Signs Against Proposed Charter Amendments Available and Why You Need One for Your Lawn

[XLFD]

The three city proposals that were seemingly drafted by our city manager with a little help from City Attorney Richard Wilson are going to be coming up for a vote on August 2nd.  A quick summation of the three proposals that made the final cut show they have nothing to do with what the people want from their local government, such as accountability, transparency, fairness, efficiency, and oversight. 

They all have to deal with offering less of those concepts.  They are nothing more than a 'power grab' pushed through a complicit city council and offered up as innocent proposals, when they are more like indecent proposals.  The signs below tell the two-line summary, and are now available for distribution.  Please contact me here or on Facebook so that you can help spread the word to your fellow Ludington citizens by distributing the signs for your lawn and for lawns of like minded individuals to yourself:

Here is how they are presented at the city website, with some supplementary analysis as to why the proposed amendment is not worth voting for:

1. Section 8.2 (Submission of Budget and Budget Message): The City Manager must present budget to City Council no later than the second Council meeting in November rather than by the first Council meeting in November in order to provide most up-to-date budgetary figures to Council. 

Analysis:  Back in December 2011, after researching the issue,  I noted that:  "John Shay did the proper budget procedure in 2003, but the very next year he waited until the first December meeting to present the budget and the message.  Ever since that year, the budget and message has either been presented at the first meeting in December or the last November meeting.  This violates sec. 8.2, and often allows only one meeting to review this budget, and less than two weeks for the public to review it, before the last council meeting before the next fiscal year."

Prior to the period where John Shay ignored the section he now wants to change, the city managers did the process according to the charter.  Late submission of the budgets has been Shay's trademarks, because this has allowed him to submit them with little or no public oversight.  The council has been left in the dark as well, though they never expressed concern until I made it a yearly issue.

What should be also noted is that the final form of the ballot leaves off the original reason submitted to the state of why they said wanted this proposal, which was to allow for them to provide accurate numbers for the budget by using the latest CPI figures.  This was a bogus reason, the CPI is published monthly, and they can adopt the latest whether it is submitted in early November or two weeks later. 

This amendment will disallow at least two extra weeks of accountability and oversight should the public or council decide to use their rights and powers, it will not otherwise do anything other than allow the city manager and his team two weeks extra to do something that was always done on time and according to charter before Shay arrived.

2. Section 10.1 (City Manager): Eliminate one-year term for City Manager and replace it with a five-year term. This is [sic] discourages qualified applicants from applying to the City. Even if the one-year term is eliminated, Council always has the option to terminate a city manager at any time. The residency requirement must also be eliminated in order to comply with state law.

Analysis:  The reason for the change as noted on the ballot is to make "qualified applicants more likely to apply" for the job when it is vacant, but it's not rocket science to note that it also will apply to the sitting city manager who can adapt a very lucrative five year contract for himself at the end of the year when his slavish and complicit council realizes that they can't afford to lose him. 

It also gives the city manager a lot less accountability at the early years of their contract, presuming they have a generous severance clause.  Part of the reluctance in firing the previous city manager, Jim Miller, was the extra money they needed to pay out despite a short term contract; Manistee had the same concerns when they fired Mitch Deisch last year. 

Then there is all the money involved in finding and hiring a new manager.  With this passed, any candidate will be expecting a long term commitment by the city, but the new manager may be a terrible fit, and will need replacing quickly even though they're in for five years.  Anyway you look at it, keeping the term at one year assures accountability every year by the council , and it encourages the city manager to remain on task or face the axe.   

3. Section 13.2 (Purchases, Contracts, and Leases): Clarify that the City Manager has authority to make emergency repairs without prior Council approval. 

Analysis:  This clarifies nothing if it does not even clarify what an emergency repair is.  This is the same city manager who tried to claim that nearly $100,000 in sewer work on Brother Street were 'emergency repairs' even when the work wasn't started until nearly two months after he got it approved via E-mail and phone by the councilors, violating the Open Meetings Act, according to the judgment of the Honorable Richard Cooper.

Emergency repairs will likely be defined as those expenses not foreseen by the year's budget that the city needs to do, like the $27,000+ expenditure they used on the Ecosorb system to quell the odor at the wastewater treatment plant.  Such purchases without council approval are already against the charter, Shay did this purchase anyway.  

If this passes, the office of city manager can make purchases without either the council or public knowing about them, shattering accountability and the checks and balances we need to assure our officials are not spending money foolishly or appropriating it for the use of themselves and their friends. 

