Eye On Englewood

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.

Link: http://www.EnglewoodCitizens.org

God rest ye merry gentlemen, let nothing you dismay... and yet, there lingers dismay in the chill at Christmas for all of us.

In the midst of heartwarming carols, well wishes, and merry lights,where can one buy consolation? Do we turn to heaven, pray? Remind ourselves through candles of the all-sufficient God? Many religious communities recognize the power of identity not in the individual conquering the odds, but in communal sharing conquering together. As Dickens' Scrooge found out, the man who dies alone with the most toys does not really claim the prize.

Hence, the debate over government's duty to give charitably was intoned by new councilman, Rick Gillit, District 4, this Monday evening in the face of many Englewood charity requests amounting to $78,000. for many good projects.

While a government entity is made up of the many humans, and is considered a legal individual, in reality, there is no good will to be had from a system outside the animated collection of taxes and disbursement of the budget, and those who control.

In the face of a December 9, 2009 Memo from the Director of Finance and Administrative Services, stating in bold that tax revenues for 2009 were down by 11.1 percent less than 2008, still Council voted to disburse the maximum charitable spending. "Dogs for veterans of war" won out, as did "food banks" and the "Englewood High School", not for much needed school supplies, but for After Prom activities. "Arapahoe House" lost their requisition as did many others. City Council had budgeted $28,000.00 for charitable giving this year out of city taxes, and therein lies the question.

Since it's a religious time of year, let's talk the religion of gift giving in politics. Religious Scotts believe that government spending on the poor is a proper function of government because it is an efficient way to do the magnanimous thing for the needy. Religious Right Wingers ideally believe that they earned what they got and that no one should take it away from them by force (or by taxes). Religious Left Wingers believe more like the Scotts, that it is the duty of the whole to care for the needs of the vulnerable.

Does the earth and all it's primary resources really belong to the Able-bodied, Able-minded, well-financed? Are they Entitled? Or does the earth, the air we breathe, and all that is in it belong to the Lord and we, the stewards, are to manage and disburse, train and marshal?

It may be an age-old question. But City Council at least questioned it's role this Christmas before it voted.

Some Englewood Citizens believe the role of government is outlined in the Constitution and that charitable giving is not permitted. Especially in lien times. Two arguments: What says the Law as well as what says practical. But, in a Home Rule situation, a city can change the rules and throw out bits of the constitution. That's what Amendment XX gives to Home Rule through the Constitution of Colorado. Still, perhaps, the matter should be brought to the vote of the people, some of whom have been forced to pay taxes to support their neighbors while they may be losing their own homes in lien times.

Since Englewood has bought into the legal process of fining it's residents for snow removal, perhaps they would consider putting that money into the funds--already set up in the budget--that gives back at Christmas time in the way of charitable giving not only to non-profits, but also to vulnerable individuals who qualify. This would solve a lot of problems and discrepancies and ethical preferences. Charitable giving would be limited to the fines brought into the city, or through the good will of contributions willingly provided through others, and not out of the general budget.

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://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

A Halloween yard decoration witch crackles at my knees. “It only takes a few little beggars to spoil the stew!"… I am meeting up with Matt Crabtree on his early morning campaign rounds in Englewood.

“So Matt, with only seven percent of the vote in at Nancy Doty’s office, I thought I’d track you through the leaves and see what good you might offer for the people of Englewood.”

Matthew Crabtree’s open face begins to shine in the chilly open morning sun.

“I hope I can bring some.” He nods and smiles.

“What have people been saying to you on the campaign trail?”

“Well, it’s definitely been interesting,” he admits. “I put my contact number on my door hangers during the very first weekend, I got some hate calls where people would say to me, ‘I know you’re a right-wing conspiracy nut and I hope you lose!’ Then, they would hang up anonymously without even given me a chance to respond. That was unnerving.”

“Are you a right-wing… whatever nut?” I ask.

“No.” He says emphatically. “Actually, if you look at the political parties, I align with my opponent, Woodward, but political parties should not be the issue in a municipal election. Non-partisanship input should be heard on the issues.”

