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

[XLFD]

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

[XLFD]

Here's one thing I know, Hulk.  Sheriff Cole wrote me a two page refusal of a FOIA request to look at any investigative records dealing with the Todd Johnson case, saying primarily that it would taint the jury pool.  After that, he broadcast on the front page of the COLDNews that Johnson had carried on a long lasting sexual relationship with a minor.  I thought that was a move to taint the jury pool in his favor at the time, for what turned out to be a faux crime.

The victim admitted that she and Johnson had not been intimate and that Johnson was innocent of all charges.  I have since asked for the investigation again, and still have it withheld from me. 

If you have no inside information, you have very little info about what happened at the Fetters' residence that day.  Read all the news sources about what happened that day, and you have significant gaps of what actually happened.  When a police report is not only withheld by the two responding police agencies, but also is requested to by the attorney for Fetters, you have piqued my curiosity. 

The background of the officers responding have me wincing in fear that the taxpayers may have to pay more blood money for their actions.  Think about it:  if the behavior of the police response was professional and appropriate, wouldn't we have this established into the public record at this point?  

[Hulk]

I would bet Fetters attorney wouldn't want you to even have that before it goes to court. Like I said, why would they start handing out a police report before it goes to court?  That isn't very logical.  So you can get it and post it all over and have people discuss on a forum and then make up their mind about it before it goes to a trial?  What if someone, God forbid, on here gets called to be on the jury and has already read the report and has had someone on here make up their mind on it based on their opinion.  Also, what do you do with your day besides just ask for police reports so you can come up with your own opinion?  You may need to look for a job and do something to actually be beneficial to the community.

[XLFD]

Hulk,

What is better: having the prosecution trot out only information that bolsters their case to the media, or the media giving the public the full range of information? 

The local prosecutor and police agencies have shown that they are not above trying the case in an unfair, one-sided manner in the sympathetic local press before headline cases get to the courthouse.   Do some research on the recent (Sean) Philips, McCallum, and (Todd) Johnson cases. 

Check out the FOIA statutes, section 13 which has the exemptions, claims only certain information is exempt from revelation to the public from police investigations.  Certain rulings by higher Michigan Courts, have made it easier to exempt more info on the basis of invading personal privacy, but most stuff on a report should be available, even before trial, or before the conclusion of an investigation. 

I would love to sit along and critique police reports all day, if they look anything like some of the reports I've gotten from our local police agencies.  But these same police agencies will violate the law just to keep me from doing so.  What are they afraid of?  The truth coming out?  Their inadequacies showing?  Their lack of proper investigative technique?

[Willy]

The problem with you Hulk is you can't make a point or argument without getting personal or insulting. The first part of your post made some sense then you went into your insult mode against X. This is what makes you easy to dismiss. If want insults, myself as well as others will be more than glad to shower some on you but if you want to make sensible statements without the added insults then I'm sure people on this forum will be willing to pay attention to your ideas. Who knows you may change some minds, however, the way you now approach topics on this forum only encourages people to not take you seriously.