Eye On Englewood

Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/

Has anyone noticed housing and property tax assessments continuous rise? Yet, Englewood School attendance is low, so low an entire school in Englewood closed down a couple of years ago. The only legal way to raise property taxes is by public vote or in proper relation to the school enrollment.

Yet, City Manager Gary Sears continued to budget and spend as if the ceiling was merely foggy. Absolutes do not pertain to him, because he is absolutely above the law.

The official spokesperson for Englewood government, Tom Munds, reported in the Wednesday edition of the Englewood Herald, front page: the "gloomy picture" Manager Gary Sears has finally owned up to. The problem is, Sears is not cutting the budget in his own salary or benefits, or those of his top cronies.

Instead, the Englewood Herald cites that Sears proposed "transferring about $600,000 from other city funds, and reallocating the Long Term Asset Reserves to the City's general fund!" Is anyone screaming about this theft?

Not Mayor Woodward. Not a peep from that fearless leader is heard. The only place Woodward responds is in the additional targeting of many various City services such as street repair, Parks and Recreation, the Summer Concert Series, and the Art Shuttle. Then, Woodward is reportedly moved. "I don't think eliminating the Art Shuttle is a wise place to cut spending because a lot of residents depend on it."

Nevertheless, Mayor does not ask that employees take several more furlough days, nor does he suggest that the heads of department salaries are actually cut rather than merely frozen.

Tom Munds again reported in the same edition of the Englewood Herald that a Code Enforcement Advisory Committee special meeting is scheduled on the ordinance governing the parking of trailers and recreational vehicles in one's own driveway.

Back up. Munds writes, "The turnout was sparked by a flier indicating the council was about to take action to pass more restrictive rules. However, about half the people left the July 19 meeting when Mayor Jim Woodward said no council action was anticipated on the issue."

Yet, special meetings have been scheduled to quickly address the issue. Munds admits the advisory recommendation could be to leave the rules unchanged, but that the City's Code Enforcement Officers have been told not to enforce the current rules. Apparently, the City's newest ordinances do already encroach onto private driveways, and the residents who packed out City Hall on July 19th should not have been so easily dissuaded by Mayor's downplay of the situation.

Considering the discrepancy in Mayor's wages to City Manager's wages, Woodward certainly has been accommodating. The problem is, Mayor is not the only person being taken advantage of. His job is to protect the people's resources and welfare, oversee that government administrates Parks and Recreation and street maintenance to the fullest extent, and insure Englewood's future Assets are not raped.

This is a public emergency, and it did not happen over night. District Four Representative Gillit has been harping on the fact, continuously shut down by the rest of council, as was the infamous Laurett Barrantine's (District 3) vocal tirades on the matter. But no "Emergency Meeting" has been called over the City's finances.

Public Criminal number one is hiding in plain sight. What's a Mayor to do? Especially since, he has been complicit all these years in creating the fiscal emergency.

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.

Link: http://www.eyeonenglewood.com

During June 7,2010 City Council meeting, the Denver Christian School requested a business variance to open a second hand store on Broadway. The history underlying this request is that the latest version of the Englewood code prohibited various kinds of businesses, including thrift. But in this economy, beggars can't exactly be choosers.

Senior Planner, Langon, suggested changes in the code to enable the School to open their store front. The only question there is whether the code should lighten up across the board, or whether the school will receive preferential treatment.

The School also requested a change to the square footage. Again, Council debated the advantages against the disadvantages, and several district representatives admitted that they had no vision for what was to happen along South Broadway, and did not talk with the business owners, but only amongst themselves. Olsen stated she was concerned that there was no real downtown plan, and also concerned about allowing a subcategory for nonprofits. McCaslin recognizing the limits of government in a unprecedented moment, suggested that it was more appropriate to allow the businesses themselves to determine such things, and that it was better for Council to let out the rope.(See Council Bill 11, See Item 11.b.1 discussion.)

Mayor Woodward, however, suggested that Council purchase a new set of aerial photographs for $5,000, at "a real bargain" and that further he personally used the photos for code enforcement issues against business and residential properties comparing the last photographs were taken. (Item 11-a.1. Council Bill 13).

"With a $39,953 loss anticipated this year,and a 2.5 million dollar deficit in the City, I am very disturbed about our cavalier Council," reported Rick Gillit after the most recent financial presentation at Monday's City Council meeting.

