Ludington City Council Meeting, January 8, 2018: Vacant Stares

The agenda for the first meeting of the year for the Ludington City Council featured the usual year-beginning routines of appointing boards and officers and approving the city's depositories of the communal funds.  But it also featured a few other tasks, such as seeking approval of infrastructure maintaining projects, architectural updates, PILOT extensions and sunset bonfires.  Even a closed session was scheduled to consider a lawsuit settlement offer.  

A surprising agenda omission was anything about the recently vacated chair of Councilor Richard Rathsack due to his death just before Christmas.  During Mayor Holman's term, she has often recognized city officials and other noteworthy city individuals and groups with awards and  proclamations granted at the beginning or ending of the meeting. 

Despite nearly three weeks of preparation, no recognition of Councilor Rathsack, who was elected in 2011, beyond the invocation and a mention of the vacated seat (off-agenda) was made.  I featured the man and the office exclusively in the citizen comment period, along with an appeal to the council to consider not making Ludington look like some banana republic.

January 8, 2018 Ludington City Council meeting pt 1 from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

XLFD (2:40):  "Sadly, the city council is back down to six once again with the passing of Councilor Rathsack. The city has advertised that they plan on filling this vacancy by council selection by the end of the next regular meeting. In June, this council selected a new fifth ward councilor to fill a vacancy. One month later in July, this council selected a new sixth ward councilor to fill a vacancy. Section 5-2 of our city charter says that multiple vacancies of elective officers shall be filled by a special election.

Back in July, when that second vacancy occurred, why didn't our city leaders follow the city charter and call for a special election when such is required? By section 4-4 of the charter, this council should have drafted a resolution to have that special election sometime last fall. Was it considered then? No. Is it being considered now that we will have four unelected councilors completing the elected terms of four other elected councilors?

Think about it: a quorum of our city council will be unelected and unselected by any electors of their ward. Two thirds of the citizens of Ludington had no say in who their representative is; Ludington is not being ran as a republic or as a democracy.

Instead of disenfranchising yet one more ward of the city, why don't you follow the letter and spirit of the people's charter and the ideals of a republic and make a resolution for a special election in at least the First, Fifth and Sixth Wards, the half of the city that have lost their elected representative over the last seven months and received or will receive an appointee that was selected by nobody in their ward?

Citizens look at the City's actions over the last few years and see a group of officials that want to thwart representative democracy at every turn. Is it any wonder they feel their leaders are disconnected and don't represent their interests and ideals? Thank you."

They would consider the 'vacancy issue' later on after the closed session but before the mayor's gratuitous compliment of the City's DPW snow plowers that I had predicted would happen elsewhere.  The issue appears to be how they want to define the terms "vacancy" and how I believe the law defines it.  The basic state definition is found here:  

Another law applying to Fourth-Class Cities (MCL 85.17) compellingly says a city has the option to hold a special election or appoint someone to fill any vacancy, whichever is in 'the best interest of the city'.  But even though Ludington is the proper size to be Fourth-Class, it is effectively a Home Rule City governed by a charter, and the state recognizes the strength of that charter:

So the ultimate answer to this question has to come from the city charter, noting that state law doesn't seem to convey that an elective seat which has been filled by an appointee becomes non-vacant.  "Every office shall become vacant (if the incumbent officer vacates the office) before the expiration of the term of such office."  

Section 5.2 of the charter says after giving the council authority to appoint a qualified replacement within 30 days of a vacancy:  "Elective officers so appointed shall serve until the next regular election, at which time an election shall be held to fill the remaining period of the term of office. Multiple vacancies shall be filled by a special election."  

If an appointee made the office non-vacant, then why would the original incumbent's remaining period of the term of office still be relevant after that appointment?  And why would the charter provision suggest democratic remedies at the most immediate regular election, even if it was well before the end of that term?  It's hard to deny that the people who wrote the charter wouldn't find four council-appointed councilors finishing off the terms of ex-Councilors Marrison, Tykoski, Castonia and Rathsack to be repugnant to the democratic process they envisioned.

The rest of the meeting went quietly and unanimously.  The various boards and committees were staffed without dissent.  Councilor Johnson was re-selected as mayor pro-tem, the title coming with the usual you're-stuck-with-it ribbing.  With the Mayor's own recent issues with her health and mental acuity, this may turn into a more noteworthy appointment.

The Ludington Area Convention and Visitor's Bureau (LACVB) sunset bonfires were scheduled and approved for the last Thursday nights of June July and August.  I was disappointed in that both LACVB Executive Director Brandy Henderson and LACVB Board member David Bourgette voted to allow this even though it was a definite conflict of interest for them.  Councilor Bourgette did note his dual role, as did Henderson, before they voted in favor of it. 

The city attorney should have advised abstention on the conflict by both councilors, the council had the votes already.  It once again makes open-minded people wonder why the city council wouldn't consider letting a citizen utilize the beach off-season for a hot dog campfire with a public purpose (a third ward open debate), as they did a year and a half ago.  

