Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, but Scoundrels Prefer Brunettes

[XLFD]

Worried about your always-growing local taxes not doing anything worthwhile?  This then is a story for you as we will see Ludington's taxpayers spend $20,000 on reuniting a couple of old friends, with Wisconsin and local government as their common link.

Ludington City Manager Mitch Foster (above left) was plucked from being the city manager of Winneconne, Wisconsin about 5 years ago after growing up in Mason County.  His friend, Allyson Brunette (above right), runs a Green Bay Consulting firm for local governments, she's originally a Jersey girl.

While it is not uncommon for a consultant for local governments to work closely with city managers to draft a strategic plan, this one would never have happened without puzzle pieces falling into place.  Unfortunately, those pieces in this instance came at a cost to Ludington citizens, where the city manager failed to disclose what appears to be a conflict of interest that clouded his judgment in advancing his friend's interest in getting a consultant job with the City of Ludington. 

Our money was no object as we spent 28% more than we could have for a similar service, while our city council considered not the lowest, but the third lowest bid for services on Foster's recommendation of his friend.  From the 2-12-24 council packet, which included the proposal from only one company therein, Ms. Brunette's:

The meeting minutes (and video) reflect that the council accepted Foster's choice without any question about why the lowest bid (or second lowest) was being ignored.  On looking through the minutes, none of the city's standing committees ever considered these 15 proposals, so what sort of committee including council members is he talking about?  Foster's brazen favoritism towards his personal friend is displayed throughout the memo and his choice to show only Brunette's proposal rather than similarly priced and lower priced proposals, as reflected in the minutes.

An additional question to ask is why is our city council so dysfunctional that they cannot question why they are choosing the third lowest bid for a contract defined by a request for specific services by qualified contractors?  In the interim between meetings, I made a FOIA request to get all the information on this I could, did some extra research, and I brought some of my findings up at the March 11, 2024 meeting. After leading off with a short statement on how the council's action was wrong at the prior meeting to have alcohol sold at the beach and finishing with a bombshell against the city attorney's conduct, I brought forth Mr. Foster's impropriety, what would have been a bombshell if our other city leaders weren't already so mired in the muck:

XLFD:  (13:00 in) "... City staff is leading the charge against our laws and ethical standards.  One month ago, the city manager introduced one of 15 proposals received after an RFP was issued for a strategic planning consultant.  This was never explored in committee and the only proposal offered to the council was from Allyson Brunette Consultants of Wisconsin at $1.54 under the $20,000 that the city manager budgeted for the service, as a strange coincidence.  The proposal was over 28% higher than the low bid offered by a company named GovHR with impressive credentials in their 21-page proposal that I received through FOIA. 

In reviewing social media posts, it turns out that our city manager and Allyson Brunette had a professional if not personal relationship before these proposals were sought.   I shouldn't be the one having to divulge that information one month after Mr. Foster directed you to focus only on this one proposal that is more than 28% higher than the low bid in a competitive bidding process.  Mr. Foster should have done so one month ago and then explain to us all about why we should waste over 28% of our tax dollars to get consulting services from his Wisconsin friend and why GovHR wouldn't have given us a more objective strategic plan than Ms. Brunette.  Maybe Mr. Foster made the calculation that spending 28% more than what he needed to get a strategic plan where his friend paints him as a principled asset rather than what he has become is worth the extra cost to the taxpayers..."  

To his credit, Mitchell Foster chose to address this later on, rather than to let it fester by ignoring the conflict of interest.  At the 1:13:40 point of the video of the meeting he would state:

Foster:  "And just for clarification purposes coming off from the public comment, the strategic plan we received 15 proposals for, two of those proposals were within $500 of the $20,000 budget, because they asked what we budgeted, no one else asked.  The low bidder was not chosen by the committee, not myself, because they actually performed the last strategic plan that was not useful and was a negative process in the eyes of those that participated. 

