The Depths of Shame

[XLFD]

The Ludington city council meeting of January 23, 2017 featured a small preview of what was to come.  In the opening comments, I had made a query into a purchase of what was listed in the city's bills as various Christmas dinner items (see more details in the article Hams, Dozens of Hams).  As noted there, a page of the City of Ludington's website authored by LPD Officer Tony Kuster says:  "One hundred per cent of the funds raised will go towards the [Shop with a Cop] program because there is no overhead. All participants are volunteers."

It may be inferred that he was only referencing the pie auction, but nothing in the records concerning other donations makes it appear otherwise; in fact, at the meeting the city officials that did reply inferred there was no hidden costs they paid for.

After that meeting, I asked through a FOIA request for the records of revenues and expenses of the SWAC program, along with receipts.  I got the data, looked through it and noticed some problems, other than they were using the city's general fund as a credit card and bank.  These problems turned out to be justified and exhibited that money was lost somewhere, to the order of about $1000.  There were $500 more of funds that the records never made clear about what they were used for, only that they hadn't been used for the $150 SWAC gift certificates or the Christmas dinners. 

The lost money was the most compelling and easiest to illustrate, so I came before the city council at their February 13th meeting and explained what I could get to in the two minutes I was allotted.  The Chief of the Ludington Police Department, Mark Barnett, took issue with my implications and defended his program by attacking me, my character, and even my existence (as detailed in Shock with a Kop) for five minutes.  

The sitting mayor, a former LPD officer, not only allowed him to get away with it, but clapped and punctuated it with a "Well said, Chief."  He was not the only city official to react with applause to a speech whose purpose seemed only to heap shame and ridicule on somebody for saying the city's accounting process and their end result showed malfeasance. 

After recovering myself from the depths of shame for this unmerited attack by the only member at city hall with a gun at hand, I sent an E-mail out to several officials and media folks who often come to the meetings. 

Now, those who have followed the Ludington Torch over a majority of the last eight years know I rarely use such strong language as irrefutable, but this is one instance where the facts are there in the complete records the city gave me for this program that show an irrefutable loss of nearly one thousand dollars, furthermore there is no other explanation of it being used except for something outside of the program. 

Mark Barnett attempted a public shaming, trusting on the innate biases of those who attended the meeting to frame it, which can be quite effective when one compares our two societal positions:  I am a simple, poor, self-employed small businessman who runs a website and confronts corruption head-on, he's a police chief.  My E-mailed request was to be able to fully explain what the records indicated in front of their 'home team' and a normally hostile crowd made up largely of fellow public officers. 

This wouldn't be the first time they have allowed citizens to ask for a few extra minutes to make presentations outside of the usual public comment.  If you recall, several citizens spoke for the creation of a historic district just a few years back chatting well over the five minutes normally reserved; it was similarly done for those arguing for a cat-feeding ordinance.  The county government has allowed citizens to give special 10-15 minute presentations on Agenda 21, wind turbines and police issues. 

If my argument was weak, if my alleged facts and proofs were in the least bit insufficient, why certainly the ridicule and shame on my part would be well deserved-- Chief Barnett would be vindicated in making his otherwise cowardly personal attack.  Surely, they would want me to make a fool of myself and possibly score a major victory in their book if they let me talk and had a reasonable answer for the shortcomings I saw. 

And yet, if I was able to get this ten minutes to lay out the message to the council and all the people who look in on Ludington TV to see the meetings, and the many more who come here and watch these recordings here, and the message delivered showed irrefutable proof of wrongdoing in the administration of this program, then there would be little place for those involved to hide their own shame, the public ridicule would fall squarely on those who failed to properly manage the donated money. 

Thus, if they thought I had a weak case, there would be no reason against letting me wade through my presentation and make a gigantic fool of myself.  But if they thought my case was compelling, if they have actually reviewed the records and seen the irregularities themselves, including the irrefutable part I have recognized, then they simply could not let themselves be shamed by the facts and the irrefutable proof.  I received my answer to the 'challenge' earlier today

A complete analysis of the irrefutable misuse of public funds (made up of donated funds that were supposed to be shared with poor kids and their families) with evidence and proof will be out next weekend on this website.  The defense the city will utilize the following Monday will be both shameful and ridiculous to be sure.

[John Doe Jr]

just tell them ok, I will just go to tv 9& 10

[stump]

9 & 10  would be a good one , how about 13, seems like Grand Rapids is interested in our city business. How about handing the presentation off every 2 minutes to another person, might take 5 . That would be hilarious .

[XLFD]

Not bad ideas, guys, but volunteers are hard to come by in February to bell the city hall cats.  I just may shop the article around to the news once I get it all fine tuned.   

[jfc123]

Why was it denied? What legal are they referring to that they can do this? Just makes me feel like some of the comments on concerned locals, "seems it may be time to move out of this area"! Isn't that sad, the governance makes people that pay their wages feel this way? Please come one, come all, and buy our properties, our tires will be squealing out of town to NEVER return! Shame, but the wing of the hospital will still be part of our legacy. Ruining Stearns, how can you all not want to stand against this? Rise above!

[Willy]

If Shay reviewed the same information he has given you wouldn't he come to the same conclusion as you that there appears to be either an accounting error or funds are indeed missing. He's required to look into the situation and take the proper action required. Either determine if money is missing or this was simply an error. Either way he must perform his duties and keep the public informed.  If he doesn't then he will demonstrate that the public cannot have any confidence that he is doing the job he is paid to perform, if indeed there are missing funds and he tries to bury this incident is he not then an accomplice to any wrong doing if any has occurred? If there was a bookkeeping error why not say so and present the mistake and how the error will be corrected? If they are trying to hide a misdeed then they will do their usual closed mouth routine and hope this goes away. I would think that the entire City Council has to soul search and make a decision on how to truly represent the citizens. By bad mouthing a citizen when there is a potential for a serious breach of ethics or even a possible felony violation shows a serious lack of moral fiber by these City officials. If Shay is playing games and knows nothing is wrong then again he has no business holding that job. I would suggest that if the City ignores this then the only recourse I can see is to turn this matter over to the prosecutor.

[AQUAMAN]

Maybe another way to get some answers is to state that the current accounting reflected to the public reveals that a $2950 possible discrepancy is showing. ($14,000 taken in, less $11,050 spent). Ask them to verify that, or show otherwise. That is definitely a starting point for legal action, imho. If they don't answer that FOIA, then you can presume the worst, and take this to a court for affirmative actions. The main problem is the appointees are running the council: Shay, Barnett, and Wilson assume the control over the peons that got elected. None have any educational background in accounting methodology, so that needs clarification and exposure.

[XLFD]

Aquaman, the records do show that they have put some of those leftover funds in a special account of the budget, but frankly you still really can't verify that fact without a special FOIA request, so it looks shady.  They did give me the full accounting of the money, but even so the discrepancies were there, unexplained, and entirely indicative of somebody dipping into the donations. 

IHAN, in initial preparations of a concise proof (my post-graduate degree in mathematics comes in handy sometimes, even though these discrepancies could be discernable by others without formal training and a basic high school math understanding) I have uncovered a couple of other problems that are disturbing.  I am in the process of verifying whether these are minor or major causes of concern. 

Great quote, I'm glad that I know that the extent of my wisdom and learning is properly bound on all sides by a black hole of colossal ignorance.  It keeps me humble, except when things get to the irrefutable stage.