Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

Jerry Ferman derailed City Council as they argued out-of-turn amongst themselves on Monday Night. Mr. Ferman came to complain about Englewood's moldy water. The time clock was stopped, and the flustered council members lost control. But is this the bigger story? For, in this same week the Englewood Water and Sewer Board found a scapegoat in the sewer lines between Chipotle and Chase Bank on Hampden.

The City of Englewood is supposed to inspect sewer and water lines of every business every six weeks under the Englewood Municipal Code. But, Englewood has not been inspecting the lines nearly enough.

So, when Chipotle noticed that they had a block in the sewer trap, they hired their on-call plumber to flush the lines. Plumber Frank, although he works for many Chipotle franchises, has never been cited for anything in Englewood, and he came to the rescue by flushing the sewer trap.

There was still a smell, however, and so another company was called out to clean it up better. This time, the lard got blocked just before entering the city's sewer, (or so the story goes) (don't tell the EPA) and backed up into the neighboring business' basement. The neighboring business happened to be the Chase Bank building, where the ex-officio Mayor Burns keeps his offices. Chase had to replace carpeting.

Mayor Burns, amongst several other ex-officio Mayors, happens to sit on the Water and Sewer Board. The only true civilian amongst the board members is Robert Cassidy. What was the Sewer Board to do? Water board their own city? That would never do.

They couldn't allow Chase Bank's insurance company or the EPA to come after City Manager Sears because, after all, he hobnobs with sewer members. Plus, did I mention? The current Mayor of Englewood also sits on the board. No, an embarrassing ethical situation needed to be mopped up in short order before Mayor Woodward was implicated.

If they fined Chipotle, Chipotle would sue the City for failure to perform regular inspections, and again the EPA might get involved. The City has already lost one such suit in the District Court, so another strategy had to be formed.

Oh, of course. Smear the "fog" or lard on the contractor who flushed the system. He's independent, and will not have the resources to fight this thing. Good idea.

So, on Tuesday evening, at 5:00pm, Frank Brandse appeared for his case #AC10-15973, which was described as an "appeal of the Water and Sewer Board's fine of $5300." This amount reflected the maximum allowable criminal fine under POTW (Potable Water) as a class 2 petty offense for someone with habitual and knowing intent to violate EPA Best Standards. Frank didn't believe his actions warranted this decision or fine. He said he had never before encountered this problem and an investigation of extenuating circumstances should take place.

Board member, Robert Cassidy, looked at procedures and found that the Charter required a steno-graphically recorded hearing in these instances, and that testimonies were to be taken under oath. Pouting, sewer members were forced to agree. So a hearing being set, Matthew Crabtree showed up on Tuesday evening to record it for the public.

Mr. Crabtree realized that the hearing was not publicly noticed in the City's newspapers, nor was it noticed as all other board hearings are, on the City website. Posting it on the City bulletin boards barely complied with the minimum standards of "public notice".

Mr. Stu Fonda, Director of the Englewood Water Works suddenly grew quiet at having an audience.

When the hearing began, board member Higday, also an ex-officio mayor, cut into Frank's testimony to attempt to close the hearing. His motion was sidelined until others also began testifying, and he reminded the sewer board that his motion was on the table. As rude and abrupt as member Higday is, he also brought up an interesting perspective that the Board was not following proper procedures according to the Municipal Charter, part IV and sections 60-63.

Member Higday said, when there is a recommendation from the Sewer Board, they are to bring it to notice of City Counsel. Nevertheless, the board went on about their business.

Mr. Cassidy stated that he didn't believe Frank intended to do anything wrong, and that he certainly was no hardened criminal. He recommended the fine, on appeal, be reduced from $5300 to $2000. It was somewhat of a relief to Frank that the Board agreed to that fine.
But, Mr. Cassidy pushed over the line when he suggested that the $2000 be differed pending no further occurrences during the next 12 months.

What? And force our friends in the City to shoulder the insurance deductibles? No way! The sewer board members reasoned. We have a scapegoat willing to shoulder the fee. His name is Frank.

So, Frank, who was cited only by his first name, without the signature of an accusing officer, and without any evidence because he had invoked his right not to be searched without a warrant, was given a fine of $2000, and in exchange, he got to keep his employment with all the Chipotle franchises he serves.

Funny thing. Culpability actually lies with the user, if not with the City inspector. The Littleton/Englewood Waste Water Treatment Plant FOG Policy, page 9, paragraph one states, "Users are responsible for the maintenance servicing, and proper waste disposal and cannot abrogate this responsibility to a contractor,pumping service, or other agent." Modified, July 22, 2010.

Although this is clearly printed in the ex-officio Mayor's manuals, they could not get their minds out of the gutter in order to read their own law as to liability. This makes them culpable for insurance fraud.

