Standing Out in the Open?

[XLFD]

One of my primary goals is to do what I can to make local governments more open and transparent, especially the City of Ludington.  I was a part of that entity for over eight years (as a part-paid volunteer firefighter) and heard and seen plenty that troubled me regarding the operations of the city leaders; I've heard and seen plenty more since I resigned from that post due to the unethical behaviors I could not continue to be a willing part of.  

I've heard fine words come from city leaders throughout the years since regarding moves toward a more open and accountable government, but at the end of the day, they still fall short of what they should do to get the public more involved; they prove over and over again that the public perception is correct, that their opinion does not count unless it matches theirs.

That's why I looked with skepticism at the latest op-ed by Mayor Steve Miller published in this Saturday's City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews).   The title relates the City is considering an ordinance in the 'pursuit' of openness, yet from past experience with the City, such efforts seem to actually accomplish either nothing or even provide more cover for their often-discrete pursuits.  I read further, I invite you to read further:

The first column and a half ascribes a certain nobility to the city council and mayor that I have rarely seen in action.  No insult is intended, but a majority of councilors now serving have shown no inclination to be accountable and scrutinized-- they are offended when you ask reasonable questions about public policy and question the questionable actions of public officials.  Sometimes it may be because they know about as much as you about it since the 'committee system' used by Ludington often leads to a majority of councilors voting on something they may have never seen before.  But other times it's simply because they just don't want you to know 'how the sausage is made'.

And after going through a lot of column-filler material and making claims that are patently false (committee meetings are not close to being held with the same standards as council meetings, never have been) and some semi-relevant blather about American history, he describes a proposed ordinance to clarify the City's standing committee system.  This system has not had any standards/rules for over a hundred years, and has recently become a legal liability for the City as it fosters a very non-accountable process that has seen many covert public actions and debates being held at these committees that have effectively kept the public away from the decision-making process.

These committees are a large part of why you never hear about important issues until the weekend before the meeting where the council votes on it.  They are also a large part of why you don't hear about issues that were shot down before they reached the city council.  They have no regular schedule, when they are held they usually are noticed at the last minute and are not convenient for the public to attend.  Mayor Miller is likely to comment at tonight's meeting about the progress the City is making in holding their standing committees more accountable by offering rules.  An incomplete ordinance is included in the council packet (p.134).  

Does the ordinance appear to you to open or even clarify what is currently going on?  To me, it clouds what they can do in that they are charged with carrying out the historical duties of such committees-- which has amounted to expansive deliberation and decision-making capabilities performed outside of the knowledge of the public-- and then claim that such unlawful historical duties are not governmental or proprietary acts.  

I think Mayor Miller would have had tons of more credibility in creating such an ordinance if he allowed citizens some input into its creation.  I would suggest that the two citizens who are currently litigating a lawsuit against the City for transgressions of the Open Meetings Act (OMA) by the standing committees could have been an excellent resource to use.  The ordinance, drafted by the city attorney, looks not to open the process any more, but rather to adapt the lesson learned from having too much unbounded power based in these committees over the years into something that might take them out of future liability.  

The ordinance is the City's way of saying that their committees do not have to follow the OMA explicitly, it is not a gesture of transparency-for-transparency's-sake.  City government will continue to use these committee meetings to introduce things so that they do not arouse much controversy before they come before the council, or they will just go the even-more-secretive 'administrative route'. 

Witness the introduction of four separate issues brought before the council at the last meeting as coming from two of the committees that have never met for three or four months.  Those topics were never discussed in standing committee until coming before the council according to records.  To make sure, I contacted Councilor Brandy Miller and the Acting City Manager Jackie Steckel ten days ago in regards to two issues that came from the committee Brandy chaired.

I have received no answers from either city official, nor will I likely ever get any answer because it would show that once again, the City is making decisions outside of the city council and using the council at best to rubber stamp their actions.  This is not what openness is all about, Mayor Miller.

[AQUAMAN]

I'd CC that letter to the Mayor also, and see if he responds in like.

[Willy]

If the Mayor was serious he would have had a conversation with X before proposing this ordinance. What he should do is review Ludington's history of FIOA abuse by the CIty and how that process has shut down citizens participation in trying to gather public information. Look deeper Mr. Mayor. You may be surprised to learn that carrying out the City's scorched Earth policy on FOIA requests as past history has shown has not made transparency of anything the City Government has done except possibly having the windows at City Hall cleansed of all the splattered BS spewed by the politicians who have made a mockery of what good Government is supposed to be.  What the Mayor should have said was:

"If any citizens request public information from City Hall, no FIOA request will be necessary. So come one and all and enjoy a truly transparent Government. Remember, you, the citizens, own the information compiled and stored in the buildings and equipment you paid for. The preparation and dissemination by employees whose salaries you provide will gladly be given to you at your request."

