City Desk ~ An insider’s view of the policies and politics of Colorado Springs city government

Archive for the 'Meetings' Category

Candidate urges council to shelve pay raise proposal

January 17th, 2013, 11:13 am by

Deborah Hendrix

District 4 City Council candidate Deborah Hendrix says it’s premature for a pay raise for council when its roles and responsibilities are in flux.

“A change in the governance of (Colorado Springs Utilities) and other measures may decrease the amount of day-to-day operations that the council handles,” Hendrix said Wednesday night in an email to council.

“Also, consider the effect of council moving from a group of citizen politicians to a group of professional politicians. That will change the dynamics of who runs for council and could lead to a situation where the salary becomes more important than serving the community,” she said.

Hendrix also questions whether the city can afford a bump in pay for council members, who are currently paid $6,250 a year.

“If we can find $437,000, why not utilize those funds for firefighters, police officers, or improved transportation?  I know that with these things the citizens would be well pleased,” she said.

Hendrix said she will personally vote against a pay increase if council puts the question on the ballot in April.

The council will decide Tuesday whether to refer that proposal and four others to the ballot in April.

Here is the full, unedited text of Hendrix’s email to council:

Good Morning Councilors:

First, I want to thank you for your service to the City of Colorado Springs.  I appreciate the work you have done and certainly look forward to working with those of you that will remain on Council after the election in April.

My name is Deborah Hendrix and I have been a resident in this City for the past 21 years and currently I am running for District 4 – City Council seat.

My purpose for writing to each of you is in regard to one of the upcoming amendments you will decide to put on the ballot on next Tuesday at the City Council meeting.  I by no means have all the answers and know all the discussions and dialogues that have occurred regarding this issue, so I offer my humble opinion and hope that you will take that into consideration as you make your final decision.

I realize many of the changes over the last two years with the executive/legislative structure have certainly caused some issues regarding who has authority and responsibility over a number of measures that might have been very clear under the past form of government.  So I applaud the work you have done to try and be clear and concise in your voting of policies, laws and procedures.

The one ballot issue, ie. Council Compensation.

Council Compensation – While paying City Council members a wage which is commensurate with the work that currently engages them seems very appropriate, with the new roles and responsibilities of City Council in flux, the increase in pay may be premature.  A change in the governance of CSU and other measures may decrease the amount of day-to-day operations that the Council handles.

Also, consider the effect of Council moving from a group of citizen politicians to a group of professional politicians.  That will change the dynamics of who runs for council and could lead to a situation where the salary becomes more important than serving the community.

Also, can the City at this time afford to allocate $437K within the already tight budget?  If we can find $437K, why not utilize those funds for firefighters, police officers, or improved transportation?  I know that with these things the citizens would be well pleased.

If this measure makes it to the ballot, I as a citizen would not support it and would be highly disappointed that the Council did not consider the short-term (financial/roles) and long-term (change in type of citizens for council) effects of such a major shift.

Thank you for taking the time to read my email.  I would welcome an opportunity to discuss this issue.  Thank you again for your service.

Deborah…

 

Councilman: ‘I regret that my mic was on’

January 9th, 2013, 5:50 pm by

City Councilman Bernie Herpin, who is running for re-election in April, said he “meant no disrespect” when he suggested that a citizen stop going to City Hall to address the City Council.

During Tuesday’s formal council meeting, Herpin was recorded on a live mic saying, “When are we going to tell her to stop coming here?

He made the remark when Elizabeth Reed was called up to speak during citizen discussion.

Reed has been going to City Hall for months and speaking during the citizen discussion portion of formal council meetings, raising concerns about smoking in low-income housing for seniors.

“What I was referring to was there is nothing we can do to help her.  Just as she berated the mayor yesterday, we have no control over the Housing Authority. The mayor appoints the housing board, not council. Our council staff and some individual council members have done what we can, which is only asking the Housing Authority to help. It is entirely in their hands,” Herpin said in an email.

“I meant no disrespect and have been one of the most accessible and responsive council members to citizens throughout the city, not just in my district.”

In a telephone interview Wednesday evening, Herpin said he gets frustrated when he can’t help people solve their issues and they keep coming “back and back and back.”

“There was no disrespect intended. Please make note of that,” he said. “It’s frustrating to us when we cannot help people.”

But Herpin said the publicity around his slip-up could help Reed.

“Maybe the media can apply pressure that we can’t,” he said.

