Dirty Politics

Iron County's dirty political games are coming
to the surface as a result of my lawsuit against
John Archocosky and the City of Iron River.

Hey, fellows, are you sure you want to have the
world see how you do normally business. Do you
really want the world to know that you are unable
to stand and deliver when push comes to shove?
Are you sure you want the world to see what
dirty fighters you usually are, or are you willing
to turn over a new leaf and do things honestly?

In the end you'll come out way ahead if you stop
trying to defend your corrupt practices. Revise
your business practices. Stop taking money
illegally out of the citizens' pockets. Live within
your means as the rest of us must do.

We can easily settle the current lawsuit and
the impending ones if you'll just obey the
conditions that are imposed on you by the
Michigan Constitution and the laws of the
State of Michigan.

No one is asking for anything more than that!

Why are you unable to comply with the laws?


Bill Vajk
--
--
--

My departure from Yahoo Groups

I resigned from the IronCountyWatch and the
IronCountyIndependent discussion groups in
November of 2007. It has, since then, been a
productive year from me because I have not
been distracted by the inane presentations of
others that were distracting me from doing
some very worthwhile things.

Any number of people have told me in the past
year that it was a mistake for me to quit, and
that I should remain active there. Several have
gone so far as to deem my absence "a mistake."

Perhaps they're right and I'm wrong, I don't
know and I'm not inclined to find out. I think
if I returned I'd be inclined to waste my time
arguing with people who are not working
towards improving the social, the economic,
and the political situation here in Iron County.
For some reason they think everything is
just fine here, while I am doing my best to
bring 21st Century USA into our everyday
experience here.

In every business curriculum there is one theme that
is repeated time and again. Seek out and deal with
the decision maker. That's not going to happen for
me in the Yahoo discussion groups. That is happening
with the approach to activism I've been taking in
the past year.

I've filed the first of what promises to be several
lawsuits against Iron River. I've taken the time
to study several issues worth suing over. The first
one is memorialized on ironcountydoings.blogspot.com,
posted earlier today only after the complaint was
filed, fees paid, and summons served this afternoon.

I'll keep participants on my blog advised of everything
that happens. I invite all to come to court to participate
when hearings in the case are held.

I won't talk in advance about the other suits. They're
in work. I will say that a lot less useless chatter in the
Yahoo groups with that energy converted to positive
action designed to improve our situation would be a
much better set of circumstances.

On the internet there's an old label attached to people
who criticize without doing anything about their
complaints. That label is called "critic troll." The
public comments about my proposing a "trolley system,"
an idea far from dead, and more recently my giving
several pages of suggestions to the Rodeo Board, were
only criticism. If the critics are so smart and know better
than I do, I urge them to provide some evidence by
offering something other than criticism against those
who are actually doing something to help. Criticize me
for not doing enough, not for trying.

Try starting your New Year by actually doing something
worthwhile. Using the two Yahoo Groups as bitching
boards isn't it. The two groups have a place in the scheme
of things, but they should never have become the totality
of anyone's activism as they have. I hope you'll join in
making improvements to the county. I don't expect
anyone to change their minds about me. I am satisfied
that I'm doing what I ought to be doing at this stage of
my life, and I can only hope that every reader is doing
as well with theirs.

Happy New Year, with best wishes of peace and prosperity
to each of you, friend and foe alike.

Bill Vajk
--
--
--

FOIA lawsuit in Iron County

Yours truly has filed a lawsuit in Iron County
Circuit court. The summons was served today and
the affidavit of service was filed with the
Clerk of the Court this afternoon.

The exhibits are in .pdf format and I am not
posting them at this time as they are not
necessary to understand the case. They are
only needed for a judicial review which is not
happening in any public forum. If you believe
a cp of the exhibits would be helpful to you
in some way, please ask me for a copy of that
file in email sent to bill.vajk@gmail.com.

Document follows.

