Ludington City Council Meeting, September 23, 2019: The ABCs of City Hall

[XLFD]

Even with some late controversy, where the only part I played in it was by changing the topic to something less acidic, the docket was fairly straightforward and the full Ludington city council meeting of 9-23-2019 lasted under an hour.  Four potentially tendentious public hearings proved to elicit no comments whatever from the public, lest you could call a short comment made at the end of the meeting which summed up why three of them were vexing to many in the public. It wasn't me, but I thought it was one of the better off-the-cuff comments made in quite a while.

The ABCs of the title refers to two themes that came up and the misnomer of one by a properly- aggrieved former committee member. We will work from 'C' to 'A', as that was order of the most prevalent themes and modification.

C is for Conversation and Communication

This positive theme was actually part of the two comments given by somebody that the City has historically portrayed as adversarial and obstinate towards the City of Ludington. After everyone was noted as present, Chief Barnett gave an invocation winding down with the Golden Rule: "Father, we ask for common courtesy at this meeting tonight of each one to treat others as they wish to be treated."  Not even the good Lord could help him there.

As if in observance of that solid rule, the first public comment followed where I gave a rather uncontentious comment about preserving the city's wholesome image by considering more wholesome events than they have been providing:

XLFD: (2:40 into the video) "At last Monday's Committee of the whole meeting where the issue of permitting marijuana establishments in the city was discussed, there were several recurring themes common to both sides of the issue. Preservation of the family-friendly, safe, and law-abiding character of Ludington was chief among these. Yet, the City's DDA has introduced quite a few drinking events over the last few years and has been actively promoting their Octoberfest drinking events on the City's Facebook page. The local chamber of commerce asks for approval of using city property and resources for their Brrewfest event at this very meeting.

Can the City's perceived wholesome image be maintained with an ever-growing density of drinking events and alcohol-serving establishments? Can the City get away with putting a bounce-house for the kids just outside the containment fence erected at these events and claim it as a fun-filled family event? Can the City get away with glamorizing money-making drinking events and ignore the debilitating effects on area families by parents and spouses who imbibe the object of that glamour in excess?

Those questions should be explored by looking at the City's overall policy on events featuring drinking and having an open discussion with an involved public on whether that policy should be amended in order to maintain the City's wholesome family-friendly image.

Our businesses that serve alcohol have a good reason to hold and market drinking events, to stay solvent. We must decide whether there is a viable public purpose for having our city government promote this one legal vice, especially if it decides and unites against businesses promoting another. [END]"

I proved to be the only person from the public speaking during this and the four public hearings that followed. You will notice I stressed the importance of open discussion on a topic (the City's addiction to sponsoring drinking events) that hasn't had any meaningful formal dialog between officials and the general public.

After the mayor went through the first three hearings (for OPRA tax abatements for the Haskellite (Wolverine) Building at 801 N Rowe, and other older commercial buildings at 925 S Washington and 115 S James), without a hitch and the council voted for their exemption certificate without debate, the same happened with the proposed amended TIF Plan without any further action. After the mayor closed the hearing and was moving on, Councilor Kathy Winczewski decided to advocate for it at 15:00 in.

"...they do the Friday Night Lives, they do the flower baskets downtown, they do the Christmas tree in the plaza, they manage the music in James Street, they work on the Guiness Book of World Records events, they do the ball drop, they do the trick or treat downtown, they do the farmer's market, so just to let you know the DDA does a whole lot of different things that I didn't realize that they did all that... it seems that they use all that money wisely, they come up with different types of projects that are rather creative."

What the good councilor won't tell you is that every single dollar to be 'captured' (a polite word for what it actually is) by the DDA in this TIF Plan will come from the normal budgets of the City, the County of Mason, WSCC and LMTA, who actually have dedicated public services they are providing for their taxpayers who pay in thinking they are being used for those dedicated purposes-- not sending nearly $10 million of this money to fanciful and ridiculous fluff for downtown events over the next 46 years. Those taxing authorities will have to devise ways to supplement their loss, and that's where you come in.

