Petition Fishin' Expedition

[XLFD]

Ignition   On August 9, 2012 I sent the City Of Ludington City Manager/FOIA Coordinator John Shay a request to inspect the petitions that were turned in to the City regarding reversing term limits for the Ludington Mayor's office from three four-year terms to five.  Four days later, the City's most recently adopted attack dog, Kaye Holman, offered a presentation at the City Council meeting that was short on facts, but long on innuendo as regarding a citizen who utilizes the FOIA  kaye-holman-freedom-of-information-fighter.

Politician   Kaye considered my efforts a fishing expedition, meant to harass the City.  She had no justification for those statements, but that's what she believes.  I believe her rambling rant was predicated by my FOIA request into seeing the petition papers, primarily because there is evidence that there were things, many of them legal technicalities, that certain City Officials overlooked or bypassed in the process of getting this petition ready for this fall.

Exhibition   Initially, WMOM reported on a story saying there was movement afoot to extend term limits via petition, so I sent a FOIA request in April:  "These requests deal with records concerning a recent local story that involves an alleged petition that would change the charter's section on term limits for elected officials and a petitioning group called the Committee for a Stronger Ludington:

1)  All signature lists, affidavits, and other related materials dealing with such a petition since January 1, 2011 to present.

2)  Any written record (E-mail, mail, etc.) between City Officials (including all members of the DLB/DDA) in that time period that discusses the amending of the "term limit" provisions of the City Charter to provide for more terms, or mentions the "Committee for a Stronger Ludington".

Omission  The reply came back on April 19, 2012 from FOIAC John Shay:  "I have attached the City of Ludington’s response to your FOIA request  April 19, 2012.pdf  .  This says that no documents exist that fits this FOIA request.  What does that mean?  It means that nothing had been filed with the City Clerk, but then that would mean that there had been no initiative started up to that point, April 19.  This is because Section 7.5 of the City Charter says very clearly: "b. Petitioner's Committee.  Any five (5) qualified voters may commence initiative or referendum proceedings by filing with the City Clerk an affidavit stating they will constitute the Petitioner's Committee and be responsible for circulating the petition and filing it in proper form, stating their names and addresses, and specifying the address to which all notices of the committee are to be sent, and setting out in full the proposed initiative ordinance or citing the ordinance sought to be reconsidered.

Promptly after the affidavit of the Petitioner's Committee is filed, the City Clerk shall issue the appropriate petition blanks to the Petitioner's Committee."

Supposition  No affidavit of the Petition Committee, filed with the City Clerk, existed before April 19, and so petition blanks should not have been issued by the City Clerk for this proposition before that time.  A Statement of Organization for the "Committee for a Stronger Ludington" was filed with the state on 3-5-2012, but this does not fulfill the local requirement (nor does it appear that any proposed initiative was offered to the state during this period).  State law says  MCL 117.4i   Each city may provide in its charter for the following:  (g) The initiative and referendum on all matters within the scope of the powers of that city and the recall of city officials.

Having an affidavit with the petitioner committee's names filed with the City Clerk is within the scope of powers of the City, and is incorporated in the charter; but this wasn't done, at least until April 19, so any signature dated before that date at the least is invalid for this petition.  There is a good likelihood that affidavit was never filed, because it's just an annoying legal technicality, at least that's what the City-official-packed Petitioner's Committee thought.  But it is legit City law.

Division   There are just under 6000 registered voters in the City of Ludington.  The Home Rule City Act, MCL 117.25 says that you need 5% of the registered voters in an 'city' to enact an initiated law.  That amounts to just under 300 signatures.  Sources say 308 valid signatures were gotten, I counted 302 definite signatures among the 47 pages of petitions.  Either way, the number of petition signatures would meet the state criterium.  But then there's that annoying City law, Section 7.5 of the City Charter, section c1, that now says 10% of the registered voters is needed, meaning about 300 more signatures.  I think this aspect of City law is illegitimate, but it does exist, and should be addressed and repealed (to the state's 5%) before this proposal is to be considered valid.  But even then...

Exhibition    ...there is the petitions and that lack of an affidavit on April 19, 2012.  Let's choose the best case scenario for the petitioners, that they actually filed an affidavit on April 19.  Then we have to disqualify the following signatures as being valid:

Milan (Budde) Reed's 1 signature here

Brandy Henderson's and 9 other sigs here

Gerry Hansen's and 11 other sigs here

In total, 8 signatures here (one signed on April 19!)

Joyce Usiak (petitioner) and 9 other sigs here.

