Hiding Behind Signs, pt. 2

[XLFD]

Two cryptic replies by the City Manager and FOIA Coordinator John Shay led to an appeal to the City Council which met on September 26, 2011.  As originally related in Hiding Behind Signs. 

I had sent in a written statement supporting Eve's position, that the City Clerk confirmed would be in the normal packet given to the City Councilors and the "Media", put on the agenda, and made part of the public record.  It mirrored my E-mail in the above link as to the nature of the appeal.  I was appealing the fact that FOIAC Shay had not made any of the four determinations that City and State policy require of FOIA replies.  Nowhere in any of the discussions before were any fees discussed or related by him, nor us beyond the fact that I said we had paid a $2.75 fee in January for information that should have been free using the City's method of determining fees in a similar request. 

 

The meeting came that night, I missed out because of a Letter of Trespass restricting me from attending this open meeting at the City Hall.  Eve did because she was totally creeped out by a certified letter from Mayor Henderson, and another overture from the FOIAC through the E-mail inviting her to the meeting.  They were told through me, that she would only come if I was allowed to come too, a week before the meeting, but John Shay declined to extend me that amenity.  

 

The next day, I heard nothing on WMOM, and read nothing in the paper about the appeal although they had a bit on the other topics at the meeting.  I checked the Ludington Library's and found the video here:

 

At about the 1:40 mark, Mayor Henderson reports that the FOIA appeal would not be covered and that #9, a power point presentation, would be stricken.  The rest of the video has nothing more about it until the very end, when some guy comes up to the Johns and apparently asks about the appeal.  John Shay clearly replies "Ms. Swiger is appealing the fees that were charged..." and then it fades.  There were no appeals based on fees, but on process.  No fees have ever been assessed by the FOIAC on this request.

 

 

I decided to check the City's website, dig, and found the agenda for that meeting and here it is:

 

Notice that even though we asked politely for keeping Eve's own information private which one should be able to do when they are appealing a poor decision by the FOIA Coordinator to the appealing body, they used her name here (at 8-a-2) and in Saturday's LDN.  Whoever drew up the agenda said she was appealing FOIA fees, which was incorrect, but the most interesting thing is that power point presentation that was also stricken. 

 

"Summary of Rotta's FOIA Requests"  WOW!  Someone took the time to compile my requests and make a power point presentation of them.  Look, it was the City Manager making the presentation.  Why is the guy who is supposed to be running the city and raking in over $70/hour (when you include benefits) to do so taking the time to create a power point presentation summarizing a local e-journalists FOIA Requests? 

 

Do you really want to go there, John, particularly if you summarize what unethical and illegal behavior I have uncovered by this regime during that time with those records you have let me see?  Or didn't you include any slides for that?   Wouldn't it have been a lot easier having a clerk just do a search of City records for "Tye Signs" and complete the FOIA request?

 

I guess it might be his reaction to me compiling the FOIA replies I have got from him either illegally processing my requests, or unlawfully charging me for them that Eve mentioned to him recently.  The Attorney General's Office likes a recurring pattern of behavior by those officials who act in a corrupt manner.  But since Eve and I don't know what would drive City Manager John Shay to make or deliver such a power point presentaion, we did the next best thing.

 

We did a FOIA request for the PPP, any notes made for it, and any correspondence between any city  officials/employees concerning this PPP.  The results will be broadcast to all, once we get it.

[AQUAMAN]

A-C privilege? You've got to be kidding me. Since when is the City Mgr. a privileged client of the City Attorney in City business dealings for and by the public sector of Ludington? If the subject was a private matter between an attorney and individual, outside the parameters of city business, yes. But, as it stands now, he is dancing on very thin ice imho, or perhaps more accurately, has really gone thru the ice all the way. This stinks to the high heavens for being evasive and probably totally illegal in nature. Your attorney should be jumping on this all over the place imho. We all know what the word assume does, makes an ass/u/me is what I heard. I'd like to see what the ACLU has to say about this.

[Eve Alone]

If I have some time tomorrow, I'm going to get the PPP out on a thread tomorrow, or let X do it with refutations.  I bought it today, and we're still reviewing it.

[Willy]

Eve

How much did it cost?

