Appointments and Disappointments of the Scottville City Commission

[XLFD]

Scottville Commission Shatters Democracy, Process, and the Democratic Process

Unbelievably dysfunctional is all I can say after having sat through last night's commissioner meeting in Scottville.  But I'm compelled to say more, as that's what I do.  This reporter had written a comment for the beginning of the meeting to be read before that public body, but as someone who lives outside the city, I worried that my words would push them closer towards the disaster they seemed content in pursuing that night.  Here's the first part of what I had planned to say:

XLFD:  "The commission is filling two seats tonight, and the city charter is not clear on how to have five candidates vie for two positions, one for a half term.  To get the best two candidates may I suggest deciding who wants to run for the full-term seat first, choosing one of those and then whoever lost would have a chance to run for the half term spot if they so desired.  Only two of the applicants mentioned what type of term they were interested in, so I presume the others would be interested in either spot if given the chance.  May I also remind the commission that one of the candidates led this city down into the abyss over the last few years and should stay retired as she violated the charter at numerous times and finished dead last in the election of 2022..."

The problem I saw in the agenda packet was that they planned to choose the seats separately with the half-term decided first, and only one of the five candidates expressed they were trying for that, Former Mayor Marcy Spencer, the person referenced in my comment.  I was able to explain to a city official over the weekend that having the open primary process like I envisioned would choose the best of the five (in the commission's eyes) for the four-year term and the next best for the half-term.  

If the idea had been to select the best two candidates, that or a similar process would have been used.  There is no process defined in the city charter or commission rules that handle situations where two 'unequal' seats need to be decided upon by the commission.  

New Mayor Dixie Spore, however, fixated on two documents in order to set a couple of guidelines.  First, the public notice for the positions, which stated among other things that the applicants should indicate which position they wanted (see p. 17 of the packet).  Second, the agenda itself which put an order on the choices.  

The problem was that three of the applicants did not choose one position over the other-- likely believing that the commission would do some sort of sane process that would not limit applicants to one or the other.  Jim Durfee and Donald Graham, whose applications were over two weeks dry, and Donald Pasco, the clear winner of the Ludington Pitchfork's straw poll, would, after all of the discussion was finished, be effectively disqualified as candidates for not stating a preference.  And even though Pasco and Durfee were attending this meeting, they were effectively denied making their intention known due to how Mayor Spore laid out the process. 

This wasn't a unanimous decision on her part.  Commissioners Eric Thue and Renee Jensen would object to that direction and wind up voting against what would be the only half-term candidate, but they also desired to make decisions on this night.  Spencer would get the partial term seat. 3-2.

Spore would then move on to the next choice and limited the candidates to only those that had made a commitment on their written application for one of the seats, which made Bobbiann Wallager the only choice under consideration.  Neither the city manager nor the city attorney, both present, could offer anything other than the decision on how to choose the next commissioners is not delineated in the city charter and so there was latitude to decide the process on the spot.  

And that's what happened, even Thue and Jensen gave way to voting for the only candidate put forth:  Wallager.  Spore would fixate on the concept of 'rules' and told the public that these were the only two candidates who bothered to follow the rules.  And so the city's first difficult choice was made a whole lot easier and made a 'fix' by disenfranchising three Scottville citizens who selflessly entered this race figuring that they would get a fair shot, whose only failure was to pick one, when they would have undoubtedly been comfortable with either spot.  

Rules are rules, we were told.  Let's look at the rest of the meeting's actions and talk more about rules. 

A late addition on the agenda was for the suspension of compensation for the city commission until the budget shortfall is corrected.  While this was a nice gesture on the part of the commission, and it was passed unanimously with full support from the freshly appointed Commissioner Wallager, it was against the rules laid down in the municipal constitution, the Scottville City Charter.  

The last sentence states:  "The salary of any elective officer [a city commissioner] shall not be increased or decreased from the day he is elected until the end of the term of office for which he was elected."  Commissioners are not authorized by the law to decrease their salary down to zero, that is totally against the rules set by the people of Scottville in their charter and backed by the state through their Home Rule City Act. 

On another action this night they approved a contract making Interim City Manager Clarence Goodlein the new city manager.  The contract/agreement would be passed unanimously as written that night, December 2nd.  The second half of a comment I wrote but never delivered noted:

XLFD:  "...Additionally, I would advise the commission to make some changes on the city manager's contract.  The contract states that December 1st will be the effective date of hire of Mr. Goodlein, yesterday, and mentions no reason for the city to backdate his hiring as the city manager, when it won't presumably be passed and signed by the parties until at least by the end of the night.  If that backdating is not corrected, legal confusion and potential liability will result as to any actions taken earlier today or yesterday.  May I suggest starting this agreement on December 3rd, his first day of work as city manager so that all of the potential problems with backdating a contract is negated?"