In total, 9 signatures here.

Just Lori Kazymicki's one signature here.

Kathleen Fisher's (petitioner) and 10 other sigs here.

Fisher has 10 more 'early' sigs here.

Fisher has at least 6 more here.

The LFD Chief and his wife are the 2 here.

Barry Neal is one of 2 here.

Addition   There are thus 82 people whose signatures are disqualified from the petition's total.  That either puts you down to 220 or 226, depending on where you started.  That total only gets smaller if the affidavit was signed later than April 19.  The petition is invalidated by state and city law, and should never have been sent to the state by the City Clerk for consideration this fall.

Repetition   Clerk Luskin was a bit better at getting some of the "Election Lawbreakers" including Tim and Carrie Callihan who both signed on August 5 and August 7, with petitioners Heather Venzke and  Michele Johnson respectively.  Petitioner Heather got Lars Kvalvaag twice, once on April 16 and then on August 5.  At least 19 other people signed twice, as well, even when the petition says in capitals and boldfaced:  "A person who knowingly signs this petition more than once... is violating the provisions of the Michigan Election Law."

Attrition  More signatures were disallowed due to voter's signatures not matching their filed signatures (at least 7), they were not registered (at least 16), not registered at the address indicated on the petition (at least 16), and two had signatures dated after the date the petition was filed.  These were dutifully knocked off the original amount turned in (around 360).

Commission   The petitioner's committee, seemingly limited by the City to five, and, if not actually limited has to list its circulators/members.  The amount of petition circulators were far more than five, it was actually 20.  The original committee looks to have been made up of Heather Venzke, Gerry Hansen, Joyce Usiak, Kathleen Fisher, and Robert Neal.  Fourteen more made the push starting around August 4th.  Were these legal circulators?  City law wouldn't recognize them as such without a special affidavit, but State law is more forgiving.

Wishin'  Don't you wish you could choose what laws apply to you, and which don't?   The City Council has no problem passing laws which have no regards for civil rights guaranteed under the Constitutions of Michigan and the USA, all they need to do is have the City Attorney draft it, City Manager John Shay recommend it (both refuse to take the Constitutional Oaths of Office themselves), and then the City Council gets out there rubber stamps.  So now they can enter your house at any time to 'inspect your pipes', restrict you from entering a public place without any due process or rationale, and even say how you can feed your's, or other's, cats.

Sedition   Yet they never seem to follow their own City Charter, even when they're called on it.  Raise your salary from $50 to $3600 by putting aside $20,000 for 'transportation expenses' and then incorporating it into your salary.  Insist on having contracts competitively bid for projects over $10,000 in the charter, and then have a City Official who marries the Community Development Director get the signage project without a contract, without a competitive bid when started, and then an unfair bidding process later.  Mix that in with a lot of missing documents, a cover-up by the City Manager involving perjury in a FOIA appeal in Circuit Court, and violations of the Open Meetings Act, and you get an idea how corrupt our City Hall has become.  And that's just a start...

 

Finishin'  The City will run with this proposal, even if it is proved illegitimate in more ways than I have just shown; that's how corrupt governments work.  Kaye Holman, one of the 20 petition circulators, will demonize a citizen for asking questions, and trying to receive documents that may answer those questions, but don't be fooled by her, her fellow City Hallers, or her partners in the City of Ludington Daily News who will not even acknowledge the shortcomings of this petition, better yet, explain the cruel, hard truth away.  Proving that they can do anything, regardless of the laws saying they can't, is just one more way of showing the citizenry their power, which is close to pure tyranny.

[Jane]

If local gov't is this screwed up just think what goes on at the federal level. Term limits are the only way to stop such screwed up things. Absolute power corrupts absolutely isn't that the saying.

[Willy]

Another excellent job of researching X.

The problem with many ordinances and laws is in minor words that direct what action must be taken. I have taken the liberty of identifying one of them and showing how important it becomes when defining the meaning of any law. I'm not an attorney but this is how I read and interpret our laws.

"Omission
"b. Petitioner's Committee.  Any five (5) qualified voters may commence initiative or referendum proceedings by filing with the City Clerk an affidavit."