[Eve Alone]

$5.75 for 23 pages of photocopying... of a computer power point presentation.  To a person who has an Affidavit of Indigency on record that allows a $20 discount on all FOIA request according to all laws I've seen.  Here's a preview

[XLFD]

If you seen today's newspaper, the City Council is going to be considering our appeal of the attorney-client privilege for the PPP communications between Shay and one or more attorneys. 

One of the reasons having a whole team of attorneys retained as if they were independent contractors for a position that has official duties assigned is that the various attorneys communications among themselves and among people that aren't city employees/officials can be claimed as non-public information not subject to FOIA-- even though those communications could greatly affect public policy. 

If I get elected, I will do my darndest to make sure we get one actual City Attorney with duties and powers inherent in that post as proscribed by state and city laws.

[Marty Redman]

http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,1607,7-164-17337_18160-51242--,00.html

This needs to be brought attention to the Attorney General or your county prosecutor.  It says, near the bottom of this link to the MI AG website  The first $20 of a fee must be waived for a person who is on welfare or presents facts showing inability to pay because of indigency. 

 

Must means must.  Just because a person is helping to bring about information to a watchblog like this should leave that corrupt (im)potentate no right to do this.  Pay, then make them pay later. 

[XLFD]

Lisa, such a decision by City Czar Shay is the very definition of 'arbitrary and capricious' which he has made in an increasing number of incidents and could cost the City a lotta money if I should decide to call them on it-- which I will if he continues to block the pipeline of public information. 

John Shay is effectively saying, I don't have to play by the rules to prevent the showing of  these public records to someone who would dare share them with Tom Rotta.  This should surprise few who have been following the adoption of the Workplace Safety Policy which not only blocks my access to inspecting public records but blocks my actual usage of public facilities I help pay for.

Marty, those personages are getting CC-ed at this point most every time we get an undeserved rebuff from Shay that goes against the FOIA law.  Will I need to retain another private lawyer to resolve some of the FOIA problems?  Perhaps, but I am hoping our City leaders will come to their senses and realize how far south of the law their City Mangler is going, particular with a new batch of Councilors coming in soon. 

[AQUAMAN]

I really don't think the CC believe they are anything less than totally insulated from it all, & nothing can turn their course to the contrary. Why is Shay scrambling like this? To make sure Certain INFO is NOT Disseminated to the public? I know they're still covering up the Kennedy Assassination, but what's all this for? Makes a person wonder.............and sometimes even care? Oh well.

[AQUAMAN]

I understand X is getting some more information released under FOIA again. And that this time the A-C excuse is being compounded into infinity. In other words, they have intentionally drawn black lines throughout various parts of the entire texts so no one can read what's happening in the contents. This is transparency and good governing? Give me a break. The only time I've seen this type of scenario exist was in, as an example, the Kennedy assassination papers. They used the excuse of "national security" for those black lines drawn through the contents. Wth is the reasons for this?, certainly there is no "city/state/county/national security issues here regarding a Letter of Trespass or Work Place Safety policies. Boy, this thing also stinks to the highest of heavens for sure.

[Marty Redman]

Difficult imagining why the Att.-Cli. privilege was used in this case.  The City Attorney is not serving as the legal attorney for any of the city officials or employees.  He is not their attorney, he is there so that the City acts within the bounds of the law when it makes or enforces laws. 

If the City Manager or a councilor asks for advice, that question and answer should be free to look at, unless there is some legal suit they are involved in.  But thats not the case here, is it?  Your CA probably took a look at Shays PPP and sent him a letter telling him to not air it out publicly due to the abundance of falsehoods you pointed out in the PPP thread.

[AQUAMAN]

Good post Marty, and our city hall is looking ever more like a communist regime, violating every civil right to individuals you can imagine. And being proud and vain about it in the mix. Somehow, someway, someday, Shay has got to answer for his illegal behaviors, along with those that support him in these clandestine acts. Totally shocking to witness this as an American.

[XLFD]

Here is the most recent Ludington CC meeting where the attorney-client privilege was revoked (that discussion starts around 6:40 in:

 

I noticed that nobody informed CC Engblade that one of the people making FOIA requests no longer was able to come to City Council meetings, and why the 'client' (the Mayor, City Mgr., etc ) invoked the privilege.  Dick Wilson, acting City Attorney, tried to. 

It looks as if not only the City Manager spent a lot of time making this presentation, the City Attorney wasted a lot of time, at around $200 an hour, in reviewing and editing it.  What a colossal waste of resources in an unpresented presentation!