Truly, there appears to be no tax advantage or any other benefit from passing this agreement suggesting that Goodlein started as city manager on December 1st, when the commission didn't agree to it until late on the 2nd.  Backdating a public contract like this without some sort of commemorative effect is against the rules, and in certain situations could be seen as fraudulent or illegal, especially when not explicitly agreed to by both parties.

The commission did a couple of good things by the rules.  They broadened the definition of "family" to allow more rental units to avoid rental inspections if an owner's grandparents are 'tenants'.  They properly appointed Kayleen Moffitt to the DDA.  But still lingering in the air at the end of the meeting was the mayor's and commission's apparent assault on the democratic process.  

Disqualified candidate Jim Durfee showed an amazing amount of restraint in the second comment period, but Don Pasco couldn't bottle it up and capped off the night with a very measured assessment of what just happened.  While recognizing the body's actions, he had a hard time coming to terms with not being considered because of some technicality, and relayed that the audience of two dozen people saw the same old road that Scottville government has been taking recently and tonight they saw how that government works and why the city is in the state it is.  Kei Steffes, who expressed a worry about seeing Ms. Spencer back on the commission during the first comment, pointed out a few more things about her past service that wasn't exemplary in the second, not hiding her disappointment with the commission's decision.

Like Durfee, I bit my lip and let the comment period pass, followed by the adjournment.  I saw that something very inefficient and very undemocratic just happened.  When the mayor repeatedly defended the decisions by saying that they needed to follow the rules, it reminded me of those old movies where the German officer would say that they needed to follow their orders-- and that never wound up good.  They considered one person for each position, saying the positions being sought were unequal-- that one was for a half term, the other for a full term. 

The Revelation Upon Reflection

They were wrong.  These were two vacant positions that would both need to come up for reelection in the November of 2026.  The city charter plainly says so in section 6.6:

In this case, the two offices had nobody run for them in 2024 and they became vacant November 11th, the Monday after the election.  This is more than 60 days before the next regular election and so by this law in the charter, their term of serving through appointment will both end on November 9, 2024.  There is no four-year (full) term to speak of.  Either of any persons appointed that night could seek a two or four year elective term in 2026, but for now, they will serve slightly less than two years as an appointed commissioner, no more no less.  

 

I always hate saying this, but I was wrong in the comment that I never made in regard to the two seats, but I should say that I was led astray by the council packet making these two vacancies seem different, when they were not.  They were both two-year, equal appointments, the charter is explicit about this and has the final say.  

The task now is to give each of these five otherwise qualified candidates a just, fair, and lawful opportunity to be considered for being the next two lawfully appointed city commissioners.  Disqualifying three candidates because they failed to see how current city leaders failed to follow the charter's explicit directions could result in legal actions from either or all of the aggrieved parties, legal expenses that the City cannot easily afford, but should expect if these unlawful, if not rigged, votes are allowed to stand.  

The Scottville City Commission should convene a special meeting ASAP to cure their error and get two properly appointed officers into place by December 11 (the deadline set by charter to fill the two vacancies).  If they want more of a reason. review what we said about the commissioners reducing their salaries and the city manager agreement.  

[stump]

It would seem that when ever a certain subject was being considered by a city council, Scottville , Ludington or any where USA that someone notably the city attorney who is getting paid to know what is in the city charter, same with the the mayor , someone would review the city charter to see what it says on the subject at hand. But no, everybody goes along fat dumb and happy making the whole crew look like I guess dumb ass's that they are.

[XLFD]

Correct, and when a public body is called upon to make many of their decisions, they have been indoctrinated to listen to the corporate attorney rather in their own common sense.  This was a train wreck in the making and City Attorney Mark Nettleton effectively allowed the process to be abused by either being unaware of the charter's provisions or the potential liability for letting the process develop like it did and by not viscerally being disturbed by the patently unfair selection process that may be reversed.  

Our hope is that a couple of commissioners will call a special meeting before the 11th and reconsider their process.  That may be happening, but as one of the disqualified candidates have stated on social media, there may be three commissioners so invested in their original vote that they won't change when two or three more choices come into play.  If so, those are the people you don't want in your city government.