Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizen.com/

Announcing the 2011 Englewood Budget Hearing. Monday, September 20, at 7:30 pm, Floor 2, Englewood Civic Center.

Please Take Notice: City Council will actually release the proposed budget the week after the hearing, on September 25, 2010...strangely backwards, but oh well. You can still register your general ideas, strategies, complaints and priorities this Monday at the hearing.

Note that it is the City's lawful duty by City Charter as well as the Colorado Constitution, article XX and the Colorado Revised Statutes §§29-20-101, 205, 24-65.1-101, et seq., 30-28-101, et seq., 30-28-201, et seq., or 24-32-111 to provide full and complete services to roadways, parks, fire, utilities, courts and police enforcement. Englewood is not permitted to cut these services by law. You can rely on your payments for these services through your taxes, because the government must fulfill their duties. It is the City's duty "to provide for the peace, welfare and safety" of your neighborhoods and your well being.

Do you find it okay that Manager Sears has proposed cutting the fire marshal position after the current fire marshal retires this year? Do you think that cutting city services is your sacrificial duty during a bad economy? Chief Vandermee of the Police Force is also retiring in May and another officer is leaving on his own accord. The City is not planning to replace these services for you next year, cutting services you will need and have grown used to.

It has been suggested that the City Manager's office itself is top heavy in the budget. Englewood recently compared itself to Northglenn, Colorado, a similar sized populous, but I've checked the figures and this is what I found:

Northglenn published a 2010 fiscal report, showing the total personnel expenditures for the city manger's office budgeted was $343,482 with a Full Time Employee (FTE) count of 4 people. The City of Englewood's 2010 budget, page 68, indicated personal expenditures of $591,340 and an FTE count of 5. The City of Englewood has one more employee, and a difference in personal costs of $247,858!

Total Expenditures for the Northglenn City Manager's office is $614,151, whereas the City of Englewood is $668,633.

Also note that the City of Northglenn has decreased its City Manager's staff/FTE by 3 people since the 2008 economic crunch, whereas the City of Englewood has decreased their City Manager's staff by .38(about half of a part-time position) since 2008. Englewood employs Gary Sears at $169,540, City Assistant Mike Flarity at $134, 410, Executive Assistant Sue Carlton Smith at $61,145, and Communications Coordinator LeAnn Hoffines at $61,046. And, don't forget that 42% of a part-time employee. These figures do not include cars, expensive seminars, gas or healthcare bennies. The price of all those extras to the citizens of Englewood costs even more. Nice...

Sure seems like some of these people could afford the hit that most of Englewood has already taken in their jobs. The City of Northglenn does not employ an assistant for every job. Why does Englewood? Perhaps because the head of Englewood has been moonlighting by teaching courses at the University of Denver, and playing golf on City time. Now, Manager Sears is proposing the City cut your services to you. This is the opposite strategy that Northglenn has taken.

Your "City’ Manager’s duty shall require the faithful performance of all administrative duties." The City Manager's duties and powers are enumerated in Sections 1-6A-2 and 1-6A-3 of Englewood's Muncipal Code, as well as the Englewood Home Rule Charter. Section 1-6A-1:E.M.C. (Code 1985, § 1-6A-1)

City Manager Powers.

C. Investigate;
D. Overrule Officials;
E. Delegate Duties;
F. Appoint Administrative Committees; and
G. The City Manager shall have all other powers necessary to perform any duty or responsibility conferred upon him/her by Charter or ordinance. Section 1-6A-3: E.M.C. (Code 1985, § 1-6A-3)

Mayor Woodward said last month that he used to call himself a fiscal conservative, but now he just calls himself fiscally responsible. Is this a joke? Especially in light of last week's Emergency declaration regarding Englewood's finances. A month ago, Mayor said he hadn't yet seen the "trip point." (that line in the available inventory that says an emergency is warranted). Two weeks later the "trip point" apparently arrived.

Last year at the public debates between candidates, Mayor Woodward stated the city has a "policy" not to go below 10% in its reserves. The policies that the Mayor enforces against its citizens are considered law with fines and jail associated for violation of them. Apparently,the Mayor is held to a different standard and sits comfortably above the law when subverting this policy of the City's important financial reserves.

Still, Mayor Woodward says he isn't one to micro-manage the budget so long as the Rec Center does not run out of toilet paper. He may be covering his own butt on this one. Seriously, go out and represent your higher perspective.

