Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

Many government offices, including schools, are urging "No" on 101. Why?

In essence, Proposition 101 would move state motor vehicle registration fees back to 1919 levels, reduce or eliminate taxes on vehicle purchases and rentals over the next four years. 101 would also reduce the state income tax rate from 4.63 percent to 4.5 percent in 2011 and then to 3.5 percent gradually over time. It would put money back into the pockets of taxpayers. And, finally 101 would required your vote to create or increase fees on vehicles and telecommunication services in the future, so your cell-phone, internet and television fees would not go up without an official vote.

If you are against inflation and high salaries for government servants, you should vote yes to 101. If you feel out of control financially because of crazy fees, fines and taxes on basic services, stop letting them take bites out of you.

The government says this proposition is confusing and ambiguous. But, the blue book analysis of the bill is concise. It assures us the impact is expected to be $2.9 billion in today's dollars, ($1.9 billion in state reductions and $1 billion in local government reductions).

Additionally, the bill puts control and choice back into your vote. We all know that government has ways of relaxing any restriction placed on it; we've seen it with TABOR. But at least, this measure compels public servants to ask you first before taking a raise, before seeing your utility bill and phone bill skyrocket when you relied on the two year provider contract. I've never been one to like strangers having a monopoly on my budget decisions.

Government is trying to guilt you into voting no to 101. Because a very small percentage of the fees we pay for telecommunications are federally required to subsidize low income, or the blind, deaf or speech impaired, these fees will likely be paid out of another source of taxation or government funding. Government is not concerned about charity nearly as much as it is about the portions of these fees that line government salaries. You don't have to feel frightened for the underprivileged.

I value my opinion, as you may have noticed in this blog. I would like to keep my personal voice when it comes to taxation and spending.

But, perhaps you like taxation and spending more than I do. Well, good news! 101 does not take away your opportunity to contribute to government as much as you like. It merely gives you a choice in the future when you find that your district representatives do not represent your interests.

Some of my good friends are campaigning for all their worth against 101 saying that it will bankrupt schools. Don't ya just resent fear mongering? What I love about 101 is that K-12 will get the state funding these grades deserve. It will merely force the C.F.O. (Presidents) of Colleges to do their jobs and raise private funding rather than depleting all the State money that should be going to our kids' basic education. It will put genuine competition back into play amongst the Universities. Grades and character will again matter. The market will matter. After all, colleges are private business all too long having masqueraded as "government".

In conclusion, I would urge all those who do not care whether their votes are heard later, to refrain from voting on this bill now. If you insist on being heard on this bill 101 now, I challenge you to continue the right to be heard, and vote yes as an investment... towards your own voice, your own control, down the road.

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

Amendment 61 would place severe restriction on governmental agencies borrowing money and would basically eliminate the ability to purchase large items through a lease-purchase agreement. It would encourage business owners to do Colorado business, and government agents to keep Colorado trust, do their duty, and very little else.

TABOR placed severe restrictions on governments to engage in any contract for goods that causes future governors to be yolked to the debt. But in Englewood, governors have disregarded TABOR, and I'm sure like other municipalities, are finding ways to bundle services with goods, or simply failing to notify the people of the right to vote on important contracts. You can read City Council's contract this Summer with the reprehensible BP (gulf oil spill company)also known as Ameresco for the Solar goods, maintenance, and higher energy costs for Englewood over the next 20 years.

Violations for ignoring the law have been shrugged off. So what? Judges tend to say. If a home rule entity wishes to indenture future generations, who are we to interfere?

So, frustrations of those denied recourse in the courts and being depleted of resources by trusted servants have now won the right to petition you because they had legs enough to walk and presence enough collect the signatures, which is a feat in itself, to put ballot 61 into play.

Where is the teeth to Proposition 61? It requires the same kind of oversight accountability for governors that is required of CEOs and CFOs. It requires that tax rates raised for the specific item say, the production of government services or buildings or roads, must then be reduced after the projects are paid for. Presently, the system is that once the funds are raised, the expiration date of the tax is simply ignored, and Coloradoans keep paying, but the money gets filtered off to new projects.

61 tells government that people do not want to be sold "a temporary war time tax" yet be forced to pay into it indefinitely. This proposition requires a "truth and lending" element to the practice of raising taxes by requiring that the tax ceases when the museum or transportation system is built.

If governors have a pet project, they can no longer fund it under the table, but must deliberate it thoroughly and present it for a vote through a blue book type disclosure of all the angles.

