Eye On Englewood

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.

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

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.