Ludington City Council 4-22-2013: Red Eyes at Mourning, Sailor Take Warning

The city council  meeting this week had little of note planned beyond the consideration of three ordinances, and some approval of summertime activities.  A consultant from Consumer's Energy and the Boji Group did show up and request the city pass the typical resolution for the State's planned data center set to go in near the Pumped Storage Project, and the mayor dutifully agreeing to do so at the next meeting. 

The meeting became interesting thanks to a public comment made by the usual suspect, fresh from picking up a mayoral nominating petition the previous business day.  He waived the typical introduction of himself that most candidates for office perform as a matter of ritual, instead going into some meat and potato topics of the three "O"s:  the ordinances, the open meeting act, and officer (LPD) Aaron Sailor.  Following the video is the transcript of the man's speech, Mayor Henderson's rebuttal (properly annotated), and the COLDNews review (in context).  Further comment and court records on Sailor's history will follow, as well as a review of City Attorney Wilson's comments in future threads.

(3:15 in)  "My domicile is 137 E Dowland, I'm Tom Rotta.   The three ordinances to be discussed tonight, one for the first reading, all provide previously ungranted rights to merchants, at the expense of the rights of everyone else.  Merchants will now be able to crowd out our downtown right of way, making the sidewalks potentially a five foot wide maze with pedestrians weaving between sidewalks and bump-outs, instead of the reasonable passage they have now.  Likewise, merchants will be able to crowd people out of our parks by selling alcoholic beverages within fenced in areas of those parks. 

Will the privileges afforded to a few, counterbalance the inconveniences and disenfranchisements of the many?  Likely not, but the City Council as of late has shown a proclivity to bend to the privileged few of this town.  And overlook the actions of its officials.

At the last regular meeting, this city council went into closed session under section 8e of the open meetings act to "consult with its attorney regarding trial or settlement strategy in connection with specific pending litigation"  They specified this was based on the lawsuit of Burns (a citizen) vs. Sailor (a Ludington police officer). 

In the suit which alleges assault and battery by Officer Sailor, as well as violations of plaintiff's rights under the color of law, we find that the City was never a defendant in this case, and the City council never made a decision to assist the defendant in this case.  So why was our City Council going into a closed session to consult with Officer Sailor's attorney about this case, why did John Shay attend a mediation session representing Officer Sailor, and why would such a consultation have a possible detrimental financial effect on the City-- who was not a party to this suit?

Therefore, the City violated the Open Meetings Act by providing Officer Sailor legal representation without the deliberations and decisions of that choice taking place at an open meeting of the City Council, and then violated the OMA once again by going into closed session unlawfully when the consultation would not have a detrimental financial effect on the litigating or settlement position of a public body, as 8e necessitates, since it never was a party to the suit and never committed to aiding the officer. 

Compounding the problem is that they came out of this closed session and voted to follow the attorney's advice, whatever it was.  Court records show that facilitative mediation had reached a settlement between Burns and Sailor, and that the court acknowledged that on April 15, and dismissed the case with prejudice.  The settlement, whatever it was, was apparently approved by the vote after the closed session, but how are we to know with our current secret-keeping city hall?  The Ludington City Council has a duty to the citizens they supposedly serve to tell us what the vote was for that night and how they settled this lawsuit. 

And you know a good reason why?  It’s because the police officer in this case has a colorful history of brutality on the job, and violating the rights of innocent people. 

Like Police Chief Mark Barnett, Officer Sailor came out of Oakland Community College, and got on the police force of the City of Pontiac.  While on the Pontiac force, he was taken into the Federal Court system twice by common citizens with charges very similar to what Ms. Burns attested to.

In August 2003, [papers] Rookie Pontiac Officer Sailor admitted to striking several innocent people with his closed fist and his footlong flashlight, people that he perceived were not threatening him at the time.  The case was settled out of court at great expense to the taxpayers.

In February 2006, [papers] the federal court magistrate's report stated Pontiac Police Officer Sailor along with another policeman choked, beat, struck with a sap, and threw into a wall an unresisting, drunk man who had committed no crime.  They further slammed an innocent woman's head into a dryer and lead both underclothed and handcuffed out into the February air.  The case was settled out of court at the expense of the taxpayers.

