The City of Ludington Loses its Cool?!

[XLFD]

Check out the top of page three in today's Ludington Daily News.  Here is a brief synopsis of the event, which is a minor part of this push against a private citizen.  Perhaps someone with a subscription to the E-Edition of the LDN can post the expanded version:

 

http://www.ludingtondailynews.com/news/53382-city-oks-deposit-to-co...

 

Below, was my letter to each of the Ludington City Councilors with an E-Mail address made over this weekend, expressing my appeal.  The amount of legal and factual inaccuracies in the article will be covered in more detail as I get more time. 

 

Once again I am the appellant for a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that is being considered on the agenda for your 11-8-10 meeting.  I received the letter from FOIAC Shay in Friday’s mail, and was not able to read it until this Saturday, so hopefully, you check your E-Mail on a regular basis because I have not the time to get something through you in the snail mail before your meeting, and I have pledged to never talk with haughty public servants on the phone again.

 

Nothing in the City or State’s appeal process for FOIA requests say I can represent myself in front of the appellant entity within the public body, so I won’t bother showing up on Monday night and having you make your own rules to mock the process.  I offer here a brief synopsis, followed by my letter from April which explains your FOIAC’s inability to follow legal process, both then and now.  You ignored it then, so I am not expecting much now, though this FOIA appeal does proffer a new angle.

 

I was mischaracterized in the previous appeal as “not liking the decision to pay ½ of the upfront costs.” as per the minutes of that meeting.  If you read my letter, I objected to the original quote of $600 without  the FOIAC specifically identifying the nature of the unreasonably high costs of my simple request, which was then capriciously changed to $120 in his next letter to me, still without identifying any reason, specific or general, for the high costs of just inspecting the documents, as per the law.

 

As per the law, the fee he quoted is not a recognized fee per the FOIA as he did not specify the nature of the costs.  This is why I did not recognize any lawful fee last time, and due to the same mistake on his part, there is no fee recognized by law in his response.  He is entitled to let me inspect the documents or fall in arrears of the law.

 

This time, he once again failed to mention what the nature of the costs were for the four separate FOIA Requests I sent on 10-18, and the five separate requests I sent in on 10-25.  For both he sent a form letter that said paradoxically that my request was Granted, but required a fee and also that it was denied because a public record does not exist.  Each of my requests (attached) had four or five clearly distinct requests.  If your FOIAC wants to use one incomplete and confusing form for four or five requests, he is once again operating outside of the law, and failing to serve the public in his appointed office.

 

In his letter notifying me of my appeal going through, dated 11-3, FOIAC Shay states that his policy as FOIAC is to not charge a fee for inspection anytime the costs to the city to search/compile records are less than $100.  He finally, after two inquiries and all the past inquiries, breaks down the specific labor costs incurred by my nine FOIA requests which total $367.25.  Per his figuring, That’s less than $41 a request and should allow me to inspect these free even on this count.  Likewise, unless City Hall is totally helter skelter, I can’t imagine any of my initial requests taking 3 hours of a City Manager’s time, since each simple request could be gathered by lesser paid employees of the city.

 

Stonewall the citizens who have a right to know about the workings of their government, or follow the law.  It seems so obvious to me what your decision should be.  Here’s a link to the MI FOIA, have Mr. Shay search a few hours for the city's policy for you:  http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(qxqgj455sbfplcew22hb5e55))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-Act-442-of-1976

 

  

 

[AQUAMAN]

Now what kind of "Monkeyshines" are you drumming up X? What FOIA documents are being denied access to? $7Million question? C'mon, don't leave us hanging there pal! My suggestion, try one simple FOIA request at a time, don't pile them into a single action, that way they have to give access if under the $100 threshold. Takes longer, but, who's in such a hurry?

[XLFD]

Less like drumming up monkeyshines, more like receiving plenty of tommyrot. I lack a secretary to type the complete article here which had 4 1/2 columns on this topic in the paper (about 26 inches of column) of which the City Mangler John Shay misrepresented several of my FOIA requests and brought up the irrelevant point of a traffic stop that occurred in August 2008 where I failed to stop at a stop sign, that I contested the ticket, and it was upheld in court.

I guess I could wonder about why this private information was brought up in an appeal to receive nine simple requests for information, but this is the same guy who allowed the police chief to disclose false, confidential information before its time to my boss at the LFD about this bicycle traffic stop at a stop sign that was not only 25 feet out of place beyond the crosswalk, but also didn't have a traffic control order to back it up (as verified by a previous FOIA request).

All in all, this was amazing to see, how easy it was for him to go after a private citizen for asking questions and trying to have the law followed as written, and by its intent. Another good read for my attorney.

I am strengthened by Gandhi who said: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Three-quarters of the way there, I figure, but once again, I am perturbed about the lack of concern for my privacy, and what they have in store for this citizen in the future.

Here are three photos of the article, just in case you already lined the birdcage with it. Pardon the readability.

[XLFD]

Aq, each request was uniquely different than the other requests and given a number in my letters, if you'll notice the article; the nine separate requests were then illegally lumped into two requests. When Shay presented the nine requests in these two letters as separate requests with a total cost of $183.63 (x2), you'll find that the city could have only charged for, at most, three of the requests (as the amount is less than $400). At least six requests should have been granted, but weren't, and my point, that FOIAC John Shay and the Council conveniently ignored, was that I was never given an account of what the unreasonably high costs were until I appealed his decisions. And the law is fairly precise in this matter:
MCL 15.234: "... A fee shall not be charged for the cost of search, examination, review, and the deletion and separation of exempt from nonexempt information as provided in section 14 unless failure to charge a fee would result in unreasonably high costs to the public body because of the nature of the request in the particular instance, and the public body specifically identifies the nature of these unreasonably high costs. A public body shall establish and publish procedures and guidelines to implement this subsection."

