City of Ludington Daily News: One Side to Every Story

[XLFD]

The City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) came out with the usual type of story it has become familiar with on the day after Ludington City Council meetings lately.  Usually, however, they try to misreport what I was saying or emphasize a minor point I might make out of context.  They did me a favor on September 11, 2012.  They ignored every single thing I said, even though I spoke for about ten minutes of this meeting which amounted to about a third of it.  COLDNews 9-11 LCC Recap

They emphasized my clothing as usual, and Fire Chief Funk's reaction to it in a couple of paragraphs.  Told the citizens that another FOIA appeal was denied in another, and spent three paragraphs talking about a victory of the City of Ludington over the presumed enemy of the people in a FOIA court case.  Nothing was said about what I said those ten minutes.  It must not have been too important to the COLDNews or the citizens.

                  I cross-examined John Shay for over two hours earlier this day and found out a bit about 'legal' FOIA charges

They are limited in providing the footage of such a meeting, but due to the miracle of the internet I can provide it here, along with the transcript of my initial speech (see 1:55 mark) and my speech in defense of my FOIA appeal (at 15:00).  If you want to see the City Officials gloating go to the 25:15 and celebrate with them in the joy of successfully twisting the law in their favor for now.

  

Opening Speech:  "

My name is Tom Rotta, my place is 137 E Dowland St.

It has been two weeks since I last addressed the council and asked City Manager John Shay to provide to the taxpayers of this city an itemized list of the $6500 his spokeswoman says I owe the City of Ludington for FOIA requests.  Put up or shut up.  I surely do not appreciate a third party spokeswoman, who is part of the panel of judges who will help decide yet another FOIA appeal today, announce at a public meeting that I am in arrears for thousands of dollars to the City, and am some kind of indigent deadbeat.  Why has asking for information, used for news articles investigating local topics of interest, become such an imposition for Ludington City Hall that they have to repeatedly publicly attack the requester of that information using slanderous misinformation and lies?  The corruption in my City is deep-rooted and needs to be addressed by opening up the public records for all to see the extent of it, by getting rid of those who are at the vanguard of the forces that suppress information, and by insisting our local newpaper to start acting like a watchdog for the people, instead of a guard dog for City Hall.

I was unprecedentedly restricted from coming to the City Hall or Police Station for 14 months by a quickly formulated and passed City policy called the Workplace Safety Policy ostensibly because I represented some sort of threat to someone I had never formally met or contacted before, but this was not the real reason.  The ban made it impossible for me to inspect FOIA documents without the express written permission of the same person who enforced the ban, who was the FOIA Coordinator-- unelected City Manager John Shay.  Guess how many times I was permitted to come into the City Hall to see records during that ban?  Zero.

Ludington City Hall was the place I needed to go to vote in elections, yet I was not given permission to come into City Hall to vote for myself last November, not to mention attend a candidates forum hosted by the City of Ludington Daily News.  In February, I still couldn't vote in the primaries because even with a state investigation into my allegation of voter disenfranchisement in November, I was still not able to get to my polling place because John Shay failed to give me permission.  With increasing pressure from outside sources, Shay finally reversed the policy in the spring of this year, but indicated that it could still be replaced on me.  The horrible thing is that this policy can be placed on anyone here in Ludington, and anyone can be restricted from any public place if the unelected City Manager, who refuses to even take a state-mandated oath of office, wants to do so.

I must thank Councilor Wanda Marrison for asking John Shay last meeting about the fee structure the City uses for determining how much to charge for FOIA requests.  Shay publicly announced in his reply:  "we follow the City's FOIA policy.  $.25 per page, if the total cost of the request exceeds $50 then we can also charge our labor to compile the information, examine the information to see if anything is exempt."

He misstates the policy, because he states that if the total cost of the reply exceeds $50 then he can charge for labor costs, but the policy says if the labor costs, just labor costs, exceed $50 then he can charge for those costs lawfully.  Then he says "If the cost is less than $50, then we cannot charge for labor."

That follows the City policy, but he has repeatedly charged for labor costs for requests with labor costs under $50, contrary to City, State and Federal law of FOIA.  Just during my 14 month ban, I had the following replies {get copies} to my requests violating this policy or our request to simply inspect records.  Including a March 7 2011 request to see the actual policy I was charged with.  John Shay's reply for this FOIA request asked for $31 of fees for labor.

Mayor Henderson has stated here this summer that John Shay is the most ethical man he knows.  The FOIA responses I am not illegally priced out of has shown him to be quite the reverse, and shown he has been very permissive of unethical and unlawful activities under his administration.  You are judged by your friends and your neighbors, Mayor."

