Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizen.com

It used to be that a "profession" such as doctoring, lawyering, running a football, priestly duties and public servants were paid very little. This was true, even though the skilled individuals acting in these fields were considered "experts". They received honor as part of their pay because they were viewed as public servants. To compensate for this feeble pay, they were supported by the good will of the people, commercial interests, patrons, tips, and insurance.

I attended the Colorado Symphony recently and was reminded that Beethovan and Tchaikovsky had patrons to support them. Tchaikovsky had his 13-year association with the wealthy widow Nadezhda von Meck. And,he was honored by the Tsar, awarded a lifetime pension and lauded in the concert halls of the world. Beethovan's first patron was his own piano teacher, Count Waldstein.

In the western world, the pursuit of "entitlement" is sometimes a full time career. Being a lifetime professional has re-defined the meaning of entitlement. It now means someone is intellectually trained beyond the common amateur, and one who is generally comfortable financially. Albeit, because of the personal and confidential nature of many professional services, and often the necessity to place a great deal of trust in them, most professionals are held to ethical and moral standards called rules, regulations or oaths.

City Managers belong to an ethics association. Attorneys are held to an Attorney Code of Ethics, Judges to a Judicial Code, Plumbers to a Plumbers Code, and an Olympian, to an Olympic Code of Ethics. Nevertheless, when "experts" holding your life in their hands fail to do their jobs, and are sued, they are the first to demure that they were merely "practicing" law, or "practicing" medicine or "practicing" management of your civil welfare.

But, home rule managers are not in the same class as regular business managers. Can you guess why? City managers do not create the money they earn. They spend people's taxes. The Citizens very literally are their patrons. Members of City staff also do not make money for their employers, ie: "We, the people" but instead spend it, lots of it. They enjoy your money much like royalty.

Quite unlike a business owner who creates substantial income as a product of their ingenuity and work ethic, the news article in Your Hub shows how a City Manager gets to name his budget without showing a work product, gets a budget approved, and then plays all year long on it. Several residents showed up to the Englewood Budget Hearing to protest this very real situation. Ida Mae Nicholls particularly protested having to pay for an Assistant City Manager as well as a regular City Manager, putting Englewoods' budget a hundred thousand dollars above neighboring cities.

Mama always told me to watch out for those shysters who want an up-front deposit before doing the job. She reasoned, "What holds them to any standard if they have already been paid? What is the incentive?"

Meanwhile business owners who are already sweating away to maintain a viable service or product for their customers, are forced to keep receipts, collect taxes, figure percentages and pay the special government districts for the right to provide jobs and make money. Taxes, fees, fines and regulations assessed against business owners grow in larger and larger sums. This money is not being carried into the public river. Instead, city managers are getting paid more and more, while still enjoying greater benefits. Cushy job, that!

What is this topsy-turvy honor system? Business owners are the ones who creatively provide for the public desires. They are the ones who should be honored, not taxed for their services or treated like slaves to the so called professionals.

Business owners in Englewood should start attending the City Council's meetings and speaking their minds on the value of their work, compared to the value of the City managers. Business owners should demand their vote on anything that concerns their ability to function in the City or to earn money.

And all the citizens should consider the real comparisons of real managers and those who only call themselves managers by professional advantage.

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.EnglewoodStory.com

Re: Judge Vincent Ross Atencio's Registration #7769 linked through petition ballot to City Councilman Bob McCaslin's crusade against innocent homeowners on Pearl.

With sentencing still scheduled for October 9, 2009, for City Councilman McCaslin to have circulated the petition for Judge Atencio's inclusion on the November ballot to the Bartnick's neighbors on Pearl, who were witnesses in the case, seems like a clumsy attempt for payback, and perhaps unethical. If the Englewood judge is elected again, his salary is set over $121,000.00 annually.

On Thursday, August 13, 2009, witnesses for Englewood prosecution foiled the City’s plan to validate the prosecution of boarding house owners. Tricia Langon, Senior Planner, testified that the boarding house amendment “was not returned to Planning and Zoning Commission for their approval, because only major modifications or amendments to the code are returned to the Commission for review.”

Langon also testified that despite the Council’s October 6, 2008 enactment of Ordinance 55, (Boarding Houses) such residences are not businesses, but regular residences. They are not home occupations, and they do not require a license.

The jury was then released early, with the judge and prosecution both recommending the legs of the boarding house ordinance be dismissed in favor of the Bartnicks, and remanded to City Council for review.

Defense immediately went to the throat of the validity of the Ordinance because the Englewood City Charter, Section 58, declares that ALL modifications or amendments to ordinances must revert to Planning and Zoning for study and recommendation, even if the City Council chooses to disregard the recommendation. This is to prevent hasty enactments which often fail the test of justice.

The role of the volunteer citizens’ Planning and Zoning Commission to obtain legal council on proposed zoning codes as to fair housing, equal access and other zoning issues, while civil engineering counsel can ascertain measurable densities and standards. Hasty decisions also circumvent justice simply because they feel like a hard pressure sales job. Only time can allow that kind of intimidation to subside in favor of common sense.

