The Plied Pipelayer of Hamlin Township

[XLFD]

First some definitions:

Plied: Worked steadily at

Pipelayer : A politician who works in secret

Plied Pipelayer:  A politician who worked steadily to keep things secret

Every once in a while, you find a kindred spirit nearby interested in the same things you're interested in.  I recently noticed in the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews), a local story about FOIA that didn't involve me or John Shay.  In this article from February 13, 2013 it is reported:

FOIA costs

<--- Hamlin Township Supervisor Nancy Vandervest noted in the agenda that the township has spent $1,250 in attorney fees for Freedom of Information Act requests. The township had a rash of FOIA requests last year and Vandervest said some were considered questionable. For those, she contacted the Michigan Township Association for guidance and, if necessary, the township’s attorney.

When those entrusted by the public to fulfill FOIA requests are using attorneys an awfully lot for replies, you can jump to the conclusion that they are trying to block release of something if you're a citizen or jump to the conclusion that someone is exploiting the FOIA to harass the public body if you serve as a public official.  The latter case can usually be figured out by the nature and frequency of the requests as to whether it has any basis.  Hamlin Township Supervisor Nancy Vandervest's "considered questionable" had me believing the township was hiding something.

So at first I made a request and asked for FOIA requests (and the associated responses) made to the township since the beginning of 2012, and there were a few, almost about as much as I make to the City of Ludington, and most were made by the same person.  Their areas of concern intrigued me, and I looked to get some information that the township seemed to be blocking him from, and found myself getting blocked.

Their story, I reserve for a later date; my story on trying to get those blocked records (and succeeding) is right here.  A look at Hamlin Township's most recently posted meeting minutes affirmed the COLDNews report:

Those who are familiar with Hamlin know of a somewhat spirited township supervisor race this last fall between Randal Wolf and Ms. Vandervest.  To me it looked as if the townhip was making a fair profit from the sale of information to Randal, receiving over $30 for three audiotapes and reports that really should have been available to the public on their website.  The information from all FOIAs did not look like anything to bother an attorney over.

The most amusing thing from these minutes, however, is the statute they quote at the beginning of the section,  MCL 21.153.  If you read it, it has nothing to do with the FOIA.  They had rearranged the initial numbers that the FOIA has, which happens to be MCL 15.231, replacing it with an obscure section dealing with Obligations Due State Law.

Seeing that this was regularly put on their minutes, and that they were charging quite a bit for records, I realized I was in for a battle against a public official FOIA who wasn't really in the FOIA spirit, even with Freedom of Information week coming up.

On February 27, I sent a letter requesting certain records of Hamlin Twp saying:

"Under provisions of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act (MCLA 15.231 et seq; MSA 4.1801 (1) et seq) I am requesting, preferably in electronic records sent to this E-Mail address, or if that is not economically expedient, to personally inspect the following public records:

A complete compilation of the 1099 Forms sent out to all independent contractors from the Township of Hamlin for the year 2011.

This is to be used for the passing of such information to the general public (media purposes), and not for personal gain.

If you need any clarifications of this request, please reply expediently to this E-mail address.

If requested record(s) do not exist, please enumerate which ones do not, as per the Act.

Please note also that this FOIA Request was sent more than 24 hours after the previous FOIA request from our concerned parties.

If you determine that some of the requested information is exempt from disclosure, please detail what is being withheld and cite the exemption under FOIA.

If fees to comply with this request exceed $20, please contact me at this E-Mail address with those fees enumerated.

As provided under FOIA, I would anticipate my request being filled within five working days of receipt of this letter."

To this I received the following reply on March 5:

"Per your February 27, 2013 FOIA request:

“A complete compilation of the 1099 Forms sent out to all independent contractors from the Township of Hamlin for the year of 2011”

Freedom of Information Act Request:

Denied

Reason for Denial:

The Township of Hamlin is not required to create a record and/or list that does not exist per the Freedom of Information Act 15.233 - Section 3 – Number 4 as quoted.

“(4) This act does not require a public body to make a compilation, summary, or report of information, except as required in section 11”.

