At the end of October 2016, I had filed and served a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit  against the City of Ludington for unlawful fees (see lawsuit and summarization here).  In briefest summary, the City of Ludington was given a 'redo' by the court to reevaluate their ridiculous estimated fees of $2500 for a single police report and suspect interview.  They reset their fee to $99.70 saying these were to cover making 150 paper copies, and for four hours of separating exempt information out evenly divided between a clerk and detective.  They would not allow a review of those records without the bounty being paid.

The problem was I explicitly asked for electronic copies, the city never explained why a clerk and detective was being used for two hours each to separate exempt data and the nature of the record was such that the only exempt data therein was what was already blacked out in the electronic record at the beginning of the police report. 

After paying the ransom for these public records and getting zero paper copies and still no justification for labor, I saw this as contemptuous of what the judge had ordered up, and filed a companion lawsuit to the first one, amended to reflect the unlawful charges of the second determination, and the City's willful bad faith in setting the original fee at $2500 for what should have been covered by the cost of one blank CD.

In December, a pre-trial conference was held to schedule what issues were to be covered in trial and set dates for when discovery and other courtly lists and proceedings were due.  At this conference, one of the issues covered is whether the parties would be likely to settle.  I admitted a willingness, while expressing that I doubted whether the City would, considering how they have handled FOIA issues and myself in the past.  The attorney that showed from their law firm apparently passed that along to their main guy.  He sent me a letter shortly thereafter:

Unlike my three previous FOIA lawsuits with the City, this one wasn't calling for disclosure for records unlawfully withheld, so I took his offer to heart.  I sent an E-mail back to him detailing the terms of a deal in which I absolved the City of punitive, criminal and bad faith damages, effectively calling for only my court costs and disbursements in filing the two lawsuits, a very reasonable figure, I thought:  

"Mr. Vander Laan,

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, Allan. I appreciate the offer to settle and in the spirit of the holidays, I hope you can see my proffered bottom line as being seasonally fair. My costs and disbursements for this and the prior lawsuit is:

Filing fees:                  $350
Service fees:                $ 46
Publishing and postage: $14

Likewise, I would add onto this $410 of disbursements the refund of the $99.70 I paid for the second FOIA with two unrecognizable fees. Tack on $5.30 for interest over the course of the litigations and I see a value of $515 as a fair settlement monetarily. I will seek nothing in declarative, punitive, or bad faith damages (to the State), even though they may be very applicable here.
I'm familiar enough with the City of Ludington kakistocracy to realize there will be no declarations of them having done anything wrong, so I won't bother asking for that. I will ask for you to remind them, or have their municipal insurance remind them, that their continuing efforts at non-transparency is posed to get them in even more trouble. You may be aware that another citizen and myself filed an OMA lawsuit this last Friday, served on Monday, and it is likely that I will take legal action on their latest violation of FOIA: http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/a-road-diet-of-decept...
with possibility of another OMA lawsuit regarding a recent closed session held illegally.
I can't create these violations, Allan, only your client can, and they're getting worse. Please contact me if you have any further questions, noting that I am not likely to negotiate down further on the bottom line conditions." 

He replied just after Christmas:  "Thank you Mr Rotta . I trust that the holidays have you safe and with those you love. I will pass on this amount to the City . I will get back to you as soon as they respond which should be shortly."  

That was the deal. 

It was transmitted over to the city manager.  The city manager decided to not include the terms of the deal with a memo to the city council, the public body that would decide whether to accept or reject it at their next meeting on January 8, 2018.  The only thing in the publicly available LCC packet referencing this action was that memo which recommended the council go into closed session to discuss the proposal (p. 49). There was nothing on the agenda on p. 1 that indicated they would make any decision after that discussion.

With the city manager's misrepresentation of the lawsuit, I figured that there was a high likelihood of him and the city attorney arguing that the City may have the winning position, after utilizing several thousands of dollars more in their own attorney fees, of course. 

There is no refuting the fact that the City charged me for making paper copies that were never made.  As noted in the lawsuit, this is not only a civil violation it is criminal public extortion.  Their past FOIA responses to my requests illustrate that their four hours of separating exempt from non-exempt records is also falsely charged and never justified, as the FOIA mandates.  Even so, the Ludington City Council did opt to go into closed session and returned to address the issue immediately after that 15 minute interlude.  

January 8th, 2018 Ludington City Council meeting pt 2 from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

That was the fart.

Whereas I can't fault them for discussing the settlement issue in a closed meeting, I can fault them for keeping from the public the details of what they just turned down, and the reason why they decided to waste a whole lot more of your resources into defending the criminal and civil wrongs that was inherent and indisputable in their FOIA fee determinations. 

I had made a second public comment to be read only if the council had come out of their closed session without making a determination (as the agenda implied).  Since they did quickly get to refusing the offer, I opted not to say anything further.  

