A Truly Open On-Line Forum of Ludington Candidates Seeking Office

[XLFD]

The hallmark ideals of The Ludington Torch have always included fairness and openness, and we strive daily to achieve these goals.  A print media competitor is offering a one hour symposium before the October 24th City Council meeting at City Hall.  I have been courted, as one of the candidates, to attend that forum by Steve Begnoche, an editor of that newspaper.  I would love to go, but its at City Hall, and I've already made it well known that I will not enter that building again unless pushed in their by the electors of this city, or until City Manager John Shay drops the unwarranted and illegal Letter of Trespass against me permanently. 

 

I have tried to explain to Mr. Begnoche that he can change the venue (which he won't) or use his leverage to have Mr. Shay do what's right.  I have explained that to him repeatedly, yet he didn't seem to get it.  I was CC-ed in a letter from Shay to Editor Steve:

 

Steve:
Due to the presence of a quorum of the City Council at the candidate forum on Monday, October 24, the forum will be noticed as a special meeting of the City Council. Under the Open Meetings Act, no one may be excluded from an open meeting of the City Council unless he/she commits a breach of the peace at the meeting. Please contact me if you have any questions.
John Shay

 

Since my Attorney's 10-1-2011 Letter to the City, the City Attorney and now the City Manager have had some sort of revelation that this section of the OMA allows me to come in for Open Meetings.  Not so, or at least such an idea would contradict itself.  Here was my reply back to Mr. Begnoche, with John Shay CC-ed.

 

Steve,

The City Charter says in Section 1.2 :  Definitions and rules of construction.

The following definitions and rules of construction shall apply to this Code and to all ordinances and resolutions unless the context requires otherwise:

Generally. When provisions conflict, the specific shall prevail over the general. All provisions shall be liberally construed so that the intent of the council may be effectuated.

Wherein sec. 6.1 does say that "all council meetings shall comply with the Michigan Open Meetings Act"  the Letter of Trespass is a bit more specific-- which shall prevail over the general. 

 

Likewise and even more specific, Ludington's Section 17.5. - Municipal laws:

(a).  ...all City ordinances, resolutions, orders, and regulations which are in force when this Charter becomes fully effective, shall remain in full force and effect, except to the extent that they are inconsistent or interfere with the effective operation of this Charter or of ordinances or resolutions adopted pursuant thereto.

 

The specific overrides the general, the latest overrides the previously existing.

 

Here's the specifics of the Letter of Trespass I received (without any sort of indication it was part of a newly amended ordinance) while the OMA is part of 'older' policy:

1)  "even though the location identified above {City Hall/LPD Station} is open to the public, since your entry is expressly denied, you would violate the Ludington City Code by entering the premises."

2)  "In other words if a law officer came upon the scene and you were upon the premises, you would be committing a misdemeanor, to wit{sic}:  a trespass in his/her presence and you could be immediately arrested."

3)  "As indicated you are expressly denied permission to enter upon the premises of Ludington City Hall/ LPD Station."

 

Those emphasized underlines and italics are right there on the document, and is extremely specific (see attachment).  FOIA replies have shown that the intent of the City Council was quite clear, while prior experience has shown numerous instances of the City violating the OMA and FOIA with little or no care.

 

Ergo, the Letter of Trespass in its construction, is in direct conflict with the OMA, but by the Charter's construction, it also supersedes the provisions of the OMA.  This leads to a contradiction, as local law shall not trump state law. 

 

A proof by contradiction, if you will, of why John Shay's premise is faulty.  I cannot step foot on City Hall ground without the threat of arrest even at a so-called Open Meeting (without express written permission).  

 

I look at such arbitrary and capricious granting of permission as a bastardization of legislative processes, a violation of both the State and Federal Constitutions, and I will not have my appearance mandated on having the express written permission of someone I feel has committed two misdemeanors himself quite plainly:

https://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/john-shay-criminal-intentions and

https://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/john-shay-criminal-intentions-public-extortion 

 

That's why I will not settle for a temporary lifting of this banishment by a bill of attainder that I have gotten without any thought of due process.

 

Please contact me if you have any questions.

------------------------------------------------------ 

Be that as it may, I still would love to participate in a forum that is truly open, and open-ended.  To this end, The Ludington Torch has invited all the city candidates for office, even those running unopposed, to participate here at The Ludington Torch to show what they have to offer to the City, or show us what makes them the right person for the job.  The invitation was sent to each of their offical election E-mails, which you can find here, if you want to further encourage them to come aboard. 

Here was the invite, billed as an Invitation to an on-line forum of Ludington candidates for office:

 

 

You are cordially invited to express your views, civilly debate others, and promote your candidacy in our open forum at the area's most active (in more ways than one) blog, The Ludington Torch- Featuring the Right to Speak Freely and the Duty to do so Responsibly Since 2009. 

 

Your time is valuable, so if you have some extra of that commodity, and you want to reach our politically active 100+ members and hundreds more unsigned-in guests, in whatever way you want to present yourself, we offer that platform for you.  Whether you want to tell what you will do, offer a biography, show a flier, share some pictures or videos, differentiate yourself from your opponent, or field questions from our members, we would love to have you participate. 

 

To participate simply click this link and enter your E-mail address with a password to preserve your privacy.  The rest of the sign-in process should be prompted and straightforward, but please advise us at this E-mail if you have any problems.  We ask that you use your official election E-mail so that we can prevent anyone from using a different one in fraudulently passing themselves off as you:

 

https://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/main/authorization/signIn?target=http%3A%2F%2Fludingtoncitizen.ning.com%2F

 

In all disclosure, the Creator and Senior Editor of The Ludington Torch is Tom Rotta, one of the candidates for the City Councilor at Large position.  Since our inception in 2009, he and all others of our editorial staff have standing orders to only enforce the general terms of service that our Ning platform requires, so you do indeed have the right to speak quite freely.  Those terms are at this link:  https://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/main/authorization/termsOfService?previousUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fludingtoncitizen.ning.com%2F

Hope to hear from you as soon as you can make it!  Election time draws nigh.

[Willy]

Nice job. I bet noone will post, except Wanda,because Shay has cloudied the waters and your reputation. I really think a Slander or libel lawsuit would put Shay in his place.

[XLFD]

Well, Wanda isn't running, but I hope you're wrong about the participation, especially as concerns the people that are not already part of the City Government.  It would be nice to see what they offer, without the filters of our local newspaper. 

[Willy]

I may disagree with Wanda on some issues but at least she has the guts to be on this forum and answer questions. I bet Wanda isn't running because she found out that being on the Council is a pain in the a_s.

[XLFD]

You'd lose that bet; she's halfway through her 4 year term and doesn't need to run until 2013. 

But I must agree with admiring her for her ability to shirk the elitist attitude of most on the Council, rolling up her sleeves and facing the public in our mostly-unfiltered public forum.

[Willy]

XLFD

Thanks for the info.