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]

Well, I guess we now all know where Kaye Holman stands on this issue, as she motioned it to be passed. She is FOR Secrecy and against the people having FOIA information. As for Engblade, I too am surprised to see he either doesn't remember the LOT issue, or forgot about it, and perhaps an email or phone call to him would be in order to make that clear. Lastly, the PPP I just glanced over with X the other day, truly is a colossal joke. Volumes of paperwork to show where the FOIA requests are unreasonable and unfair to the city hallers to accomplish. Very silly and immature behavior continues by Shay, and of course those foolish enough to continue to support his actions to block and terminate information taxpayers ask for. If they would just get over it and produce information, like it is their sworn duty to do so, all these continuing episodes of more FOIA requests might be satisfied. As it stands now, and continues to stand forever into the future, the only thing that any reasonable person can do is continue to ask more questions, and delve further into the unknown that they want to hide from the public. For what reason, only they in their secrecy know.