------------------------------------------------

State of Michigan
In the Circuit Court for the County of Iron
Circuit Division
_________________________________________________

COMPLAINT

William J. Vajk v. John Archocosky

Case No. I 08-3982-CZ

Hon. C. Joseph Schwedler

1) Now comes the plaintiff William J. Vajk,
pro se, and complains under the Freedom of
Information Act, Act 442 of 1976, MCL 15.231
et seq, hereinafter referred to as Act 442,
and common law, as follows:

2) This court has jurisdiction.

3) Plaintiff made a multiple Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) requests that he
personally served on the office of the
Clerk in the City of Iron River on
December 1, 2008. A copy of that request
is provided in Exhibit A.

4) The ensuing email interchange, including
attachments, is provided in Exhibit B.

5) Plaintiff thus came to discover one
aspect of the City of Iron River's "Pay
to Play" illegal gambit that wantonly
violates Act 442, common law fraud, and
common law extortion, as follows:

A) Plaintiff asked that the basis of the
"unreasonably high costs to the City"
part of the forms provided by the City,
Exhibit B pg. 4-7, be disclosed. Failure
or refusal to disclose this information
is a violation of Act 442.

B) Plaintiff was met with silence. The
pertinent part of Act 442, Sec. 4 (3)
states in part:

"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."

C) Defendant Archocosky has steadfastly
refused to provide this information and
has also refused to abandon the City's
demand for payment of the illegally
constituted fees. Since there is a well
established statutory requirement that
the named Defendant knew or should have
known, that the requested information be
provided without fees unless "unreasonably
high costs" are extant, identifiable, and
disclosed, the demand for payment is a
violation of Act 442 as well as both common
law fraud and common law extortion.

D) Given the circumstances of this case,
wherein the public body withholds requested
information for the sake of collecting an
illegally constructed fee, that the Defendant
knew or should have known to violate Act 442,
wherein the charge violates the clear
mandates of Act 442, imposition constitutes
a constructive denial of providing the
requested information in a timely manner.

E) The demanded fee of $38.46 is, on its
face, absurd and cannot be supported as
"unreasonably high" under any definition
of the words of the statute. Plaintiff's
reading of all reported and unreported
opinions relating to Act 442 to be found
on the Michigan courts web page finds that
each upholds the letter of the law as
spelled out in the italicized text above
with no allowances, alterations, or
modifications authorized by case law.

F) As the first example of patent
absurdity, the "Wastemanagement Contract,"
a document reported to be 4 pages long,
has a 1/4 hour charge associated with it
at a fee demand to Plaintiff of $10.53.
The City had the document in hand to
determine that it is 4 pages long. The
City has demonstrated that there is no
additional research necessary. The
document is one that is subject to
public scrutiny as it stands without
"review, deletion, separation of exempt
from non-exempt information" that might
suggest some, or any, reason for demanding
a labor fee. Thus it cannot meet the
relevant "unreasonable" test. Any city
employee that spends as long as 15
minutes on this item is in serious
need of being fired as is any supervisor
permitting such incompetence or reticence
to perform ordinary office job functions
in a timely fashion.

G) The balance of the requested documents,
while larger, all represent similar
circumstances. Labor for the act of
copying is built into the per page charge,
leaving no additional labor charge that
can ever be considered "unreasonably high."

6) As shown in Exhibit C, Plaintiff filed
an FOIA Appeal in this instance issued to
the named defendant John Archocosky since
the city failed at every opportunity to
comply with Act 442 by failing to
identify the "head of the public body"
in their responses to Plaintiff's
requests. Please take notice that
defendant Archocosky insisted that all
future FOIA requests from me be
addressed to him. The statement is in
Exhibit B pg 1. To demonstrate to the
Court the City of Iron River's routine
practice of omitting the required
statutory language divulging the
correct addressees for appeal and
litigation information mandated by
Act 442, Plaintiff has included
another FOIA reply in Exhibit D.
This example is the only completed
FOIA response from the City of Iron
River to Plaintiff, and it too fails
to comply with the requirements of
Act 442 in the above stated regards,
specifically Sec. 5. (3)(d).

