Denying Access to the Mayor: A Look Into the Unelected Bureaucrats Making Decisions for South Bend’s Mayor James Mueller
- Logan Foster
- Jan 1, 2023
- 5 min read
Updated: 1 day ago
Title: Denying Access to the Mayor: A Look Into the Unelected Bureaucrats Making Decisions for South Bend’s Mayor James Mueller
Author:
Date:
On September 7th, 2023, South Bend resident Logan Foster (long before he was involved in politics in any capacity), attended a public forum titled "Mayor’s Night Out," optimistic to have his concerns heard. Foster's chief concern took place months earlier, in July of 2023. A shooting had occurred in Foster's backyard, an incident that left him and his wife troubled and seeking answers. The South Bend Police Department collected evidence from the scene, but the episode never appeared in the city’s official crime statistics. Attempts to get clarity through emails and calls to the mayor’s office had gone unanswered, leaving Foster to turn to the Mayor's Night Out as a last resort.
At the event, Foster presented his concerns to Mayor James Mueller and outlined six questions related to crime reporting, South Bend’s 311 public service system, and a lack of responsiveness from city officials. Mueller, in a rare moment of direct engagement, acknowledged Foster's plight and promised a 20-minute private meeting, asking his staff to follow up and promptly schedule their sit-down meeting. (Also at that Mayor’s Night Out, South Bend’s IT department confirmed that the above incident, as well as others were mysteriously missing from the cities statistics and Foster was correct.)
Over six weeks passed. No meeting was scheduled, so Foster decided to visit Mayor Mueller’s office in person in an attempt to schedule the meeting Mayor Mueller already agreed to have with Foster on September 7th, 2023. What followed was not just a denial of access, but a revelation of how unelected bureaucrats can weaponize their taxpayer funded positions.
The Weaponization of a Request
On October 19, 2023, Logan Foster arrived at Mayor Mueller’s office on the 14th floor of South Bend’s County-City Building. Instead of simply scheduling a meeting as planned, Foster encountered aggression and resistance in the form of Breana Micou, Mayor James Mueller’s Project Manager. According to Foster, Micou refused to schedule the meeting, citing fabricated claims that Foster did not need a meeting with the Mayor as South Bend's Chief of Police, Scott Ruszkowski, had already drove out to Foster's house to meet with him one one-on-one at his property, something Foster asserts never occurred. (And if you were to ask Chief Ruszkowski directly, he would tell you it never happened either.) (It is correct that Foster had spoke with Ruszkowski in passing or brief intervals at public events, but never had the in depth conversation at one's residence or in a private setting as described above.)
Micou escalated the interaction by questioning Foster's entitlement to meet with Mayor James Mueller, ignoring the fact that Mayor James Mueller himself had sanctioned the meeting during the last Mayor’s Night Out. Foster pointed to signage in the office that explicitly advertised opportunities for one-on-one appointments with the Mayor. Tensions flared further when Micou, activated a panic button, summoning security to remove Foster from the County, not City, owned property.
Promptly after Foster was ejected from the Mayor's office, he filed a complaint against Micou for her attitude towards him and his removal from a government building. Foster requested a meeting with the City to discuss this removal and to inquire about what action would be taken against Micou.
Days after Foster’s request to file a complaint against Micou, Foster received a letter from City of South Bend Corporate Counsel Sandra Kennedy, outlining Micou’s new allegations. According to the letter, Micou later accused Foster of making racially insensitive comments, providing the following in Sandra Kennedy's letter: “Ms. Micou has claimed harassment; she indicated that you have made comments about being the only white person in your neighborhood, and she said that you claim to be the only taxpayer in your neighborhood. The implication to Ms. Micou, who is a person of color, is that the people of color in your neighborhood are not taxpayers. Additionally, she said that you have implied that by being the only taxpayer in your neighborhood, you have a greater right of access to the Mayor than any other person, all of whom are people of color, in your neighborhood. Ms. Micou also has stated that your demeanor toward her was intimidating and made her uncomfortable because you have given her the impression that you believe yourself to be more important than people of color. Regardless of your intent, that was the outcome.”
Foster categorically refutes these allegations as false and fundamentally inaccurate. He maintains that at no point did he make statements about being the “only white person” or “only taxpayer” in his neighborhood and firmly rejects any insinuation that he holds himself superior to neighbors of color. Foster has provided his audio and video recordings of his encounter in the Mayor's office to City officials, that, he says, clearly disprove the claims attributed to him. He explains that Micou's supposed allegations are either intentionally distortions, or outright fabrications contrived to justify barring Foster from his government.
Further, Foster states that the logic underlying these accusations is flawed: it is both factually wrong to suggest that a specific demographic group does not pay taxes. As he points out, “We all pay taxes. whether its excise taxes, sales tax, property, income, payroll taxes. Just to name a few. It's just simply incorrect to think anyone can avoid paying taxes.” In addition, Foster has a record of advocacy, demonstrated through years working with racially diverse coalitions, attempting to elevate transparency in government, and standing with neighbors from all backgrounds. Which would contradict any claim that he would express or believe such sentiments made by Micou. According to Foster, his experience instead exemplifies how intentional and weaponized mischaracterizations and unchecked staff power can be used in an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Ask Yourself
What mechanisms, if any, exist within South Bend’s governance structure to ensure that a staff member cannot override the directives of the mayor? And what accountability measures apply when a public servant makes baseless accusations in an attempt to discredit a member of the public?
A Troubling Pattern
Closer examination of Breana Micou’s background illuminates deeper concerns about the City of South Bend's leadership structure. In 2024, Micou received a taxpayer-funded salary of $56,254.75 for her work as the mayor’s project manager, a position that involves daily interactions with South Bend residents and a significant level of trust. Despite this steady income, public records show Micou has repeatedly struggled to meet her own financial obligations. In May 2025, Horizon Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings against Micou after she failed to pay her $391.19 monthly mortgage for five consecutive months. This was not an isolated event of mismanagement; a previous foreclosure case from 2022 revealed she owed $2,592.32 in back payments after missing five months of mortgage installments. Before these homeownership challenges, records indicate her prior landlord attempted to evict her half a dozen times while she lived at an apartment complex. Further, Micou has a past arrest for driving without having first obtained a license.
While personal hardships can befall anyone, these patterns of missed payments, legal disputes, and unresolved obligations naturally raise red flags about the administrative decision-making required of someone tasked with upholding city policy, discretionary municipal spending, and facilitating citizen access. Foster argues that if a city official earning over $56,000 per year cannot reliably manage basic financial commitments, such as a $391.19 monthly mortgage, residents have reason to question whether Micou is equipped to handle the complexities, pressures, and ethical responsibilities of serving the public good. The authority to single-handedly deny a citizen access to their mayor should come with not just oversight, but a proven capacity for sound judgment and personal accountability. It appears that Micou, and the Mayor's office in general, lacks both.