Another thing this idea does is stop allowing Englewood to say it is raising bonds necessary for schools buildings while depleting the school fund for filtering money to private developments of say,...um... let me think... oh,... City Center...yes, case in point. Now, I loathe City Center's empty storefronts, but I loathe empty-eyed kids more.

Knowing how to budget your own money is a trick, but at least the spending stops with one household. Compare that to the State of Colorado which now owes 17 billion in debt it didn't ask you for permission to obtain. And for what, you ask? Have your parks,roadways, business district or utilities improved? Colorado is presently doing business like a banker or entrepreneur, taking much needed commerce and control out of the private sector.

Amendment 61 changes the present terms of State funding to public universities which have been secretly filtered to certain universities without voter approval. No longer will the State of Colorado be the lender for select home buyers, businesses, ranchers and farmers. And, the biggest impact will be on the all powerful water districts which continue to "improve" without voter approval under the table, and then ask for higher fees.

Amendment 61 is a six pack of muscle back to the people. Vote Yes.

Link: http://view.s4.exacttarget.com/?j=fec510767d66027d&m=fea015707565077973&ls=fe2911717c6c007e751173&l=ff011670746003&s=fe2c157177660c75731774&jb=ffcf14&ju=fe9717717664027e7d&r=0

Clear The Bench Colorado--Friday Morning

Dear friends,

If the three unjust justices - Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice - stay on in the Supreme Court, they will continue the Mullarkey legacy of ignoring the Constitution. The rulings they promote are called a "progressive ideology", further destroying our rights as citizens of Colorado.

We have very precious few days left until the mail-in ballots drop on October 12.

CEW knows this... and they want to make sure they keep OUR money until after that date.

Big surprise: Colorado Ethics Watch (CEW, pronounced "sue" - because it's what they do) is at it again.

It has clearly been the intention of CEW, since we won our case, and they first filed a bogus filing on May 5, 2010, that it hopes to tie up our resources for as long as possible protecting the Colorado Supreme Court Justices.

On Monday, September 20, CEW filed for a "Enlargement of Time" in order to pay the attorney's fees they've owed us-literally tens of thousands of dollars - since the judge hearing their original "complaint" ordered them to pay up on July 21, 2010.

It's not like they don't have the money. It's not even like they have much math to do.

They are, quite simply, continuing to try and prevent the word from getting out - that quitting Chief Justice Mullarkey's gang of Constitution-shredders shouldn't have a "rubber stamp" to stay in office... FOR ANOTHER 10 YEAR TERM.

Unfortunately, campaigns like this don't run themselves. And more unfortunately, campaigns like this don't fund themselves.

We need your help. We need your generous donation of time, effort, and finances in order to win this campaign.

A decision has yet to be reached as to whether or not CEW will receive that "Enlargement of Time", but even then, we still need your help.

In the mean time (and it's hard to say when that decision will be made), we still have flyers to print, signs to produce (and distribute!) and the word to get out.

It is absolutely vital for the survival of our state that we take out the trash this election - this includes those who would rather use our Constitution for confetti than as the guiding principle for their judgements, the highest law of the state.

We must get the word out. And we need your help to do it...

In late August, we ran a statewide poll, and the results are clear and resounding: across absolutely every demographic (race, gender, party affiliation and location in the state) if the word gets out, 78% of voters will vote "NO" on these unjust justices.

This is, quite simply, the biggest no-brainer in Colorado politics this election.

We have ten more years of guaranteed bad judges with the remnant of the Mullarkey Majority in Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice - or two years of (at worst) of an unknown quantity (which can't possibly get any worse).

However, even with the two years of unknown, we do know that:

1. It is simply impossible to be worse than 0-15 in upholding our Constitution;
2. There is the chance it might be "as bad", but we can vote them out in two years rather than ten; and
3. There is the even greater chance it could get better - and we might even get a judge good enough to not vote out in two years. In any case, any replacements will definitely get the message: the people are watching, and WILL hold them accountable to their oath to support the Constitution.

Regardless of who wins the Governor's race, we must Clear the Bench this year.

In order to do this, to get the word out, we need your help. Contribute today - and help spread the word.

To contribute, go online to http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/contribute/ or send checks to CTBC at P.O. Box 372388, Denver CO 80237

The math on this is so simple... two years versus ten years.

Getting the word out gets 78% or higher who say they will vote NO.

This is the biggest no-brainer, the biggest bang for your 2010-political-buck; and a powerful reminder of the issues at stake.

Contribute today, be part of the movement!

Be a citizen, not a subject. Exercise your right to tell these justices "NO!" to 10 more years of job security with no accountability to the people.