7) Since John Archocosky, the City
Manager for the City of Iron River,
asserted control over this and all
future FOIA requests, and in the
absence of any additional information
directing this complaint elsewhere,
Plaintiff had no option but to name
Archocosky as the defendant in this
action.

A) Plaintiff had and has no reason to
question Defendant Archocosky's
asserting control over FOIA requests
from this Plaintiff. Defendant John
Archocosky is, and was, the City
Manager of the City of Iron River
at all pertinent times.

B) A courtesy "FOIA appeal" went to
Archocosky. Mr. Archocosky failed to
respond to the aforementioned appeal
during the 10 days allowed by Act 442.
Even on the off chance that the City
had some legitimate reason for
believing the fees demanded to be
legitimate, Defendant Archocosky
failed to comply with Act 442 by
divulging such reasons as required
by Act 442 despite a specific request
by Plaintiff that he do so. Please
see Exhibit C pg. 1-2.

C) Plaintiff was not required by Act 442
to appeal the fees to the City before
taking further action. Plaintiff could
have proceeded directly to suit, but
wrote an appeal as a courtesy to
Mr. Archocosky and the City of Iron
River and in a failed attempt to avoid
the need for this litigation. In addition,
Plaintiff sent a copy of the final email
not only to the named defendant, but also
to the Clerk of the City of Iron River,
and the Mayor of Iron River, as a
courtesy to notify everyone working on
behalf of the City of Iron River possibly
interested in the issues a notice of the
pendency of this action. Please see
Exhibit C.

D) Plaintiff was forced to the conclusion
that Defendant Archocosky and the other
addressees prefer resolution of the fee
issue through litigation, and so here we
are.

8) Defendant Archocosky had, at all
relevant times, the authority and control
over the City's decision(s) regarding fees
to be charged while responding to FOIA
requests. If he does or did not, he had
only to divulge another person to whom
the request(s) might have been directed.
Defendant Archocosky has earned the
exclusive right, by his own actions, to
represent the city as the sole defendant
in the immediate cause.

9) It is thus clear that after
notification of a violation of Act 442
and common law, Defendant Archocosky's
actions, and the pertinent lack thereof,
under the color of his office, meet the
criteria for punitive damages.

10) Plaintiff asks the court to ignore
the smallness of the amount at the core
of this case. It is the repetitive routine
violations of state law by the City of
Iron River that is the significant problem
for which this case is the first of several
others currently in work. Indeed, the
information requested under the FOIA at the
core of this case is relevant to background
information necessary to develop the
complaints for one or more such class action
cases. Invoices representing city billings
against property owners in Iron River will
soon be sought using FOIA requests. Defendant
Archocosky and the City of Iron River are
aware that those previously promised lawsuits
will be brought soon as memorialized in the
minutes of the City Council meeting of
15 October 2008 as follows: "Tousignant will
contact MML concerning possible litigation."
Unreported in the minutes is the actual
mention of Plaintiff's name, at the meeting,
in these regards.

11) Plaintiff also publishes reports relating
to his activism on behalf of the community on
the internet at

www.ironcountydoings.blogspot.com.

ISSN registration request has been filed.

12) As a consequence, the records requested
by Plaintiff should be deemed to "be in the
public interest" as defined in MCL 15.234,
Sec. 4. (1) of act 442.

Therefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests
this Court enter the following judgments:

A) The City of Iron River shall be ordered
to provide the information requested in the
pertinent FOIA request at the core of this
case at a cost to Plaintiff consisting only
of the standard copying costs of 25 cents
per page.

B) The City of Iron River shall be ordered
to pay Plaintiff's costs in this action.

C) That this Court find that the City of
Iron River has arbitrarily and capriciously
violated Act 442 and order the City to pay
to Plaintiff the maximum punitive damages
allowed by Act 442.

D) That the Court permanently enjoin the
City of Iron River from routinely demanding
payment of small amounts for information to
be provided under the FOIA where
justification of "unreasonably high costs"
is not legitimately established and
articulated. Plaintiff is asking the Court
to prevent the need for repeating this
lawsuit with the same City defendant for
the same reason when additional different
FOIA requests are being processed in the
future.