In February 2012, [papers] LPD officer Sailor busted into a Ludington citizen's house without displaying a warrant, and then allegedly pushed an innocent woman in that house onto the floor, injuring her greatly.  The case was settled out of court, at an unknown expense to the taxpayers.

If Aaron Sailor wasn't a policeman, he would have just suffered, in under ten years, his third strike in the category of assault and battery.  In Ludington, however, our Chief of police praised him being a hero just last month here for helping to subdue Lowell Fetters and I can only regret that I can't unclap."

I had one more sentence, but was curtly cut off by Mayor Henderson at five minutes, it would have been:  " For public safety measures, the City of Ludington needs to drop this officer and his potential for future liability to us all, and the danger he presents to the innocent citizens of this town."  

 

I think most of you will agree once I show those court records.  But did anyone show any sort of interest in the past actions of someone who goes out into our community 40 hours a week and dispenses justice in a manner inconsistent with established social norms?  Mayor Henderson showed his usual lack of concern for one of his own city officers being accused of impropriety, attacking the message and the messenger:

(36:45 in) Mayor Henderson:  "Earlier we had a citizen stand up in public comment and really, in my opinion, poorly address one of our officers... [someone had to] and Mark I know that you'll hear about that [Chief Mark must have seen this already on Sailor's records coming onto the LPD.  It says volumes that he hired him given the prior conduct of Officer Sailor].  Officer Sailor has done a wonderful job for us [the undisputed allegations against him by innocent bystanders notwithstanding].  These type of things come up and go down [like Officer Sailor's flashlight on non-threatening citizens of Pontiac], and the particulars of this lawsuit we can deal with in a future thing [any future thing will ignore the particulars, much as the City has ignored FOIA law about this already] but the accusations of that and the carrying on is.. I don't think is fair for him, it's a poor characteristic [characterization] of him; it's not right, he's not here to defend himself [bring him next council meeting, allow me some time, and I'll cross examine him on the three federal lawsuits.  How can you get more fair than that?]. 

But someone has the right to stand up and say what they want [not in Ludington, see related topics on our own freedom of speech queller:  the Workplace Safety Policy], and not give another person the right to defend themselves.  This is just making a poor choice to attack somebody [tell THAT to Officer Sailor], so if you would (to Police Chief Barnett) you know, you honored him, he deserved that honor, nobody should try to take that from him, and if you would pass that on to him or have him stop by my residence, I'd be sure to square that up with him. [...but don't have that injured Burns lady come by, she's such a killjoy]"

 

The City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) Patsi Klevorn came out with an interesting report the next day on page two.  She had fewer mistakes than usual, but here was the article followed by the usual critique.

 

Paragraph two could be better written by saying that "Rotta (didn't City Councilor Gary Castonia chide me two meetings ago for being disrespectful to City Manager John Shay for only using his last name in a reference to him?  Yes he did.) is known for inquiring into the affairs of local governments, redressing the actions of public officials through court processes when necessary,for winning such a law suit involving the Open Meetings Act, and bringing issues to the public forefront at city council meetings after being arbitrarily banished from that venue for fourteen months." 

In paragraph three, I must remind Patsi that I have already joined the three other residents who have taken out petitions for mayor; this fact is not contingent on whether I turn in that petition.  She then is okay until paragraph 7, where I was 'complaining' about the OMA and honoring Sailor.  She mentions but includes no direct reference to Sailor's legal complaints in other areas (but doesn't mention his local complaint).  Pretty shoddy, when she could have easily researched the previous lawsuits with her resources, and check out my concerns.  Elitist as always, Patsi rubs salt in the wounds of the victorious plaintiff in the federal lawsuit by repeating Mayor Henderson's praise of Sailor's wonderful job (of entering a house uninvited, without displaying a warrant when asked, and then pushing an innocent bystander down to the ground, injuring her). 