“Okay, let’s start with the only issue Englewood put on the ballot this election. Term issues. Isn’t City Council hoping for a third term? If you get in, wouldn’t that issue also work to your advantage?”

“I was sitting in the audience the night the City voted to add that to the ballot. I almost laughed when I saw the Council vote yes on it. Personally, I believe that adding another four years to their terms is just a third-world prank of dictators.”

“Wow. Third world? Why?”

“Well, it doesn’t help any political geography when there is no change over. Our country’s presidents don’t even get any more than two terms in office. It only reflects our Council’s small-minded attempt to maintain control. So no, even for my benefit. I just don’t believe a third term is a good idea.”

“You’ve done well for being the underdog, Matt. I certainly see a lot of your signs all over, Matt, and I saw your bio in the Englewood Citizen. It looked authentic and focused. Good for you. Anything you wish to add to that?”

“Well, I think all three of us, Rick Gillit, Doug Cohn, and myself are running on similar issues. And we need to get all three of us into Council to make the change over.

“Accessible government, will re-instill trust. A cut in budget spending in the right areas will bring about true value for taxes. I want to bring in more businesses to Englewood and work with people to achieve a better community.”

“Right now the Council has sat on their hands too long. They put requests from residents and businesses into a holding pattern.

“None of them have received any training from the City on the code, or how their roles interact with Colorado law. They have no idea how to research their own code or come up with creative and timely direction, so everyone suffers.

“It’s one thing not to require legal knowledge when you get elected. It’s just not acceptable to continue in that ignorance year after year. They have a job to do. It’s not just a social board. We can’t afford to have them remain ignorant year after year.”

“Hey, must be trick-or-treat in Englewood!” I laugh.

Matt clears his throat. “I’ve watched people actually cry in front of Council, begging for relief, and Council sits there enjoying the power they hold over them. That’s their response. The Mayor did not even know his own job description two months ago when a resident was asking for relief. The City Attorney had to cut into the Mayor’s response, and correct him… ouch!”

I agree. A Mayor should know his City code and his own job description. But, my feet are beginning to hurt and Matt still has ground to cover, so I ask, “Anything else?”

“Well, I think it’s backwards for Englewood to cut out the people’s parades, theater events, social items like fireworks, festivals and concerts as a means to cutting the budget.

“Those kinds of events create community. Great signage creates an interesting community. Community creates tax revenues. I want to be pro-active, not a small-minded micro-manager of someone else’s business.

I say, “Oh, did you hear that Mayor Woodward has some flyer out there telling people to call him before they vote for Matthew Crabtree?”

“Ha-ha, Yes I did. Someone I know in District One took him up on that offer, and called. ‘You know what Jim said?… He said the Appellate Court had overstepped its authority in Englewood and that is why Englewood lost the signage war on Broadway!”

“You gotta be kidding.”

“No. I’m not. City Council, in my way of thinking, should be servants of the law. Not the other way around. The present Council thinks they can do anything they want just because they are “Home Rule".

“I actually believe the Constitution is still alive, that Colorado statutes regulate Home Rule and that Englewood’s City Charter holds the limits for our code. If our codes come up against those laws, then they are wrong, and I hope to lighten up the load legally on our businesses and residents when I’m on council.

“Well, I hear you are making friends on the campaign trail. Keep going to those neighborhood parties and just enjoy the process buddy. I gotta go to work.”

Matt shakes my hand firmly. “Me too.” And shouts at my back, “Have a happy Halloween, Bill!”

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

What's the difference in a candidate for City Council who attends a crucial City budget meeting, grading a stack of papers throughout, and a child who doodles during Mass?

It's the difference it takes in mental acuity to concentrate on the subject matter at hand. A postman understands this. A pilot understands it. Anyone who works with his hands knows it is possible to process other data, but it is not possible to divide one's analytical attention and process two sets of data at once. Candidate for City Council, Linda Olson, hopes she can downplay the difference by her presence at City Council on Monday night.