E) That all future FOIA requests from this
Plaintiff, when accompanied by a
certification that his work is in the
interest of the public good be provided in
compliance with Act 442 Sec. 4. (1), at no
cost to the undersigned Plaintiff.


Respectfully submitted

__________________________________


The undersigned William J. Vajk, being duly
sworn, certifies under the penalties of
perjury that the information provided in
this complaint and attached Exhibits is
true.

___________________________________
William J. Vajk




Sworn and subscribed to before me on the
________________ day of _____________, 2008.


__________________________________________
Notary Public

My Commission expires ____________________________

Constructive Quorum in Michigan

I've been to some, not very many, meetings
of public bodies here in Iron County, Michigan.

It always seemed to me that the members of
the various boards and councils got through
their business rather quickly, and often a
motion was brought, and carried on voice
vote, with infrequent dissent.

Aha, I thought, they've discussed their issues
and hammered them out beforehand....that
ought to be illegal under the Open Meetings
Act.

My recent research found that it is. It is
called a constructive quorum, where members
of the controlling organ of a public body
discuss an issue serially in order to, they
seem to believe, thwart the intent of the
Open Meetings Act without actually violating
the law. Well they're simply wrong. It is
a violation.

There's the case of Marquette City Attorney
Bonnie L. Hoff in which the following classic
text is provided in the unpublished opinion:

"[I]t is clear from the various exhibits
submitted by the parties . . . , specific-
ally including the Affidavits of
Commissioners Spoelstra and Kensington,
that the same type of Open Meetings Act
violation found by the Court in Booth
Newspapers v University of Michigan
Board of Regents, may well have
occurred during the private “get
togethers” between various subgroups
of the Marquette City Commission that
each involved, admittedly, less than
a quorum of the Board. Such a
conclusion . . . is supported by
the fact that the Board terminated
the contact of one of the two highest
City employees, Ms. Hoff, the City
Attorney, at the January 31, 2005,
city commission meeting without a
whit of discussion and with no stated
reason. Even the most naïve and
trusting observer would conclude that
something more than an exchange of
pleasantries, which involved the
topic of Attorney Hoff’s termination,
took place at the non-public
subgroup meetings. [Emphasis in
original.]"


"Similarly, in Booth Newspapers, Inc
v Univ of Mich Board of Regents, the
defendant board established subquorum
committees that engaged in telephone
calls and small group meetings. This
Court found it significant that the
acknowledged purpose of these subquorum
committees was to engage in the same
intercommunications that could only
have been achieved in a full meeting
of the board. According to this Court,
“The subquorum groups were utilized
or designed to avoid the OMA, and
therefore, they constituted a
constructive quorum[.]” Therefore,
this Court held that, because the
board “deliberately divided itself
into subquorum groups to deliberate
on public policy, in direct
circumvention of the OMA’s objective
of promoting openness and
accountability in government,” the
OMA applied."

By reading the entire opinion and the
footnotes one discovers that this
problem has been repeatedly been before
the courts, and that in most cases the
courts have held that the subquorum
meetings were illegal.

The problem here in Iron County is that
not only do we not have enough of the
public involved in the meetings, but also
that our public is mostly apathetic when
it comes to letting illegal conduct slide.

Posted by Bill Vajk
--
--
--

An Agenda for Change -- Chapter 1

I recently started promoting the following
concepts as part of a basis for making
changes to how business is done in
Michigan, and particularly in Iron County.


Publicly Funded non-government entities:

All publicly funded non governmental entities
shall have a mission statement expressed in
measurable objectives.

All publicly funded non governmental entities
shall provide a published publicly available
annual (or more frequent) report that provides
detailed information that includes their annual
budget as well as the cost allocations to each
measurable mission and their performance for
each measurable parameter in simple,
understandable, terms.

Economic Development:

Every publicly subsidized economic development
initiative shall meet the following requirements:

1) Where vehicles are involved in the assisted
business enterprise, the target enterprise shall
agree to purchase all fuel (for locally based
vehicles) within the county providing assistance
and shall permit themselves to be audited by
state, county, or municipal authorities or their
agents.

