Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.eyeonenglewood.com

After one of Matt Crabtree's political groups delivered fliers to owners of campers and recreation vehicles, Matthew Crabtree became the target of retaliation. Why? Because one interested citizen packed out a full house against Representative Linda Olsen's intent to disrobe her neighborhood of their vehicles.

Next thing Matt knew, the City Attorney, Dan Brotzman, investigated his political group to see whether it complied with the Colorado election statutes. He employed the City Clerk, Lou Ellis, to see whether Matt could be prosecuted for running an illegal campaign.

Clerk Ellis and Attorney Brotzman contacted Mr. Crabtree warning him that his political group was not in compliance with the Colorado regulations for backing a candidate, but that since he had registered it in good faith, they would not prosecute him this time.

The warning was clear. "Either back a candidate, or stick to one election topic. Since this wasn't the topic of your flier, your group doesn't qualify as a political action committee under Colorado statute definitions."

"What does that mean?" Crabtree asked. "You don't have the power to regulate me if I don't fall within the scope of your definitions?"

Brotzman snapped that he could not put the committee name on the bottom of his fliers any more, that he must put his own personal name on the flier.

Brotzman then patiently explained that in Englewood's ordinances, any corporation advertising in Englewood, must not only identify themselves as the corporation, but also add the corporate representative and his or her phone number on the flier.

Crabtree was incredulous. "You mean, you would prosecute Breakfast on Broadway for advertisements or Yard Sellers for posting a sale sign without a phone number?"

Nothing more than a chuckle echoed across the air space.

It is clear that where retaliation comes into play in Englewood, the enforcement of ordinances are selectively enforced.

Matthew found a ticket for alley weeds upon his return home from work that evening.

Don't speak up about your opinion on anything in Englewood, and they will not prosecute you for weeds, or building permits, or raising your political voice.

At study session on Monday evening, Linda Olson, District Representative II, asked, "how can City Council stop this kind of thing?"

At that point, District I Representative, Joe Jefferson replied, "Hold on there. You are in the public eye. You cannot stop it. People have the right to respond to our policies." Basically, Mr. Jefferson was upholding the Constitution's freedom of speech clause and the right of the people to redress government.

Nothing stinks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.

Is it against the law to be a Town Crier in Englewood? Of course not. Hasn't the NAACP already settled that privacy and freedom of association protects the identity of the members in a group or club? Of course.

The power to regulate does not apply to absolute rights or guaranteed freedoms. Matt and his grass roots convoys may continue to roam freely through their city and campaign however they wish in response to the City's illegal encroachments.

Stink bugs catching the leftovers of the picnic, whether dressed up in black ties and shorty pants or not, are still just bugs to be flipped off.

There are two post offices in the City of Englewood. Why save the Post Office in old town, on Broadway? Let me list a few reasons.

There is a mural of an Englewood rodeo in the foyer of the Post Office that was painted by a famous Colorado artist. Can you guess who?

The Broadway Post Office is constantly busy.

The building is paid for.

It has a parking lot and an ongoing cycle of traffic to the drop off boxes.

It has streaming pedestrians from the neighborhood.

And for outsiders' access,the busstop is situated directly at the foot of the front steps.

Englewood senior housing is its next door neighbor. Are these people going to get into a taxi and drive two miles south, or are they going to divert their parcels to the UPS store at the Safeway center within walking distance?

Mr. Dolan, in Washington D.C. believes that the Post Office will replace the most needed services with the pick up delivery service now offered by the Post Office. But, the historic building is already paid for. This new service will cost the Post Office more workers, more wages, more vehicles, more gas, more insurance.

And, who will pay for these costs? The shut in's who cannot get access to the post office any other way. The U.S. Postal Service is opening itself up to liability of a class action proportion.

The artist whose work is featured in Englewood's main Post Office is also featured at the Redstone Inn, in Redstone Colorado. With those few clues, the first one to figure out who this artist is, will win a prize.

All others interested in saving the service and the site, please write your concerns to:
John E. Potter, Postmaster General
475 L.'Enfant Plaza S.W.
Washington D.C. 20260-2202

Good luck on all fronts.

Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/

The topic of Council's April 13, 2009 study session regarding office expenditures and discretionary funds actually began right after the close of last election, when council woman Laurett Barrentine lost the popular vote to coach Randy Penn.