“I regret that my mic was on,” Herpin added.

Excuse me?

Do you regret that your mic was on or that you made the remark, Councilman Herpin?

“Both, really,” he said. “But not for the reasons you might think. It’s more out frustration of not being able to help somebody. When they come to council, we want to help.”

 

 

 

Live mic picks up councilman’s private comment

January 9th, 2013, 2:40 pm by

For months, Elizabeth Reed has showed up at City Hall to address City Council members during the citizen discussion portion of their formal meetings.

Time and time again, Reed expresses concerns about smoking in subsidized housing for seniors.

Reed’s mother lives at Senior Heritage Plaza, a low-income housing apartment complex for the elderly, and is apparently surrounded by neighbors who smoke.

Reed wants a smoke-free building for her mother.

“It’s assault and battery to stick them in a building with profuse second-hand smoke,” Reed told the council recently, referring to people with respiratory problems.

The city has looked into her concerns.

Council Administrator Aimee Cox has spent countless hours, between phone calls and emails, trying to rectify the situation.

Even Mayor Steve Bach’s chief of staff, Laura Neumann, got involved at one point.

Reed has been told that it’s a matter under the purview of the Housing Authority, which has tried to appease Reed, officials say.

But Reed isn’t satisfied and continues to show up at City Hall.

Reed went before council again Tuesday.

“Happy New Year to you all,” Reed said. “I”m here talking about the same thing. I’m sorry that I came back. I know that you didn’t want to see me.”

If only you knew, Ms. Reed.

When council President Scott Hente called Reed up to speak, Councilman Bernie Herpin made a remark under his breath.

A live microphone recorded what he said.

“When are we going to tell her to stop coming here?” Herpin remarked.

To listen for yourself, click here. Reed starts talking at about minute 48.

Herpin did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

 

El Pomar hosts workshop for City Council candidates

January 8th, 2013, 11:13 am by

El Pomar Foundation’s Forum for Civic Advancement is holding a workshop for City Council candidates.

The workshop, from 5:30-7:30 p.m. Jan. 24, is open to the public.

The workshop will be held in the Milton E. Proby Room of the Penrose House, 1661 Mesa Ave.

Registration is required. Click here to register.

Speakers include City Council President Pro Tem Jan Martin, City Clerk Sarah Johnson, Sam Mamet of the Colorado Municipal League, and Sarah Brittain Jack of Sarah B. Jack & Associates.

“In Colorado Springs, six seats are up for election and the stakes are high. The new council will be asked to grapple with difficult issues from oil and gas exploration to panhandling and urban development,” according to the Forum for Civic Advancement.

“In this ‘Run and Win’ workshop, participants will learn about the election process from campaign strategy to election laws and will hear from a councilor about what the job is like on a daily basis. We welcome all potential candidates as well as anyone interested in learning more about what it takes to sit on City Council.”

VIDEO: Leigh confronted over ‘false accusations’

January 8th, 2013, 10:41 am by

Tim Leigh

Activist Kanda Calef shot down City Councilman Tim Leigh on Monday when Leigh insinuated that she’s part of the coal lobby.

Calef, who started Colorado Springs Citizens for Affordable Energy, which advocates keeping Colorado Springs Utilities under local ownership, vehemently denied that the coal industry is pulling her strings.

“Verify your facts before you make statements,” Calef told Leigh.

“I’m a stay-at-home mother who home schools my son. I’m a very busy person who is a citizen of this city, and I don’t want it to be intimidating to people like me to come and speak in front of people like you because you make false accusations,” she said.

Click HERE to watch video of the exchange.

 

City seeks input on plan to renovate Mountain Shadows Park

January 7th, 2013, 10:40 am by

The city’s Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department is seeking public input on a plan to renovate Mountain Shadows Park after the Waldo Canyon fire.

The city is holding two neighborhood workshops to receive citizen ideas and input.

The first workshop is from 6:30-8 p.m. Wednesday at Chipeta Elementary School, 2340 Ramsgate Terrace. The second one is from 9-10:30 a.m. Saturday, also at the elementary school.

“The park will be improved with extensive input from the citizens living within the community and with the involvement of the Mountain Shadows Community Association (MSCA) and many of the neighborhood homeowners associations in the area,” the city said.

The project is expected to be completed by September. A timeline and more information can be viewed at SpringsGov.com/MSMP.   A park survey and a drawing sheet for children to submit ideas can also be downloaded from the webpage, the city said.

