The Development of Authority, part 10: Mixed Loyalties / Dissed Loyalties

[XLFD]

Background

Back in the midst of this summer, I published the seventh installment of this shameful episodic account of the ethical and legal aspects of the Ludington Downtown Development Authority (LDDA) which touched on a variety of issues of concern to those who live in, own houses in, or visit Ludington.  Among these issues were the duplication of the LDDA's membership with the membership of the Ludington/Scottville Chamber of Commerce (L/SCC), as discussed in part 3 of that topic. 

 

There I asked:  Why have a DDA when the Chamber of Commerce has the same function and members? I then supplied:  The answer that makes most sense is that the Ludington DDA, as is, is meant for corporate welfare of favored businesses in favored areas. 

 

That makes very good sense, particularly when we review their records and find that they have invested tens of thousands of public dollars on things like Friday Night Live (FNL) and the NewYear's Eve Ball Drop (NYE) over the last few years, but never got back any public revenues from either event-- even though several LDDA members financially showed a direct financial benefit from such events, as related in the above links.  Then we learned of a LDDA member's company, who happened to be the fiance of the LDDA chairman, get a lucrative 'signage' contract worth an estimated $150,000 without any fair bidding process recognizable by law.

 

In this dual membership, one would hope that their duty to the public to use their money wisely and ethically would trump their duty to the Chamber of Commerce and their obligation to do what's best for their business they either own or manage.  Legally and morally it should, but have we really seen legalities or ethics throughout this serial of malfeasances being followed by this group?  Their actions have spoken plainly enough, but let's take a look at where there true loyalties lie, as determined by the strength of their allegiances to the two groups that each member of the LDDA (except the Mayor and CDD Heather Venzke) is part of.

 

The Chamber of Commerce

 

The mission statement for the L/SCC is simple: "The mission of the Chamber is to promote economic growth and prosperity for its members and the community."  Their vision statement is a bit more complex but broad in scope.  It includes:  "Advocate for our members in order to influence public policy; foster partnerships to facilitate responsible public decision-making."   This is a clarion call to have its members actively partner with and influence local public bodies to gain their objectives and goals.  What better way to do so than infiltrate them when possible, as they have done with the LDDA?

 

Incredibly, though the L/SCC does not openly talk of an "oath of office", most Chambers do so for their officers.  Effectively, you cannot be a Chamber officer without swearing a pledge to the organization and its vision.  Such as here, Sechelt C of C, wherein it says:

"Terms of office of incoming directors and officers shall commence at the first board
meeting following their election when they will take and subscribe to an oath of office
as hereinafter prescribed"

The oath of office shall be in the following form and shall be taken and subscribed
before either of the Mayor of Sechelt and District or any Justice of the Peace.
“I (name) swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and truly perform my duty as (name of
office) of the Sechelt and District Chamber of Commerce and that I will, in all matters
connected with the discharge of such duty, do all things, and such things only, as I
shall truly and conscientiously believe to be adapted to promote the objects for which
the Sechelt and District Chamber of Commerce was constituted, according to the true
intent and meaning of the same. I so swear (or affirm).”

 

This is a formal swearing in by a court officer or mayor for a Chamber board member (a non-public position).  I offer also a link to the following example, to show this is not a singular aberration, and invite the reader to further research.  Inside the link it says:  "Dickinson will administer the oath of office to nine Chamber board members, including two of the youngest members ever elected to the Chambers' board..." 

 

I would dare say the L/SCC has some similar pledge for the 17 Board members, including the Ludington and Scottville City Managers and two LDDA members, Alecksy Urick and Kathy MacLean.  Even if they don't, they still are obligated to the vision and goals of the Chamber.

 

The Downtown Development Authority

 

The LDDA lists no vision or mission statement for themselves and their endeavors in any of their publicly-accessible links.  The City website has plenty of mission statements for agencies like the City Assessor, the Police Dept., the Senior Center, and even the L/SCC so displayed, but not the LDDA.  Without such basics defined, how are we to define the Authority's success-- or failure? 

 

I could find nothing in the City's website that would justify the local DDA.  The LDDA's raison d'etre must then be couched in the laws of its construction which is found in the City Code at sec 2-57 which refers to the state Public Act 197 of 1975.  There is no clearly defined vision or mission in that Act either, beyond the legislative findings trying to justify the Act itself.

 

So the DDA has well over $100,000 to spend each year, limited restrictions of where to spend that money, and no defined vision or mission in the expenditure of the public funds.  Nice.  But Act 197 has a safeguard to deter the use of that money in any manner other than in the public's interest.  Each DDA member has to take the same Oath of Office that any public employee has to take.  Section 125.1654(2) says that:  "Before assuming the duties of office (of a Downtown Development Authority), a member shall qualify by taking and subscribing to the constitutional oath of office."

 

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of the Ludington Downtown Development Authority according to the best of my ability."  Sounds simple, and these few words pledge their faith to their office as a LDDA member, and that they will perform their duties to the people that they serve in the best manner they can. 

 

But, surprise, not one of the members, or any former members since 2008, of Ludington's DDA/DLB have taken this oath, according to a recent FOIA response.  Here was the request for the oaths for 16 LDDA members, including it's chair, Heather Venzke and councilor-elect Nick Tykoski.  Here was the reply that says no such Oaths of Office records exist. 

 

 

Conclusion:

 

That's zero out of sixteen complying with the law.  Sixteen people who should be out of a job for not taking an oath to the people they supposedly serve, some who have swore their allegiance to a private business organization, the local Chamber of Commerce.  Every single member of the Ludington DDA has no clear vision, no clear mission, and have clearly made the choice to not swear allegiance to the laws and people they supposedly serve. 

