Ludington City Council Meeting 3-10-2014: Rewriting History Reservedly

[XLFD]

The March 10, 2014 meeting of the Ludington City Council had a few interesting things happen, of which about half will be discussed here.   The public hearing on the West End Project will be discussed elsewhere.  This thread will focus mainly on an issue that has not really seen as much light as it should in other local media (it was totally ignored for this meeting), because the implications are of a rather serious nature. 

 

The problem began when it was pointed out to Mayor Cox that their may be incompatible offices in his two jobs of Reserve Police Officer and Mayor.  This was looked at by the City Attorney and many of the results are further developed here:  Incompatibility issues

 

But the exercise of determining whether the Mayor can function legitimately in both capacities is almost a moot issue, since the only entities who could challenge it is the County Prosecutor and the Attorney General, who are currently manned by people without much interest in such things.  In fact they would probably prefer to have more mayors be police officers on the side.  But, as a citizen, it remains a thorny issue, with the Mayor having competing loyalties to his constituents and his fellow officers.  And since I have made this an issue, I have found that the very Reserve Officer program for Ludington is detrimental to the public safety and not consistent with our state and local laws.

 

I brought the issue out again at the beginning of this meeting (2:22 into the following video) and include some corroborating pictures and links, as usual. 

 

 

 

 

"Let me revisit a couple of issues that I brought up at the last meeting, but weren't considered seriously by the City Attorney.  His 2012 E-mail written directly to me outlined a process by which to address FOIA appeals against the City of Ludington, and this process was followed repeatedly until it was changed arbitrarily and capriciously by this public body last year. 

 

 

In his defense, he offered the assertion that this appeal policy was changed when the city changed their FOIA policy last year.  But nowhere in that policy is a change of the process of appeal noted to reflect that the appellant would no longer be able to personally plea his case to this council for up to five minutes, the established policy as guaranteed by City Attorney Wilson in 2012. [see p 38-42 in this packet for the FOIA policy change]

 

For the last four times I have appealed FOIA decisions before this body, I have been denied that right, while publicly having to see the attorney and city manager unfairly consider or ignore the reasons for the appeal in the first place.  Frankly, I have understood that I need only appeal the ruling, and mention briefly the grounds of my appeal, which is what I have been doing before presenting the full case in front of this council.  Apparently, this body is too afraid of the facts of the appeal and their negligence in their duties to provide this information to the public in accordance with the FOIA, to consider the complete rationale of one of their citizens requesting information.

 

But putting the legal information that Attorney Wilson shows a propensity to dispense off to the side for a moment, let me go over the material that the City Council and Reserve Officer Cox unanimously denied public access to at the last meeting. 

 

There are no provisions for reserve police officers in the city charter, nor in the city code of ordinances, which can easily be determined from looking at those bodies of law in its entirety.   Thus when I learned of the reserve officers having the ability to wear the uniform of a Ludington Police Officer, assume the powers of that office, and wield a firearm in the course of their duties, without having any legally established authority, no minimal training requirements, and no clear chain of command I became alarmed [read below]. 

 

 

I became even more confused when the City attorney wrote an opinion that used privilege-claimed information to justify that the reserves were not city employees or officials.  More confusion arose, when he claimed that Mayor Ryan Cox would not be the ultimate supervisor of Reserve Officer Ryan Cox, and breaches of duty would not occur even if the City went into a state of emergency.

 

What information the City has shared with me from another FOIA request shows that in 1912, over 100 years ago, the Mayor appointed special police in the first mention of reserve-type officers in Ludington.   In 1942, Ludington's mayor appointed 23 officers to an auxiliary volunteer police force, showing that the Mayor had the power at that time to appoint and dismiss reserve officers [see both here ].

 

 Throughout the years, there has been no indication in any publicly available record that the mayor abrogated that power to the police chief for having the authority to appoint members of the Ludington Reserve Police Department.  The city charter has nothing to counter the historically recorded mayor appointments of police reserves, the code only allows the chief the power to establish rules within the department, it gives no powers of appointment of any kind.  But Attorney Wilson made the point, Attorney Sniegowski reinforced it, that this reserve force was entirely the police chiefs bailiwick.

 

Therefore, there can only be one conclusion with the publicly available record:  that the Ludington reserves, a group admittedly under control of the police chief, allowed to carry guns and use police powers, uniforms, and other taxpayer-provided equipment, but not mandated to be licensed by the state, or have minimal training, is more of a liability to the community and is definitely not a legally established force. 

 

The records confirming this, of which at least some are unlawfully being withheld from the public, would likely show Police Chief Barnett operating this secretive, unaccountable police force against the interests of the citizens.  The public is not able to see the job description, the reserve's by-laws, or any ideas to the limitations of their powers and the extent of their duties, and whether these duties are to the public or to the police chief.  Withholding all of these records, like the city council voted unanimously to do at last meeting without discussion, illustrates why our city is not operating transparently, within the law, or for the citizens' best interests."

 

As usual, Mayor Cox and Chief Barnett remained mute on the issue, and allowed the City Attorney to do the talking at the meeting's end, where the public is prohibited from commenting and run the risk of being taking out forcefully for disturbing the peace, as happened in Bridgeport Township.  Just before he commented at the end, Council Gary Castonia had to offer his own pearl of wisdom (1:09:15 into the video):

 

 

Castonia:  "I don't understand Mr. Rotta getting up there and wants to put everything up for a vote of the people.  That's what city councils and city commissions are for, to make these decisions.  If it's something important like changing the law then sure, you have a vote of the people.