Notice of Requestor’s Right to Seek Judicial Review

You are entitled under Section 10 of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, MCL 15.240, to appeal this denial to the township 10 days following the board’s first regularly scheduled meeting following the submission of your written appeal or to commerce an action in the Circuit Court to compel disclosure of the requested records if you believe they were wrongfully withheld from disclosure. If you are successful in asserting the right to inspect or to receive a copy of a public record or a portion of a public record in court, the court will award reasonable attorney fees, cost, and disbursements. If you prevail in part of your action, the court may in its discretion award reasonable attorney fees, costs, and disbursements or an appropriate portion of those attorney fees, costs and disbursements.

Thank You.

Nancy Vandervest"

This struck me as odd, as the full list of exemptions are found in section 13, not 3, of the act, and she quoted a general rule of the act-- that the public body is not required to make a special report that doesn't already exist due to a FOIA request.  But I think they misunderstood what I was asking for, so I sent back some clarification on the same day:

"Nancy, the denial is vague, and I think you are inferring that I am asking for a compilation/list of 1099 forms, what I'm asking for is your copies of the 1099 forms you sent out. Otherwise, I must infer what you are saying is that Hamlin Twp. did not file any 1099 forms with contractors and/or the IRS at all in 2011? Or destroyed your own copies, for whatever reason. There were no independent contractors employed by the township in 2011?"

She replied March 11, this was at the start of Freedom of Information week:

"Per your e-mail dated March 5, 2013;

The recent denial that you received was in reference to your FOIA request dated February 27, 2013 as quoted, you requested:

“A complete compilation of the 1099 Forms sent out to all independent contractors from the Township for Hamlin for the year of 2011”.

It was my interpretation along with the Township Attorney’s interpretation that

a complete compilation means “the act of compiling a list.” Therefore, as per my denial under the Freedom of Information Act, the Township is not required to make a compilation, summary or report.

I can complete your recent FOIA request. Per your March 5, 2013 e-mail as you requested “copies of the 1099 forms”. There will be five copies @ .25 each = $1.25; Plus .46 cents for first class mail service and time for the forms to be redacted which will be a total of $3.32. Grand Total $5.03.

I am aware of your claim of indigence per your recent correspondence. I understand, per the FOIA act, a person claiming indigence is allotted a $20.00 deferral of fees for each request. Section 15.234 states “A public record search shall be made and a copy of the public record shall be furnished without charge for the first $20.00 of the fee for each request to an individual who is entitled to information under this act and who submits an affidavit stating that the individual is then receiving public assistance, or if not receiving public assistance, stating facts showing inability to pay the cost because of indigency.

Therefore, please send Hamlin Township an affidavit stating to the above and the cost will be waived.

Thank You."

I think we begin to see why and how Hamlin Township is wasting so much of the taxpayers money on these FOIA requests.  We have a well-paid Township Supervisor consulting with the even-more-well-paid Township Attorney to try to refuse and withhold 5 pages of records from the public when they could have had a clerk just take ten minutes tops to comply with what I thought was a simple request, a request that a previous searcher had been denied due to similar word games being played by these two.  I sent out a reply wherein I ask for my own fee for being asked to provide duplicative records:

"Nancy,

A scan of the affidavit I made for the County of Mason on 12-27-2012 is included herein. I presume that we both want to save our respective selves the greatest amount of money. As such making hard copies when they're not necessary and mailing them, will not be necessary. Identification numbers on 1099s are redactable, and would allow you to charge for the necessary copying of those 5 pages. The ten minutes it should take to find, copy, redact, scan and send via E-mail should not add up to an "unreasonably high cost to the public body because of the nature of the request" which is for 5 records in the same file system, whether it be electronic and/or folder. Therefore, I do recognize $1.25 of your charges as valid if you do decide, for whatever reason, to say my affidavit is invalid.

If you want a personalized affidavit, I can prepare a Hamlin Twp. affidavit of indigency for you. Since I have to go to the library and print it out, go to GVCU to get it notarized, and then take it up to the town hall, I must charge you $.25 for a copy, $3 for gas, and $9.25 for my time, equals $12.50. See how ridiculous and arbitrary such itemization is when the other party does it?

Please send me these 5 records suitably redacted and scanned to this E-mail address, ASAP."

She replied March 14:

"I am in receipt of your e-mail along with a County of Mason Affidavit of Indigency for FOIA requests dated Monday, March 11, 2013.

