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]

I'm quite sure that the City officials are past being timid about any legal procedures in court. Reference the Jack Beyers case of recent. First of all, they have the MC courts backing 99% of the time, and if that doesn't work, the old insurance policy for liability always works. Either way, they don't lose really. Kinda like living in a perfect world for them I would suppose, where any errors on their part are automatically washed away like water off a duck's back.

[AQUAMAN]

I see where we have a new troll member, Brickxhithouse? Welcome, if you behave. First post out of you is to create chaos and upset the apple cart. If you had any intelligence, you might read in depth all the recent and old threads to get a proper perspective of what the site is about, and what all the in-depth investigations and findings are. But, I guess that's too much trouble for someone of your lack of thought process and reading abilities. You'll probably have no debating methods to make your points either, as noted already. Calling names, making libelous statements, and carrying on like an immature kid, isn't what people like to read nor put up with here. Anyone with clear cogent points of debate are always welcome and encouraged to participate. Think you could adhere to something like that behavior? If so, you might last a while, if not, you violate the Ning terms we are obliged to follow, and might be gone soon. Thanks.

[XLFD]

FOIAC Shay had sent an E-mail to 'Eve' and nobody else, and addressed her as "Ms. _____/Mr. Rotta". 

Whereas, I have ghost-written some FOIA requests for Eve in the past, I don't request anything through her that she doesn't OK beforehand.  When the city council passed the new FOIA policy in December, they gave the FOIA Coordinator broad discretion over many aspects, some that were never intended by the original law, and could be challenged successfully. 

In the latest thread by Eve regarding a FOIA request on the City's recent business dealings with Carr Creek, FOIAC Shay says he had to make copies of each record (non-exempt) for our inspection in order to protect and preserve the original documents.  This is just hokum.  The state's FOIA says (MCL 15.234(3)) "A public body shall utilize the most economical means available for making copies of public records." , but he believes that does not apply, and wastes a lot of paper and ink in making unasked for copies of non-exempt records.

[Sweater Cows!]

Well, it could appear that you are requesting things through her, to use her indigent discount (not that $20 off is enough to make it worth bothering), but it could appear that way to people and it seems it does appear that way as well to Shay.

 

As long as the requests are hers (as part of the research that she is doing individually-even if assisting you)  and not your requests with her name on it are what makes the difference in if they are duplicate.

 

For example, people all work at a newspaper, and there is a team of 5 ppl working indivdually, but as a team on one topic. Each person would do there own FOIA's. They would not use just one person to do them as each does the research individually, and only meets up to compile as a team. The way Shay is trying to make it seem is as if the team should only have one person doing them and that a request from one is considered a request from all.

 

I guess what that comes down to is whether or not there is a FOIA State Law that says how the research must be done, and I doubt it because the state would not want any team to be considered one entity since it would make it be how it is here with Shay denying them all.

[Sweater Cows!]

Must be these are such old antique scrolls written on papyrus and that any human oils from our skin would destroy such an artifact. LOL

[XLFD]

Since the adoption of the new FOIA policy in December, it does not matter whether I or Eve requests it, we are considered compatriots by Herr Shay.  In my requests, I try to minimize the search and costs as much as I can, so as not to duly stress the resources of the public body.  But I also want to minimize my costs, because I am checking these records out as a public service, so the extra $20 can come in handy for my efforts.  And so she is a willing proxy for the cause of transparency in our City Hall.

 

In this case, we were told our request was granted in his second reply, but were not given the records or any amount as fees anywhere.  But maybe since these records were concerning Nick Tykoski, maybe they were inked with solid gold lettering like his expensive signs and he was worried that my poor Eve would scratch it off.  Though I think the scroll excuse might be good for him to use for records from before the turn of the last millenium. 

[Sweater Cows!]

If a person looks on relator .com for property for sale, and finds one that is owned by a relator, the listing will say "an agent or broker owns this property" or something very similiar, a disclaimer so the public knows that the seller may also be the owner, that is a private biz deal that is not useing public tax dollars. Should we expect our cities to be so transparent?

 

Unlike the realtors, the city is trying to hide the info about these (so called competitve) bids. Why? What point is there in hiding it if they did everything properly?

 

Processes, not people. If the city follows the processes laid out for them on how to do things, it should make no matter who is in what position, as things will be done the same way no matter what. That is what proccesses are for, so that the things taking place do not vary. It seems with the city there are people doing things, and not processees.