I could have mentioned the City's continued lack of financial accountability by spending money for the Shop with a Cop (SWAC) program out of the general fund.  According to last year's records, they had a specific fund account for SWAC but did the same thing.  Needless to say, the numbers refused to add up then, as it may this year.  

After approving depositories, they extended the PILOT program for the postponed bowling alley block development which may start in the spring.  Since the original PILOT passed in March 2016 foresaw the developer purchasing this lot before 2018, they are throwing an extra 18 months onto the original ordinances to validate them.  

The two infrastructure projects that followed were promising.  The records show Fleis and Vandenbrink engineering firm conducted competitive bids the way they should be on 2018 utility upgrades and moving the WWTP discharge pipe from discharging in an old Conrad road dump to where it will discharge in the river under the northernmost of the twin bridges on the PM Highway.

The third bid was non-competitive, where Fleis and Vandenbrink were given the engineering services contract for Fifth Street by the city manager with the council's unanimous approval (see page 36).  They then continued the trend by giving the architectural contract for the West End Project to Progressive AE.  In neither instance did the city manager explain why the contracts weren't competitively bid, other than implying they've did acceptable work for the city in the past. 

As noted in the fart of the deal, the city manager finished the night by having the council convene a closed session in order to avoid having his reasons for not considering a very reasonable settlement offer be known to the public (The video for the part of the meeting after the closed session is in the link.).  In the fifteen minute intermission, I posted myself at the city's bulletin board and could see through the two windows of the council chambers to see Shay doing the lion's share of the talking.  I'm not the best lip-reader, but I doubt he was arguing for it.  

Views: 472

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks for another interesting CC video X, and for your investigation of our city charter regarding city council replacements. It would seem to me anyhow, that the city attorney would be noting the distinction of law pertaining to having a special election regarding the 1st Ward, and would have commented on it now. He didn't, so why? As for agenda items 9 (c) on the three contracts being let out, Bourgette again says they are all the low bidders. First of all, the routine during this procedure in the past has been to announce all the competitive bidders, and the amounts they bid. That wasn't done now. Why? Is it a secret bidding process? And esp. since X says the two last contracts let were the only bids made for that work. Why again? Doesn't sound Kosher at all to me anyhow. It's the public's right to know these answers, and not have to ask for answers, but be transparent in all fiscal affairs, esp. when they total about $8 Million of taxpayers monies, and also grants from the state. And, if monies are left over after any project, why doesn't the COL have to return them? They used to, why not now? And I didn't esp. like the answer Shay gave to Johnson regarding the exact location of the canoe/kayak rack. Doesn't Shay even know the location? And also, why and how many last minute changes to the West End drawings are being made? Shay said the grandstand seating is being altered? To what exactly? He again didn't give any pertinent details of that either. Another council mtg. that leaves me uneasy, esp. about details that should be made public, and not FOIA'd for, but that just doesn't happen nowadays, nor for past number of years. Sad, and unethical again imho.

Good observations and points to ponder, Aq.

Well said Aquaman

Thanks for the report X. I agree with you, there should be a special election in order for the citizens to elect people they want to represent them. If Shay and the crew fails to do that then I think impeachment should be recommended for all Councilors not following the City ordinances. Every time the West End Project is brought up I contemplate how stupid these people are and how stupid the citizens of Ludington are for allowing this to happen. Is it possible that revisions to the project are taking place because of the rising lake levels  and the  problems that will be arising from that. The picture below shows what will be in store for any alterations to the west end of Ludington Ave.

Photo taken 12-5-2017

Thanks Willy, always on the ball with pics. that make your point all so real.

I should edit my comment to let people know that the only time the water soaks the west end like this is during a storm surge which is similar to what happens during a hurricane coming off the ocean. High winds push the water over the beach. The beach naturally absorbs the water and after the winds die down everything goes back to normal. With lake levels rising this of course will happen more frequently but the beach will adjust as it has done for hundreds of years. This is one of the reasons I am so against the west end project. Not only will we be losing the natural flow of the water and beach we will be losing the wonderful recreational opportunities the beach represents. As I have stated before in other topics regarding this, the only way to prevent erosion to any construction erected at the west end beach is to buffer the area with a breakwall which will of course eliminate the beach. The picture below is the opposite side of the boat launch which has been reinforced with a breakwall to protect the "improvements". I posted it previously in the picture section of this forum. both pics were taken on 12-5-17.

And of course we almost never get high winds off Lake Michigan, so no worries.  (sarcasm)

The concept of a wide swath of lost beachfront has been overlooked for the most part by city officials who would restructure this area so as to have seawalls stretch the length of the lakefront south of the breakwater in town.  Too often the main points considered is the view, the dune, the parking, etc., but this will be the main thing lost.  Thanks for highlighting that whenever possible, Willy. 

And it's very unfortunate too, since the beach is one of the most protected and stable beaches in the area regarding shoreline erosion and often warmer than the 'north' beach.  Many locals favor and use this part of the beach a lot more.

Be advised, this phase of the project is still fluid, but it looks as if there won't be enough $$$ for a walkway and accompanying seawall.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service