Any thing else is pure

[XLFD]

The mayor corrected this 'ordinance' last night at the meeting to reflect that it will be a change in 'procedure' for standing committees.  The 'ordinance' above actually was a reworking of section 6.8 of the city charter, not amending the city code, and the only legal way to change the charter is by a vote of the public.

If they decide to go the ordinance route in the future, they will probably want to fit this into the code under Chapter 2, Article II:  Boards, Commissions and Authorities.  It would be nice if they also included their meeting protocols here or elsewhere in the code; the council has voted several times in the past (the last time was quite a while ago, but they've never rescinded it) to adopt Robert's Rules of Order for their regular meetings, they should codify that after doing it again with any changes they might desire.

You are very correct, Willy, in noting that Mayor Miller will not be able to fix a problem that he cannot recognize.  Bull excrement is messy when you step on it and it smells real bad, non-transparency is less obvious, especially if you talk with deniers and accept their views more so than you accept your perceptions.

[Freedom Seeker]

Thanks for the vividly, ripe, LOL form, Willy. I I'll never think of city hall windows the same.

[Willy]

I have a tendency to exaggerate when describing the ridiculous. The problem with Ludington's Government is so obvious to anyone paying attention. And all the credit is due to X revealing the underbelly of local politics. I had no idea what was going on until I compared what was being reported in the LDN and what X revealed on his forum. It's like day and night when it comes to the flow of information out of City Hall via the local media and what X has worked hard to provide, not only with his time and effort but what has been a non ending smear campaign against him and his reputation from the elected and unelected officials involved. Ludington's leaders should be ashamed at how they have conducted themselves and how they have treated X. That's why the mayor's new proposal seems so trite. 

[Freedom Seeker]

Again, couldn't have better said, in a more sober tone! I agree and hope the tides will start to turn on the smear campaign against XLFD. In reading old Torch archives, and other things written in LDN and MCC I've categorized it in my mind as a few bullies in the previous administration with egos the size of Lake Michigan whose power went to their head, not admitting when they were wrong. Plus one Who ordered a PPO to keep her unethical affairs hid and had the backing of the bullies as a fringe benefit. I hope the tides change in that direction too. Please let me add to the thanks for XLFD trying to make our government better to serve and more transparent to the people. Im glad to see an effort from Miller. There had to be a starting point.

[Willy]

Well said FS. Yes Miller has made a "start". My question is why? Is it, or has it been obvious to him that something is wrong with how local Government does business? if that is so then his start is lacking in the necessary ingredients for true transparency. If he knows there is a problem then why has he not apologized for past practices? Especially to X? Just the fact that he has not contacted X and is ignoring what X has accomplished without so much as an ounce of cooperation from local politicians says much about where this is actually going. From what I have seen this is just a big show orchestrated by City Hall and the LDN with the Mayor acting as the Director. Much like what is done on local Radio programming. I hope I'm wrong about Miller but he must do much more than flash new ordinances around at Council meetings and brag about it on the pages of the LDN. 

[AQUAMAN]

"If you the citizens request information, no FOIA will be necessary. You the citizens paid for us to disseminate and collect and store this information in your buildings and file cabinets, so feel free to ask anytime and you can have access". That is the way it should be, and should have been all along, yet we have to beg instead, and file forms, and pay them monies instead. If Miller is actually not kidding and serious about this matter, it will definitely be a step in the right direction. Question is, can he get Wilson and others to go along, as well as himself honestly? Or is all this window dressing for the sheeple to eat?

[Freedom Seeker]

Time will tell.  But it seems Miller is more ethically-inclined than a couple recent past mayors.  And he seems better educated, more professional, and diplomatic (that's not a hard feat over the most recent), listens and works well with others.  Time will tell.

[XLFD]

Miller will get the by-lines and even the headlines, but any hope for leadership in achieving positive reform in the coming years will likely see its origins in the less-flashier Fifth Ward Councilor, Angela Serna.  If she can also moderate the new city manager away from the dominant-but-flawed vision the city corporate has had over the last dozen years and is still present, she may set the table for her to have some extra help from like-minded citizens running for city office in 2020.  For now, she is excellently placed on the city council dais between two councilors who (I think) are most sympathetic to having transparency and fairness in public policy. 

I have forwarded the E-mail to the mayor with the caveat that I will keep seeking the answer.

[AQUAMAN]

Not to get off the main subject matter to far, but I would also like to know what Miller intends to do about these last minute agenda additions and changes that come at the start of the CC Mtgs. more often than not. The public has no idea why or how these sudden changes get added in, while only a very few council people know about it, and the public has no idea of it. It always just gets another unanimous vote too, to stick it to us all again. I say those kind of actions should be included in the next 2 week mtg., so all have time and a chance to rebut it if necessary, tired of seeing that too.