Ludington City Council Special Meeting January 23, 2020: A New Legal Perspective?

[XLFD]

The eleventh official Committee of the Whole meeting of the Ludington City Council took place at 6:00 PM on Thursday, January 23 for the express purpose of discussing the proposals received by the City for city attorney services.  Other than all seven councilors, Councilor Rozell's relatives and myself, the only other attendees were Fire Chief Jerry Funk, City Clerk Deb Luskin and City Manager Mitch Foster-- which suggests that the topic wasn't a big enough draw to get people coming.  I offered a couple of suggestions at the end of the meeting to make it more interesting to the public for the next time.

The packet for the meeting has the proposals and specs for the two law firms that supplied proposals to the city:  the current law firm, Mika Meyers (MM), and a combo pack of Ludington's Carlos Alvarado law firm (CAL) supporting the Traverse City based law firm Olson, Bzdok, and Howard PC (OBH).  

The city manager clarified a few things for the public.  He had the option of spending $1200 to advertise on the State's bar or look at the local bar (presumably not the drinking establishment type of bar) and check with independent attorneys and firms in the local area.  He chose the latter, and considered potential team-ups if one firm or attorney wasn't good enough, finding only the OBH/CAL coalition.

Wednesday, a team of five staff members consisting of Foster, Clerk Luskin, Asst. CM Jackie Steckel, Mark Barnett, and Building Administrator Carol Ann Foote interviewed three people from OBH/CAL:  Carlos Alvarado, Ross Hammersley and Lydia Barbash-Riley.  Their questions were given to the councilors this evening (albeit without the answers) and the recommendation of these five staff members were unanimous in approving this team over the current city attorney law firm.

A major reason is that they had what looks to be a better value.  Mika Meyers offered an agreement with a $4500/mo. retainer, plus $215/hr. for all 'special projects' that require legal skills that fell outside the standard duties.  OBH/CAL offered a higher retainer $5000/mo., but smaller hourly rate ($190 or $175 depending), and offered FOIA services as a bonus. 

So whereas the retainer rate would be $6000 more per year for OBH/CAL, the free FOIA service saved about $12,000-- effectively getting the $6000 in their favor as low bid.  Furthermore, if there were to be special projects, and there always is, the City would pay $25-40 less for every hour worked.  Strictly financially, the choice was clear.

Other factors were looked at.  Councilor Winczewski fairly compared what she considered the strengths and weaknesses of both offers and firms, though this environmental activist couldn't help but be impressed with OBH's impressive record in enviro-law.  Councilor Johnson also offered some praise for the current attorney, Richard Wilson, but he and others chiming in were a little bit sour on him missing the legal requirement for having a closed session at the 11-25-2019 meeting.

In Richard's defense, the City's civil attorney, Brad Yanalunas, defending the City against multiple OMA violations made over the last decade failed to see the issue too-- as did the police chief and a half dozen other officials in their official seats.  In their combined 80+ years of participating in open meetings and all the OMA lawsuits, they should have had a clue that going into closed session with four of seven may present a problem.

                                                    Mika Meyers' PLC main office, Grand Rapids

Foster related an anecdote that he heard from OBH the previous day showing their values.  It involved them achieving the position of village attorney for a northern town, noticed that they were enforcing unwritten laws, and insisted that they needed to codify the rules to continue their service.  Mayor Steve Miller pointed out a new stipulation in the MM contract which he thought was a move in the right direction, whichever attorney was selected regarding periodic evaluations of the position to make it more accountable.  

Perhaps the most amusing part of the evening was when Foster's voice gave away and he asked Chief Funk to retrieve him a glass of water from the back sink.  The chief did it with his most impressive incredulous look, as if he had been demoted to a probationary firefighter.  When Foster was relating pertinent issues affecting the City he mentioned that the new fire station had been having some problems with the plumbing and with flooring. 

According to the chief after the meeting, the woman's restroom toilets flood on occasion and the adhesive on some of the tiles is bubbling up and both are scheduled to be examined and corrected by the station's first anniversary on February 3rd.  Foster would also relate that he and other coastal city executives attended a Michigan Municipal League conference in Lansing hoping to get some relief from high water issues and damages.  

