The Last Five Minute Speech of February 22, 2016: The Skeptic, the Gotcha, the Shaming, the Gloat, and the Challenge

[XLFD]

At the February 22, 2016 Ludington City Council meeting, I perhaps covered the most topics I ever did in the five minutes allotted, about an hour before the council voted unanimously to change the public comment period to disallow any of the five parts of the comment to ever be muttered before the council's business is conducted ever again. 

The change in comment obviously is more restrictive on comment for everyone, and conveniently pushes all of the critiques, gripes, and pleas to the council that lies outside their agenda back to a time where they don't even need to listen to it, since the only decision they need to make after it is to adjourn.  

The five other people who spoke from the peanut gallery at this meeting had parts of their comments falling in a gray area of whether it was part of the agenda.  Two spoke out against the West End Project when the public hearing isn't until the next meeting, one complimented city workers working near her home also not on the agenda, one talked about a beauty pageant-- not on the agenda, and one commented on Shay's responsibility and how the lead won't just go away, never on the agenda of this council.

So I didn't bother even commenting on the expected change to the rules meant to quell public debate and idea-sharing, but took on five things that fell without the agenda, because there may be friction over such speech in the near future.  I analyze the five topics here, and why they were important to be discussed publicly.  My speech starts at 2:20 into the video below, and the annotated transcript follows  The five other forbidden speakers follow on the video:

February 22, 2016 Ludington City Council from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

"First off, I am grateful that finally after five months have passed that the city has opted to seriously review the DEQ's report on the PM Bayou by having Otwell Mawby look it over.  I do think it is very premature on the analysis that you have at the end of your councilor packets to conclude as the city manager has that the condition of the bayou does not pose a risk to the public's health, safety and welfare.  Even this summary doesn't say that.  The hastily drafted report has a few factual inaccuracies within that I detected, and Otwell Mawby is the environmental consultant the city employs exclusively, so I would recommend a second opinion from someone without a possible conflict of interest extant."

Analysis:  The 2-22-2016 Council Packet has an FYI at the very end of the documents starting at p. 217, summary beginning at p. 223.  Here's a couple of easily noted inaccuracies in the report, their are others and so it makes one think that the environmental consultant was either hurried or supplying analysis that the City wanted to see (note the only date on the report is the Friday before this meeting).  The summary says:

However, compare it to one of the two dozen sediment samples that dispute the zinc and lead numbers, with a lead result at 330 which is higher than 190, and 960 for zinc which is higher than 440:

When simple observational errors like this is so evident in the report, it leads one to question the validity of the other technical observations, which seem to be trying to point away from the liability of the city-- how odd that their loyal and long-term employer would benefit from that.

"Second, at the end of last month our city manager talked with TV 9 & 10 news about the problem with high lead blood levels in our children.  He is quoted by that venerated news outlet as saying:  "We are required to test [drinking water] for a variety of different chemicals.  Our last three rounds of testing show no lead in the water."   He adds:  "We do 20 to 22 samples throughout the water system and we send those samples to a laboratory in the Grand Rapids area.  They report the results back, which have been zero and we send that on to the DEQ."

Not surprisingly with his past record of prevarication, John Shay is lying to us.  I have the results of those last two water tests via FOIA and the results are encouraging for the most part in that almost all residences measured in our city test less than the minimum reportable level of 3 parts per billion, which does not necessarily equal zero. 

But one house in each test had a result which was above the MRL, in 2014 the house (which is not far from the water treatment plant) had water that tested at 6 parts per billion, twice the MRL.  So the results of these tests on our houses, contrary to our city manager's claims, are not zero and do show there is some lead in the water in our water system.   Two acts of lying, while people may be dying.  At the end of my comment you will receive that proof of your employee's dishonesty in disseminating information to the public." 

Analysis:  The article When Men of Infamy to Grandeur Soar... explores this in some detail.  If the city manager cannot tell the public the truth about this, why would we take anything he says for granted without solid proof backing it up?

Third, it should be publicly noted that one of our city's Board of Ethics members was recently arraigned for a DWI.  Branden Dunblazier appears to have shown something other than ethical behavior when he got behind the wheel and allegedly drove drunk, endangering the lives of those in the community.  I encourage the mayor to encourage his old friend to step down from the board he was appointed to less than a month before this incident to maintain what little integrity this city government has.

