The Place Where Ludington Talks

The Chiefs are in the Play-Offs: Ludington Chiefs Go After a Rogue Flame

The Ludington City Council had a meeting tonight where I got up and gave my five minutes of public comment, which follows after the local news having a field day. You can read the headlines and see the video of Chief Barnett's tirade tonight at other area news outlets, so I place them here for your perusal. First from the Mason County Press:

"After years of being bashed by citizen Tom Rotta, Police Chief Mark Barnett and Fire Chief Jerry Funk publicly admonished the outspoken self-proclaimed community activist during tonight’s Ludington City Council meeting.

Tonight’s admonishment stemmed from Rotta’s recent questioning of the legality of the police department’s volunteer reserve unit. Reservists are typically used during special events. While they are not regular police officers they still must meet certain qualifications.

Barnett spoke at the end of the council’s meeting. He said he respects a person’s right to free speech but believes that Rotta abuses that right.

“My concern is with Mr. Rotta and his random use to say whatever he wants… while he has every right it doesn’t make it right for him to be able to do that.”

Rotta operates a website that allows people to anonymously post their complaints about local happenings. Often Rotta’s posts attack a person’s physical characteristic or questions their integrity.

Barnett said he fears that Rotta’s attacks have hindered volunteerism in the city. “It doesn’t seem right.”

The police chief said Rotta, on his website, has made remarks about his personal appearance and even called him a pervert, in relation to an issue of cameras being located in common areas of some city bathrooms. “My wife and my family don’t appreciate that… It hurts me and my family… You should be ashamed of yourself.”

Barnett said the volunteer reservists are volunteers who give their time and that Rotta’s questioning of those individuals is shameful.

“I would like to apologize on behalf of Mr. Rotta to those people who give up their time,” Barnett said. “If you want to be part of the solution than you should act appropriately.”

Fire Chief Jerry Funk said he served on the police reserves for 30 years. “That’s 30 years of giving up holidays and weekends,” Funk said.

“I resent that he says those things about the volunteers who give up their time,” Funk told MCP.

Funk’s and Barnett’s comments were met with applause.

Rotta’s quest against the City of Ludington began several years ago when he was pulled over and ticketed by a Ludington police officer for failure to yield on his bicycle. At that time he was a member of Ludington Fire Department.

Mayor Ryan Cox, at the request of City Councilor Wanda Marrison, allowed Rotta 60 seconds to respond, the same amount of time Cox allowed Chief Funk. Rotta stood up to the podium but then refused to comment.

http://www.masoncountypress.com/2014/03/24/police-and-fire-chiefs-a...

The other news agency, the City of reported similar stuff and added a video of the police chief's oration:

Ludington Police Chief Mark Barnett said at the end of Monday's Ludington City Council meeting to resident Tom Rotta, who starts most meetings with claims against city officials, his words were hurtful to him, his family, city police officers/reserves, volunteer firefighters and all he "bludgeons."

Barnett apologized to those hurt by Rotta's comments.

"Shame on you, Mr. Rotta. Shame on you," Barnett said.

Ludington Fire Chief Jerry Funk also spoke out and said he, too, was offended by Rotta's claims against city officials, noting Rotta's comment that Ludington police reserve officers are "vigilantes."

Funk said he worked 30 years as a volunteer reserve officer, including every Fourth of July during that time.

"We are there to help people," Funk said.

He commended Barnett for his comments.

City councilors clapped for both men.

Rotta was given an opportunity to give a 60-second rebuttal, but after he went to the lectern, he declined, saying he wanted more time.

http://www.shorelinemedia.net/ludington_daily_news/news/local/artic...

I must have really had a fire and brimstone speech tonight. Frankly, I think it fell slightly below that. I was told I comment on both the chiefs' public appearance, yet I can't remember ever doing that. I have commented about those on the other side of the bathroom cameras at Waterfront Park are perverts, so one can infer from his diatribe, that he has watched those cameras, some pointed at urinals and pointed inside the stalls. It is perverse and illegal to record in such areas, so those who do can rightly be called perverts; the Ludington Police Department have imprisoned others for the same type crimes and likely refer to them with the same vernacular.

And yes, I called the reserve police officers "vigilantes", because that is exactly what they are, but here is the full public comment I gave:

"At the end of the last meeting a couple of you stood up and made some statements which should have been refuted at the end of the meeting by the facts, but this city council in its open and transparent style refuses to allow public comment after they have conducted the business of the meeting. The County, PM Township, and Hamlin Township, your three partners in developing a joint comprehensive master plan, all allow comments at the beginning of the meeting and the end of the meeting. A goal in Ludington's master plan is that "residents of Ludington will benefit from an open, available and transparent communication process with City leadership and staff". Muting the public from the conversation after you conduct your business and made your own public comments is unfair and contrary to that goal.

Attorney Wilson started off by saying that the people's charter took the power to appoint reserve officers to the police department from the mayor and thereby into the hands of the police chief. But the city charter and code in no way gives such powers to the police chief, just the power of direction of officers. Because there is no accord in the charter for reserve police officers of any type, the dominating authority is expressed in section 10.8 which says "The positions and duties of Administrative Officers for which provision is not made herein, shall be established by ordinance."

As there has never been any ordinance codification of the reserved police officers of Ludington, and exactly no public records that the City will share regarding this group, they are an illegal, opaque, organization which should be repugnant to this public body. A vigilante is defined as an individual that undertakes law enforcement without legal authority. The Ludington Police reserve officers are vigilantes. If I organize a group of uniformed and armed officers and send them out into the community to enforce the laws of this nation, state, and locality, without any sort of legislative authority lawfully behind them, I don't think this community would tolerate them for long. It would likely be called a ‘gang’.

