Revisionism June 16, 2022: The Bastard Board

[XLFD]

"In history, revisionism is generally reserved for those historians who seek to deny that major historical events such as genocides actually took place."  -- Oxford Reference Encyclopedia

As regards the City of Ludington's efforts in revising the charter, revisionism is generally reserved for those city officials who seek to deny that a fraudulent election actually took place that has made the commission established an illegitimate public body.  It is not the nine distinguished members that makes the Ludington Charter Revision Commission (LCRC) a bastard board, it's the absence of legality in its inception due to errors of omission by the Ludington City Council led by city administrative officials who wanted to keep information secret from them and the public.

 

The LCRC had its first regular meeting at 5:30 PM on June 16th with very low turnout by the public.  Other than family members of the commissioners, there wasn't anybody in the audience that attended other than myself.  All commissioners did show up along with City Clerk Deb Luskin, while City Attorney Ross Hammersley attended on a phone line.  After pledging allegiance to the flag, they allowed public comment, and I leveled with them:

XLFD:  "It's been over 6 weeks since the May 3rd election, 4 weeks since the organizational meeting where you all took the oath of office as charter revision commissioners after being advised that the public, and apparently yourselves, were unaware of your compensation and the expected costs of this endeavor so allow me to ask this question:

When you signed your employment agreement with the City of Ludington, what was the compensation you agreed to?

The city council has met twice since your "official" inception and they have still not fixed your compensation.  I, as a member of the public, not only see this as a continuing violation of the Home Rule City Act, which is the authority on charter revisions, but also an unwritten admission that this commission is an illegal entity.  All or most of you are good people, but this commission, as established in its continuing illegitimacy, is a bastard board.

You all seem unconcerned that the charter you have sworn oaths to revise in accordance with the laws of this state and the Michigan Constitution is being violated by you and this board's existence as you all ignore those oaths of office in continuing on this bastard board.  The charter indicates that elected officers have this compensation fixed by ordinance, the city council's perseverance in ignoring the existing charter coupled with your complicit and complete compliance in that conspiracy against the community is duly noted, and (if you are not aware) a lawsuit has been filed to correct the course so that the next time Ludington citizens are asked whether their charter should be revised, their elected and administrative officials will supply them with all information that the law requires to be shared with them [END comment].  

One will notice I was feeling alliterative while writing that last paragraph, along with my labeling this administrative folly as a "bastard board".  My one question would be ignored by the bastard board, but the clerk did try to peddle the myth that they did fix compensation ($25 per meeting) and costs of the board when the council passed the budget back in 2021.  

To his credit, Nick Krieger did some cross examination of the clerk and she admitted that the only people aware of the budget's numbers in regard to the LCRC was herself, the city manager and his assistant.  The numbers were well-hidden in a budget line item in the clerk's section under "professional services", and when Councilor Winczewski asked a question specifically on this line item, the three officials present who knew that information effectively told the council that it was for consultants and attorneys employed by the clerk, not anything about the LCRC.  

They then discussed whether they could accept less than the rate Clerk Luskin introduced ($25 per meeting) for their service.  But budget numbers don't add up using the information not available to the public and council before the vote:

The original speculation is that the board would have 60 meetings and they budgeted $13,500 for their compensation in 2022.  Now $13,500/ (60*9) = $25, but they have set their meetings for 2022 not to be 60 meeting, but 14 meetings (one each in May and June, two for the remaining six months.  So their effective rate, using the budget numbers they erroneously claim fixes the compensation rate is over $100 per commissioner per meeting:  $13,500/ (14*9) = $107.14.  In comparison, those on the Ludington Planning Commission get no compensation.

In the end, they unanimously adopted a "motion to recognize the rate set in the budget by the city council".  Since no rate was set in that budget, it was a null vote-- made by a bastard board.

Beyond that they reviewed a set of boiler plate set of bylaws originally adopted by the City of Saginaw, which they offered some revisions to for the next meeting (including the replacement of 'Saginaw' by 'Ludington' in a provision), looked into formulating a plan to seek consultants (arguing whether to post an RFP or actively seek out the few who have experience in charter-revising), and set their meeting schedule to be 5:30 PM on the first and third Thursdays of every remaining month of 2022 in the council chambers at city hall.  

The meeting ran over two hours to figure all of that out.  Hopefully, they don't commit any extra money to a consultant/attorney until the question of their legality is established by the local court.

[shinblind]

Saginaw...interesting.

To address the City Counsil in Saginaw you must previously submit a form to the City Clerk by 1pm the day of the meeting explaining what you wish to discuss, limiting yourself to one topic, and not addressing anyone individually. 3 minute time limit.  Any handouts have to be submitted prior to the meeting. Violators will be removed.

Unsure if there are any provisions for a follow up response at the close of the meeting.

Other than Ludington wanting this, I see very little similarities either financially or demographically for using the Saginaw bylaws.

[XLFD]

It's better than using the Detroit bylaws for their recent charter revision where they totally went crazy with their product.

[shinblind]

If the council adopts Saginaw's ''floor plan'' of closing what topics that will be allowed to be discussed several hours before a meeting, it will give them a window to announce bad and unpopular news that cannot be commented upon until the following session two weeks away. It will also give them time to formulate a rebuttal to any issues that the public speaker brings forth.

It tilts the playing field decidedly in their favor.

[XLFD]

I found a copy of the Saginaw bylaws for their CRC and they say that those wanting to address the CRC will abide by the same rules as their city council does (section 7)-- which indicates that they will be adopting the same rules the Ludington council does with their meetings (i.e. three comment minutes before business, 2 minutes after).  The Ludington CRC seemed amenable to keep that provision the way it is.  If they adopt something at the next meeting different that involves less public comment time, you will have a good clue that they don't want to hear from the public. 

But it seems from their first two meetings that the public doesn't have a lot to say to them, except for "that guy" who claims they are a bastard board and is willing to take them to court to disperse them after their unlawful genesis.

[shinblind]

CITY OF SAGINAW (revize.com)