The Personnel Committee gave a very good six-month evaluation for the new City Manager Mitch Foster, as per the hiring contract. The other committees gave reports if they had met, primarily the short term rental issues were reviewed in some detail by the B&L Committee chairman.

The city manager talked of getting into priority-based budgeting with Hart to share costs, and the mayor did a proclamation for Fire Prevention Week, had the council accept the Marijuana Ad Hoc Committee report and the committee was formally disbanded (with Councilor Winczewski making sure that it was known that the conclusion was written solely by Mayor Steve Miller-- was that her way of distancing herself away from its conclusions?), and approved all 2020 activities by the local chamber of commerce (with Brandy Miller, president of same, abstaining from the vote). The conversation about Brrewfest and other drinking events were belayed, at least for now. A late agenda addition was approval of homecoming activities.

B is for Bullying and Brawling

Citizen Tom Tyron led off public comment with something I wish I had said, though I'm very glad that somebody else was able to as understandably and smartly as Tom was:

(43:00 in): "I'm speaking to the OPRA situation. I'm an advocate of low taxes and reducing taxes anywhere I can, I'm troubled by OPRA in the sense that it almost promotes anybody with a building to let it deteriorate so they can go ahead and apply for funds to redo their building. I just kind of get upset with paying my tax dollars to let other businessmen redo things when I pay for my own repairs and my own type of work. I'm troubled by that.
Especially in the fact that when a homeowner improves his house or puts an addition on, or does anything like that, their taxes tend to go up, and they get no abatement. And I'm not-- anything that can be done to reduce taxes is good with me, but, me being a fiscal conservative. I'm just troubled by rewarding people for bad behavior. And I consider bad behavior (as) not taking care of your property.
So I guess I shouldn't say anything, we live in glass houses sometimes, all of us have a little problem with property but I'm just troubled by it, I don't like the philosophy of it; I think if you're going to do a business you're going to do something on a building, that you ought to be able to finance it yourself and do the numbers, and see if it's feasible... [END]"

It's hard to argue with his line of reasoning, I let him know that he spoke well. John Terzano got the meeting back to a more 'positive' note and thanked the mayor and the ad hoc committee for doing great and professional work. But then it got interesting as another now-former ad hoc committee member, Steven Von Pfahl went to the mike.

(46:30 in): "I asked a question of a fake council rule, a rule that seems to be locked away in an invisible, mystical bag, written in invisible ink on invisible paper. So I believe our good citizens would like to see all of our rules on paper with regular ink (Editor's note: one objective of a current lawsuit I have with the City is to have the council and other committees follow a set of written rules of their choosing, such as Robert's Rules of Order which have been adopted at least three times over the years by the council, but not within the last 52 years. It hasn't been repealed), so that they can be checked for compliance by our state and national constitutions, and so that our citizens can be instructed in what to do when they are bullied by the council's legal assistant.
When I asked for clarification of this non-existent rule by asking a point of order, I was bullied. The council's legal assistant threatened to have me thrown out physically by the sheriff (Editor's note: the city attorney said 'chief'). Well, you don't need the sheriff, a 12 year old could do it. The council's legal assistant, rather than helping a handicapped 71 year old citizen with arthritis, who has hearing loss and doesn't notice when his voice gets a little bit loud, and a transplant patient... when I went to see him after the meeting, I looked for some reconciliation. I did let him know that I did not appreciate being bullied.
In our schools, we have programs to teach our children not to bully people; we don't like bullying when we see it on our national scene.
When I approached him, he said to me, instead of working it out to some kind of respectful conclusion, he said: "Next time I'll just have the sheriff throw you out." I was just asking a question, is that understanding?
That leads to the second item. I've complained about the council's poor communications for several years. I had great hope with our new mayor-- could bring some transparency to that. But after the way the release of the report was tangled up with trying to gag the members of the committee after the report was released, I have doubts. Clearly, it would have made more sense to have the authors of the report available to share what they had learned with the public at that meeting..."