How does Olson analyze and grade papers while absorbing critical budget allocations taking place?

Is this how she intends to do business for the people of Englewood if elected?

Doug Cohn and I met up outside the Cohn law offices.

I ask Doug Cohn what his plans are for Council compared to the Ms. Olson's stated intent. He answers,"I want a full service city because that is what we are already paying for."

"The city council makes all its budget decisions without seeing the whole budget," says Cohn. "How can intelligent decisions be made about spending forty million dollars if we do not have all the information? Matt Crabtree just requested a copy of the budget on disc, and the Clerk's answer was that the City doesn't have it computerized. None of us feel that's acceptable."

"Why do you feel the need to access the budget directly rather than delegating to City staff?" I ask.

"I see City Council members as the overseers, the policy makers in the City. We have to know what the line items are before we can study and delegate management of the budget to Gary Sears. There are debits, credits and transfers... I have questions about where millions of dollars have gone, grant funds, brownsfield chemical clean up money, and other strange happenings with taxes."

I say that I saw in the Englewood Citizen, Linda Olson's bio which reads like a professional marketing piece, while borrowing phrases from you, (Cohn), such as "transparency of government."

My observation is that Linda, in less than a month before elections, still fails to find time to concentrate on issues facing Englewood. She may be a nice person, but will she really listen when you have an issue? Will she read her council packet before voting? Or, will she bring papers to grade behind her council chair?

I say to Doug, "Olson states that she stands for your voice and your access to city management, yet her own interest in government shows exactly how much she values the access. Where has she been these last few years on Monday evenings?"

"Hummm... good question..."

..."While your concerns over Englewood foreclosures,forced paving of your driveways, grandfathering issues, property rights, dog rights and sewer fees were being debated in Council, when did she ever show up to listen, weigh in with a perspective?"

"Well, Linda is a very nice person, but she's busy with other things."

"While you seem to be running on some lofty Constitutional issues," I say. "What would you say is the most important Constitutional issue to you?"

"I believe that power follows property rights. Those rights are even more important than free speech. If you gut a guy's financial power to assets, or free choice in how to use that property, what is the purpose of owning property?"

"I've heard there's been an ongoing debate about off-leash dog parks over the years. Do you mind saying anything on that?"

Doug says, "Rick Gillit and I agree on that one. Let's find more spaces around town that can be used as off leash places. Not Jason Park. Dogs will never be given a higher priority than children when we are elected. There is a financial liability there for Englewood, and we have enough irons in the courtroom fires already. Humans must be protected. Government's role is to protect the most vulnerable. Not, special interests."

I agree. Olson lacks interest. How can she be a leader? Maybe she wants some Christmas cash. Even a pretty face can clearly betray a casual, "whatever" attitude because actions still speak louder than words.

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

New meaning has been given to this phrase during the election period in Englewood. One night last week, City Council challenger’s signs (Matt Crabtree and Rick Gillit) West of Broadway mysteriously disappeared off of their supporters’ front lawns.

When Rick Gillit found his signs posted all in one yard, he called the police for permission to remove them.

When the Englewood Police arrived on the scene, the local high school coach also drove up asking the police not to make out a report because it was just a cheerleader’s prank and was supervised by adults. The police explained that the so called “prank” was actually trespass and theft.

Police also explained to Mr. Gillit that only the persons whose signs were stolen could submit a formal Complaint. Yet, the signs continue to disappear all over town, including Doug Cohn’s in District 2.

A concerned citizen then requested the Englewood Herald to report the underhanded electioneering activities of the present City Council supervising and instigating the thefts and trespasses, then discounting them as “pranks”.

The reason this activity is much more than a “prank” is because challenging candidates are to be permitted equal access to obtaining office. Citizens are to be provided equal opportunity to the issues through advertising or the entire election may be overturned and the funds spent on this election wasted. Being impeded by Council members who have just voted to allow themselves a third term in office, is not just a prank. It goes to the heart of a republic (under law) and democracy (informed voting).

