Ludington City Council Meeting 11-23-2020: Spanks Given Before Thanksgivin'

[XLFD]

This was definitely a meeting that was definitive in showing the character of the Ludington City Council.  The agenda failed to show it, but the council would consider a disciplinary hearing for the member (Angela Serna) who tried to ask a question at the last meeting about the costs of a development.  Mayor Steve Miller interposed himself before an answer could be received by asking his own question to Serna about its relevance.  The exchange (transcribed here) ended with Serna saying a bad word when the mayor effectively dismissed getting her question answered.

A good case could be made for both acting inappropriately.  However, after Serna departed from the virtual meeting, the rest of the council and mayor decided to talk about what they should do about the inappropriate conduct, the mayor offering to talk with other councilors individually before the next meeting to exact a proper sanction, if any.  None of the councilors stated that the mayor may have abused the authority given him as chairman under Robert's rules of order.  

According to a reliable source, the mayor met with Councilor Serna, with Mitch Foster acting as an intermediary last Wednesday.  It appears that Mayor Miller talked over the issue substantively with the rest of the council and developed a reprimand tactic based on a synthesis of the input. 

If what I have heard is accurate, and there appears to be a recording of this conversation, it appears to be a violation of the Open Meetings Act.  Round-robin style discussions are largely forbidden under the Open Meetings Act — if one-on-one deliberations delve into any talk beyond a yes-or-no poll of vote counts, the discussions violate state law, according to Michigan Press Association General Counsel Robin Luce-Herrmann.  Mayor Miller's depictions of his conversations with councilors indicate he was doing much more than canvassing votes.

Mayor Miller offered a deal to Councilor Serna to recant with abject contrition or face an assassination.  Before hearing what she offered at the meeting, and how this disciplinary hearing was added to the agenda, I had a comment at the meeting before the knives came out.

XLFD (thru Mitch Foster 2:35 into the video):  "I don't see it on the agenda, but the word on the street is that the city council plans to coordinate another code of conduct violation against Councilor Serna for strongly objecting to the chairman's attempt to silence her germane question about a planned development.  In reviewing the meeting with other citizens, all have commented on the inappropriate muzzling of the councilor by the chairman and its provocative effect on what followed.  Most say her outburst was warranted, despite the expected dignity of a council meeting. 

In my opinion, for what it's worth, the dignity of the meeting itself was sabotaged by the chairman's inappropriate treatment of Councilor Serna, silencing her pertinent question while allowing other questions and comments by other councilors before hers and afterwards.  It is not in the chairman's duties to disallow reasonable questions from being asked and answered.  The chairman's later solicitation of other councilors to come forward and meet with him before this meeting regarding another censure added to the chairman's unprofessional comportment.  He was effectively doing the same thing he did last summer when Councilor Serna wondered why city police weren't doing their jobs and then served as a hub for the rest of the council to exact discipline for having an opinion on social media. 

The chairman's ego is just too big to allow him the ability to observe his own shameful behavior in both incidents.  Most responsible citizens would rather have councilors that fight for their right to ask questions and point out unpopular truths, rather than have councilors that punish the councilors that dare to show principle and show they have a pulse.

Most responsible citizens will also wonder why you take the effort to punish a fellow councilor's candor, while you let officials and other councilors  engage in unethical and illegal conduct without any sanction.  We have one city official lying in grant applications and to media about securing discharge permits which were never sought.  We have another bypassing multiple protocols in a process of defrauding the State for a rental rehab grant, setting his grant amount without having any qualified contractor look the project over.  We have Councilor Johnson serving as a secretary for the DDA and failing to put in the minutes his business benefitting from selling alcoholic beverages to DDA events.  We have Councilor Lenius voting and not disclosing to the public that his daughter would financially benefit from that vote.  