WE THE PEOPLE are here, we are watching and together we can (and will!) send a message to the Colorado Supreme Court - we're not going to take it anymore.

For liberty, for the preservation of our Constitution, for the prosperity of our people and our state- we must CLEAR THE BENCH, COLORADO!

For Freedom,

Sarah Anderson

Campaign Manager, Clear the Bench Colorado

P.S. Please contribute whatever you can today - it's crunch time for producing (and distributing) signs & flyers, which is EXACTLY why CEW is holding on to OUR money!

To contribute, go online to http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/contribute/or send checks to CTBC at P.O. Box 372388, Denver CO 80237

Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/

Citizens' canons appeared on the hillside at the public budget hearing Monday evening, September 20, 2010. The House was filled with various groups of disgruntled citizens who applauded loudly for each other's fiscal observations and causes. Click link items 7 and 10 to hear these 25 various presentations. City Manager Sears went red in the face and stayed that way for much of the meeting. Bob McCaslin engaged one group near the end and argued publicly out of turn with them from his seat to the back row. Although the City's policy since Mayor Bradshaw was in office has been that Council members do not respond to Citizens' comments until "their choice" at the end of a council meeting, Mayor Woodward defended himself out of turn.

Citizens waited to the last hour to hear any responses to their concerns. And, council members falsely placated their issues. I believe Council's attitude is that they are special, and thus they do not need to listen, or respond to Englewood representatives who make the effort to come out.

Council then denied both Jefferson's move to amend Council Bill 32, to take a formal stance against "urging" citizens to vote against Amendments 60, 61 and 101. These amendments are carefully engineered to employ an entirely new system of funding Colorado's economic priorities. Colorado's ballot initiatives 60, 61 and 101 place fund raising for higher education back in the private sector of friends of the Universities. Raising funds are what C.F.O.'s and presidents of Universities are hired to do.

But, kindergarten through grade 12 basic education will be guaranteed the funding education deserves from the State of Colorado. This funding has typically been diverted to legislators' pet projects such as the development of Lowery's subdivision, R.T.D., sports stadiums and East Colfax...all of which should have been funded privately.

Jefferson and Gillit argued it is not the position of a non-profit government agency to tell the Citizens how to vote on money systems. Jill Wilson then moved out of turn saying, "I don't care. I move to vote on the bill right away, without the amendment." Her motion was shut down however, because Jefferson's amendment was already on the floor. Yet, Council voted down the amendment to Englewood Bill 32, and then voted to approve Bill 32 as originally proposed "urging" citizens to vote against Amendments 60, 61, and 101 just because they say so.

Isn't it special that Englewood Council members completely miss it, that anything they take a formal stance on while abusing the voices of their constituency will be automatically seen as suspect? We might as well chalk up the entire voting populous of Englewood in favor of Amendments 60, 61, and 101.

When these Amendments win in Colorado, an entirely new economic system, guarantying state funding for schools together with lowering mill levies (taxes) from 7% to 3.5% on your home owner's mortgage will put smiles on faces everywhere. Everywhere, except City Council.

It was the late August study session, topic: fiscal emergency, where District 4 Council member Gillit suggested that the paid stipend of Council is not the real reason council members serve the City, (being only $600 per month). He wondered if council members would be willing to sacrifice their stipends until the City's finances were corrected.

Oh, the reciprocal uproar!

No-one felt the condition of public welfare warranted a personal sacrifice. Councilman at large, Bob McCaslin, summarized council's consensus denying Mr. Gillit's suggestion, when he shouted, "I deserve this money and much more, too!"

Yet, Englewood Council continues to give money to charities, spend weekly for catering their own food for meetings, they include hefty salaries of two City Managers in the budget year after year, and refuse to settle legal disputes with citizens in an amicable way prior to engaging in the big bucks of trial.

Englewood's City Council voices are special indeed. Just as special as the wind from the inside of an old bagpipe.

Link: http://EnglewoodStory.com

An interesting fact about Englewood's definition of household is that in 2004, Mayor Bradshaw enacted it in violation of the City's official purpose to mirror it's household code with the average of surrounding cities, the size of Englewood.

Instead, Englewood's definition of household became the most narrow of all.

In 2004, the newest legal definition of "Englewood Household" was enacted against Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation of having no less than 4 unrelated people, that being defensible by law. This number also mirrored the median of other similar communities. Finally, that number seemed forward thinking enough to include developers' aims to build larger homes.

With City Attorney Brotzman's help, however, the definition of Household is being used to target people hosting exchange students, out of work sister-in-laws, x-spouses, or visiting friends in summer.