But I don't see a lot of people rapping at the door and trying to get into our position.  I've run three times and I've never had anyone to run against.  And I think most of the council has had the same thing; nobody wants to get involved.  They would rather come up here and complain about it, then walk away and we don't see them again-- except for you. 

Come to think about it, I've never seen your name on a ballot.  Why don't you step up and be part of the solutions, instead of being part of the problem.  That's all I have."

 

If the city charter or the state statutes mandate a vote of the people to decide an issue, then it is a breach of duty and  illegal for the city council to make that decision unilaterally, Councilor Castonia.  Unlike you, I have ran in a contested race for city councilor at large (2011 vs. Councilor Holman ).  This put me on everyone's ballot in the City of Ludington for the November 2011 election, an election you apparently didn't vote in.  I had the misfortune of being banned from entering my polling place and the Ludington City Hall in an obvious farce of an election, because you voted for and backed from your Public Safety Committee you chaired the Workplace Safety Policy. 

You, sir, are a major part of the problem, and you illustrated it fairly clearly in your words that ignore the laws of the charter and recent history.  Your bookend on the other side, Kaye Holman, who knew full well that your words were false about my not ever being on the ballot, punctuates your ignorant elitism with the words "Well put!" immediately after.  How completely pathetic. 

But then City Attorney Wilson had the microphone right after (at 1:10:20 in):

 

Attorney Wilson:  "Just briefly.  Back to the reserve police officer situation, just before we beat this dead horse one more time.  Mr. Rotta pointed out that apparently back in 1912 and 1942, both dates of which were before I was born-- I don't know about that with some of you-- that officers in the police reserve unit or whatever they called it back in 1912 or 1942 were appointed by the mayor, and the point I think that he was making was in the sentence that he said that there were no time when the mayor abrogated that power. 

I think Mr. Rotta is probably correct in that the Mayor did never abrogate that power, because what happened was the voters took it away from him at least as recently as 1992, when they adopted the charter.  The mayor can only perform the functions and exercise the authority the city charter gives the mayor.  The current city charter does not give the mayor power to appoint anybody to the police department.  And so the voters were the ones that took that power away from the mayor and not the mayor giving it up...

If the mayor had the power to appoint such individuals in 1912 and 1942, the voters took that away, at least in 1992... (To Mayor Cox) That's why you don't appoint yourself to the reserve police officers." 

 

If "The mayor can only perform the functions and exercise the authority the city charter gives the mayor." is his reasoning of why the Mayor somehow lost the power of appointing reserve officers, then using the same reasoning the police chief has nothing in the charter to allow him to appoint reserve officers, not even an implication thereof, or even any 'historical' powers to, unlike the mayor.  As usual, the City Attorney's reasoning is faulty, and implicates the City of wrongdoing when trying to show their innocence. 

 

In conclusion, for now, when Mayor Cox was trying to justify his own ability to hold both positions, he sent the following missive to the City Attorney: 

 

Mayor Cox underestimates his authority, he has charter authority to appoint the fire chief, and he was never corrected by Attorney Wilson, who is usually quick to point out such errors:

 

and, of course, the very next section in the charter blows the whole City Attorney's foundation away:

 

Officers of the Ludington Police Department are members of the City's administrative services, ergo Reserve LPD Officers have never been established by the city council (as the city code shows), nor have they been lawfully authorized any powers or duties.  Again, what we have here is an illegal police force of which Mayor Ryan Cox is a full-fledged member.  The implications are scary.

[Willy]

Excellent work X. You have a way of cutting to the meat of the problem. You lay out the problem and the reasons why they exist but no City officials seem to be listening or even care. Why aren't any of the Council or Mayor considering the information you bring forward? As far as Canstonia, he demonstrates his ignorance every time he speaks. What the hell does his running unopposed for Council have to do with correcting problems that are so apparent. These people are unbelievable. Probably 99% of the people who read this can understand the conflicts this situation can cause but the Council and Mayor seem to be asleep while all of this information is presented. What the heck do they do for the 2 weeks in between meetings. I couldn't imagine these folks being paid a regular salary for being City officials. If they worked at McDonalds and performed their jobs the same way they represent the people they would be fired. 

[XLFD]

Be careful when you say that I have a way of cutting to the meat of the problem, Willy, because Heather Tykoski will get wind of it, and declare me the Butcher of Ludington when she goes for another PPO or LOT.

I was heartened by the fact that a few regular Ludington folks came to this council and three made their views known to the council at the public hearing, and others who didn't speak got to see the stuff that our news agencies left on the cutting room floor.  If you look at the COLDNews, the Mason County Press, and WMOM radio, who all sent representatives, not one commented on the issue of the reserve officers, or any sort of objective look at the laws regarding them. 

When they don't, it clearly says to me, that they know I'm right; because if they (or the City) had something to defend the charter-shredding policies of the City of Ludington or to attack the logic of the argument against them which has to be edited to fit within five minutes, it would come out.  The City Attorney's comments, as they were, were effectively meaningless and contradictory.