Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

Where's that little blue book when you need it? You know, the one that tells you the pro's and con's of an election issue? Some nice ladies dropped a flyer in person by my house, and I got a handwritten postcard in the mail, so I decided to read what I could find on 3D and 3E in the Englewood Herald.

Rick Gillit just wrote an article that was published. He took the diplomatic stance, "Well, I'm not about to slap down the children's educational needs, but I'm just not sure that's what this money is about."

So,I analyzed the property tax issue generally. Most property tax goes directly to the City, and only a portion of it goes to the school district.

I had to ask. Why did the school board request so much money? John Brick wrote an opinion against 3D and 3E saying,

"New facilities are important to a quality facility asset management program but the district needs to be careful of “empire building.” Englewood’s citizens lag behind in wages and household income.

Is it better to wait a year to approve the bond issue until the school district answers the important questions about its size and focus? We stand at the crossroads of more of the same in a new building or schools that build neighborhood identity and contribute to our community economically, politically, and culturally. Let’s ask the district what is our return on investment."

I believe John Brick is right. It is to pay for the empire building of City Manager Gary Sears. Englewood, as City, is IN DEBT. I think that Matthew Crabtree and Bryan Oliver nicely laid out the budget deficit in their political debate at Moe's Barbecue earlier this month. Over the past five years, Englewood has dipped into the emergency assets and reserves to approve the City Manager's recommended budget to the tune of $10,000,000 (that's million) dollars!

I saw that Colorado also has a school tax increase on the ballot, and we will be paying for that as well as benefiting from it. So, I kind of feel like our children are being illicitly marketed to manipulate us to pay for the mess Gary Sears and the present City Council, minus Rick Gillit, has gotton us into. Mr. Gillit is the only councilmember who voted "no" on the budget.

And before him,-- put these pieces together will you?-- Laurett Barrentine was the only city councilmember to ask to review the line item budget and discuss it before voting. So, that lot of council asked Mr. Penn, whose wife represents the school board, to run against her. The popular coach won the last election. Now, Englewood is even more IN DEBT.

Renovations to the school do not cost that much. All the rest is going to sweep the DEBT under the rug...now, it's your expense. (For the rest of your life)

Bill Clayton, wrote another opinion for the Englewood Herald. He broke it down for us.

"For instance, the tax increase brochure describes how this will be paid for with a $5 per month increase on a home value of $100,000. Aside from the fact that most homes in Englewood are worth a lot more than $100,000 and therefore will pay much more, this certainly implies that the residents of Englewood will pay the cost of those bonds and tax increase with a nominal increase in taxes.

This is deceptive, and could not be further from the truth, which is that residents, who can vote, only pay about 40 percent of the property taxes in Englewood. The vast majority of property tax is paid by business property owners, who pay property taxes at a rate four times that of a residence. This means a business property, or vacant land worth $100,000 will pay $20 per month.

Since most of this tax increase will be paid by the businesses we frequent, these additional taxes will be passed along to all residents as higher prices, making every family’s total tax bill at least double the amount suggested by the school district.

Those of us who believe in the principle of "no taxation without representation" find it to be reprehensible that our school district, which is charged with teaching good government and citizenship, seems to care little about that basic principle."

One mom responded kind of nasty to Mr. Clayton's opinion saying she didn't care how much it cost everyone else, she wanted to give her child the best education. The problem with that thinking is the suggestion that we throw money at a building and it somehow motivates the teachers to teach, and gives them all the rest of the tools they need to do their job better. There are too many missing links for me in that equation. When I looked at the handwritten post card I received in the mail, I saw that not once did it mention better education.

I'm all for renovation of gentrified buildings, but there are fundraisers that these parents could pull off to raise needed money. They could put on concerts or sports events, spelling bees, contests and parades to raise money!

Instead, the school board hired a consulting firm to study the median income of Englewood and suggest what kind of money could reasonably be raised. The firm capped the suggested taxes lower than a third of what this bond issue entails. Then, why so greedy?

I would like to think that if the school board AMENDED its proposition and made a less greedy request next year, and we voted onto council people who were committed to rectifying the budget by other means, well we would gladly foot the bill for classy renovations.

I have to agree with Mr. Clayton this time. He concluded, "Apparently Englewood Schools aren’t all that interested in the principles of representative government and good citizenship as long as they can get their tax increase passed."

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