Ask yourselves:  "Why am I casting my stones at the best example of an open, honest, and honorable city councilor amongst us?  Is this the side I really want to be on?" [END comment]

At 5:50 in, Mayor Miller made a motion to amend the agenda to add the disciplinary hearing before all other business, Councilor Winczewski moved to do so, and Councilor Brandy Miller seconded.  Councilor Serna had a prepared statement to read before they voted on that hearing, she also questioned the 'conduct' that precipitated this agenda addition-- and that it likely defied that pesky OMA that the council just doesn't want to understand:

Councilor Angela Serna:  "Back in May 2019 city council approved a Code of Conduct for council, appointed board members, committees and commissions to follow. As the public is well aware, I have “violated” this policy on more than one occasion, with the most recent violation occurring at the last council meeting. The interesting thing is that on this occasion, I am not the only person who violated this “code” YET I am the only one who may or may not be “disciplined”. The reason I say may or may not you ask? Well I think it's important the public is aware of why I say this because according to the MML, truth in government depends on a set of procedural rules that are followed consistently, giving equal opportunity for EVERY member to participate, not on manipulations of procedures. I feel there has been some manipulation, possibly even intimidation and blackmail by this current council and the mayor.

I was invited to a meeting with mayor miller and I requested the city manager be present only as a “fly on the wall” one could say. Mr. Miller started the meeting out by saying that he (and I quote) was “requested by council to seek out options, they asked me to come up with options” related to my behavior at the last meeting. Those options included (quoted again) “do nothing because there are only 3 meetings left or do something because other councilors were adamant that action be taken because they don’t want to look ineffective” Some back and forth conversation took place after this statement, and I did admit I may have reacted inappropriately at the last city council meeting but would not have acted this way had I not been provoked purposefully by the mayor. Mr. Miller then states “it was not my intent to egg you, goat you or poke you in any way” but actions and body language, as seen from the video from the meeting, speak louder than words. Mr. Miller proceeds to tell me this, and I quote,

“Here's what's going to happen, and you have an option here. I formulated what to do and how to do it with compassion. Something will be done at Monday's meeting and I was asked by the council to set forth some options and the action plan for the council and that is what I set forward. However, there is an option for you. There are councilors ready to make and motion and second it, then it would go to open discussion. Here’s what I’ve asked the council to do, rather than opening the floor for back and forth, I would like to hear individually from each councilor. What I’d like to do is offer you the opportunity to speak first, and you’re free to say whatever you want, BUT THERE IS AN OPTION FOR YOU TO HAVE THIS MOTION WITHDRAWN COMPLETELY and that is if you recognize, in public, that your statement and actions were out of line. That motion (for discipline) will be removed, I’ll ask to have it removed, if your response is contrite and apologetic. You'll get to speak first and should your response be sufficient to satisfy the council that you’re sincere and contrite, that motion (to reprimand) will be removed”.

He then goes on to say that these are the councils actions and not his - YET he is the one that came up with this by polling the rest of the council - a clear OMA violation. He continues with “if you have a counter offer, just think about it and let me know by Friday what you’d like to do. I asked him to reiterate what he and the council are asking and he states “again, the council has requested to hear a clear, concise apology for the actions and the responses because of your statements and actions period. If you could think it over and let me know by Friday what angle you'd like, just keep me updated on what you are thinking so I can be prepared. In the position I have, the last thing I like or enjoy or hate the most is being surprised, that just doesn’t work well for the position I sit in to find myself in an awkward situation, so if I can avoid that”.

So Mr. Miller doesn't like to be surprised, but neither does the public, but I bet many are surprised, or maybe not, by this action of the mayor and the rest of council. First, a clear OMA violation by canvassing the other 6 council members, this was more than an “informal canvas” the mayor met with them to discuss options and arrived at a consensus to present options to either have me disciplined or accept my apology. These actions were a rolling quorum to circumvent the OMA. Second, clear violations of the code of conduct was made by the rest of the council and the mayor when they came up with a plan to intimidate or coerce me into apologizing . Those codes would be in violation of: #2 comply with state/federal/local laws, #3 conduct above reproach, and #9 positive workplace environment.

Last I checked, blackmail and intimidation are violations of local/state and federal laws,it doesn't make a very positive working environment and is very dishonest, corrupt and gives the appearance of impropriety. Is this what we want from our council and mayor? Yes, I may be over the top, assertive and frank when it comes to getting my point across, but one thing I am not is unethical unlike the council members who decided to discuss me (among other things) in a meeting while I was not present.

