Hiding Behind Signs

[XLFD]

It started off with a simple E- Mail FOIA request from my ally, Eve Alone:

"Under provisions of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act (MCLA 15.231 et seq; MSA 4.1801 (1) et seq) I am requesting, preferably in electronic records sent to this E-Mail address, or failing that, to personally inspect the following public records:

 

All bids, contracts, agreements, receipts, and invoices since January 1, 2008- September 6, 2011 between the City of Ludington (including all public bodies within that entity, such as the DLB, the MMB, et.al.) and either Tye's Signs, Tye's Inc., or Nick Tykoski (the individual).

 

 If you need any clarifications of this request, please reply expediently to this E-mail address.
Please note also that this FOIA Request was sent more than 24 hours after the previous FOIA request from our concerned parties.
If you determine that some of the requested information is exempt from disclosure, please detail what is being withheld and cite the exemption under FOIA. If fees to comply with this request exceed $20, please contact me at this E-Mail address with those fees enumerated.
As provided under FOIA, I would anticipate my request being filled within five working days of receipt of this letter."
 
The reply was unexpectedly terse and was accompanied by no request for fees or any options:
 
"Your FOIA request below is similar to FOIA requests dated October 18, 2010, November 15, 2010, November 29, 2010 and January 24, 2011 that the City of Ludington received from Tom Rotta and/or you. Therefore, please refer to the City’s responses to those previous FOIA requests, as your current FOIA request is considered a multiple or duplicative request for essentially the same information in an effort to evade the cost reimbursement of the City’s FOIA Policy.  John Shay"
 
We compared our requests for those dates, and found his judgment lacking serious merit in our view.  Eve then sent back this reply:
 
"Sir, if you will note in the January 24, 2011 reply you wanted to charge me $2.75 (only) for copies when I wanted to 'inspect' the documents, and my indigent status gave me a $20 credit for any fees.  You are the one practicing the art of evading-- your official duties.  This request is a bit different from that one and your classification of it as a 'multiple or duplicative request for essentially the same information' is bogus, as this sign company is on record for doing other work beyond what has been asked for specifically before.  Must I remind you that  DDA member Nick Tykoski (fiance to DDA's chairperson Heather Venzke ) did $15,000 of sign work before any competitive bidding for signs was even contemplated?  Don't you think the public wants to find out how many other sweet deals he had at the public's expense and against city and state law?

Please compile the public records, and if you do not, consider this an APPEAL of your capricious decision."
 
She had also sent in to the Michigan Attorney General's Office in continued documentation of how the FOIA is being ignored here in Ludington.  His reply addressed her and me:
 
"An appeal to City Council may occur only in the event that “a public body makes a final determination to deny all or a portion of a request. . . .”  MCL 15.240(1).  In this case, your request was not denied, but was in fact granted.  Accordingly, the City will not docket your appeal before the City Council.  The records you requested will be made available to you upon payment of the fees.  John Shay"

Note that four different fees were quoted for the prior FOIA requests that were not all that close to what this one asked for, and he says this one has been granted?!  Her reply which also targeted two city councilors, the MI AG, and another interested party:

 

"Sir, you have denied at the very least a portion of my request.  You have failed to validate any sort of fee for this request.  You have failed to show why this is a duplicative request.    In December, you accepted over $57 for 'copies' from Tom Rotta to inspect 24 pages of information on competitive bids on water tower painting and the eventual contract.   That was public extortion, pure and simple, and now you intend to extort more money from curious bloggers who want to know why most all of the sign business the City contracts for is by a City Official's company, without fair, competitive bids and without any sort of disclosure at public meetings? 
The facts:  On January 24, you charged me $2.75 for copies when I asked to inspect records that needn't have been copied.  I have an affidavit of indigency on file with the City of Ludington which gives me a $20 credit on all FOIA requests, and you are saying I was evading a cost reimbursement.  Sir, I am trying to keep you from once again engaging in public extortion with your willful accomplice, Attorney Richard Wilson.
 
