Eye On Englewood

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://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

After publishing my article on Englewood’s civil rights violations, I was sent the following letter.

Read more »

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

Perhaps Englewood, Colorado needs a Bill of Rights. There is nothing in the Englewood Charter or the City Ordinances or even the Municipal Court powers to protect the people. It is all wrapped up that the Executive branch, (Staff) the Legislative branch (Council) and the Judiciary (Court) protect the temporary powers, rather than the real residents and long term homeowners.

In a response from Carol Chamber's office of the Arapahoe County District Attorney determined that the word "may" found in the rules for how Englewood must operate determines the infinite leeway the City enjoys. It may, or it may not: completely within its discretion.

Everything in the City ordinances protects actions or omissions the City takes by the word, "may".

When it comes to ethical conflicts or the rights of the residents that employ this staff, the Charter and Code have determined that the residents have little to no opportunity to redress grievances, certainly no absolute right.

This issue can become a dramatic breech of trust between the City and a developer early on in the relationship between the parties given the following scenario.

Permit fees in the City are as arbitrary as they are indecent when a regular citizen who is in the dark as to contractor procedures applies for a permit or license with the City.

A Schedule of Fees associated with building permits in Englewood exists. However, Englewood records show it charged three times as much, a total of $2,990, ignoring the fee schedule which dictates a maximum of $999.00 for this structure's remodel fees.

The Building Department's reasoning? The structure's forecast appraisal totaled over $500,000 upon completion.

The project's owner complains, though, that they had already purchased the existing structure for $200.00 and only the appraised difference between the existing structure and the proposed structure should have been considered. It's a question of exact measurements, and the ability of the head clerk to add and subtract.

The city should have subtracted the present value of the home being incorporated into the final value.

Isn't this kind of public dealing called fraud? Getting something for nothing. Maybe it is only bad faith and unfair dealing.

In any case, there is no return of permit fees available in Englewood. Especially to those who actually rely on the law to defend themselves and make a scene. Especially then.

Some cities have incorporated a Developer's Bill of Rights. This idea protects developers as to vested interests in properties they have spent significant sums of time and money over.

But, what protects the actual constituency of Englewood voters? What holds the feet of their electorate representatives on Council to the fire?

A Bill of Rights would certainly do the trick. America's forefathers thought so, when they incorporated the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, and even the pilgrims to incorporating the state of Colorado believed the same so as to develop another famous Bill of Rights specific to Colorado. But, the Home Rule City of Englewood has kept all the power to themselves. And, yet, isn't this is the legal definition of "arbitrary power"?

Arbitrary power is the kind of political power that is based on whims of those temporarily in charge, apart from measurable, objective limitations of law, and the absolute right of redress.

In the 2009 November elections, the people of Englewood will be presented with an opportunity to even the weights of power on the scales of justice. They will be presented with an opportunity to enact a Bill of Rights and their own form of personal homeowner immunity for groundless or malicious acts of the City of Englewood against them.

It will paint a significant stroke to a beautiful sunrise in Englewood's currently repressed horizon.

Link: http://englewoodstory.com

We all know that fear can be a closed gate to government. Ignorance is a closed gate to government. And, in a busy society like Englewood, Colorado, busi-ness is a latch to pry open government.

People go to work five out of the seven days of the week, and then with their limited time after work and on weekend, they prepare family meals, and set a bit of personal time apart for sports, activities, concerts, paying bills, mowing the lawn and cleaning.

People tend to entrust politics to the “politicians”.

May 4, 2009, The City's old spending habits were approved by an outside auditor who hammed it up with the City Manager, and then the spending for 2009 was processed unanimously by all seven council persons, without discussion.

The following 2009 spending is itemized:
*a nine year old truck is to be replaced.
*a 60% increase on everyone's sewer fees was approved.
*a 2009 shell of an ambulance is purchased for $135,313, which still needs to be outfitted inside.
*a tilling tractor with the deluxe package including a GPS system and leather seats is to be purchased for $95,598.19
*November Candidate, Rick Gillit, asked Council to give an official report of the $20,000 they just spent at League of Cities, but Council ran out of time for Joe Jefferson's report.
*$20,000 for a community garden was expended.
*and, during study session, a grant of $5,000 was approved for Waste Management Company recycling, costing the City only $4,500 out of the original $9,500 price to recycle. For what? Isn't this the same service the Shriners offer for free?

Candidate for council, Rick Gillit noticed, "Not one council member posed the question whether the truck could be fixed rather than replaced or whether it could last another year or two?"

He said no-one asked, "What would a 30% sewer fee hike accomplish rather than a 60% hike?" or "What would a shell of an old ambulance cost to be refurbished?" or "Why does the City's tilling tractor require a GPS and deluxe package?"

It sure brings up the obvious: Did Council discuss these issues elsewhere besides the public meeting? If they did, they have violated the Open Meetings Rules and Sunshine Act.

Another observer noticed that not one Council member asked, "Why spend $20,000 on a community garden when the City is having to cut back expenses by 15%? And, no-one asked, "Did we really need to spend all those hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating against our own people last year?"

Understanding the laws which govern a home rule city is as easy as reading the manual: The Charter is the City's Constitution. But after the year 2000, Englewood’s manual gained three inches of ordinances known as the Englewood Municipal Code, (E.M.C.). Thick with cross references, notations to history and previous laws, full of things from the criminal code, pensions, building codes, the court, and zoning issues.

I agree, it is a bit cumbersome.

But, what this old ticker finds inexcusable, is the unwillingness to research a topic when asked. Why aren't rules of fixed measurement and law applied to the interests of justice? Are budgets really just a matter of the whims of those in power?

