The Development of Authority, part 5: Signs of Love

[XLFD]

After three FOIA attempts to get potentially exculpatory material for what seemed like an obvious conflict of interest involving members of the DDA, we were finally successful with the following FOIA request:

“In Ludington DDA's 2008 TIF Plan, page 22, Section 22.6, there is detailed a projected cost of "Signage" of $150,000 for the period of 2009-2012. Section 2-4 of the City Code says "Competitive bids for all purchases and public improvements shall be obtained where practicable and contracts awarded to the lowest responsible bidders." and "Sealed bids shall be asked for in all transactions involving the expenditure of $10,000.00 or more and the transaction evidenced by written contract submitted to and approved by the city council.". The recent budgets show that a significant portion of that money has already been spent, thus at least some of the bidding has been completed.

Under provisions of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act (MCLA 15.231 et seq; MSA 4.1801 (1) et seq) I am requesting, preferably in electronic records sent to this E-Mail address, I wish to inspect :
1) any documents that contains all the "contractors invited to bid" on the signage project. If this is contained on only one document, that is sufficient.
2) the letter(s), or general template, the City had sent out to each Signage contractor invited to bid.
3) any replies from those Signage contractors to the City's bid requests from those invited to bid.”

The conflict arose from the public records suggesting the signage program had been funded in 2008 for $15,000 in 2009 DDA Sept 29,2008 minutes, had begun in 2009 DDA Sept 14 2009 minutes, and yet the bids for sign contractors was done in the spring of 2010 DDA May 2010 minutes .  These latter two will be discussed.

 

The Available Public Record

MCL 15.342 is a state law that describes seven forms of prohibited conduct by a public officer or employee.  The city has much the same in the "Conflict of Interest" Division of the City Code.  A ‘public officer’ by definition is any elected or appointed official whether full-time part-time, paid, or unpaid and shall include members of the various boards appointed by the city. Section 5 states that:

“A public officer or employee shall not engage in a business transaction in which the public officer or employee may profit from his or her official position or authority or benefit financially from confidential information which the public officer or employee has obtained or may obtain by reason of that position or authority…”


Nick Tykoski, who recently ran unsuccessfully for County Commissioner, has been a member of the Downtown Ludington Board of Directors (aka Downtown Development Authority or DDA) for several years. This public officer also runs his own sign business called “Tye’s Signs”, recently renamed “Tye’s Inc.”. He has had prior experience in law enforcement, and currently serves on the Ludington Fire Department. Indications are that he is an excellent firefighter and entrepreneur.

The DDA has had several occasions lately when they have needed services involving the skills of a sign-maker. The city utilized Tye’s Signs for working on store window decals for the successful Halloween event downtown (DDA minutes, 10-12-09). The city also purchased the 6000 lights for the New Year’s Ball from Tye’s Signs (LDN, 12-30-09).  All signs for the dog park were to be made by Tye Sign's.   In neither case were there any mention of any competitive bidding by other companies who may have wanted the public money utilized.

On May 10, 2010, the DDA met at its monthly meeting, Nick was absent from the meeting. From the minutes:

“St Hillare handed out the estimate for continuation of the signage project for Downtown Wayfinding signs. 4 additional requests were faxed to other companies in addition to the one received from Tye’s Inc. Tye’s Inc was the only estimate received. The project is being done in phases.
A Motion was made by Brown and seconded by Johnson to approve the estimate from Tye’s Inc for the current phase.
A motion was made by Brown and seconded by Neal to approve Tye’s Inc as the vendor for the remainder of the signage project for Downtown signage.”

DDA Venzke was the secretary of that meeting, and as usual in her minutes, she left out what the decisions on the motions were, contrary to what the Open Meetings Acts demands (MCL 15.269). But presuming these motions were passed, it sounds from the minutes that Tye’s Inc. did not get faxed a request—that somehow the company gained inside knowledge from some source.  Likewise the word 'continuation' suggests it had already been started-- which it had-- by Nick Tykoski's company.   It is curious also that in these rough times, you’d think at least one of the other four companies would try to get this lucrative deal.

The second motion also seems to go against the city charter (Art. 1, sec. 2-4 Purchases and Contracts) which says: “Competitive bids for all purchases and public improvements shall be obtained where practicable and contracts awarded to the lowest responsible bidders…” To be precise, if Tye’s Inc. effectively gets the remainder of the signage project without the DDA even seeking competitive bids, isn’t it reasonable to assume Tye’s Inc. could charge a non-competitive rate for the work?

