Analysis of LPD Survey Results by Themselves Found No Wrongdoing

[XLFD]

In early January, the Chamber Alliance of Mason County collaborated with the Ludington Police Department (LPD) to distribute a community survey, the purpose of which was to gather feedback on the strengths and areas for improvement of the LPD from the perspective of community members.  The LPD would claim that the primary objective of the survey was to be the best law enforcement agency that they could be, by being willing to confront areas of their weakness and build upon their strengths.

The problem arises when they suggest they have an ongoing commitment to transparency.  To defend this position, they offer the survey results at their website, including a summary and analysis of the results.  While this is a good start towards reparations for the LPD's recent war against transparency, where they block comments from their social media outlets and assign illegal fees to FOIA requests (culminating in a lawsuit filed last year over three egregiously overpriced LPD body cam videos).  

For the survey to have any value to the public, the LPD's prior commitments to transparency have to be weighed into the calculus.  Thus, when we look at the 'raw' LPD Survey Responses with the understanding that it may just be another propaganda attempt by the LPD to bolster its tarnished image, we are encouraged by seeing that a significant amount of critical (and complimentary) survey responses is present, including this reporter's.

The first nine responses are opinion assessment ratings from 1-5 of LPD policy and performance, followed by two open ended questions, the first asking for the surveyed to list the three biggest law enforcement safety concerns facing Ludington.  While one would expect such lists to include areas of high crime, drugs, poor illumination, unsafe traffic, etc., there were a lot of responses among the approximately 240 that were aimed at the LPD ethos itself as a concern (approximately 40% of those who named anything, as seen on the excerpt to the left).

The second asked for suggestions for improving the LPD and/or police services, and those outwardly critical of the LPD once again approached about 40% of the responses.  Presuming dozens of city hall and LPD officials took part in the anonymous survey (and presuming that each only voted once), this is a large percentage.  

Individuals were only mentioned twice in the survey responses, with Jason Miney being listed as a law enforcement safety concern being one (see p. 2).  When he takes a break from his photography, Miney directs with dedication Mason County Life Recovery, a non-profit that provides a great community service primarily helping people recover from drug and alcohol addiction.  This would seem to be anything other than a safety concern, rather it would be complementary to the stated core objectives of law enforcement.

On page 6, someone tells the LPD to "work on managing the relationship with X. Luft [my Facebook pseudonym].  Don't let him get the upper hand."  That's great advice, because what they have done over the last year is get the city properly sued for engaging in outright public extortion by blocking multiple body cam footages from being shared with the public through illegal fee schemes. That's their commitment to transparency in action.

They followed that up last year by falsely charging this reporter with two misdemeanors and having their prosecutor-on-the-payroll, Beth Hand, take them up.  It is unchallenged that I have never had my license suspended or revoked, but driving with license suspended is one charge.  Trespassing is the other; I have been marked as a trespasser for strolling down the paved walkway of Cartier Park, a public facility my taxes are paid to maintain, on the afternoon of March 15th, just like dozens of other people did that day that weren't charged with trespassing.  

The results are put into perspective and into graphs in the LPD Survey Summary.  The most interesting aspect of this is that we learn that there appears to be a lot of people that opened up the survey but did not finish them:

Are we to believe that just a little over 1/3 of the people that started the short survey never finished it?  Or is it more likely that almost 2/3 of the responses did not fill in all of the fields or were otherwise ignored by those reading the results?  This is never explained, but it seems like a large amount of data may have been ignored.

The LPD Survey Analysis is illuminating, especially when they identify the common themes for the open-ended responses to question 10:

The initial assessment and analysis of this and question 11 have them explaining what the LPD has already in place to address the concerns and what they may be able to do in the future with enough money and manpower, but what breaks the illusion of any honest analysis is how they treat the issue of "police behavior and accountability":

In truth, I am only aware of two of the four complaints mentioned, but I can honestly and objectively say that both are exemplary for showing that the LPD officers involved did not act lawfully and/or within policy.  As for reviewing 'random' body cam videos in 2024 and finding nothing unprofessional of unlawful in LPD behaviors, they may want to review the footage of the three 2024 body cam videos we sent FOIA requests for and were given ridiculously unlawful fees.

We have seen alternative videos for two of those instances that show unlawful and/or unprofessional conduct by the LPD and have the police report for the other which indicates multiple violations of basic civil rights were performed by city officers.  

When such violations are dismissed as fantasy when you review them, and when you can infer through some blanket claim that your police department never has a moment of unlawful or unprofessional conduct caught on video-- when you unlawfully and unprofessionally block public release of several incriminating videos-- you and your survey to supposedly improve yourself and your false claim of seeking transparency, will fail miserably.

[Willy]

Excellent analysis X.