Ludington City Council, April 13, 2026, Part 1: Four Letter Words Beginning with F and P

[XLFD]

Before English purists/police fault us in the comments for using the term "words" in the title rather than the more appropriate term "acronyms", our reporter, proofreader and editor (who happen to be the same person) know that already.  If you can't get over that for some reason, with all due respect, f*** you and p*** off, yours very truly X***.

The Lean and Green April 13, 2026 meeting of the Ludington City Council (agenda packet here) had a modest amount of action items taking place, but a lot of instructive learning moments that we will need to take a couple of articles to cover.  As indicated by the title, two of the major four-letter topics that came up, one that was not on the agenda, and one that was partially taken off the agenda, are the focus of this partial recap.

PACE 

A presentation by Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) proponents was held three weeks prior at the council's last meeting, and this reporter offered token resistance based on preliminary research of the program designed to make businesses invest in clean energy by offering 'innovative' loaning mechanisms.  This primarily amounted to encouraging the council to do their own research into the issue; perhaps the best way to form an opinion on any issue is to admit any bias at the outset and then research the best arguments against that stance.  If those cannot overcome the basis of your initial bias, then your task of forming an opinion based on research is done.    

Yet, to write about and defend that formed opinion requires more, and to justify and fit it all within a three-minute comment is almost impossible.  The day before this meeting we put out the fruits of our research, fully footnoted with links for justification and clarity, to suggest that the program had its own liabilities and complications, offering businesses the opportunity to overburden themselves with debt they cannot repay easily. 

And even though that article on the wonky topic only has gotten a few hundred views since Sunday, it did seem to attract a crowd of folks to the meeting in opposition to the program, many who didn't speak at the public hearing scheduled because at the beginning of the meeting, the council amended the agenda to take approval of the PACE district resolution off of the agenda.  As typical of the city's current leadership, they did not explain why that move was made.  But whether it was the case that some did their research, some read our article, some heard from the folks, or some other reason, they all voted to amend it off the agenda.

But they did leave the required public hearing unchanged, and they did have the presenter, Mary Freeman, present, and so some of the public spoke up at this point, including Daniel Jensen (who spoke of the DEI principles in the program and their conflict with federal executive orders) and Aldon Maleckas, who came from the eastern part of the county to explain how PACE was exempt from the Truth-in-lending act and listed some problems that have arisen from PACE programs in other states.  

Jeff Henry noted the absence of the GLC LLC CEO at the meeting and what that portended for a program he thought was fatally flawed, before this reporter followed up with a comment that assuredly made any city administrators' PACE-maker skip a beat:

XLFD: (34:50 in) "At last meeting's presentation by Mary Freeman-- someone whose livelihood depends on marketing PACE to Michigan municipalities-- we were told that you councilors should support PACE because programs would spur local jobs for contractors and gain additional revenue through permit fees for PACE projects.  You were told it would create tax revenue enhancement and increase property values.  All while providing a strategy to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas emissions and save money on utility bills.  Ms. Freeman assured you that there was no cost to the city, a memo from the city manager affirmed that, GLC CEO McMahon indicated he would use the program to expand the foundry's output.     

I advised you to do more research, and while Councilor Shaw asked a couple of good questions at the last meeting, some valid follow up questions were never asked or answered.  If PACE is some sort of panacea to our area's problems, why isn't it being peddled to the county government?  The easy answer is that our county commission is 6/7th Republican, and unlikely to vote for a PACE district, since no Republican in either Michigan congressional house voted for 2023 amendments to the state's PACE program. 

You people are the easy targets; you seek out and embrace every progressive concept that you can find, rational or not, rather than looking at the programs and their consequences just by doing a little research and applying a little logic to discover why PACE does come with a cost, does come with significant liability to the city, does come with risks that could easily outpace any rewards.  We lose nothing by tabling this resolution today and by actually using our standing committees to diligently review the consequences of establishing a PACE district rather than just passing it on to this council for approval without any vetting on the actual municipal risks, administrative costs, and potential liabilities that come with it." [END comment]

After that, an apparently shaken Mary Freeman, did correctly point out that it was Residential-PACE rather than Commercial-PACE that was the source of the problems brought up by Maleckas, and that C-PACE is the only type available in Michigan.  Both PACE types are analogous to each other, the main difference is that families can lose their homes in one, a tragedy; in the other a business will become insolvent.  She would indicate that GLC LLC was not the initial company that sought PACE out, suggesting the other company wanted to remain unknown.  She would try to divorce the politics out of the equation but did so ineffectively, and one would presume she was shaken by the late removal of the resolution from the agenda.

Councilor Mike Shaw indicated he would not be a future vote for PACE, believing there were already ways for local companies to achieve clean energy without going into the program.  Councilor Kathy Winczewski commented, saying "she only sees positives in the program" noting that the city can always "walk away from a PACE district", which Freeman affirmed.  That conflicts with common sense and with AI if there are any active loans underway, as the municipality is given a duty over the next 25 years (usual term of the loan):

The hopefully-last nail on the Ludington PACE program's coffin was delivered by citizen Marco Iafrate, who told the council that he had talked with Freeman as she left the meeting, and related that her interests was not placed in Ludington, but only in establishing the district here.  Confirming the suspicion that she is merely a peddler of a green schtick.  Yet we need to be careful, for the public hearing is still part of the public record, and with a change of heart, the more progressive members of the council could get this resolution passed with a simple majority vote taken after making it a late addition to the agenda.