 

Their actions do indeed match up to their words-- those words being oaths to the Chamber they serve, and their pledges to the investors in their private businesses.  Not to the public or to the laws of this country and state.  We are two millenia removed from Marcus Tullius Cicero, who said:  

 

“A city can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a city, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”

[Marty Redman]

Damn, it says right in that one DDA law that all members need to take an Oath of Office.  Then your buddy tells you that none of those sixteen people have taken it.  By the Constitution of your state, do they not need to give up their office, and invalidate everything they've done?

[Willy]

Is the LDDA a Government orginization? 

[XLFD]

Good question that needs to be addressed at times.  All Downtown Development Authorities are government organizations, created by the local municipalities and subject to the usual duties of government agencies, including for the members (public officers):

a)  appointment to their position by the chief executive officer of the city

b)  the need to take the constitutional oath of office (of Michigan)

c)  must have each meeting conform with the Open Meetings Act

d)  removal of members with cause by the city council

e)  publishing financial records to be available to the public

f)  records made by the DDA are available through FOIA

 

Among others; the above are contained in the same section of law I included above.  This fact also is stated explicitly in MCL 125.1652 where it says:  "An authority shall be a public body corporate which may sue and be sued in any court of this state. An authority possesses all the powers necessary to carry out the purpose of its incorporation."  

[Willy]

Thanks X. That was going to be my next question. Does the authority come from the State? Your link answers that question. Again, Excellent reporting of a subject of interest to the Ludington community. I have to post my concerns about f)  records made by the DDA are available through FOIA. Why on Earth should a FOIA be needed to recieve information about a Government agency. I would like to see the FOIA act ammended to only 1 paragraph and that paragraph would say '' all public information shall be made available to all citizens without cost and without a FOIA request". The FOIA act has made gathering public information more complicated, difficult and expensive for the average citizen.

[XLFD]

For my upcoming FOIA appeal hearing in the Circuit Court, I will be putting into the record at least one statement from another FOIA Coordinator who routinely compiles massive FOIA requests for his public body without any charge according to their policy.  When FOIA Coordinator Shay tries to charge over $100 to find that a well-specified public record does not exist, there's something wrong-- and fishy to boot.

[AQUAMAN]

Memo to Rotta: Rotten fish do smell bad, but fresh clean honest caught fish have no bad smell. Same as politicians.......lol. 

[snide]

I don't mind that a FOIA request be filed , by WHY do you have to pay for it..... It's their JOB for crissake ! And to ban Tom  R. from City Hall is equally asinine. there are cameras all over that place , if he did something , CHARGES SHOULD BE FILED. Apparently someone was spooked or offended, but so be it . If you don't want to wait on the public GET ANOTHER JOB and let someone that wants a job have it. It used to be called public service when you had a Government job.. Just more crap like the building inspector firing and the Library firing that will end up costing us all money. that's my rant of the night.......!

[Willy]

Snide

That's what is so crazy about how the City Councilors the Mayor and the LDN are reacting to Mr. Rotta's banishment and FOIA requests. They don't seem to be in the least bit concerned. None of them have investigated the underhanded way the City Manager has treated Mr. Rotta during this entire situation or any of the questionable dealings that smell of corruption that Mr. Rotta has uncovered. One City Council woman who used to post here didn't seem concerned either even when direct questions regarding the banishment were directed her way. She didn't seem to have much of an opinion about all of the shady dealings Mr. Rotta exposed here in this forum.Since then we haven't heard a peep out of her. Ludington has some lousy Government representation. It's almost  like the entire City of Ludington  is clueless. Heaven help the future of Ludington with such people in power because Ludington citizens have seen a huge decline in personal rights and freedom at the hands of the current Gestapo.

[XLFD]

Here's once again Ms. Venzke's letter to John Shay that started the ball rolling, issued the day after the City created a policy.

I also have a reliable source that claims she had pursued a PPO from the local courts for me, and even though they do not like my persistence either, she was denied.  Wasn't it a strange coincidence, I was noticed lurking around her home by an unnamed neighbor the day after the policy was created without my knowing anything about it?  Ms. Venzke's career was threatened and still is threatened by the alleged misuse of her office for the personal gain of herself and her friends which is supported by a variety of documents.  No one at City Hall cares, however, which lends one to believe that the whole basket is filled with bad apples.

[snide]

That is absolutly crazy...! That ONE person can say from a second hand source that you were "in" an area and get your right to vote yanked is beyond belief....That being said, and please forgive me, have you EVER been convicted of a violent crime or on a sex offender list (you may e-mail if desired)  that would set a legal presedent ....? That is the ONLY thing I could think of that could POSSIBLY make them think that Ms Venske was in some form of danger without charges or arrests being made.......

[XLFD]

Twenty six years ago, I wandered through an open door in the basement of my college dorm, and found myself in the food storage area of the quad.  I scarfed a few items and was caught.  Besides a few moving violations, one on my bicycle, there has been nothing else as a blot on my record.... except for FOIA requests.

Speaking of second hand, Shay related Venzke's concerns to the LPD by leaving any mention of the above concerns out, and just telling them that I had used a publicly accessible website provided by City Hall to show that Venzke and Tykoski had purchased a house together within a year of Tykoski getting the $150,000 signage contract in a rigged bidding process, a charge totally supported by records I received through FOIA.  He didn't put it that way, however.

[Willy]

The biggest blot on your record now is John Shay. I hope Shay's mother is proud of what she produced.