You have the option not to pass this on to the City Council as per my APPEAL.  But allow me to pass back MCL 15.240(2) that I need a determination of my APPEAL by the 'head of the public body' which happens to be the City Council, by the end of ten business days after their next scheduled meeting.  Pass the facts along to them, as well as my appeal.  And don't reveal mine or Tom's personal information (our E-mail addresses, names, our traffic records, etc.) at this public meeting like you have in the past.  And please, don't address me as Ms. XXXX /Mr. Rotta if you are only sending an E-mail to me.  Thank you for your future compliance with the law and ethical conduct."

This Monday morning, she received the following E-mail from the Mayor, which arrived via 9-19 Certified letter (paid with by nearly $6.00 of taxpayer paid postage) at her residence on Tuesday  .  We were both surprised, and a little intimidated that the mayor had sent this to her.  The only people that handle FOIA requests are the FOIA Coordinator and anyone that holds the public records requested.  The Mayor's office should have no such records, nor does he play any part in the appeal process.  He is, however, very close friends with fellow firefighter Nick Tykoski (check the Mayor's facebook plug for Tye Signs), and his Honor does make sure those close to him get treated well.  That afternoon, the FOIAC left her this:

"The Mayor sent you a letter asking if you would attend the City Council meeting on Monday, September 26 at 6:30 p.m. as it relates to your appeal of the City’s response to a recent FOIA request from you.  He wanted to emphasize again that the City Council and he would like to gain a better understanding of your position as it relates to your FOIA requests and the City’s responses to those requests.  The Mayor feels that the best way to gain this understanding is to hear from you in person about your position on this issue.  Please let me know if you will be able to attend the Council meeting.  Thanks."  John Shay

That sealed the deal, I don't know what public show they had planned for her, but I handled the reply:

 

"Please accept this as an acknowledgment of the appeal being placed before the City Council at its next meeting.  My compatriot for open governance wishes to pass along that she will not attend that meeting, as the Mayor requested, and would appreciate not being bothered by those  of the City who are outside the process of resolving the issue (i.e. you and the City Council).  If his honor wants to extend the same courtesy to me, it will need to be contingent with a public retraction of the baseless Letter of Trespasses against me by yourself. 
MCL 15.240 does not grant the requester any special rights or obligations to meet with the appellate body, but we do expect and anticipate some concerns for the privacy of those seeking the information in your open meeting.  We also welcome any feedback or questions from the councilors if they deliberate on this beyond the meeting.
We maintain that the denial has been baseless.  If the City Council looks at the same request she has made, and the same reply you gave, and the state and City's FOIA laws, I am sure they will come to the same conclusion. 
At this meeting, we would appreciate it if the City Councilors actually identify by what aspect of the FOIA law or policy they are denying the request."

No reply has arrived at my inbox to my entreaty.  I sent the following to four City Councilors last night to totally explain my position

"Honorable Councilors,
Please read now the exchange I have forwarded (from the bottom up) to you regarding the latest FOIA Appeal that you are to consider on Monday Sept. 26. 
My original requests on the first three dates that FOIAC Shay's first response alluded to was to inspect:  "the competitive bids for the DDA’s signage project that was eventually awarded to Tye Signs (Tye’s Inc.)this year.  I would like to see a list of the other sign companies that were contacted or the actual correspondence sent to them for bids on the project.  Also, I would like to inspect any document/file that explains how Tye Signs (Tye’s Inc.) and Fisher Fence were contracted for the dog park, including the competitive bidding process."
 
This was misrepresented in the public record, and likely to you, as reported in the LDN the day after my appeal was denied by your agency.  Ms. XXXX had a request that differed from mine on 1-24-2011, she requested to inspect:  "1) any documents that contains all the "contractors invited to bid" on the signage project.  If this is contained on only one document, that is sufficient.  2) the letter(s), or general template, the City had sent out to each Signage contractor invited to bid.  3) any replies from those Signage contractors to the City's bid requests from those invited to bid."
To this the FOIAC, replied that it would cost her $2.75 for making 11 copies to inspect at $.25 each.  She had, at the time, an Affidavit of Indigency filed with the City that allows her a $20 deposit on all FOIA determinations.

