Special Meetings: What's Noticed and Not

[XLFD]

On Friday, April 12, the Ludington City Council had a special meeting.  The special meeting was announced at the Monday, April 8 meeting.  Mayor Henderson announcing (1:30 into the video here) that "We will be setting a special meeting of the city council this Friday, the 12th, at 3:00 right here.  We will be dealing with the outdoor eatery ordinance, and that is the only business that we will be dealing with this Friday... Please note that."  Noticed. 

 

 

Tuesday, the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) placed a 'notice' of this meeting on the front page article titled "Downtown Outdoor Noise Level Up For Discussion" as a lead in to discussing what they felt was important at the Monday meeting.  They stated:  "The Ludington City Council will meet in special session Friday afternoon to discuss a possible ordinance to govern outdoor dining downtown.", shown here.  They then say the Buildings & Licenses Committee is scheduled to discuss that issue Thursday afternoon, so as to make a recommendation to the full council.  Noticed.

 

It shall be also noted that these afternoon meetings would never have a clarification of just when in the afternoon they would occur in the paper, and this would be the only notice of either of these meetings in the COLDNews.  Wednesday's and Thursday's paper would not have it listed in the community meeting notices or anywhere else.  Noticed.

 

The City website was better.  They had the notice that a meeting was to be held on 3 PM ,April 16, 2013 up on Tuesday, but did not have the actual topic(s) up for discussion until at least Thursday, seen here.  About the same time, their agenda for that meeting turned up, here. 

 

You will note that Mayor Henderson was wrong about the downtown dining ordinance being the only thing coming up for discussion, there was also to approve or disapprove of the City Manager-recommendation Waterways Grant Agreement for emergency dredging of the Ludington Municipal Marina.  You would only find about that fact only if you checked out the website link later on Thursday.  Noticed.

 

After the roll call, invocation, and pledge, the public comment period saw Nate Peterson of Backstage Hobbies and Games, speaking about the compromise of the committee that met on Thursday to amend the ordinance to more reflect the City's 'creating a public disturbance' ordinance, which has no set decibel level for whether something is too loud or not.  This left it more up to the responding officer to discern whether noise goes beyond reasonable levels.  I often wonder about the discretion of the LPD, but it's probably the best way to run it. 

 

I then made my speech, with an initial nod to the matter at hand, and then went on to reiterate in different order and emphasis my concerns raised Monday.  There was no video made of this secret special meeting, so here is what I offered up:

                                    Let the rock lobbing from behind the bleachers begin, as LPD Chief Barnett would say about me:

 

"My name is Tom Rotta, currently of 137 E Dowland Street.

 

At the previous City Council meeting about this ordinance, I must acknowledge the great service some of my fellow citizens did by getting the information about the preposterous raising of the allowable noise level to 90 decibels from 20 ft. away done by the City's subcommittee chaired by Councilor Holman.  This information was not readily publicly available unless you make it a habit to go to advisory committee meetings, where the topics are often unknown, and they may not allow you to listen in.  Ninety Decibels at 20 feet is equivalent to 110 decibels at two feet, meaning that noise downtown could be worse than what you would hear pushing a noisy power lawnmower.  Councilor Holman may like her music loud, but music this loud causes hearing damage after a short order of time. 

 

The two times the downtown dining issue has come up in this council, I have announced my opposition to it primarily based on it restricting the pedestrian thoroughfares downtown from the ten feet of right of way they now allow down to the five feet.  I see it as incredibly ironic that the 'walkway phase' of the West End Project calls for 10 feet of sidewalk for handicap accessibility, while at the same time you want to knock the downtown sidewalk down to 5 feet, making the downtown effectively inaccessible to the same people. 

 

While on that topic, I would like to reiterate what I said at the last meeting, but did not rise to the level of your attention.  John Shay submitted an amended application form last September which said that the bathroom facilities down at Stearns Park were handicap accessible as of then.  They are currently being worked on to achieve that result as of today.  He actually was given credit by the trust fund reviewers for that obvious lie.  John Shay lied on this application, and received credit for that lie.  Does this not rate some sort of raised eyebrow at least on the City Council's part?

 

But that wasn't the biggest problem with that application.  In the application for the walkway phase, John Shay dramatically increased the project cost, doubling the overall cost, and more than doubling the City's matching costs.  The amended applications said in a couple of places that such raises would necessitate a new resolution passed by this City Council including those amended numbers.  This City Council never did that, and to my knowledge, this amended application was never publicly revealed anywhere. 