Civility is not a tactic, it's a choice and Mr. Miller chose to be uncivil and did not exercise any restraint when I asked a relevant question. Instead he had an adversarial response and hostile body language from the get go. He did not respect the process in the city's code of conduct. If anyone should be apologetic and contrite, it should be the mayor and the other members of this council who have exhibited unethical and unprofessional behavior. This reprimand holds no water, has no basis in the Constitution and it has no direct validity on my remaining time as 5th ward councilor, it won’t change what I do or say. This is just another grandstand attempt by certain council members and the mayor to try to silence me and try to publicly shame me. Well it won’t work because I won’t be silenced." [END comment].  

                         Councilor Angela Serna and her 2021 successor, Wally Cain, if he survives the recount (won by 1 vote)

Several councilors determined that was not contrite enough for them after this six minute plus message.  They went into the disciplinary hearing immediately after taking the vote to amend the agenda and the consent agenda.  Mayor Miller read a prologue directed at Serna claiming she used unacceptable language.  Winczewski and Miller switched their earlier roles in moving and seconding.

The councilors chimed in:  Miller would go on to say that Serna's words were not contrite enough.  Lenius would briefly say he agreed with what was going forth.  Winczewski would make claims that Serna had chips on her shoulder and animosity towards process before reading a prepared statement that said it more politely.  Johnson did not like the language but opined that what was happening was becoming a circus and could have been avoided.  Stibitz talked about transparency, and her perceptions of what transpired, found Serna's reaction was wrong.  Bourgette talked of Serna's duality and noted she was 'understandably' upset, advised her to keep her temper under control and use her strengths in the future.

Bourgette, Serna and Johnson would all vote against the motion, but it did pass 4-3, meaning that Councilor Serna would lose her sole committee spot on the Buildings & Licenses Committee and receive a written reprimand.  Trooper that she was, she went through the rest of the meeting asking many relevant and thought-out questions during the budget presentation that many in the public might ask, if they weren't so afraid or intimidated by the rest of the council and their hidden agendas of punishing those that ask too many questions.  

I have noticed that hive council behavior for ten years in their reactions to my requests for records, open meetings, and ethical, law-abiding governance.  Councilor Serna has been the only blip.

The rest of the meeting will be summarized tomorrow, including another council oversight.

[Freedom Seeker]

One of the most thoughtful things I've ever heard from Councilor Les Johnson, that this discipline of Councilor Serna is like a circus. He and Councilor Bourgette were the wise ones to vote against the reprimand. Interesting link to the similariries in Traverse City OMA violation, and this behind-door decision-making by Mayor Miller and the circus of sad-faced clowns who partook, while the real issues are censured. Angela Serna was trying to get answers about where are we going with housing growth with a handful of new developments popping up.  While calling the Mayor an "f..ing ass" for blocking her questions is not the most tactful display, the greater sin, imo, is more deals going on behind closed doors and continued decisions going on in the Mayor's private chambers that appear to be another OMA violation.  

[XLFD]

I've told others interested in the controversy that it would be wise for the council not to conduct a COC violation hearing, but that Mayor Miller would force the issue.  If you look at Mayor Miller during the hearing and hear the intonation of his words, he reminds one of obsessive Captain Ahab from Moby Dick in his role as the ringmaster of the circus.  One can imagine the mayor eventually turning into Captain Queeg of The Caine Mutiny if Serna wins the recount and serves four more years and keeps asking questions about strawberries.

I had not predicted Miller's mien, I thought he would try to put a better face on (he probably thought he didn't need to for a Zoom meeting), but I did predict that Johnson and Bourgette would be the only possible votes Serna would get for her defense.  I also knew Moonbeam and Miller would be the two councilors firmly in camp and making the motions and seconds.  You think Brandy Miller would be used to a little swearing taking her mother home from downtown drinking benders...

[Freedom Seeker]

Alcoholism is a devastating condition.  I'm glad Brandy and her husband had the guts to get her mother off the streets and maybe sought help.  How Mrs. Henderson's violations and actions of kicking out the police car partition, slipping out of cuffs and other infractions were covered up--not shown in public records, to my knowledge, shows her preferential treatment.  This town is about who you are, rather than what you stand for and that's what the Councilor at large has learned from childhood, and continues to vote for.  I think Steve Miller is in the Henderson's control because his display last meeting was about form and not substance.