Furthermore, the City usurped formal criminal penalties reserved to EPA, the State through the District Court level or the Department of Regulatory Services (DORA). Instead, they protected themselves from liability through an administrative inbred process.

And thus, Jerry Furman, proves himself to be a prophet. Yes, the water in Englewood is moldy dirty. If I were Mr. Brandse, I'd run right up to the District Court and get me an injunction and report the crime to DORA.

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.englewoodstory.com

Last year, in the commemorative week for the Constitution, while City Council was at table to vote on a highly unusual Bill 38, Series 2008, the new Englewood boarding house ordinance, Mayor Woodward spoke up.

“Mayor Woodward said I find it ironic that the second item says 'whereas it is of the greatest importance that all citizens fully understand the provisions and principles contained in the Constitution in order to support, preserve and defend the Constitution against all encroachment' -- and it goes on. With what has been going on over the past few months, it just kind of hit home.” [He does not specify how it hits home in this case]

He, living as a man without his children, does expound in the September 15th minutes on page 14.

“I certainly believe that R-1 Districts are single-family residential districts. That’s what they were intended to be, that’s what they were prior to the UDC, that’s what they typically are…they are for families…. I tend to believe that… again, as I stated, boarding or rooming houses in future R-1 zone districts are not appropriate.”

Apparently, Mayor relies on an interpretation that single family districts should include him without encroaching onto the Constitution, but they should not include others without children, living in another big 4-bedroom home. Perhaps he believes homes are for appearances, but not for living in.

His definition of “family” fails to include himself. It is all very confusing, as is his understanding of constitutional rights.

Previously another Mayor, Olga Wolosyn, commented during the same commemorative process that the Constitution was “an elegant document.” Both comments give pause for reflection. Mayor Wolosyn’s because she was a known patron of the arts in Englewood, and to her the Constitution was a stylistic commemorative art piece.

Mayor Woodward’s thought processes gave him pause before he did a bad deed. The act that Council was about to undertake seemed wrong to Woodward, as it did to Council Member Oakley.

Thus, Constitutional nods appeared to cause Council to repent of their sins, go back to the drawing board, and correct the errors apparent. Woodward and Oakley presumed it permitted the boarders in the targeted boarding house a safe keeping from eviction.

Woodward admitted, “In this particular case, I do believe that there should be a grandfathering of this particular [unrelated family] that we know of.”

Untold to the Mayor, a new plan had already been drawn up by Council Member Joe Jefferson, the budding attorney in the group. In a calculated slight of hand attributable to the “tyranny of the urgent,” it was proposed the same evening; like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

This proposal afforded a new grandfather condition for the targeted boarding house owners so that they could have an exception to the new boarding house rule if they could prove to the City Manager that they had obtained a final inspection on their home.

To the average citizen, the condition appeared reasonable, and a certain group of concerned citizens celebrated over beers that night.

Only the City itself and the boarding house owners were privy to the truth: In January, 2008, eight months earlier, the City had flat refused to act on their duty to provide a final inspection to the homeowners.

Though pleaded with, in person and by correspondence, the City Manager and a quorum of Council members had already conspired to interfere with fiscal relationships between homeowner and bank; homeowner and sub-contractor’s wages due.

The Catch 22, under the guise of Constitutional goodness and fairness, was that the City, having breached its duty to homeowner’s holding permits (contracts), now made the homeowners liable for the City’s breech in court.

Clever bunch, that.

Homeowners were thereby defrauded of their property rights…elegantly.

My question is: the authors of the Constitution, were they political idealists or did they actually compose a document to compel safety and freedom from tyranny?

When I consider the carnage in those forefathers’ existence, those who had lost fathers, brothers, sisters and mothers to political wars in the name of Catholicism, who had escaped raids, wars, beheadings, survived starvation, endured separation from loved ones, embarked on meager little ships as human cargo from Europe to American soil, then having a third of their survivors perish during their first Winter—all this, for what?

They traded all to ensure the dearest possession of freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and the opportunity to own and work their own land free of tyranny. They went so far as to provide it for even their enemies. Justice for all.

There is a famous story about a woman asking Benjamin Franklin what kind of government the authors of the Constitution had give the people. Benjamin Franklin replied, “A republic, ma’am, if you can keep it.”

Are these the words of an idealist or a pragmatist?

Are the words of the Constitution something to be exploited by Englewood’s government during Constitution Week by people who have no concept of the weight of the words on their shoulders?

Sometimes people get elected because they are crowd pleasers. They seem harmless until they are given responsibility, because they have not yet learned vested wisdom.

The molestation of the highest law of the land is not the defacing of a figurehead, but the degradation of everything our forefathers sacrificed for.