What the commenter didn't note was that the other communication between Allyson Brunette and myself was that "if you know of any strategic planning companies that could do this and she said "no, I won't do it either."  And so I think the inference of corruption or favoritism when this was done by a committee that included the mayor, Councilor Winczewski, Councilor Terzano, the police chief and others before my suggestion is frustrating and silly to say the least.  This was an open process, and so I just wanted to clarify that, that these sorts of accusations come regularly and I hope they change at some point."

When a public official tries to deflect credible allegations supported by the record by calling them silly in order to clarify things, you know you're onto something.  As he mentioned a committee of sundry city officials, I had to find out more about it, so I sent a FOIA request for clarification: "Please send me electronic copies of the electronic and posted public notices for this [strategic plan proposal evaluation] committee meeting or meetings, hopefully describing the name of the committee and its purpose, location, legality, and the meeting notes of those meetings."

I was sent back a response fairly quick saying that there was no records conforming to my request.  That means Mitchell Foster tried to sell us a proposition that a committee of randomly selected city officials meeting who knows where and at what time, outside the purview of the general public and uninvited officials was an "open process".  Now that's truly silly.  

So, let's look at the facts I had when I made my statement.  You had the $15,600 proposal already shared, you also have a $19,800 proposal from a firm called CP2 both coming in less than Brunette's.  Foster's dismissal of HRGov's prior work for the city through Ryan Cotton fails to address why the prior plan was not useful and of negative value or why CP2 as the next lower bid was not considered at all by the council nor offered for review by the people.  

Foster forgets to acknowledge that the prior strategic plan which is meant to work for just a few years in advance, came out in March 2020.  Remember what happened then, and what would influence any great strategic plan created before the pandemic hysteria hit and set the tone for years.  I have asked through FOIA for this strategic plan to see whether it was reasonable for the pre-pandemic time when it was created but have not received it yet.  

Nor why I have yet to see the communication between Ms. Brunette that Foster speaks of, one has to wonder why Ms. Brunette at one point refused to be considered and then became interested enough in the contract to submit a proposal and ask Foster how much was budgeted and other questions.  One would have to guess that Foster talked her into it or mischaracterized this contact thru LinkedIn.  

And while Foster refuses to affirm or deny that Allyson Brunette is a friend on a personal level, she has no problem claiming it on LinkedIn after receiving the contract where she was the third lowest bidder:

And this isn't just a recent friendship made after this approval of her company for a $20,000 contract, as seen in other LinkedIn communications involving topics like Kringles and Wisconsin-ness late last year on her post:

And Ted Lasso inspired philosophy a year ago on his post:

So why is it silly to bring up the question of why he failed to disclose this close relationship and directed the council through his illegally-crafted committee, meeting without public knowledge, to pick the third lowest bid of a company owned by his close friend, Allyson Brunette?  Why does he claim this is an open process, when it appears so secret and capricious by design?  Why is the waste of 28% in public funds an unwarranted claim, when the records all point to an abuse of discretion and outright cronyism?  And why isn't anyone on city council or any other officer at city hall or the police station recognizing that and stopping it?

[Freedom Seeker]

Many ethical allegations against Mitch Foster here ... especially if the choosing of a higher-bid "friend" is true. No wonder he tries to say the allegations are "silly."

I just wonder if the young manager who seemed local, green and clean at his interview has turned this corrupt in so few years?

The Council who is usually clueless to legalities doesn't probably want to make waves in the "great city club" will blindly defend against accusations by Tom Rotta.

Has the COL Manger used consultants to this expense in the past?  Someone who gets overly-paid so much and claim to be the "manager" should have to take "consultant fees" out of his own salary, in a right government, imo.  That's what is so maddening about the expense of these MML managers--boosting up their salaries and fees like they are hugely self-important, experienced and and much more deserving of money than the taxpayers. 

