Sidearms, Searches and Secrets at Ludington Schools

[XLFD]

I generally dance around problems with the local school district (LSD), because of having a young person serving their time there in an attempt to get a meaningful degree.  But sometimes a confluence of occurrences come along that makes me have to comment in a meaningful and critical manner.  I would dare say that Ludington as a whole is well-served by their schools, but sometimes their officials can make mistakes.  Three recent events had at least two out of the three elements noted in the title of this article, but each of those elements featured most prominently in each one of the three.

Sidearms

It started on April 22, 2015.  A local mother of a couple young children was preparing to go to a school function being held on the campus of LSD at Franklin School (Editor's Note:  the usual acronym LASD is usually used to denote this district, 'A' standing for "Area", but when the district drops the ball, we drop the "A" since their behavior closely resembles a 1960's  'acid trip' using Lysergic Acid Diethylamide-- or so I hear).  She made a comment on the LSD PTA Facebook page saying:

This question had at least one unnamed person (we will call them the informant) elevate a red flag, and begin a series of occurrences that started with them informing LPD Chief Mark Barnett of the post.  A check on the Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN) informed the LPD that she was certified for concealed carry.  LPD was also aware that she could lawfully open carry at the event, but had a concern that she may bring along a firearm and conceal it. 

So when the young lady, Jana Brockwell, showed up at the event, and after she dropped off her kids, she was contacted by LPD Sergeant Steve Wietrzykowski, led into a classroom, and in the presence of LSD Superintendent Andrea Large, was consensually searched for weapons on her person and in her purse.  It was caught on video by her significant other, and posted on Facebook. 

Brockwell Search

From her posts, Ms. Brockwell was a bit miffed about the reaction, though she did not mind the police presence at the play.  She was more upset over the reaction she got back from the school (and other officials noted later) and the LSD's reply that wanted to restrict her right to open carry.  She met with school officials the next week and resolved some of the outstanding issues.

Searches

On April 24, 2015, another search was conducted on school grounds, but only by school officials on a young woman in the high school.  As I wait on LSD's response to my FOIA request made on April 26, nine business days ago, I have only the allegations of the young woman to go on, beyond the response from the school that indicated a search event did indeed happen, but that they were totally exempt because they were "student records".

What seems to have happened is that some peers of the student had informed staff that this student had illegal drugs in her belongings.  She was taken aside and had her person and belongings checked, likely including her locker.  All indications seem to point to her innocence, as no contraband was found. 

Now, I have been assured that the policies of LSD had been followed by the searchers from the mouth of Superintendent Large, but this police-type action taken by the school administrative staff seems to indicate that is not true, from what was related to me, and what I've read in the protocols.  It wouldn't be the first time a teenager has lied about something like this, but then again, it wouldn't be the first time school administrators tried to cover up an error.  The student was at least open with me and told me a consistent story.

On Thursday, May 7, after setting up a FOIA appeal with the LSD, I was called and told that if I had the custodial parent's permission, I could get the information as I insisted in my appeal.  I supplied them with it within hours of that call, and was assured I would get the information quickly.  Still waiting.

Secrets

The first two incidents are still open-ended, there may be a lot more on either story to be developed later, I offer only the basics here to not only protect the two women 'victims', but also because both stories are not finished.  Ms. Brockwell is a strong-minded individual who knows her rights and is not afraid to exercise them.  She may very well open-carry in the future.  Meantime, everyone needs to be concerned why this 'non-incident' that began with a good question to the LSD's PTA Facebook page turned into not only the purview of the LPD but of the Ludington City Hall:

According to our Prosecutor, Paul Spaniola, making a Facebook post posing a question like Ms. Brockwell did was enough 'reasonable suspicion' that a crime was going to be committed to do a "Terry Stop"

This is questionable on legal grounds, for what is stopping the police from stopping any Second Amendment advocate or others from being stopped and frisked because they do not have a gun visible?  Brockwell demonstrated that she knew the law, and that concealed carry was not allowed.  If she had not consented to the search, she would have had an excellent civil case ahead of her if they tried to do what the prosecutor advised. 

What may be against the law is the LPD withholding the name of the "informant" mentioned earlier from the police report.  Informants only exist when there is a crime involved to inform on-- there was no crime here.  This secret is also under appeal.

Likewise, there may be problems arising in the second incident if the student's account matches or even differs from the official account.   It is unfortunate that the girl's parents were never informed on the day the intrusive search happened, and they have been offered nothing that contradicts her story. 

But our third incident involves secrecy at the LSD Board level and the issue of weapons once again came up while I showed up at the special May 7 meeting to supply the superintendent with my parental permission for the aforementioned student records, and I noticed their agenda. 

But first, I spoke up in public comment about the district redefining the term "weapon free school zone" to include private property in a three block radius of school property (100 feet) when the state has this same zone defined only to school property and buses (as noted recently here).  I advised the board needed to amend the bylaw with the false definition, and replace it with the state definition. 

The meeting was slated to finish with two closed sessions.  The first session was for "the purpose of negotiations", Superintendent Large clarified (after I questioned her) that at the meeting was for negotiations with the collective bargaining unit of the teachers (therefore section 8(c) would allow the board to close the session).

Negotiations are by definition, involving two parties, and unless they came after I had to leave the meeting room, the other party was not there, to my knowledge and belief. If a second party (the teacher's union rep) was not present then no negotiations took place unless it was done via a teleconference or the like.  Such a negotiating tool was not declared to the attending public before they were ushered out. 

The second closed session was called on behalf of section 8(h) from what the chairman said, meaning that it was to "To consider material exempt from discussion or disclosure by state or federal statute.", and yet it was noted on the agenda as being for the "purpose of confidential attorney client-privilege" and the attorney's presence was noted.

If the 8(h) exemption is called for, the public body must state precisely what state and federal statute applies. Not all communications between public officers and their attorneys is, by default, protected by attorney-client privilege-- the officer must claim the privilege and explain why it is in the public's interest to invoke the privilege.

For example, the Ludington City Attorney talks to city officials regularly in open session, and I've received E-mails between him and city officials via FOIA requests that were free of privilege, due to their content.  The public is paying for the attorney, after all, we have the right in many cases to discover what their expensive services are being used for.

I sent an E-mail politely requesting the superintendent to answer these apparent deficiencies in the rationale for keeping the public out of these sessions.  If their declared intent is to be working with the people and for the people, they need to adequately supply the people more valid reasons for doing things in secret, otherwise the public would be wise to question their motives in other decisions and deliberations.

[Willy]

I understand that if the police receive a complaint that they must check into it but the way it was done only shows the lack of legal knowledge and the lack of effective enforcement only shows how inept those that are in charge really are. Small town progressives panic when the word "gun" is mentioned. I wish she would have openly carried her weapon and so that we could have seen how the police would have reacted to someone exercising their Constitutional rights. However there are some people who need more training than others when it comes to using firearms.

Warning: Some strong language

[XLFD]

It had me recoiling in laughter, or at least in empathy. 

We may yet see her open carry in the future, let's hope she has a camera crew when she does.