And their media continued the fart.  

The two media that come to the meetings both noted the closed session was to take place to discuss a possible settlement in this pending litigation.  WMOM seemed fixated on the number of lawsuits I have had with the City (before and after the meeting) and suggested that the cost of this one has already gotten to the $6000 mark (a number they chose from a different lawsuit).  The COLDNews reporter, as usual, went with the city manager's memorandum for his story, while noting they rejected the offer.

To them, projecting the concept to the public that it was I who made an unreasonable offer without any details about the deal suited their purpose better than getting any of the real facts out to the public of what exactly the City of Ludington is alleged to have done illegal in their responses, and explain why the council would deny a $520 deal when they could spend well over ten times that amount to defend their untenable position and risk defeat by some joker acting as his own attorney. 

Views: 644

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

This City council and Manager, cough,,, are in complete reckless denial.

Their old ways can't win any longer. Make them pay!

Boy X, you sure made it cheap for them for settle this entire matter out of court, and yet, Shyster Shay's reckless and condescending attitude yet prevails, shameful. Maybe you can FOIA the attorney's fees up to this point and bring it to cc for recognition and public view? And also announce the estimate of how much more taxpayer monies will be spent to continue this farce, not fart, lol.

That would be a worthy topic at the beginning of the next meeting, if the COL and MDOT aren't there to market their street restriping.  

Unbelievable. The citizens don't deserve this. These politicians are throwing away taxpayers hard earned money. The local media plays right along with this fiasco of a City Council. The only place to get at the truth is right here on this forum. May I suggest that at the next Council meeting X, that you wear a shirt which on the back has a  statement that says" FOR THE TRUTH, VISIT LLUDINGTONCITIZEN.NING.COM". Ludington cannot and should not believe what their elected officials or media tell them. Let them know where the truth can be found. 

Excellent posts IHAN, FS, & Willy. It is very disheartening that this scenario not only continues, but gets expanded, now for over 14 years. This is mostly just one man, Shyster Shay, that has a driving force of energy to destroy one man that stands for justice, peace, and the future of Lud.. And the LDN and MCP and others can't even or ever begin to see that? Emotions run the liberal, I fully understand, but can't agree with it. There has to be some time, in the future, where citizens start thinking for themselves, with their own integrity, & objective minds, devoid of other media interpretations, and realize, that something is truly and wrongfully happening, and that it simply needs to be destroyed in a peaceful manner, and dismantled into the future. Can anyone else see this simplistic option?

Was Vander laan in the closed meeting? maybe he is talking a different tune to make some more money off the city. Lawyers don't have anything to lose, they get paid no matter what the out come is.  Go get em X, go for the max and maybe just maybe they might get the hint that they can't withhold public information.

Stump, even when the city loses any lawsuits, per Shyster Shay, he just claims it's paid for by the city's insurance company, so what!!!! And that entitles the COL to do whatever he says, regardless of the end result.

Vander Laan was not at the closed meeting.  The councilors likely did not even see my offer if Shay characterized it as he did in his memo. 

I don't trust opposition lawyers ever, but Allan V. hasn't yet given me a good reason to doubt the integrity of his spoken and written words.  I doubt he would have initiated negotiation without the realization that the facts of the matter are lined up against him and that it would have been in the best financial and legal interest of the City to settle.  

Real men/women of integrity find it difficult and painful to argue for something they know is wrong, even when they get paid handsomely for doing so.

Shay's prime egotist traits against X has to do with nothing more than petty vengeance and narcissistic mannerisms. You see, X has totally exposed Shyster Shay's shallow personality and severe lack of legal & ethical conduct for years on The Torch here, and made it public at cc mtgs. for all to know. When this all started years ago, Shyster had X served with a no trespass order via Mayor Henderson to not come into city hall nor the police dept. pending arrest, and that was simply unconstitutional given all the factors. The Shyster was hired just for these types of purposes, because the last city mgr. finally said no to his orders from on high too often before quitting. He was a local man that had many friends and family in Lud., as Shay has none beside immediate wife and kids. And he's a firm "yes man" on any orders he gets from on high.

I thought the city manager  [Shay ] took orders from the city council. I seems to me that Shay runs them and the Mayor

It not only seems so stump, it IS SO! Has been already now for quite some time after Henderson left. All you have to do is watch the cc mtgs. video every two weeks for confirmation. He leads, they simply follow and vote for his recommendations.

Having been to the meetings over the last six years with three different mayors, you can tell that since John Henderson left the office, Shay's influence and stature among the other officials have grown substantially.  

Don't be surprised that John Shay doesn't get some influence or direction from his next door neighbor (former Mayor Henderson) even in his 'retirement'.  Henderson the elder still remains president of the DDA board and continues to work on everybody's favorite money-throw-away projects like the Ludington Avenue road diet, the West End, and Legacy Park.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service