At the public comment at the end of the meeting, I expressed what I thought would have been a better way to conduct the meeting, by having OBH/CAL's attorneys Hammersley and Alvarado on one side, and MM's attorneys Wilson and (George) Saylor on the other side with each making his legal case as to why the City should hire them for the job, the mayor acting as judge, the councilors as jurors who would make the decision on their fate on Monday. 

I think it would have been an excellent way to show their skills at their job, help out those councilors who may be sitting on the fence, and would be entertaining for all.  And the marketing possibilities:  The Council's Counsel Carnage at Harrison Street-- be there, be there, BE THERE.  Face it, city hall would be standing room only for this thrilla in manila folders.

I also recommended a less extreme notion that it would be more of a draw for the general public to attend committee of the whole meetings if the agenda would allow the public to comment at the beginning and end of the meetings, just as they are allowed at normal meetings.  When the agenda only allows citizens/taxpayers to talk at the very end of the meeting (as most COTW meetings have) or not at all (as one had) it strengthens the appearance that the city council is not interested in learning what the public thinks on a matter of public policy. 

I am hopeful they consider that change for the better for future committees of the whole.

[Du Wright]

Good reasoning for being able to speak before a decision is made on a subject by city council, so they can hear public input before a vote. I think it is also good for the public to have an opportunity to speak at the end after discussions are made

Thank you for the recap of the meeting.

[XLFD]

Your welcome.  Back in 2016(?) when the Ludington City Council voted on Councilor Krauch's motion to change the public comment period of 5 minutes at the front of the meeting to 3 min. at the top and 2 min. at the end, I believe they did so as a means of somehow diluting my usual 5 minute message, either that or because they figured it would be more difficult to make a complete point over some of the city's more complex graft and corruption schemes.  He had also limited what could be discussed, which has since been lifted.

If the City's objective is to open lines of communication with citizens, the easiest way is to allow the public to voice their comments at the fore and aft of the meeting's business at every open city meeting.  This permits the public to not only proactively influence the discussion, but also to offer near-instant reaction to the public body's decisions.  I actually prefer the new system, though I wish they would extend the limit from 2 to 3 minutes at the end. 

[XLFD]

Here is a summary of the interview that staff had with Ross and Lydia of OBH.  This is found in the council packet for 1-27-20 which has 411 pages.  

[XLFD]

You gotta love the hypothetical situation portrayed in question 8; I'm glad we don't have any of those around these parts:

[Freedom Seeker]

"... to disprove city hall?"  That's a negative implication.  What about the not-so-highly educated who just want answers, maybe to prove city hall is right?  Oh well, the answer was good to start with:  "no need for a formal request for something simple."  The part about "discouraging" the public by using timesheets and  "charging" for continued request may be a challenge.  The summary is good, at least, "... the law is written for the public to access information...."  This is a problem we need attorneys to solve, we're dealing with difficult "highly educated people" who want answers.  How dare they have questions.  Hmmm, I wonder who that could be?

[Du Wright]

I find it odd that the the city council didn't choose to hear the interviews. I guess too busy to convene a meeting? How can the council make a good selection from a summarized version of paper notes from an interview? Well of course then they'd have to involve the public, and maybe they don't want to be bothered, but I think for a position as important as the attorney, the council should have chosen to hear the interviews. And the mayor didnt attend?

[XLFD]

The mayor gave no indication that he attended the original interview.  I think it was a disservice to Richard Wilson and Mika Meyer PLC not to give him an opportunity to present his case as this interview with the OBH lawyers gave them what seems to be an unfair advantage.  I hate to defend a Mika Meyer attorney, but it seems like he and MM could have a valid grievance against the City of Ludington should they choose the other firm. 

A bit of advice I would like to expound to the leaders of Ludington:  You don't want to get rid of your old city attorney in any method that could be viewed by a reasonable person as 'unfair'.  They're attorneys after all, and there are plenty of competent labor attorneys in Mika Meyer.

[Willy]

Wouldn't that be the most ironic of situations. Dueling attorneys costing the City millions. Maybe the current City Attorney can give some legal advice on how to choose their replacement without creating grounds for a lawsuit.