Von Pfahl would get a little bit tangled up in erroneous talk about the recent 1% PTAF, but his point was made in a little over four minutes. Mayor Steve Miller suggested that the reason for a gag order was so that the report's integrity could be best maintained (it's a debatable tact which I do not agree with), but under Robert's Rules of Order, a point of order can arise anytime a rule appears to be unfollowed, cannot be summarily ignored, but either be considered well-taken or not and the chair must explain why.

Nevertheless, the feeling was rather tense, so instead of providing the long list of all the times I have been effectively verbally-bullied by the city attorney at the end of meetings when I cannot reply, I went ahead with my prepared statement, which lightened the mood, even though it was over a controversial issue that hasn't gotten much conversation even with three drowning deaths off the shores of Lake Michigan this summer.

XLFD: "An article by Connor Smithee of the Capital News Service appeared in today's Ludington Daily News. The headline asks the question: “Would Lifeguards make Great Lakes Safer?”
Connor's article looks at the dangers on beaches of the Great Lakes, past policy which saw the State and many Cities eliminate their lifeguard programs in the 1990s due to a mixture of factors, and reviews one of the few cities with a lifeguard program remaining.
He finishes the article citing an official who notes that when funding agencies consider the cost of a lifeguard program, they don't take in account the very costly act of body recovery and the life lost. "Staffing lifeguards would save more lives and would be a good use of the state budget. Lifeguards are first responders on the beach. When seconds count, without lifeguards, help is minutes away."
A conversation should be started comparing the benefits and disadvantages of having lifeguards at Stearn’s Beach and the current policy of having no rescue personnel at the beach. With a conversion of a beach patrol to a lifeguard patrol the costs will be minimal, the rewards may be priceless [END]."

After public comment at the 53:35 point, Councilor Angela Serna observed: "...I do 100% agree with you mayor that we were told (asked) not to say anything at the council of the whole meeting, waiting for this report to be finalized by us, and I agree 100% with that. My only concern is, we have a code of conduct that we have to follow as councilmembers. If the city attorney is going to sit up here with us, I believe he needs to follow that code of conduct as well. I also felt that Mr. Steven Von Pfahl was bullied that evening, and this is not the first time that our city attorney has bullied someone, and I would like to just make that comment."

Earlier today, the City of Ludington Daily News did an article reprinted below, which discusses whether City Attorney Wilson is a bully or not. I honestly don't think Wilson is a 'bully', the last two paragraphs kind of prove that he isn't, but my defense of him doesn't end there.  The top of the headline is cut off, it reads "Resident claims he was bullied (by city's legal counsel": 

A is for Arrogance and Arseholery

Yes, arseholery is a word, as is its more vulgar term. City Attorney Wilson, like most public attorneys, is arrogant as can be, and has earned the nickname of 'Dick' more than just by having the name 'Richard'. He is on tape 'threatening' Von Pfahl with a police chief escort out of the hall for simply raising a point of order which the mayor should have fielded cleanly rather than allowing Richard's Rules to prevail.

A decent person might have admitted their mistake at the end of the meeting, but it would seem that the attorney doubled down on arrogance, rather than do the civil thing of admitting he made a mistake in being overly flippant. One could believe he may have said something at the end of the meeting like: "Next time, you arise for a point of order, we'll sic the chief on you to escort you out of the chambers." by the way he avoids defending his use of words in the COLDNews article.

"(Von Pfahl) is entitled to his opinion, but it's not appropriate for me to comment on (the words I spoke)"

This is attorney arrogance and arseholery. You, Dick, are on record for what you said at the meeting, your words at the end of the meeting likely had a few witnesses, when you don't address your public words and 'threats' as a public servant in the media, you're trash. Hopefully, the city council will escort you out of a future meeting and eventually put you curbside on Friday morning when the garbage truck comes by.  I hope 'arrogant attorney' stickers don't cost a lot.

