Fact Check: Rotta, City FOIA Issues Continue

[XLFD]

The Ludington Daily News reports on Tuesday 3-13-2012, and Rotta, who was never contacted by the quality reporter known as Kevin Branisczeski once again, did not report the full story and broadcast some inaccuracies.  Those are footnoted in red, and commented on at the end:

 

A city resident is again challenging a Freedom of Information Act decision by Ludington City Manager John Shay, who is the city’s FOIA coordinator, and the Ludington City Council again upheld Shay’s decision Monday night.

Tom Rotta is the resident who challenged the decision — as he has for many FOIA decisions during the past year — and the council’s vote supported Shay’s contention that he did provide Rotta with all the records he requested.

At issue, according to Shay, is that the third, fourth and fifth invoices Rotta requested all referred to the same original 2010 invoice for $19,105.52 from Tye’s Inc. to the city for a lettered sign. 1

In a March 1 email to the council’s members, Rotta stated he was appealing to them because Shay failed to produce one of his requested records or certify that it does not exist.

Rotta statements

He did not attend Monday’s council meeting 2 and no one spoke in favor of his challenge during the meeting’s public comment period, but Rotta did provide an email to council members, other city staff and the Ludington Daily News Sunday.

In that email he states that current Councilor Nick Tykoski — who took office in January 2012 — was a member of the Ludington Downtown Development Authority in 2008, as was Ludington Community Development Director Heather Venzke. Rotta said the city council decided to amend its tax increment financing plan that year to provide the DDA with tax revenues for downtown improvement projects. 3

He stated the plan included spending $150,000 for signage during the next few years and stated Tykoski’s company was awarded a $15,001 signage project without a bid or contract in 2009. 4

Tykoski and Venzke are now married and Tykoski abstained from Monday’s vote on Rotta’s challenge.

Before the vote

Councilor Gary Castonia said he believes Shay went above and beyond his duty to provide Rotta with the information he sought and said he believes Rotta’s challenges are wasteful because the most recent caused at least seven 21-page documents about the challenge to be created when no one challenging the decision even showed up to voice their concerns. 5

City Attorney Richard Wilson said he believes the city did not have to provide Rotta with any of the documents he requested because the dates he asked for did not match the invoice dates, but were instead dated by when council took action to approve them. 6

In court

There is currently at least one civil case on the Circuit Court docket that involves Rotta suing the city for what he contends is a FOIA violation involving documents between the city and Tykoski, Tye’s Signs and Tye’s Inc. during a three-and-a-half-year period between Jan. 1, 2008 and Sept. 6, 2011.

51st Circuit Court Judge Richard Cooper, according to the court, has offered 7 to disqualify himself from that case if the parties do not reach a settlement agreement and the case is tried in court.

If that happens, a new judge would be selected.

___________________________________________________

1:  The records he says are the same are these I requested

3) Invoice for $9552.76 for "Downtown Signs" dated 6-14-2010 and given ref. #: 8009

4) Invoice for $9552.76 for "Downtown Signs" dated 6-16-2010 and given ref. # 8009

5) Invoice for $9552.76 for "Downtown Kiosk Signs" dated 8-09-2010 and given ref. #: 74

Gotten from this financial record of the DDA:

 

I would have thought there might be a voided invoice 8009, a non-void 8009, and an invoice 74, (a check is denoted as CK) but what we got was this voided check and check and a vague statement (not an invoice).  No invoice, check or statement 8009 or 74 was included.  Shouldn't this at least be explained?  This is what I was requesting in my appeal-- certify that the invoice's do not exist or have been lost or destroyed.  Was that difficult to do?

 

2- Perhaps the threat of arrest on entrance into the City Hall by the appellant was a factor?

 

3 & 4- I was surprised that the LDN disclosed this, but it was a very incomplete disclosure and colored by the fact that it was part of my statement not verified by the reporter to its accuracy.

 

5- Rotta maintains the City had no reason to create those documents or the power point presentation, as it was totally irrelevant to the point of that appeal they abandoned when I didn't show-- perhaps it was that whole threat of arrest and incarceration thing again due to that law you passed, Gary.  The City Manager even ignored my request to attend that meeting via written permission, but why engage in technicalities when it doesn't suit your purposes.

 

6- This is pure drivel by the purest driveler.  These are records described by the City DDA's own financial records, and if their dates don't match, perhaps the DDA administrator should be better at dates and organization, or is that asking too much, or threatening in some way?

 

7- This is true CC Judge has offered to disqualify himself, but the junior reporter makes it sound as if he did so because he didn't want to oversee the case, not that because his son was on the Defendant's legal team.  The offer was also accepted, and we had to remind the Circuit Court when we saw this in the paper, that they needed to find a judge, for there will be more litigation going on.

