Ludington City Council Meeting April 8, 2019: Bullies

[XLFD]

The civil discourse at the April 8th meeting of the Ludington City Council ran well for about an hour, but then the bullies came out.  A look at the lightly peppered agenda made even an hour meeting appear unlikely.  But somebody said something controversial in the second public comment, and sparked ten other people to weigh in about how they felt.  A majority used the podium as a true bully pulpit.  Let's look at what led us there.

During the invocation, Police Chief Mark Barnett informed the assemblage that Wally Taranko, past police chief, city councilor and current county commissioner, had passed away.  I knew him best as Second Ward Councilor Wally Taranko before he lost a close race to be mayor to Ryan Cox in 2013.  Of all councilors during that era, he had the most integrity and class.  He would never have done what Chief Barnett, Councilor Les Johnson and Commissioner Gary Castonia would do an hour later at this meeting, even though Wally Taranko had been at each of those positions.  

The City Marina was scheduled to give a report, I read it in the councilor packet for the meeting, and took issue with their misrepresentation of themselves and what they bring to this city

April 8th, 2019 Ludington City Council meeting from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

XLFD:  (3:10 in)  "In a few minutes, you will hear the Ludington City Marina Manager inform you that the Municipal Marina is set up as an enterprise fund, which effectively means that the revenues they take in cover the expenditures they pay out, making it apparently self-sufficient and sustainable without assistance. Like an independent business in its own right.

Now that could be how they are set up in theory, but it isn't how the city marina works in reality. The marina has been looking to the state of Michigan to subsidize their dock replacement, hoping for about two million dollars to come in. Just a few years back they received roughly $300,000 from the state for dredging, a couple years before that, it was over half a million from the state for putting in additional transient docks. Over the course of nearly forty years, the City marina has received millions in grants and other state aid that none of our area's many private marinas can ever receive.

Had the city marina received none of this state subsidization, they would be millions in debt with no hope for replacing their docks. Had they needed to pay local, state, and gas taxes like the private marinas must, you can push them a lot deeper into the red. Who has paid down the millions of dollars of their debt over the years? The over 99% of the population of Michigan who has never stepped foot in the Ludington City marina. The over 99% of the population of Michigan who has never stepped foot in our private marinas have not paid them one cent. The city marina isn't fair competition, it's a business-killer.

Why must we spend so much public money for a non-public service competing with the private sector, a private sector here many years before fairly competing among themselves and benefitting all? Subsidizing the marina isn't providing a public service, statistics show that there are twelve times more people in Michigan than there are registered boats of any size. When only single digit percentages of people, among them primarily the wealthy who have the disposable income to afford the high costs of luxury boats and berthage, are the only ones benefitting from an expensive public service, you have to ask yourself: Is this really a priority of the state? Is this why our roads are so bad? Is this why my tax bill just keeps growing?

And it will only get worse if the City acquires Harbor View after Bob Manglitz and his crew break their lease with the state.  Thank you.  [END]

That was it for the public comment.  After the previous minutes were approved, Marina Manager Jim Christiansen gave his reports.  He didn't vary much from his prepared report to address my issues, some of the questions and answers would have the unwary believe that they have no unfair advantage over the private marinas and that they are there to provide a safe refuge harbor as part of the state's system.  Our prospering private marinas before this came in would have easily been able to offer such refuge without subsidization over the years by the state. 

Christiansen would make the point that the city marina is not subsidized by the city (a point I never claimed), however, he doesn't mention that over the last year, the chairman of the marina board has been trying his hardest to wrest a considerable amount of money from the general fund through the council's finance committee.  He did let the council know that Harbor View would be ran a lot like the city marina, but it would be fully owned by the state and the city would be a leaseholder like the previous tenant.  More State subsidization is in the future for both.

City Assessor Jared Litwiller gave his report, the takeaway of which assessments are rising by about 4% and that it is currently a seller's market.  At 21:20 in, after the bills were paid, Acting City Manager Jackie Steckel was given a pay raise after the fact.  It was revealed that the City and her had agreed on that rate at the time she started but she found it to be more work than she thought over the 7 week period.  This was passed without any discussion.  This would come up later.

