Ludington City Council Meeting, November 13, 2017: Financial Secrets of the House

End of the year Ludington City Council meetings typically have an ambitious docket, especially when there has been a three week gap between meetings rather than two, but the November 13, 2017 meeting wasn't very packed in content or controversy.  This led to a forty minute meeting that featured just as much content and controversy off the agenda.

They approved the CVB's 4th Annual Brrrewfest, a midwinter afternoon bacchanal taking place at the east end of City (Rotary) Park on January 27th without problem.  They passed a non-conforming use agreement with Carr Manor, visible outside the north windows of city hall across Foster Street.  Carr Manor's management and the City had a difference of opinion in the manor's possible expansion of living units (read the council packet p. 54+ for more on the issue), no problems arose in its passage.

The first presentation of an ordinance changing the future fire station's lot on Tinkham from being zoned limited commercial to government service was read, and another first reading for an ordinance adding industrial surcharges on to future discharges of harder-to-process wastewater, like Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) waste from the House of Flavors (HOF).

The latter figured into the last item of interest at the meeting, a request by the HOF to keep some sensitive financial figures of theirs secret from the public.  Reportedly, the updates needed at the Wastewater Treatment Plant to handle their BOD waste amounted to $1.5 million above and beyond.  

The HOF want to pay this incrementally over five years, the City doesn't want to extend this kind of credit without looking into their financial records in order to see whether that HOF favor might be too risky.

While I give credit (no pun intended) to the City for trying to establish a way to potentially save the citizens money if the HOF defaulted, I believe the City can accomplish this without getting some unidentified financial records that go beyond the HOF's usual disclosures of their finances to the IRS and other government agencies which are a matter of public record.  Likewise, they should be able to receive a copy of the company's credit report, with minimal effort and cooperation.  

But apparently they want enough to make HOF management want to classify the information as secret.  To do this, they need the city council's and the city manager's approval, for then they believe they could make this material exempt to public records requests through FOIA.  This is what I took issue with after reviewing the law and some relevant court precedent.  I also am at issue in that they do not seem willing to publish their criteria for accepting or rejecting the bid; what they want to do is look at the relevant records, whatever they are, make their decision, whatever it is, then forever dispose of the data they based that decision on.  The absence of criteria and the records is a very non-transparent process that is abhorrent to open government in Michigan.  

I was the only one to comment at the head of the meeting, and this was what I focused on after berating the latest Safety Decals invoice by the DDA: 

November 13th, 2017 Ludington City Council meeting from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

XLFD (2:50 into the video):  "  (Government Heather)... In contrast, the City is looking to formulate a payment plan with House of Flavors to pay for the needed upgrades at the wastewater treatment plant to deal with their BOD waste.  In order to agree to terms, the city has asked for financial records to review of which the House feels should be left confidential,

I feel it’s an abuse of the city’s power to even ask for such records.  A reading of relevant laws and court precedents indicate to me that once the city decides whether to accept or reject the deal, the financial records they base that decision on should be made available.  If the city does not voluntarily release them, I will seek them through FOIA and expect no trouble.  Thank you."

During the meeting (12:00 in), the city attorney assured the council that his analysis of the situation was correct, and that all aspects of the deal could be kept secret from the unwashed public.  Their relief was noticeable before they passed the secrecy covenant and... I do expect trouble when I seek the records.  I will assure the public that the attorney's arguments are rather weak with the facts presented in this case.

At 26:30 in, during the post-agenda comments, I decided to get in front of the City's push for their own unaccountable charity:

XLFD: "As we get closer to the holiday season, local charities will be asking for help in their missions to make everyone's Christmas a little nicer.  If you can, think of donating to the red kettles of the Salvation Army, the various Toys for Tots programs, or other charity you feel comfortable with.  I would, however, advise everyone that the Ludington Shop with a Cop program needs to answer questions concerning their accounting irregularities of the previous year, and respond as to why they disingenuously advertise that all proceeds of their fundraising events provide the opportunity for needy children to shop with a local officer.  

Last year, it was shown that nearly $1000 was unaccounted for on a Meijer gift certificate, that $500 was unaccounted for in Walmart gift certificates, and that over $2300 was never used and supposedly deferred to the next year's program and has been kept within the city's coffers for nearly a year.  These are significant numbers given that just a little over $10,000 was used last year for the shopping.

At the beginning of this year, I had brought the disconcerting figures up as the city's general fund was used last November and December to pay for the expenses of the program.  "Shop with a Cop" is not part of Ludington government, public accounting principles suggest that this money should not go into a general fund of a city.  The records suggest much time and some resources were spent during the city's business hours doing work on the SWAC charity.  This further suggests that many of our highest paid public officials, with extravagant fringe benefits packages, don't have enough work to do otherwise.  Charity begins at home on your own time, not at city hall on the public's dime.  Thank you."

