The Police Clerk's Indecent, Unauthorized Proposal

[XLFD]

If you haven't read The Destroyer of Incriminating Public Records, and learned of the actions of the Ludington Police Department (LPD) and their chief in destroying a narrative-shattering body worn camera (BWC) video, the Ludington City Council's part in defending Chief Christopher Jones' paywall after the destruction of the records, the acceptance of ransom by the LPD on the promise that the records would be produced, followed by the revelation over two weeks later that the BWC had been destroyed after the chief reset and reduced the default retention time from one year to one month, you need to do so.

There did arise a separate issue among all of the civil violations of FOIA law and criminal violations involving fraud and public record destruction that is distinct and troubling enough to merit a separate analysis of what the City of Ludington (COL) and their officials did in this case, and it centers around the concept of municipal authority and around one surprising city official who at first glance seems to have usurped a whole lot of it.  Meet LPD Clerk (aka administrative assistant) Valerie Marquardt, the employee who presumed herself to have the powers of a public body:

When this reporter received notice on March 11th that the LPD had accidentally-on-purpose destroyed the Forfinski BWC video, it was in an  email from Ms. Marquardt; nobody else was on the chain or 'carbon-copied', indicating that whoever authorized the emails' contents didn't want extra fingerprints around when offering up the bribe of $500 to forget this illegal deletion of public records ever happened.  The denial explanation letter written on LPD letterhead is signed only by the police clerk, but states explicitly that she is speaking on behalf of the COL:

"Without an admission of liability, the city is prepared to offer you a voluntary payment of $500, equal to the fine under FOIA for this incident in return for a release of claims against the city." 

When one looks at that release of claims form, one doesn't find any sort of authorship by the document, but whoever created it assumes they have the authority to not only take $500 from city coffers as a payoff to avoid future litigation but also has the authority to dictate all other terms of the agreement on behalf of the city.  The form does offer room for the COL's usual signatories (the city manager and clerk) to sign and supposedly authorize the bribe, but not even they would have the authority to make this agreement/contract legally binding.  

Section 13.1 of the city charter states plainly:  "The power to authorize the making of purchases, contracts, and leases on behalf of the City is vested [fully and unconditionally guaranteed] in the Council"  As this "Release of claims" is a legal contract made on behalf of the COL as one of the parties performing actions in return for reciprocal actions, it requires that public body's stamp of approval in order to be legitimate and binding. 

That's general contract law when one party is a public body's council or board, Michigan case law has affirmed this since the 1800s, a 2011 case (WOLVERINE ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS INC V CITY OF LESLIE) is quite instructive in that regard and explores the history of the concept.  Ruling on behalf of the City of Leslie, whose city manager contracted with the plaintiff without city council approval, the court found that the City of Leslie was not liable because the power to enter into contracts for the city was vested in their city council, not a city manager who has no authority to enter into contracts (just like in Ludington).

Not surprisingly, Ludington's city charter doesn't give a police clerk the authority to present others with a legal contract/agreement binding the COL to a course of action in return for someone not to litigate against the COL.  This contract, even if the city manager, city clerk and I were to sign the document, would have no legitimate power because each official would have acted beyond the limits of their authority.

  

Let's make no mistake, Valerie Marquardt didn't mastermind this move.  She is merely a pawn being manipulated by the craven police chief and/or the always prevaricating City Manager Kaitlyn Aldrich, both of whom should be losing their jobs for their coup d'état of the city council's power in this case, and quite a few others that have been coming up.  This elected public body continues to sit by and allow their administrative staff to make them look like powerless clowns.

 

This impotent group of buffoons have become mostly irrelevant and this simple FOIA request and its aftermath have put it all on full display, if it was not already evident with the administrative fiascoes leading to the AndyS lawsuit, the Grams lawsuit, my ongoing FOIA fee lawsuit in the court of appeals, and multiple other recent controversies with private marinas and downtown businesses that will also assuredly lead to litigation. primarily because city administrators have lost their way and/or are incompetent.

These elected 'representatives' played perfect fools for when new City Attorney Tim Figuera explained how (already deleted) BWC footage deserved a paywall of $131.36 to be paid in order to separate exempt material out of the (non-existent) record, and seven close-minded harlequins took that as fact.  Now they have a police clerk acting as a puppet for other cowardly administrators supplanting each and every one of these jokers by crafting documents and seizing their municipal powers without any kind of legitimate mechanism. 

We need some housekeeping at the Ludington City Hall/Ludington Police Department and it's time for the council to put on their aprons and get down to it. 

[Freedom Seeker]

I should say something other than WOW but that comes first to mind on these matters of City malfeasance.  Good catch, X, on the draft and signatories on the $500 bribe to go away.  Have you FOIAed the origination of this "bribe contract"?  Do you suppose it was a verbal order from the Thief of Police to the police clerk?  Or did the new city manager and the Thief put their legal expertise together to come up with this amazing scheme in a super-secret squirrel meeting?  Did the COL even know it was being drafted are some other thoughts that come to mind besides the clownish "wow".  Their wrong just keeps getting wronger as they try to dig out of this mess.

[XLFD]

It'd be a good idea to look for the paper trail behind the Release of Claims form to look for fingerprints, but I just may hold off and use discovery for that purpose, as that's more of a secondary issue and I think should have received that already as part of sub-request #3 below.  I usually make simple FOIA requests for one item, but following this, I submitted a nine point supplemental request to see whether I could get at least part of the video, I asked for:

1. Any exported copies of the above-referenced body camera recording, including any clips, downloads, or media files created from the Axon Evidence system.
2. Any attachments to incident reports or case files containing still images or video derived from the above recording.
3. Any internal communications referencing or discussing the above recording, including emails, memoranda, or internal messages between officers, supervisors, or city officials.
4. All Axon Evidence system records associated with this file
5. Any policy documents or internal procedures governing the classification of Axon Evidence files into the category “OTHER.”
6. Records identifying the personnel responsible for assigning or modifying the retention category associated with this evidence file.
7. Any dash-cam video recordings related to the same incident.
8. Any video recordings from other responding agencies of the COL, including LFD, present at the scene.
9. Records reflecting whether the video was shared, exported, or transmitted outside the Axon Evidence system

#1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 are basically non-existent.  #3 is being assembled, and may throw light on the question you have.