GOLD 151 Council Recalls March On

[XLFD]

On February 20, recall petition language was approved for the sixth ward councilor by the Mason County Election Commission, and similar language was submitted for the 2nd and 4th ward councilors by my allies in those wards the following day.  Earlier today, the petition language was approved by the election commission, 3-0, with citizens (of the proper ward) Joe Englert and Sheree Foster sponsoring the petitions.  In ten days, barring any appeals to the circuit court, those petitions will be ready for signatures.  The one for Jack Bulger, who did not appeal within ten days is ready now.  The Grassroots Operation:  Ludington Democracy in Year 151 (GOLD 151) advances another step.

The other councilors will all be up for reelection this fall and so if we are successful in getting enough signatures for each of our three petitions, we will see each council seat up for grabs this year, and each will all have to face the four issues that were placed on the petitions.

The four reasons on each recall are widely supported by the people.  A poll taken last year shows 95% of our citizens value their money more than the city government taking more and more of their money.  But each of the councilors sided with the 5% and raised taxes by nearly $300,000 during the summer with a series of votes that overrode the Headlee rollbacks (tax rate cuts) which would have kicked in without council action. 

I never took a poll, but I would bet that over 95% of the folks would look at the Foster School playground and understand that this land was not used for commercial purposes over the last 15 years, or ever.  But 100% of our city council saw historic commercial property and did so that every taxpayer could grant tax relief to Grand Rapids developers over potentially decades on their backs, while these councilors crow proudly about their shifty redistribution and how it led to growth.

The city has two public marinas and a public campground, and we are told that these are enterprise funds, meaning they are entirely or predominantly self-supporting by user charges.  Why are they needing millions of dollars of infusions by the state and city for maintenance and improvements?  Aren't they even a little uncomfortable that their subsidizing actions are bound to drive private marinas and campgrounds out of business?  Or is that their overall goal?

And why are they continuing their indecent, incestuous relationship with State Representative Curt VanderWall's company Turf Care Mole Man?  Back in 2020 they paid the legislator for the full year months before they ever had a contract.  When it came time to grant the 2020 contract, another contractor underbid them, but the City had already pre-paid VanderWall's company for the year's work, so what could the city do other than choose Turf Care, violating the public trust, competitive bidding protocols and a section of the state constitution that forbids state legislators from contracting with local governments.  In 2023, before they could renew the three-year contract, they once again prepaid VanderWall thousands of dollars weeks before the contract was even considered against a less-competitive bid.  

Second Ward Councilor Kathy Winczewski (above), Fourth Ward Councilor Cheri Stibitz, and Sixth Ward Councilor Jack Bulger would all unapologetically and without remorse fall on the wrong side of these issues with their votes.  These three councilors have done other things over the last year which have been equally troubling to those who are paying attention.  Last year, they all voted to suspend the deer cull in January, but later changed their minds and voted for it when Mayor Barnett led a push for it in September and October.  Nothing had changed in the interim, other than the mayor's rhetoric.  More than seventy percent of the public is against the deer cull, averaging the city's poll with our own.  

This year, they all voted to allow the selling of alcohol on the beach by vendors, which appears to only be supported by 20% of the public, and it would be less once they find out that they will need a fenced in area where those who order alcohol can't legally go beyond.  This also means that portions of the public will be prohibited from the fenced in area and lead to a possible reversion of the park back to the Stearns' heirs if they press it, as the park is supposed to be available to all people.

This is a city council that is out of touch with the voters and with reality.  Both Stibitz and Winczewski would vehemently claim in their defense at these hearings that they never raised tax rates, using some tortured logic that they merely kept the taxes at the same rate as they were the prior year.  Those rates were automatically reduced by the Headlee Amendments last year and had they made no votes, the city government would be about $300,000 poorer and the rest of us taxpayers would be that much richer.  These two teachers don't seem to understand that fact, which should scare any parent and grandparent with kids in the public school system.

