A recent perusal of the City website shows the following as part of the minutes for the 2-28-11 City Council Meeting, recently posted on that site:


"Moved by Councilor Scott seconded by Councilor Holman, to approve the Workplace Safety Policy. City Manager John Shay presented this policy to Council and explained the purpose is to foster and maintain a safe working environment for every employee of the City. It puts a renewed emphasis on a secure site by locking a door, and deals with threats or any harm of any city employee. If necessary, a letter of trespass would be issued to an individual that is creating a safety concern against a city employee. The letter of trespass would prohibit a person in question from entering a city building until further notice. Councilor Scott questioned whether on page 4 if the City has to send a letter of trespass by regular mail or by certified mail. City Attorney Richard Wilson explained that the letter of trespass referred to in this policy would be delivered personally. Motion Carried."


When I received a "Letter of Trespass" for City Hall/LPD the very next day it spoke of the Workplace Safety Policy.  At the time I thought it was either some sort of entrenched, lengthy Federal law warning employees about running around the office with scissors in their hand, or the protocols to avoid paper cuts.  I had not figured it was passed the previous night at the local level, with no discussion except for the method of service. 


So will the citizens ever know what this policy actually states?  It appears to have the authority to restrict peaceful, dissenting citizens from being able to access the public services they pay and support with their taxes and fees.  It appears to allow the City to put the spotlight on any person and talk ill of them publicly without showing any cause of why they chose to do so.  Is this what we have come to in Ludington?  In America?


We have a FOIA request on this Workplace Safety Policy that was sent on Tuesday night-- I will post that policy when it becomes available.  We have also requested the interoffice communications that led to the developments of this policy. 



Views: 241

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Pathetic little man he is.


I wonder how Ms. Marrison voted on this issue. It seems she would have had enough time now to read all the threads and documentation here at the Torch and see that Shay is as unethical as a person can be. I understand she has not been here from the start and catching up may take a while, but even a few hours should give her the info needed to see the wolf in sheeps clothes that he is. He is a bad man.

Councilor Marrison, and any other City Councilor, will have the opportunity to comment on this policy and the way it was implemented this coming Monday.  I have sent E-mails to all of them with E-mail addresses (5 of 7) asking for a reconsideration of this very policy, and John Shay's recent use of it. 
Close Sheila, but a real man has some self-respect and humane blood in his soul, one that would question the ethics of such a "fraudulent safety measure when only questionable people of ilk, and position, have been revealed in a bad light of multiplicity's of corruption and deceit of taxpayer monies being bilked to individuals that have inside information to obtain lucrative bids into the thousands of dollars through various recent FOIA requests", just to name some. Wanda had no previous knowledge of the forthcoming event until the day it hit the CC for vote, and assumed it was legitimate, (brainwashed and pressured as a freshman councilwoman), I have been told. Shay is a lost boy, yet 12 years old in maturity, that is in a 30 something man's body, trying to seek some legitimacy now that his "designer made pants" might be pulled down around corrupt actions, and that of the DDA that he oversees and supports. This is why Miller got canned/resigned, he had more scruples than to go this far into the abyss, cause he's a local/yocal so they say.

John Shay, City Attorney Richard Wilson, and any other public employee (or is that independent contractor, CA Wilson? LOL) are and have been cordially invited to participate on the Ludington Torch in any way they wish to explain this policy and any other policy we have questioned here in the past.  Or send it to my E-mail address. 

Aquaman may have a point:  John Shay, Heather Venzke, Nick Tykoski, are all youngish and do perhaps lack the maturity to distinguish right from wrong, public from private, theirs from yours, rights from privileges, etc. in the positions they have been appointed to. 

Don't forget who hired Shay and who continues to support all of his actions. He only does what his handlers allow. You might even surmise that the CC are behind shay in all of his actions. If Wanda is that naive then she should not be representing anyone on the CC. That makes her part of the problem.

The above excerpt from the City Council meeting could easily remind one of that symbiotic relationship between the Council and their appointees, RJE.  That and the 'rubber stamp' mentality in those elective offices that has only grown stronger as this municipality has grown stronger in power-- I see only CC Engblade as the only one bucking that trend, and this is his last year.  Meanwhile, the people and businesses "out of the loop" continue to see their rights and earnings ebb. 

What I don't like about this whole fiasco is that there is no recourse for the person banned, shouldn't the person or persons who are fearful for their safety at least have to demonstrate some sort of reasoning behind it, shouldn't the person banned be allowed their day in court to dispute the allegations, there just doesn't seem to be a due process - it's an automatic your guilty and banned.
That would be my largest complaint here also Lisa. Under the guise of some ambiguous person feeling threatened by the mere presence of another human being in a public place. WE can detour almost any information gathering activities. And the fact the building XL was banned from also houses the police station if extremely laughable. WE have to protect the local police from a citizen also?? tooo funny.
Well maybe if the council woman is still perusing the site, she can explain how this can be. I'm all for work place safety - but there has to be some sort of process involved where all sides get to state their case and once all the facts are weighed a decision is made. I would think just complaining because someone is looking into whether I used my job for some sort of personal gain, would not fall into that category. Furthermore if I was that person and someone thought I did something illegal in my job I would certainly go out of my way to provide all the necessary documentation to show that I did not and then I would expect an apology.
Pretty true Lisa, but instead, the CM Shay is clearly putting up even more barricades and walls to prevent any more FOIA requests going forward. And using the LOT order to rescind those normal privileges afforded to any citizen concerned with facts and documentation. Methinks any attorney of worth would request a "show cause order" in a court of law, to get to the bottom of this. Bring the alleged fearful employees to witness what is so bad, and back it up with film footage from cameras there on 24/7 to get the real truth. Methinks that is what CM Shay was also informed of after his little tirade was known to the CA, and then did an abrupt u-turn to the reporter for the LDN article with the LPD escort excuse given later on.

Yes, Lisa they have obviously noticed the link, Dev. of Authority pt. 5:  Signs of Love and have had some time to react to it.  Their reaction, attack me and my motives, instead of showing documentation to the contrary of my assertions, lends credence to my public record-backed assertions. 

I try to be meticulous in my investigations and search for exculpatory material when something seems so amiss.  That's why it usually takes me a little while to get out an article, because credibility is important.  I wish some in our government, and our local newspapers, would get that idea.

According to the City Manager, Guido, I am the City's most dangerous person.

I think the same of him, LOL. 


© 2023   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service