Is it really okay to charge 60% more for water and sewer services during an 8% unemployment crises, just to spend it elsewhere on new Tonka Trucks?

The air of secrecy surrounding Englewood City Hall has been breached by a Citizen's group intent to record and make public City meetings. For months now Englewood Citizens for Open Government (www.englewoodcitizens.org)has published City Council meetings and study sessions, and just this week,they published a the fact that Englewood's Financial and Administrative Services Director Frank Gryglewicz, Accounting Manager Steve Dazzio and Timothy P. Mayberry, CPA, from Johnson, Holscher & Company, P. C. discussed the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report in private and concluded that Englewood passed the(CAFR)grade.

Secrecy is a fine gate to help government achieve its aim by locking out controversy. Secrecy fleshes out efficiency and may save someone a bit of embarrassment. But, is secrecy the right tool? A pen's cap can be used to pick your ear, but it may have other unwanted effects. What does the tool of secrecy compromise?

It forces a potentially good form of government underground. It makes the good guys wear porcupine quills when they find themselves above ground because they know what things are hiding below.

Efficiency is the sweetheart of secrecy. Efficiency can evade a just investigation of the facts and laws, making a clean sweep of everything but the outcome.

When an authority figure doesn't admit that he struggles with an issue or needs more time before he casts his vote on it, he never has to research it and then he can rely on his associate's opinion. It is much more efficient that way. Right or wrong, something gets done.

City Council looks ominous sitting high above the audience that addresses it. Like judges they sit, as if they are privy to the issues at hand and at law. But are they?

Perhaps they are only privy to the information City Attorneys secretly feed them. But if the City attorneys, the City manager has it all wrapped up, and the one power withheld from Council is to "interfere" with Staff, according to the Charter, Part 1, ARTICLE III, section 32, then why does Englewood need a City Council?

Maybe they are so concerned with appearing "on the same page" that they become only puppets and "yes men" to the City Manager. Certainly, if they cannot open a public court record and take a look; certainly if they cannot drive by an Englewood site to investigate an issue for themselves; certainly if they cannot respond to a Citizen's question or look up their rules for themselves, their counsel will leave something to be desired.

Most assuredly, if they are not allowed to ascertain budget reports or ask questions of the head of the building department, and absolutely, if they have some friends from high school bending their ears for loyalty, their input is less than objective or meant "for the dignity of the whole."

Shouldn’t residents take a second look?

Please excuse my waffling. I’ll get right to the point. November elections are upcoming.

Link: http://EyeOnEnglewood.com

Why should Englewood prohibit the City from prosecuting any definition of household?

Moral issues are taken care of in the criminal codes of the State and City. Being unrelated and sharing a house, is not in itself worthy of prosecution, but in Englewood, the violation of the City's definition of Household is prima facie evidence of a crime.

Rick Gillit, running for District 4 in the November election, says he believes the term, "'Single Family Residence' is purely a real estate term, and means there is one residence per address. It does not extend to the definition that Englewood currently attaches to 'single family residence' meaning that not more than one unrelated person can live under the same roof."

Since his wife was raised in a home that took in families of patients of Craig Hospital, Gillit may be sensitive to the humanitarian side that some boarding houses offer. But, Englewood has ungrandfathered all pre-existing residences that house more than 1 unrelated person under the same roof.

It is clear that Community Development and Planning and Zoning both have limitations as to implementing codes against existing or grandfathered codes, and are relegated in their duties to forecasting development, plan for the future, and not criminalize the pre-existing.

The Department of Regulatory Agencies (D.O.R.A.) agrees. Their jurisdiction is limited to agencies of the State, not residences. Yet, these departments are the ones prosecuting residents for their choice of who shares their home. Isn't this a privacy issue?

In Gillit's opinion, these departments should not interfere inside a home with whether people are closely related enough to share the residence.

Last July, Planning and Zoning Commission members were asked to amend the code so that City could prosecute a single family in the City Manager's neighborhood. Commission Chair Bleile opposed the tactic as devious. Two other Commission members sided with him, but they ended up the minority and the City Manager Sears achieved his end. The case is scheduled for Court, June 4 and 5, 2009.

In the past five years, the City's habit has been to threaten people reported as violating the definition of household with 7-day or 14-day Notices to Comply. But, when it comes down to the prosecution of such a household, the City staff find themselves asking strange questions of City Manager Sears and Attorneys Brotzman and Reid, "How do we figure the unrelated number 2 again?"

Notice, it is not an issue of knowing how to count 1,2,3,4, or asking the City's accountant. It is rather a question of personal relationships. Does the City have the right to determine your relationships?

Says a widowed father in law who wants to move in with his daughter, "Can they kick me outa' here just because my daughter happens to have a spouse with a son she has not officially adopted? I mean, add me into the mix...ya know? Maybe I shouldn't have sold my place."

Good question. In Alaska, the town actually began to prosecute a family such as this, except the ACLU stepped in. In 2008 Englewood's City Council members McCaslin and Penn promoted not only Englewood's narrow definition of household, but also got personally involved promoting the prosecution and intimidation of moral households who happen to share a home unrelated.

Englewood isn't so afraid of the ACLU, because it has your tax money to fight extended court battles totally in the millions of dollars. Their salaries get paid for looking busy, so why not?

But after all the litigation Englewood has engaged in during the past year, a severe budget cut is occurring of up to 15% to parks and salaries.

But, what if a child has had a name change to resemble that of her family's surname, yet, in fact she has not been adopted. What about x-spouses not quite out of the home? Any why should foster children have more legal rights than your own father-in-law and step child?

This election could stop the intrusion of government into private relationships by voting new blood like Broker Rick Gillit to City Council. Keep Council out of your homes.