In one case, the City prosecuted a boarding house of artists in Englewood, knowing full well that it was a boarding house, but choosing to prosecute it for the definition of household anyway. The City's definition turned out to be too vague to use in the prosecution and it was dismissed secretly (against criminal rules of procedure) that dismissals must be procured only in Open court.

In another instance, an out-of-work family was forced to leave his Englewood sister's home or she would face prosecution for violating Englewood's definition of household.

In Englewood, there is no freedom to have an elder hostel or youth hostel for travelers.

But, Englewood doesn't come right out and actually define the terms of their narrow codes. They cannot do so legally, because of anti-discrimination laws.

Recently, when not-in-my-back-yard philosophers complained about 2 students living in a four bedroom home with the owners, the City reinvented the code for Englewood Boarding houses. Still, they did not define what Englewood's code meant by "related" or "unrelated". After eight months of debate and drafts, the new code was reenacted with the same mistake it had originally. It was too vague to prosecute.

Nevertheless, such residences, as of October 6, 2008, have been legislated by color of law out of all Englewood residential areas and into multi-family zones with apartment buildings or industrial areas.

Since Boarding houses are not permitted to exist in an apartment setting, the purpose of relegating them to the apartment zone is a little obvious. The message is: "Don't Want No New People... Go Away."

What is your personal definition of family? Has it ever changed with marriage, divorce or simply because of the situation someone you love finds themselves? Are you an inclusive person, or do you believe "every man is an island" and should traverse every phase of life without aid of any kind?

Are you one to practice entertainment or hospitality? Many cultures value hospitality above all. One of the most valuable times in my life came when I spent a year abroad, living with a family. In Englewood, by Englewood Municipal Code, this arrangement of hosting a student is illegal and criminal if you also happen to have a stepmother, sister in law or uncle in the home.

Is a Realtor's liability compromised if she sells an Englewood bungalow to an unmarried couple with children?

Perhaps you own a three-bedroom rental in Englewood with more than two unrelated people living in it?

No wonder Englewood's Flood Middle School closed in 2006. A City's duty is to be creative in attracting families, and one of those ways is to be hospitable to nannys, cooks, gardeners and... grandmas. Englewood is too closed minded to appeal to the upper class.

Mother-in-law cottages in Englewood neighborhoods used to be popular and useful. Now, they are illegal. The code works to isolate people rather than promote neighborliness.

Why doesn't the City encourage housing for students attending schools nearby? Instead, it prosecutes any more than two renters per home, regardless of the size of the house.

Students are on the cusp of finding a mate and settling down. It's likely they will stay were they have found friends rather than enemies.

Some people believe that the public officials are all that needs changing, and that the selective prosecutions of such laws will solve themselves.

But, If the law is unjust, is it unqualified to be law? Especially since variances cannot be approved for specified Uses according to zoning rules and the Appeals Committee.

If the neighbors are concerned with loud noises, with weeds, with neighborhood values, or with traffic, why not fight those battles with specific codes addressing those issues rather than by this government defining your family?

In 2004, when the definition of household had it's public hearing, one man testified about weed violations, and another about a neighborhood business with too many trucks.

A third testimony was that code enforcement and the police who were on the same block, turned a blind eye continuously. Employing the definition of household to these issues made no sense.

Does a renter, necessarily just because he is a renter, fail to plant flowers or a garden or mow the lawn? We all know of home owners who allow their properties to fail. The issue isn't really one of relationships at all.

And, since when was it government's business to determine relationships within a home?

If the City wishes to legislate morality, then they should, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Hospitality is a cornerstone of our society. Never more than this time, in global bank foreclosures, housing crises, and business crises, will your family's generosity be remembered, honored.

Except... Not in my backyard.

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

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

“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.

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://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

As we move into the solar energy age,the City of Englewood is faced with many choices, some of which are being watched closely by the City of Lakewood. Unfortunately, the Englewood City Council has narrowed all this down to just one choice: Should they or shouldn't they accept an offer from a company named AMERESCO for a 25 year commitment to solar panels.

A company named AMERESCO has offered to do an energy audit of the municipal buildings if the City will commit to a 25 year contract for solar panels.

The City rents the main building known as 1000 Englewood Parkway. The Service Center is surrounded by tall trees that would require being chopped down in order to use the panels and the Recreation Center already has windows surrounding the South facing direction for optimum heat absorption between the prime sunshine hours between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 pm, four hours per day.

How do the citizens of Englewood know that they will receive the latest, best equipment from AMERESCO? Is it last year's technology? Will it be outdated next year, and taxes be locked in to supporting the equipment for another 25 years?

