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.

 

[AQUAMAN]

Thanks for the clarification of conflict of interest Guido. Typical liberal reaction Angie, when the going gets tough, run and hide, block the sender, whatever. The TRUTH is a hard thing to accept for them.

[XLFD]

Heather Klondike, Venzke, Dante, John Shay, Wanda Marrison or anyone else is cordially invited to explain away any of the appearances of impropriety engendered in the signage project.  Or the indifference of everyone else involved in the DDA to it. 

It seems easier for some to come in here and make unsubstantiated claims about what we are saying or about the people who whistleblow the material than to address the issue from a viewpoint, whether pro or con. 

[Eve Alone]

Why do that when they need the time to devise new ways to get public money for their latest light show or gilded billboard?

[AQUAMAN]

This signage thread has piqued my curiosity now. I hope we can get some answers to our questions soon, it appears totally in conflict with the DDA Director's authority in letting bids. And if so, there needs to be action taken so the same does not continue into the future, and the past bids should be disqualified as well as that bidder that undertook early bidding via inside information. Any other penalties are probably the jurisdiction of the local ethics committee and the PA's office, although I don't see either electing to do much once the information is in their hands, one hand washes the other, I would suppose. This would explain the continuing apathy among voters and taxpayers to do an investigation or pass that critical information on to the appropriate agencies for action, as we continue to see from the past, and now present.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

I keep politely asking them to bring it or go home... They seem to prefer arguing issues that both do not have documents supporting them, and are really irrelevant to the facts of this thread. And trust me if a shread of fact could be gleaned by document I would most surly post it after insuring its accuracy. We wouldn't want libel occuring now would we?

[Angela]

so does XLFD have all this information that shows there is some funny business going on? if so pass the info on or do something with it - if I had the information that proved or showed that the DDA and city of ludington were doing something wrong I sure as heck would be finding the right person or agency to give that info to to bring it out and let everyone know wbout the wrong doings................

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

I think all that is what is being looked into. As with any exposé you have to have all the info correct or it is you who eats crow. The sealed bid stuff seems on the surface to be non-transparent? But there is a difference between rotten policy and outright illegal. The reason XL is posting the info he is posting( to me anyhow) is questioning whether anyone else besides he sees the possible impropriety here.

[XLFD]

The main problem I see that is hard to contest is that Tye's did $15,000 worth of work before a contract bid was even considered (a breach of city contract ordinance), at which point, he got some big advantages over the other bidders either from his position on the Authority and/or his close relationship to the person who oversaw those funds.  The public records in the header show the payment to Tye's being done before any bidding, and his bid already made a week before the other bidders got the info-- and had only 3 work days to make an offer. 

One of the other sign people had their own idea about it-- but that's just uncorroborated hearsay.

[Dante]

The problem I see is you ask them for proof of nothing.

You are making the claim, burden of proof is on you not them.

And posting on here is not building a case, it is just whinning, if you are so sure you have something I would assume you are smart enough to know how to go about doing something about it. Either you don't or you can't. What is it?

[XLFD]

You misspelled "winning".  LOL. 

Progress moves slowly, particularly with gears mired by corruption.

[Dante]

It was "Whining" sorry I had a extra "n"

 

[Angela]

ummm LOL Dante - you obviously didn't get it! HA LOL!!