 

Once again, a great example of reporting by the Ludington Daily News... of what not to do.

[XLFD]

Dale,

Who at the LDN caved into pressure from the City not to keep the FOIA story posted on the E-edition?  Or did they take it down because of the negative feedback they were getting from citizens fed up with the City withholding public records? 

[XLFD]

Can you answer for anyone who works at the LDN?

At the Torch, we don't censor posts made that do not violate the Terms of Service.  This was a post by lead propagandist Kevin Braniscewski, put up in its entirety, and it was taken down.  I just want to know why, and thought you would know.

The LDN chooses which comments to air on their site, they are not immediately broadcast.  Several posts I've submitted to the LDN have never aired, although they were truthful and followed their terms.  Censorship, yes.

[XLFD]

Dale,

Look at the ethics of journalism, and then look at a certain article on page 3 of the March 5, 2011 Ludington Daily News.  Total character assassination, with no input received from the slandered, and no regard as to how it would affect the slandered.  Your newspaper became irrelevant at that point to me.

Defend that article, and then whine about any impolite E-mail to the scum and/or that scum's editor that put that garbage out for public consumption.

[XLFD]

As per the last Census figures, the population of Ludington is 7656. 

Covert supporters don't get undeserved, unconstitutional LOTs from corrupt City Halls.   

Have you ever thought what a free speech queller putting out a a Workplace Safety Policy is and punctuating it by putting out inflammatory negative information about someone is?  I'm not a public official or employee, but I've been one in the past, and what Shay and this Ludington City Council permits to happen is against all that we should expect of them.

Consider this Dale, even with the Ludington Daily News making a concerted effort to misrepresent easily verified facts and editorialize against me, I still eked out 30% of the vote against a popular two term incumbent in the at-large race who had a much larger campaign budget than me.  If I had had an actual fire in the belly, who knows what could have happened.

 

[XLFD]

Dale, the problem with coming here under false pretenses, and falsely defining issues is that it gets hard to be consistent with your own story over time.  A brief review of your posts, show that you do agree with the LOT and do believe that a citizen needs to petition over and over again and get an attorney to have them do the same just for the possibility of being allowed to enter a building to conduct Constitutionally-protected activities.

Lisa's response to you in this post was admirably on point.  Stale Dale

[XLFD]

Check out the top of page two on today's Ludington Daily News.  Once again Kevin Braniczeski showing his utter contempt for traditional journalism splashes the headline:  "Tykoski:  Donated Labor Kept Costs Low", and goes on to display why doing $15,001 of non-donated work before bids were even contemplated saved the City a bundle.  Also other revelations that seem to defy the public records I have received from the City.  I will post that and its refutal later after I am able to scan it.

[Lisa O'Brien]

That's funny - I wish there was an actual contract so I could read it. Please do post the article since I can't see it online. This is getting more and more interesting. I wish I was in Ludington right now so I could drive around and see these signs and formulate a scope of work and price out using NY material and labor charges (I'm curious on the bundle of money saved). I have to go back and look through these threads I could have sworn I seen labor charges on invoices.

[Lisa O'Brien]

Dale,

Thank you for publishing. I went back and saw one invoice (marked do not mail) and it did have design work listed as donation - I believe it was roughly $2000 (of course when I go back to find exact $ amounts I can't find the post - I don't screen shot sorry) and if memory is serving correctly there were 3 types of signs listed $2000 is a fair price for design/prototype work (again it was not charged to the city). He had listed labor as 2 men to install all the signs for $800. I think that is downright cheap.

I believe one of the complaints was that only 3 days were given to other companies to bid - I'm not sure what line of work you are in but 3 days is short notice to give a company to bid on a project. I've been on projects where it takes weeks just to get a proper scope of work.

I personally have no real opinion on the sign issue - other than it has a look of impropriety about it - I'm not saying there is it just looks odd.  I know with the company I work for - it is against company rules to buy anything more than a cup of coffee for anyone that we do business with.

[XLFD]

Look out, we've got ourselves a media feud erupting.

The other side of this controversy is more than welcome to express their defense here, anytime they want to.  But they won't because it will get challenged by the people. 

That doesn't apply at the Ludington Daily News, they have yet to contact our side since the election; nor do they offer any feedback besides an occasional letter to the editor, which they can choose not to publish. 

And lastly, but importantly, they claim to be the Daily News, while they publish six days a week.  And yet my research has shown there are seven days in a week.  Can you trust them to tell you anything else and believe it???!!! 

