Eye On Englewood

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://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.

Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/

The topic of Council's April 13, 2009 study session regarding office expenditures and discretionary funds actually began right after the close of last election, when council woman Laurett Barrentine lost the popular vote to coach Randy Penn.

Because Ms. Barrentine had been the voice of accountability and fiscal conservation on Council, albeit bull doggedly, it was not enough to simply hush her voice this term.

No. Not nearly enough. In retaliation for daring to request a line item budget report for Council's review, the City Manager arranged a little parting gift to Ms. Barrentine.

She was billed, then publicly threatened by council's vote to prosecute her in a collection action over $57.00. This bill was in dispute as to whether it qualified as part of her allotted $150.00 discretionary funds. It was the City's opinion that she had billed them and been reimbursed for something not covered by discretionary funds.

She argued that the bill she submitted for reimbursement was indeed included within her line of duty. It was related to her computer access used to perform Council duties.

Council members decided to agree with City Manager Sears that the $57.00 was outside the text of the policy. The text of the policy reads, "Or materials directly related to the responsibilities..."

According to District 1 Council Representative, Joe Jefferson, stated he believes the meaning is wide open within the judgment of the elected official.

Where previously John Moore voted to prosecute a collections action against Ms. Barrentine, he flipped at the Council meeting of April 13, 2009, stating that he agreed that standardized computer access was a requirement of members of Council and within a member's discretion.

Ms. Barrentine knew at the time of the City's collection action against her that it was retaliatory in nature, but she paid the City's claim because $57.00 wasn't worth the cost or trouble of hiring a defense.

I find myself aghast at the City's public humiliation tactic to pursue a questionable $57.00 from a civil servant, while the same officials privately approved another hefty raise to the City Manager's salary, weighing him in at $160,000.00.

In a City where people are questionably surviving lost jobs and failure to achieve merit raises equal to inflation, it's not likely Council or Manager can successfully argue the proper allocation of residents' tax money being their true aim. Me tinks they just wanted a play date with darts at the bar and Ms. Barrantine as the target.

In the final minutes of the discussion, Jefferson requested that he use his discretionary funds for informal district meetings with residents, specifically for invitations. When Wilson asked what he meant by "informal" he explained: no notice would be required, no more than 3 council persons would be in attendance, no decisions could be made.

Its purpose would be more of a communication opportunity with the residents in his district. Jefferson has been talking about implementing this since being voted onto council, better late than never.

Wilson stated that everyone should be invited to a District 1 meeting. Disregarding the rule prohibiting a quorum [C.R.S. 24-6-402(2)(c)]of council at any informal meeting, she stated that she has a hard time understanding excluding people. She favored public notice and an invitation to all people. She specifically stated that she lives in District 1, and would like to participate.

Jefferson reminded them about Open Meetings laws, and that his purpose would not be to exclude anyone, but to allow his constituents to speak freely, without fear. His goal is to provide a casual avenue for communication.

Woodward, Oakley and Moore questioned whether the meetings could be construed as a campaign booster so near elections. But Jefferson's district seat is not one of those available this November.

Moore stated he did not believe district meetings were necessary, and therefore funds for invitations should not come from office supply funds. He further stated that the entire council would have to vote to approve the funds for the single district meetings if it came out of discretionary spending. He admitted the concept was a new one to him.

In the last seconds of Monday's meeting, Moore completely turned about face, actually daring anyone to "take me to court." Some of the last comments in the discussion were John Moore's when he arrogantly stated: "If I believe in my personal discretion that I needs to host a district meeting with only half of my district, I have that right."

Not so fast, Mr. Moore. Your attitude toward your district is opposite that expressed by Mr. Jefferson. While you know you are protected by governmental immunity and your solid dare, who is going to recuse you or prosecute your over suspicious use of your annual $600.00 discretionary budget?

We know you are well aware of this fact. It is precisely because the people are helpless that you can get away with such patronage of your district.

At the end of the day, Council members generally decided that contributions to charities or other council member's needs will not come out of individuals' discretionary funds due to possible abuses of unilateral entitlement of voters' money. They decided that whatever is surplus at the end of the fiscal year is returned to the general fund.

Finally, they decided that members only carried the right to advise Joe on his expenditure, but not the power to interfere or limit his choice on how to spend discretionary funds in relation to his duties.

It looks like District 1 will get its private play date. Sorry, District 2, you will have to take Mr. Moore up on his challenge in order to bend your District Representative's ear.

The full discussion can be heard on www.EnglewoodCitizens.Org.
IV. Council Discretionary/Office Supplies Policy

Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/

Closed. Closed for the seasons... and "We Are Nothing"... These are the whispers of experts.

During the City Council study session of April 9, 2009, Alan White, Community Development Director for the City of Englewood presented a 20 minute video presentation from a group of experts from Urban Land Institute (ULI).

There is something to be said for being first, and I'm happy to acknowledge the virtue of creativity. Mayor Wolosyn would have agreed. The expert placemakers acknowledged Englewood's attempt at a transit oriented community as being the first in Colorado.

It's always easier to improve on a prototype, but creating the prototype is hard work. I'd shake Gary Sears' hand for this if he'd care.

Community Development Director White cautioned Council before pressing "play" that City staff do not necessarily agree with the experts' findings. Then the lights went out.

Read more »