2) The number of new or retained jobs shall only
be counted if they are full time (minimum 40
hours a week, 52 weeks every year) with fringe
benefits including group health insurance, in
the same group for all employees and management,
for the employee (and family through payroll
deduction,) paid vacation of 1 week per year,
five paid sick days per year, and no less than
6 paid holidays each year. Any employment not
including at least these benefits as a minimum
shall not be included in any "job count"
resulting from such an economic development
initiative.

3) The job count of new or retained jobs shall
only include jobs in direct employment by the
assisted enterprise.

4) New and/or retained jobs subsidized in any
way by public funds shall only be available to
permanent Michigan residents. Non residents may
be hired but may not start work or receive
payroll or other funds until the individual
is a permanent resident of this state.

5) All publicly assisted businesses shall
bank exclusively in Michigan.

6) All publicly assisted businesses shall be
incorporated in Michigan. This requirement
precludes registration in Michigan as a
foreign corporation.

7) No assisted enterprise shall be provided
with real estate at public expense at a rent
less than fair market value.

8) Assisted enterprises may not utilize
employees or contractors not comporting with
§ 2 above in a quantity greater than 5 % of
the total number of jobs comporting with
§ 2 above.



Open Meetings & the right of petition:

Brother Samaha's paper
The Declaration of Human Rights
very nicely traces that history for us. I find
the "right of petition" documented in Article 61
of the Magna Carta of 1215. The paper by
The Online Library of Liberty traces some
of the weaving and wobbling in settling just
what the "right" is. What is clear from all
this history is that we can consider ourselves
fortunate that the Founding Fathers were very
well read.

Through this winding history we arrive to the
First Amendment to the US Constitution with
its "petition the government".

During the late 1800's, an ancestral uncle of
mine, James G. Blaine, wrote about the fact
that during the hundred years or so that the
US had been independent, the mistakes of the
past were starting to be repeated. "So slowly
turn the mills of the gods." The country was
slowly but surely returning to the despicable
British practices that formed the basis of
the American Revolution.

We see similar erosions creeping in here in
Michigan presently.

Former Attorney General's Frank J. Kelley's
opinion number 5716 quotes the Open Meetings
Act as containing the statement, "These rules
must be reasonable, flexible and designed to
encourage public expression and not discourage
or prohibit it." The same paragraph today only
requires that "A person shall be permitted to
address a meeting of a public body under rules
established and recorded by the public body"
and other procedural requirements.

The entire basis for the open meetings act has
been stripped in this erosion. Today we have a
townships organization that is teaching Michigan
township boards that "There is no constitutional
or First Amendment right to open meetings." Where
and how else can the citizen be assured that
his 1st amendment right to petition the
government is assured?

We are presently seeing restrictive rules that
clearly violate the first amendment. For example,
the Iron County Board of Commissioners (BOC) has
rules that limit public comment to agenda items
and limit the total time to 20 minutes which
effectively denies a citizen of his right to
petition if there are issues to be discussed
that have the general population upset. The
restrictive nature of the BOC rule stands in
clear violation of "Congress shall make no
law ....or abridging...to petition the
government for a redress of grievances" as
brought to the states by the 14th Amendment.

There was a newspaper report earlier this
year that one of the City Council members
in Iron Mountain felt that when the council
was in session "it is our meeting" and
comments should be restricted or prohibited.
Such attitudes are absurd.

My request for new legislation is that we
return to the ideology that the meetings are
designed to encourage participation by the
citizens interested in doing so.

I request the following elements be made
part of the Open Meetings Act:

The agenda for an open meeting shall be
locked in and published concurrently with
the meeting notice.

At least 120 hours shall elapse between
the publication of the agenda and a
meeting notice and the meeting to which
those documents refer.

No new agenda items may be added at
the time of the meeting.

Whenever a motion is made, followed by
discussion, specific public comment on
that item must be permitted before a
vote is taken.

General public comment on any matter
must be heard at some point during
the meeting.