Particularly, since there are some here in this room that just might be rounded up. Chief Barnett's Vigilante Squad starring Mayor Cox should similarly be either legislatively organized or disbanded. Having secret, unaccountable-for vigilantes being controlled by our police is not a good thing.

Councilor Castonia followed by admonishing me for basically three things, punctuated at the end by the other lame duck councilor. He stated I get up at this podium and state that everything should be voted on by the people, and that it's his job to vote on things.

While I am a fan of direct democracy, I am an adherent of constitutional republics of which this city allegedly is. If the City Charter calls for a popular vote, then the members of this public body can vote on it-- on equal terms with a few thousand other citizens in an election. If you don't allow that public vote, then you as public servants are breaking the law, and the chief's or anybody else's gang of vigilantes in Ludington may come and arrest you accordingly.

The second point he brought up was that he's never seen my name on the ballot, and that wouldn't surprise me. I ran for Ms. Holman's councilor at large position in 2011, and I was not allowed to enter the City hall or police station without authorization, which was denied me several times just before the election. This was due to a policy that Councilor Castonia oversaw at the Committee level that kept me out and denied me the right to vote in that election at my polling place, this City Hall, so even I have never seen my name on the ballot.

What got me targeted was to point out the unethical business dealings of the City, courtesy of our City Manager and two public servants with the last name of Tykoski, one who runs a sign business. Councilor Castonia did see my name on legal process just a few months ago, when he was served right here for taking part in willfully violating the Open Meetings Act.

The third point was that he said that I should be part of the solutions and not part of the problem. From my perspective, the problems with Ludington have been originating from this very city council. Whether it be from what I have pointed out in this chamber over the last two years entered into the public record with pride, or what I have pointed out at my blog for the last five, there can be no denying the fact that this council has only raised taxes and fees for our citizens in that time, even holding truth in taxation hearings to raise them when the Headlee Amendments rollbacks kicked in. That trend will be continued tonight when this council passes the change in water and sewer connection fees which covertly raises connecting replacement taps by over 30%."

My finishing paragraph was never spoken due to my five minutes having ran out, and too bad because it had a bit of joviality. Frankly, I think it's a pretty sad situation when the police chief and fire chief says that I am attacking volunteerism, by questioning why these armed vigilantes are not in any way accountable or have any minimum standard of training or qualifications (that the public knows of) or any legislative fiat for their existence. It would be so easy for this city council to pass an ordinance making reserve officers legitimate and set some requirements, and for Mayor Ryan Cox to admit that his mayor job and his police job are incompatible and resign from one or the other.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by XLFD on March 26, 2014 at 2:42pm

EyE said: "The torch provides some excellent investigative journalism from the desk of Tom Rotta. Many of his articles provide the torch readers with serious issues worthy of serious thought and discussion. Unfortunately, most of the discussions present only one viewpoint of the story, because over the years the owner of this forum has often very quick to quash anybody who challenges his allegations."

While I appreciate the compliment in the first part of your statement, I cannot take your second part very seriously without you offering me any examples. Unless you're talking about quashing challengers by winning the intellectual debate over the issue.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by XLFD on March 26, 2014 at 4:27pm

How did I quash her? She signed on originally with her actual name, used it for a day or so,and I brought up a video of her advocating for the dog park. She apparently thought she was losing the argument, because she left-- and has apparently misrepresented the events to you.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by XLFD on March 26, 2014 at 7:14pm

Oh, and here's a little bit more, I made a presumption after she had effectively gave enough inside information for me to make a presumption that she was the only Jen associated with the dog park (her Torch name was Jen). As you can see, she was the one who disclosed her actual name:

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by XLFD on March 27, 2014 at 9:07am

EyE,

Jen Mladucky was listed in more than one COLDNews articles as the voice or president of the Dog Park. On the Torch, She originally signed on as 'Jen Tooman' if I remember correctly, changed her name to 'Jen', and talked about the Dog Park as if she had inside knowledge of the illicit deals that led to it, and her role in it.

For her or yourself to claim I compromised her identity is a bit of a stretch; if anything my presumption made after she declared he was part of the dog park effort, a presumption which she corrected and seemed fine with at the time, lent her content more authenticity.

Permalink Reply by XLFD on March 26, 2014 at 6:43pm

Sure. But if you're going back three years and relying on unreliable hearsay instead of anything concrete, I'm thinking you may have a difficult exercise finding anything more.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Willy on March 26, 2014 at 7:12pm

Eye your the one who doesn't "get it". X never attacked any city official, he pointed out the misdeeds and illegal activity they perpetrated. They on the other hand attacked X. Another thing you don't get is the fact that LDN reports the city's side of the debate but not X's side. The LDN has not contacted X to get his side of any story. The public who do not support X are not getting all of the facts from the piece of sh_t called LDN so what other conclusion can they draw because they are reading slanted, false, deceitful articles that are written and designed to provoke negative reactions to X. This is why your such a G_d damn fool. You get on this forum and talk nonsense and somehow you think folks will take you seriously. And the fact that you support the illegal acts of the City and loathsome reporting of the LDN says a lot about you.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by XLFD on March 27, 2014 at 9:15am

EyE,

You're talking to yourself.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by XLFD on March 27, 2014 at 9:41am

No, EyE, you misunderstand me; your last post you made above, you addressed to yourself other than what I think your intended target was.

Sometimes conversing with yourself is totally normal, but if others have been politely suggesting you get some professional services at CMH, strongly consider it.