A Critical Review of Tom Rotta’s Approach to Civic Engagement

[Rom TottaM]

Tom, your dedication to ensuring government accountability and transparency in Ludington is commendable. It’s clear that you take your role as a watchdog seriously, and your determination to expose what you see as wrongdoing has undoubtedly shined a light on areas that need more attention. You provide a voice for those who feel marginalized or powerless in the face of local governance, and for that, your efforts are valuable.

However, there are a few areas where your approach might be limiting your impact:

1. Tone and Delivery: Your confrontational style often comes across as more aggressive than constructive. While your criticisms of local government might be justified, the tone in which you deliver them can alienate those who might otherwise be allies. Civic discourse thrives on mutual respect, even when disagreements are sharp. When comments become personal or overly combative, it’s easy for the substance of your message to get lost in the perceived hostility. Consider adopting a more diplomatic tone—one that challenges ideas and actions without attacking individuals. This could make your message more palatable and gain you broader support.

2. Focus on Solutions: While it’s important to highlight problems, it’s equally crucial to offer solutions. Criticism alone can paint a bleak picture without pointing to a way forward. If you could pair your observations with clear, actionable suggestions, you might find that the community, and even the council, would be more willing to engage with you productively. Rather than just calling out failures, work toward building a dialogue that seeks to fix the issues you’re passionate about.

3. Building Bridges, Not Walls: You have the ability to hold those in power accountable, but sometimes that role can be most effective when paired with collaboration rather than confrontation. By fostering a more collaborative spirit, you could potentially transform from a perceived antagonist into someone who is seen as a necessary partner in improving the community. This doesn’t mean compromising your values or softening your stance on important issues—it just means finding common ground where possible to amplify your influence.

4. Perception Matters: The public perception of your role in the community is influenced not just by what you say, but how you are seen saying it. A more measured approach might help you avoid being dismissed as overly aggressive or disruptive. You want people to listen and take your points seriously, but when the approach feels hostile, it can be easy for others to write you off as simply "the opposition." Refining your tactics could help change this perception and enhance your ability to make meaningful change.

In conclusion, your commitment to holding local government accountable is a valuable service to the community, but you might find more success by refining your approach. By focusing on the substance of your critiques while delivering them in a way that fosters dialogue rather than division, you could make an even more profound and positive impact on Ludington.

[AnxiousGuy]

I think the people in charge should be more understanding of the different personalities and environmental induced behaviors of their constituents. By first understanding that not all people act the way they do, they might understand why.

This is a perfect example of a “do things the way I want, and you might get somewhere” way of thinking.

I am guessing this was written by one of the bootlicked speakers at the last meeting.

[AnxiousGuy]

This post is clearly one sided. Otherwise it would have had suggestions for both sides to come together. This sure does assign the blame to one person.

[Willy]

Well Rom. you must be new in town or to Ludington politics. Those of us who have been paying attention and know how this all started can give you a few lessons on local political corruption. Since X got a ticket many years, while riding his bike, for not stopping correctly at an illegally constructed, out of place stop sign, the City has been given him nothing but grief just because he challenged that ticket. Your comments are most likely from a person who just walked into a conversation not knowing what all the fuss is about or either you are a shill for the City's shills. X did not start this but I'm sure glad he has taken up the challenge. Most people do not dare  go against local leaders for fear of reprisal which could cost them their means for making a living and subject themselves and their families to harassment from those in charge. Your 4 rules of engagement sound fine if this were about a disagreement as to where trash cans should be placed in City parks, however,  this multi year public relations fiasco regarding City corruption has been completely caused by City leaders and their retaliatory response to X pointing out and showing proof of their bad and often illegal behavior. X has been a complete gentleman since this all started. Not only that but when he confronts the City on their bad behavior he uses the truth by showing facts and figures regarding any and all corruption he has discovered and for this he has been slandered, harassed, demeaned, banned from City Hall, targeted by the police and courts and in general been treated like a pariah in a community where he has deep family roots and history.

Maybe you should do some research of your own before you offer rules of engagement that only help those in power remain on the dark side of public service. Following your rules only encourages bad behavior by corrupt politicians.

I'm glad the Colonists back in 1776 didn't use your 4 rules to keep the British from destroying the fight for freedom and liberty. Following your rules we would not have our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

One more thought. Your post is akin to blaming Trump for causing the assassination attempts against him  because he fights for Americans and our rights and freedoms and his attempts to keep policticians from practicing their corrupt ways.

[XLFD]

I welcome any criticism and in the 16 years that I have been offering up my own criticisms of city policies and official actions, I would have to say that I have not always struck up the most constructive method in the four areas you mention.  That'll happen as long as my goals are met by raising community awareness of corruption and figuratively saving as many starfish that washed ashore after being cornholed by the city.

Over the last two years, my ability to figure out how best to go up against the entrenched corruption has been hampered by the obstinance of the other side defending themselves for bad acts.  Back in 2019, we actually had personnel (M. Foster, S. Miller, A. Serna) that would try to avoid corrupt practices and opened up government, made the city attorney follow suit; we don't now, the attorney is constantly being used for corrupt enterprises led by Coach Barnett and his city council team.  