Had no other citizen rose, I probably would have gotten an earful from LPD Chief Mark Barnett after I took my seat, but two other Diannes had their say in two emotional topics to them involving the Fourth Ward.  Dianne Chippi brought the PM Bayou's city-caused pollution to the council's attention once again.  Dianne Seelhoff made a point about the Splash Pad Committee (SPC) and the proposed Fourth-Ward-placed splash pad, and the Open Meetings Act.  

Unfortunately, Seelhoff was on the impression that the SPC was a public body rather than a private body, which was meticulously picked apart by various officials at the end after Chief Barnett got his chance to plug his department and slug the citizen wanting answers to the department's accounting problems.

Chief Barnett started off with his plug for the SWAC program's pie auction, at around 32:00 in then segued into the meaningless monologue he has used other times to totally avoid talking about where the nearly $1500 in unaccounted-for gift certificate money.  It took over four minutes to say what he said below, which trumpets the character of his police that can't account for the missing money and questions the common sense of any detractor who asks questions about missing money in another episode of gaslighting.  

 

"Also I'd like to talk a little, if you bear with me, a few minutes on (deep sigh) some perceptions as to what a police officer (I won't speak for any other city employees) but what a police officer's job is.  I've been in this line of work for 41 years, 24 years of which, including 7 years in Pontiac, I've been involved with community policing.  Community policing is not just a program that you sign up to serve and do, it's a strategy.  Figuring out ways to solve problems that maybe can't be solved in other traditional ways. 
In holiday time we are confronted with, confronted really the year round with problems in the citizens both of the city and county face about things relative to the economic concerns of an actual family. So in the spirit of trying to solve some of those problems for many in a short period of time, the police department, along with other businesses and the citizens of the city of Ludington and Mason County, marshall our forces or combine our forces in order to solve a few of those problems. 
What we do is try to raise money so the kids of economically challenged families can go out and buy presents for their family members and for themselves so that they can have a little bit of Christmas.  Last year we fortunate enough to have some money left over, because people were generous with their donations, to be able to go and buy Christmas meals.  And the officers again took some of their on-duty time to deliver those Christmas meals. They do that because number one, it's the right thing to do, they don't do it to take anything for themselves, (unintelligible) police officers.  They do it to help people, they do it to solve these problems. It's got gonna make their life, but it's certain that they can raise some of the concerns, some of the problems that exist around the holidays.
I think that's the right thing to do.  I'm proud to be part of an organization, the city government, the city police department, that sees this as a priority, sees this as a function in terms of community policing.  In terms of problem solving, in terms of helping people.  Too many times, police officers have the unfortunate task of taking away somebody's freedoms.  Too many times we have the unfortunate task of taking away some of that hard-earned money people make to pay a ticket.  It's a great time of year that we have when we help spread a little bit of Christmas cheer.
I think the people, right-thinking people, that are using common sense, understand that concept.  I think they understand that there are people less fortunate than they are, that need a little help around Christmas time.  For as long as I'm going to be here, we will continue to do that; and we will continue to brush off comments that find fault with people's good intentions.  That find fault with people volunteering, and that find fault... you know you've heard the saying that no good deed goes unpunished.  This is certainly the situation.
Over the last couple of years, where disparaging comments have been made about the intentions and the motives of those dastardly police officers, shopping with a young boy or a young girl, helping them find Christmas and reaching into their pockets.  I've heard stories of officers spending up to $200 of their own money to help round out and pay for the gifts the excited young person is putting in his basket. 
So you know what?  I think we may need to look at that and we can certainly hear a variety of opinions, but I think we need to employ a little bit of common sense here.  So we will continue to do that."

My lack of common sense is still caught up in the ethics behind Chief Barnett not even being curious about why $1400+ is not accounted for after his peers negligently lost track of it.  John Shay followed with more of the same, saying that I had accused them last year of using some of the money for hams, which was untrue, just like Chief Barnett's aspersions.  When you use money from the general fund to buy Christmas dinners, what is one supposed to think?  But what I said was:

 

"Why was over $1200 of our city's general fund used for a purchase of spiral sliced hams in January, when our city manager and his mockingbirds in the city council tell us of how the city is so starved of money to do their normal functions?  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?

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."

It turns out the bill for the hams was paid for with the City's credit card, in the name of the city, all but about $90 of it which was paid with the only accounted for use of the $1000 in Meijer credit.  Chief Barnett assuredly wants you to move along, because there's nothing to see.  But there is.  In case you missed it earlier this year, here is a full accounting:  Shoplift with a Cop.

In general refutation to the words of Chief Barnett, the $2330 overage of the SWAC program from last year has lingered in the city's financial institutions for a year, unused by the needy families over that period, during a time period when the Dow Jones grew over 20% in value.  Will that overage have any interest tacked on?  Nope.  Is retaining that money many had donated to make last year's Christmas tolerable for needy families "the right thing to do"?  Is that "helping people" or "solving problems"?

