Ludington's Mayor Race 2022: Barnett or Miller?

[XLFD]

This year's November election will not have a lot to offer Mason County voters as regards to choices in local races, and will likely see very little change as incumbents get pushed through another term.  In education, West Shore Community College will have three incumbents seeking three seats, Scottville (MCC) school has four board members running for reelection, Ludington (with incumbent Josh Snyder retiring) has the only question mark as two newbies join incumbent Stephanie Reed to fill two spots on their board.

Contested partisan races in the county commission have mostly been resolved (if any) in the primary election, with the only contest in the 7th district where Ed Miller is challenging incumbent Ron Bacon with everyone else on the commission getting additional two years without challenge. 

Scottville's city clowncil has four incumbents running for reelection to fill four seats, but one of those is Eric Thue, who is running as a write-in candidate; Kelli Pettit is the only possible change, whose name is on the ballot with three other current clowncilors.  Ludington's council races has Kathy Winczewski going for her third term in the 2nd ward, Cheri Stibitz going for her second term in the 4th ward, and Jack Bulger going for his 2nd term in the 6th ward, all unopposed.  Deb Luskin will have her job back as city clerk without competition.

The only interesting local election this time around is the Ludington mayor race featuring one-term mayor Steve Miller (pictured left) facing off against a challenger with plenty of name-recognition, Mark Barnett, former police chief of Ludington for 20 years coming off of a 2-year retirement.

Miller has a re-elect Facebook page and Barnett has a Wordpress site, the latter is definitely better providing easily accessed information on the candidate, including a media page that directly links to the debate both candidates had on WMOM and at WSCC, and local media articles/interviews with the challenging candidate.  Miller has also been profiled on the MCP. 

When one reviews those interviews and debates, they find that the candidates share more than just the same style in facial hair.  Both want to spotlight their records as mayor and police chief respectively, profiling their skill sets and generic visions for Ludington's future which seem remarkably similar.  

Yet when one looks closer at the two candidates, they notice differences.  As someone who has regularly made contact with and reported on both candidates in their official positions over the course of many years and has been chided by both in and outside of city council meetings, this reporter claims some capacity for staking out those differences.  

1)  They are on opposite sides of the political spectrum

The mayoral race is non-partisan, and neither man publicly claims to be influenced by either political party, but Miller definitely leans left, and Barnett definitely leans right.  The starkest example of this is their opinions on marijuana dispensaries in Ludington.  Miller has shown through actions and rhetoric that he would not be against them since the 2018 election, while Barnett has actively worked against even medical marijuana since 2008 and came out against recreational since 2018.  

While Mayor Miller appears to embrace liberal causes and advocates of liberal causes like gun-buyback programs and shutting down Enbridge's Line 5, Barnett appears not to.  Out of the public eye, Miller does embrace liberal causes and Barnett favors conservative news outlets.  

2) They have different religious views

Chief Barnett would conduct an invocation at the beginning of each city council meeting until he retired in 2020 at which point Mayor Miller replaced the invocation with 20 seconds of silence.  The mayor could sometimes be overheard leaving out 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance at the top of those meetings, reflecting more impiety.  Barnett brandishes his regular church attendance as a badge of honor.

3)  They have different thresholds when under fire

When challenged to show why the LPD's Shop with a Cop budget didn't add up, why the LPD's reserve officer program had a legitimate basis, and why Mayor Ryan Cox could serve as a reserve officer when he was Barnett's immediate superior, the chief actively and immediately personally attacked the questioner rather than address the problem.  For the several federal lawsuits filed against his officers during his tenure and eventually settled, Chief Barnett never offered any explanation as to why his officers acted inappropriately or offered any solutions for fixing future problems.  This was his same tact used when he was informed back in 2008 that one of his officers put this reporter's life in danger by his illegal driving.

Mayor Miller has rarely been challenged by citizens but when he has been he has addressed the point or wisely ignored the challenge.  During the siren lawsuit and other lawsuits during his tenure, he has remained mostly on point; he has even publicly apologized after admitting an error, rather than further attack the source.  

When Chief Barnett objected to (basically true) characterizations of his department made by Councilor Angela Serna on social media, her eventual sanction by the council appears to have been driven more by him than the mayor.  Miller has had his moments, but he has more control over his temper in my observations and he is more likely to admit a mistake.

4) They have different employment profiles 

Mayor Miller has spent most of his career in the private sector only seeking public office in his 'retirement'.  This offers him some insight in how our local businesses are best served by city hall, his work for the DDA supplements his experiences.  Barnett was in the public sector all of his adult life, making him insulated as to the needs of businesses and workers in the private sector.

