Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.EnglewoodCitizens.org

God rest ye merry gentlemen, let nothing you dismay... and yet, there lingers dismay in the chill at Christmas for all of us.

In the midst of heartwarming carols, well wishes, and merry lights,where can one buy consolation? Do we turn to heaven, pray? Remind ourselves through candles of the all-sufficient God? Many religious communities recognize the power of identity not in the individual conquering the odds, but in communal sharing conquering together. As Dickens' Scrooge found out, the man who dies alone with the most toys does not really claim the prize.

Hence, the debate over government's duty to give charitably was intoned by new councilman, Rick Gillit, District 4, this Monday evening in the face of many Englewood charity requests amounting to $78,000. for many good projects.

While a government entity is made up of the many humans, and is considered a legal individual, in reality, there is no good will to be had from a system outside the animated collection of taxes and disbursement of the budget, and those who control.

In the face of a December 9, 2009 Memo from the Director of Finance and Administrative Services, stating in bold that tax revenues for 2009 were down by 11.1 percent less than 2008, still Council voted to disburse the maximum charitable spending. "Dogs for veterans of war" won out, as did "food banks" and the "Englewood High School", not for much needed school supplies, but for After Prom activities. "Arapahoe House" lost their requisition as did many others. City Council had budgeted $28,000.00 for charitable giving this year out of city taxes, and therein lies the question.

Since it's a religious time of year, let's talk the religion of gift giving in politics. Religious Scotts believe that government spending on the poor is a proper function of government because it is an efficient way to do the magnanimous thing for the needy. Religious Right Wingers ideally believe that they earned what they got and that no one should take it away from them by force (or by taxes). Religious Left Wingers believe more like the Scotts, that it is the duty of the whole to care for the needs of the vulnerable.

Does the earth and all it's primary resources really belong to the Able-bodied, Able-minded, well-financed? Are they Entitled? Or does the earth, the air we breathe, and all that is in it belong to the Lord and we, the stewards, are to manage and disburse, train and marshal?

It may be an age-old question. But City Council at least questioned it's role this Christmas before it voted.

Some Englewood Citizens believe the role of government is outlined in the Constitution and that charitable giving is not permitted. Especially in lien times. Two arguments: What says the Law as well as what says practical. But, in a Home Rule situation, a city can change the rules and throw out bits of the constitution. That's what Amendment XX gives to Home Rule through the Constitution of Colorado. Still, perhaps, the matter should be brought to the vote of the people, some of whom have been forced to pay taxes to support their neighbors while they may be losing their own homes in lien times.

Since Englewood has bought into the legal process of fining it's residents for snow removal, perhaps they would consider putting that money into the funds--already set up in the budget--that gives back at Christmas time in the way of charitable giving not only to non-profits, but also to vulnerable individuals who qualify. This would solve a lot of problems and discrepancies and ethical preferences. Charitable giving would be limited to the fines brought into the city, or through the good will of contributions willingly provided through others, and not out of the general budget.

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