Proposed Ludington Charter Changes Send a Message to the Public

[XLFD]

In this COLDNews story printed in this Saturday's paper it leads off with a most interesting bit of the upcoming city council meeting on Monday, September 22 at 6:30 PM at the Ludington City Hall.  In the "charter changes proposed" subheading  they offer some of the changes to the charter proposed at the meeting for discussion.  

As usual, it is quite incomplete with what is going on with these changes, so here I provide the actual memo given to the full council by City Manager John Shay, the names of the folks who brought us these proposed changes, along with the full list of the proposed changes, links to the current charter provisions, and some analysis of what the change may mean to the city and to you, the humble reader who is concerned about the direction of Ludington.

Let's start off with the memo announcing the proposed amendments:

With this preface we learn that the Building & Licenses Committee was involved with this, but unless you are actually a city hall officer yourself, you probably have no idea what three members of council are on that committee: 

I find it rather impressive in a way that Councilor Winczewski in her first year on the city council is not only chair of this important committee, but probably a major impetus in proposing seven dramatic changes in the charter all of which are included here, and all of which have a common theme.  Centralizing of powers of the City of Ludington and deprivation of rights of Ludington citizens.  This might not be too surprising, but it is rather brazen.  Let's look at the proposed changes and analyze them as objectively as possible:

1) Section 3.4 currently and simply says:  "A City Clerk and a City Treasurer shall each be elected at-large for a term of four (4) years".  The proposal takes that choice from the people of Ludington and places that power of appointing two high-powered officials in the hands of an already appointed official, the City Manager.  I would presume the rationale is to allow the city's CEO to hire who they believe would be the best at the positions of clerk and treasurer, so the records and treasury will be in the most competent hands, rather than someone who is elected for their popularity.

But several problems actually arise in this scenario, which appears to be a legitimate change for Home Rule Cities.  Right now, the city clerk and treasurer have a degree of autonomy from the City Manager, and they can decide whether to hire or fire their subordinate clerks without approval, and perform their regular duties with little input from the CM. 

They now serve as a form of check and balance with the city council, but as appointees they will be not only subservient to the city manager but also the council, who can and will utilize the CM to exert power over the clerk and treasurer.

It muddies the waters as to the separation of powers in local government.  The city manager gains almost unilateral control over the records and money of the municipality.  Independent offices are more likely to identify and halt corruption in other offices, and widespread corruption is less likely to form if they remain an elected office.

A clerk and treasurer accountable to the people are more likely to serve in the people's interests rather than an appointed city executive interests that are often dictated to them by the city council or in some situations, their own personal motives.

2)  Section 4.11 currently says every elected and appointed office needs to have an oath of office before entering the duties of that office.  The proposed amendment looks to exempt some officials from this act.  Many current officials of Ludington (like City Manager Shay, most appointed board officials, all City Attorneys) have not sworn oaths of offices, so this amendment would just grant these people immunity from any sort of repercussion for not taking an oath. 

This proposed change is against state law (MCL 15.151):  "All persons now employed, or who may be employed by the state of Michigan or any governmental agency thereof, and all other persons in the service of the state or any governmental agency, shall, as a condition of their employment, take and subscribe to the oath or affirmation required of members of the legislature and other public officers by section 2 of article 16 of the constitution of 1908 of the state of Michigan."

A strict reading says that everyone who is an employee or official of the city is required to take the oath.  As our charter cannot go against State law, this amendment is dead in the water.  The only clarification we need is to make all elected and appointed officers and employees take the oath as a condition of their public employment.

                                     How the Ludington City Council thinks they appear to the people of Ludington

3)  Section 6.4 says a recap of the city council meeting and its acts must be timely published in the local paper.  The proposal hopes to allow the city to either publish them as normal or put them up on the city website.  The proposers believe they will reduce costs-- probably because they will rarely publish the recaps in the paper and put the full minutes only on the website, as they currently do anyway.

