Openly Disobeying the Open Meetings Act, pt. 1

[XLFD]

The Open Meetings Act (OMA), along with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and Whistleblower Protection Acts (WPA) were all passed in an era of political reform during the latter part of the 20th century.  The OMA's purpose is to allow the citizenry to attend meetings of government bodies, participate in same, and make the processes less secretive.  It put much needed regulations on the conduct of public officials in decisions and policy-making.

OMA

A main contention of Jack Byers (former Ludington Building Inspector) 2008 lawsuit with the City was the violation of this Act by City Committees. Being that he settled for $250,000 and many other folks elsewhere have settled and sued for more, it should be a high priority that our local public bodies follow this Act. This is sadly not the case.

From personal experience, the City of Ludington has violated this act in regards to a Board of Ethics hearing held in November of 2009 concerning the ethical aspect of LPD's Chief of Police Mark Barnett's release of confidential, and false, information prior to it's authorized release.  A FOIA request showed that there was never a public notice of this meeting posted according to the OMA (section 15.264).  Nor was I ever informed of when or where the meeting was to be held.  When they convened and found that they had no jurisdiction because the two officers involved did not make any financial gain from smearing my name and violating their sworn oaths, it should not have been a surprise.  By City Attorney Richard Wilson's advice, they totally ignored the Whistleblower division of the City Code that also can be considered by the Board.

Board of Ethics Minutes p 1

Whist.jpg

Likewise, when my superior officers at the Ludington Fire Department convened a special meeting to decide what to do with me because of the falsehoods LPD Chief Mark Barnett told them about a traffic stop (he wasn't even part of, ten days before I even had a court date set for the hearing I requested), this was in fact a disciplinary hearing/meeting by a public body, and the meeting should have been regulated by the OMA.

But I was called in without any notice of what it was for, was not allowed to have any representation, was kept away from the decision-making processes, was not able to face my accuser, and was given the option to either drop my right to deny responsibility in a formal hearing, or face a written reprimand and possible dismissal. 

This was a pre-court tribunal for a bicycle traffic stop where I had just told the police officer I felt it was much safer to go through a clear intersection regulated by a stop sign-- a position we did not agree on-- but I was not the one who wrote the ticket or argued the law (I argued safety at that point; the law arguments for my position came at later dates).  Furthermore, I inferred to my superiors that I could not adequately defend my position without giving away my planned defense I was to use in court (to those who conversed with the opposing party). This stuff was left out of the notes, which was also mismarked for happening on 9-10-08 instead of when it actually happened 9-24-08.  (Attachment) 

When I resigned the following week due to the hostile work environment created and sent CM John Shay my concerns about this meeting and Chief Barnett's breach of ethics that led to it in a letter, he did not reply.  Even though this was just a little over a month after the Byer's settlement which involved the Whistleblower Protection Act as well. The WPA deals with such unauthorized disclosure of confidential and/or false material used to discredit another.  Perhaps he thought silence was his best defense.

Now, unless there is something served to me before Monday, March 14th, 2011 telling me that I am able to attend the City Council Meeting that night, I will once again see the Open Meetings Act violated on my behalf, by having my attendance restricted because of some Workplace Safety Policy that few people have even seen, making me unable to step foot at a public facility that should be open to all, except those that the Act restricts (those that create an actual disturbance at the actual meeting).

But does the City care if they violate laws more significant than their policies?  Probably not, because even if they do get sued for it, they have a partner ready to pay their legal fees and settlements.  Guess who that is?

[Willy]

Insurance company and taxpayers?

 

I just read the last link you posted. They obviously did not consult and attorney before writing that letter. It seems they have made quite a few mistakes regarding violations of you rights. If there ever was grounds for a law suit, that letter would be on top of my list as evidence of their poor judgement and arrogance. These people are not only foolish but they have no grasp of how those in power should act.

[XLFD]

I was more thinking just taxpayers as they do pay for the premiums of the insurance companies as well as increases in the insurance rates caused by frequent offenses.

