Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

Jerry Ferman derailed City Council as they argued out-of-turn amongst themselves on Monday Night. Mr. Ferman came to complain about Englewood's moldy water. The time clock was stopped, and the flustered council members lost control. But is this the bigger story? For, in this same week the Englewood Water and Sewer Board found a scapegoat in the sewer lines between Chipotle and Chase Bank on Hampden.

The City of Englewood is supposed to inspect sewer and water lines of every business every six weeks under the Englewood Municipal Code. But, Englewood has not been inspecting the lines nearly enough.

So, when Chipotle noticed that they had a block in the sewer trap, they hired their on-call plumber to flush the lines. Plumber Frank, although he works for many Chipotle franchises, has never been cited for anything in Englewood, and he came to the rescue by flushing the sewer trap.

There was still a smell, however, and so another company was called out to clean it up better. This time, the lard got blocked just before entering the city's sewer, (or so the story goes) (don't tell the EPA) and backed up into the neighboring business' basement. The neighboring business happened to be the Chase Bank building, where the ex-officio Mayor Burns keeps his offices. Chase had to replace carpeting.

Mayor Burns, amongst several other ex-officio Mayors, happens to sit on the Water and Sewer Board. The only true civilian amongst the board members is Robert Cassidy. What was the Sewer Board to do? Water board their own city? That would never do.

They couldn't allow Chase Bank's insurance company or the EPA to come after City Manager Sears because, after all, he hobnobs with sewer members. Plus, did I mention? The current Mayor of Englewood also sits on the board. No, an embarrassing ethical situation needed to be mopped up in short order before Mayor Woodward was implicated.

If they fined Chipotle, Chipotle would sue the City for failure to perform regular inspections, and again the EPA might get involved. The City has already lost one such suit in the District Court, so another strategy had to be formed.

Oh, of course. Smear the "fog" or lard on the contractor who flushed the system. He's independent, and will not have the resources to fight this thing. Good idea.

So, on Tuesday evening, at 5:00pm, Frank Brandse appeared for his case #AC10-15973, which was described as an "appeal of the Water and Sewer Board's fine of $5300." This amount reflected the maximum allowable criminal fine under POTW (Potable Water) as a class 2 petty offense for someone with habitual and knowing intent to violate EPA Best Standards. Frank didn't believe his actions warranted this decision or fine. He said he had never before encountered this problem and an investigation of extenuating circumstances should take place.

Board member, Robert Cassidy, looked at procedures and found that the Charter required a steno-graphically recorded hearing in these instances, and that testimonies were to be taken under oath. Pouting, sewer members were forced to agree. So a hearing being set, Matthew Crabtree showed up on Tuesday evening to record it for the public.

Mr. Crabtree realized that the hearing was not publicly noticed in the City's newspapers, nor was it noticed as all other board hearings are, on the City website. Posting it on the City bulletin boards barely complied with the minimum standards of "public notice".

Mr. Stu Fonda, Director of the Englewood Water Works suddenly grew quiet at having an audience.

When the hearing began, board member Higday, also an ex-officio mayor, cut into Frank's testimony to attempt to close the hearing. His motion was sidelined until others also began testifying, and he reminded the sewer board that his motion was on the table. As rude and abrupt as member Higday is, he also brought up an interesting perspective that the Board was not following proper procedures according to the Municipal Charter, part IV and sections 60-63.

Member Higday said, when there is a recommendation from the Sewer Board, they are to bring it to notice of City Counsel. Nevertheless, the board went on about their business.

Mr. Cassidy stated that he didn't believe Frank intended to do anything wrong, and that he certainly was no hardened criminal. He recommended the fine, on appeal, be reduced from $5300 to $2000. It was somewhat of a relief to Frank that the Board agreed to that fine.
But, Mr. Cassidy pushed over the line when he suggested that the $2000 be differed pending no further occurrences during the next 12 months.

What? And force our friends in the City to shoulder the insurance deductibles? No way! The sewer board members reasoned. We have a scapegoat willing to shoulder the fee. His name is Frank.

So, Frank, who was cited only by his first name, without the signature of an accusing officer, and without any evidence because he had invoked his right not to be searched without a warrant, was given a fine of $2000, and in exchange, he got to keep his employment with all the Chipotle franchises he serves.

Funny thing. Culpability actually lies with the user, if not with the City inspector. The Littleton/Englewood Waste Water Treatment Plant FOG Policy, page 9, paragraph one states, "Users are responsible for the maintenance servicing, and proper waste disposal and cannot abrogate this responsibility to a contractor,pumping service, or other agent." Modified, July 22, 2010.

Although this is clearly printed in the ex-officio Mayor's manuals, they could not get their minds out of the gutter in order to read their own law as to liability. This makes them culpable for insurance fraud.

Furthermore, the City usurped formal criminal penalties reserved to EPA, the State through the District Court level or the Department of Regulatory Services (DORA). Instead, they protected themselves from liability through an administrative inbred process.

And thus, Jerry Furman, proves himself to be a prophet. Yes, the water in Englewood is moldy dirty. If I were Mr. Brandse, I'd run right up to the District Court and get me an injunction and report the crime to DORA.

Link: http://EyeOnEnglewood.com

Good Friday, might not have been so good for "Holly" who got a ticket within the neighborhood of Englewood High School for smoking tobacco.
This was the day that poor Holly fell into the Department of Regulatory Agencies, and she got regulated. The fishbowl has all the elements of a phoenix rising.

A school of police cars barricaded the street, a host of police surrounded and ogled a curb-full of high school beggars. There these suspects sat on their seats for smoking on lunch break.

Read more »

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.