Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

My colleague's daughter married a Mexican and moved to Mexico. Lately she's been writing about the human crises going on there and how it has touched not only their family, but also their friends visiting and their entire community. She is begging us on this side of the border to make it secure so that the mass weaponry train from America to Mexico stops.

In my thoughts on Hickenlooper v. Tancredo's race for the governor, I cannot help but realize there are two sides to being a good neighbor. Knowing one's boundaries and enforcing them aids the good of both sides. If a relationship has become unhealthy, the customs between the parties need to change. This is true in marriage and friendships, why not in international law and state boundaries?

When I was a kid my teachers and family told me not to color outside the boundaries in my coloring book. I have lately heard the current ideal is to allow the child to express himself on the page. But, then, why give him a coloring book with lines and figures? Wouldn't a cheap blank page do just fine?

I have religious friends who are all about "giving a cup of cold water to the stranger in need," "loving foreigners because God loves all humanity"... but, I keep coming back to giving that cup of cold water not being mutually exclusive of giving a citation if violations of civil or criminal laws occur. A new set of clothing can be given by a religious entity to those who are being deported. No problem with the lines there.

Human Rights, as interpreted by law and judges include duties. Law is based on liberty for all, so why do we hold the law suspect when it attempts to hold the thieves of our society responsible for theft?

Loving a stranger, feeding an alien is not the same thing as loving a terrorist and feeding an illegal immigrant. A line must be drawn in our consciences and in our laws and in our governors.

How is it that an entire political atmosphere can hold the conviction that in depleting their values and resources, safety and law, they can somehow save all the immigrants? Yet, how many of us ask a stranger to stay overnight in our own homes? We somehow trust our gut to go slow, before allowing them into our homes while we are sleeping. Most of us lock our doors at night. Why?

Sometimes I think all the hype about Mexican borders and illegal immigration, and human trafficking is a veil to hide the larger threat of international terrorism. At what point do we throw down the gates?

While it is true that Muslims hold to courtesy and hospitality as a core value, if they believe you are a threat to them in their country, they'll cut your throat after you take advantage of their family for a bed and breakfast. Perhaps we should learn something from them. "Being a stranger, and you fed me" or "helping the orphan and widow in their distress" is not the same thing as housing, clothing, enabling criminal conduct. A line must be drawn.

We are a nation that has rationalized killing babies so that they don't have to suffer without love later in life. Yet, we protect illegals on every front. Our education has lacked the daily reading of Asap's Fables.

No security, no liability for anyone, is our creed of "niceties." Last week National Public Radio (NPR) fired news annalist Williams for "compromising the political correctness of his opinions while reporting the national news." When someone who is supposed to be portraying an analysis of current events is fired and brought instantly to the gates of poverty by his own people for not being "nice enough" in his opinions regarding the strange customs becoming prevalent in a matter of personal air travel security, I think we have all our boundaries imploded.

It is one thing to be kind to a stranger and welcome him in. It is another thing to prefer his customs over our own, to allow his faith that includes political Jihad in his holy teachings over our own faith and security. A line must be drawn.

We teach our children and women to "trust your gut" when encountering strangers, and yet we fire people for saying that they are trusting their gut. Crazy thinking these do-gooders have. Strangers come from all over, but cunning criminality overcomes us when we color outside the boundaries. Does anyone know what is at stake this election?

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

Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/

Closed. Closed for the seasons... and "We Are Nothing"... These are the whispers of experts.

During the City Council study session of April 9, 2009, Alan White, Community Development Director for the City of Englewood presented a 20 minute video presentation from a group of experts from Urban Land Institute (ULI).

There is something to be said for being first, and I'm happy to acknowledge the virtue of creativity. Mayor Wolosyn would have agreed. The expert placemakers acknowledged Englewood's attempt at a transit oriented community as being the first in Colorado.

It's always easier to improve on a prototype, but creating the prototype is hard work. I'd shake Gary Sears' hand for this if he'd care.

Community Development Director White cautioned Council before pressing "play" that City staff do not necessarily agree with the experts' findings. Then the lights went out.

Read more »

Link: http://EnglewoodStory.com

A couple of items stand up shouting at me from this most recent City Council meeting. The first is a letter from Lance Smith, who is the head of Englewood's building department.

It was distributed to Council that night, obviating its way around the library's reference packet for the public.

The letter said that Englewood obtained a low grade on risk assessment because it's building inspectors are performing too many inspections every day. ISO recommends two daily inspections because a thorough inspection takes a little longer.

Englewood performs as many as ten inspections a day. Mr. Smith reported to Council how their grade confused him seeing as they can perform so many inspections in a day. But, safety inspections are not a race.

Read more »