Mayor Barnett's Blatant Gaslighting Campaign

[XLFD]

At the May 19, 2025 meeting of the Ludington City Council, "blatant" must have been the vocabulary (or drinking) word of the day, as Mayor Mark Barnett would use that adjective five times in a little over a minute to describe actions of his favorite citizen journalist.  Rather than taunt the gentle reader by going over what led up to the outburst at the end of the 86 minute meeting, we'll feed the red meat to you first by going to the very end of the meeting, the time when cowardly city officials normally make attacks towards citizens who address the council and ask them to ethically serve the public.

Barnett (1:22:30 in) "I will add one more thing.  I sit here every week, each meeting, and many times over the years that I've been here, including my time as police chief, Mr. Rotta has come up with information, made statements that are blatantly false, blatantly false.  I can go back to the time when he alleged that the city was buying hams for the employees, and that wasn't the case, he knew it wasn't the case, but they had bought those hams to distribute, and I think to this day, at Christmas time, the police department still carries on that tradition.

And it bothers me that somebody can get up at a public meeting, having full rights to say what they want, it's not the best thing to say if it's not accurate and is blatantly false, because it only serves to harm, it only serves to take away people's inclination to do the right thing, to serve, to help people out, because they know they have to face a bunch of misstatements or blatant, blatant falsehoods.

I'm confident that Mr. Rotta knew that the money was sitting in city coffers waiting to pay for that, (to Jones) you used the charge card as an instrument to get the thing taken care of, and the money was already there and took care of that bill.  

So Mr. Rotta, I understand and I appreciate the fact that you have the right to get up and say things, I don't appreciate that you use this forum to call people names, unless of course you have it written down correctly on your script, but you mispronounce it, that may well be, I'll leave that as a possibility.  But you know it just don't seem right to me, and I said this ten years ago, twelve years ago... and shame on you.  Shame on you for continuing to make misstatements and false statements that seek to divide to undermine people's ability and desire to serve, and to do the right thing.  And so with that, I'll end it and say thank you very much for listening."  [END comment]

The audio doesn't catch it, but I quietly said "Name one (statement)." after the second time he said "blatantly false", and he obliged bringing up a time I spoke, and later wrote about, hams the city had purchased way back in 2017.  At that time I respectfully said:

"... Your honor, state law says that it is a misdemeanor for an officer of a city to purchase any goods in the name of the city for any other purpose than for use in the regular course of the official business of the city.  That wasn't done here.  Ham won't fix our streets, ham won't solve our ongoing water and sewer issues, and ham can't respond to a police call no matter what we refer to our local cops as...

Why someone, somehow thought the purchase of over $1200 for ham was a legitimate purpose for our general fund monies is a mystery, but someone signed off on it after using the city's credit card, and the council is set to approve this questionable purchase when it comes time to paying the bills.  Please fully explain this purchase to the people before you do so."

Nowhere in that meeting's or any other meeting's full comment, or in any of my articles have I ever "alleged that the city was buying hams for the employees"; he misunderstood the problem, and this corrupt mayor and city have misunderstood it ever since, and I explained it in that recap that they were misusing the general fund for non-public purposes, as I explained then:

"The general fund is for strictly public purposes, used for administration and operating expenses, that the city encounters that is not accounted for in other special use funds.  The money to pay for the hams found in this agenda packet, and the $9000 for Walmart gift cards for SWAC found in the December packet are not part of that.  In fact, the money received by donations and fundraisers for the SWAC program should have never been put or made available into the city's general fund in the first place.  It's not only an unethical and unlawful way to account the public's funds, it's potentially criminal..."

The Michigan Constitution, in relevant part, has not changed since then, nor has the definition of "general fund".  The revenues and expenditures of funds in the city when the city is acting as a fiduciary agent for a non-profit agency (like "Shop with a Cop" or Friends of Ludington Police") should be tracked in a special purpose fund, definitely not the general fund.