I remember when health clubs would "hard sell" a 10 year membership to young men and women. Unsuspecting people rarely realized how their lives and movements would change, or how health technology and the companies would change or evaporate into thin air in a mere ten years. Then, think about solar and wind energy being on the move today!

The City is committed by Charter to offer competitive bidding. Belmar Green is a vested developer of green energy and Englewood would do well to pay attention to the choices they are making. One contractor, (anonymous) who often works with the City of Englewood is surprised to learn that there are no public offerings on the table so that he could make a bid himself on helping the City into the green age. An obvious competitor might be Namaste Solar.

Why not turn the tables and offer Englewood to AMERESCO or another company as a green study in exchange for free technology? Certainly, the early technology would warrant this kind of offer from a city the size of Englewood.

What will it cost Englewood in the end to repair the roof damage or to maintain the holes in the roof or to take down the obsolete equipment?

Solar energy is not simply used for heating and lighting, but in the case of Englewood, also for air conditioning.

Energy employees at the City of Denver were asked by a source named, "Mitch" how they keep the Capitol cool in the summer without air conditioning. They stated that ventilation is a key often overlooked by consumers. They also suggested the City buildings turn off the hot water during the summer months since bathing is not an issue in commercial buildings.

On the other side of the coin, how would solar panels impact the heating bills? AMERESCO proposes a 10,000 watt or 1% decrease in the monthly bills. This is nowhere near what wind energy could provide or geothermal energy.

Certainly, an updated generator grid would be an option for Englewood since it is the flow of the distributive power being generated that actually effects costs. Until the flow of energy is changed to disburse the energy from its source to its destination, it doesn't matter if every business in America has solar. It is the shortest route that brings the costs of energy down.

Concerned Citizens in Englewood (ECOG) assert that the City can save more money by changing the light bulbs in the building to energy efficient ones, and upgrading insulation or even triple paning the windows before trying out solar panels on a 25 year locked in commitment to AMERESCO.

Jimany Christmas, Batman! It's the Joker offering the Mayor a City deal of the century! Then again, its the Mayor who had his own home recently fitted with energy panels. And, after all, it's not his own money he's committing for 25 years.

Link: http://coloradocommunitynewspapers.com/articles/2009/07/27/englewood_herald/news/24_tm_cncl_candidates_en.txt

During a study of medical marijuana venders last Monday evening's City Council, information that four existing city approved storefronts on Broadway surfaced. Other proposed venders slated for Englewood storefronts became the hot topic, enough to get a consensus action to establish an Emergency Moratorium.

Douglas Cohn's comment last year to Council regarding real emergencies and false emergencies has come full circle. He spoke during the false emergency moratorium on boarding houses and said, "When I first learned of a City emergency ordinance, I thought that perhaps you were taking notice of the foreclosure crises or that you had found a new way to handle drug houses in Englewood. That wasn't the case, and I have an issue with you folks abusing the City's definition of Emergency and Emergency Ordinances."

Personally? Four alternative drug venders on Broadway certainly seems suspicious, while only a short while ago, other herbal dispensaries were hard fought to win the privilege to exist in the competitive established models of medical fields in Englewood.

I spoke with one man outside of a clinic known as Patients Choice of Colorado. "Mike" was injured riding rodeo. He said the only thing holding his back together is the nuts and bolts. He said he was "dead" in his bed when he revived and that he has seizures from his brain being ripped from his right eye backwards.

Mike said he can tell when people are faking the need for marijuana, and that they could ruin it for all others who use it instead of heavier pills otherwise prescribed. So, Mike is a proponent of City licensure by application.

He believes that an application should sort out whether a dispensary is qualified to prescribe because they would know the answers to certain questions of which strains of the drug help which ailments, and what the various side effects are.

He pulled out his State license to use the drug for medicinal purposes and pointed out that high schoolers and other pleasure seekers could not lawfully obtain marijuana without the license. With a license, all is well. Without the license is quite another story.

Doctors could lose their license, their living, their home and wind up in federal prison, because it is the federal law that takes over when a violation occurs. Buyers would experience the same repercussions. However, Mike's concern is for the building owners who leased their premises to the errant tenants. In that case, the entire building would be caught up and confiscated by the FBI or FTB.

Matthew Crabtree, candidate for Council, and owner of the grassroots website for accessible government, ECOG, also voiced his concern to a group of concerned citizens when he said he had known someone who was a landlord where the tenants were manufacturing fake money out of the garage and paying rent with it. Not only did the landlord lose his rent, but also his rental property was confiscated.