If you cannot make the budget hearing, please be sure to contact you district representative with your thoughts. District 4 Representative Rick Gillit and District 1 Representative Joe Jefferson are both actively involved with listening to their constituents.

Link: http://www.eyeonenglewood.com

Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/

Has anyone noticed housing and property tax assessments continuous rise? Yet, Englewood School attendance is low, so low an entire school in Englewood closed down a couple of years ago. The only legal way to raise property taxes is by public vote or in proper relation to the school enrollment.

Yet, City Manager Gary Sears continued to budget and spend as if the ceiling was merely foggy. Absolutes do not pertain to him, because he is absolutely above the law.

The official spokesperson for Englewood government, Tom Munds, reported in the Wednesday edition of the Englewood Herald, front page: the "gloomy picture" Manager Gary Sears has finally owned up to. The problem is, Sears is not cutting the budget in his own salary or benefits, or those of his top cronies.

Instead, the Englewood Herald cites that Sears proposed "transferring about $600,000 from other city funds, and reallocating the Long Term Asset Reserves to the City's general fund!" Is anyone screaming about this theft?

Not Mayor Woodward. Not a peep from that fearless leader is heard. The only place Woodward responds is in the additional targeting of many various City services such as street repair, Parks and Recreation, the Summer Concert Series, and the Art Shuttle. Then, Woodward is reportedly moved. "I don't think eliminating the Art Shuttle is a wise place to cut spending because a lot of residents depend on it."

Nevertheless, Mayor does not ask that employees take several more furlough days, nor does he suggest that the heads of department salaries are actually cut rather than merely frozen.

Tom Munds again reported in the same edition of the Englewood Herald that a Code Enforcement Advisory Committee special meeting is scheduled on the ordinance governing the parking of trailers and recreational vehicles in one's own driveway.

Back up. Munds writes, "The turnout was sparked by a flier indicating the council was about to take action to pass more restrictive rules. However, about half the people left the July 19 meeting when Mayor Jim Woodward said no council action was anticipated on the issue."

Yet, special meetings have been scheduled to quickly address the issue. Munds admits the advisory recommendation could be to leave the rules unchanged, but that the City's Code Enforcement Officers have been told not to enforce the current rules. Apparently, the City's newest ordinances do already encroach onto private driveways, and the residents who packed out City Hall on July 19th should not have been so easily dissuaded by Mayor's downplay of the situation.

Considering the discrepancy in Mayor's wages to City Manager's wages, Woodward certainly has been accommodating. The problem is, Mayor is not the only person being taken advantage of. His job is to protect the people's resources and welfare, oversee that government administrates Parks and Recreation and street maintenance to the fullest extent, and insure Englewood's future Assets are not raped.

This is a public emergency, and it did not happen over night. District Four Representative Gillit has been harping on the fact, continuously shut down by the rest of council, as was the infamous Laurett Barrantine's (District 3) vocal tirades on the matter. But no "Emergency Meeting" has been called over the City's finances.

Public Criminal number one is hiding in plain sight. What's a Mayor to do? Especially since, he has been complicit all these years in creating the fiscal emergency.

Link: http://www.eyeonenglewood.com

The latest full house at City Council meeting turned up when Council member, Linda Olsen, complained about seeing recreational vehicles, trailers and caravans on the streets and in driveways of her neighborhood. She requested that her friends on council implement laws to address the problem. Arapahoe Acres is an upscale Englewood neighborhood where each address has a unique piece of art in the front yard.

Political opponent, Matthew Crabtree, and some Concerned Englewood Citizens stirred the pot. He says, "For clarification, this was this was NOT a discussion about parking on the street - this is a debate on how you can use your own driveway." The house was packed when people turned up to represent themselves. That would be their right to freely and openly express a pursuit of fun in life. Mayor Woodward refused to let so many people speak, and Olsen herself apologized, --not for her attitude,-- but for so many people feeling compelled to come out and represent on “such a non-issue.” Then, the tempers flared. To an outsider, it seemed a bit like July 4th celebrations.

Afterwards, Crabtree, approached Olsen to encourage her once again to make these kinds of decisions public so that there is a fair fight and the people are heard. But Olsen leaned in to quietly lecture Crabtree, “Do you realize that I now fear for my life?” She hissed. “I need a police escort just to get out to my car after this meeting!”

