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

Hulk

Who are you and  where do you work? X picked up a petition, he did not say he was running. Anyone can pick up a petition.

Yes Hulk, you come to this forum with no facts of your own, your identity and place of work unknown also. You offer up argument and pointless finger pointing, instead of sticking with a lively debate and thread of interest and local information that locals are entitled to know about. The COL thinks otherwise, and keep having secret meetings about the affair to protect officer Sailor, when in fact they should be looking hard for his replacement and offering him a chance to resign with some dignity. What is it that we need to know about your personal life? What do you do that contributes to the local economy? How are you an asset to Ludington, or even your family members? What are you trying to achieve in your posts at the Torch? What in fact makes you tick? You appear to me to be part of the problem, while others here are trying to be a part of the solution. Protecting your fellow man in blue, or buddy Sailor, is fine, if you have the knowledge and facts to support it, otherwise, you are just on a fishing excursion, and making false insults along the way, which is negative, and non-productive, which is the only attributes you exhibit.

I can actually tell a good deal about the Hulk through his history of posting, because he has a very authoritative bias to his remarks.  What I mean by that, is he will ask plenty of questions and expect them answered no matter how personal they are, but generally refuses to answer any questions himself.  He accepts behavior that may seem to be highly unethical to you or me without question, if other authority figures are featured.  However, he believes that the authority position is always right by dint of their position. 

I am not a psychoanalyst, but the Hulk, and many of our other friends that come on here and act the same way regardless of public records and facts, is himself in a position of authority and he has a very low opinion of anyone who would question it, or question any other authority.   That's why they stand out so much from our egalitarian base of thinkers, who are interested in what someone may say over who actually said it.

Hulk has no way to attack the message so he attacks the messenger, Isn't that "arguments 101" we learn in composition class, even my 12 year old has more discerning argument skills than that. Maybe Hulk can update his skills with an English composition course.

Very well said Jane, you hit the nail squarely. Authoritarian X? Quite the analytical quip, and worthy of commendation. When you can get away with being called a servant of the people and act like this, then get praised by your Mayor in the process, you just gotta ask, is this our Ludington anymore? Must we all continue to live in fear of our own hired police mob? How many more instances of brutality must the public endure under the guise of "honorable duty"? This is just incredible and unbelievable imho.

After reading the entire lawsuit, which most of you don't do you just go by Tommys word, it states Sailor and the other officers had a subject arrested in handcuffs and another subject approached the cuffed suspect and tried beating him him and attacking him.  The the officers had to fight him off of the handcuffed suspect and he filed a lawsuit against the Pontiac officers.  Or we can go by Tommys interpretation of the lawsuit by skimming it and coming up with his own case, which is typical of him.  You go city council meetings and call out a police officer to defend himself to you?  You don't seem a waste of time to do that with, because we all know you wont believe him so why should he waste his time with you?

Then Tommy wants the police report where an officer was shot multiple times because he wants to do his research, why dont YOU tommy stop wasting tax payers money. 

The only ones wasting taxpayers monies is the political fools that pretend they are honest and perfect in every way. The other taxpayer wastes is with a Chief that also is too perfect to admit having made a mistake when he hired Officer Sailor. Sailor, not XLFD, is the one being sued, so Sailor therefore must be the one to defend his actions and reputation. XLFD has posted the record and priors of Sailor, he's the one in question, not the Torch membership here Hulk. Again, you are the one wasting time and finger pointing, to defend an officer that believes in brutality and abuse of power. In defending him so emphatically Hulk, I can only say that "birds of a feather, fly together". So, that means you approve and support abuse of power by the LPD, and that in itself is wicked and illegal, which must be true of you also? Answer that sir!

Well said Aquaman.

Hulk,

For clarity's sake, you should refer to lawsuit one, two or three.  What you describe was the first lawsuit started back in 2003 described in this thread:  Errant Assailer.  For the fairest representation of this lawsuit, I included Sailor's own words from his deposition.  There were several other more inflammatory records regarding the incident, which involved what was found to be malicious prosecution by the authorities involved in the situation, followed by the settlement with the multiple plaintiffs whom were suing Sailor and other entities.  Your version of the events is not supported by the court records or testimonials. 

As for your last paragraph, I fail to understand why the public has not been allowed to know the complete facts behind the Lowell Fetters incident.  Read the established public records, there are a lot of gaps.  Among other things, I would like to know what drove Fetters to run into his house, to retrieve a gun, and get in a shootout with police officers.   

However, one thing I do know is that three of the officers involved with collaring Fetters, were also involved with excessive force lawsuits at the time (Sailor, Davila, and Wilson).  Did their approach to this incident escalate the Vietnam War hero's response accordingly?  Did the escalation of charges heaped onto Fetters by the prosecution happen because Fetters had a viable countercase against the police agencies?  The total suppression of information and the people involved make me expect the worst.

I recently took notice of the public comments made by his Honor's daughter, another nepotistic job she got, Brandy Henderson on tourist related statistics. It is noteworthy to see that she follows in her father's footsteps, in that she is very pro-tourism active, not pro-local active. I guess that's her job, and it reflects on where true priorities are with our governing bodies again. Take a second look at the 11:45 mark and note that the term "pure Ludington" will be bannered around Chicago this summer on city buses. Geez, where have I heard that term "pure" before? Oh yeah, this term has been used in recent years and thought out by State of Michigan tourism advertisements as "pure Michigan". Brandy, where are your original ideas? You again follow in your father's footsteps with nothing from your own faculties, simply more "borrowed phraseology". To me again, this just shows the fact that we have nothing really from our own tourist board to reflect new energy and enthusiasm for our town, simply old borrowed slogans, and statistics that anyone could report on.

Pure Nepotism or Pure Cronyism may just work in Chicago.

Well I would think the public hasn't been informed yet of the whole incident due to the whole thing hasn't even gone to trial yet.  So I don't think they can put it out there for the public, concerning the public would be on the jury, doesn't that make sense??

So you are trying top say that since Fetters ran into his house and grabbed a gun, and started shooting at police, its sailor, davila and wilsons fault?  What in the hell goes on your brain? Didnt't they say wilson and davila showed up once shots were already being fired??  But according to you, those three officers must have did something to make him run into his house, grab a gun and start shooting at Sgt Maltbie?

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service