It is critical that we, as a state, revert
to citizen participation in government at
every level. That begins at the local level.
If we can't get that right, the rest of the
schema falls apart.

The above is the first foray into revising how
business needs to be done here in Iron County
and hopefully in the state.

The concepts above are put forth and supported
by their author, Bill Vajk.
--
--
--

The War on Christmas (continued)

There's a funny thing about history. It
changes things. Religion is evolutionary.
If it weren't, Christianity itself would
never have happened and things like
the Council at Nicea, the Second
Vatican Council, and the Reformation,
each introducing major changes to
one or more branches of modern
Christianity, could never altered the
world as they did.

So those folks who pry up a lot of
recorded, unrecorded, and anachdotal
history appear, to me, to be finding
excuses for taking over what was a
pretty nice idea, gutting it of the meaning
and intention of those who invented
it. To add insult to injury, they work
hard to completely secularize it. This
worked pretty well with the
Thanksgiving holiday, and now
they're back for more.

Pretty soon they'll be attacking
Easter and commercializing that
as well.

I have news for them. So long as I
own a hunk of Thanksgiving,
Christmas, and Easter, the religious
basis for the holidays will remain in
effect. One thing we Christians have
learned through the ages is tolerance.
Whatever those lacking soul want to
do in those periods is their business.
I'll maintain my family traditions, no
matter when they were invented. And
I'll speak out against the grinches who
can't stand for my family to enjoy
these religious holidays in the fashion
to which we've become accustomed.

The one thing I won't do is be quiet
about it.

Bill Vajk
--
P.S. The above was initially written
in response to a secular progressive
article elsewhere.
--
--

A Funny Thing Happened on the way to this Forum

A funny thing happened on the way to this forum.

I introduced an Iron County Democrat to the contents
of the article immediately below, the one called
Energize!!! And it turns out that some Democratic
reformers aren't reformers at all when it includes any
threat at all to the power currently held by the
Democratic Party. It seems to me that unthinking and
unflinching religious loyalty of childhood is very easily
replaced by an identical unthinking and unflinching
loyalty to a political party as an adult. Religion
promises after death rewards, political parties
promise "power right now." I guess I can understand
a now instead of later mentality, even if the now
rewards are short and the later rewards are
permanent.

It's like this. Michigan Democrats (generally) lamely
work towards stamping out corruption in the county
so long as the party itself, and their individual power
and collective power isn't at risk.

So the underlying question is the most important one
of all. What will it take to get people to pull out all the
stops and root out corruption by any means, and in
the end let the chips fall where they may. Having a
strong political party of any persuasion is completely
worthless so long as that political party fails to serve
the needs of the people under all circumstances.

In the circumstances we presently have in Iron
County Michigan I'd like nothing better than to
abolish the Democrats, the Republicans, and the
Libertarians, and replace them with three brand
new parties and brand new hierarchies. We would
do far better with three new parties regardless of
their names, even if we call them rock, paper, and
scissors. At least there would be interplay and
something worthwhile could happen in Iron
County instead of the private interests that are
presently being served exclusively.

Realistically we know that can't happen in the present
political economic climate. So we need to work
together to have 3 strong parties competing with
one another, regardless of the fear this instills
in some Democrats.

Today I realized that I am living in a community filled
with characters resembling those well described in
Geoffrey Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. If you're not
familiar with that work I highly recommend it for
reading. Generally speaking, nothing is quite as it
would seem to be if you scratch just a bit below the
surface. Just like Iron County. Chaucer died more
than 500 years ago.

The more things change, they more they stay the
same.

Bill Vajk
--
--
--

Energize!!!!!!!!!!!

Moving from the Chicago area to Iron County Michigan
was very much like moving from the United States of
America to some other nation where the government
mostly does as they wish regardless of what the
law has to say about their activities.

Every time I look at why something in the county
is dysfunctional I find I have to take another
step backwards and understand that the most
elementary political necessities aren't in place!

