Ludington City Council Meeting, March 19, 2018: Technical Fouls

[XLFD]

Right in the middle of the NCAA basketball tournament, the Ludington City Council held its own version of March Madness.  The agenda packet promised three annual reports from the Recreation, DPW, and police departments, these begin just a little over twelve minutes into the meeting and go for the next half hour.

The highlights of the reports was that the recreation department's new leader has brought her tech savviness to the position after replacing Cathy Van Sickle, the DPW's leader Joe Stickney gave a rousing report which never touched upon the Golf cart mishap at the breakwall last fall (with good reason), and LPD Chief Barnett continued the pat-on-the-back patter with the heroism of his officers protecting the citizens from themselves.  

Listening to the latter two reports, one would think that our city has absolutely no problem keeping up with general public maintenance issues and protecting us from bad guys doing bad things.  Your experiences and observations may not corroborate that, as it didn't for citizen Chuck Sobanski who used his full two minutes at the end (53:40) asking "Why" questions to stress more work needs to be done, he was cut off before he could explain why he was thankful to the LPD. 

Committee reports amounted to only the routine paying of the bills and the first presentation of a vaguely written ordinance (see p. 48-49) meant to extract money from House of Flavors for the Ludington WWTP upgrades.  The night ended with the "2018 Suds on the Shore" event being approved, and a National Service Day recognition resolution.  Almost ended, a parting shot beat the buzzer, made by Point Guard Councilor Kathy Winczewski (aka Katie Moonbeam).  

If you look at the very last seconds of the video, you will see the councilor approaching me and giving a slip of paper, which she wrote in preparation of making a statement which she presented after the second public comment period, when she could not be refuted.

This 'late call' left me dumbfounded; I would expect a call for 'double dribbling' if I drooled or slurred while I talked or an 'illegal use of the hands' if I had uncharacteristically flipped the bird, but I was accused of issuing a directed personal attack by this city councilor on the record of this public meeting.  I reviewed my two carefully choreographed comments after she alleged this, and found nothing.  I asked her while she handed me her note what she was talking about, the best she gave me was that the personal attack was towards the end of one of my comments.  

Let's review the game film.  I  entered the court as the only citizen to provide public comment at the beginning of the meeting and during the public hearing for the "Harbor Improvement Plan".  The HIP is an amendment to the COL's Recreation Plan, which must be kept current by the COL to apply for and be considered for Michigan DNR Trust Fund grants.  The rules for applying for trust fund grants are rather set in stone, and since many communities apply for these grants, not following the rules may prove fatal.  This was what made up the largest part of my speech beginning at 2:15 minutes into the meeting and transcribed here with corroborating links and pictures:

March 19th, 2018 Ludington City Council meeting from Mason County District Library on Vimeo.

XLFD:  "Tonight we have a public hearing focused on amending the City's recreational plan in order to include a harbor improvement plan. According to the city manager's memo, this plan will make the City eligible to apply for a Michigan DNR grant whose deadline for application is April 1st. At this point in the meeting, I wish to address the timeliness of the various issues at play.

According to page 6 of the DNR 2018 Trust Fund Applications Guide, Recreation plan amendments must be prepared, affirmed by the city council and submitted by March 1st 2018. According to their rules, this approved recreation plan amendment needed to be in their hands 18 days ago. You are late.

It further states: "Once the amendment has been drafted, citizens must be provided with a well-publicized opportunity of adequate length (at least two weeks) to review and comment on it before it is officially adopted." Your resolution notes that a two week public comment period began with the posting of a notice on March 6, and ended with a public comment session held on March 19 to provide the public with an opportunity to express their opinions on the plan.

"At least two weeks" starting from Tuesday, March 6 terminates at the same time of posting on Tuesday March 20th, tomorrow. If you vote for the plan amendment tonight you will have only given the public 13 days to review and comment on the amendment, and will again be in violation of the DNR trust fund application rules.

[On the City's master plan, it explains that the City must keep an updated parks and recreation plan filed with the Michigan DNR to be eligible for Michigan DNR Trust Fund grants, so even though it is never explicitly stated in any of the City's notices for this meeting, I will presume this amendment process is so that the city can apply for a trust fund grant of up to $300,000.]