The votes are down the line, six to one, six to one, six to one, but District 4 Representative, Rick Gillit is sticking to his Mantra: "Stop Approving New Spending."

Mayor Jim Woodward's response seemed insipidly lacking in perspective when he said, "Well you know, back in 2007, we were really concerned, but we had a super situation and we came out on top." In 2007, Englewood was still rechanneling sales taxes from Cherry Hills and Greenwood Village. Englewood can no longer do that, so it must either amend it's spending or enact a higher tax on the people in order to make ends meet.

"I am very disturbed at this ongoing trend. It terrifies me that this Council just doesn't care." Said Gillit. Thankfully, Commissioners on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals stood up and took notice themselves in this week's Board meeting directives to the Englewood City Attorney, Nancy Reid.

In the BOAA meeting, two private land owners approached the Board because the present Englewood Code was inappropriate for their properties. Research performed by Commissioner, Douglas Cohn,was presented, showed that,

1. Englewood had originally drafted its zoning codes after Denver's zoning codes in the 1903 (Mayor Jacob Jones, and afterwards, with Mayor Daniel Sutton). These codes established the typical lot sizes as 25 feet and 37.5 feet wide.

2. Mayor Woodward had changed the entire zoning code (E.M.C)in 2004 off of a generated template from the Municipal League of Cities. This code replaced the old lot measurements with a minimum of 40 feet wide.

a. the template was geared towards new emerging cities, not
existing, and did not apply to Englewood's historic issues.

b. the new Englewood Municipal Code did not grandfather the
residents' pre-existing properties or conforming uses.
Therefore, all lot sizes under 40 feet wide are automatically
non-conforming in use.

c. The enacting of the new Code in it's entirety rather than
in smaller topical sections that had time to be reviewed and
researched in detail, violated Constitutional restrictions for
enactments.

d. Owners and developers are encountering logistical conflicts
in these last few years, throwing the City into numerous
lawsuits due to lack of foresight.

e. Owners cannot sell existing residences as a "conforming use"
and are forced to sell them as "non-conforming" uses at a loss
of value because they are under 40 ft wide.

Chairman John Smith III,'s ire was raised, as a multiple property owner and landlord in Englewood. He spearheaded the ensuing discussion and both of the residents approaching the Board for variances this week obtained their objectives. Chairman Smith and the Board of Adjustments and Appeals instructed City Attorney Reid to direct Englewood Mayor Woodward to revisit and amend the zoning code accordingly. The code is the Mayor's own yard work.

Link: http://www.eyeonenglewood.com

If there’s something we’ve all learned over our political years it’s this. When you wish to sell something, like a fist full of pig’s knuckles, make sure you wrap it in a pretty package. This week the Nation looked at the hard law when Arizona ratified the federal immigration law. Some laws are more simple in that they don’t cause much controversy for politicians seeking to please. This one was bound to be unpopular in that it attempted to seek what was just. Did it miss the mark?

Compassion is important to religious and moral people alike, which is why catering to inclusiveness continues to be a tasty appetizer for marketing laws. The question distinguishes between legal aliens and illegal. But, is it cruel and unusual punishment to oust people from a home, a job and even their families when they are illegal aliens?

Military man, John Miller, says: “There are beautiful people who we all wish the best for, but if you drive without a valid driver's license, in Colorado even, you will be fined and potentially jailed. That's you, me, or anyone else, regardless of our nation of origin.”

A friend of mine, Jose Escobar, who is an immigration attorney working for the rights of the poor, has suggested the State of Arizona made an immoral law because it seeks to punish whole families for what was only “winked at” and was not punishable two weeks ago. It's a matter of grandfathering those who have already relied on the present system of law. Other currently transplanted Colorado residents also decried the Arizona law against their State of origin, saying how ashamed they were of their Arizona governor.

John Miller responded, “I'll just have to say that I've traveled the world and I know what to expect when I'm a guest in someone else’s country. I don't expect or demand the rights of citizenship. And I darn sure will not be given them. I'm not aware of a country that would be as lenient as the US is in this regard. Hard working immigrants take years to acquire the rights of citizenship, their efforts should not be diluted by those jumping the queue. Some things are legal and some are illegal.”