If you for some reason can only vote against one of these proposals, this is the real stinker of the bunch, save it for this.  But don't limit yourself; just say "No, No, NO"

Remember to get a hold of me to distribute these signs for now, and get one for yourself, maybe two if you have a corner lot.  Let me know also if you and your personal network want some signs after the primary that encourages folks to vote for the aspiring Third Ward Councilor denoted in the upper left corner of the picture below who wants your vote so he can work for getting your rights and money back on track to you and yours. 

[shinblind]

" This is [sic] discourages qualified applicants from applying to the City."

Is this an admission that John Shay is less than qualified to manage  the City of Ludington?

Shay's body of work seems to support this fact. Personally I find that John Shay isn't capable enough to  manage a lemonade stand much less be a successful City Manager.

 

[XLFD]

It's at least an admission that he wasn't qualified to manage Ludington back in 2003.  I would disagree with your personal observation in a minor way; I believe he could successfully manage a government-subsidized lemonade stand.

In reading the newspaper this evening, they had an article called "City voters to decide 3 charter issues" on roughly the same topics, as you'd guess.  For the emergency repair proposal, and the last paragraph of the article states:

"The explanation for the change is that it clarifies that the city manager has the right to spend money on emergency repairs without prior city council approval." 

First, city managers do not have 'rights' due to their position, they have 'powers'.  But even when you correct that, there is no clarifications involved with the two sections of the charter to be amended.  There is nothing that intimates that the city manager has a blank check to deal with 'emergency repairs'.  There is some ambiguity in the charter, but this can be better handled by better defining the terminology. 

As for the two instances I mentioned, the Brother Street sewer line, and the WWTP Ecosorb system purchase, the record is clear that 'emergencies' didn't exist.  The city manager determined to do the sewer work and make the system purchase, one or more city council meetings took place, and then the work was actually done and paid for. 

A true emergency would be one of the two sewer line breaks that turd-swamped the PM Bayou, which require swift action.  The council, the people, and the proper state regulatory agencies still should be immediately apprised of the situation.  In these two situations, you should note, there was no incident mitigation plan ever enacted; one could say it was because the council and the people were mostly bypassed, and Shay used his charm on the state regulators. 

[dowland]

How many of us have even a one year contract, 5 the president only has 4 years. Who the he?? does he think he is ?

[AQUAMAN]

He truly believes that he is above the city charter, and the law. He also believes the Ludington locals are dumb hillbillies that will let him get away with this now. 

[XLFD]

Then gol durn it, put down your vittles, go down yonder a ways to that there electioning place on August 2 and, dag nab it, vote agin' these fool proposals.

[Willy]

[XLFD]

At tonight's council meeting I showed my signs and gave the two minute version of why these were bad proposals.  Some city councilors, none of who voted against any of the ones on the August 2nd ballot, promptly defended them (at the end of the meeting after the second public comment period) in unique style.  You gotta see it to believe it.

At the beginning, I critiqued the amount of money and the quality of legal services we get from the city attorney, compared it most unfavorably with Scottville's city attorney, and Councilor Moonbeam gave a stern, dismissive, and mostly meaningless defense of their Grand Rapids firm at the end.  You gotta see it to believe it.

But what I felt badly about at the end of this meeting was that they passed the cemetery lot abandonment ordinance unanimously, and left the one citizen who spoke up against it with several unanswered questions-- and of course, they would not involve her with talking about it beyond her original comment.  This is how your city council works, I see it year after year, and the only way I can believe it is that they are almost equally dismissive about all regular Ludington citizens as they are me. 

This really has to change, and the best way to do it is at the ballot box.  Vote down all these silly proposals and vote for those councilors who look to take back some of the turf you're losing.  

[Brad]

Thanks X for your report. So completely frustrating and irritating. Blood is coming from my eyes. So wish there was a way to oust the councilors, mayor, manager, and CD director. I'm so fed up with their behavior and disregard of their citizens opinions.

[AQUAMAN]

Yes, you're on track Brad, but it cannot change without locals running against these People! Else recalls. Well said X, and also thanks to Willy for another outstanding Pic.. The Cemetery Lot Proposal should NEVER have PASSED! If some people have No Respect for the DEAD, how the Heck can  they have respect for the living? That's an accurate picture of the proposal maker, John Shay III. If this is an indication of things to come on the ballot, this wonderful home town of mine is going to change forever into the abyss. Very Sad and Upsetting to me, as well as it should be from the Silent Majority of Locals that Love Ludington! Gotta wonder, what more does Shay want into the near future too? Maybe he can function as our new Hitler, and no person can speak against him, nor disagree with these Extreme Proposals! 

[XLFD]

Once the video of the meeting gets posted, I will provide a full review of the ghoulish happenings of the meeting, including the best reason to vote no on the proposed charter amendments provided by Councilor Castonia. 

[jfc123]

Totally agree X, please post on the FB page like this, we got you!