Analysis:  This was also covered in detail at the LT prior to this meeting:  Ethics and Ethanol, as noted it's a testimony to the ethics of the council as to whether they allow a BOE member to continue serving in that moral authority capacity when his judgment and ethics have come into question.

Fourth, I would like to humbly notify the council that I prevailed in my FOIA appeal to the 51st Circuit Court this last Friday.  Back in March of last year, I requested a police arrest report authored by Officer Tony Kuster.  It was fully denied saying it was part of an investigation, a result that was confirmed by this city council on March 22, 2015.  Besides the council's usual avoidance of looking into the issues of facts and laws, I was amused by Councilor Krauch's observation at the time:  "I think the basis of this action to be taken on it is based on the law, and the interpretation of law, and my inclination is to uphold the FOIA Coordinator's finding, but it's on the basis of the law and the FOIA Coordinator's recommendation in that regard."

Au Contraire, Councilor Krauch, Judge Wadel agreed with the plaintiff in that case that the otherwise bland arrest report was not an investigation record, almost fully non-exempt on the day it was made.  I pitied the City's risk management attorney trying to defend why this one arrest report was somehow special and fully exempt with the fatally flawed affidavits city official's supplied him.   'Based on the law and the interpretation of the law', Judge Wadel came to the only legal and logical conclusion; I suggest you all read the transcript and learn further about what a public record is and your duties as a public servant to provide those to the public when required.

Analysis:  Unfortunately, one week after my victory in a hostile court without an attorney, no other news agency in the area has desired to touch the story of how the city arbitrarily withheld a police arrest report and how a citizen challenged that and won.  Only those who check in on the LT would ever know this happened, except those that catch these meetings, and enjoy the city attorney's dissembling of how the City actually won.  Keep on thinking that when the written judgment says otherwise and your buddy signs the check covering my costs and disbursements.   

Lastly, I offer a challenge to this council.  On October 25th, 2015 this council rejected a FOIA appeal dealing with the redaction of LPD's SSCENT officer's name, David Krause, from payroll records of last March.  I still cannot fathom why the city would think taking SSCENT Officer David Krause's name [This is where I was interrupted and told my five minutes were up, they chose not to hear the full challenge, but I will continue here] from a payroll record would be legal, or the hours that he worked.  The affidavit supplied by Chief Barnett is the very definition of arbitrary and capricious reasoning and behavior, as is the FOIA Coordinator's opinion. 

Here's your challenge: review that decision tonight and move to hold a new vote on whether to uphold the FOIA Coordinator's decision or decide to release the name of SSCENT officer David Krause and his work hours from last March's payroll records.  If your vote remains the same or if you decide not to revisit the issue, be prepared to be served court process at the beginning of the next meeting seeking the name of SSCENT Officer David Krause and his work hours last March."

Analysis:  Here is the document I got back after a FOIA request covering the LPD timesheet for the pay period including March 10, the below shows the only redacted part:

Through a process of elimination, the missing officer is David Krause.  After appealing to the city council that these deletions were unwarranted using any sort of exemption to take out the hours worked by the officer seven months prior, they flatly, unanimously and without discussion decided the erroneous redactions were permissible.

The clear, concise judgment of Judge Wadel on February 19, 2016 over a police report with David Krause's names and actions thereon as the officer that LPD officer Tony Kuster assisted, had the judge asserting that other things one would feel were more sensitive than seven month old payroll records were undisputably part of the public record.

I finish the challenge here for their benefit, I will wait until the availability of next meetings agenda to finalize the lawsuit if voting to invalidate this result is not present thereon.  If I mysteriously receive an unredacted record with Krause's name and number of hours worked from the FOIA Coordinator before that, the challenge will have been accepted and they can avoid the embarrassment and expense of their public vote, and the lawsuit. 

Telephone them to release the records, send them an e-mail to do what's right, and ask them to save face and taxpayer money by doing so.  See if they will listen to you, and common sense, or will they claim some insane principle and protect these non-exempt records from the public.

[Willy]

I know this question has been asked over and over but what hell is the matter with the Councilors. Do they have so little regard for the people who elected them. What are they thinking? Every resolution, rule, amendment, ordinance, statute or law that is acted on by the Council must be addressed by each Councilor as to why they support or do not support it and why they voted as they did. They need to explain to the people they represent why they take the action they do. Not a single Councilor apposed this anti-citizen amendment.