Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.EnglewoodStory.com

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://coloradocommunitynewspapers.com/articles/2009/07/27/englewood_herald/news/24_tm_cncl_candidates_en.txt

During a study of medical marijuana venders last Monday evening's City Council, information that four existing city approved storefronts on Broadway surfaced. Other proposed venders slated for Englewood storefronts became the hot topic, enough to get a consensus action to establish an Emergency Moratorium.

Douglas Cohn's comment last year to Council regarding real emergencies and false emergencies has come full circle. He spoke during the false emergency moratorium on boarding houses and said, "When I first learned of a City emergency ordinance, I thought that perhaps you were taking notice of the foreclosure crises or that you had found a new way to handle drug houses in Englewood. That wasn't the case, and I have an issue with you folks abusing the City's definition of Emergency and Emergency Ordinances."

Personally? Four alternative drug venders on Broadway certainly seems suspicious, while only a short while ago, other herbal dispensaries were hard fought to win the privilege to exist in the competitive established models of medical fields in Englewood.

I spoke with one man outside of a clinic known as Patients Choice of Colorado. "Mike" was injured riding rodeo. He said the only thing holding his back together is the nuts and bolts. He said he was "dead" in his bed when he revived and that he has seizures from his brain being ripped from his right eye backwards.

Mike said he can tell when people are faking the need for marijuana, and that they could ruin it for all others who use it instead of heavier pills otherwise prescribed. So, Mike is a proponent of City licensure by application.

He believes that an application should sort out whether a dispensary is qualified to prescribe because they would know the answers to certain questions of which strains of the drug help which ailments, and what the various side effects are.

He pulled out his State license to use the drug for medicinal purposes and pointed out that high schoolers and other pleasure seekers could not lawfully obtain marijuana without the license. With a license, all is well. Without the license is quite another story.

Doctors could lose their license, their living, their home and wind up in federal prison, because it is the federal law that takes over when a violation occurs. Buyers would experience the same repercussions. However, Mike's concern is for the building owners who leased their premises to the errant tenants. In that case, the entire building would be caught up and confiscated by the FBI or FTB.

Matthew Crabtree, candidate for Council, and owner of the grassroots website for accessible government, ECOG, also voiced his concern to a group of concerned citizens when he said he had known someone who was a landlord where the tenants were manufacturing fake money out of the garage and paying rent with it. Not only did the landlord lose his rent, but also his rental property was confiscated.

Reality speaks. Either licensed marijuana dispensaries should own their own storefronts should they overstep their licensed privileges, or the City should draft a law to pre-empt the feds confiscation of the storefront belonging to an innocent party.

My hope, because this issue has already been approved by the State of Colorado, is that Council holds a hearing on the merits of the real Emergency as well as the City's own censurer process and what exactly they hope to protect.

Protecting business economy, private property and City taxes are all well within the reach of city government. Perhaps the new contenders for Council in November 2009 elections, will add protections to property within the boundaries of Englewood's Home Rule so that the wrong person doesn't lose his shirt, or his shop, to the feds.

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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://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://EyeOnEnglewood.com

Why should Englewood prohibit the City from prosecuting any definition of household?

Moral issues are taken care of in the criminal codes of the State and City. Being unrelated and sharing a house, is not in itself worthy of prosecution, but in Englewood, the violation of the City's definition of Household is prima facie evidence of a crime.

Rick Gillit, running for District 4 in the November election, says he believes the term, "'Single Family Residence' is purely a real estate term, and means there is one residence per address. It does not extend to the definition that Englewood currently attaches to 'single family residence' meaning that not more than one unrelated person can live under the same roof."

Since his wife was raised in a home that took in families of patients of Craig Hospital, Gillit may be sensitive to the humanitarian side that some boarding houses offer. But, Englewood has ungrandfathered all pre-existing residences that house more than 1 unrelated person under the same roof.

It is clear that Community Development and Planning and Zoning both have limitations as to implementing codes against existing or grandfathered codes, and are relegated in their duties to forecasting development, plan for the future, and not criminalize the pre-existing.

The Department of Regulatory Agencies (D.O.R.A.) agrees. Their jurisdiction is limited to agencies of the State, not residences. Yet, these departments are the ones prosecuting residents for their choice of who shares their home. Isn't this a privacy issue?

In Gillit's opinion, these departments should not interfere inside a home with whether people are closely related enough to share the residence.

Last July, Planning and Zoning Commission members were asked to amend the code so that City could prosecute a single family in the City Manager's neighborhood. Commission Chair Bleile opposed the tactic as devious. Two other Commission members sided with him, but they ended up the minority and the City Manager Sears achieved his end. The case is scheduled for Court, June 4 and 5, 2009.

In the past five years, the City's habit has been to threaten people reported as violating the definition of household with 7-day or 14-day Notices to Comply. But, when it comes down to the prosecution of such a household, the City staff find themselves asking strange questions of City Manager Sears and Attorneys Brotzman and Reid, "How do we figure the unrelated number 2 again?"

Notice, it is not an issue of knowing how to count 1,2,3,4, or asking the City's accountant. It is rather a question of personal relationships. Does the City have the right to determine your relationships?