The City circumvented its own Charter many times in the making of new Boarding House provisions, but this was the instance for Defense Council’s request for a directed verdict Thursday afternoon.

Judge Atencio taken aback, hemmed and hawed, and then declined his power and duty to declare summary judgment finding accurately that “what Defense is asking cuts to the heart of the ordinance”. Judge then determined “to allow the jury to decide the facts.”

The electric moment of truth was over. What was left of the material facts is unclear, as Tricia Langon had also admitted to the Bartnicks having pulled proper permits for zoning, but that under the new ordinance, parking areas require paint striping. Striping is an interesting dilemma if, unlike the Bartnicks whose back parking area is paved, the homeowner’s parking is unpaved. Keeping paint on dirt parking might prove to be an expensive year around feat for Englewood residences.

August 14, 2009, the jury, unaware of the previous days’ electricity, was sent to deliberate. They found the Bartnicks guilty of a shell of an Ordinance.

The implications of the Englewood verdict relate not only to setting City precedence for ungrandfathering pre-existing properties into newer codes, but also as to human rights and property ownership, the right to freely associate in the privacy of your own home with whomever you wish. If a neighbor accuses you of being unrelated, so be it.

What City Councilman, Bob McCaslin, was unable to accomplish for his friends, Ron and Robin Noffsinger, through Council legislation,

he turned up in the middle of Pearl Street to celebrate Saturday morning after the verdict was won through judicial McFoolery.

McCaslin's zeal short-sighted his actions linking the Englewood City Council to the very neighbors who had listed their names as witnesses against the so-called business. These neighbors each signed the good-old boy petition for re-election of small town political Judge. This is the same Judge who had refused to recuse himself earlier in the case.

Matthew Crabtree, challenger for the At-Large Council position, stumbled upon the judge's petitions for re-election, thus the confirmation of the City Councilman's conspiracy with the neighbors and the judge, when the clerk gave them to him on September 2, 2009.

The Judge is running unopposed this November. McCaslin is not up for re-election until next year.

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

John Moore, District 2 Council Representative in Englewood, cut off Candidate, Rick Gillit's presentation this past Monday during his presentation to City Council regarding John Moore’s flip-flop routine on a variety of subjects. John stated that Mr. Gillit’s 5 minutes were up, and that he would respond later in the evening to Mr. Gillit’s “campaign tactics”.

Mr. Gillit complied immediately, though his humiliation was felt by the tense audience. Mr. Gillit did however rebut the glib insinuation that his interest in civil ethics was merely a campaign gimmick. After all, Rick Gillit has been representing the people of Englewood and their concerns with this Council’s unethical practices in budget, code irregularities, open meetings issues and real estate grandfather problems for well over a year.

Suddenly, since he has declared himself as a District 4 Candidate for Change, Mr. Gillit is being shut down or threatened by the City bouncer. A police officer standing by is ready to physically remove any resident who does not finish his or her presentation in the time allotted, and ousted from the Council Room and charged with “Disrupting a Lawful Assembly.”

When Rick Gillit was asked how he felt about John Moore's political strong arming, he responded, "John Moore accused me of using Campaign Tactics. Too funny. I have been presenting for two years and been a candidate for over a year but now he accuses me of using campaign tactics".

The problem with threats and rancor from Council is that no-where does the City Charter or City Ordinances mandate that a citizen who appears to present an issue must be limited to 5 or even 10 minutes. These times are arbitrary and are utilized by Council to Intimidate and Abuse (in the criminal sense) those who express disapproval.

Colorado Revised Statute 18-9-108 defines “Disrupting a Lawful Assembly” this way. “A person commits disrupting lawful assembly if, intending to prevent or disrupt any lawful meeting, procession, or gathering, he significantly obstructs or interferes with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action, verbal utterance, or any other means.”

In other words, intent to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting is a required element of the offense. Even if Mr. Gillit had engaged in some kind of campaign tactic, this is not a lawful reason for Mr. Moore to shut him off and close down his presentation so rudely.

In other situations, this same Council has permitted a group of presenters who were unsure of what to say to stand up and give their allotted time over to one teacher, Pearl Street resident Gregg Alan-Pickett, who was used to giving professional presentations. Council allowed Mr. Pickett to present slander against law abiding residents of different color, race and religion, why? (May 5, 2008 minutes) Because he was serving the Council’s particular end to outlaw “Poets’ Rest” a private residence for students in Englewood.

When it came time for rebuttal, however, Mayor Woodward chose to utilize undue influence and interrupt and shut down a foreign student's presentation who resided in the home and stood for Poets’ Rest, why? (September 2, 2008 minutes) Because he was opposed to Council’s intent to remove the residence.

Process is important when reviewing the facts, and hearing out the full concern of a resident is the only fair thing to do. Will the November 2009 Elections in the City of Englewood may be able to unseat the rancor of power that has existed of late?

A candidate who has exercised his own private investigations into facts of the issues might prove to be a dependable alternative to the status quo. Elect Rick Gillit. Electric Gillit!

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org/

la,lah...Always turns out this way....