Ergo, the mayor's statement on my past statement of hams is not only blatantly false but is also his affirmation of a corrupted accounting system that mixes public and non-public expenses in the general fund.  And ergo, his second paragraph referring to accuracy in what one says at public meetings falls back on him, not me.  As for his last paragraphs, he makes reference to what I said about the police chief doing the same type of unethical activities, as the mayor did when he was buying hams back in 2016.  

XLFD:  "When the City approved the LPD's K-9 unit in January 2024, it was determined that the K-9 Fund of the Friends of the Ludington Police (FOLP) would be solely responsible for the medical expenses of the city's police dog. 

You all approved the paying of the bills which included the chief using the credit card he was entrusted with to pay for $2500 in medical expenses at the Animal Hospital. 

You have all violated the state constitution, Article 7, Section 26, which simply states:   "no city shall have the power to loan its credit for any private purpose".  Funding medical expenses for the K-9 was a private purpose, as assigned by your January 2024 vote, using the city's credit card to pay medical expenses was therefore unconstitutional, and you all should be ashamed of your violation of the oaths you made to that document by allowing the police thief to use his credit card unlawfully..."

We should note that Mayor Barnett stated on the record that Jones "used the charge card as an instrument to get the thing [surgery and treatment] taken care of, and the money was already there and took care of that bill", he contradicts past statements made by the city manager and Planning Commission Chairman (and FOLP member) Patrick O'Hare that the FOLP reimbursed the city after the city used the people's credit card on K-9 purchases.  The latter said back in December that was the case: "We are trying to take steps so that the dog food is not being paid for by the city and being reimbursed [by the FOLP]."

In the interval since they have been challenged and have never suggested anything different than having the city use its credit card, as it did here for $2500, and having the FOLP pay later (if at all), since the general public loans its credit to the FOLP whenever the police thief uses his credit card for medical expenses.  This is another time when the rational choice is to use a special purpose fund so as not to violate the state constitution or the contract made between the city and the FOLP.

This was just a small sample of what developed at this meeting, but the Ludington Torch thought it would be instructive to the community to see the mayor gaslighting a citizen journalist and repeatedly call him a blatant liar, when His Honor tells a couple whoppers himself while hamming it up.  Please, Mayor Marx, do some more research in the three weeks before the next city council meeting to find an actual time when this humble essayist has made a blatantly false statement at these meetings or on this website.    

[Freedom Seeker]

Disgusting twist of facts that Barnett makes over misuse of general funds to buy hams (2017-- 8 years ago and the Mayor still cannot understand the law). 

Like the devil twisting truths--is this blatant deception, blatant ignorance or blatant stupidity? 

Shame, shame, shame.  Give it up Mayor, if you cannot understand law.   Please don't deceive the public to cover your shame.  Seek counsel and pray you can someday understand the law.

[Freedom Seeker]

I re-read the 2017 Ludington Torch (LT) article and you (Rotta) stated:

"...They surely have put enough money aside to pay up to 78% of the city employee's wages in fringe benefits, are they now furnishing them with post-Christmas hams, packing tape, gravy mix, and veggies also? ..." Exerpt from LT 1/25/17 article embedded in current article.

That question seems to be where Shay and Barnett took offense that you BLATANTLY STATED that the City was buying hams for employees.

What Barnett doesn't understand is that "volunteerism" such as Shop with a COP should be enterprises separated from official city work, with separate accounts--NOT comingled with City General Fund and employees using paid city time. Maybe Dana Nessel could clarify this.

Was this $1200 "donation" by Meijer and Walmart shown as incoming revenue in the General Fund way back in 2017?

[Willy]

Either the Mayor's is as dumb as a rock or he is hiding and performing corrupt acts using the City coffers to conceal his actions. No body can be this dense. You have explained in great detail that what has transpired is not proper or ethical and can easily be interpreted as criminal. What the hell is the matter with these people. Can't they understand what they are doing? Not once did he explain to the public, that what he is doing,  meets the intent of the law. He just keeps blaming you for pointing out that he and the City Council are not following the law.