The Acquired Public Record

 

On the fourth attempt to get the competitive bids for the $150,000 signage contract through FOIA, we did not receive any competitive bids before April 2010.  This is strange, because the financial records of the DDA show that on 10-12-2009, $15,000.75 was paid out for downtown signs under contractual services  DDA Financial records 2008-10 p. 9 (zoom in).  So who got the money?  Tye's Signs or Tye's Inc. ? 

Now a contract for over $10,000 was awarded to a member of the DDA, a city employee, via his company without a competitive bid, let alone a sealed bid.  But what about the bids in April 2010?

On Tuesday, April 27 the following was faxed to three sign companies, a 4th did not receive theirs.  4-27-10 Fax p 1  4-27-10 Fax p 2  4-27-10 Fax 3

The terms seem very rigid, and the time frame allows only 3 business days to respond with an estimate.  But each received it on the same day.  Sounds fair for this phase-- until you see this:  4-20-10 Tye's Estimation for project  

A week before these faxes were sent out to receive sealed bids, a particular company was able to get their bid in without even being faxed.  Being that Nick was part of the wayfaring sign committee in the DDA, the inflexible demands and the small time frame for bidding seems to work well in his favor. 

But how was Nick able to get all this past the wary eyes of the DDA Director Heather Venzke?  Let's just say that today is Valentine's Day, and love just might be the answer. 

They also got a sweet deal on a Freddy Mac foreclosed home this last summer at 201 N Washington St.  A house that recently sold for twice what they brought it for.  Assessor Info 201 N Washington

How did they do this?  Love found a way.

 

[Angela]

I'll contact whoever needs to be contacted to get this stuff investigated - I just don't have the papers in my possession - I believe XLFD does..................... I dont' mind ruffling feathers at all, blowing the whistle or whatever u want to call it. Can't we be a bunch of whistleblowers - or do u have to work for the place that u r blowing the whistle on?

[Lisa O'Brien]

No I live in NYC, and don't have access to any of the paperwork and will not be back Mason County until the summer.

[AQUAMAN]

Go ahead Lisa, and when the AG office spokesperson, a law school college kid in training shorts answers, then tells you it will be logged in and you can wait 2 years for an answer, as long as there is another dozen or so like complaints of the same on the list to justify the investigation, then what do you do? That AG office is nothing more than a name for window dressing, unless it's a State priority emergency case. Basically, a JOKE, with high paid/benefits employees taking up open office space, along with important budget monies well spent elsewhere imho.

[Lisa O'Brien]

So what do you think should happen? If all that is said is true, I would think that the people of Ludington would want it investigated.  Rather than just ranting about it on a forum. There has to be some sort of recourse.

[Heather Klondike]

The possible misuse or abuse of public tax funds is very serious.  The other stuff digging into peoples personal lives is irrelevant and best left alone.  There are people who misuse and abuse taxpayer funds that are not in any type of intimate relationship at all.  Most people do not want to get involved with other peoples personal lives anyway.  I think it is a good thing if they love each other and get married and start a new family. 

The point is that people in positions of responsibility within the community need to protect the taxpayer money and spend it according to all rules and regulations.  It has nothing to do with love or home purchases.  Attack the main issue about possible fraud and leave the personal stuff out of it.

[Angela]

nobody's dissin on them for being in love etc..... the fct of the matter is there is a possibility of misuse of power/violation of city rules with them 2 being together and making decisions on certain things.  the home purchase does have something to do with it also but that has yet to be fully exposed due to time frames - when something is released then things will be exposed...............

[Willy]

Heather

Aren't you reading the posts? Noone's digging into someones personal life. When someone posts about themselves on the internet it no longer is personal and when a person in charge of tax dollars has a relationship with someone who gets those tax dollars thru a bidding process there is always grounds for conflict of interest.

 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST - A conflict between  the private interest and the public obligations of a person in an official position.

[Eve Alone]

All of XLFD's 'evidence' is part of the public record, the fact that Nick and Heather are engaged is also publicly and proudly proclaimed on Nick's facebook.  The importance of their being engaged shows the relationship between the two may have figured in on the irregularities that have come up.  Good business for DDA member/private entrepreneur Nick means good tidings for Heather Venzke's personal life. 

But it also may mean bad decisions made with public funds and serious ethical issues. 

[Angela]

heather klondike is probably heather venzke....................

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

Gee ya think maybe?? Or at least someone willing to impersonate her.

[AQUAMAN]

Klondike bars are not melt-proof, chocolate covered ice cream. Kinda like bleached blondes. Dittos Angie, methinks you may be on the right track. I guess Nick needs to beef up the UPS driver job $$$ before he reaches early retirement, eh?

[Angela]

LOL - or it could be Nick's sister.  she tried to "friend" me on facebook last year when I was speaking out on Heather and her position etc... only person getting a raise etc.... and when I called her out on it she blocked me - whatever