Apparently there wasn't enough meat in that opening salvo, and apparently there was no fact I represented that the City of Ludington Daily News figured was important enough to pass along that rose to the level of public interest rather than my choice of T-shirt.  Or any fact that they wanted to contest as fiction.  I am still waiting for that $6500 price tag, John Shay, with valid charges unlike the ones that were brought forth in court.

Here was the appeal I made for my FOIA request, which was later refuted by City Attorney Dick Wilson by saying the City can refuse me to inspect the records because the City wanted to charge for scanning rather than have me come and scan myself.  He then said there was definitely some records between the City Attorney and the City's attorney that had the attorney-client privilege that fell in my request.  They didn't fall within my request.  There was nothing newsworthy in this speech either, other than it was denied.

"I am once again before you with an appeal of a ruling by the City Manager as to a FOIA request.  This request asked for records involving Joseph McAdam's lawsuit with the City.  This lawsuit involved the repeated tasering of a Ludington citizen on the streets of Ludington in 2009 by a Ludington policeman and County deputies, followed by the repeated tasering of the same man when he was handcuffed to a hospital bed at Memorial Medical Center.  According to the deposition of the Ludington cop, who is now a county deputy, and the others involved, the citizen's only 'crime' was to inobtrusively record a traffic stop involving his mother made by another Ludington cop and to not get back on his bed he was cuffed to at the hospital.  One has to wonder why the City of Ludington Daily News has never reported anything about this in the over three years its been out there.  The request was to inspect and or receive scans of: 

1)  Court-related documents (the Complaint, Summons, discovery, etc.) received by the City and/or its officials regarding the lawsuit brought against the City and/or its officials by the McAdam party (Sue?), which is slated to be a topic of discussion on Monday night in closed session.

2)  Court-related documents sent to the McAdam party from the City and/or its officials/attorneys in response to that suit, and any countersuit, if applicable.

3)  All communications in the City's possession regarding the dispute in question between the McAdam party and the City of Ludington occurring prior to the lawsuit being filed.

John Shay's response stated there would be two hours of scanning documents required for the request.  This is the first time he has requested a fee for scanning time, this is a questionable fee he can charge for, and since I asked to inspect with the option of using my scanner, this was an unnecessary charge, and not allowed by FOIA under the circumstances of my request.  He also did not choose the lowest paid employee capable of doing so.

He also stated that it would take him two hours to review and remove exempt material from those records, the only exemption he noted was the attorney-client privilege.  The court documents filed have no such privilege, they are viewable by all parties.  The communications I ask for in 3), are between opposing parties in a lawsuit, not confidential material between a person and his lawyer.

Being that there is no exemptions in the requested records, John Shay is asking me to pay him $63.64 per hour for two hours of him doing nothing.  Don't we taxpayers already do that? Once again, John Shay is wanting to conduct public extortion while doing his job.  Councilors, if you think that's unacceptable then vote accordingly.

The City has already spent a lot of its resources covering up the facts behind this lawsuit, even called a closed session to discuss a lawsuit that the City and its officials are not even a party to anymore at the last City Council meeting.  By all means, endorse this shroud of secrecy by affirming the FOIA Coordinator's ridiculous and illegal charging of fees adding up to $153.42 on this request alone.  I think it effectively illustrates how the City Manager with the City Council's approval often adapts the FOIA fee structure to suit the need to keep the public documents safe from viewing by the public, who owns those documents by law."

[Willy]

If an outsider tuned into Ludingtons shenanigans the only conclusion they would arrive at is what the he_l is the matter with Ludingtons City officials. It is just mind boggling that a citizen is being put thru this nonsense not only by local Government but by the pro unethical politicians friend the Ludington Daily News. If this wasn't a true story it would be almost laughable. Shame on Ludington City Council, Mayor, Manager and Ludington Daily News. They represent all that's wrong with abusive, shameless  politicians and lousy newspaper reporting.

[XLFD]

The staff of the COLDNews should be playing it a little more carefully.  If their far-away parent company was apprised of the poor journalistic practices our local paper has been utilizing, the editors may find themselves out of a job and starting up their own blog.  Maybe Eye on Ludington can be revived.

[Willy]

From what I have seen of the press now a days I don't think the parent company gives a damn what's in their newspapers a long as they make a profit.