Thus, while Miller is the incumbent mayor, he has decades less experience as a public official than Barnett and could be said to be the 'outsider'.  

Conclusion

Only you can decide who's better for the city after looking at their bios, their debates, their positions, their differences.  If you're primarily looking for someone with Christian and conservative values, Barnett should be your guy.  If you are primarily looking for someone with the best temperament and/or someone with mayoral experience, then Miller is the choice.  

Personally, and even though I generally go against incumbents, I think Miller is the best choice for Ludington's future.  Barnett is only a couple years removed as chief of the LPD; he will be less likely to hold them to account should they err due to his involvement with that agency for two decades.  He has not indicated he will be as accessible as Mayor Miller has been, nor does he appear to possess the same tools for the mayor job-- he has relied primarily on a hammer throughout his career as a police officer and chief.

Barnett does not lay out the case for how he would change the course of the city for its betterment in any different way than is already being tried.  He fails to make the case for how he will make our citizens' lives any better in these difficult times, only speaking in the broadest of generalities.  Why run for an office when the incumbent is already basically following the same vision?  

[Freedom Seeker]

Good and interesting analyses, X. Your last sentence is what has perplexed me ... that Barnett is running against the incumbent makes me wonder ... why.  I thought they had been in the same circle. What is it that make Barnett run now and now wait 4 years?

[XLFD]

Even though I asked the question and left it up for my readers to decide why, I think I have the answer.  I've ran for councilor against entrenched incumbents unsuccessfully twice and my motives were to challenge the corrupted status quo, inject ignored issues into the race, and make way for other reform-minded citizens to run in the next election should I win and form a coalition.  Other notable candidates like Angela Serna and Kandi Fugere had similar rationales when they ran, but most of those on the council find themselves there just to fill a seat to approve whatever comes before them and they run without any issues on their mind, just pledging to keep the city moving forward, whatever that means.

Barnett does not fit either type, yet he has avoided having any issue with Miller or the direction of the city.  I honestly think he's running to satisfy his own ego primarily with a good possibility that he will use his pulpit to attain a goal he has not yet publicly stated.  

Unfortunately, the 'debates' hosted by local media never ask candidates very meaningful questions, and neither of these candidates would be courageous enough to try to answer the three explosive questions I would ask them.

[XLFD]

The MCP, COLDNews, WMOM and the chamber will never ask along the line of those valid questions you have offered, LL.  And I can guarantee neither Miller or Barnett would answer my three customized questions if I sent them in an email or corralled them after a meeting.  

I must correct you in thinking that there is an underlying disdain for law enforcement in my DNA, LL.  To the contrary, I have the greatest respect for LEOs acting properly-- this is exactly why I take issue when they do not, for it tarnishes every other LEOs badge.  If one truly 'backs the blue' one would not only celebrate the good LEOs, one would also criticize those that do not live up to standards, rather than support them by lumping them with the good ones.  This is how corruption spreads within police agencies, when the public supports a corrupt, bad-acting cop as much as all the good ones.  It is much easier and safer to be a bad cop, so the rot can spread when good cops learn that.  

Lastly, Mark Barnett has had plenty of time to show that he can address your issues a lot better than Mayor Miller, but he hasn't shown it in his literature or his interviews, and as FS brilliantly notes, he had 20 years to make these things better.  And he's still not offering solutions two years out of office.  

I stand by my endorsement of Mayor Miller, but should he lose, I will welcome a more conservative face as mayor that will likely bring back the invocation at meetings and show at least some token resistance to pot shops and other silly liberal causes brought to him.  And I will take notes if that happens for a future 'I-told-you-so', because I'm positive he doesn't have the proper tool set to succeed as Ludington's mayor.

[Freedom Seeker]

Thanks again for good questions keeping this conversation going.  Mine are not so much "feelings" of what I think Barnett will do, but concrete facts of what he has done.  And yes, he shamed  just one Tom Rotta in public and by newspaper more than once, but Barnett's lack of knowledge of law proved to me that Barnett is a showman with an arrogant attitude.  That is my feeling ... and of that I don't like his character or apparent morals to bully on another and use his position to do so.  It really was the upheaval in the city meetings and media by Barnett that caused me to look into the city politics.  It was that Barnett refused to consider  Rotta's intelligence on the bicycle ticket issue and gave him an ultimatum to resign from the fire department that shows his small mind. 