While listening to the minutes on the http://www.englewoodcitizens.org/ site, the McCaslin charade about championing the new cat leash law for resident's wayward domestics had me in a fit of tears. Bob's Comments How can the man take himself seriously? Is McCaslin going to run on this Cats-On-Leashes platform?

Then came the discussion on picking up strays and neutering or spading them and letting them go back to their neighborhoods after. "Because of course, they have their purposes catching rodents"... Was that Wayne Oakley?

Jefferson demurred that he was "only concerned about the humane effects of the traps." Jefferson's comments.

Cats are like people in that they cannot reproduce to catch rodents if you sterilize them all...crazy little fact of nature. Is Englewood on a hidden mission to eliminate cats? The nature of cats and dogs are different, is that too obvious to mention?

But, it could be a value for dollar to take your cat's collar off and let the city sterilize it for you. Or, perhaps you are a concerned citizen who believes this secret sterilization is a bizarre budgetary line item in the City's policy expenditures.

After this, Matt Crabtree addressed Council with concerns about the enormity of funds given to Community Development.

Mayor Woodward replied (during Mayor's choice at the end of the meeting) that he is offended that he has to explain himself, and is getting impatient with his feet being held to the fire. I found his comments a little catty. Perhaps he hadn't realized that by this time, Council had switched subjects.

It occurred to me how much better Englewood City Council is for weekend entertainment than any other vice out there. Well, maybe you'd best get a few beers before you sit down.

Because then came District 4's candidate for change, Rick Gillet's, articulate complaint regarding Council Woman Jill Wilson's double duty as a member of the Code Enforcement Advisory Committee as an ethical conflict
1) for taking a seat that a citizen might better serve on,
2) for using undue influence and her power as a City Council woman with inside information flowing both directions,
3) for the public perception of undue influence.

Responding to Mr. Gillet, Mayor Woodward and Councilman Oakley, each stated that yes, they could see how there might possibly be a conflict, but he and Oakley were hesitant to deprive Councilwoman Wilson from her seat as she is their friend and associate and they believe the best of her. Oakley specifically stated that he believed undue influence was not the same thing as abuse of power. After all, Wilson only gets the same singular vote as the next volunteer board member.

What they failed to address was the fact that Council's interests in reporting on citizens for code enforcement (I)nformation or action by way of (S)ervice has trebled in 2008 compared to the 2007 record of Council Requests, and it has doubled in 2009.

The facts show that Wilson's influence has indeed grown in both directions, not only her opinions to the Code Enforcement Advisory Committee, but also directed from the militant power of Counsel against specific addresses and named residents.

When she asked City Attorney, Dan Brotzman, whether she could ethically vote for herself, he advised her that she could do so as long as she didn't believe she would be gaining anything economically from her vote for herself.

Thankfully, Rick Gillet is a candidate for District 4, up for election this November, because he has the courage to go to bat for a more accessible government in Englewood and are up for November Election. When it came down to a vote of the present City Council, Jill was still sitting on both Council and Code Enforcement. Council discussion and vote.

When I reviewed the 16 pages of Council's Requested Actions from 2007 onward, I realized that this Council has not been interested in drug abuse in the City, home foreclosures, increasing services or benefits to the public, or working on creative avenues to fill the storefronts.

Page after page is filled with hundreds of line items of Council members reporting on Citizens for Code Enforcement issues and requesting legal or police action. Perhaps your address is on this list?

As to finances, there is no special line item budget investigation requested, nor is there a request for background on any special funding or increase in staff salaries.

No-one on City Council asked for legal or civil investigation on the boarding house issue they enacted the new statute and ungrandfathered the current law abiding residents according to whim in 2008, nor did they investigate ways to resurrect the Englewood Parade.

Council did succeed in making residents so angry that on 2/11/08, Council requested information about how to provide security for their own council meetings.

On 3/24/08 McCaslin proposed a (S)ervice to "fine citizens without Court appearances," deeming them "Code Violators" without being given a chance to plead and defend themselves, to have a trier of facts in a fair trial. Bob, it is called the right to face your accusers. It is called "due process."

On 04/07/08 Wilson requests (S)ervice on EEF/EMRF Ordinances.

Recently Council members even requested and voted into approval a designated Code Enforcement person to attend to all of their personal complaints, including evenings and weekends.

On Monday evening, Council brought forward their "bucket" for holding new names on their power trip lists. They voted to extend their term limits from two years to three. Now, in November elections, Citizens get to vote on 12 full years of this Council's personal vendettas against them. By that time, they will hold a very full bucket indeed.

Council Member Bob McCaslin provided a motion for Council Bill No. 30, a bill for an ordinance submitting to a vote of the registered electors of the City of Englewood at the next regularly scheduled municipal election a proposed amendment to Article III, Section 22, “Terms,” of the Englewood Home Rule Charter.

Council Bill no. 30 is a measure to extend the term limits of each council member from 2 terms to 3 terms. This measure was brought forward originally during a Study Session by Bob McCaslin on January 26th.

Are you on City Council's list? Did you get a surprise visit from a Police Officer on or about the 4th of July to warn you not to set off fireworks in the City this year simply because you were on their list from last year? Dum, da da dummmm.