[AQUAMAN]

Just a couple of questions: 1) where are our elected councilors, 3, and a chief of LPD at? Sickness is not a great excuse this time of year, January, yes, September, all coincidentally? C'mon! 2) do these absent council members get paid anyhow? 3) very nice theatrical show as usual by the remaining council members too, "beautiful" sayeth the Mayor at the end too, just wondering, how long does the play last when every motion and support of it are pre-orchestrated for the public? 4) which Judge made that FOIA case lose, COOP Again? We all know where his allegiances are, and it's not for the public or locals, it's Always for the COL and MC officials, right? 5) and lastly, ever wonder what's in all those "party cups" that all the council members continue to gulp down? Yes, the one's that either have Liberal tainted Koolaid or Scotch in them? If this isn't Democracy gone awry and wrong, to the point of puking, I guess I just missed the boat for freedom......sad.

[XLFD]

Answers, not necessarily correct ones are asterisked:  *1)  Love Boat (Johnson paired with Marrison, Barnett paired with Holman)   2)  Yes, they were all excused   3) The play lasts as long as the citizenry allow it to   4)  Judge Mark Wickens, Coop's 'boss' in the 51st Circuit Court, and not a big fan of critiques to his protege's lack of propriety  *5)  Both beverages you mention combined, with HoF ice cream added in the summertime

[CLFD]

Willy

I agree the parent company expects to see a profit. Isn't that the primary reason that the LDN even exists?

I disagree that it is the only thing thing the parent company cares about though. They would not want their LDN to violate laws.

I am not sure what the LDN mission statement is. Do you know it right off the top of your head? I will look it up if you do not have it. I am curious.

[AQUAMAN]

Anyone think that "mission statememts" are a cure or cause of actual life's actions? It may be a nice book cover, but it certainly does not reflect what individuals have and continue to do at the LDN on a daily basis in unfair, biased, and inept one-sided reporting, at least when it comes to local politics and it's membership. Those people control a very important and crucial tool, that of the flow of information to the public, and when that's tainted, it no longer is the tool of a free press it is supposed to represent. Like X said at the last CC mtg., the LDN has the responsibility to be a watchdog for the public, not a guard dog for the COL. That may seem harsh, but as we have seen many times over a short period of just the FOIA issues, the LDN is on the same team as the COL, and NOT the public it should be looking out for. Begnoche fully believes that the FOIA law is being abused by X, and don't support him, and I believe it's pure jealousy and fear of truthful revelations that has the LDN on the constant defensive, because X does the job for the love of it, not the money. That's the dif. between a successful individual, and a failure, imho.

[Willy]

CLFD

I disagree with you on your first paragraph. Unlike most other businesses newspapers aren't started for profit. Of course they must make a profit to survive but the initial reasons are to disseminate news and information. The problem with some newspapers is that profits for some have become their most important concern. If news gathering and dispersal were the ultimate goal of LDN, we wouldn't have reporting that reflects lies, deceit, misinformation, incomplete information and collusionary relationships with politicians.

[XLFD]

I am simply stunned that the son of a successful downtown businesswoman was assaulted by local police in the manner described in the documents of the McAdam lawsuit, and we don't hear anything about it until three years later.  Then it is completely ignored when the topic comes up at two Ludington City Council meetings. 

Even though the newsmen at WMOM aired my lawsuit with the City at Friday's daybreak, COLDNews still hasn't thought enough of the topic to delegate it to the two papers they put out since then.  Says a lot, but I am sure the main reason they haven't is that City Hall doesn't work over the weekend, and hasn't wrote the rebuttal story for them yet.

[Willy]

X

Are you sure they didn't put it in the paper back then? Another thing, how is it possible the police did not know who the McAdams were as per the police's testimony. The police had to have dealt with them since they run a bar. I think this was a set up and the police were waiting to nail them because I bet the police have  had trouble with some of McAdams customers and the McAdams may have made a complaint about the police harassing those customers. There could be bad blood between the police and McAdams. I'm just speculating because that's all I can do since we aren't getting any information from the Lazy Dazy News regarding this story.

[XLFD]

I am not 100% sure, but I remember taser topics came up on Ludington Talks frequently during 2009, and most were quickly removed once it got to that forum.  To my knowledge, the incident was never put in the COLDNews, and you definitely can't find it in the E-edition archives.

 Here's a recent Muskegon Chronicle article on it, the reporter using only the information it could find in the COLDNews (note the comment about another FOIA appeal):  http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2012/08/report_city_of...

[Eye On Ludington]

Great News! Eye On Ludington is in the process of making a comeback. We will Xamine the current lawsuit by Rotta and disect it line by line. What sinister deeds lay beneath the surface. Stay tuned for a link and updates.