Today's two sponsors did an admirable job of defending my language and their integrity, as some of the city officials present would belittle their efforts and their civic-mindedness.  Our recall efforts will go forward, and the Ludington Torch is happy to announce that we have a couple of likely candidates already lined up for these three potential races, and a couple of potential candidates.  We encourage citizens in the First, Third, and Fifth Wards to consider running against the other incumbents up for election at the end of the year finishing up their terms. 

If you are interested in running for city council this year because you are upset with the current direction, send me a message if you want to explore that possibility, and I will help you understand what you are getting into and what you need to know to run.  If you have common sense enough to see the problems with representatives of the people failing to represent the people, that's good enough for me to know that you will be a good replacement.  

I went into some detail in describing why I was filing a recall petition against Jack Bulger, and I started by insisting there was no personal animus between us and that I had a great respect for his career accomplishments.  My beef was with the course of actions that he and most every other councilor of the city had taken over the last year.  Mr. Bulger was the consummate gentleman in his defense and respected the judgment of the panel, after defending himself honorably.  My hope is that if he does get recalled that his replacement will not make similar errors just to be on the city council team.  Here was my full opening comment with him:

XLFD:  Commissioners, first off, I want to assure the commission and the Honorable John Bulger that this recall is nothing personal, I fully respect the distinguished career of the respondent in this very building and in being an effective public servant and barrister in those long years of service.  I also want it to be on record that he is not being singled out in any way for this recall, as I plan on having sponsors submit recall petitions for two other councilors subject to recall using the same language, as they took the same course of conduct as Mr. Bulger.  In a way, this hearing is somewhat of a left-handed tribute to the legal acumen of the respondent as I think he has the best capacity to defend himself than his fellow councilors would.

Judge Nellis has covered some of this, but Michigan superior courts have previously held that article 2, section 8 of the Michigan Constitution, which reserves to the voters the right to recall an elected official, "was intended to preclude judicial or administrative review of the substantive merit of the reasons alleged in a recall petition" while recognizing the statutory requirement that a recall petition must clearly state the reason for the recall attempt, clarity which is subject to judicial review. 

The standard of review for clarity of recall petitions has been described as both "lenient," and "very lenient." "Thus, recall review by the courts should be very, very limited." A meticulous and detailed statement of the charges against an officeholder is not required. It is sufficient if an officeholder is apprised of the course of conduct in office that is the basis of the recall drive, so that a defense can be mounted regarding that conduct. "Where the clarity of the reasons stated in the petition is a close question, doubt should be resolved in favor of the individual formulating the petition"  Dimas v. Macomb Co. Election Commission, 2001.

Our Legislature has since enacted 2012 Public Act 417 which requires a recall petition to state "factually and clearly each reason for the recall", to ensure that the grounds set forth in a recall petition are stated in terms of a factual occurrence. That is, the ground for recall must be stated in the form of a factual assertion about the official’s conduct that the proponent believes warrants the recall.  As Judge Nellis has previously stated this commissions business is not to establish truthfulness as a trier of fact, but only to look at the clarity of language and that what is alleged is based on a factual occurrence.

An overview: the four factual occurrences listed in the petition are easy enough to verify since Ludington has minutes of the four meetings where his four votes occurred, along with four videos of those meetings.  One can then verify that the votes have happened in this term of office, as each vote happened in the calendar year of 2023, when his current term started.  

The vote described in 1 is actually a sequence of votes used following a truth in taxation hearing in July which had the effect of raising taxes by nearly $300,000.  I will not dwell overly long on this, since this panel approved similar language when Les Johnson's petition language was approved last year on the same issue.  

The second vote, which I have asked the commission to accept a minor amendment of changing the term "months" to "weeks" to make it completely truthful, rather than just factual, needs more background.  Michigan State Representative Curt VanderWall owns and operates a business called Turf Care/Mole Man, this business has been contracted every three years to do fertilization/Weed control services for City property.  For some reason, back in 2020 VanderWall's company did not submit the low bid for services but was still picked to do the service and it wasn't until 2023 when I figured out why.  