This is the first time I have released this document publicly on the net.  Having to respond to such a hearing was very nerve-wracking.  I wouldn't have marked 'deny responsibility' on the back of the ticket and requested a formal hearing if I didn't think I had a solid case for my innocence.  Yet I was given the ultimatum to face a written reprimand if I didn't withdraw my request, and the 'carrot' of just a verbal if I did.  Forget the procedurals, that is just wrong. 

That was what a fair hearing is for, one that I requested over a week before and wasn't given notice of until over a week after this meeting.  Information which should only have been known to District court officers prior to this Officer's meeting, if they obeyed confidentiality laws.

[Willy]

The problem started with the Police dept. They had no business contacting your boss. I think you have a good law suit and I hope you pursue legal action. Something has to change. I am willing to bet that many people have had similar experiences with these people. It's amazing, all the participants from the officer who issued the ticket, to the Police Chief, your supervisor, the Fire Chief, the Prosecutor, The Magistrate, Shay and his backers, CC and the Incompetent LDN were all complicit in this disgraceful display of abusive behavior by government officials. What's really disgraceful is the non attention to anything that resembles an investigation of Government misbehavior by LDN. If they cannot make an effort to determine the truth then the citizens of Ludington's have no protection againts those that seek to diminish the peoples Constitutional rights and no  recourse other than expensive litigation. I don't envy you X.

[XLFD]

I've found in Ludington that the Daily news is not so much the Fourth Estate, but more like the Fourth branch of a tainted local government.  But the 79th District Court was the seed that started this corrupted tree that has grown around and pressed against me, the LPD was just its first shoot. 

Though the City apologists have frequently chided me on not wanting to admit responsibility for my actions on a bicycle one afternoon, I think they may have failed to notice, through almost all my local posts, that they have not yet admitted responsibility for the actions of their City in reply. 

[Willy]

XLFD

"I've found in Ludington that the Daily news is not so much the Fourth Estate, but more like the Fourth branch of a tainted local government".That is a very good analogy.

[Sweater Cows!]

The final attachment says it all. You wouldn't apologize.LOL control freaks HATE it when their minions won't bow to them. Jeez X I thought you knew that was the status quo of working somewhere like that(JOKE!)

[XLFD]

To this day, I still do not know the one fire officer who said that this should be just a matter between the policeman and I (tried in a formal hearing), or the fire officer(s) who figured the informal disciplinary hearing they convened was unnecessary. 

It is very intimidating and humbling to go before 7 of your superiors and have a bunch of lies thrown out by a Peace Officer (who isn't even there) and threatened with termination if you do proceed with a defense of what you believe is within the law.  

One should ask, why wasn't  LPD Chief Mark Barnett called to task for having an unlawfully placed stop sign without a legal traffic control order at that intersection for his whole tenure up to that point?  Not to again mention his violation of the City's Whistleblower Act.

[XLFD]

Rom, you remind me of an Iraqi that, during the first Gulf War with George HW Bush, would lend solace to the Iraqis with propaganda of how well the Iraqi forces were doing and how foolish the Americans were.  Baghdad Bob.

[Willy]

Rom

You sound a lot like that cop. A better idea would be to form a "no one cares what Rom Titty thinks support group".

[AQUAMAN]

What many here are finally realizing, is that when you enter the City Limits of a town called Ludington, Mi., all your rights and freedoms pretty much dead-end. Esp. if you are a LOCAL citizen. However, many times it has come to pass, that if you carry an out of town plate or DL, you are exempt, given a pass as they say, as long as you haven't pissed the authority in question off by non-complying or mouthing back in any shape, way, or form. Locals are put under a very scrutinizing magnifying glass, and treated with indignity and an iron fist policy first and foremost. It's the ONLY WAY to create a fearful and apathetic state of mind, one that is to be squashed into total compliance and non-thinking mode, so FULL CONTROL is achieved, and lasts forever.