The problem with this section of the ordinance is that  the word "may" should have been "must". "Must" means that it is mandatory. So as I read it a "committee" isn't required to file before a petition is started. As long as a "committee" follows State law, which trumps local laws, the committee was not in violation. I also didn't read anything in the ordinance that would prohibit a  "committee" of 1 or that a "Petitioner's Committee" is even required. However, I agree with X that the committee should have filed. They did not, either because they did not realize they should or they understood the wording to mean it was not mandatory. Either way, it is important that the spirit of the laws be respected in order not to show the appearance of impropriety. These are the kind of actions that raise eyebrows and invite scrutiny of politicians actions and intentions

[AQUAMAN]

Hats off to ya again Willy, very astute observation and comments, proud to be friends too. This "petition of falsehood" and more spin doctor statements needs to be put under control. I would hope that X would follow this up with the "elections committees" that oversee this particular activitiy. And that it would be overturned, as it appears illegal and unconstitutional. Here's the important question: do we want a monarchy ruling Ludington for up to 20 years? , or a fresh new blood, not in a weak and undermined position with "locals", but a new vision for the "locals" to protect and defend the prosperity of them, not the TOURISTS ALONE!  Like we have seen all too often, and too many times of recent! It's OUR TAX dollars afterall, so why do locals suffer, while the tourist projects prosper? Just ask yourself!

[XLFD]

Willy has a very acute legal mind, and 'may' in the common vernacular can have two different meanings.  Being that this 'may' appears in a city charter means the legal version of 'may' is being used-- but is this any clearer? 

Not entirely, 'may' in the legal sense is defined:  "in statutes, and sometimes in contracts, the word "may" must be read in context to determine if it means an act is optional or mandatory, for it may be an imperative. The same careful analysis must be made of the word "shall." Non-lawyers tend to see the word "may" and think they have a choice or are excused from complying with some statutory provision or regulation."  "May" legal dictionary

 

The context in the Ludington City Charter is meant to confer the mandatory sense of that word; Willie's "must".  The optional sense, does not pass rigorous review-- unless you are one of six attorneys from Manistee working for the City of Ludington as City Attorney at the time and are on the clock to show why it is.

[snide]

Well X, it proves what I have been saying all along......We citizens (who are not in the "inner circle") have no right whatsoever to question anybody or anything that the City of Ludington does at any time.......good work, now get this info into the hands of a GOOD attorney or election official. NOW !

[XLFD]

I am going to bring it up at the next City Council meeting with our own election official, City Clerk Deb Luskin.  If anyone else wants to raise a ruckus with her before then, let me know how that turns out. 

If nothing is done, next week I will contact the County Election Board (currently Judge Raven, Cty Clerk Riffle, Cty Treasurer Hansen) along with the Secretary of State's office. 

[XLFD]

A complaint about the sufficiency of this petition has been sent to the City's election official, the County and State officials will be contacted next week if the City does not reply with a valid answer to the complaint by the end of this one.

[CLFD]

Why not let the voters decide?

[XLFD]

Why don't I just send along a letter to City Clerk Luskin saying I want a proposal on November's ballot calling for a limit of two terms for all elective offices to go on the ballot and see whether she would do that by violating the laws of our City and our State?

Better idea:  Why not preserve the republic by following the laws that have been passed by the Ludington City Councilors of the past and put in our City Charter?  Ones that don't violate Federal or State law themselves.

[CLFD]

Good point. I believe the law needs to be followed. My thought process was along the lines that you do not want such a proposal brought up to a vote. I could be wrong. Just sayin.

[XLFD]

I received a reply from the City Clerk which actually addressed my concerns today.  I believe she is in the right, and I am in the wrong on this.  It seems the section I was looking at was dealing with 'code' initiatives only, not 'charter amendments'.  If there is something in the code, mostly ordinances, it takes 10% of the voters to initiate a proposed amendment or a new ordinance and one of these petition committees.  It strikes me as odd the City Charter has a change of the Home Rule City's act that requires 10% in the first place for initiatives regarding City Codes, but the mayor's petition is sufficient, lawful, and can be placed on the ballot, to my belief, under the Home Rule Cities Act.  She said:

"You refer to Section 7.5 of the City Charter. This section deals with Codes of Technical Regulations which refer to the City Code (ordinances adopted by City Council), and this section does not refer to the City Charter. If someone wanted to initiate an ordinance for the City or change or nullify an existing ordinance, they would begin the process of taking out a petition and placing this on the ballot.

What the “Committee for a Stronger Ludington” did was a charter amendment. The original charter, as amended, was adopted by the people, on August 4, 1992 and not by the Council through an ordinance, so any changes to the charter are done through an amendment to the Charter, and the Charter refers to the process of making the amendment in Section 16.1 of Chapter 16 of the City Charter. This section states that any amendments are made in accordance with the Home Rule Cities Act."

[CLFD]

Moot?