Eye On Englewood

Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/

Citizens' canons appeared on the hillside at the public budget hearing Monday evening, September 20, 2010. The House was filled with various groups of disgruntled citizens who applauded loudly for each other's fiscal observations and causes. Click link items 7 and 10 to hear these 25 various presentations. City Manager Sears went red in the face and stayed that way for much of the meeting. Bob McCaslin engaged one group near the end and argued publicly out of turn with them from his seat to the back row. Although the City's policy since Mayor Bradshaw was in office has been that Council members do not respond to Citizens' comments until "their choice" at the end of a council meeting, Mayor Woodward defended himself out of turn.

Citizens waited to the last hour to hear any responses to their concerns. And, council members falsely placated their issues. I believe Council's attitude is that they are special, and thus they do not need to listen, or respond to Englewood representatives who make the effort to come out.

Council then denied both Jefferson's move to amend Council Bill 32, to take a formal stance against "urging" citizens to vote against Amendments 60, 61 and 101. These amendments are carefully engineered to employ an entirely new system of funding Colorado's economic priorities. Colorado's ballot initiatives 60, 61 and 101 place fund raising for higher education back in the private sector of friends of the Universities. Raising funds are what C.F.O.'s and presidents of Universities are hired to do.

But, kindergarten through grade 12 basic education will be guaranteed the funding education deserves from the State of Colorado. This funding has typically been diverted to legislators' pet projects such as the development of Lowery's subdivision, R.T.D., sports stadiums and East Colfax...all of which should have been funded privately.

Jefferson and Gillit argued it is not the position of a non-profit government agency to tell the Citizens how to vote on money systems. Jill Wilson then moved out of turn saying, "I don't care. I move to vote on the bill right away, without the amendment." Her motion was shut down however, because Jefferson's amendment was already on the floor. Yet, Council voted down the amendment to Englewood Bill 32, and then voted to approve Bill 32 as originally proposed "urging" citizens to vote against Amendments 60, 61, and 101 just because they say so.

Isn't it special that Englewood Council members completely miss it, that anything they take a formal stance on while abusing the voices of their constituency will be automatically seen as suspect? We might as well chalk up the entire voting populous of Englewood in favor of Amendments 60, 61, and 101.

When these Amendments win in Colorado, an entirely new economic system, guarantying state funding for schools together with lowering mill levies (taxes) from 7% to 3.5% on your home owner's mortgage will put smiles on faces everywhere. Everywhere, except City Council.

It was the late August study session, topic: fiscal emergency, where District 4 Council member Gillit suggested that the paid stipend of Council is not the real reason council members serve the City, (being only $600 per month). He wondered if council members would be willing to sacrifice their stipends until the City's finances were corrected.

Oh, the reciprocal uproar!

No-one felt the condition of public welfare warranted a personal sacrifice. Councilman at large, Bob McCaslin, summarized council's consensus denying Mr. Gillit's suggestion, when he shouted, "I deserve this money and much more, too!"

Yet, Englewood Council continues to give money to charities, spend weekly for catering their own food for meetings, they include hefty salaries of two City Managers in the budget year after year, and refuse to settle legal disputes with citizens in an amicable way prior to engaging in the big bucks of trial.

Englewood's City Council voices are special indeed. Just as special as the wind from the inside of an old bagpipe.

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

“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.