 

This city council also failed to use their discretionary powers to vote as to whether they would pay for Ludington Police Department Officer Aaron Saylor's legal defense.  he automatically received that representation and backing by the City, without ever having the issue come to this council, being discussed, and then being voted upon.  I am sure that the council would have supported Officer Sailor, but the point is, the citizens, some of them the possible victims of policemen acting against their rights, were kept in the dark about the issue and forced to defend what may be determined to be a bad act by Officer Sailor.  Again, John Shay had the express duty to put this before you and the public, good or bad.  Closed governments do not serve the people.

 

Abraham Lincoln famously said "To sin by silence when they should protest, makes cowards of men".  Councilors, your silence about the repeated sins of your appointee not only shows that you are cowards, but that you fully endorse his actions.  Shay is an opportunist, one whom deceives, one whom does not care a whit about the common citizens of this town or their ideas, and a perjuror.  Can it be our current City Council has the same traits?"

Like on Monday's meeting, they had the opportunity to dispel the stated notions that their City Manager had lied on an application for State funds and on a sworn affidavit, and that they had shirked their duty of making the decision whether to resolve to approve the additional money for the walkway, or defend the actions of Officer Sailor, possibly withheld from their knowledge in both cases by John Shay.  They had a free forum themselves to do so at the end of the meeting, but did the City Councilors think such concerns were worthy of comment.  That was noticed.

 

Just like the Monday meeting they remained mum about these substantive issues, but instead of bemoaning their duties of providing the public information, Mayor John Henderson informed us that contrary to what was said earlier, committee meetings were always posted and welcomed the public to participate.  He didn't mention that he was not fully forthcoming on Monday about what this meeting was all about.  That was noticed.

 

I never said words to the contrary; however, they are posted exactly one place (the City Hall), they never indicate what the topics of 'advisement' is for that day, such meetings and topics are not published on their website nor does any of the local media put that info out. 

These committees, being short of a quorum, do not have to follow the rules of the Open Meetings Act, so they can go into closed sessions whenever they feel like it or prevent you from speaking or recording during the proceedings.  But they are limited to being only advisory in nature, so why would citizens have any big interest in such meetings, unless they have some sort of special knowledge beforehand or access?  That has been noticed.

This is why committee meetings are detrimental to the concept of open governments, and why I immediately suspect any public body that uses subcommittees of their body as a closed system; unless they follow the OMA in these meetings, or hold these meetings concurrently with other open meetings.  The public notices more than what they think they do sometimes.

[AQUAMAN]

That one special meeting on decibels, I believe, was not attended by the chairman, Nick Tykoski, and another fellow member left for some reason, leaving Kaye Holman alone for the meeting, so the LDN published recently. So, how can there be any decision, or quorum, if only one member of that committee is in attendance? Strange going-ons, and thanks again X, your intelligent watchful eye is showing what a sham most of the COL's postings are to the public. They not only post last minute, but don't post times and attend their own meetings, which makes a casual observer wonder, don't they know what they are doing anymore, or don't they really care, when it comes right down to it??? Of course we can expect the usual response, that of, mind your own business, shut up, sit down, and be quiet, lest we be revealed or scrutinized.

[XLFD]

That must have been in Friday's paper about the Thursday meeting, which would publicly come out after the public can do anything about either. 

This is exactly what committee meetings are all about.  Usually unattended by the public, they contain 3 of the 7 councilors, less if some don't show, and the scope of them is supposed to be strictly advisory.  They are supposed to informally review material and make suggestions to the full council, and can do it in any way they decide to, there are no set rules of order like the OMA contains. 

This is why the councilors come to council with a mostly fixed agenda, and very little dissent or discussion ever comes up.  It has already been covered out of the public's eye, and can be cross-examined in other committees, if need be, by other groups of three councilors, all of who serve on two or three committees. 

My EyE says "your welcome".

[Willy]

"Shay is an opportunist, one whom deceives, one whom does not care a whit about the common citizens of this town or their ideas, and a perjuror.  Can it be our current City Council has the same traits?"

X. I think that statement sums up what type of government the citizens of Ludington are paying for. I'm glad you added the last paragraph because Shay is only acting on behalf of those he answers to. So in essence you could substitute the words "City Council" for "Shay" throughout your statement.

[XLFD]

The problem arises that when these various shortcomings do come to light, like when they predicate a lawsuit or a State investigation, the council's lack of interest in objectively looking at the problems, could easily lead one to believe that they are effectively suborning perjury, derelicting their duties, and encouraging fraud to occur on applications. 

When they get the chance, they attack the alleger on an unofficial level, and circle the wagons.