In 35 years, will these pretty young heads and buff wrestler bodies waste away into mirrors of their mentors?

Take another look at these “mentors.” They have just lost an important Constitutional battle against taking of private property. They have been accused of corruption and malfeasance of office.

Mayor Woodward and Bob McCaslin have been served with an Arapahoe County District Court conspiracy case, together with City Manager Sears and Attorney Brotzman and Judge Atencio. These charges do not depict “responsibility or commitment” but are very serious charges of mismanagement, violating the City Charter and ordinances, wasting taxpayer’s money to ruin individual’s lives whom they dislike or who may have recourse to unseat them, and laziness in training or implementing policies to protect Englewood residents and business owners.

Yesterday, the Denver Post published an article detailing the Constitution does still rule over Home Rule. The present City Council’s choices to take private business property rights was overruled by the Supreme Court. It’s time some shoulders were shaken and some legal advisers were fired. It’s time for a full turn-over of those who govern Englewood as a body.

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

If Steve Schalk and Jon Cook have their differences, these developers agree on one thing. With the present economy, and business lagging on Broadway, Englewood’s signs, banners and mural codes need an overhaul. Mr. Schalk (pronounced shock) is the owner of the Gothic Theater and also Moe’s Barbecue and Bowling Alley near Dartmouth. Cook's newly developed business at Yale and Broadway hosts Colore! Italian cuisine.

On Monday evening, Council was treated to an entourage of complaints from unreasonable sign codes to moms, dads and little kids about dogs rushing them and jumping them in parks. Apparently, the city has decided not to intervene in the parks between unleashed dogs and children by putting up fences. They cited expenses for this consensus. But, a father, also appearing as a professional educator, addressed the liabilities the City would incur if even one child was bitten, and they had not chosen to protect humanity above the beasts.

One mother reprimanded Councilwoman Wilson for physically turning her back while an honor student presented a video on unleashed dogs at last Council’s meeting. Wilson apologized and said she was only searching for something in her purse.

Between these complaints, was an attorney representing the medical marijuana industry warning them about their vote on a moratorium and offering his legal aid free of charge to develop appropriate ordinances.

Laurette Barrantine addressed council on their ethical abuse of Citizen seats on boards and commissions stating the conflict is not just one of finance, but of power and the appearances of undue influence. She tried to clear her own name as the Council had previously claimed she had held a seat on Code Enforcement herself during her term on Council. She stated that yes, at first, this was the case, until she recognized there were ethical issues, and resigned from the board. She challenged both the Mayor and also Jill Wilson to take the high road and accused them of defaulting to what City Attorney Brotzman informed them they could get away with.

Another interesting spokesperson was Laura Bartnick representing her household as a Small Group Home, and requesting the Mayor use his trump card to set the City’s reputation aright or else send her an official letter to specify as to what “full compliance” with the City's remaining two regulations would look like. Her boarding house won two and lost two which didn't get dismissed yet the implications of it are still unclear. Her comments included that the City has not been forthcoming with codes or communications over the two years she has been seeking their help. She related to me that the City’s intention has never been to grandfather in their home, and it has been an unending expensive game of chess or cat and mouse.

There is an old adage, “Just when I found the answers, they changed all the rules.”

During Mayor’s choice at the conclusion of a long evening, he responded that it was unfortunate, but because the City was a Manager Council run government form, that his hands were tied as to the municipal court findings, and he could not see how he could help the Bartnick household.

Attorney Brotzman leaned over and whispered loud enough for the audience to hear, “Yes, yes you can.” (Listen to Mayor at bottom of the page).

A spectator commented, “Does anyone know who the Mayor is here? Because it doesn’t seem like he knows who he is or what power he has.”

If Mayor Woodward gets re-elected this year, he will have served more than two terms on council and by the time he is finished he will have tucked 10 years under his belt.

Well, it was almost midnight and Cinderella and I were both about to turn into pumpkins, so I hit the road.

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.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.