When I moved into the subdivision I lived in
back in Illinois, within a few weeks we were
approached, in person, by the township supervisor
who always carried with her some blank voter
registration cards. I filled mine out at home
and advised her that my wife was in the local
hospital recovering from a really bad allergic
reaction to pears from a tree in the back yard
of our new home. The supervisor went from my
home straight to the hospital and signed up my
wife Gloria.

Now I realize that the model I am discussing
doesn't exist in very many places, but the fact
is that it does exist. I lived in a community
that wanted full participation by all the
citizens in government, and worked hard to
get, and keep, people involved. Once they
got started, it was a very easy thing
to keep doing!

I moved my home from Illinois to Iron County
in the 4th quarter of 2003. In the time
between then and now all I've ever really
heard about is the Democratic Party, with
an occasional reference to the Libertarians,
and now and again someone running for local
office on a Republican ticket.

The entire basis of our democratic form of
government depends on the simple fact that
there are opposing political parties with
people from each running for public office.
It seems to work well in the rest of the
US however there is nothing like that here
in Iron County.

The only way to assure honesty in local
government is to have people not only
watching over our elected officials, but
also challenging them at every election.
Iron County seems to have what was for
years called the "Let George do it!"
attitude. That's what happened with the
rodeo, and seems to rule how folks in the
county deal with almost everything in the
county. Throw money at any problem and make
it go away.

The only problem with that is that where
it comes to the insidious sorts of corruption
we're experiencing here in Iron County,
throwing money at it doesn't provide any
solution, ever. In fact throwing money at
that sort of problem only makes things
worse. It makes local politicos even more
greedy!

If you are a Republican or a Libertarian
who is not satisfied with the way things
are in the county, please contact me at
bill.vajk@gmail.com and tell me that you'd
like to participate in making the kinds
of change that make life better for all
of us. I'll make certain your voices are
heard and that the now dormant political
parties are energized and that they take
a hand in the future of our county. Give
me a contact name and address and I'll
bring attention of our plight at the state
and national levels of the respective parties.

Apathy is your worse enemy, and mine.

Posted by Bill Vajk
--
--
--

New FOIA request to the City of Iron River

In developing the scope of my legal complaints against
the City of Iron River (and others) I feel it is
prudent to develop some of the information before the
complaints are filed with the courts. In the usual
process a complaint is first filed, information
developed through a process called "discovery" and
then, if necessary, the complaint is amended. I prefer
to go in with all guns blazing from the first minute.

======================================

From:
William J. Vajk
Iron River MI 49935
1 December 2008

To:
City of Iron River
106 W. Genesee Street
Iron River MI 49935

Subject: FOIA requests, multiple

1) Please provide unredacted copies of all invoices
issued by the city to property owners in the year
2008 relating to Ordinance 13, Noxious Weed Removal.

2) Please provide unredacted payroll records for such
personnel as were involved in the direct labor charged
in the aforementioned invoices. Payroll information is
requested only for the period(s) during which work
relevant to the aforementioned item took place and
only for personnel actually engaged in the mowing
operations.

3) Please provide a copy of the "accurate account of
the expenses" the city claims were involved, such
records the responsibility of the Public Works Foreman
under section 91.32 of the Iron River ordinances. Please
provide a copy of the pertinent affidavit or affirmation
relevant to said accounting when it was delivered to
the city clerk.

4) Please provide a copy of the purchase order(s) for
equipment used by the city of Iron River mowing on
citizen's properties as billed in Item #1, above.
Please provide copies of purchase orders for similar
equipment in the possession of the City but not used
for the purpose covered by the items in this FOIA.

5) Please provide a copy of the existing contract
between the City of Iron River and Waste Management
relating to garbage collection and disposal for
residential addresses in the City of Iron River.

Please collect these records and documents and
call the undersigned at 906-265-XXXX when they
are complete or, in the alternative, send an
email to bill.vajk@gmail.com advising that the
information is ready. I will, within a reasonable
time, attend the City's offices to pay for copies
and to personally collect the requested paperwork.

To save time and postage, the 10 day extension
described in the FOIA is granted herewith.

Sincerely,



Posted by Bill Vajk
--
--
--