Let's make city official arseholery and arrogance a thing of the past, because many people paying close attention have seen enough of that over the last few years with a lot more participants than just the city attorney.

[shinblind]

What is the procedure for removing the City Attorney?

I imagine there is a contract. Is the City Attorney employed by the City Council or by the City Manager?

It looks like it is time for the citizens to explore our options for firing the little bastard.

What would it cost to give him his walking papers?  

Could it happen during a council meeting and have Chief Barnett frog march him out of Chambers.

That would definitely help the televised ratings.

This lack wit Attorney Wilson should have been shown the door when Shay left.

Other than over billing the City what has he done?

Would much rather see the position filled by a local attorney who has respect for parliamentary protocol and the Constitution. 

[Du Wright]

I was wondering too shinblind, so I looked at the City Charter. Sec. 3.5 says that "The Mayor shall appoint a City Manager and a City Attorney, with the approval of the majority of the Council elect. ....". Section 10.5 lists his duties(paraphrased):. Legal advisor, conduct suits, prepare contracts, bonds, other instruments and documents of a legal nature, and prosecute offenses against the ordinances if the City. "The City Attorney or representative shall attend all sessions of the Council, unless excused by the Council. ..."

I see no where duties of Sergeant at Arms, or speaking out correcting the public during meetings.

[XLFD]

A City Attorney Agreement comes up every year at the city council where they receive an unusually high retainer for representing the City in civil matters, the county prosecutor is hired separately to represent the City in handling criminal prosecutions pursued by the City, the costs according to this years budget amount to $64,000 and $15,000 respectively.  This actually hides other costs paid out to the city attorney for other issues, such as when the CA was doing legal matters for the water & sewer upgrades and loans, he was getting paid out of those funds.  

Shinblind recalls that the CA was overbilling for a period of over three years, sometimes overcharging nearly twice their rate at the time, City Manager Shay looked all the billing records over said it's all good and gave Wilson and crew their bonuses.  Shay at the time was funneling money to Wilson from the city in order for the city manager to covertly and illegally finance a water rate consultant without any kind of approval by the city council (this was one of those covert/illegal approvals by the Public Safety/Public Utilities Committee, who did the work of the full council while not following the Open Meetings Act).  

Dianne, I was just thinking of this the other day and if/when our lawsuit does remain unsettled after our next conference (due to the City's fickle approach for a fair conclusion), I can hardly wait to get Wilson on the witness stand, who has lectured us all on the OMA, and explain why he was receiving this money stolen from the taxpayers, because the contract was never approved by the council. 

It clearly shows intent that Wilson was effectively ringleading an effort to keep the citizens ignorant that Shay through Wilson's billing, were doing utility rate studies costing tens of thousands of dollars a couple years in advance of utility upgrades the state was making them do.  Those studies would determine that due to the tens of millions of dollars needed to upgrade/repair those utilities, that sewer bills would double in less than a handful of years, and water bills would not be that far behind.  

I pointed out that Wilson was funneling money illegally during the same time I was pointing out the overbilling, over three times I brought it before council; they ignored it.  Wilson shouldn't be packing because he's rude, arrogant, or bullying, he needs to go because he's willing to do illegal and unethical maneuvers that screw everybody who lives or owns property in Ludington.  Perhaps the new council and city manager can look into the city attorney siphoning funds from the city to pay Utility Financial Services and their consultant Mr. Beauchamp, and not be accessories to the crime like our old council and manager were (if you don't remember this, look here and here)

The city council could quietly replace their city attorney by seeking bids for attorney services, and then see whether Wilson's law firm can match those of some of our local law firms.  If that's the case, the only way Wilson will retain his spot if he takes a big pay cut-- or the council overlooks the smaller bids.

[Du Wright]

I don't doubt there may be some truth to the alleged OMA violation in the hiring of utility financial services and so forth, but not related to current allegations. Thanks for the reminder however of alleged improprieties y'all have been dealing with for a long time. Thanks for keeping your eyes open.