So... Why Again are You Being Paid 72 Times What You are Legally Supposed to be Paid?

[XLFD]

From: Tom Rotta <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Sent: Mon, May 23, 2011 12:12:47 AM
Subject: Salary question for City Councilors

Hello, Kaye, this is Tom Rotta, the other candidate on the ballot for the at-large City Councilor position this fall.  I am hopeful we can carry on a dialogue so that I can further understand a few things that confuse or trouble me, and you can learn a little more about me and the rationale behind my confusions and positions.

 

To this end, I would like to address a point of which I made in my letter of interest for the 3rd ward councilor job, namely that the City Charter adopted August 4, 1992 says:

  

"Section 17.10. - Continuance of salary of Mayor and Council Members:

The Mayor shall continue to receive an annual salary in the amount of Three Hundred Dollars ($300), and each Council Member shall continue to receive an annual salary of Fifty Dollars ($50), until such amounts are changed by the Council in accordance with the provisions of this Charter."

 

The provisions of the Charter is stated thusly:    

"Section 5.4. - Compensation and expenses [of Mayor, Council Members, City Clerk and City Treasurer]:

The City Council may determine the annual salary of the Mayor, Council Members, City Clerk, and City Treasurer by ordinance. The salaries of the Mayor and Council Members shall not be increased during their terms of office. The Mayor, Council Members, City Clerk, and City Treasurer shall be reimbursed for their actual necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties of office."

 

Therefore, the City Council must create an ordinance in order to increase the salary of all elected officials of the city, including themselves.  Perusal of the revised city charter/code and an FOIA directed to the FOIAC on the topic of any city ordinance passed since the charter was adopted that increased the pay rate, have determined that there has been no city ordinance passed since 1992 that has raised the rate of pay for city councilors (and the mayor).  This would mean, that by the City Charter, each City Councilor should be paid $50 per year, would it not? 

 

Yet the W-2 Forms for the city reports that each Councilor has received $3600 for the last three years, at least.  The mayor was paid $4800 (for mayor duties) during the same time. 

 

Could you please explain, in writing, why this is so, making sure to explain why it isn't illegal for the elected officials to accept the unlawful rate of pay?  Thank you very much.         Tom Rotta 

----------------------------------------

 

I sent the above E-mail to Kaye Holman, waited a week with no response, then figured I would broaden the investigation into this troubling question by asking other City Councilors with E-mails, along with other City Officials this same question, forwarding the above and adding an additional preface:

 

	Add to Contacts
	[e-mail]
	John Shay <[e-mail]>; Paul S Peterson <[e-mail]>; Richard Wilson <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]

---

 

Hello again, Kaye.  I have waited, but not received a reply from my first inquiry, which I have forwarded once again to you and a few other parties.  As a public official, it not only looks bad to the public when you are receiving 72 times the amount of money you are legally supposed to be receiving, it is also a crime that can have severe penalties. 

Please, either admit that you are, and have been, unlawfully overpaid at least the last four years, or show public records (i.e. passed ordinance(s)) that prove you are being paid the right amount.  Your friends may help and respond, as well.  Thank you for your expedient reply(s).

Tom Rotta

------------------------------------------------ 

The above was sent Sunday 6-5-11, and has been ignored all week, by everyone.  If there is, in fact, no such ordinance(s), can anyone explain to me why this isn't a blatant misdemeanor violation of the following law by all City Councilors and the Mayor:

    

Public Extortion

 

Standing mute should not be an acceptable defense.

[XLFD]

I just noticed since Christopher used the Robin Hood reference to refer to the syndrome I may be afflicted with (though in self-analysis, it's probably more a Don Quixote syndrome than anything), Willie Smith and John have come to defend the issue at hand I presented here.  I can't help thinking of the close resemblance to Robin Hood's most notorious merry men names of Will Scarlet and Little John these two have.  Welcome to Sherwood!

More parallellism.  If you remember the folklore, the village of Nottingham was being poorly ruled over by the King's brother, John (Shay?), and Robin (XLFD) became an 'outlaw' by the corrupt actions of an unscrupulous Sheriff (Barnett?). 

[XLFD]

Just before this weekend, our information seeking group just got some new intel from an FOIA.

It seems that our current crop of City Councilors and other officers are blameless when we consider the raise of the pay for the councilors.  The pay was raised all the way back in 1994, just two years after the current city code was penned, in what I would say, a very questionable manner.

 

 

 

The total salary skyrocketed from $700 to $30,000 in just a period of three years.  FOIA Coordinator John Shay confirmed earlier that there was never an ordinance to raise the pay in the records.  The suspicious thing I see is the $22,000 cost of transportation in 1993, which seems to have translated into their general pay the next year.  How did the councilors rack up a $22,000 transportation bill in 1993?  Did the then-mayor need a sporty new car?

[XLFD]

If these facts stand, that if no such ordinance was ever passed, then has not every Ludington City Councilor since 1994 been overpaid and accepted money in a way that goes against the wording of the City Code?

If former CM Jim Miller or former treasurer Mary Reeds Mortensen have an explanation, should we not hold all city councilors accountable for this yearly overpayment of $3550, plus interest? 

[AQUAMAN]

I would think the original payments of illegitimate fees NOT be repaid, as long as interest is so low now anyhow? DA! oH, Dontcha think the Wanda's and others have reasonable explanations for this sort of thing, or don't we deserve such an answer? Dumb hillbilly's like Ludville's population really don't deserve  better do we? Or do we?????????????? Yooooooooooooooo hooooooooooo decide................lol.

[XLFD]

The next enigma to check out is that whopping transportation expense that morphed into a $29,000 salary raise in short order to the City Councilors.  There still has been no try at an explanation.  By anyone.