Says a widowed father in law who wants to move in with his daughter, "Can they kick me outa' here just because my daughter happens to have a spouse with a son she has not officially adopted? I mean, add me into the mix...ya know? Maybe I shouldn't have sold my place."

Good question. In Alaska, the town actually began to prosecute a family such as this, except the ACLU stepped in. In 2008 Englewood's City Council members McCaslin and Penn promoted not only Englewood's narrow definition of household, but also got personally involved promoting the prosecution and intimidation of moral households who happen to share a home unrelated.

Englewood isn't so afraid of the ACLU, because it has your tax money to fight extended court battles totally in the millions of dollars. Their salaries get paid for looking busy, so why not?

But after all the litigation Englewood has engaged in during the past year, a severe budget cut is occurring of up to 15% to parks and salaries.

But, what if a child has had a name change to resemble that of her family's surname, yet, in fact she has not been adopted. What about x-spouses not quite out of the home? Any why should foster children have more legal rights than your own father-in-law and step child?

This election could stop the intrusion of government into private relationships by voting new blood like Broker Rick Gillit to City Council. Keep Council out of your homes.

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

After publishing my article on Englewood’s civil rights violations, I was sent the following letter.

Read more »

Link: http://EnglewoodStory.com

WHAT IS FAIR HOUSING?

"According to HUD, impediments to fair housing choice include actions or omissions in the state that constitute violations of the Fair Housing Act. The following issue [is] shown to be [a] potential impediment to fair housing choice in the State of Colorado:"

Number(14) is "Steering."
here

"Steering is a practice of guiding prospective homebuyers or renters of protected classes (such as color, race,religion, disability, familial status, etc.) to areas with concentrations of persons in those groups." See, State of Colorado Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, 2005-2010, p 5.

In Englewood, the City Council, City Manager and even the City attorneys not only targeted but endorsed ongoing neighborhood harassment of the Bartnick household for housing four young people of Hispanic, black, Asian and mixed-race origin over a two-year period.

Read more »

Link: http://englewoodstory.com

We all know that fear can be a closed gate to government. Ignorance is a closed gate to government. And, in a busy society like Englewood, Colorado, busi-ness is a latch to pry open government.

People go to work five out of the seven days of the week, and then with their limited time after work and on weekend, they prepare family meals, and set a bit of personal time apart for sports, activities, concerts, paying bills, mowing the lawn and cleaning.

People tend to entrust politics to the “politicians”.

May 4, 2009, The City's old spending habits were approved by an outside auditor who hammed it up with the City Manager, and then the spending for 2009 was processed unanimously by all seven council persons, without discussion.

The following 2009 spending is itemized:
*a nine year old truck is to be replaced.
*a 60% increase on everyone's sewer fees was approved.
*a 2009 shell of an ambulance is purchased for $135,313, which still needs to be outfitted inside.
*a tilling tractor with the deluxe package including a GPS system and leather seats is to be purchased for $95,598.19
*November Candidate, Rick Gillit, asked Council to give an official report of the $20,000 they just spent at League of Cities, but Council ran out of time for Joe Jefferson's report.
*$20,000 for a community garden was expended.
*and, during study session, a grant of $5,000 was approved for Waste Management Company recycling, costing the City only $4,500 out of the original $9,500 price to recycle. For what? Isn't this the same service the Shriners offer for free?

Candidate for council, Rick Gillit noticed, "Not one council member posed the question whether the truck could be fixed rather than replaced or whether it could last another year or two?"

He said no-one asked, "What would a 30% sewer fee hike accomplish rather than a 60% hike?" or "What would a shell of an old ambulance cost to be refurbished?" or "Why does the City's tilling tractor require a GPS and deluxe package?"

It sure brings up the obvious: Did Council discuss these issues elsewhere besides the public meeting? If they did, they have violated the Open Meetings Rules and Sunshine Act.

Another observer noticed that not one Council member asked, "Why spend $20,000 on a community garden when the City is having to cut back expenses by 15%? And, no-one asked, "Did we really need to spend all those hundreds of thousands of dollars litigating against our own people last year?"

Understanding the laws which govern a home rule city is as easy as reading the manual: The Charter is the City's Constitution. But after the year 2000, Englewood’s manual gained three inches of ordinances known as the Englewood Municipal Code, (E.M.C.). Thick with cross references, notations to history and previous laws, full of things from the criminal code, pensions, building codes, the court, and zoning issues.

I agree, it is a bit cumbersome.

But, what this old ticker finds inexcusable, is the unwillingness to research a topic when asked. Why aren't rules of fixed measurement and law applied to the interests of justice? Are budgets really just a matter of the whims of those in power?

Is it really okay to charge 60% more for water and sewer services during an 8% unemployment crises, just to spend it elsewhere on new Tonka Trucks?

The air of secrecy surrounding Englewood City Hall has been breached by a Citizen's group intent to record and make public City meetings. For months now Englewood Citizens for Open Government (www.englewoodcitizens.org)has published City Council meetings and study sessions, and just this week,they published a the fact that Englewood's Financial and Administrative Services Director Frank Gryglewicz, Accounting Manager Steve Dazzio and Timothy P. Mayberry, CPA, from Johnson, Holscher & Company, P. C. discussed the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report in private and concluded that Englewood passed the(CAFR)grade.