Matt Biolette then gave a report on recyclables and trash, introducing a new model for recycling which uses larger containers for those who recycle their garbage.  There will be an initial charge if you buy the new containers (96 gallon cart), but it sounds as if they will be keeping the costs stable.  After a fairly lengthy presentation, they awarded the stump grinding contract to local R Bogner Tree Farms, who had a much lower bid than the others, who had a good distance to travel here.

Litwiller and the city attorney would inform the hosts that a court case involving a veteran serving three life sentences for murder would require the City to pay more money to defend a property tax case in the appeals court.  This unfortunate case does need to be continued on principle, but should be easy to defend.

They would then approve two events:  The Blessing of the Boats at the city marina on June 1, and a Footprints for Family sponsored by the West Shore Pregnancy Clinic, a walk in the City.  New City Manager Mitch Foster then presented some discussions over short term rentals, social media policies for the City, tradesman shortages in the area, and the sagging of the Loomis Street ramp (and its potential repair by firms working in the area).  The mayor made an Arbor Day proclamation and noticed the special meeting of the council on April 15 had been moved to 6 PM.  

Councilor Joe Lenius (57:55 in) made a somewhat cryptic announcement:  "I just want to clarify that we have an employee I think that is being roasted or chastised for doing her work, and that's Heather Tykoski.  Writing this Splash Pad grant, I think the community is going after her and that she's just doing her job, she's an employee of the City...". 

There was nothing presented that showed any roasting or chastisement to the supposedly embattled Heather Tykoski, perhaps they should be issuing letters of trespass to all that she thinks are involved with it.  The real roasting and chastisement was just a few minutes away.  

It would come just after I started off the second public comment period with a speech made to chastise the council's continued lack of oversight on issues.  It was taken by some in the audience as some sort of attack on the integrity of Jackie Steckel.  That wasn't the case made, as you will read and hear.  The case I made was that the council failed to justify to the public why this raise-after-the-fact was made, and had only one note with hearsay information to guide them.  

XLFD (1:01:30 in):  "I don't like renegotiating compensation after the fact, when both parties were well aware of the job involved going in, and nothing unexpected happened in the interim. On January 28, the council approved a decision to pay Jackie Steckel an amount that she felt was acceptable for a job that she, probably more than anyone, knew the rigors of.

Regardless, it was during perhaps the deadest part of the year as far as city hall is concerned, February and early March. I have a hard time believing that she would need to consistently put in 14-16 hour days to manage Ludington during that time. Bigger council-manager type cities than Ludington all over Michigan, do perfectly well without hiring an assistant to the city manager, and I haven't found one complaining yet about working 16 hour days in February.

Frankly, I feel that if I was a councilor entrusted with the people's money and this ex post facto pay raise came in front of me, I would insist on the employee justifying the expense by showing me concretely what they did during those 70-80 hour weeks they say they worked. That isn't done here, I certainly didn't witness anything spectacular coming from city hall those weeks, and so I would remind Jackie she did a fine job. but that we had a mutually agreed-upon historically-consistent contract. The council capitulated tonight for fear of offending a long-serving officer, but they should have rejected it for fear of offending the taxpayers. We are so far in debt, yet our council rejects competitive bidding and contractual agreements for no legitimate reasons." [END]

A brief background before the floodgates open.  The January 28th LCC minutes had the council voting her pay raise of 75% of the difference in salaries, Steve Brock said this was agreeable to her.  At the March 25th Finance/Personnel Notes, which she writes, the committee immediately agrees to recommend the raise to the full council without discussion.  In the April 8, 2019 Council Packet, she has a brief memo that took only a minute or two to write that makes her case:

Knowing the job and her own, she originally was fine with the amount.  She offers nothing in the note to suggest any projects that would have kept her busy for 16 hours each day in February, let alone a usual 8 hour day.  A farmer working a 16 hour day in summer, could tell you exactly what he did, even show you what he planted or harvested, an attorney working a 16 hour day better be able to justify his time to his client on his timesheet, and yet we expect nothing from a city manager who claims she needs to work excessively long hours in February?  

Yet, when the committee and the council waive any sort of accountability requirements in this case, the error falls on them for not asking the questions a manager needs to ask so that the big boss (the public) can know their money is not being misused.  This is why I subliminally weaved 'concretely' and 'competitive bidding' into my comment, to remind them that a majority of the city council failed to look at any records before denying Spuller Concrete the sidewalk construction contract and awarding it to an out-of-county bidder that was nearly 20% higher.  

