Eye On Englewood

Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/

On Monday June 21,2010, the Englewood city council voted to purchase electricity from Ameresco, an energy audit company. The company would install solar panels and would own them, and the city would buy the electricity. But the contract terms show the City has also purchased the solar equipment from Ameresco. The term of the contract is 20 years with a 10 year option. The price is a little higher than current Xcel prices. The anticipated cost to the city the first year is $39,000. There is a 2% increase built in each year for the 20 years for a total cost projected $1,051,000. The City bidded a contract with Ameresco for the energy audit only, not for the services and product which came out of the audit.

Concerned citizens, moved by Mr. Douglas Cohn, have requested the District Attorney's office look into two apparent violations of law, and one ethical violation of attorney/client representation that occurred when the City of Englewood signed the contract with Ameresco.

1. In the Englewood City Charter, chapter 113, there is a requirement that all contracts over $25,000 must have at least 3 bids. There was only one.

113. Competitive bidding.

Before the purchasing officer makes any purchase of supplies, materials or equipment, in excess of $25,000 or as prescribed by ordinance, he shall give ample opportunity for sealed competitive bidding, with such general exceptions as the Council may prescribe by ordinance. Council shall not exempt any individual contract, purchase or sale from the requirement of competitive bidding. No officer, appointee or employee of the City shall be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in the sale of any land, materials, supplies, or services to the City, except in case of purchases submitted to competitive bidding or not exceeding an aggregate of $100.00 in any one year. The lowest and best bid shall be accepted or all bids will be rejected. If the lowest bid is not accepted as being the best, such rejection must be approved by Council. Provisions in this Section shall not apply to professional or technical services, or services of regulated public utilities. All invitations to bid shall require bidders to meet the requirements of State Statutes regarding preference of State products.(Amended 3-24-1981; 11-3-1987; 11-6-2001)

Englewood has not "deBruced" this element.

2. In Colorado's TABOR (tax payers bill of rights), a requirement that all multi-year contracts must be completely funded by the signers at the time of the contract, or one year contracts with extensions can be signed is mandatory. Elected bodies must not sign long term contracts which bind future members of that body.

In this case, the city chose the one-year option with extensions. However, the deception is built in: The contract lists a hefty penalty for withdrawal or cancellation at any time within 20 years. The penalty at the end of the first year is $1,051,000; the second year is 19/20% of that number; etc. These terms do not sound like a one year contract.

The ethical problem comes about because of secrecy. The addenda labeled D1,D2,D3,D4 details the termination costs. But there was considerable difficulty in obtaining these exhibits attached to the Ameresco contract. The notes were not included in the version of the contract the City posted on its web site. They were not included with the library's copy of the upcoming agenda proposals or contents of the meeting. And, there was no hearing. Someone had to search Englewood's website for them under "confidential".

This seems not only to be a clear violation of TABOR, and the City Charter, but also a clear violation of an Attorney/client's right to full disclosure and publication process prior to the Englewood City Council's vote.

When the non-disclosure of these pertinent documents was brought to City Attorney Daniel Brotzman's attention, his only response was, "Opps! Someone went wild with the confidential stamp!"

Sometimes, Cities are immune from liability when a mistake happens. In this case, however, because the vote was rushed and was taken without the constitutional requirement for multiple bids and the City's right to full disclosure, the full weight of the malfeasance lays on City Attorney Brotzman's shoulders. His duty was to defend the City, not play dirty.

Mr. Cohn was incensed by yet another secretive vote that depletes his own wallet. Because this is a type of robbery, Cohn filed a police report with the Englewood police department on July 23, 2010. A copy of the police report was included on "council newsletter 7-29-10", which is a private informational letter that is not made public in the library packets to concerned citizens. City Council stated in Study Session that the matter would not be discussed. The next step was to contact the District Attorney's office when the Englewood Police failed to act.

Charges against Brotzman's license may include extortion since he, as a paid employee, negotiated Ameresco's deal with the City by offering a deal to the people without disclosing the twenty year costs and penalties.

"Opps!" is right. "Someone went overboard with the confidential stamp."

Link: http://www.eyeonenglewood.com

After one of Matt Crabtree's political groups delivered fliers to owners of campers and recreation vehicles, Matthew Crabtree became the target of retaliation. Why? Because one interested citizen packed out a full house against Representative Linda Olsen's intent to disrobe her neighborhood of their vehicles.

Next thing Matt knew, the City Attorney, Dan Brotzman, investigated his political group to see whether it complied with the Colorado election statutes. He employed the City Clerk, Lou Ellis, to see whether Matt could be prosecuted for running an illegal campaign.

Clerk Ellis and Attorney Brotzman contacted Mr. Crabtree warning him that his political group was not in compliance with the Colorado regulations for backing a candidate, but that since he had registered it in good faith, they would not prosecute him this time.

The warning was clear. "Either back a candidate, or stick to one election topic. Since this wasn't the topic of your flier, your group doesn't qualify as a political action committee under Colorado statute definitions."

"What does that mean?" Crabtree asked. "You don't have the power to regulate me if I don't fall within the scope of your definitions?"

Brotzman snapped that he could not put the committee name on the bottom of his fliers any more, that he must put his own personal name on the flier.

Brotzman then patiently explained that in Englewood's ordinances, any corporation advertising in Englewood, must not only identify themselves as the corporation, but also add the corporate representative and his or her phone number on the flier.

Crabtree was incredulous. "You mean, you would prosecute Breakfast on Broadway for advertisements or Yard Sellers for posting a sale sign without a phone number?"

Nothing more than a chuckle echoed across the air space.

It is clear that where retaliation comes into play in Englewood, the enforcement of ordinances are selectively enforced.

Matthew found a ticket for alley weeds upon his return home from work that evening.

Don't speak up about your opinion on anything in Englewood, and they will not prosecute you for weeds, or building permits, or raising your political voice.

At study session on Monday evening, Linda Olson, District Representative II, asked, "how can City Council stop this kind of thing?"

At that point, District I Representative, Joe Jefferson replied, "Hold on there. You are in the public eye. You cannot stop it. People have the right to respond to our policies." Basically, Mr. Jefferson was upholding the Constitution's freedom of speech clause and the right of the people to redress government.

Nothing stinks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.

Is it against the law to be a Town Crier in Englewood? Of course not. Hasn't the NAACP already settled that privacy and freedom of association protects the identity of the members in a group or club? Of course.

The power to regulate does not apply to absolute rights or guaranteed freedoms. Matt and his grass roots convoys may continue to roam freely through their city and campaign however they wish in response to the City's illegal encroachments.

Stink bugs catching the leftovers of the picnic, whether dressed up in black ties and shorty pants or not, are still just bugs to be flipped off.

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