It is immoral when the laws of America frighten people, yet, Miller’s eyebrow raises as he states the obvious, “Are they so scared they're rioting out in the Open? Once you decide you don't have to be law abiding, it's easy to be uncivil.”

I have to agree that’s it’s rather uncivil to demand the world embrace you whether you are right or wrong and at everyone else’s expense. So, the question is put, once again: When policy makers make laws, do they target individual people or do they target justice? And within those boundaries, people show compassion as good members of society over and above the law.

In home rule Englewood, the City Council, as of May 20, 2010,is still debating inclusiveness as a marketing gimmick. Along with the inclusiveness technique, pretty Linda Olson used a non-inclusive technique, well-prepared before the meeting, to try to intimidate fellow council member, Rick Gillit last Monday evening, in order to address volunteerism and enacting a law that would coerce residents in Englewood to volunteer for areas the City chooses to target.

The problem is that Gillit had a family member in Nazi Germany's Dachau, who was murdered there. Over the entrance to the concentration camp, a sign was posted, "Work Makes You Free". This motto was a complete lie, and anyone who relied on it died in unreality.

Just as slaves and prisoners are not volunteers, hiring more City staff to oversee new "volunteer" agencies is not free to taxpayers. Deception is underfoot.

It takes a wise person to see that laws must exist only when necessary, and only for the good of the whole, and that too many laws encroach upon your rights or mine discriminantly.

The place of compassion and volunteerism is not settled under pressure. Nor is it to be funded by government. Government is precluded legally from funding non-profit charities. The City's place is to see to roadways, parks, emergencies, water, utilities and caring for necessary staff. (See the scope of authority given by City Charter) This compares to the scope of power given to home rule cities from Colorado Revised Statutes and the state Constitution. Forming new, paid positions, for charitable aims is simply extraneous.

Ms. Olson's prepared tact of using President Bush's inauguration speech was a pretty package of intimidation and nothing else. Someone with her credentials should know better.

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

"Cities of Service" is coming to a City near you. In fact, the invitation descended upon Englewood by way of the City Council packets this week.

After thousands of tax dollars sent City Council members to the National League of Cities last month, the League of Cities sent Mayor Woodward an invitation. Mayor Woodward approved of it and invited City Council to join him.

So, how does the Cities of Service describe itself? By a national invitation for all Mayors to manipulate their citizenry into the Single Collective. The call from Cities of Service is to employ all residents to volunteer for projects identified by the City itself "in dire need of aid."

Like the Borg, they travel through diverse civilizations and societies, assimilating their citizens into their own single collective mind. They insert microscopic nan-probes into your blood stream that travel around infecting your DNA, slowly transforming you into one of them. They are ugly.

"The worst thing about The Borg is that there is no individuality at all. Every unit is connected to the whole, and there is no capacity for individual thought or expression. This is feared most in a postmodern universe. Their infamous greeting of any species they happen to cross paths with is, 'We are Borg...you will be assimilated...resistance is futile,'" writes critic, Paul Vieira.

Is the Borg just a science fiction depiction of Nazi-ism and Cities of Service-ism? I've heard that Hitler was a winning politician who indeed charmed German youths with soundbites of cultural feel-good ideas that seemed harmless until he found you opposed them. Don't modern politicians get it? This post-modern era fears assimilation into any form of authoritarianism. We are skeptical even of forced charity work.

With the dawn of "Cities of Service", comes the defeat of your own personal choice to express your own religious style of human aid, political aid or your indifference to aid. It demands you be assimilated or face "high pressure sales" manipulations, or peer pressure humiliations for non-conformance to the City's agenda.

People only have so much time to donate to their volunteer activities, and they like to chose wisely. But, "We are Borg" has arrived in Englewood. What's a trekie to do?

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

On Monday evening, the topic of discussion came round to the City’s pet peeve of the gas operated golf carts at Broken T Golf Course. The carts are not using green energy. But to turn the relatively new carts into brand new green machines, Gary Sears set forth a proposal for Council to consider. The City would be asked to fund the construction of a $200,000 storage facility, and all new electric carts, where the golf carts could be plugged in and recharged every night.

It was estimated on Monday that for every round of golf, a gas operated cart is costing the city twenty cents in fuel. Nobody asked whether upgrading the budget to include the new construction and purchase of "green" carts was really the City's highest priority in this economy.