A criminal case is being served this week against the City Council by Douglas Cohn against the Mayor of Englewood, Jim Woodward, and the City Manager, Gary Sears for various violations of the Tabor Act, the most recent being the green solar panels. A more efficient manner of erecting green building standards in Colorado would be to enact a building code utilizing solar attic fans and 2”x 6” exterior framing, costing taxpayers nothing. Or, erecting windmills in open areas to generate energy.

Last year, a couple running a boarding house for seminary students and missionaries, the Bartnicks, filed for a special recall election on several of City Council, then decided instead to put their efforts towards a lawsuit against certain Council members and staff for acting outside their scope of legal authority and for illegal lawmaking, including retrospective laws, a bill of attainder and the City’s triple religious discriminatory prosecutions. An unwarranted search and seizure escalated by Englewood’s top judge, Mr. Atencio, was included by the District Judge, and the City is compelled to Answer charges this month.

Another case was filed by an Englewood Developer on Ogden Street for the City’s intermeddling in a land deal, which ended up costing the developer months and money, which the City paid back in restitution to the tune of approximately $60,000.

Again, in the case where an Englewood industrial developer over shot his lot survey, and developed on a neighboring property, all approved by Englewood’s Building Department, the City is again defending its reckless disregard for your money at work.

This is the same government that asked for their two terms to be enlarged to three, and won the vote in November, 2009. This is the City Manager whose salary is $165,000, with added travel and vacation packages, and who just slashed your benefits across the board from street maintenance, snow removal and paving, to parks and staffing.

Bloomberg reported this week: “Hundreds of residents of one of the poorest municipalities in Los Angeles County shouted in protest last night as tensions rose over a report that the city’s manager earns an annual salary of almost $800,000.

“An overflow crowd packed a City Council meeting in Bell, a mostly Hispanic city of 38,000 about 10 miles (16 kilometers) southeast of Los Angeles, to call for the resignation of Mayor Oscar Hernandez and other city officials. Residents left standing outside the chamber banged on the doors and shouted “fuera,” or “get out” in Spanish.”

“The Los Angeles Times reported July 15 that Chief Administrative Officer Robert Rizzo earns $787,637 -- with annual 12 percent raises -- and that Bell pays its police chief $457,000, more than Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck makes in a city of 3.8 million people. Bell council members earn almost $100,000 for part-time work.”

Yes, when citizens turn up and turn out their government, is when they see the shenanigans going on and figure out how the system works to correct the funny business.

Link: http://EnglewoodStory.com

An interesting fact about Englewood's definition of household is that in 2004, Mayor Bradshaw enacted it in violation of the City's official purpose to mirror it's household code with the average of surrounding cities, the size of Englewood.

Instead, Englewood's definition of household became the most narrow of all.

In 2004, the newest legal definition of "Englewood Household" was enacted against Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation of having no less than 4 unrelated people, that being defensible by law. This number also mirrored the median of other similar communities. Finally, that number seemed forward thinking enough to include developers' aims to build larger homes.

With City Attorney Brotzman's help, however, the definition of Household is being used to target people hosting exchange students, out of work sister-in-laws, x-spouses, or visiting friends in summer.

In one case, the City prosecuted a boarding house of artists in Englewood, knowing full well that it was a boarding house, but choosing to prosecute it for the definition of household anyway. The City's definition turned out to be too vague to use in the prosecution and it was dismissed secretly (against criminal rules of procedure) that dismissals must be procured only in Open court.

In another instance, an out-of-work family was forced to leave his Englewood sister's home or she would face prosecution for violating Englewood's definition of household.

In Englewood, there is no freedom to have an elder hostel or youth hostel for travelers.

But, Englewood doesn't come right out and actually define the terms of their narrow codes. They cannot do so legally, because of anti-discrimination laws.

Recently, when not-in-my-back-yard philosophers complained about 2 students living in a four bedroom home with the owners, the City reinvented the code for Englewood Boarding houses. Still, they did not define what Englewood's code meant by "related" or "unrelated". After eight months of debate and drafts, the new code was reenacted with the same mistake it had originally. It was too vague to prosecute.

Nevertheless, such residences, as of October 6, 2008, have been legislated by color of law out of all Englewood residential areas and into multi-family zones with apartment buildings or industrial areas.

Since Boarding houses are not permitted to exist in an apartment setting, the purpose of relegating them to the apartment zone is a little obvious. The message is: "Don't Want No New People... Go Away."

What is your personal definition of family? Has it ever changed with marriage, divorce or simply because of the situation someone you love finds themselves? Are you an inclusive person, or do you believe "every man is an island" and should traverse every phase of life without aid of any kind?