Ironically, the city manager's memo notes that the "deadline for the city to submit it's grant application for the marina improvements is April 1st, 2018." But the city manager fails to tell you that a properly noticed public hearing must also take place prior to April 1st for committing to the application for the specific improvements to satisfy the public input requirements. Perhaps had he not been using all of his energy and time preparing for and travelling to clandestine interviews with Holland Township officials for a job he is ill-suited for, he could have had the time and energy to do this right. Thank you."

The facts continued with the beginning of the public hearing which began shortly thereafter:

XLFD (5:30 in):  "I append my public comment with another direct line from the MI DNR IC 1924 Guidelines: "Public meetings focused on review of your recreation plan will not meet your obligations for public input for your grant application unless the meeting notice and agenda indicate that the meeting will cover both recreation plan review and the specific grant application."

Neither the notice put on the city website, or the notice placed well-hidden in the newspaper on March 9th or this meeting's agenda indicate that this public hearing is for anything other than amending the 5 year recreation plan by adding a harbor improvement plan. Why is that the case when the City cannot apply for this grant this year within the rules established by the Michigan DNR without holding a last minute special meeting of the city council?

My belief is that our city leaders know that this application would be roundly panned by all of the many private marinas who have to use their own money for their marina improvements. And yet, such an application should be roundly panned by anybody with a basic concept of fairness.

Since our city marina was created by millions of dollars of state and federal tax dollars, it has received millions more from the state for other improvements like the transient docks, bathhouses, fish cleaning station, dredging, maintenance, and upkeep. Private marinas have properly received nothing during that time while directly competing with the city marina.

The city marina pays no property tax, they pay no taxes on the gasoline they can offer at competition-killing prices, and they have throughout their history shamefully and unlawfully reneged on their initial pledge of not to harbor the private businesses known as charter boats at their location. I encourage any of you councilors to make an attempt to justify the morality of why our state government needs to further subsidize the city marina when they have such an unfair competitive advantage on the private marinas in our fair city already. Thank you."

And that's what I said, relying on public records displayed to the public by the City and the MI DNR.  Can you make out any personal attack?  The closest I see is the observation that our city manager had used a lot of time and energy during this period for applying and interviewing for the Holland Township position.  And that's not a directed personal attack.  So I thought more about this, as Councilor Kathy advised, and listened further.

At 8:20 into the meeting, City Manager John Shay states that he was sent an E-mail by the DNR saying that the 13 day period was okay because they originally told the city there would not have to be an amendment to the rec plan (that E-mail will be ordered up through FOIA).  He was then asked a question by the appointed Fifth Ward Councilor:

Wally Cain:  "John, Did anyone from the public ask for clarification on this and timeliness of it, and the fact that we may be late or it might be illegal?"
Shay: "No, no."
Cain: "So he just went off and wildly made accusations?"

As noted by the DNR's and City's own documents, the accusations were well-founded, and none had been disproved.  John Shay noted a MI DNR official would bend the rules for him in making the public notification period shorter.  That DNR official is probably going to be in some serious trouble soon for violating the public's right to be informed.  Any application for dock repairs will be invalid if it is sent to the MI DNR without a public hearing at a special meeting held before April 1.  

So, thank you Kathy, I see the directed personal attack made by Councilor Wallace Cain, I just wonder why you were too timid to address Wally about it and needed to use me as a conduit.

You will see these public officials shamefully and unconvincingly try to justify why the city marina deserves their subsidization from the state's DNR Trust Fund, just before they unanimously pass the Harbor Improvement Plan.

[AQUAMAN]

Correct FS, and they should be focusing some, even a little, attention on a possible replacement of the city mgr. soon. Or do they just want to wait for the 2 weeks notice? Also, Shyster Shay has used taxpayer funds for all his personal attacks on X, not his own funds. That too elevates discourse and relevance for all such actions. And remember Moonbeam, you want taxpayers at meetings to discus issues with you, then, you do this to intimidate and discourage attendance, keep up the good work, sad.