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act Section 15.234 “A public record search shall be made and a copy of a public record shall be furnished without charge for the first $20.00 of the fee for each request to an individual who is entitled to information under this act and who submits an affidavit stating that the individual is then receiving public assistance or, if not receiving public assistance, stating facts showing inability to pay the cost because of indigency.”

Therefore, as previously requested on March 11, 2013, please forward the Township of Hamlin an Affidavit of Indigency for FOIA requests.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Nancy Vandervest"

On March 15, I thanked her for her generosity and promised an affidavit for Hamlin Township was forthcoming:

Nancy,

To be precise, on March 11 you sent:  "Therefore, please send Hamlin Township an affidavit  stating to the above and the cost will be waived."

I did, and you didn't waive them.  I suppose you can renege on your words, because in my reply to that E-mail, I did suggest that I could make one especially for the Township of Hamlin.  As noted in that missive, I quoted you a $12.50 charge for doing this.  I will get the "Township of Hamlin Affidavit of Indigency" to you duly sworn and notarized, and expect a prompt fulfillment of my FOIA request when I do so, sent via a .pdf file to this E-mail address.

On the issue of expediency, I suggest you send the records before I do so.  Your agency is not looking all that transparent by continuing to withhold these records from the public.  This generally gets me more interested in getting to the bottom of that reticence, thereby making me more apt to keep digging into the records and find out why you are not following the public policy of this state.  To whit, that all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them as public officials and public employees.

The $12.50 can be sent to my street address in a check made payable to Tom Rotta, 137 E Dowland St., Ludington, MI 49431.  You can subtract  $1  to offset the postage and shipping if you wish to save the township some money.  I thank you beforehand for observing the inconvenience for an indigent individual to publish and notarize such documents when previous documents make such actions redundant."

On March 16, I made three affidavits: one for Ludington who already had an affidavit, but changed their policy in January nullifying my affidavit they said (ridiculous), one for Sheriff Cole who said I have to make an affidavit each month for his agency (insane), and one for Hamlin, who wasn't satisfied with an affidavit directed at another agency, even though it attested to my indigency two months prior (ludicrous).   The last one found it's way to Ms. Vandervest that day:

Nancy,

Here is a scan of the sworn, notorized Affidavit of Indigency for Hamlin Twp. I applied for today. Please remit the $12.50 (or $11.50) to cover the fees associated with getting this redundantly published and conveyed I referred to in two previous to the aforementioned address. Fortunately, I have an account in the local credit union and don't have to pay the usual $10 fee for notarizing documents. Many of our very poor residents in Mason County don't have that luxury. Please immediately send the records that are past due to this E-mail address, under the parameters given, in a .pdf if you would.

FOIA request: any record (electronic or not) that contains the E-mail addresses of the Township Board and the Township Attorney for Hamlin.

... and I was actually rewarded with the five 1099s on March 18 including:

Vandervest Electric Motor & Fab. LLC sounds a little familiar, it's ran by Brian Vandervest who was a trustee for Hamlin Township earlier this millenium, serving with Supervisor Nancy Sniegowski, whose last name changed to Vandervest after serving the township with him for a few years.  Something electrical must have happened between them.  This begs the question of whether she violated the law as regards contracts of public servants with public entities that would hold her hiring of her and her husband's company as a problem in ethics MCL 15.322.  Here's one acknowledgment of them linking up:

But another electrical problem comes up when we look further into the 1099:.

Here we have Rees Electric doing nearly $800 of electrical work, and whereas we may be able to say that Nancy was not giving all her electrical business to hubby, we still have another troubling fact that Larry Rees, a township trustee, is the owner of this business-- another public employee receiving a contract from the public body he serves.

These types of contracts are not totally illegal when done properly in the open.  There is a protocol the state has to make contracts between public bodies and those who work as officials for them happen only when the public knows of them, including acknowledgment of them put in the minutes of open meetings, and to make sure they are done in the public's best interest.  Did that happen here? 

 

According to the other fishers of information from Hamlin Town Hall and the meeting minutes I have reviewed, it sure doesn't look like they did.  But to check out the work of a professional pipelayer, you have to dig, not fish, and that's what I'm going to continue to do in Hamlin.  Even if I have to hire a contractor to dig further to clean the garbage from the sewers, to whit, a pied piper to root out the rats from Hamlin.

