Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

Jerry Ferman derailed City Council as they argued out-of-turn amongst themselves on Monday Night. Mr. Ferman came to complain about Englewood's moldy water. The time clock was stopped, and the flustered council members lost control. But is this the bigger story? For, in this same week the Englewood Water and Sewer Board found a scapegoat in the sewer lines between Chipotle and Chase Bank on Hampden.

The City of Englewood is supposed to inspect sewer and water lines of every business every six weeks under the Englewood Municipal Code. But, Englewood has not been inspecting the lines nearly enough.

So, when Chipotle noticed that they had a block in the sewer trap, they hired their on-call plumber to flush the lines. Plumber Frank, although he works for many Chipotle franchises, has never been cited for anything in Englewood, and he came to the rescue by flushing the sewer trap.

There was still a smell, however, and so another company was called out to clean it up better. This time, the lard got blocked just before entering the city's sewer, (or so the story goes) (don't tell the EPA) and backed up into the neighboring business' basement. The neighboring business happened to be the Chase Bank building, where the ex-officio Mayor Burns keeps his offices. Chase had to replace carpeting.

Mayor Burns, amongst several other ex-officio Mayors, happens to sit on the Water and Sewer Board. The only true civilian amongst the board members is Robert Cassidy. What was the Sewer Board to do? Water board their own city? That would never do.

They couldn't allow Chase Bank's insurance company or the EPA to come after City Manager Sears because, after all, he hobnobs with sewer members. Plus, did I mention? The current Mayor of Englewood also sits on the board. No, an embarrassing ethical situation needed to be mopped up in short order before Mayor Woodward was implicated.

If they fined Chipotle, Chipotle would sue the City for failure to perform regular inspections, and again the EPA might get involved. The City has already lost one such suit in the District Court, so another strategy had to be formed.

Oh, of course. Smear the "fog" or lard on the contractor who flushed the system. He's independent, and will not have the resources to fight this thing. Good idea.

So, on Tuesday evening, at 5:00pm, Frank Brandse appeared for his case #AC10-15973, which was described as an "appeal of the Water and Sewer Board's fine of $5300." This amount reflected the maximum allowable criminal fine under POTW (Potable Water) as a class 2 petty offense for someone with habitual and knowing intent to violate EPA Best Standards. Frank didn't believe his actions warranted this decision or fine. He said he had never before encountered this problem and an investigation of extenuating circumstances should take place.

Board member, Robert Cassidy, looked at procedures and found that the Charter required a steno-graphically recorded hearing in these instances, and that testimonies were to be taken under oath. Pouting, sewer members were forced to agree. So a hearing being set, Matthew Crabtree showed up on Tuesday evening to record it for the public.

Mr. Crabtree realized that the hearing was not publicly noticed in the City's newspapers, nor was it noticed as all other board hearings are, on the City website. Posting it on the City bulletin boards barely complied with the minimum standards of "public notice".

Mr. Stu Fonda, Director of the Englewood Water Works suddenly grew quiet at having an audience.

When the hearing began, board member Higday, also an ex-officio mayor, cut into Frank's testimony to attempt to close the hearing. His motion was sidelined until others also began testifying, and he reminded the sewer board that his motion was on the table. As rude and abrupt as member Higday is, he also brought up an interesting perspective that the Board was not following proper procedures according to the Municipal Charter, part IV and sections 60-63.

Member Higday said, when there is a recommendation from the Sewer Board, they are to bring it to notice of City Counsel. Nevertheless, the board went on about their business.

Mr. Cassidy stated that he didn't believe Frank intended to do anything wrong, and that he certainly was no hardened criminal. He recommended the fine, on appeal, be reduced from $5300 to $2000. It was somewhat of a relief to Frank that the Board agreed to that fine.
But, Mr. Cassidy pushed over the line when he suggested that the $2000 be differed pending no further occurrences during the next 12 months.

What? And force our friends in the City to shoulder the insurance deductibles? No way! The sewer board members reasoned. We have a scapegoat willing to shoulder the fee. His name is Frank.

So, Frank, who was cited only by his first name, without the signature of an accusing officer, and without any evidence because he had invoked his right not to be searched without a warrant, was given a fine of $2000, and in exchange, he got to keep his employment with all the Chipotle franchises he serves.

Funny thing. Culpability actually lies with the user, if not with the City inspector. The Littleton/Englewood Waste Water Treatment Plant FOG Policy, page 9, paragraph one states, "Users are responsible for the maintenance servicing, and proper waste disposal and cannot abrogate this responsibility to a contractor,pumping service, or other agent." Modified, July 22, 2010.

Although this is clearly printed in the ex-officio Mayor's manuals, they could not get their minds out of the gutter in order to read their own law as to liability. This makes them culpable for insurance fraud.

Furthermore, the City usurped formal criminal penalties reserved to EPA, the State through the District Court level or the Department of Regulatory Services (DORA). Instead, they protected themselves from liability through an administrative inbred process.

And thus, Jerry Furman, proves himself to be a prophet. Yes, the water in Englewood is moldy dirty. If I were Mr. Brandse, I'd run right up to the District Court and get me an injunction and report the crime to DORA.

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://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