I would dare say that not everyone in the city has computer savvy, owns a computer, or has access to the internet.  Many, however, cannot afford the newspaper.  The goal of this section is to let everyone have access as to what happened at the meeting, so if the newspaper option is taken off for cost savings, it should be supplemented by giving easier access to the meeting minutes by giving folks the opportunity to subscribe (at a cost) to mailed meeting minutes and to leave a copy at the library and maybe a couple of other places in town.

The 'or' also allows them to do one or the other, which will lead to people missing these recaps if they don't regularly check both sources.

4)  Section 6.7 gives the extra posting requirements as publishing them in the paper and at least three places in the city.  The proposal says to allow posting on the internet or in the newspaper to save money.

The same arguments for #3 apply here.  Here the goal is to allow more people to know about and participate in the meetings, so instead of an 'or' I believe an 'and' is more appropriate to allow more participation.

5)  Section 8.2 is accurately described by the proposers, they suggest pushing the budget presentation from the first meeting in November to the first meeting in December to 'provide the most up-to-date figures to the council'.

Last December, I scolded the council and the city manager for pushing the budget back since shortly after Shay took office.  CM Jim Miller and his predecessors had no problem with the old budget schedule, and I believe the earlier a budget is submitted and allowed to be looked at by the people, the less likely the budget will be abused by our officials. 

Last year they were very non-transparent with the budget.  Many of the changes were thus pushed through with minimal oversight by the council and the people.

6)  Section 10.1 gives the various duties and powers and other aspects of the City Manager.  The proposals look to take out the residency requirement and the one-year 'term' to attract good managers to apply for the position.

The residency requirement is something that should be waived for a city manager, not only because of recent findings by the Michigan Supreme Court, but because they don't effectively represent the people of the city, just the city council's urges.  Whereas, it would be optimal for the CM to live with the result of his actions, this should not be a requirement. 

The one-year review is a necessary check that should be retained to make this powerful position mostly outside of oversight by the people accountable.  As noted, a CM can be terminated at any time, so these annual reviews are a good record of what the CM's employers (the city council) thinks of the acting CM during any given year, which may be a different opinion than the public at large (as it is now).

7)  Section 13.2 says a lot about how the city is to contract and purchase with businesses.  The city wishes to 'clarify' that the City Manager has the authority to make emergency purchases without council approval.  By the proposers, this would make it quicker and easier to mitigate emergencies.

This revision is as a result of the city council and manager getting caught breaking the Open Meetings Act for doing sewer work on Brother Street worth nearly $100,000 by deciding that outside of an open meeting back in 2011.  After the fact, they claimed it was an emergency, even though the work was done a month and a half after it was noticed there was a problem (and after three council meetings in the interim). 

This 'clarification' will only make the word 'emergency' have a variety of new meetings.  There are already ways to mitigate true emergencies and live within the rules the people require of an open and transparent government.  This amendment will only allow a City Manager to more easily commit acts of corruption and cronyism under the guise of there being an emergency.

                                       How the majority of the regular people of Ludington actually view their city council

SUMMARY:  In looking at the proposed changes, one cannot but note what the goals of these initial amendments are in scope.  A lot more latitude and powers are granted to one position, the City Manager, as if he was instrumental in crafting the amendments.  If he wasn't, we have Councilors Winczewski, Rathsack and Holman from the committee showing undue confidence in the current city manager, enough to grant him more on his plate.  Even when he couldn't handle the FOIA Coordinator aspect of his job, and was fired from that position for his costly mistakes.

The proposals that do not give more power to this one office either cut back on the City of Ludington's current transparency and open-ness, or allow less accountability (how can you violate your oath of office if you never take an oath of office?).  There is not one proposal that makes the Ludington government more accountable to the people, more open, or more likely to actually serve the interests of the people.  Not one. 