 
But I really wanted to see these records, and when we purchased them at the illegal fee of $2.75, it confirmed that DLB/DDA Officer Nick Tykoski, affianced to DLB/DDA Chair Heather Venzke, had indeed done $15,000 of signage work before any competitive bids were sent out, and had his own bid already prepared before any were faxed to other companies.  The competition had less than a week to respond to a rather complex request, one that Tye's had already did at least $15,000 of base work already.  Not to mention he was part of the subcommittee that decided how to make the signs.  But let's ignore all that for the nonce.

Ms. XXXX's request on 9-7-2011, does not in any way duplicate her 1-24-2011 request contrary to John Shay's assertion.  For all three parts of her FOIA request, there is no record from Tye's Signs called for.  Tye's was not invited to bid, did not have any letter sent to them to bid, and did not reply to the bid request-- the rigged system by which he got the signage contract saw to that.

You will note that my original requests were somewhat duplicative of her 1-24-11 request, except that I asked for a public record that showed how the Dog Park Contracts were handled.  The fencing for that project alone cost the City over $10,000 (of money 'donated' from the DPC) and deserved competitive bids, according to City Charter. Again, there is no overlap between this and Ms Swiger's 9-7-2011 Request, which I reiterate:  "All bids, contracts, agreements, receipts, and invoices since January 1, 2008- September 6, 2011 between the City of Ludington (including all public bodies within that entity, such as the DLB, the MMB, et.al.) and either Tye's Signs, Tye's Inc., or Nick Tykoski (the individual)."
 
The FOIAC has four options for any request by State law (MCL 15.235(2))and by City FOIA policy (section 6).  He did not: 1) grant the request (i.e. no info was given, or any means to get it was offered).  2) deny the request  3) grant part of the request and deny part of the request or 4) try to extend the responding time.  He decided to use a 5th option, to use his discretion for this FOIA request to "take other action that the FOIA deems reasonable" to borrow the language from the recent reworking of the City's FOIA policy (sec. 3).  This 'reasonable' action he decided on, was not one of the options that is statutorily defined.

 
Whereas the State and City has mandated only four options, the City FOIAC has decided on other options, which defy and go against State Law, to bypass a legal response to a FOIA Request on someone who is running for a position of public trust this fall-- Nick Tykoski.

 
I know I want to be serving the public alongside someone whose public service is not motivated on personal profits, and whose business dealings are beyond reproach.  Let us not further cloud Mr. Tykoski's reputation by unlawfully withholding the records that were requested on 9-7-2011." 

 

City Councilors, the ball is in your court. 

[AQUAMAN]

The most recent FOIA request above entails a time period of 3 years and 9 months, too long, and giving rise to the expected reply. Try to quantify the request to a small time period, and one contract at a time only. Making it a simple chore to complete. This strategy should be most effective and undeniable in answering. If not, then you know the smokescreen is permanent, and the AG's office should have interest in the lack of merits and legalities being used unfairly. Same goes for city council meetings. You can issue a written letter asking that it be included in the CC meeting of 9/26/11 in the public comment time allotted for the audience to participate, perhaps the City Clerk can help to achieve that too, as she takes the minutes.

[Sweater Cows!]

I agree w/ AQ, narrow them down.

 

[Eve Alone]

There has been times in the past where X has made his own request or thru me where he did perhaps try to get too much, but I disagree that that is the case this time.  We are asking for the City's dealings with one sign company over a period of time that happens to coincide with the period that Nick Tykoski (the owner f the sign company) has been on the DDA. 

I am not as familiar with the rules of ethics as X is, but whenever a public employee gets in a contract with a public group that he is part of, there should be public disclosure of that fact, and any records associated with that contract.  The disclosure should be coming at an open public meeting, and the records should be readily available through an FOIA.

The city should have on computer file the business it has conducted with one sign business, Tye's Inc, over the last three years (and more) on computer file for easy reference.  If they have so many records that it takes soooo long, maybe there is a problem, Houston.   