 

This is your Mayor and your local newspaper, unashamedly idolizing errant public officials while ignoring the common citizens of this town

Views: 1515

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Very well reported and with the usual correct and accurate responses to shoddy LDN reporting again, and stretching the truth to match what city hall councilors expect from their local patronizing newspaper source. I must disagree with the city attorney on his garbled and perplexing statements about open meetings regarding the Sailor case also. If in fact there is a duty to defend, as he quite correctly pointed out, that duty then is quite presumptuously, squarely,  and legally with the insurance company that holds that policy, not the city of Ludington. The insurance company has ALL the needed expertise and attorneys to defend the "agent/employee" that the city employs, and the city council has no business to have secretive meetings about this at all. Point in fact is if, and only if, the city of Ludington should have public discussions on such legal matters that they themselves are not named in, then they also have the responsibility and duty to make that information public. As for His honor Jonnie, we can only expect that he will defend his down-state Detroit buds anytime, and anywhere, including but not limited to Chief Barnett, and Sailor himself. You really kinda got to wonder, why does our Chief of Police hire such thugs, obviously knowing his past infractions, and past assaults. It's called getting a bud a job, one familiar with exerting, and abusing his use of authority. Also from the down-state place he himself was schooled and employed at. Same as the Mayor. I did notice this round of talking, that His Honor has that same contagious disease as Obama, and Pelosi, the continued and repetitive speech impediment of uh, uh, uh, uh, uh over and over again. And  I also noticed again he does not speak from the heart, nor the mind. It's all written down for him like a teleprompter message, that of damn the torpedos, full speed ahead, at anyones cost, and anytime, everytime. A parrot could have carried the same message, but with more polish and belief, imho. X, your last sentence hit the nail on the head, thanks for the update.

I have dissected the City Attorney's words and reviewed the law on another thread I'm going to be putting out later today.  Concurrently, I have ordered the information for Ludington's insurance policy with MMRMA, which (looking at their webpage) doesn't look to be the universal nostrum for all liabilities as Mr. Wilson seems to think it is.  Let's not forget, this is the same legal eagle that said, that irregardless of the facts/truth, publicly calling someone a 'perjuror' or the like is slander, libel or defamation.   

Richard Wilson and his Manistee law firm is a legal liability for Ludington, inept lawyers who would rather see the citizens of Ludington cry or get pushed around by authorities than do their duties as a "City Attorney", one of which is to swear an Oath of Office and another to balance his duties as legal advisor to the city and doing what's right as a public servant.  As for Mayor Henderson, don't be surprised if he gets in the Freedom Festival parade in 2014 wearing a pirate outfit and riding in the ship with other parrotheads.  This year, he'll of course walk in his red shirt behind the mayormobile complete with city-purchased Tye signage.  Aarrrgh, matey.

I have met Officer Sailor and he has been a very nice person with my encounters.  It seems people want to just file silly lawsuits against city officials for many. Reasons, maybe Burns wanted money or like lawsuits made by tom, just to draw attention to ones self.  Its funny Tom never gets the full story of things that happen.  Where is the full story of this silly lawsuit Tom?  Where are the statements by the people who were there?  Why did Officer Sailor enter the house?  Were there other Officers there or just Sailor?  What were the injuries to this lady? Was she hospitalized??? You claim she had this terrible injuries but you dont list them.  You list parts of articles it seems or you assume things and try making them seem like they are the facts and the story.  Try getting full stories before you bash one people and try destroying their names.  You know how many people file lawsuits against police officers just try gaining money or the fact they are anti law enforcement, such as Tom.  Do us all a favor a move so YOU can stop costing the real Tax payers money.

You want to run for Mayor, but all do you is sit here and bash the city and people who actually pay taxes, and work.  What is your job Tom?  What do you do that benefits the city and what do you bring to the city?  

 

Hulk, please note I use my REAL name. I am not from Ludington and do not know Tom Rotta,however, by choice have put myself in the same position as he, that is speaking out.  
"I have met Officer Sailor and he has been a very nice person with my encounters." you say, so is knowing him,  liking him your need to protect him?  Are you being objective or subjective?
I don't want to have a position on a city council or be the mayor BUT I do have the right to question those who chose to be public servants. 
What Tom Rotta or I do or not do have nothing to do with anything.I am assuming he is a taxpaying resident of Ludington and as you and I have the freedom to express our opinions.
Seems that you want your say but not Tom Rotta.  Why do you read this page?

Hulk,

I have put out the original complaint for Ms. Burns and the reply by the Risk Management Attorneys in another thread.  I am sure that Officer Sailor is probably very nice to the right people.  I have also read the previous court records of Aaron Sailor's previous encounters, even read excerpts from his depositions.  I will put it out for public consumption, unlike Ludington Police Chief Mark Barnett, who chose to say nothing at the City Council meeting, because all of what I said was true, and he knows it.  Protecting the citizens from rogue police officers is a better public service than looking the other way.