Whereas that seemed to be lost, another topic was found:  why is this citizen criticizing our Jackie?!  Planning Commissioner John Terzano spoke next and civilly noted that Jackie was a great employee, and that having a woman work for less than a man doing the same work was wrong.  Other acting city managers of Ludington that were men that filled in also were paid less, but a point well meant.

Then the bullies started a parade.  Kaye Holman shuffled up to the dais saying "I know a lot of four letter words, and I certainly would like to use them tonight... that's disgusting... I think this is just plain disgusting that we're even discussing this."  Not discussing 'this' led to my comment-- had the councilors discussed the contract amendment when they passed it, with any sort of diligence,I would have sat on this comment guaranteed.  Chuck Sobanski had a brief comment that she "did a damn good job."

Then came Danny Vargas:  "I've recently met Jackie; I gotta tell you, what a heck of a lady. And for anybody to make statements that she's cheating the city is outrageous. Mr. Rotta, how much money have you cost the city?

Jackie's not even cost us a fraction of the time that you've spent ruining and messing with this council, the mayor and previous councils. We're checking you sir.

Mr. Miller, he didn't invite me here tonight, I invited myself. Wasn't sure that I would come, but I didn't want anybody to believe I would be bullied out of the way. Make sure you write that tomorrow.

I'm a part of this community just like everybody else. We're here for one purpose, to live happily ever after. Yeah, I'm a happy fungi; I didn't wear a straw hat tonight, I didn't want to offend anybody, but I'm here because the city needs people to show up.

If you're sitting at home or you're watching this, you're behind your keyboard, dissing all these wonderful people who have taken all their time and put in the energy to grow this community, maybe you need to show up. I think Jackie and a lot of the folks have done a marvelous job. I've been back here for five years, and I have yet to see all the ruinous things you guys have done. Mr. Miller, councilor members, I commend you all. Continued success, and I'll keep coming. Thank you."

Danny's entitled to his opinion, I really wish his opinions become tempered with actual facts, and less threats.  What exactly does:  "We're checking you, sir." mean?  Who's the bully?  Somebody wondering why the city council is not doing their job, or someone who has a speech like Danny V's (V for vomitous).

Then a hero arose.  Chief Barnett got out of his seat and started walking towards me with a menacing look on his face, fortunately, he kept his gun holstered and stopped at the podium for his usual bout of gaslighting public enemy number one and taking well over two minutes to do so:  

Chief Barnett:  "Everybody should have the ability to come here and speak their mind, everyone should have the ability to come here and state their opinion. Everybody should be able to do that in a civil way, and everybody should be able to do that and at the end of the day, go out and shake hands, and wish each other well and go.

It just seems like lately, maybe the country is, nationally we're doing this, it seems like it's been brought home lately, that kind of an attitude that you have to go, you have to attack, you have to claw, you have to, you have to hate somebody in order to oppose, present an opposing opinion.

I just think that that's unfortunate, I think that, I think it's important for us to be able to just state our opinions. But when you come in here with a written diagram, um speech, that has used the information in a FOIA request to formulate a written response and read it off to people, totally without any sort of concern as to the impact it has on people, the negative impact it has on people.

I watched and Jackie Steckel walked out of here, she was hurt, she was crying. Now I'm not saying that to pull on anybody's heartstrings but I'm just saying that's wrong. It's wrong when you accuse people of, police officers going back to other issues of doing something good to help people when you accuse them of being, um stealing from the city, when you use your position, in a social media position to accuse people of wrongdoing, never having to admit a shred of evidence for the crime you're alleging.

You, Jackie has supplied a letter explaining to this council what hours she worked, what she did, and you have somebody come up and read from a script alleging that she lied , that she's cheating the City. How does that help the City of Ludington? How is that any way progressive or helpful to this city, and the citizens that live in the city, the citizens that pay taxes, and then turn around and through a series of, well, at any rate, it's just wrong to me, and it seems like we can interact without being hateful.

And I would challenge all of us to do that, I would challenge.. people not to use this public opportunity to speak to this council as a bludgeon or an instrument to beat people with, but simply to express an idea with, in a thoughtful and courteous manner-- and not go out of their way to hurt people. I appreciate your time."

