Chief Mark Barnett: Hindering Public Investigations, pt. 2, Marina Records, Censored

[XLFD]

In this thread chief-mark-barnett-hindering-public-investigations-pt-1, I had related that I was going to reveal "an interesting twist on this FOIA appeal, which may have far-reaching implications beyond whether the Ludington City Council upholds it or not.  This will be divulged at the meeting."

 

At the meeting, before I said anything else on the topic, I asked the city councilors whether they had the FOIA law in front of them.  A lot of dull, yet stern, gazes looked back at me, and of course no one admitted to having such law before them.  Fortunately I had prepared several copies of the first few sections of the FOIA law and I offered to pass them out to the councilors.  Heroicly, Mayor John Henderson thinking there might be some sort of trick going on suggested I just give them to the City Clerk, Deb Luskin who will pass them around.  As I walked back to the podium, I commented on how 'weird' it was to be making a ruling on something regarding law without having the law in front of you.  As they were planning on doing twice.  After a few more seconds when they received the paperwork, I began: 

 

"Ok let's walk through this:

Sec. 2(h) “Writing” means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, photocopying, and every other means of recording... [surveillance videotapes of a municipal marina kept by a police department are "writings" by this definition"]

Sec 2(e) “Public record” means a writing prepared, owned, used, in the possession of, or retained by a public body in the performance of an official function, from the time it is created. [the surveillance tapes are "public records" by this definition.

sec 3(1) Except as expressly provided in section 13, upon providing a public body's FOIA coordinator with a written request that describes a public record sufficiently to enable the public body to find the public record, a person has a right to inspect, copy, or receive copies of the requested public record of the public body.

Section 13 contains the possible exemptions from disclosure of the FOIA; as Chief Barnett allowed me (someone who has been deemed dangerous by Ludington authorities to the extent that I was previously banned for 14 months from setting foot on the City Hall or police department) to inspect these public records, there was no exemption claimed for disclosure. Thus Chief Barnett violated the people's right to copy these records. Furthermore in FOIA sec 5(4) A written notice denying a request for a public record in whole or in part is a public body's final determination to deny the request or portion of that request. The written notice shall contain:

(a) An explanation of the basis under this act or other statute for the determination that the public record, or portion of that public record, is exempt from disclosure, if that is the reason for denying all or a portion of the request.

I was given no basis of the denial other than Chief Barnett thought it "would undermine the effectiveness of the security system by showing the field of view and perspectives of the system. It would also reveal what is not monitored. The effectiveness of the system is enhanced by the notion that "everything is covered"."

As having prior experience as a security officer, the Chief's argument is specious and not supported by statute or the act. A security system is not meant to be static and reactive, but dynamic and proactive. If he feels dissemination of this information will compromise the effectiveness of it, then change around the system at times. But I got to thinking, why would Chief Barnett be reluctant to even allow a 'screen shot' from these cameras?

One of the two cameras that we reviewed was stationary and pointed at the 'D' and 'E' docks where there was absolutely nothing of interest as regards marina security..."

 

At this point I was interrupted, just as I was getting into the good stuff by Mayor Henderson who declared that my 5 minutes were up, and that I should just wrap it up.  I said I would probably need up to 5 more minutes, but he was adamant.  I skipped to my wrap up paragraph:

 

"Violating the FOIA by not allowing the people the right to make copies of these public records is a civil violation that sets the City up for more litigation when the courts eventually find the refusal as an arbitrary and capricious neglect of their duty. If you vote to uphold the FOIA Coordinator's decision you will be not only be on record as denying the people the rights under FOIA, but also set the City up for further civil and criminal litigation."

 

It kind of lacked rigor, because I had to skip over the criminal violations I alleged of the City.  But then Chief Barnett, after the mayor's abbreviation of my presentation, discussed his reason which effectively mirrored his prior concern about revealing what parts of the marina are viewed and the limitations of the cameras-- but I knew that already, and I could pass it along to any anarchist with anti-city-marina tendencies on my website this information just by taking my own still pictures of what I seen, or just through words.  But concerns about 'viewing rectangles' and 'coverage' are not reasons to dismiss the large part of this request. 

 

City Attorney Wilson, as has been his usual modus operandi, then capped it off with an argument that backed Chief Barnett's claims, with suitable disregard for any such exemption in the FOIA that actually applied here.  The odd thing is, I have received from an almost unimpeachable source, that City Attorney Wilson originally advised Chief Barnett to allow me to have still photos from the surveillance cameras.  His new stance seemed a political move to show his support for the Chief's illegal action of denying me the right to make copies of public records, or receive copies of such. 

 

And whereas if I was given the copies or the opportunity to take screen shots from the surveillance cameras or had been exposed to the verbal and non-verbal behavior Chief Barnett exhibited, I probably wouldn't have suspected or noticed what I saw on the footage as being very unlawful. 

 

But that was censored from the meeting, and I was re-censored when I tried to adapt it into a question they had of me about the 'public interest' copies of such records would serve.  That uncensored material sounds like the makings of another thread.