Most of these amendments are actually based on charter sections hat I've caught the current crop of local politicians breaking at one time or another, that they want to make legal so that they don't break them again when trying to sneak something through, or take away more of your rights and property.  It's a pretty pathetic attempt to change the charter for their own benefit, not the people of Ludington's.  Which is what the Ludington City Charter represents, much like the Constitution and Bill of Rights does for America.

Give them some feedback on these proposals and submit your own changes:

First Ward (Term expires December 31, 2015)
Dick Rathsack
606 N Lakeshore Dr.
Phone: [phone]
Email:  [e-mail]

Second Ward (Term expires December 31, 2017)
Kathy Winczewski
408 N Rowe St
Phone: [phone] Email: [e-mail]  

Third Ward (Term expires December 31, 2015)
Les Johnson
108 W Melendy
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

 
Fifth Ward & Mayor Pro-Tem (Term expires December 31, 2015)
Nick Tykoski 
201 N Washington Ave.
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Sixth Ward (Term expires December 31, 2017)
Gary Castonia
809 E. Danaher
Phone: [phone]
Email:  [e-mail]

At-Large (term expires December 31, 2015)
Kaye Ferguson Holman
300 Sherman Oaks Dr. #324
Phone: [phone]
Email:  [e-mail]

[Willy]

Unbelievable. Your correct X. They are trying to take power away from the people and gift it to an unelected bureaucrat.

 Section 3.4

Changing this as a bold move and reeks of potential corruption. My question is why do these Government officials want to take away the citizens right to elect important City posts? Something fishy here.

Section 4.11

As X stated. This is not negotiable.

 Section 6.4 and 6.7

This is not a cost savings that should be allowed. A city that has millions in surplus should and must do everything possible to inform the citizens. If they want to save money how about reducing the City Manager's pay. Another foul smelling proposal.

Section 8.2

This should not be changed but if it is changed it should be done a month earlier to give folks more time to review the budget

Section 10.1

Absolutely not. Officials in high offices should be subject to the laws, policies and ordinances they have a hand in implementing.

Section 13.2

Just from previous dealings that have come to the public's attention thanks to X, this only side steps policies that try to assure that corruption does not seep into city business. 

Well done X.

[XLFD]

Thanks for your own takes on the revisions, Willy, I can't argue with a one of them, although I do believe the residency requirement for the CM, if permitted to stay in the code, would not be enforceable in practice, and could be removed. 

[Willy]

Must be Shay wants to move someplace better than Ludington. I've got an idea. Why doesn't he move to Manitowac. He could ride the ferry to work each day. I've always had a problem with City workers who help draft ordinances and make policies and those who enforce those ordinances and policies on the citizens while living outside the jurisdiction they work for.

[XLFD]

If I was a councilor appointing a city manager, and they did not make a commitment to live inside of the City of Ludington, that would big negative for me. 

City managers are already an  anti-democratic institution that I am and would be dedicated to eliminating for a democratically-complete  mayor-council form, so if John Shay did plan on moving out of town and retaining his seat, I would be reminding everyone of that fact even if he were legally able to keep the office. 

[AQUAMAN]

One of the BIGGEST POWER GRABS in Ludington in our entire history! If people are willing to sit and do nothing now, ALL is LOST! And the CM SHYSTER SHAY will continue to reign supreme over ALL LOCALS FOREVER! This is FACISM in it's purest form, right in ALL our FACES! 

[Willy]

If the Council is so Hell bent on changing the power structure then I say the City Manager's job should be voted on by the people. That would take care of a lot of Ludington's problems.

[XLFD]

If the people submit a petition for changing the city government from a city manager form of government to either a strong/weak mayor-council form of government, I'd be out there working to pass it.  This attempt by the city council to weaken the city charter should hopefully energize enough citizens to think of ways to strengthen the existing charter. 

Like the Constitution of the nation and the state, the charter is a document  defines the government's powers and duties, and sets limits.  They have shown they want to expand their powers even more and restrained by less duties to the people in this amendment set.

[AQUAMAN]

Where can I sign that petition, and also send about 200 other people I know to sign it?