Are you one to practice entertainment or hospitality? Many cultures value hospitality above all. One of the most valuable times in my life came when I spent a year abroad, living with a family. In Englewood, by Englewood Municipal Code, this arrangement of hosting a student is illegal and criminal if you also happen to have a stepmother, sister in law or uncle in the home.

Is a Realtor's liability compromised if she sells an Englewood bungalow to an unmarried couple with children?

Perhaps you own a three-bedroom rental in Englewood with more than two unrelated people living in it?

No wonder Englewood's Flood Middle School closed in 2006. A City's duty is to be creative in attracting families, and one of those ways is to be hospitable to nannys, cooks, gardeners and... grandmas. Englewood is too closed minded to appeal to the upper class.

Mother-in-law cottages in Englewood neighborhoods used to be popular and useful. Now, they are illegal. The code works to isolate people rather than promote neighborliness.

Why doesn't the City encourage housing for students attending schools nearby? Instead, it prosecutes any more than two renters per home, regardless of the size of the house.

Students are on the cusp of finding a mate and settling down. It's likely they will stay were they have found friends rather than enemies.

Some people believe that the public officials are all that needs changing, and that the selective prosecutions of such laws will solve themselves.

But, If the law is unjust, is it unqualified to be law? Especially since variances cannot be approved for specified Uses according to zoning rules and the Appeals Committee.

If the neighbors are concerned with loud noises, with weeds, with neighborhood values, or with traffic, why not fight those battles with specific codes addressing those issues rather than by this government defining your family?

In 2004, when the definition of household had it's public hearing, one man testified about weed violations, and another about a neighborhood business with too many trucks.

A third testimony was that code enforcement and the police who were on the same block, turned a blind eye continuously. Employing the definition of household to these issues made no sense.

Does a renter, necessarily just because he is a renter, fail to plant flowers or a garden or mow the lawn? We all know of home owners who allow their properties to fail. The issue isn't really one of relationships at all.

And, since when was it government's business to determine relationships within a home?

If the City wishes to legislate morality, then they should, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Hospitality is a cornerstone of our society. Never more than this time, in global bank foreclosures, housing crises, and business crises, will your family's generosity be remembered, honored.

Except... Not in my backyard.

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

On Monday evening, the topic of discussion came round to the City’s pet peeve of the gas operated golf carts at Broken T Golf Course. The carts are not using green energy. But to turn the relatively new carts into brand new green machines, Gary Sears set forth a proposal for Council to consider. The City would be asked to fund the construction of a $200,000 storage facility, and all new electric carts, where the golf carts could be plugged in and recharged every night.

It was estimated on Monday that for every round of golf, a gas operated cart is costing the city twenty cents in fuel. Nobody asked whether upgrading the budget to include the new construction and purchase of "green" carts was really the City's highest priority in this economy.

For a bit of recent history: the City reduced a large chunk of land kept as a long-term investment asset, to the sale and development of the golf course, Broken T, which now serves the interests of the few. Namely: Denver's Singles Golf and Englewood’s City Manager, Gary Sears, who is listed not only as Englewood's Mayor, but also as employed by Broken T in the White Pages, and those who broker deals with him over the green. It seems to me these few interested persons could fit the bill for the twenty cents of fuel costs by raising fees.

Or, perhaps they could hold a fundraiser to raise a new electricity-charged storage facility.

Batteries routinely die, and electricity is the most expensive form of energy Englewood could buy. In eight years, the electric carts at Broken T Golf Course will have to be recycled and replaced, whereas the fuel operated carts have engines that will continue to run.

If Englewood has $200,000 to burn in the budget, then perhaps it should invest in equipment to make its meetings and study sessions more open and accessible to the public. Perhaps it could build bathrooms in the parks that do not have toilet facilities, as one resident asked for last year. But I can see why the City Manager's whims might be considered more important than a common resident's more urgent park request, don't you?

While we are on the subject of priorities, I'll add this. If anyone does hope to address their city on any well-researched topic, they may as well put it into outline form.

Council just changed the rules for wasting their time with your puny requests. You now have three minutes to state your name, address and explain your cause. Forget your research. Otherwise, a newly purchased traffic light will go off and humiliate you publicly. Police bouncers are still available to this Council if you exercise your right to freedom of speech over the traffic light flashing.