Secrecy is a fine gate to help government achieve its aim by locking out controversy. Secrecy fleshes out efficiency and may save someone a bit of embarrassment. But, is secrecy the right tool? A pen's cap can be used to pick your ear, but it may have other unwanted effects. What does the tool of secrecy compromise?

It forces a potentially good form of government underground. It makes the good guys wear porcupine quills when they find themselves above ground because they know what things are hiding below.

Efficiency is the sweetheart of secrecy. Efficiency can evade a just investigation of the facts and laws, making a clean sweep of everything but the outcome.

When an authority figure doesn't admit that he struggles with an issue or needs more time before he casts his vote on it, he never has to research it and then he can rely on his associate's opinion. It is much more efficient that way. Right or wrong, something gets done.

City Council looks ominous sitting high above the audience that addresses it. Like judges they sit, as if they are privy to the issues at hand and at law. But are they?

Perhaps they are only privy to the information City Attorneys secretly feed them. But if the City attorneys, the City manager has it all wrapped up, and the one power withheld from Council is to "interfere" with Staff, according to the Charter, Part 1, ARTICLE III, section 32, then why does Englewood need a City Council?

Maybe they are so concerned with appearing "on the same page" that they become only puppets and "yes men" to the City Manager. Certainly, if they cannot open a public court record and take a look; certainly if they cannot drive by an Englewood site to investigate an issue for themselves; certainly if they cannot respond to a Citizen's question or look up their rules for themselves, their counsel will leave something to be desired.

Most assuredly, if they are not allowed to ascertain budget reports or ask questions of the head of the building department, and absolutely, if they have some friends from high school bending their ears for loyalty, their input is less than objective or meant "for the dignity of the whole."

Shouldn’t residents take a second look?

Please excuse my waffling. I’ll get right to the point. November elections are upcoming.

Link: http://englewoodstory.com

Perhaps Englewood, Colorado needs a Bill of Rights. There is nothing in the Englewood Charter or the City Ordinances or even the Municipal Court powers to protect the people. It is all wrapped up that the Executive branch, (Staff) the Legislative branch (Council) and the Judiciary (Court) protect the temporary powers, rather than the real residents and long term homeowners.

In a response from Carol Chamber's office of the Arapahoe County District Attorney determined that the word "may" found in the rules for how Englewood must operate determines the infinite leeway the City enjoys. It may, or it may not: completely within its discretion.

Everything in the City ordinances protects actions or omissions the City takes by the word, "may".

When it comes to ethical conflicts or the rights of the residents that employ this staff, the Charter and Code have determined that the residents have little to no opportunity to redress grievances, certainly no absolute right.

This issue can become a dramatic breech of trust between the City and a developer early on in the relationship between the parties given the following scenario.

Permit fees in the City are as arbitrary as they are indecent when a regular citizen who is in the dark as to contractor procedures applies for a permit or license with the City.

A Schedule of Fees associated with building permits in Englewood exists. However, Englewood records show it charged three times as much, a total of $2,990, ignoring the fee schedule which dictates a maximum of $999.00 for this structure's remodel fees.

The Building Department's reasoning? The structure's forecast appraisal totaled over $500,000 upon completion.

The project's owner complains, though, that they had already purchased the existing structure for $200.00 and only the appraised difference between the existing structure and the proposed structure should have been considered. It's a question of exact measurements, and the ability of the head clerk to add and subtract.

The city should have subtracted the present value of the home being incorporated into the final value.

Isn't this kind of public dealing called fraud? Getting something for nothing. Maybe it is only bad faith and unfair dealing.

In any case, there is no return of permit fees available in Englewood. Especially to those who actually rely on the law to defend themselves and make a scene. Especially then.

Some cities have incorporated a Developer's Bill of Rights. This idea protects developers as to vested interests in properties they have spent significant sums of time and money over.

But, what protects the actual constituency of Englewood voters? What holds the feet of their electorate representatives on Council to the fire?

A Bill of Rights would certainly do the trick. America's forefathers thought so, when they incorporated the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, and even the pilgrims to incorporating the state of Colorado believed the same so as to develop another famous Bill of Rights specific to Colorado. But, the Home Rule City of Englewood has kept all the power to themselves. And, yet, isn't this is the legal definition of "arbitrary power"?

Arbitrary power is the kind of political power that is based on whims of those temporarily in charge, apart from measurable, objective limitations of law, and the absolute right of redress.

In the 2009 November elections, the people of Englewood will be presented with an opportunity to even the weights of power on the scales of justice. They will be presented with an opportunity to enact a Bill of Rights and their own form of personal homeowner immunity for groundless or malicious acts of the City of Englewood against them.

It will paint a significant stroke to a beautiful sunrise in Englewood's currently repressed horizon.

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

Bill Offrights

By Charter, the City Council is the only one which can fire a City Manager, or provide benefits and salary and raises to him. But at present, the Council is enamored with City Manager Sears.

Read more »