As for the former mayors,  John Henderson was a overly-ambitious corrupted arrogant man who pushed his agenda and I believe Barnett jumped on that bandwagon.  I vote against that arrogance which is really the heart of unchristian behavior.  If Barnett would act what he prays, there might be hope for the city.  If Barnett can wrongly shame one citizen, how many more will he shame who speak up?

To answer my initial question of why Barnett is running now is maybe coming down to the question of marijuana.  Should we chill and be kind to one another and be honest, or will we keep marijuana out of the city and continue the Arrogant Regime and shame the public and continue the corruption and misspending?

[Freedom Seeker]

Just a clarification of my glib thought:  it was sarcastic to say to chill and vote for the man likely behind city dispensaries of pot.  No that makes my stomach curl and shows the frustration with our choices:  for pot or arrogant corruption ... simply said on a yard sign, perhaps.  Our world is declining, and drugs is just one of the weak links.  Sad.  Arrogance and city corruption and MML and excessive retirement pensions is another thing dragging us down the drain, imho.  About status quo, I don't know, don't care or have interest in getting involved with the arrogant.

[XLFD]

Let me develop the tool set analogy before explaining it concretely.  Barnett has shown he has a hammer and can use it, clumsily at times, but the nails are eventually driven in or yanked out with the claw end.  As mayor, you're dealing less with nails and more with screws and conduits, therefore you need to have pipe wrenches, pliers, socket sets, and screwdrivers, both flathead and phillips versions.  

That segues nicely to Chief Barnett's greatest failure, to figure out whatever happened to Baby Kate who was allegedly abducted by Sean Phillips.  Mere days after Baby Kate went missing and could still have been alive somewhere, the chief in command of that incident couldn't resist being part of the Freedom Festival parade, waving and smiling as he rode down Ludington Avenue.  The LPD did a terrible job on that case, and Mark Barnett knew that, because he continuously over a period of years tried to withhold the LPD's incident report from the public. 

For what turned out to be a 98 page police report, he wanted to charge $2500 years after the incident, just to inspect a record which had only the standard exemptions (addresses and TX#s of respondents) in it.  I had to spend a year going through court just to confirm that he and his department effectively botched this incident, and indirectly discover that he failed the community by his malpractice and cover-up operations.  Other high-profile cases like the Chloey Stoudt murder in 2010 were also poorly handled by Barnett.

I predict the cover-ups will continue in a Barnett administration, after what has been a four-year reign of transparency due in large part to Mitch Foster's and Steve Miller's commitments to making public records public even when it has not been a good reflection on the LPD.  And all that I'll see in a Barnett future when I get another tip that the LPD has acted poorly is nail heads beside a whole bunch of hammer indentations in the wood grain beside them barring access to information.  That's all he has shown, and he's showing no new talents in his candidacy.  Sorry.

I cannot immediately locate anything showing annual crime statistics for the area since 2019, when Barnett made his last annual report, but it should be noted that statewide and nationwide crime rates have gone up in 2020 and 2021.  I will try to see whether I can get statistics from Interim Chief Wietrzykowski on Monday.  

[Freedom Seeker]

LL, your analysis is forthright but I think we also must consider that Barnett had many years as COP to correct those things you complain of: drug and crime and sex offenders and assault. I found Barnett much of a limp noodle without understanding of financial corruption going on under his nose, but adding to it with comingling Shop with a cop funds and using city time to do so (illegal) while COP. He also used his position to speak against XLFD for pointing out the malfeasances showing a greater lack of knowledge and a stupidity of arrogance. The only way I'd vote for Barnett is if he publicly acknowledged his mistakes. Meanwhile I'll chill with the pandering pothead even though he is not my first choice either.  We're we better off under Barnett or did his limpness start the mess?

[XLFD]

Back at a meeting in 2019, towards the end of a council meeting freshman Mayor Miller offered an honest apology directed at me for one of the city's shortcomings, I can't even remember what it was for.  I equate the difficulty he had in making that apology to the difficulty I had in making this endorsement.  For I will acknowledge that he has handled some issues poorly in his tenure, yet I don't see his opponent in the same spot handling them any better than he did.

[Freedom Seeker]

Thanks for that reminder X. I think Steve Miller had a lot of sincerity in that "apology" and it made me hopeful for the city--the recognition and acknowledgement that those in office and hired city workers work for the people and should listen to the people as their primary agenda.  I think Steve Miller wanted to heal the faults of arrogance of the city.