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

I am local, I have had beverages at the beach, and I havent gone to jail and I am not from Epworth.

Maybe you should say,  If you are drinking at the beach and you are not following the rules that are posted and you are told about them and continue to not follow them and become rude and disrespectful, Yes i bet you would go to jail. 

Hulk

I'm not referring to posted signs at stearns park. I'm referring to the stipulations that were included when the land, Stearns Park, was deeded over to the city. It included that no alcsholic beverages were to be sold, or allowed on the property. If your of the younger generation, you may assume that protery has always belonged to the city. WRONG, it belonged to the Stearns family, including the beach you speak of.

Now, I may be wrong, but in the meeting, I thought they passed a resolution allowing the sale of beer at functions in stearns park, provided it was in a fenced in area. I believe I understood them to allow beer and wine during certain hours. Which, is definently against the rules, when the park was donated

If I'm wrong. then I apoligize.

easymoney,

They had an ordinance to allow such selling and imbibing at Stearn's Park have its first reading at the meeting, likely to be voted into effect at the next meeting in 9 days.  I'm going to check on the original wording of the Stearn's law, because what you are saying about alcohol in the park is a very possible stipulation, as I believe a very proper woman of the Stearn's family ceded the parklands in the 1950s. 

Not on topic or anything - but I found this interesting time line about the Stearns family, in case anyone is interested. http://michigan.maripo.com/justus_1.htm

I used that timeline link myself in researching the West End project back a couple months ago, very interesting for local historians indeed, thanks for reintroducing it Lisa, you will note it does show the park was donated circa 1950, by a Stearn's heiress.

When I eventually move to Mason county, I'm going to do a lot of research on the area. Today it's a vacation destination - but it has a very rich history. With help of the local library I have already started research on my family - they owned lumber mills in the area- if not for the depression and my Great grandfathers distaste for insurance - I think I would have had a much different life style. lol

Interesting and informative historical link on the Stearns family Lisa. From what pappy said about the Stearns, I can't fathom them restricting adult beverages at the Stearns Park. They were certainly not abstaining types, quite the contrary, at least from talk about town. They did help make Ludington a real landmark town on the shoreline over many decades. Their wealth and generosity is still intact today. The Cartier family also made their mark well known in our small berg. These were the real pioneers that loved Ludington, unlike some clowns around here today.

as a  kid, I remember a few who wanted to put a club down where the put-put golf is, and thats when it came out that there was no alcahol allowed. The park land extended to Lud. Ave.

yes she did, but, if the heirs of the family don't care to persue the matter, the city will do as they please.

Even so, one could easily make the same point that the incredible Hulk made earlier-- which is a fair point-- that Ms. Burns' account was fictitious or an over-dramatization of what actually took place, since it has effectively been settled out of court even before discovery had taken its course.  But one should then consider the overall manner it was handled, and consider the 'answer' the City made was weak, and based mostly on general denials, as being significant. 

But when the prior two 'brutal' Pontiac incidents are figured in, I can't see why any police department personnel officer would see retaining Aaron Sailor as a law enforcement officer is a good idea.  Ludington Police Chief Mark Barnett shows that he has as little regard for the citizens of Ludington in hiring and keeping him active after this third federal case on excessive force by the hands of Officer Sailor.   

Once again, I think before name calling and trying to slander someones name and reputation, all facts should be gathered before you start calling someone a thug Albino.  Was he the only one who went into this house? Was he going after someone that lived at the house?  Did he knock and have someone answer the door and then he or someone else entered?

My point is that nobody knows what really happened unless you were there, so by coming on here and name call and try to make an opinion on someone you dont know is wrong.  If Toms house was on fire or someone broke into his house and Officer Sailor was working, I am sure he would be the first one there to help and save Tom.  I am sure of Officer Sailor was in trouble or any City or County Officer, I am sure Tom would turn his head since he has an opinion and views on everyone in this town, even though most of the people he has never met.  In such a small town, people base hear say on certain people and Police Officers seem to always have something negative about them by citizens due to their job and what they have to do. 

I could come on here rip people that dont work and just get government assistance or "disability" and then want to judge city officials and then complain about the spending of tax money.  But I dont do that because I dont know everything about everyone and have the guts to admit that.  Its sad to see how people talk about others these days and base so strong opinions on someone you dont know.  At some point a lot of people on here need to grow up and look at themselves in the mirror and asks themselves if they are as perfect as they try sounding.

Hulk,

You want to talk of slander and harming someone's reputation when I bring up Aaron Sailor, a police officer who has been civilly tried for police brutality three separate times, then you go on and insinuate that I (and/or others) am on government assistance or disability, contrary to the public record?! 

Unless you claim 'unemployment'  is government assistance, I have NEVER been on public assistance in any manner.  As far as disability, let me say that I rode 6000 miles on my bike last year, have averaged over 5000 miles per year for the last ten years on my bicycle, and am far from disabled.  Print that out and take it to any or all agencies that grant that benefit, because if I have claimed disability in any form then I would be guilty of fraud, among other things.  I must claim that I am getting positively sick of hackjobs like yourself coming on and showing your ignorance.

I hope you enjoy the article on Aaron Sailor coming up.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service