Because Ms. Barrentine had been the voice of accountability and fiscal conservation on Council, albeit bull doggedly, it was not enough to simply hush her voice this term.

No. Not nearly enough. In retaliation for daring to request a line item budget report for Council's review, the City Manager arranged a little parting gift to Ms. Barrentine.

She was billed, then publicly threatened by council's vote to prosecute her in a collection action over $57.00. This bill was in dispute as to whether it qualified as part of her allotted $150.00 discretionary funds. It was the City's opinion that she had billed them and been reimbursed for something not covered by discretionary funds.

She argued that the bill she submitted for reimbursement was indeed included within her line of duty. It was related to her computer access used to perform Council duties.

Council members decided to agree with City Manager Sears that the $57.00 was outside the text of the policy. The text of the policy reads, "Or materials directly related to the responsibilities..."

According to District 1 Council Representative, Joe Jefferson, stated he believes the meaning is wide open within the judgment of the elected official.

Where previously John Moore voted to prosecute a collections action against Ms. Barrentine, he flipped at the Council meeting of April 13, 2009, stating that he agreed that standardized computer access was a requirement of members of Council and within a member's discretion.

Ms. Barrentine knew at the time of the City's collection action against her that it was retaliatory in nature, but she paid the City's claim because $57.00 wasn't worth the cost or trouble of hiring a defense.

I find myself aghast at the City's public humiliation tactic to pursue a questionable $57.00 from a civil servant, while the same officials privately approved another hefty raise to the City Manager's salary, weighing him in at $160,000.00.

In a City where people are questionably surviving lost jobs and failure to achieve merit raises equal to inflation, it's not likely Council or Manager can successfully argue the proper allocation of residents' tax money being their true aim. Me tinks they just wanted a play date with darts at the bar and Ms. Barrantine as the target.

In the final minutes of the discussion, Jefferson requested that he use his discretionary funds for informal district meetings with residents, specifically for invitations. When Wilson asked what he meant by "informal" he explained: no notice would be required, no more than 3 council persons would be in attendance, no decisions could be made.

Its purpose would be more of a communication opportunity with the residents in his district. Jefferson has been talking about implementing this since being voted onto council, better late than never.

Wilson stated that everyone should be invited to a District 1 meeting. Disregarding the rule prohibiting a quorum [C.R.S. 24-6-402(2)(c)]of council at any informal meeting, she stated that she has a hard time understanding excluding people. She favored public notice and an invitation to all people. She specifically stated that she lives in District 1, and would like to participate.

Jefferson reminded them about Open Meetings laws, and that his purpose would not be to exclude anyone, but to allow his constituents to speak freely, without fear. His goal is to provide a casual avenue for communication.

Woodward, Oakley and Moore questioned whether the meetings could be construed as a campaign booster so near elections. But Jefferson's district seat is not one of those available this November.

Moore stated he did not believe district meetings were necessary, and therefore funds for invitations should not come from office supply funds. He further stated that the entire council would have to vote to approve the funds for the single district meetings if it came out of discretionary spending. He admitted the concept was a new one to him.

In the last seconds of Monday's meeting, Moore completely turned about face, actually daring anyone to "take me to court." Some of the last comments in the discussion were John Moore's when he arrogantly stated: "If I believe in my personal discretion that I needs to host a district meeting with only half of my district, I have that right."

Not so fast, Mr. Moore. Your attitude toward your district is opposite that expressed by Mr. Jefferson. While you know you are protected by governmental immunity and your solid dare, who is going to recuse you or prosecute your over suspicious use of your annual $600.00 discretionary budget?

We know you are well aware of this fact. It is precisely because the people are helpless that you can get away with such patronage of your district.

At the end of the day, Council members generally decided that contributions to charities or other council member's needs will not come out of individuals' discretionary funds due to possible abuses of unilateral entitlement of voters' money. They decided that whatever is surplus at the end of the fiscal year is returned to the general fund.

Finally, they decided that members only carried the right to advise Joe on his expenditure, but not the power to interfere or limit his choice on how to spend discretionary funds in relation to his duties.

It looks like District 1 will get its private play date. Sorry, District 2, you will have to take Mr. Moore up on his challenge in order to bend your District Representative's ear.

The full discussion can be heard on www.EnglewoodCitizens.Org.
IV. Council Discretionary/Office Supplies Policy