For a bit of recent history: the City reduced a large chunk of land kept as a long-term investment asset, to the sale and development of the golf course, Broken T, which now serves the interests of the few. Namely: Denver's Singles Golf and Englewood’s City Manager, Gary Sears, who is listed not only as Englewood's Mayor, but also as employed by Broken T in the White Pages, and those who broker deals with him over the green. It seems to me these few interested persons could fit the bill for the twenty cents of fuel costs by raising fees.

Or, perhaps they could hold a fundraiser to raise a new electricity-charged storage facility.

Batteries routinely die, and electricity is the most expensive form of energy Englewood could buy. In eight years, the electric carts at Broken T Golf Course will have to be recycled and replaced, whereas the fuel operated carts have engines that will continue to run.

If Englewood has $200,000 to burn in the budget, then perhaps it should invest in equipment to make its meetings and study sessions more open and accessible to the public. Perhaps it could build bathrooms in the parks that do not have toilet facilities, as one resident asked for last year. But I can see why the City Manager's whims might be considered more important than a common resident's more urgent park request, don't you?

While we are on the subject of priorities, I'll add this. If anyone does hope to address their city on any well-researched topic, they may as well put it into outline form.

Council just changed the rules for wasting their time with your puny requests. You now have three minutes to state your name, address and explain your cause. Forget your research. Otherwise, a newly purchased traffic light will go off and humiliate you publicly. Police bouncers are still available to this Council if you exercise your right to freedom of speech over the traffic light flashing.

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

As of today, there are 6,505 Comcast subscribing households in the City of Englewood.

Comcast has continued its annual offering to provide a zero interest loan for $125,000 worth of equipment to the City of Englewood so that they can properly publicize their meeting topics, and even to webstream the meetings on the City's server so that those who don't subscribe to Comcast can still obtain equal access to city information through other means.

Think about this tool from a marketing standpoint. Good hotels and all the resort towns in Colorado have utilized this channel feature on televisions in the rooms. You can turn to that channel and see what kind of activity you wish to engage in while you are visiting, what restaurant, what boutique, what bike trail, golf course, Christmas sledding experience or horse coral you wish to call for more information. In addition, say you are seated in your Vail hotel room and you wish to hear about the politics and economy of the lucky few who actually live there, you can listen to their town hall meetings and learn about zoning issues. I've actually done that. I was curious, and I learned something. I then picked up their paper to satisfy my curiosity on that issue further.

So Comcast has provided the airwaves already, but the City of Englewood continues to waive the Citizen's rights to that airing of public business. In whose interests, I ask you?

Why has the City dragged its feet on this public airing issue year after year... for 10 years? False modesty? It's the; "Aw, shucks! No body is interested in my mundane job of controlling their lives and the city's money, policies, streets, water, businesses and parks...why would that be interesting?" syndrome.

Councilwoman Linda Olson would have us believe that her constituents enjoyed a joke at people's expense who watch public television, and that she didn't believe people would watch it. This was her comment at the last City Council Meeting in March. But, perhaps that is why she took so little interest in the Council meetings that she graded papers, and chose not to be fully present, while making a showing of interest so that she could get elected last November. Is it only the power of that seat she sought? If so, it is the power seat behind the veil of secrecy she is hoping to keep.

And what is the exorbitant budget for the cost of equipment that Assistant Attorney, Mike Flaherty put together to present to Council for review? Was he trying to scare them away from having a bit of integrity? His presentation presented numbers for microphones and soundboards and servers that were at least 40% higher than normal provider costs.

With technology being what it is today, the City could easily take advantage of the money provided by Comcast to get the ball rolling in the right direction, for those of us who are closet voyeurs to City meetings, and who actually search the web for interesting activities, local services and real estate opportunities in Englewood.

Don't let this Council hookwink you into waiving away the airwaves you need to survive.

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

On February 22, 1010, Dianna Wray Tomasso was asked to speak during the City Council Study Session. Tomasso is a gifted, educated woman who provided her resume to the City of Englewood as her "two cents" in obtaining a National Historic Designation for Englewood's Broadway Post Office. Hear her presentation on ECOG website.