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

On February 22, 1010, Dianna Wray Tomasso was asked to speak during the City Council Study Session. Tomasso is a gifted, educated woman who provided her resume to the City of Englewood as her "two cents" in obtaining a National Historic Designation for Englewood's Broadway Post Office. Hear her presentation on ECOG website.

You don't have to listen very long to realize the Mayor and Tomasso had privately shared a letter from the Post Office and discussed the price the Post Office had suggested to pursue a place on the National Register of Historic Places. Deeming it to be substantially unfounded, Tomasso was asked to present her own bid for the project, which she did on February 22.

Whose property is the post office? Does it belong to the City of Englewood, the State of Colorado or to the Private Postal Service? It seems it is the duty of the owner to decide whether they wish for their property to obtain a place on the registry because although there are grants to be had, there are also extremely costly limitations and restrictions to building renovations that the owner may not wish to be subjected to.

It could be a wrestling match. The fact that the Mayor and Tomasso have included Representative Dianna Degette into the mix, suspiciously sets the post office up for a unfair fight by weighing in the interests of the entire State of Colorado to take away its own choice.

In any government building undertaking, a bidding process must be undertaken. Englewood skipped this bidding process entirely. It has it's own historic register of places on which the Skerrit House is listed, and another home at 2734 S. Acoma in Englewood. Neither of these homes cost $5,000 to simply apply for and obtain a historic status. But, a few years ago, Councilman Ray Tomasso disbanded the historical society in Englewood.

Another question one might have is why this $5,000 in payment was granted to Dianna Wray Tomasso in a private study session on February 22, 2010? Aren't policies and unbudgeted changes to the City's finances supposed to be published for a public hearing or sent to the vote of the people? Nevertheless, when Councilman Rick Gillit, confronted the rest of council with what they were about to vote on, City Manager, Gary Sear stated that he had the authority to do it on his own and the fact that he was allowing Council in on the action was simply a courtesy.

Apparently Council did not understand Sear's slight of them and his own undertaking of full power. They all voted affirmatively, minus Gillit's vote.

After all, Tomasso's offer was only available for the evening. The woman had to know immediately or would refuse to weigh in with all her experience and price tag to boot.

Once, again, City Council voted to spend the taxpayers' money without letting them know anything about the issue or the change in budget policy, once again ignoring the Colorado open meetings laws, obviating the bid policy and succumbing once again to Gary Sear's personal power mongering. After all, it was only a matter of $2500, or was it $2800, or Hmmmm. Maybe the City will be stuck with the full $5000 pay check to Tomasso if it fails to raise half from private investors. It's really not Council's money that Council is disseminating any way. It's yours.

Then, City Attorney, Nancy Reid, asked the City to consider another change in its policies. Apparently, the Board of Appeals has been having a difficult time with absenteeism, which prevents a quorum, and short a quorum in light of a hearing, means the parties must wait for at least another couple of months to be heard. The absenteeism of the board members is causing some grumbling amongst residents and developers trying to work in Englewood.

So, Ms. Reid requested that the problem be solved by allowing a faithful alternate board member to step in and fill the quorum space required. After all, he or she has not had a difficult time showing up for every meeting, but not being allowed to vote.

The request, being reasonable, was voted on and passed. Once again, I ask you, is a City policy change of any kind to be presented privately to Englewood Council and voted on in a study session where most residents are not permitted to speak?

Take Note. Voting records and official actions are mounting up.

The only way to change the status quo is to vote differently with better educated persons in the next election, but having just passed one in November, you must wait for a long long time, and who knows what other policies will be enacted behind your backs?

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.englewoodcitizens.org

Allow me to introduce you to Jon Cook, seasoned Englewood entrepreneur and developer. Just before Monday's Council meeting, Cook contacted Council Woman, Jill Wilson, and asked to speak with the City. During her Council's Choice section at the end of the meeting, she did her job and introduced him to speak.

A discussion hotly ensued in which Councilman, Bob McCaslin whined about not being warned before the meeting that Mr. Cook wanted to present, and that no-one knew what he planned to say. Then the discussion turned to procedural issues as to whether Mr. Cook could speak during Council's Choice, out of order from where residents are normally allowed to participate. A vote was taken, and Council asked for it. Jon Cook presented to council regarding a incident that occurred, where a representative from the Englewood Community development department made several harassing remarks to Jon Cook and the owner of Colore restaurant.

