Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

Dissenters of Tom Tancredo's immigration policies beg us to dislodge him from the momentum for governor's seat. This is really the only social claim they can maintain against him since he has a proven record of solid business success, years of political experience and solid ethical and moral records. But, has anyone stopped to analyze what the Constitution and statutes deem "illegal" immigration?

I wouldn't have believed it, until I read the case law myself, but the theory of equal rights is based upon the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Equal rights is based on a standard access to rights under the law. What is that standard, you ask? It is the standard of the european pilgrims to America, it is the white man's standard for freedom, for work, for possession of land and practice of religion.

This fact was hard to swallow because it appeared to be discriminatory and non politically correct in itself. It seemed to give the Ku Klux Klan, and right wing selfishness import.

But the more I wrestled with the concept, the more I realized that what the Klan attempts to do is to dislodge the justice maintained in the Fourteenth Amendment, and thereby dislodge equal rights.

The value of the Fourteenth Amendment is that it assured women, aliens, and minorities in America the right to access the courts for redress of their grievances, the same as the white immigrant men who may have only been thinking of themselves when they penned the Declaration of Independence.

So, if aliens, women and minorities have constitutional protection under the present Constitution and Declaration of Independence, how can they be deemed "illegal aliens" within Tom Tancredo's analysis?

Crimes are founded on intentionality. Aliens are only acting illegally if the prosecution can show they intentionally acted against the law. The law itself must contain definitions of the elements of the crime and statutes must contain firm terms defining what is legal or illegal.

Short of being found "illegal" under these terms, the only other redress we have against aliens is a tort. The threshold for accidental aliens, or tortuous aliens taking healthcare services and jobs from Americans must include the fingers pointing back at the American political climate for having allowed the aliens' encroachment all of these years on our soil. After all, we elected the officials who allowed the newcomers, and we elected the mayors, judges and sheriffs that refused to hold and prosecute them. We are all culpable unless we can show that we have defended our boarders by all means possible.

Certainly, children born to aliens have no culpability as to being illegal. No one can prove children intentionally violated immigration laws. Therefore, under the Constitution, and Tom Tancredo's policies there are many perfectly legal aliens in this State and Country.

It is the illegal aliens that Tom Tancredo firmly opposes and intends to take in hand should he become governor. It is the ones who traffic refugees into human slavery. It is the ones who deal drugs. It is the ones who take jobs without application for green cards and citizenship. It is the ones who have been guilty of violent crimes, driving without a license and causing accidents, and those whose religion promotes overtaking our civilization by strategy and terrorism, or they engage in piracy, looting, assault or the taking of their neighbor's property.

What is so harsh about this, Tancredo's core value? It is difficult in some cases where the hierarchy of rights overlap, yes, but that is what the courts are there for. All we need are Supreme Court Justices who uphold the Constitution, and District Court Judges who have read the law and show up for hearings in their jurisdiction.

Tancredo's polices are lawful policies. He seeks the greatest good for everyone, regardless of their opinions of him. Yes, some weirdos support him, but look at the vast support of the rest of the State, wealthy business people as well as rural folk, and many middle classes.

Minorities and aliens need to know that a Governor who reads the Constitution can be persuaded by it as well.

Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/

The topic of Council's April 13, 2009 study session regarding office expenditures and discretionary funds actually began right after the close of last election, when council woman Laurett Barrentine lost the popular vote to coach Randy Penn.

Because Ms. Barrentine had been the voice of accountability and fiscal conservation on Council, albeit bull doggedly, it was not enough to simply hush her voice this term.

No. Not nearly enough. In retaliation for daring to request a line item budget report for Council's review, the City Manager arranged a little parting gift to Ms. Barrentine.

She was billed, then publicly threatened by council's vote to prosecute her in a collection action over $57.00. This bill was in dispute as to whether it qualified as part of her allotted $150.00 discretionary funds. It was the City's opinion that she had billed them and been reimbursed for something not covered by discretionary funds.

She argued that the bill she submitted for reimbursement was indeed included within her line of duty. It was related to her computer access used to perform Council duties.

Council members decided to agree with City Manager Sears that the $57.00 was outside the text of the policy. The text of the policy reads, "Or materials directly related to the responsibilities..."

According to District 1 Council Representative, Joe Jefferson, stated he believes the meaning is wide open within the judgment of the elected official.

Where previously John Moore voted to prosecute a collections action against Ms. Barrentine, he flipped at the Council meeting of April 13, 2009, stating that he agreed that standardized computer access was a requirement of members of Council and within a member's discretion.

