Pissant Press

10/13/2026

The recall is coming - it's everywhere you look.

10/12/2026

Whitney Fick capturing that smug mug at the recall meeting Friday night - great work!

Send a message to learn more

10/12/2026

If you want to help us extend our reach, if you've ever liked one of our videos, if the mayor makes you mad - PLEASE hit that Follow button. It's the simplest way to get what's going on here in front of more people.

Appreciate all the love and support! If you already follow, please share a video that speaks to you.

10/12/2026

"They were absolutely looking at me. They were connecting."

Public comment, October 5. Kella C. is at the podium describing the recall hearing she went to. Not this one.

Edit note first, because this clip has an edit. She tells the mayor she doesn't remember his exact words from the last time she stood there. We had them, so we put them in. The middle of the clip is August 3, labeled on screen. The rest is October 5. Every clip is real, we just put the two nights next to each other.

August 3
She asked the mayor to look at her while she spoke. Two people before her had asked the same thing, she says. His full answer is in the clip. The short version is that he takes notes "because we take what you say seriously," he looks up "from time to time to make contact when I can," and she was "not going to address this board disrespectfully anymore." She said she wasn't being disrespectful, she was asking. He told her she may finish.

October 5
She came back to report where she found the eye contact. The recall committee, she says. They looked at her. They wanted to know what she was saying. "A breath of fresh air," in her words.

Then she brought up a podcast she says she came across, the mayor talking with a county commissioner, saying the recall is about deeper issues. Her answer, "No, it's not deeper issues. It's right out there exactly what it's about." And her closer. "Lapeer citizens are not stupid."

She called the difference gaslighting and "flip the mirror."

10/11/2026

Tim and Alexis provide a live recap of the recall gathering.

10/11/2026

"The work product was never completed."

Part two of the October 5 agenda fight. Brady asked whether the commission wants to know what it paid Bodman 1 for. Here's what he got.

A question back, first
McCarthy wanted to know who exactly Brady was asking, or whether he just wanted a public dialogue so everybody could "kind of maybe sauté it a little bit over the heat."

Brady said he wasn't sure what sautéing it over the heat is. Then he said what the thing is. A job description, something the commission could use "as we try to find our next employee." He says he was told he'd see it after the city manager review. He says it's paid for, it's locked up somewhere, he doesn't know where, and the clerk doesn't have it.

Asked again who he was directing that to, he said the sole authorized contact. That's the mayor. The commission voted in March to make him Bodman's "sole authorized contact."

Then the answer
"Well, that's simple enough," the mayor said. The work product was never completed. It was a draft that turned into an opinion, in his telling, because the commission couldn't get into closed session, and because of "all the bickering and fighting that we did over the past several months." There's no final product to tap into. The commission could always put Bodman back to work under a new engagement.

And the invoices? Still being finalized. "So they've been paid, but that kind of, that's a whole nother issue."

He's right that it's another issue. It's the issue.

Then the vote
Petrie called the question, McCarthy seconded. That ends debate, standard rules, the boring kind. It carried 3 to 1, Brady the no.

Then the real motion, the agenda with Brady's discussion item on it. Brady yes. McCarthy no. Petrie no. Atwood yes. Two to two.

By charter, the mayor has no vote on the commission except to break a tie. "My vote will go on record as a no."

So here's Bodman 1 after two clips. On file with the clerk, per the mayor. The part Brady wants isn't, per Brady. Never finished, per the mayor. Paid but not final, also per the mayor. And the one official authorized to talk to the firm cast the deciding vote against talking about it.

Do we want to know what we paid for, or not? Two no votes and a tiebreaker said not tonight.

10/11/2026

Hing responding to Brady at the Oct 5 meeting about the Bodman 1 bills. A tidbit from the 10am video - part 2 of the Bodman 1 agenda exchange.

10/10/2026

"Do we, do we want to know what we paid for with Bodman 1 or not?"

Commissioner Brady, October 5 meeting. This is the agenda vote. Usually over before you've found your seat.

Quick refresher. Bodman is the outside law firm. Bodman 1 is the earlier engagement, the one with the commission's own $10,000 limit, the one the August bill came in just under (or did it?). Bodman 2 is the Womack investigation. This clip is about the first one.

Brady's ask
Add one discussion item. The city was billed by Bodman 1 for specific things, he says, and the commission has never been shown what it got for the money. He'd like to see it. He put it on the agenda on purpose. Save it for commissioner comments, in his words, and "it's just going to get kind of ignored or kicked down the road."

The mayor's answer
It's been discussed at length. There were three chances to receive it in closed session, he says, and Brady and one other commissioner chose not to go in. It's filed with the clerk now and it's a public document. He'd rather not "impede" the October 5 agenda with it.

Brady's answer to that
"The work product that I'm thinking of is not on file with the clerk. We were billed for some specific things. I would like to have those things."

Fair is fair. The chair asked Brady what he wanted to discuss, let him say it, and left the call to the majority. That's how it's supposed to go.

But notice what the disagreement is actually about. Not whether to read the thing. Whether the thing is in the clerk's office at all. One says it's on file. The other says the part he's asking about isn't. That's not a debate, that's a records question, and the clerk can settle it in an afternoon.

Reading the bill is the job. Finding out what the bill bought is the rest of it.