And the chief admits that his officers delivered these Christmas meals when they were officially on duty.  I would love to ignore the fact that if it took an officer a conservative 15 minutes to deliver a meal to one household, then you can tack on an additional $20+ to each meals cost.  But I can't ignore that if an officer delivered this to a household while on duty, he would be duty-bound to notice violations of the law that may be occurring at these households.  "Merry Christmas, here's a full dinner for your family, Miss Smith.  Is that marijuana smoke I smell...?"

As noted before, Fourth Ward Councilor Mike Krauch, Shay and Attorney Wilson berated the admittedly grieving citizen for calling the SPC a public body just before the meeting's end, but then they made their own legal mistake which wasn't corrected.  They said that their committee meetings were "public meetings" in the legal sense, but they aren't classified as such by the OMA (sec MCL 16.262), since a "meeting" involves a quorum of a public body deliberating and deciding issues.  These committees are strictly supposed to be advisory with no ability to make decisions or have a quorum, for then they would be "meetings".  

Views: 944

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

How difficult would it be for the Chief to explain the ins and outs of the Shop with a Cop program. The time he took blabbing about what saints the police are and what a bad citizen X is for pointing out the malfeasance, could have been spent explaining where the money for the program came from, how it was spent and where it was spent and why there is an appearance of either very poor bookkeeping, outright mismanagement or heavens forbid the misappropriations of funds and possibly theft. What is the public supposed to think Chief? Explain the program and it's finances so that this can be put to rest. The Chief thinks Ludington is inhabited by hayseeds and kin folk of Forrest Gump. 

Excellent work X.

That's the point, Willy.  If they had actually used it for SWAC, Barnett could say that and explain in much less time than he takes to promote his theory that a citizen watchdog reporting the facts is devoid of common sense and decency for doing so, while his peers who appear to have stolen over 10% of the donated funds have 'good intentions'.  

Where's the $1400+ in unaccounted for funds, Chief Barnett?  Another unsolved crime of (and by) the Ludington Police Department.

Contrary to what Chief Barnett would want you to believe, I love to see the LPD and other local police agencies getting involved with Shop with a Cop.  But you don't intermingle funds, you don't use city credit cards, you don't use city employees/officials during the time they work and make this effort worthwhile.  The records definitively show somebody not only took nearly $1500 in donated money from needy children last year, they took it from everybody in Ludington who pays taxes and utility bills.  If our police farce force want to show they really care about the needy children, they should be donating more than a couple of hundred dollars collectively from their own wallets into the program, establish an independent account that doesn't ever go into the city budget, and shop when they are off the clock.  

As for legislation being disrupted, here's a good read about it from the Michigan Municipal League, and the text of two sections of the Michigan Constitution, which our leaders, (except for City Manager John Shay and City Assorney Richard Wilson, who think they're immune from taking it) have sworn before God  to uphold.  These are the big ones, re law:

 

We'll see; the next meeting's agenda may be filled up with quite a bit, it's budget time and the end of the year when they like to crowd the topics in, so I may need to adapt the coming comment to whatever other larceny, fraud, or mayhem they have in store.

The real problem as with most things that are revealed on the torch is that most citizens of Ludington don't know about the money discrepancy. If there isn't a discrepancy the chief would have came out with a balance sheet showing the total money donated, and where each and every dollar was spent and a balance of how much was not spent .Well this hasn't happened over almost a year . That in itself would make one believe there is a problem within our police department and the chief hasn't the balls to do anything about it making him just as guilty of theft.

Truly it's an issue that has been ignored by the media that attend the meetings.  WMOM is one of the major sponsors so you might figure they would ignore it if it wasn't refutable (they do), and the COLDnews had substantively ignored it for the most part until this time.  If you read page A7 of Tuesday's paper you would have seen a meeting recap section which starts off as:

"ROTTA  City resident Tom Rotta also complained about the local Shop with a Cop program that raises funds so underprivileged children can buy Christmas presents for their family members while shopping alongside police officers."

If that's all I knew about the topic, I would be inclined to think I'm a total ass for being so against Christmas and underprivileged kids and shopping and even cops-- but I ain't.  It's funny when I review my words, I don't see complaining, maybe some explaining why I value some charities more than the unaccountable SWAC program.

It continues:  "He said the money collected last year was mismanaged and should not have been handled as part of the general fund."  To translate, "mismanaged" is somebody appropriated over $1400 of donated funds which nobody wants to account for.

Continuing:  "LPD Chief Mark Barnett spoke in favor of the program as a way to help people who face economic concerns and that he believes most people understand that concept.  Barnett said he doesn't appreciate comments against people who are trying to help and said the program will continue."   Again, the coverage is slanted to infer I am some kind of Grinch who would take Christmas from the poor and berate the volunteers, while I have been trying to find out why some administrative official of the COL did just that, stole from the poor, with me saying nothing bad about the volunteers to be found anywhere.