Ms. Barrentine knew at the time of the City's collection action against her that it was retaliatory in nature, but she paid the City's claim because $57.00 wasn't worth the cost or trouble of hiring a defense.

I find myself aghast at the City's public humiliation tactic to pursue a questionable $57.00 from a civil servant, while the same officials privately approved another hefty raise to the City Manager's salary, weighing him in at $160,000.00.

In a City where people are questionably surviving lost jobs and failure to achieve merit raises equal to inflation, it's not likely Council or Manager can successfully argue the proper allocation of residents' tax money being their true aim. Me tinks they just wanted a play date with darts at the bar and Ms. Barrantine as the target.

In the final minutes of the discussion, Jefferson requested that he use his discretionary funds for informal district meetings with residents, specifically for invitations. When Wilson asked what he meant by "informal" he explained: no notice would be required, no more than 3 council persons would be in attendance, no decisions could be made.

Its purpose would be more of a communication opportunity with the residents in his district. Jefferson has been talking about implementing this since being voted onto council, better late than never.

Wilson stated that everyone should be invited to a District 1 meeting. Disregarding the rule prohibiting a quorum [C.R.S. 24-6-402(2)(c)]of council at any informal meeting, she stated that she has a hard time understanding excluding people. She favored public notice and an invitation to all people. She specifically stated that she lives in District 1, and would like to participate.

Jefferson reminded them about Open Meetings laws, and that his purpose would not be to exclude anyone, but to allow his constituents to speak freely, without fear. His goal is to provide a casual avenue for communication.

Woodward, Oakley and Moore questioned whether the meetings could be construed as a campaign booster so near elections. But Jefferson's district seat is not one of those available this November.

Moore stated he did not believe district meetings were necessary, and therefore funds for invitations should not come from office supply funds. He further stated that the entire council would have to vote to approve the funds for the single district meetings if it came out of discretionary spending. He admitted the concept was a new one to him.

In the last seconds of Monday's meeting, Moore completely turned about face, actually daring anyone to "take me to court." Some of the last comments in the discussion were John Moore's when he arrogantly stated: "If I believe in my personal discretion that I needs to host a district meeting with only half of my district, I have that right."

Not so fast, Mr. Moore. Your attitude toward your district is opposite that expressed by Mr. Jefferson. While you know you are protected by governmental immunity and your solid dare, who is going to recuse you or prosecute your over suspicious use of your annual $600.00 discretionary budget?

We know you are well aware of this fact. It is precisely because the people are helpless that you can get away with such patronage of your district.

At the end of the day, Council members generally decided that contributions to charities or other council member's needs will not come out of individuals' discretionary funds due to possible abuses of unilateral entitlement of voters' money. They decided that whatever is surplus at the end of the fiscal year is returned to the general fund.

Finally, they decided that members only carried the right to advise Joe on his expenditure, but not the power to interfere or limit his choice on how to spend discretionary funds in relation to his duties.

It looks like District 1 will get its private play date. Sorry, District 2, you will have to take Mr. Moore up on his challenge in order to bend your District Representative's ear.

The full discussion can be heard on www.EnglewoodCitizens.Org.
IV. Council Discretionary/Office Supplies Policy

Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/

Closed. Closed for the seasons... and "We Are Nothing"... These are the whispers of experts.

During the City Council study session of April 9, 2009, Alan White, Community Development Director for the City of Englewood presented a 20 minute video presentation from a group of experts from Urban Land Institute (ULI).

There is something to be said for being first, and I'm happy to acknowledge the virtue of creativity. Mayor Wolosyn would have agreed. The expert placemakers acknowledged Englewood's attempt at a transit oriented community as being the first in Colorado.

It's always easier to improve on a prototype, but creating the prototype is hard work. I'd shake Gary Sears' hand for this if he'd care.

Community Development Director White cautioned Council before pressing "play" that City staff do not necessarily agree with the experts' findings. Then the lights went out.

Read more »

Link: http://EnglewoodStory.com

A couple of items stand up shouting at me from this most recent City Council meeting. The first is a letter from Lance Smith, who is the head of Englewood's building department.

It was distributed to Council that night, obviating its way around the library's reference packet for the public.

The letter said that Englewood obtained a low grade on risk assessment because it's building inspectors are performing too many inspections every day. ISO recommends two daily inspections because a thorough inspection takes a little longer.

Englewood performs as many as ten inspections a day. Mr. Smith reported to Council how their grade confused him seeing as they can perform so many inspections in a day. But, safety inspections are not a race.

Read more »