Between us and the Mason County Press, who needs the LDN anymore, unless you have over $5 to spend each week on birdcage liner.

 

[AQUAMAN]

There you go again stale Dale, your post of Nick's just goes to show, Nick is for Nick, and  no one else. 1) While Heather may not vote on such projects, she surely makes the grant applications for same, she solicits the bid(s)?, and has direct contact, in more than verbage, to the favored contractor, aka her fiance at that time, now wife. 2) X & I have both contacted the so-called non-bidders that were given exactly 3 days to come up with a complex signage contract, including being painted with 24 kt. gold leaf, that which is NOT in common practice with usual signage requests to those doing that work, therefore, they could not bid, plus they had no fair notice for such a larger project of special requirements, 3) I have yet to see any competitive bidder from GR with a bid entered that was produced by X's FOIA requests, why is it being withheld?, 4) the COL and NIck's formal statements are carefully planned so as to leave out the critical points of the DDA's inappropriate and probably unethical actions on the entire matter. That of collusion and violating the city's own ordinances against such contracts. Why did you see the payments all being made for identical same-contract work, all under the $10K statutory requirement per the ordinance, and I'm not talking about payments of say, $4K, then another $6K, maybe then several more for other figures, instead of all in those installments being the exact same amount that of around $9900, doesn't that in itself seem too coincidental, even if your blind? 5) Nick never admitted that his bid came in at a date that was in keeping with fraud, that of a very early date, before the other contractors even got notice to bid. Dale, you say you have a good job, great, just exactly what kind of a job grants you the privilege of posting at the Torch from 7:30am-9pm daily, roughly??? I looked at your posts the last several days, and it's like your on watch duty here, at least 12 hours a day, or is it your job to not only create chaos here, but to try your darnest to not only infiltrate, but somehow intimidate and destroy it? Like I said, many have come and gone, tried, to no avail.. Sorry, the gig is up, and you're just a putz in the COL's hands, or is it petty putty? Silly boy....lol. P.S. Big tip of the hat to Willy for his continued endeavor to demask this demon of spin doctor talk, cheap no-fact based talk, with no proofs, just more smoke and mirrors, expertly used, but to no avail. again for me.

[Willy]

Dale

Wanda and any other politician could post on the Torch and clear up any misconceptions in one post. She has not done that. And if you consider asking her pertinent questions about her job and abut what is going on at City Hall as "pounding" then you have skewed way of looking at forums. It is within her power to confirm or debunk any or all information presented here. Funny how you look at people who question Government leaders and their actions.

[Willy]

How does anyone know what is considered a "fair" price? That is the reason for competitive bids. If there is no paper work who knows if the City wasn't over charged even with "donated labor". There should have been competitive bids so that there is no question about the true cost of the sign installations and the public could make a comparison as to the work another contractor might have performed. It would be like me selling a car to the City for the Mayor to use. I mark the car  up 40% then knock of 35% so the City thinks they're  getting a great deal without checking other car prices. This whole situation could have been avoided if the ordinance had been followed.

In regards to Dales post:

1. The DDA originally planned to spend $150,000 on the signage, but actually spent less than $50,000.
2. The $100,000 savings, in large part, was accomplished thanks to a local company (Tye's Inc).
Are they trying to convince people that Tye signs donated $100,000 worth of work to the City during a recession? Really? What happened to the $100,000?

6. Shay acknowledged that a Grand Rapids firm did bid, but was "..much more expensive..".
I hope Shay saved the Grand Rapids company's bid proposal. How convenient  to have that one bid sitting on the side lines in case this situation was ever questioned.

7. The DDA sought proposals from other companies but received none.
I find that very hard to swallow. Are we to believe that no other companies would attempt to bid on a $150,000 project especially when work was slow and companies were cutting their prices during the recession.   

8. Heather Venzke is now Nick's wife.
9. Heather serves as an "ex officio" only member of the DDA and does not vote on any issues.
It doesn't matter if she did not vote. Just the fact that a monetary deal was struck between Heathers organization and her husband shows evidence of potential impropriety. Tye signs should have abstained from doing the work. These are the types of deals City ordinances are trying to avoid.

There shouldn't be two sides to this issue. That information in the LDN should match the information given to X in his FOIA requests. Why did they fail to provide X with the information. A little game playing perhaps. I wonder if the LDN had to file a FOIA for this material or was it hand delivered to the paper by government officials. And why has the LDN refused to print any other information about shady dealings at City Hall. All they have to do is contact X. Does anyone else see the word "conspiracy" flashing over the "Welcome to Ludington" sign.