Nor have they published procedures and guidelines to implement the subsection, as I have FOIAed their procedures and guidelines earlier. Discovered check.

[Wart Frog]

Shay informed the council that Rotta had been cited by the Ludington Police Department in August 2008 for failing to stop at a stop sign. He contested the ticket, but it was upheld by the court.

Since then, Shay said, Rotta and his attorney have sent 27 letters, mostly FOIA requests to the city. Among the requests Shay listed are: • a request for any documents/ files that show how a survey could potentially remove job creation from some of the downtown grant programs.

• a request for a summary of income the marina took in as compared to two previous years.

• a request for the wattage of 10 new streetlights on the north side of the marina.

• a request for all annual statements of financial interests filed by city officials and employees with the city’s board of ethics during the past three years.

• a request to inspect the city’s anti-nepotism policy, if one exists.

• a request to inspect documents or files wherein the Downtown Ludington Board was converted into or classified as a non-profit organization.

• a request to inspect all documents showing competitive bids for painting the city’s two water towers.

• a request to inspect all minutes of all meetings where any member of the Dog Park Committee met with any Ludington boards or committees, also including e-mails or other correspondences between Joe Maloney and any member of Ludington government concerning the dog park.

• a request to inspect the original agreements between the Stearns and Cartier families and the city regarding the use of the families’ land, and any notifications to the families since then.

• a request to inspect competitive bids for the DDA’s signage project, and any documents explaining contracts for the dog park.

Shay outlined for the council the amounts of time city employees spent searching for the requested documents. His figures show totals of John Shay, four hours at $40.80 an hour; Kurt Malzahn, one hour at $26.39 an hour; Debbie Luskin, 5.25 hours at $24.98 an hour; and Heather Venzke, 2.25 hours at $20.67 an hour.

Shay had told Rotta he must pay a $183.63 deposit, which represents half of the charges, to see the records that he requested and city officials could find. He asked the council to back his position Monday.

[Wart Frog]

Looks like a lot of vague requests and you should be thankful they only want to charge 183$.

We say: Get your act together Tom Rotta. Do you ever follow through and finish anything?

[XLFD]

Thanks for your insightful troll commentary, Wart Frog. Is that your birth name?

[Willy]

Wart
No offense but your full of wart encrusted crap. You should be happy that someone is challenging "business as usual". Did you ever wonder why anyone needs to file a FOIA just to see Government documents? Did you ever wonder why a member of the public needs to pay to see Government documents? Just the fact that we as the public need to pay to see written documentation of what public officials are doing is beyond ludicrous. I don't understand those people who think that challenging what officials are doing or have done is unacceptable. I have a lot more respect for someone who stands up for their rights then some frog who only croaks nonsense.

[AQUAMAN]

Nice check move there RJE, and more than valid and accurate, except he's a another stalker over at MS named, correction, wart-toad. Most likely the kind that does not appreciate Freedom of Speech, nor the USA checks and balance system, that's where we the people, get to inspect, approve, and hold accountable, our officials that hold office. Helps clarify the legalities of our hirees, the ones we vote in or out of office. How would you toad have direct access to such info. when you live in Illinois? Not even close to Ludington? Or do ya?

[Froggy Wax]

Aquaman,
When did Wart Frog say she was from Illinois? Do you have a guilty conscious that is causing you to accuse other people of difficulties you cause upon yourself?

How about the many forums XLFD belongs to where he is from different places such as Toledo and Texas?

FOIA is a good law and should be followed. At least nine different overly vague request for information that could literally take 40 hours to search for is vendictive. Its like the police might want to know if John Doe from Illinois ever rented your charter but requesting you to produce all your records that involves everyone from Illinois that was on your charter. Tom Rotta should be happy they are not charging him more money.

[XLFD]

RJE,
Great post. John Shay's disclosure of my LPD citation and its outcome(totally irrelevant to any of my requests) in a public forum and the disclosure of my private E-Mail to the LDN, a so-called News Medium was clearly unlawful and will, I believe, lead to his eventual removal from office, or resignation.

Someone asks for publicly available information to create interesting reading on a local blog, and because of that he gets personally attacked by the chief executive, and FOIA Coordinator. Sounds like I hit some nerves, and so I am sure they are going to look for new ways to swat this insect.

[Froggy Wax]

RJE,
Wart Frog never said she was against the FOIA. Quit assuming something that was not said.
Why do you support tying up our public officials with frivilous requests? Asking for street light wattage is vendictive.

[Edie Lindsey]

If you read the "Freedom from Information", a new Torch classic thread if I ever read one here is the full request XLFD made:

"Secondly, as an FOIA request, I would like to inspect a summary of the income the marina took in as compared to the two previous years for this year. Particularly, I would like to inspect just the money the new $830,000 transient marina docks took in this year. Could you also provide the electrical utility costs of the marina over the last couple of years, or at least provide me with the wattage of the ten new street lamps that now line the north side of the marina? This is for a project on wasteful government spending I'm working on."

The City Manager editted it for public consumption. apparently. Frivolity to you, but I would like to know as a member of the public. BTW, use your spell-checker in the future, the words are "frivolous" and "vindictive", and describe you to a "T". Kisses.