VanderWall's business would send discounted prepay invoices in January and February for work expected to be performed later that year.  The service work was already prepaid for in 2020 before they awarded a contract for that year's work in April to VanderWall's company, which was underbid by Tru-green, but the City had already paid the money to VanderWall, so The competitive bidding process was ignored.

A similar thing happened in 2023, when Turf Care Mole Man sent invoices [show] to the city in February, those invoices were approved by the respondent and his peers in February by the paying of the bills vote.  It wasn't until March that the council approved VanderWall's company as the official 2023 contractor, after having already sent many thousands of dollars to Mole Man and before the deadline for submitting proposals happened.  This explains the 2nd vote.

Article 4, section 10 of the Michigan Constitution clearly says:  "No member of the legislature shall be interested directly or indirectly in any contract with the state or any political subdivision thereof which shall cause a substantial conflict of interest."  The legal learning of Councilor Bulger should comprehend that paying a contractor for work not yet performed before the bid award is made reflects that the decision has already been made before the bidding time is closed.  That signifies a conflict of interest which is against the constitution that both VanderWall and our city council swears an oath to affirm.  

For vote 3 on the petition, at a September 11, 2023 meeting, Mr. Bulger seconded and then voted for establishing a Commerical Rehabilitation District after a public hearing when I reminded the council that they were dealing with a school playground, not a historically commercial property.  Had the county commission not taken special action to thwart this fraudulent scheme, it would have provided the developer with tax relief for rehabilitating a playground rather than what the CRA allows for in tax relief for potentially decades.

For vote 4, the enterprise funds in question are those of the city marina and the Cartier Park Campground who both had two major projects both costing over $1M.  The city hasn't made it easy to figure out the exact amount they have infused into these two enterprise zones, but it appears that the city and city marina needed to combine funds to pay about $500,000, the amount left over after state grants, and the city and campground combined funds to construct two bathhouses worth $1.4 million.  

When one looks at the budgets over the years of these enterprise funds, one cannot gauge their ability to have savings of any meaningful amount, so the estimation of $1M from the general fund is probably conservative, but taking general fund dollars away to pay for non-emergency constructions at their so-called public enterprises is extremely appalling when you consider these enterprise funds compete directly with private marinas and private campgrounds in the city limits.  Respondent and his peers are not providing a level playing field for our city's businesses and they have no qualms in doing so by using the general fund.  

So in conclusion, respondent's votes are part of the public record and those votes factually support the assertions made in the petition, these facts can be researched by anybody through the internet or via the FOIA.  The four clauses, summarily describe the votes made and what his vote effectively did.  There is some reasonable estimation, there is no opinion.  The words have their legal and literal meaning.  These are some serious issues that Ludington citizens would deem important, and choose as to whether they sign the petition and hope for a change of direction by the end of this year, rather than wait three years. 

[Willy]

Excellent presentation and explanation X. Never forget that you are on the right side of this effort while they are on the dark side. I am proud of you and all of those who support you. These City representatives only respond to what is best for the public when they get a good poke in the keester. Then they use tax dollars to hire legal help to try and cover up their mess. I say to them "begone? but like a bad case herpes they keep hanging on.

https://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/photo/the-dark-side?context=user

[XLFD]

It's very sad seeing these people, who I would normally cheer for serving their community as a city councilor, try to take minutes explaining how they never voted to raise tax rates because they have been trained to believe the myth that undoing a Headlee rollback is not hiking taxes up.  They show they have a total lack of compassion for the people that had to deal with a 9% inflation rate the year leading up to this and then had their property taxes rise by about $100 just because these brash thieves decided they needed to have the city's income rise over the inflation rate.  Like that bad case of herpes you mention, they made a rash decision to go after our generative organs.