However, in justification, at least the Brunette is not relation?  And the bidding process is "suggested" to take lowest bid by Charter?  (These are questions I'd appreciate your opinion, X) because I think this is how COL has been operating.  Is it legally justified?

[XLFD]

I appreciate the observations and the questions, FS, it shows that you have a good grasp of the issues involved.  

I'm not convinced of the wisdom behind spending $20K to hire an outside consultant who has no idea of the local character of an area built over experiences in the area and have them take a cookie cutter approach to suggest we need to be more like Detroit in this way, more like GR in this way, or more like Green Bay in this way.  I think a strategic plan is better created by using a local committee of volunteers with familiarity of what would work here and what would not and composed of a variety of viewpoints and life experiences.  That would cost too little money and not guarantee any bootlicking of city officials, so it's not likely to ever happen.

Section 13.2 of the city charter says:  "...purchases shall be made from the lowest competent bidder meeting bid specifications unless the Council shall determine that the public interest will be better served by accepting a higher bid. Sales shall be made to the bidder whose bid is most advantageous to the City."  

How can one interpret that differently than saying that the council is obligated to take the low bid, unless one of the other bids would be most advantageous to the city and that this is expressed in their decision to award the contract?   For example, if one of the higher bids had an extra service offered that was not requested in the original Request for Proposals (RFP) but was deemed important enough by the council to get them a better value overall, then that should be part of the discussion to relax the "low bid presumption" for awarding a contract. 

The record shows here (presuming Foster was telling the truth about his makeshift committee) that 5/7 of the councilors never saw any other bid than the one by Allyson Brunette, and never were they told why this contractor would be advantageous over the two other lower bids; the "great city club" as you call it or the "teeming with corruption team" as I may call it were given no basis as to why ignoring the two low bids by the process taken made the process fair to the other contractors or the citizens who pay for this nonessential service. 

That unfair process will give us unfair results, since you can bet there will be high praise of our city manager even if it is undeserving, because although it is not the most base form of nepotism (hiring one's relatives unfairly over others) it is nepotism nonetheless.  Mitchell Foster has devolved over the last couple years and whether it's because he talks too much with his neighbor John Shay or adapts to the worst qualities of our new mayor, Mark Barnett, or some other bad influence, it does not look good on him or the city when he does things like this.    

[stump]

Usually when someone asks for bids on a project it is not disclosed on how much you are willing to pay. Looking at the bids it looks like the was the case to a certain point. Bids ranging from the low bid $15,600. to $161,743.20.   The Foster had a cap of $20,000. in mind and it just happened that his 'friend " bid $19,998.46. Just had to trow in that 46 cents to make it legit. 

[Freedom Seeker]

They'd may have been to "justify" some petproject.  Because if an outof town friend says it should be done, well that's all the justification needed.

[Willy]

Thanks for the research X. I like FS "City club" and X's "corruption team" designations for these folks who are bent on doing what ever they please. How about naming them "the city club for team corruption". It is now more than obvious [which X spotted first] that this Master plan fiasco is going to cost the taxpayer plenty and those in power tried to hide that fact from the very beginning. $20.000 is just the beginning. Now that Mitch has been seduced to the dark side he is using any influence he has to please his bosses on the City Council. The fact that the average bid for a consulting firm is around $52,000 is revealing. Taxpayers must be ready to see how deep their pockets are in order to pay for this unwanted, unneeded and wasteful Master plan.

https://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/photo/behind-the-scenes-preview?c...

[Freedom Seeker]

So true. Good name ... however one puts it. It's been so against longtime residents and more about individual and corporate gain for those on the city team.

[Daniel Jensen]

You know.. I think this article needs to be linked to and shared with as many people as possible. So I just copied link and will put it to use. Thanks for all you do for WE THE PEOPLE! God Bless You And The Efforts You Put Forward!

[XLFD]

Your welcome, and thanks for spreading the word; the people need to know that our city leaders have not been acting in our best interests and often only in their own self-interests.