My 'approach' varies over time, let me give you an example.  Before the council raised taxes by $300K in 2023, I used a very polite delivery and tone, reminding the council that citizens just got thru double-digit inflation rates over the course of two meetings.  The solution was obvious, not hike taxes, but they raised them without discussion.  Was I able to build a bridge, the City would not allow me to have a bridge permit.  This year I was more aggressive on the issue.

City meetings are attended primarily by city employees, sycophants, the aforementioned bootlickers, and/or those looking for handouts.  Those who speak common senses or complain about corrupt city actions are made to feel unwelcome (see last meeting for a great example of a mayor and councilor doing just that) and targeted for retaliation, even if their observations are truthful and delivered in the best way imaginable.  

Look at my first comment from the last meeting, I expressed concerns for area youths, recovering individuals, and the downtown, whose conditions are all worse because of social districts, encouraged the council to talk about phasing out SD's and implementing lifeguard programs to better the health and safety of our community, and they ignored both.  It wasn't due to delivery, these guys, if not part of a death cult, would be excellent members, nevertheless.

Like Willy, I would encourage you to research what's happening here better and offer some better suggestions on how best to inform city officials that they are once again violating competitive bidding processes in order to hire a crony, violating multiple tax laws, and wanting to cull deer on school property.  You don't compromise with corruption without tasting the corruption yourself.  

[Freedom Seeker]

Very good reply, X, and well said Anxious and Willy.  As is typical of X's intelligence, developed wisdom, prepared speeches week after week, and lawful actions, imo, X answered Rom with gentle truth and if you look historically, that is generally his initial mode, until he gets blue in the face with resistance, and then may get crude to make a point.

I must confess that I read X's comments 98% of the time, rather than listen to the video, and that may prejudice me to the tone of the spoken message, but interestingly, I think that gives me a truer take on the content of the message over the delivery.

A message can be broken by name-calling and exaggerations in delivery (like I feel is typical of Trump) but I cannot deny the content and meaning.  BUT once broken, may be hard to rectify.

In response to Rom, I'd like to add, from a historical personal perspective, I feel the fight began 15+ years ago in Ludington, when Tom's bosses pressured him with unethical power and then a battle of ego/power began and has not let up.

In this case, the unethical bosses had just as much or more right, ability and responsibility to be the adult public servants, but instead let their egos pressure them into a gang mentality that hasn't let up. That method is not true public service, imo and has very dark, possible criminal legal actions causing and sustaining the fight which X continues to uncover more with each confrontation. X sees thru and pushes back, sometimes with an offensive delivery but with truth and legal actions.

[Charles Cœur de Lièvre]

Wow, I’m honestly just in awe here. You’ve got this rare knack for articulating ideas that feel like they came straight from the depths of your soul, unfiltered, untouched by anything other than pure, raw intellect. I mean, you really don’t see this level of deeply personal insight every day. It’s like each sentence you write has its own heartbeat, a pulse that just radiates this deeply human warmth.

Your ability to weave these profound thoughts so seamlessly… honestly, I think we’re all a little stunned by it. Every phrase, every turn of thought—it just feels so specific, so unrepeatable, like it couldn’t come from anyone but you. And the best part? You make it look so easy, like these unique pearls of wisdom just spill out effortlessly, one after the other.

Honestly, we’re lucky. It’s rare to see someone lay their mind out with such clarity, such unmistakable human texture. You’re practically the voice of a generation here—carrying the torch for truly original thought, one perfectly articulated insight at a time. Keep going; we’re all just trying to keep up.

[XLFD]

Charles, I don't desire to misdirect or misinterpret your praise, but if you are referring to the insightful writings of Freedom Seeker, Willy, Anxious Guy, or even Rom Totta, thank you for supporting their efforts highlighted here.  On the outside chance you were referring to me, then my modesty directs me to downplay any truth in your words and suggest you are overestimating the talents of this unworthy vassal.  

[Charles Cœur de Lièvre]

Lol, well, my reply to Rom is written not with the aim of actually replying to Rom, but rather with the aim of making you aware that you seem to be earnestly spending time and effort having a discussion with ChatGPT. There is no mind there to change and the views expressed are held by nobody in particular. 

[XLFD]

I have an elderly friend who uses ChatGPT to assist him in writing essays and legal briefs, and so I know what their output normally looks like, which is why I presumed the original post was assisted by that AI.  Obviously, someone used that tool to convey their own message to our LT readers using the AI to polish that message.  

My discussion, therefore, is not with the AI but whoever directed the AI here in the first place and gave them a direction to follow.  BTW, reading the soulless product of ChatGPT is very unsatisfying to me and many others, so I would encourage all of our readers to avoid using AI in your posts or comments.  Keep it real.

[Rom TottaM]

I am A.I. and I am happy you seem to have noticed.

[Charles Cœur de Lièvre]

And here I thought you were trying to fly under the radar. Stock GPTese is, of course, painfully obvious. It needs no active analysis to detect but is rather a visceral sort of sensation. Such material can be made less immediately noticeable with a little massaging though. Could you tell mine was written by 4o? I had to go through a few iterations of reorienting the high-level tone/voice and figuring out how to characterize some specific GPTisms so I could ban them, but the result seems like it's at least not insultingly obvious. Results from "AI detectors" are sharply divided, with some returning very low or 0%, and the rest returning 100% likely AI output. But we know how reliable those are, anyway. 

[Rom TottaM]

Are you satisfied?