Reality speaks. Either licensed marijuana dispensaries should own their own storefronts should they overstep their licensed privileges, or the City should draft a law to pre-empt the feds confiscation of the storefront belonging to an innocent party.

My hope, because this issue has already been approved by the State of Colorado, is that Council holds a hearing on the merits of the real Emergency as well as the City's own censurer process and what exactly they hope to protect.

Protecting business economy, private property and City taxes are all well within the reach of city government. Perhaps the new contenders for Council in November 2009 elections, will add protections to property within the boundaries of Englewood's Home Rule so that the wrong person doesn't lose his shirt, or his shop, to the feds.

Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/

Nuisance, (through Fr. noisance, nuisance, from Lat. nocere, to hurt) is a common law tort. It means that which causes offense, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public (also "common") or private. A public nuisance is defined by Englewood Municipal Code.

15-1-1:E.M.C. Applicability and Definitions.
A. The abatement of nuisances in the City of Englewood is hereby declared to be of local concern. It is the duty of all responsible parties including persons, property owners, firms, corporations, occupants, lessees, or any agents or representatives of the record owner or owners, to maintain property within the boundaries of the City of Englewood so as not to cause or maintain an act or condition which endangers the public health, safety or welfare or results in annoyance or discomfort to the public or damage to any property or injury to any person.

Wikipedia says, "Nuisance is one of the oldest causes of action known to the common law, with cases framed in nuisance going back almost to the beginning of recorded case law. Nuisance signifies that the 'right of quiet enjoyment' is being disrupted to such a degree that a tort is being committed."

When neighbors squabble over nothing, depleting another's right to quiet enjoyment of their land, they risk being taken to civil court for the tort of nuisance. Who wants to be labeled that for the rest of their life? Maybe the devils in Tazmania, but not in Englewood.

15-2-1:E.M.C. Nuisance Prohibited.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to commit or do any act constituting a nuisance.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to create, continue or suffer the existence of any nuisance on any property under his control.

Although the City Manager maintains the duty and power to abate a nuisance, someone else's nuisance is not really his first priority. He sits above a private neighbor's hell, untouchable.

15-3-1:E.M.C. The City Manager's Power to Abate a Nuisance in Case of an Emergency.
The City Manager is hereby authorized to immediately abate or enjoin any nuisance existing in the City without following the procedures of this Chapter in the case of an emergency, whether or not such nuisance is specifically recognized by this Title.

There is also a City procedure form abating non-emergency nuisances.

15-3-2:E.M.C. Administrative Abatement Procedure in Non-Emergency Situations.
If, after inspecting the property on which a nuisance is reported, the enforcement personnel who are charged or designated by the City Manager with investigating nuisances declare the existence of a nuisance, the following procedures shall be followed.
A. Photographs and/or videotapes and written reports and findings shall be generated.
B. The responsible party or parties shall be determined.
C. The Code Enforcement Officer(s) shall have the discretion to informally abate the nuisance by speaking with the responsible party. In the event that the informal proceedings fail to abate the nuisance within the seven (7) days or three (3) days in the case of graffiti the Code Enforcement Officer may, at his/her discretion, issue a summons and complaint to the responsible party or shall issue a notice pursuant to E.M.C. 15-3-2(D).
D. If the nuisance has not been abated by the informal process or a summons and complaint has not been issued at the conclusion of the seven (7) days or three (3) days in the case of graffiti set forth in E.M.C. 15-3-2(C), a written notice in essentially the form set forth in E.M.C. 15-3-3 of this Chapter shall be served upon the responsible party by personal service or by leaving a copy of the notice at the usual place of residence or business of such owner, responsible party shown by the records contained in the County Clerk and Recorder's Office or in the County Tax Assessor's Office, or by mailing a copy of the written notice to such responsible party at such place or address by United States mail, certified return receipt. If service of such written notice is unable to be perfected by any methods described above, the enforcement personnel shall cause a copy of the notice to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks, or by publishing on the City's official website, or by posting the notice on the property.
E. The notice shall state clearly and concisely the findings of the enforcement personnel with respect to the existence of the nuisance, and the section of the City ordinance(s) that have been violated.
F. The notice shall also state that unless the responsible party shall cause the abatement of the nuisance pursuant to the notice and this Code, the City may abate the nuisance at the expense of the responsible party or may issue a criminal summons and complaint or both.

Finally, there is the option of municipal court. But a Citizen cannot avail themselves of a Citizen's complaint in Englewood's Municipal Court. Head Judge Attencio has specifically and arduously declined to hear a common citizen or to intervene in a neighborhood nuisance complaint.