I never accused Jackie of anything, I explained that my duties as a councilor would entail asking her questions about why we should adjust her salary when the output is not plainly seen.  The chief claims I do things I haven't, he says I use the information on FOIA requests to hurt city officials, yet I have no evidence of wrongdoing.  Chief, the wrongdoing is documented in the public records I receive, including the comprehensive audit I did on your Shop with a Cop program that was short money that you would never account for, given many opportunities to do so.  Quit using your status as an instrument to beat people with, to bludgeon the public, to go out of your way to hurt people.  Stifle your hate, trim your claws, get out of attack mode.

Ginned up by the chief, a woman named Melissa Boggs, someone I do not know, agreed with the chief and in her two minutes plus of comments directed some of her venom directly at me:  "You don't know the hours she worked!"  You, nor the councilors do either, that's one of the points that should have been cleared up by the public servants in front of you.  Next inquisitioner, please.

County Commissioner, former councilor, Gary Castonia praised her, and thought he mildly dissed me with a "you have to consider the source."  I appreciate that.  Clerk Debbie Luskin followed with some anecdotes regarding Jackie putting in long hours, along with her; finally a little verification is worked into the roasting, rather than silly invectives.  Jack Stibitz closed out with another character reference for her that didn't go after the concerned citizen.  

The public comment ended, but my ward councilor, Les Johnson had something left to say during the miscellaneous business portion.  Looking right at me with a look that one gets when he hasn't fixed a plumbing leak after the third try:

Les Johnson: (1:15:45) 'You think you know everything about this City and what goes on in the city and who does what, and your followers feel that way too, but you don't have a clue what goes on with the people in this city.

The employees of this City, the council, you don't have a clue what goes on, but yet you get up here every council meeting and slam either the council, or the mayor, or the attorney, the chief of police. When's it going to stop, Tom?"

Councilor Johnson seems content to tell the public that somebody who looks deep into the City's business has no idea what's going on.  Isn't that the problem I've said exists all along?  That's why you need to deal with all those FOIA requests to see what is the next silly thing you waste the taxpayer's money on.  As long as our city officials keep their secrets, hide their records, and abuse their oaths of office, I won't ever stop until my heart does, Leslie.  Danny V can check it, Chief Barnett can hate on it, Kaye Holman can find it disgusting for whatever reason she can formulate.

[Freedom Seeker]

Thanks for the insight, Willy.  "I see, I want, I grind, I get.". Goes right along with the philosophy of others in city hall ... Grind for themselves, get for themselves.  I think Danny V is a "dirty politics" plant by the mayor.  Listen to how Danny V is trying to un-implicate the mayor from the first time he spoke saying that the mayor asked him to come and speak.   I think he is also probably getting some pay ... Or something from donations ... for promoting the lake jump.

[Willy]

I think you are right on the money about Danny V and the Mayor. I found this snip-it from the LDN regarding a "walking agianst violence" article"

Dan “Danny V” Vargas of WMOM radio demonstrated the concept of “walking a mile in her shoes.” He wore high-heels throughout the 1.2 mile round-trip event.

It looks like the Mayor is of the same mindset as the old home guard which controlled Ludington's politics for years. 

[Du Wright]

• About Danny V attacking the person or a group (YOU people don't know how to have FUN), it should be the mayor's responsibility to lead civil discussion and direct the comments to the council.  So maybe Danny was telling the council that they don't know how to have fun, even though it appears he turns around and points into the audience, calling them negative people who don't know how to have fun.  People are not stupid by his antics.  Danny V probably created more enemies than friends with that comment.  And it appears he doesn't know the difference between dialogue or dissin'.  Dissin'  and dirty politics is what they do in the big cities

[Willy]

[Freedom Seeker]

Good one, Willy. You forgot to say, "you negative people.". How much fun will it be when our taxes go up because we push nonessential projects in private groups and neglect our infrastructure. Some in city hall think people are too dumb or slow to notice what is really going on. And for those who figure it out through FOIA (thanks X) and pass it on to others, God be with you when the mayor unleashes the pitbulls with full-gear dirty politics.

[Willy]

Very true FS

[XLFD]

It does fall on the mayor's head to keep the discussion going in civil fashion.  While Mayor Miller has shown a capacity to step in at times to keep discussion directed to the chair, he seems to allow such behavior to go on if the person is an official ( Holman, Barnett and Johnson, in this case).  New City Manager Mitch Foster looked uncomfortable to say the least with the procession, so be surprised if this becomes a regular occurrence.  