Colore, is a great little restaurant at Yale and Broadway, staffed by it's owners to ensure the quality of the food and the hospitality to its customers. When I visited there myself this month, I thought, "Now Englewood will give Pasquini's a run for their money."

But the developer, had his tenants, Colore, down his neck after Tricia Langon came with her arrogant ultimatums, "We can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way." Apparently, there was no other way she offered to do them.

She was talking about an advertising banner being taken off the building when she slapped her card on the counter. Colore owners responded, "But our landlord told us we could do this."

Her response? "We at the City know all about Jon Cook and we have our issues with him."

Colore immediately ragged on Jon Cook for bringing them into Englewood's domain just to be unfairly treated. After all, as Mr. Cook pointed out to Council, there are storefronts and grocery stores with banners all over Englewood.

Jon Cook ceremoniously handed back Langon's "calling card" to Mayor Woodward, looked at Bob McCaslin and said, "If you have an issue with me, then why don't you call me? My name is plastered all over Broadway with open buildings for lease.

I did exactly what you guys wanted. I gave you the kind of Welcome to Englewood Building you've been asking for. This should be a time of celebration for us...implying that Community Development had ruined it for them.

"But, this isn't the first time Tricia Langon has interfered with us and threatened us," he testified. It is indecent and backwards.

Jon explained many of the reasons why businesses are reluctant to move to the City of Englewood. He also stated that until Ms. Langon is fired, he will no longer be developing properties in the City of Englewood.

City Manager Gary Sears denied that Ms. Langon worked for him or that he had any control over her. He also stated that many complaints come in about various City employees, apparently trying to downplay the incident.

Mr. Cook stuck to his mettle though, and reiterated that he is sick to death of the inhospitable nature of the City. He is finishing up one project and not starting another until the City rascals clean up their acts.

Link: http://englewoodstory.com

I will go so far as to say this: Everything in a City is grandfathered unless the City is able to prove some license to regulate it.

O, Where O Where doth such a license cometh from?

In Colorado municipalities, they come from Colorado Revised Statutes Title 31, Municipal Governments, michies Colorado free legal which limits powers and are given further boundaries through none other than the Supreme Law of the Land, our great United States Constitution.

These laws clearly state that someone's power, presumed authority or "will" cannot legally over-power or control what rights the law has handed to me already. The mass lynchings are illegal because they are not founded in deference, self-respect or law.

It doesn't matter how much sweaty fervor is passionately invoked or what kind of bribe or slander occurs, if it ain't founded in law, it ain't no good.

Last week in the Englewood Council meeting when Bob McCaslin accidentally, or perhaps conveniently left out of the pre-written invocation, "Help us not to control..." I had to chuckle. Well, it just escaped. I didn't mean to be irreverent. But "arbitrary control" is exactly what this Council loves to do to this fair city by their own elected whims.

But just because they are elected and it is hard to get them unseated, doesn't mean that they have legal rights to presume license over all aspects of residential home lives.

Last week at Council, John Moore played the roll of Mayor and controlled the discussion on Hard Pavements himself. He kept wanting to know what would be "grandfathered" as if Council can simply ignore the City Ordinances and Savings Clauses and has utter authority over the private homes as well as licensed businesses. Near the end of the discussion Moore says, "So what are we choosing to grandfather then? Only gravel?"

Stand Up, people! Where is the Council's license to tell you where or how you can park on your own property?

Once an idea gets passed legislatively, then the full burden of proof rests on one defendant's shoulders, inconveniently cited and hauled to the Judge, to prove that the legislation is unfounded. Since it is the legal duty of the municipal judge to presume the law is reasonable, this individual must have a very strong mind with plenty of time available to find out where the missing links are and present them to the Judge or jury accordingly. If he doesn't have these resources, the illegal law can be established judicially, and then it is almost impossible to over-rule.

So the old maxim stands that all it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing.

If you choose not to trust your gut, or defend your right to serve, your right of easement, your immunities, your right to real estate, then you forfeit not only the right, but also the law that governs the right. And if you forfeit the law, you betray your fellow man who depends on that same law.

I was trying to stay one step ahead of myself but now I walk on my hands and don’t look back...

"Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal [118 U.S. 374] hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution. This principle of interpretation has been sanctioned by this court in Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U.S. 259; Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275; Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370, and Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703. Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703." See, Yick Wo v. Yick Wo v. Hopkins
Submitted April 14, 1886, Decided May 10, 1886,118 U.S. 356.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

How do we know what rights we have fundamentally? Consider the Privileges or Immunities clause of the US Constitution. One author has then suggested normal people go to the laws of the District of Columbia to see what's fair there. Another suggests that whatever is fair in all the states is fair in your state.