Link: http://www.I2I.org

On Tuesday evening, June 9, 2009, 6m at the Englewood Civic Center, the City hosts an open market for determining the image of two important districts, the Historic Broadway Business District and the as yet undeveloped Swedish Medical Business PUD located between old Hampden and I-285.

Having attended the first open market, I am interested in this "Final" market approach, especially since a public hearing is approaching July 6, 2009.

In the first go round, everyone who attended was given sticky dots to affix to their preferences--as represented by the Planning and Zoning Department--of lighting, artwork, street designs and sizes, mall signage, and cross-walk design.

It made for a fun evening out.

While engrossing myself as an outsider in attempts to understand and make choices, to make my mark as it were, I began to hear murmurs from the other guests.

Business owners were saying, "I like this one, but who is going to pay for it?" A person with a disability stated emphatically, "Don't choose those posts at the crosswalk or we can't get our wheelchairs through them."

A politician argued against the cobblestone look of the cross-walks because the cobblestone laid in Denver's Larimer Square is requires regular maintenance because of bulging, trippage and breakage.

One business owner discussed with a citizen the fact that they each quite liked the idea of overhead lighting on Broadway.

One wanted to see Englewood by satellite. The other wanted an atmosphere to invite nightlife into her otherwise small town. Those overhead white lights would accomplish both economically.

Someone like the arch idea and said, "Couldn't Englewood use this idea to incorporate that bridge from the South of I-285 to the Civic Center?" "No, no." She was corrected, "That arch idea is not presented for the Civic Center, but only for Historic Broadway Businesses."

Upon another person entering the discussion, a critique was made that Broadway's present buildings are only two stories tall at most, and every other one is ranch style height. "Who are they trying to fool with these depictions?" He hissed. "This ain't Broadway."

This point led into whether Englewood intended to rebuild Broadway's lower structures similar to Littleton's redevelopment, and if so, what would happen to the existing businesses?

A chill entered the circle of conversation, then hovered over the voters. They realized that too little information had been handed over, and the depictions of choices were not depictions of the existing Englewood centers.

Further, Englewood does not have the money to improve Broadway presently. It's simply not in the budget.

Questions started arising such as why the City is presenting marketing idioms from two completely separate situations: One being a pre-existing historic Broadway, and the other concerning a largely scraped block of empty land with a few blocks of populated housing and flourishing small businesses.

Someone pointed out that he lives in a small home in the Swedish redevelopment area. "Would my place eventually be taken through eminent domain?"

"Maybe you're land values would increase if it gets zoned commercial," poised another.

There was an awkward shuffling of feet. The hoopla began to wain in the face of larger implications to private property takings.

Questions of business owners' businesses, their rights, taxes and choices being run over by the City 's prostitution of their property to the masses suddenly became a concern.

Why hadn't the City approached the Chamber of Commerce with these matters first or dialogue in a less-expensive way about real proposals and real needs?

Why must the City narrow the already narrow street of Old Hampden while creating a mall that will produce more traffic?

The owner of a mechanic's shop explained how the overlaid redevelopment proposals work against grandfathered business owners. He told his own story about being pushed out of business and forced to sell because he could not obtain a new proprietor/lease until after the six month window of City-allotted time had lapsed.

"There is only so much an owner can do with a building designed for car mechanics." Expressed one sympathetic guest.

Yet, the City ungrandfathered this land owner and forced him out because they had their own plans for that prime corner lot on Logan and I-285. A big beautiful bank now sits there.

The City's position is that outdated, unkempt properties need to be updated or replaced.

Somewhere in the mix are the answers for better stewardship of the existing images and markets of Englewood, and a means to upgrade properties without taking over viable existing rights.

If the City wants to exercise control, it needs to fund its existing rehabilitation budget before implementing frivolous marketing parties and coy marketing plans for eminent domain.

Collecting the funds first and utilizing them for the public benefit is one thing. Diverting tax moneys already vested and raised to other City employee benefits and frivolous exercises is another.

Public Hearing is set for July 6, 2009 to gather public input.