[Willy]

If these foolish people would just hand out the information without constantly trying to make it so difficult then we could  have a somewhat responsive Government. It's almost like the FIOA has hindered the distribution of information. Most people don't have the time, money, energy or knowledge of the law to take on a stubborn  Government bureaucrat. Thanks again X for helping the public keep their officials on the straight an narrow.

[XLFD]

The people of Hamlin really have a tyrannical power at their helm.  In seeing other FOIA requests, the majority of the requests are for a recording of meetings or minutes, and the requesters are charged a minimum of a quarter of an hour of time, and charged big for the recording and minutes.  When I get the next thread on this out, we will see a couple of other citizens of Hamlin that could have unseated the current powers in Hamlin, if the City of Ludington Daily News wasn't such a panderer of corrupted local governments. 

Your welcome, Willy, and thank you for caring for poor constituents outside the confines of the City of Ludington.  They are under the influence of corrupted public officials just like us Ludingtoners.

[Lisa O'Brien]

Seriously, it would have been far quicker for them to just send the records. This whole waste time and delay the process gets so old.

[AQUAMAN]

So right both Willy and Lisa. To think that any supervisor of a township would needlessly spend almost $1300 on attorney fees/consultations, to answer/hide $30 in FOIA requests? That tell us anything about the mentality of those in charge out here? I guess when your own husband gets a contract, along with a trustee, both in conflict of interest, into the $2,000 bracket for minor electrical services, then you tend to want to hide that, so the conflict of interest stays buried to the public. Perhaps that alone could result in a recall of that individual, read this year's minutes for a guide on the facts at the Hamlin Township website, very interesting indeed.

[XLFD]

True, Lisa, Aquaman,

And this time it wasn't just me who was getting the runaround.  The initial requester of pertinent facts, the Wolf at the door so to speak, had requests that were easily enough to compile and send, instead of the supervisor, Nancy Vandervest, playing word games and asking for money for information which realistically should be supplied for the public's interest on their website.  It's akin to extortion. 

Governments put most of their info into electronic databases and records, so what is the public interest in keeping non-exempt information away from the people, information that could be made readily availableto all?  Any FOIA reforms tackled by the legislator should encompass barrier-free access to most public records, and make suitable ways to get most exempt forms, properly redacted, available as a matter of course. 

[AQUAMAN]

What is it exactly that the local politicos don't understand about conflict of interest? Don't they know the definition? We've seen it now in letting city and township contracts, perjury in courts by defendants and judges alike, employee hiring practices, (nepotism),  negating to post open meetings, having email meetings on expensive projects, applying for grants from alleged open meetings that occurred 7-9 years previous, appointments to offices, FOIA denials/overcharges, the list is endless. And we've only seem to touch the surface. The appearance of improprieties seems to be the least of their worries, because until recently, no one seems to be interested to take a little time to inquire. A plethora of unethical conduct that astounds me, and should everyone else too.

[XLFD]

It wasn't lost on me that this doesn't fall too far from your home, Aquaman.  If you're feeling up to it when you get back in the neighborhood, it might be worth looking into allying yourself with some of these other inquisitive Hamliners to bring your town hall back to accountability. 

[Marty Redman]

I read this over my coffee break this morning.  It's been my reckoning that the FOIA is not that complex of an act, why are these Michigan public agencies racking up big attorney bills to block the public from looking into whom they do business with?  That $16,000 bill racked up for Rottas FOIA lawsuit on contracted lawyers from M-town was an incredible misuse of funds, anyway you look at it, and why don't anyone else other than him look into addressing that?  Could it be intimidation and harassment by your public agencies with the assist from your incredibly obnoxious and irrelevant newspaper? 

[AQUAMAN]

X, you are quite a mind reader. After reading this thread, now, I do in fact intend to start getting more involved with the Hamlin Hams at the Township Hall this summer. I didn't know the same disease had spread out my way from downtown to this extent, it's shocking, and sickening. Marty, your last sentence pretty much pinpoints my observations and conversations with many of the locals, they live in fear for being ostracized by their own political people, and the LDN. It's like an invisible but known extortion of the truth/investigators that have any courage to stand up to them. And they call this the land of the free? Home of the brave? What do we have for a country, if this is going on daily all over the place?