Thanks for your defense, Linda, Hulk has commented before on these pages, and he rarely goes higher than his namesake in reasoned thought. 

XLFD, why did Officer Sailor go into the house?  Was there other Officers with him?  What were Ms Burns injuries?  Was she admitted to the hospital? 

Its easy to rip apart someone when you have one side of the story, but its unethical.  Anyone can file a complaint against a police officer.  I bet it happens more often than we all thing.  People will have a family member get arrested in front of them for a crime and they will do what  a lot of family members do and try to defend them.  When defending them doesnt work or isnt enough, they will go after the police officer in anger to try and get them in trouble.

I could have my house searched or i could be pulled over and not like the outcome and file a complaint on one of the officers.  It seems pretty easy.  But in your world there is one side to every story.  Maybe the Chief of Police didnt respond to you because he feels his response would be a waste to you.  You come here and degrade him and degrade his men and women.  You come on here and degrade the Sheriff and his men and women.  Then a lawsuit comes out and you want answers from the people you show zero respect to.

Also, in my last post I mention how you are running for mayor and if I am going to take you serious, people of this city would like to know what you do as work and how you are a beneficial citizen to this city.  Do you shop local?  Do you attend city events?  Do you help out a local city events?

Yes I can answer all those questions easy.  I asked them to Tom because he only put out one side to the story.  I would love him to answer those questions.  Obviously he doesn't have the answers, since he didn't respond and has other people fight his battles for him.

The point of my posts is that anyone can file a complaint and its very common now for people to file lawsuits against police officers, due to the settling prices people get and its a way for sick minded people to make a dime.  That is why I asked her injuries, was there other officers there that witnessed what happened, and was Ms Burns upset a family member got arrested so she blamed one off the Officers?   You see this crap to much around cities these days.  People want a quick buck, file a law suit, it costs more money to prove an officers innocence than to give the dirt bag money that they want and most likely need, for medical bills, which is probably the reason in this case.  Officer Sailor could easily file a lawsuit on Rotta for slandering his name without all the facts.  But since Tom has nothing to lose in a lawsuit it seems like it would be pointless. 

Hulk,

Thanks for answering EyE's questions by not answering them.  Nobody except the parties present that night can answer some of those questions you pose, however, actions afterwards do often speak louder than words.  Instead of badgering the messenger, you should use some of your energy into requiring answers from your public servants who are spending your money on things without your knowledge of them. 

I can't say you are new to this forum Hulk so you should have noticed by now that X is 10 times more thorough at presenting both sides of an issue than the local newspaper [LDN]. If you have been paying attention, most of the facts that have been released by the LPD regarding this lawsuit have been posted here by X for all to read.

The Burns v Sailor lawsuit is actually the lesser of the three evils as far as the federal lawsuits go, the other two lawsuits against Sailor point to utterly reckless behavior on behalf of him.  I have purposely witheld posting a thread on this topic up to now as a bit of an experiment.  Would the local paper, a City of Ludington official, or some other media investigate or comment on what I brought to the table on Monday's City Council meeting? 

A very incomplete account of just the Burns case in the COLDNews and deafening silence otherwise ensued.  The facts of those two previous lawsuits will not change in a week, settled between four and six years ago, and so I allowed/encouraged other outlets to comment.  I have nothing personal against Aaron Sailor, but the facts of the matter show that he seems to (at least three times) lose sight of reason, legality, and empathy when responding to situations.   I encourage him to look for another line of work that will not indemnify him if/when he hurts other people.

I don't know anything officer Sailor, so I won't comment on it.

Altho I was a long time resident of Lud. when it was a small community and most of the tourist were at Epworth Heights. I do remember the rules put forth by the Stearns family, upon donating the beach to the city. "there will be now alcaholic beverages allowed at the beach". Would some one explain to me how the cityis getting around that?

Very good question easy. If you want to watch a stunning unbelievable sunset from Stearns Park, enjoying an adult beverage with a friend or spouse, and the LPD as usual, is on beach patrol, and you are a local, you are going to jail. However, if you're a tourist, you will get off with a verbal warning. The beach Gestapo set rules at the beach years ago to disable that from happening again, with big ugly signs posted everywhere.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service