Particularly when the underlying problems I brought forth (bidding and holding to contract) are undeniably shortcomings of the council's committees.  None of the councilors looked at the records when they denied Spuller Concrete the sidewalk contract when he had a much lower bid, ergo we will get less sidewalks of an indeterminate degree of quality-- just because the committee and council wouldn't do their jobs with any degree of professionalism.  They ignored that for two meetings, along with this one.

They failed to figure out whether Jackie was deserving of a change in her contract.  I have already stated that paying her the full amount of a regular city manager when she is doing that job and her own is a deal for the taxpayers, yet she agreed to accept even less.  I as a councilor would have an inclination to pay an amount I saw as fair, but my bigger inclination would be to verify that this extra expense was warranted as it further burdens the stressed taxpayer.  They attacked me mercilessly at this meeting for suggesting such a thing.

It's 100% proper to call for accountability in public matters, and I wait for the time when future councilors (including some that sat in this meeting) will admit (at least in private) that what I said here and before was self-evident.  

[shinblind]

Am of the mind that X should employ a reader for his two statements at the city council meetings.

$10-$20 should cover the 5 minutes of work involved.

That way he would be free to offer a rebuttal after the sycophant brigade spews their load of runny drivel.

As a contrast, the reader should be a minority female, preferable gay.  Just trying to cover all aspects of potential future discrimination lawsuits.

[XLFD]

Shinblind, if I did that and offered a rebuttal when I thought they were through, they'd send up the B-Team to rebut my rebuttal, and I'd be in the same boat (and owe some good people some money).  Worse, I'd be more likely to hear Fire Chief Funk reminding the audience that sometimes I wear an LFD shirt, but I'm not on the department anymore.  The nerve.

I'm thinking that I could use perhaps the greatest invention since sliced bread, the remote fart machine.  You have a small remote with a button, and whenever that button is pushed, a variety of flatulence noises comes out of a device that can be well across the room.  I inherited my father's and it's a hoot at times when used in moderation. 

Before the meeting, I tape the device under the podium in the 'on' position.  I say my piece and wait for Danny-Kaye to say theirs.  Then the fun ensues, with my own re-butt-al.

"Mr. Rotta, how much money have you cost the city?  Brrrr-ippp.  I didn't wear a straw hat tonight, I didn't want to offend anybody, pfffft-t-t.  I think Jackie and a lot of the folks have done a marvelous job. Blurrrfthh.

[stump]

A number of years ago I recall that the city of Whitehall gave a paving contract to a higher bid without reason and out of guidelines. The low bid contractor sued the city for the loss of contract and won a settlement of his profit loss.   Spuller  should do the same. I don't like the city giving my money to a higher bid contractor when the low bid contractor has shown that he has over the passed years could and has done the job.

[AQUAMAN]

Most employers have a very simple and old fashioned way to keep track of employees hours worked, it's called a "time clock" to punch in and out when there. Doesn't the COL have one in their office? If not, that in itself is derelict and foolish. But why should common citizens think the city is being run correctly like any other business? And remember Frank Sinatra's song about NYC? If I can make it there, I'll make it anywhere, it's up to you New York New York...........obviously, Danny V. couldn't make it there, and he certainly can't make it here either, he's a wash-out wherever he goes in Ludville too from all sources that have met him, after investigating around a bit.

[XLFD]

Spuller finished approximately 85 sidewalk/paving projects in both 2017 and 2018.  In 2018, he not only lost a brother, but he wasn't able to start work in Ludington until June because of projects out at the state park, and still got the same amount done as in the previous year.  The quality was only called into question once (and fixed, likely w/o additional cost).  The only other gripe was that the time between when he started a project and when he billed the COL for it was longer than the contract provided for-- which means that he probably took his time in making out the bill so that he wouldn't have to submit them so often.

The LASD is currently being sued by a contractor who has the same legitimate gripe, and the contractor will win either a huge settlement in or outside of court for violating their protocols.  Spuller Concrete would win here easily too, and your irresponsible city council would be to blame for it, but you would bail them out of legal jeopardy, and pay for more expensive sidewalk installation and repairs to boot.  And the City with their presstitutes would be able to make a majority of the people think that the 'bad' was on Kevin Spuller rather than them.