You don't have to listen very long to realize the Mayor and Tomasso had privately shared a letter from the Post Office and discussed the price the Post Office had suggested to pursue a place on the National Register of Historic Places. Deeming it to be substantially unfounded, Tomasso was asked to present her own bid for the project, which she did on February 22.

Whose property is the post office? Does it belong to the City of Englewood, the State of Colorado or to the Private Postal Service? It seems it is the duty of the owner to decide whether they wish for their property to obtain a place on the registry because although there are grants to be had, there are also extremely costly limitations and restrictions to building renovations that the owner may not wish to be subjected to.

It could be a wrestling match. The fact that the Mayor and Tomasso have included Representative Dianna Degette into the mix, suspiciously sets the post office up for a unfair fight by weighing in the interests of the entire State of Colorado to take away its own choice.

In any government building undertaking, a bidding process must be undertaken. Englewood skipped this bidding process entirely. It has it's own historic register of places on which the Skerrit House is listed, and another home at 2734 S. Acoma in Englewood. Neither of these homes cost $5,000 to simply apply for and obtain a historic status. But, a few years ago, Councilman Ray Tomasso disbanded the historical society in Englewood.

Another question one might have is why this $5,000 in payment was granted to Dianna Wray Tomasso in a private study session on February 22, 2010? Aren't policies and unbudgeted changes to the City's finances supposed to be published for a public hearing or sent to the vote of the people? Nevertheless, when Councilman Rick Gillit, confronted the rest of council with what they were about to vote on, City Manager, Gary Sear stated that he had the authority to do it on his own and the fact that he was allowing Council in on the action was simply a courtesy.

Apparently Council did not understand Sear's slight of them and his own undertaking of full power. They all voted affirmatively, minus Gillit's vote.

After all, Tomasso's offer was only available for the evening. The woman had to know immediately or would refuse to weigh in with all her experience and price tag to boot.

Once, again, City Council voted to spend the taxpayers' money without letting them know anything about the issue or the change in budget policy, once again ignoring the Colorado open meetings laws, obviating the bid policy and succumbing once again to Gary Sear's personal power mongering. After all, it was only a matter of $2500, or was it $2800, or Hmmmm. Maybe the City will be stuck with the full $5000 pay check to Tomasso if it fails to raise half from private investors. It's really not Council's money that Council is disseminating any way. It's yours.

Then, City Attorney, Nancy Reid, asked the City to consider another change in its policies. Apparently, the Board of Appeals has been having a difficult time with absenteeism, which prevents a quorum, and short a quorum in light of a hearing, means the parties must wait for at least another couple of months to be heard. The absenteeism of the board members is causing some grumbling amongst residents and developers trying to work in Englewood.

So, Ms. Reid requested that the problem be solved by allowing a faithful alternate board member to step in and fill the quorum space required. After all, he or she has not had a difficult time showing up for every meeting, but not being allowed to vote.

The request, being reasonable, was voted on and passed. Once again, I ask you, is a City policy change of any kind to be presented privately to Englewood Council and voted on in a study session where most residents are not permitted to speak?

Take Note. Voting records and official actions are mounting up.

The only way to change the status quo is to vote differently with better educated persons in the next election, but having just passed one in November, you must wait for a long long time, and who knows what other policies will be enacted behind your backs?

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

“Open, Open, Open!” is the public meetings law mantra in the State of Colorado. Ruling City Council activities throughout Colorado is Robert’s Rules of Order together with Colorado Open Meetings law, Open Records law and Sunshine laws. These insure the spirit of transparency and accountability of elected officials to their constituency.

On January 11, 2010, the public was initially denied access to this Study Session in which the public was about to be interviewed by City Council for Boards and Commission seats. Both Jill Wilson and Bob McCaslin attempted to keep a member of the public, Matthew Crabtree, out of the room despite the meeting being published to start at 6:15pm and already called to order and announced as a public meeting. This was in direct violation of the Colorado Open Meetings Procedures and Laws. When finally allowed to enter many of the council members were already discussing policy decisions. This audio can be found here.

On February 8, 2010, Mayor Jim Woodward takes responsibility specifically for what happened at the meeting in regards to Matt Crabtree, stating that the meeting was posted to start at 6:15, and stating that he had made announcements before the meeting started, although the public was entitled to be aware of that. This audio can be found at ECOG. at the Communications /Citizen Engagement audio, at recording point 2870.