[XLFD]

Narrowing things down too much can make you miss certain aspects.  I am basically looking for the flow of money from the City treasury to the pockets of a company owned by someone who is a city official.  Normally, this is something that a real City Manager or a real Board of Ethics  would be concerned with, but they aren't.   The one is just interested in blocking issuing of the records.  I have to cover all the bases as refers to the documents and to the person and his company, which has changed names during that time to make sure I describe all the records.

I have found:  The City is not above conducting business by calling employees/officials by the name of 'contractors' even when the City code says they're not (our City Attorney situation).  The City is not above levying a tax and then calling it a user fee (our Municipal Services fee at the Arbors).  The City is not above receiving conditional donations from groups to be used as the City's in order to allow those groups to qualify for grants (as they did for the LAAC) or to install specialized areas inside our parks without a public vote (as they did for the dog park). 

I have found they do not follow their own FOIA policy.  All this should be intolerable to all, I think.

 

[Brickhouse]

X...Y....Z...a person...persons? Or one person with nothing better to do and multiple personalities? If you're so concerned about the city and their money, why do you keep forcing them to waste additional money through your FOIA requests whether they are submitted through you, Agent Q, or your make believe unicorn?

[Willy]

Brickehouse

a better question to ask is "why is the City charging citizens for information already compiled and paid for by the citizens"? Information that should be dispensed freely without the need for a FOIA. Why is it that the City requires a FOIA for such ordinary information? Nothing the City does is classified. Why the secrecy? Why are City officials making the gathering of publicly paid for information so difficult? Where is the open government?  These are some of the questions you should be asking.

[XLFD]

Quit making fun of my unicorn, Brickhouse.  She's very self-conscious and very real ; )

The City Manager/FOIAC has wasted more time and money trying to avoid his duty of providing public records, than he has in providing them.  When I start making FOIA requests with no other reason than to waste the City's time and money, your question will be valid. 

Until that time comes, try to answer Willie's very valid questions he poses above. 

[Eve Alone]

I was freaked out when I got that certified letter.  I'll go to the meeting with X, Mayor Henderson, and he can explain to you the fine points of FOIA law, but as for me, I'm just asking for information that should be available to one and all who have an interest in what our leaders are doing to for our town.  I will let the so-called smart one deal with the analysis of it and the fine points of the law.

[AQUAMAN]

I totally agree with getting ALL the facts in any situation. If the blockade is making that impossible with flimsy excuses, use the strategy of making it too simple to deny and overcharge for is all I suggest. That way, it may take more time to fit all the pieces of the puzzle together, granted, but you will be able to complete the task at hand imho. You're getting a stonewall response the way things are now, rethink a new strategy to achieve results, instead of insults is all I say. A great man once said, if you find the front door locked to you, go in the back door.

[Eve Alone]

If Mr. Shay wants to put certain information beyond reach by charging an indigent person who uses the information for the public good $100 to find out how the City managed by him spent its $40,000 earmarked for beach safety purposes, then that speaks volumes of the man and those purchases.

I just want information that X usually runs by me and I think is reasonable.  The request I made up in the thread start to grant me some privacy when they decide the fate of my request has already been ignored by them putting my name in the paper this Saturday, and their ignorance of the FOIA problem was shown by them saying it was an appeal of fees.  There never was any fees asked for.  It is an appeal of FOIA process.  Fie on the LDN for being a City Hall pawn. 

The FOIA Coordinator is inconsistent in his fees, and he regularly avoids following his own rules, as you can see further in another thread I am putting out this evening.

[AQUAMAN]

Shay is no rocket scientist, nor a man of any ethics, you'll have to outsmart the fool on your own terms, which is suggested above in my more recent comment. It's a free suggestion, if it doesn't work, try another idea. Success is measured more in persistence and perspiration than perpetual platitudes.

[Willy]

Another fine job of supplying important information.  Unless X is acting as an agent for Eve or Eve is acting as an agent for X then the City is obligated to treat each FIOA request as seperate and distinct. The fact that the City is assuming both individuals are connected in anyway is an invalid method for despensing FOIA information. I would think that this type of discriminatory action taken by Shay would be grounds for legal proceedings.