FOIA

When one looks at the meeting's agenda, nothing about FOIA is on it.  There should have been, however, and my initial comment reflected exactly why that was the case:

XLFD: (13:50 in) "I've accused the city council of choosing to remain ignorant before making decisions in the past, today I will give you the opportunity to do otherwise.  In a FOIA appeal sent in the middle of last week that was not put on this meeting's agenda by city administrators, a city administrator claimed multiple public records were unavailable due to attorney-client privilege.  

This was a supplemental request to find out why rather incriminating body cam footage of LPD malfeasance was destroyed while an active FOIA request was asking for it, and why the city through false pretenses accepted a significant amount of money for those records even after they were destroyed, with other records showing that the police chief accelerated the deletion protocols in place to get rid of an inconvenient video.  Multiple crimes were committed by city administrators throughout, and now they want to add more, because they don't fear their bosses on this city council.

The privilege is not automatic, it must be claimed by the client and nowhere in the response is any city administrator claiming the privilege on these eleven redacted emails, where the privilege may not even apply because of the crime-fraud exception and the nature of these discussions of covering up multiple crimes.

For eleven emails, city administrators used the AC privilege to delete their content from public inspection, and there is not one case where it was used properly.  About half were sent between two attorneys with city administrators copied, these weren't communications between an attorney and their client seeking legal advice, they were between two attorneys. 

About half of the others were between administrators and attorneys, but additional administrators were copied.  Privilege requires a confidential communication between a lawyer and client for legal advice, meaning including unnecessary third parties on emails can destroy the privilege.  One of these had the city manager copying the police chief on an email to lawyers but addressing him directly at the top of the correspondence.  This suggests to reasonable people that attorneys were included in the correspondence solely as a means to invoke privilege later on in order to hide public records.

Demand these records be provided to you fully before you hold the administrative appeal at the next meeting so you can figure out for yourself what your administrators are trying to hide from you. [END comment]

Read about this and see most of the redacted conversations here.  My assumption at the meeting was that they would add the appeal I sent out early afternoon on Thursday, April 9th to the agenda, but even after this comment they didn't.  They would not discuss it at all, not even indirectly.  This is the first paragraph of six in support of my appeal, showing that it was sent to each councilor and administrator connected with Ludington FOIAs that day, the other five paragraphs are here and here:

This is a proper administrative appeal, properly served on each member of council via their official emails.  A dais full of elected officials, each (other than the city clerk) who received this email chose intentionally to ignore it even after being reminded of its existence.  The Ludington City Council, with a dreadful history of offenses against the FOIA and transparency, decided to a person that this FOIA appeal did not deserve their judgment, as is their mandated duty, and they did this act of ignorance for the very first time. 

This was a significant legal error by the new City Attorney Tim Figuera, and if you are still sitting on the fence about whether our city council is serious about their responsibilities to the public and to transparency, this should get you off it.  Here's FOIA law describing the city council's duty as the head of the public body of the City of Ludington (MCL 15.240(2)):

The "shall" is mandated behavior by the council.  The normal practice has been for the council to push the appeal to the next meeting using subsection d.  While this may have not been required by the state, when MCL 15.240(3) is strictly applied and the council meets within those 10 business days, as they will here-- it is required by the city's own policy, specifically section 8(e)(i and ii), approved two years ago:

City policy indicates that if and when the FOIA Coordinator receives the appeal (which would be the day after the email is sent, in this case April 10th) they have specific duties and that a written decision is required and issued to the requester within ten business days after receiving the appeal (in this case April 24) unless an extension is used.  No extensions by the council were used at this meeting, meaning that unless a special meeting is called between today and April 24, the city council would be in dereliction of their duties under FOIA. This will leave only one alternative to get these records, a FOIA lawsuit where the city attorney would certainly gain more fees than he would by complying with the law. 

These impotent and ethically-barren councilors had city administrators steal the power and authority of the council, and they have chosen to not do anything in order to have these emails exposing their adminis-traitors corruption revealed to the public.  One hopes that the councilors who aren't voted out this election cycle decide to resign, because they are showing themselves to not be acting in the interests of the public, accountability, and/or transparency. 

[Golf~6~Romeo]

A Ludington-ite/business owner must ask themselves, "Who is the city council working for?". Their complete disregard for common law is appalling.

Hubris 2° to concupiscere is my assessment.

[XLFD]

Brilliant use of concupiscere (concupiscence) in the presence of polite company, if the Ludington Torch can claim that realm.  

Who does the city council work for?  Sometimes it's easy to figure out, such as with marinas.  Everything they do, lawfully or not, in that sphere promotes their own "enterprise fund" public marinas and makes it more difficult for their competitors in the private sector.  

It's often more difficult to put names on the branches of the corruption family tree for other actions.  For example, who is behind the grief they have imposed on AndyS?  Competitors in the same field?  People or families who resent the new kid at the end of the block making them seem less powerful?  Councilors who expressed their butthurt over the construction taking a long time and tying up Rath Street?  

Unfortunately, they won't let us know for sure, being that cowardly and corrupt city officials don't comport themselves that way.