In 1990, the City of Englewood adopted Resolution 48, Series 1990, which is a public policy of decorum at City Council meetings. It states that executive sessions may only be called by the Mayor upon the majority vote of Council. Council has regularly ignored its own procedures by holding secret meetings without them being called and voted upon prior to being held.

Executive sessions regarding real estate for public property has occasionally been cited for Englewood executive sessions, but there is no city right to hold an executive session for secrecy when the taking of private property for private use is the issue being discussed.

It seems the City of Englewood continues to be suspect as to its stated intent to be open and transparent. Attorney Brotzman stated that social engagements prevent all public meetings from being recorded, published and reported. He gave the National League of Cities field trip sponsored by taxpayers every year as an example of the difficulty in cross-over meetings. Englewood pays over $20,000.00 to belong to the NLC, and in addition, spends another $20,000.00 to send council members and select staff to the conference in Washington D.C. Several other issues of perception and transparency are also discussed in the above selected audio from February 8, 2010, which is published on the Englewoodcitizens.org website.

One of these issues is the City's latency with Comcast Channel 8. Comcast pays the City of Englewood a franchise fee for every household link, yet the City continues to say that publication of televised agendas or meetings are too expensive to air. Rick Gillit requested that City Manager Sears provide an actual cost scenario to back up Staff's reticence to air the meetings. The City's newest Water Plant Sewage video monitor cost $41,000. state-of-the-art, but LeAnne Hoffine's general assessment of costs for airing the meetings even on the City's own website was "$50,000 at the low end."

Newly elected City Councilmember, Rick Gillit, was personally skewered and quizzed for a half hour regarding his personal website EnglewoodCitizen.com as to personal transparency. Councilmember McCaslin specifically tendered his shirt sleeve because he was hurt that Gillit had not been transparent with him about personal matters. Gillit aptly responded that his personal life was not an issue of transparency. Nor, is McCaslin’s interpretation of transparency between councilmembers the issue at law. It is the accessibility of the public to the City’s business that is at stake. Englewood Mayor, Woodward, rather than obviating the roasting of Gillit, not only started the fire, but added wood to it repeatedly.

The Mayor’s duty according to Resolution 48, Series 1990, section II A is to “preserve strict order and decorum”. Decorum is later defined in the same document, VII.Q. “Decorum.

While the City Council is in session, the members must preserve order and decorum. A member shall neither, by conversation or otherwise, delay nor interrupt the proceedings, nor the peace of the City Council, nor disturb any member while speaking, nor refuse to obey the orders of the City Council or its presiding officer.”

It seems clear that personal attacks from Jill Wilson, Mayor Jim Woodward and Robert McCaslin are not only a diversion, but a waste of time and inappropriate to the meeting.

More specifically, “Getting the Floor” section VI C. means: “Every member desiring to speak shall address the Chair and, upon recognition by the presiding officer, shall confine himself/herself to the question under debate avoiding all personalities and indecorous language.”

Interruptions of each others' comments are also prohibited, section VI D. It is obvious, that the discussions at council are wasting time by addressing comments to and about each other rather than discussing the public policy listed and published for discussion. This is a very embarrassing situation in Englewood and must be stopped.

Argument about public perception ensued, but the obvious question regarding what the definition of "public business" is pertaining to the law never came up. Joe Jefferson suggested that negative public perception would be curbed if all of the public meetings were held in the same room. Jill Wilson suggested she should contact her constituency directly and assure them personally of the reality of the Council's intent to be open and transparent.

If transparency is Jill's concern, how can she vote to approve a City budget in October that doesn't get published until the next year? Why does she approve of keeping the line item budget in Englewood off of the City Council agenda and out of public purview?

Nevertheless, these and other material secrets are kept against public knowledge in that every Monday, City Council uses tax payer’s money to feed themselves. During a tough economic time, when so many people are losing their jobs, it seems unacceptable and nonconsensual that people who cannot spend $8.00 for their own Chipotle burrito are force to provide meals of at least $10.00 in value to each City Council member and attending staff, when the City Council meetings could be held a hour later.

The time retrieved by holding meeting a hour later, by City council showing up on time, and by the Mayor properly controlling the agenda and comments made out of step would cheer up the baby considerably.