.  The citizen quietly left the building and walked home, content that he had did his civic duty in calling the LASD Board on its improprieties.

Epilogue:

When the citizen was less than two blocks away from the building, walking down Staffon Street, an attendee at the meeting, a middle aged woman with a license plate saying "MICAMOM", asked them  for their name whichwas freely given and demanded he tell her other things about himself, such as his job, his intentions and how he felt about what he did, all in a fairly aggressive manner.  I would suggest she demand similar rigor from the LASD in abiding by the law. 

Let me be clear, any reasonable person may realize that their not posting this in accordance with special meetings provisions was just a clerical error, the one representative showed the actual notice in his papers that they should have had posted in a conspicuous place, like the window.  That's why the citizen brought it up at the meeting, instead of just letting them go through with the meeting, and bringing  up the violation later in a legal action, and making some lawyers happy.  Just because the LASD has a couple Ludington City Hallers on their payroll, they still have to try and abide by the Open Meetings Act. 

[XLFD]

One factual correction, EyE.  The LASD School Board page did not post the information for the March 19th meeting until after their special meeting on the 11th, a meeting which was on the borderline of being properly posted as per the OMA.

As for everything else, you are correct, but keep in mind, the School Board effectively deliberated and made the decision to have the meeting during the day today, when they decided that it would be best not to continue holding their illegal meeting on the 19th.  Both deliberations and decisions to change when to hold these rescheduled interviews or whether to continue the meeting or not, were made outside of a legitimate open meeting, if someone was to be a stickler on such matters.  They could have just as easily decided to hold it at night at their next scheduled open meeting; that was totally their decision and interpretation of the law, not mine. 

[Willy]

Eye. Your implying that the inconvenience to those that were going to the unposted meeting was caused by the person who informed the powers to be of the OMA violation. That person would have had no reason to inform the board of any violations if the board had done it's job. That's what citizens must do to keep those in power on the straight and narrow. I find it quite odd how people redirect responsibility to those who try to correct mistakes or point out errors or outright deceit. I want to thank the "stranger" for letting the powers to be know that they were indeed in violation of the OMA.

[XLFD]

I passed that along to the unnamed citizen, and he thanks you, Willy.  It was a very awkward moment, and one that will only assure that guy only more notoriety rather than acclaim by the powers that be.  All you need to do is take a look at Keith Brasiceski article in today's paper for the usual Kirby journalism.  That's my own term for patsies in most mainstream media outlets display for high-powered public figures.  High-powered suction.  This will be detailed in my new thread calling for a little public honesty.

[Willy]

Eye

"So every citizen that was planning to attend had previously set aside their schedule to be there on March 19th."

"Is it possible the new schedule would make it impossible for some of the citizens to attend, since they might work from 7am to 3:30pm and are unable to get time off from work at such short notice?"

To assure your credibility would you please explain the above statements you posted.

[Willy]

Eye

Your statements are implying outcomes resulting from the lack of a posting of a notice. The fact that you did not credit the board for their oversight for causing the "problems" you stated shows your bias. Your post was accusatory and did not direct a reader to those who are responsible but instead left an open door for assumptions to place blame other than where it should be.  My conclusions are based on what you posted. The fact that you seem to be irate at being asked to explain your comments says much about you.  

[XLFD]

EyE,

I assigned no ill motive to you on your posting, but could see where another might, given the history of the situation.  Both you and Willy often ask the best questions concerning my posts regarding something I may have overlooked or not covered completely.  I thank you both for your obvious interest in the community, despite any disagreements we may have.  And I am not just saying that to be diplomatic.

[XLFD]

[XLFD]

EyE,

We really do need to work on the marketing of the brand name here, it seems, LOL.  Thanks for your post, and thank you for the unsolicited defense of my name.  

And for defending my quest, which I hope becomes more universal over time, and not myopic enough to lose sight of the objectives:  accountable, open, honest governments in my area.  This ideal is dependent on bringing awareness of the problems out publicly, even if I have to step on a sacred cow or two.

[Ima Teacher]

I wish I could betray some confidences, but instead of being applauded for your appearance to make sure that the law is followed, you are being castigated for it.  Some that are doing it are ones that have or can teach social studies, and should know better.  As I put in the other posting on this topic, I can verify certain other times when the window was clear of any other posting.  Good luck in getting these guys to blink.  As they say its hard to teach a teacher anything, and its hardest to teach a superintendent.

[XLFD]

Here's the latest bit of harassment courtesy of the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews).  Several folks get the thumbs up, followed by the usual suspect getting a thumb's down.  I give a thumbs down to the board of editors on the COLDNews as these people who weren't even there misstated their own share of facts to dwarf Killips' whopper: 

My announcement at the beginning of the LASD Board meeting getting labelled as a "gotcha" attack (I think a gotcha attack would be more appropo if I sat there until they actually conducted business to make my point of order). 

They then call me a 'critic', whereas I have never criticized the LASD Board publicly in this website or elsewhere.

They say I threatened to file an OMA lawsuit while at the meeting, whereas I did not.  I said that the meeting going forward would be violative of the act and that they needed to postpone it.

The LASD can say their intent is to have open meetings, but if they don't follow the minimal proper practice, legal requirements, they are violating the rights of the people, and shirking their duties.

As for bringing it to the attention before it was too late, I think I did that, and yet I am summarily castigated by the likes of a news organization that gives their local city council a bunch of lame excuses for not following the OMA after they admitted deliberating and making decisions in secret E-mail meetings for an emergency that was started to be worked on seven weeks after it was caught.  

Steve, Jeff, and Patsi, (COLDNews editors) I know where your thumbs are up, and it's not pretty. 

[Willy]

I've never said this before but I must say it now. The LDN is officially a liberal "rag" run by liberal "rags". What a disgusting display of editorial bias, stupidity, incompetence and a total lack of professionalism. To write an editorial complimenting those in the community for their service and then put down another person who in my opinion is doing much more for the community than the others, is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy. LDN does not deserved to be called a "newspaper". It should be called a slanted news distributor. Just the fact that they do not consider a citizen pointing out violations of the OMA a "good deed" shows exactly what kind of people they are. They are disgusting.

[AQUAMAN]

Well said Willy, many dittos. What kind of editorial says it's "our view", meaning in effect, it's their altruistic/hypocritical view, not one of the management/owner/editor alone, but a combined mentality that escapes even the most inexperienced and incompetent practice of journalists that pretend to represent freedom of speech. Marty and Ima make a lot of common sense on why we should be looking closer at the local school board's actions/meetings around here too.