It ends with:  Shay spoke to some of Rotta's comments by saying $2000 raised in 2016 was rolled over into the account for 2017 and said food purchased by the program was given to 60 local families for Christmas dinners."  I simply asked why wasn't the money, donated by people who wanted to see it used that Christmas, used to either supplement the program or be given to other local agencies that provide for the poor, not stashed in the city's treasury to be lost or misappropriated further.  It still doesn't explain the $1400 unaccounted for.

The COLDNews needs to prop up the cops & robbers, and blow thistles on the whistleblowers.

X, what you have stated about the LDN article is exactly why people need to stop buying that waste of paper and ink. People are paying to read lies, misinformation, slanted opinions and the propping up of corruption in Ludington. I also quit buying the LDN years ago after I read your posts and compared what was reported by the LDN. Like night and day. LDN fills peoples heads with the dark while you let the light in. I wonder how any employees of the LDN can hold their heads high and say they are proud to work for such a corrupt newspaper. What freedom of the press means to LDN is the freedom to deceive, freedom from ethics, freedom to side with corruption, freedom to cover up corruption, misdeeds, misconduct and freedom to print false and misleading information. So much for freedom of the press.

Nice cartoon, Willy, is that the PM Bayou I'm in (circa November 2012)?

Our newspaper has went the way of most newspapers, where they look at survival over substance.  If they devote themselves to classic journalism, where they are looking out for the people, not the government or connected corporations, they lose out on their access to public information and their advertising revenues by the politicians and corporate sponsors they offend by printing the truth.  Instead, they become little more than propaganda mills for the rich and powerful, as if they needed the help. 

I don't accept paid advertising on the LT (feel free to honestly plug or pan a brand anyway, if you must) and I don't pull punches on officials behaving badly at the people's expense.  That's pretty close to what journalism should be about.  People should respect that 

Compared to the sewer at City Hall the bayou is a mountain stream.

All the better to stop buying the LDN. No subscribers or patrons means no circulation which means advertisers won't buy adds. If the LDN want's to be an advertising handout  that would be fine but masquerading as a newspaper and feeding the people propaganda and untruths is another matter. The people are supporting the very thing that is working against them.

XLFD, have you ever tried to write a rebuttal in the paper? or won't they print if it is from you. That's probably what they call freedom of the press, freedom to print what  they please.   I haven't got the paper in years as I don't have a bird cage to line , but I do recall at one time there was a place where citizens could put in a comment . Was it , THE WAY I SEE IT?   Didn't Diane  write something in the paper a short time ago?

I've been published in the COLDNews a couple of times during the two times I ran for office, "for the record".  

The first time in 2011 I was pretty saddened by Editor Steve Begnoche's cutting it down to fit and making it grammatically unsound and confusing at points.  It showed his commitment to having no integrity.  My best points were either on the cutting room floor or mangled.  The second time current editor Patty Klevorn kept it intact, but if I recall it was mostly a defensive piece about the hullaballoo that went on last summer with two of our members making what I thought was innocent enough statements about two city officials.  

My best rebuttal is having more people actually look in to the LT at the video of these meetings and figure out that there is only one source of information around the area that goes out of their way to provide the public with supplemental information, insider analysis when applicable, and the meeting's actual video so you can verify or dispute the accuracy.  That's what you get here.

Diane did get her statement in the paper about the splash pad and her plea to the council to listen more to those they believe are criticizing them, but are actually critiquing the City's public policy and public acts of public officials.  I don't feel the need to justify my words or actions as a concerned citizen if the local media want to blatantly misrepresent them.  Their misreporting speaks volumes enough, or should.

You bring up some interesting points to ponder, several of which I mulled over when they took a couple of acres out of Cartier Park to make a dog park back in 2010.  In that case a private Dog Park Committee (DPC) led by a member of the Ludington Planning Commission, Joe Moloney, collected funds to put up fencing and clear many trees and brush from the land.  In that deal, the DPC was to buy the fencing and pay the costs of constructing the park, then once it was finished, give it to the city to maintain.  A similar modus operandi happened for the skate park at Stearns.

At the time, I brought up the conflict of interest of the LPC's Moloney in the venture and the inability of the COL to alter a public use of city parkland without a public vote.  I questioned the ethics of city DPW workers getting effectively paid (by the city for their normal wages and by the DPC) twice to supply the labor behind this dog park.  As you have noted, this charter law is a great safeguard to prevent the rash use of parkland for a project without comprehensive planning and public support.  Our current leadership sees it as a hindrance to their grand vision of what they want Ludington to be.  I will be discussing more of the OMA with you soon, Diane, for there may be something to your line of reasoning.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service