15-4-1: E.M.C. Judicial Abatement of Nuisances.
A. In addition to all other remedies provided by law, including those specified and set forth in E.M.C. 1-4-1, the Englewood Municipal Court may, upon a finding that a nuisance exists, issue an order enjoining the nuisance, authorizing its repair, restraint, removal, termination or abatement.
B. A responsible party found by the court to have caused a nuisance or allowed the nuisance to be caused or to be continued shall be liable for all costs incurred by the City to abate said nuisance. Such costs may be collected by the City pursuant to Municipal Court order, in a civil action or assessed as a lien against any property on which the abatement was performed as specified in E.M.C. 15-3-7.
C. Prima Facia Evidence. The issuance of three (3) or more notices of violation of this Title shall be prima facie evidence that the responsible party deliberately and wilfully violated this Title and may be punished within the discretion of the court as provided in E.M.C. 1-4-1. This remedy shall be cumulative with all other remedies.

What option does a resident being harassed by nuisential neighbors have? There is the option of a "No Trespass" sign, and the possibility of criminal prosecution for trespass.

7-6F-2:E.M.C. Trespass.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to enter or remain upon the lands or property of another knowing that the consent to enter or remain is absent, denied or withdrawn by the owner or the person having lawful possession thereof, or any agent of such owner or possessor; provided, that this Section shall not apply to any reasonable entry seeking information or emergency shelter.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to enter or remain upon the lands, property or vehicle parking areas owned, operated or controlled by any other person, business or merchant when the activity thereat is closed, not operating, nor serving the public and consent to enter or remain upon such lands, property or vehicle parking areas has been denied or withdrawn by a person having authority to do so.
C. Notice posted in the window of the businesses', merchant's or person's building or otherwise upon the property is prima facie evidence that consent to enter or remain is absent and has been denied or withdrawn.

Though in Englewood, getting the judge to hear your complaint is another matter. It seems the government of Englewood plays sport, and quite enjoys the obvious outcome of every offensive move. They can accurately calculate the odds. They will always win.

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.

Link: http://englewoodstory.com

I will go so far as to say this: Everything in a City is grandfathered unless the City is able to prove some license to regulate it.

O, Where O Where doth such a license cometh from?

In Colorado municipalities, they come from Colorado Revised Statutes Title 31, Municipal Governments, michies Colorado free legal which limits powers and are given further boundaries through none other than the Supreme Law of the Land, our great United States Constitution.

These laws clearly state that someone's power, presumed authority or "will" cannot legally over-power or control what rights the law has handed to me already. The mass lynchings are illegal because they are not founded in deference, self-respect or law.

It doesn't matter how much sweaty fervor is passionately invoked or what kind of bribe or slander occurs, if it ain't founded in law, it ain't no good.

Last week in the Englewood Council meeting when Bob McCaslin accidentally, or perhaps conveniently left out of the pre-written invocation, "Help us not to control..." I had to chuckle. Well, it just escaped. I didn't mean to be irreverent. But "arbitrary control" is exactly what this Council loves to do to this fair city by their own elected whims.

But just because they are elected and it is hard to get them unseated, doesn't mean that they have legal rights to presume license over all aspects of residential home lives.

Last week at Council, John Moore played the roll of Mayor and controlled the discussion on Hard Pavements himself. He kept wanting to know what would be "grandfathered" as if Council can simply ignore the City Ordinances and Savings Clauses and has utter authority over the private homes as well as licensed businesses. Near the end of the discussion Moore says, "So what are we choosing to grandfather then? Only gravel?"

Stand Up, people! Where is the Council's license to tell you where or how you can park on your own property?

Once an idea gets passed legislatively, then the full burden of proof rests on one defendant's shoulders, inconveniently cited and hauled to the Judge, to prove that the legislation is unfounded. Since it is the legal duty of the municipal judge to presume the law is reasonable, this individual must have a very strong mind with plenty of time available to find out where the missing links are and present them to the Judge or jury accordingly. If he doesn't have these resources, the illegal law can be established judicially, and then it is almost impossible to over-rule.

So the old maxim stands that all it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing.

If you choose not to trust your gut, or defend your right to serve, your right of easement, your immunities, your right to real estate, then you forfeit not only the right, but also the law that governs the right. And if you forfeit the law, you betray your fellow man who depends on that same law.

I was trying to stay one step ahead of myself but now I walk on my hands and don’t look back...

"Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal [118 U.S. 374] hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution. This principle of interpretation has been sanctioned by this court in Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U.S. 259; Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275; Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370, and Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703. Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703." See, Yick Wo v. Yick Wo v. Hopkins
Submitted April 14, 1886, Decided May 10, 1886,118 U.S. 356.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

How do we know what rights we have fundamentally? Consider the Privileges or Immunities clause of the US Constitution. One author has then suggested normal people go to the laws of the District of Columbia to see what's fair there. Another suggests that whatever is fair in all the states is fair in your state.

"It is accordingly enacted by § 1977 of the Revised Statutes, that all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other." (See Above, Yick Wo)

I was really scared that Yick Wo, the laundry proprietor, would only protect those narrow civil rights laws specifically written, but when I went to read that case it was as clear as the blue Colorado skies that everyone in America has the right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, to be parties, to give evidence and to enjoy the full benefit and duties of all laws and policies and access to government and court, and to remain secure in their persons and property.

Neighbors must work hard to subdue your greed, subdue your bias, and subdue being lazy entitled ingrates. Seriously!

Whatever gets sold out for some selfish or shady benefit today, will come back to bite not only you and your white Englewood neighbors and your white grandchildren, but me and my household too because the rest of us have rights only equal to yours, and then your rights are only equal to mine. You need to stand up like responsible, dutiful adults now. I don't want to take the water slide down with you.

W

Link: http://www.EnglewoodCitizens.org

If you receive a City paper called "The Englewood Citizen" you might discover a high-lighted portion at the bottom of page 2, May/June 2009, announcing that the City Council has made their meetings available on their website.

Funny thing, a grass roots group calling themselves Englewood Citizens for Open Government (ECOG) has been recording and uploading these meetings for several months now, pressuring City Council to be more transparent, approachable, accessible and accountable to their constituency.

After City Council discussed whether they would continue to allow ECOG to record and publish their meetings, and finding no way out of it short of criminal liability, they decided to join the parade and outdo ECOG.

After all, an official City website is going to accumulate more hits than an unknown grass roots group, right?

Matthew Crabtree, concerned citizen, must be given the credit for his endurance of four hour long city meetings, and his fortitude in pilgrimaging the recordings of conscious. He has continued to upgrade his services to the public of Englewood.

Mr. Crabtree reports that he has started clarifying who the speaker is on any given subject.

For those who would not recognize their own district representative's voice over any other, and what they might stand for, they may now begin to follow topically what each representative states.

For instance, on April 20, 2009, Council resurrected the idea of mandating paved driveways... spear-headed by John Moore, but if you are not familiar with District representative Moore's voice, you may not realized that he is the one representing the issue. II. Hard Surface Standards.

Council is on a roll with "ungrandfathering" residential properties that were pre-existing to their new-fangled ideas. Apparently, their town just cannot change quick enough for them. In this case, Council will extend grandfathering rights only to those who have gravel, while just weeks ago these were deemed dangerous. They will forego grandfathering of dirt driveways.

The really bad news is that any arbitrary thing enacted by this Council will make residents liable for fines, liens and even threats of jail.

Englewood residents barely surviving hard times can thank their electorates for this finely timed gift.

The cool thing for residents to know is that while dirt is illegal in the new Englewood, road base is solidly safe within the proposed code. Residents just need to declare which one they have.

It was important for me to note in listening to the recordings that Mayor Woodward raged against a great-grandmother and long-time resident of Englewood who came to Council for the second time to represent her opinion about them throwing away Nancy Peterson's various awards after she was injured by an unnamed City policeman.

When she originally caught them in the act, Ms. Cummins represented herself kindly about the matter and obtained a March agreement from Council to put them on public display somewhere in City Hall, alongside City Manager Sear's trophies. But, after seeing some scratches and wear from being tossed away, they decided to put the awards out of public eye in the airlock of the Englewood Police Station.

She, Ms. Cummins, came bravely to Council to tell them that she didn't appreciate her friend's honors being stuffed away from public eye twice, and what happened to their original 100% commitment to her by Mayor, Bob McCaslin and Jill Wilson? She wanted to know.

Mayor delays his hottest topic til near the end of section 12. "General Discussion," when he begins to respond to "Ms. Cummins comments" and then lectures her for her "attack" on him personally. It's a bit of a shameful interaction from the office of City Mayor that can be heard in the last third of General Discussion, during Mayor's Choice section at www.EnglewoodCitizens.org. Monday, April 23.

I personally will stick with Mr. Crabtree's recordings as all of the background noise has been removed from the recordings, and they are conveniently set out per section and per speaker. It's much more accessible and transparent than having to listen to the entire four hours of this Council's official meetings.