"It is accordingly enacted by § 1977 of the Revised Statutes, that all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other." (See Above, Yick Wo)

I was really scared that Yick Wo, the laundry proprietor, would only protect those narrow civil rights laws specifically written, but when I went to read that case it was as clear as the blue Colorado skies that everyone in America has the right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, to be parties, to give evidence and to enjoy the full benefit and duties of all laws and policies and access to government and court, and to remain secure in their persons and property.

Neighbors must work hard to subdue your greed, subdue your bias, and subdue being lazy entitled ingrates. Seriously!

Whatever gets sold out for some selfish or shady benefit today, will come back to bite not only you and your white Englewood neighbors and your white grandchildren, but me and my household too because the rest of us have rights only equal to yours, and then your rights are only equal to mine. You need to stand up like responsible, dutiful adults now. I don't want to take the water slide down with you.

W

Link: http://www.EnglewoodCitizens.org

If you receive a City paper called "The Englewood Citizen" you might discover a high-lighted portion at the bottom of page 2, May/June 2009, announcing that the City Council has made their meetings available on their website.

Funny thing, a grass roots group calling themselves Englewood Citizens for Open Government (ECOG) has been recording and uploading these meetings for several months now, pressuring City Council to be more transparent, approachable, accessible and accountable to their constituency.

After City Council discussed whether they would continue to allow ECOG to record and publish their meetings, and finding no way out of it short of criminal liability, they decided to join the parade and outdo ECOG.

After all, an official City website is going to accumulate more hits than an unknown grass roots group, right?

Matthew Crabtree, concerned citizen, must be given the credit for his endurance of four hour long city meetings, and his fortitude in pilgrimaging the recordings of conscious. He has continued to upgrade his services to the public of Englewood.

Mr. Crabtree reports that he has started clarifying who the speaker is on any given subject.

For those who would not recognize their own district representative's voice over any other, and what they might stand for, they may now begin to follow topically what each representative states.

For instance, on April 20, 2009, Council resurrected the idea of mandating paved driveways... spear-headed by John Moore, but if you are not familiar with District representative Moore's voice, you may not realized that he is the one representing the issue. II. Hard Surface Standards.

Council is on a roll with "ungrandfathering" residential properties that were pre-existing to their new-fangled ideas. Apparently, their town just cannot change quick enough for them. In this case, Council will extend grandfathering rights only to those who have gravel, while just weeks ago these were deemed dangerous. They will forego grandfathering of dirt driveways.

The really bad news is that any arbitrary thing enacted by this Council will make residents liable for fines, liens and even threats of jail.

Englewood residents barely surviving hard times can thank their electorates for this finely timed gift.

The cool thing for residents to know is that while dirt is illegal in the new Englewood, road base is solidly safe within the proposed code. Residents just need to declare which one they have.

It was important for me to note in listening to the recordings that Mayor Woodward raged against a great-grandmother and long-time resident of Englewood who came to Council for the second time to represent her opinion about them throwing away Nancy Peterson's various awards after she was injured by an unnamed City policeman.

When she originally caught them in the act, Ms. Cummins represented herself kindly about the matter and obtained a March agreement from Council to put them on public display somewhere in City Hall, alongside City Manager Sear's trophies. But, after seeing some scratches and wear from being tossed away, they decided to put the awards out of public eye in the airlock of the Englewood Police Station.

She, Ms. Cummins, came bravely to Council to tell them that she didn't appreciate her friend's honors being stuffed away from public eye twice, and what happened to their original 100% commitment to her by Mayor, Bob McCaslin and Jill Wilson? She wanted to know.

Mayor delays his hottest topic til near the end of section 12. "General Discussion," when he begins to respond to "Ms. Cummins comments" and then lectures her for her "attack" on him personally. It's a bit of a shameful interaction from the office of City Mayor that can be heard in the last third of General Discussion, during Mayor's Choice section at www.EnglewoodCitizens.org. Monday, April 23.

I personally will stick with Mr. Crabtree's recordings as all of the background noise has been removed from the recordings, and they are conveniently set out per section and per speaker. It's much more accessible and transparent than having to listen to the entire four hours of this Council's official meetings.

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 »

Link: http://EyeOnEnglewood.com

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

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

Read more »