[Du Wright]

Well said by Councilor Serna ... the private meeting was nothing more than intimidation and blackmail by the Mayor, telling her what to say, when, and how. Decisions and ultimatums made by Mayor and a majority of Councilors in another secret meeting. A lesson to be learned in case a councilor or the public ever wants to ask a question again. Don't do it.

[Du Wright]

So true  Lake Lady.  The best part of Councilor Serna's statement to me was "I will not be silenced!"  She was bold and stood her ground.  Whether it was blackmail or extortion, it wasn't right by the mayor.  I wonder if she surprized him?  Isn't that something even, wanting to know everything that will be said, in advance of the meetings?  If that's not mind-control, I don't know a better example.

[XLFD]

I am currently seeking communications over the two week period between the mayor and the councilors.  As noted, I have been privy to the details of Serna's talk with the mayor, and I would agree the mayor deserves some discipline.  The mayor does have several questions he needs to answer, rather than take the corrupt city's strategy (he leaked out at the prior meeting) of ignoring corruption in the ranks.  The other six councilors in the mayor's secret scheme will run damage control like the ignorant lapdogs they are.

[Freedom Seeker]

Wynken, Blynken and Nod.

Now we'll have just two little eyes, one a winking, one a blinking, and the heads that nod. Good job at intimidation and extortion, Mayor Miller.

https://poets.org/poem/wynken-blynken-and-nod

[Freedom Seeker]

https://statelaws.findlaw.com/michigan-law/michigan-extortion-laws.....

Interesting research on the penalty of "Extortion" in Michigan law.  I could find any results for "name calling."  But here are 40 ways to say it differently:

https://thoughtcatalog.com/maya-kachroo-levine/2015/05/40-ways-to-t...

[Du Wright]

There are laws on the books for cursing in public, but not as severe penalties as OMA and Extortion violations.

[XLFD]

It must be the madness of early November.  On November 12, 2018 Mayor Holman called me a 'pain in the ass' on camera at the 55 minute mark, shortly after Lyin' Steve Brock called me a bald-faced liar (after I pointed out his FOIA response lacked multiple documents backing his earlier claims).  

November 12, 2018 Ludington City Council meeting from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

Kind of makes me wonder:

[Freedom Seeker]

Good point, X.  I remember Holman's disdain for you, not just that time but many others.  But that was the first time I think she called you an ass.  And I don't remember a public apology from her.  Trouble here, is the "F-bomb" included.  Even though some kids as young as six or seven or even younger  sometimes use it as an everyday adjective in today's world, the bar was dropped in a public meeting, imo.  Still that doesn't justify Holman's contempt and "swearing" with no reprimand.

[XLFD]

A couple of hours after I published this, the Mason Clown Depressed had their own storyon the topic that illustrates the concept of framing a story.  You're undoubtedly familiar with this topic if you watch the news on CNN and Newsmax on the same day and see how they relate the same mostly-objective news or fail to relate news which doesn't fit their overall narrative.  I come with my own biases too, but I would say I try to publish truths rather than news.

Editor Rob Alway is a city commissioner himself who doesn't like those on city boards that upset the applecart (witness his past articles on former commissioner Ed Hahn).  Here he portrays his reportage as news, but inserts his own bias and ignores certain facts, here's an account of problems as you read the story:

1)  He uses the quote "f$%k off" as what she said, this is untrue. 

2)  He left off some of the mayor's provocative dialogue before the swearing began

3)  He fails to note the second f-bomb came after she thought she had left the meeting (still had audio).

4)  He says she was removed from office by the voters, but fails to notice she has filed for a recount in her 1-vote loss

5)  He deliberately misquotes her saying:  "“I am very passionate about my responsibilities as your public servant, like using foul language to get the point across."   Between those two phrases, she said:  "sometimes I let it get the best of me."  

6)  He calls Bourgette the 1st ward councilor

7)  He ignores the dire OMA issues and other criminal issues that she and I brought up.