The park is adjacent to Chipeta elementary, so the parks department is working with School District 11 and project sponsors to integrate the school grounds and facilities “where possible to provide a wonderful asset for the community,” the city said.

“This project has been made possible thanks to Colorado Springs Together, several generous corporate sponsors and the involvement of other organizations and businesses across Colorado Springs,” the city said.

 

Inventor accuses city attorney of ‘extreme prejudice’

January 6th, 2013, 9:40 pm by

City Attorney Chris Melcher

David Neumann, who invented the scrubber technology that is being installed at the Martin Drake Power Plant downtown, is accusing City Attorney Chris Melcher of “extreme prejudice” toward his company and Colorado Springs Utilities.

In a strongly worded email sent Sunday night to Melcher and some City Council members, Neumann also says Melcher may be trying to stonewall an ethics complaint that Neumann filed against City Councilman Tim Leigh.

The Gazette received a copy of Neumann’s email late Sunday. About 9 p.m., the newspaper sent an email to Melcher seeking comment. Chief Communications Officer Cindy Aubrey was cc’d in the email.

This blog post will be updated as soon as Melcher responds.

A private meeting in Mayor Steve Bach’s office Friday apparently prompted Neumann’s email to Melcher.

But the meeting wasn’t about Neumann’s scrubbers.

The meeting was about the work of the Stormwater Task Force.

Jason Hann, a task force member who was not in the meeting but heard about what happened afterward from someone who was there, described the meeting like this:

“Melcher stated that NO regional cooperation would take place and if there were collaborative efforts for projects the City would be at the helm. Bach commanded that he knew there were several agendas at the table and that he was going to tell us what our agenda is. Bach stated there will be NO tax recommendation and that while his administration existed, CSU was going to be responsible for paying for stormwater. That CSU needed to “scrub” their budget again (despite the City not being able to execute a zero-based budget themselves). That the Neumann cleaner technology should be removed and that would provide millions right away and for years to come,” Hann said Sunday morning on Facebook.

Robin Roberts, who was in the room, corroborated Hann’s account.

“I was on this committee and in this meeting on Friday,” Roberts said on a Facebook thread. “The way Jason is reporting it is accurate, although I do remember that the suggestion of Utilities taking over the storm water function was just a suggestion, an option thrown out there.”

Roberts said she will never volunteer for the city.

“It will be a cold day in hell before I volunteer my time on a committee for this city again,” she said.

Here is the full text of the email that Neumann sent to Melcher:

Mr. Melcher:

You are being quoted by a number of sources as expressing extreme prejudice toward our company and CSU as part of a Storm Water meeting last Friday which was presided over by the Mayor and held in the Mayor’s office.

Additionally, we are in receipt of a letter from you to two council members which instead of providing them with legal guidance on how to determine conflict of interest you single out the employees of our company and employees of CSU as being the definition of a conflict of interest.

Further evidence of your extreme bias toward our company and CSU is shown in your negotiating a deal with the Sierra Club that involved damaging our company and a CSU project approved and budgeted for by the CSU Board. You attempted to cut a deal with a radical environmental group that could have resulted in a $400 million loss in ratepayer assets and a 30-50% increase in electric rates and may have prevented the Drake plant from receiving required emissions controls.

Additionally, we expect that any meeting discussing the merits of our contract or our company’s past, present or future relationship with CSU will be discussed openly with an opportunity for public comment.  Furthermore, we demand that you release to the public the records of past private meetings dealing with our contract with CSU so that the public may determine whether your conduct is appropriate to your position.

Finally, based on information from two separate Council Members, your alignment with Councilmember Leigh has become clear and it appears that you are attempting to stonewall or deflect the Ethics investigation of Councilmember Leigh.

We can only wonder why you have not taken action directly against Councilmember Leigh when you have explicit examples of his providing false information to the public and the Board. It is obvious that you have examined our contract with CSU in detail. Therefore, when Councilmember Leigh says the contract title says it is for “Experimental” equipment you know that is false. When he says the CEO did not sign it you know that is false.  When he says there are no specs, you know there are over ten pages of specifications. We are prepared to present over twenty separate counts of ethical and legal violations by Councilmember Leigh should we be given the chance.

Request that you explain to the public how your actions above and other related actions you have done as required by the Mayor are consistent with the appropriate conduct of the City Attorney. Perhaps you can also explain the responsibilities any lawyer has to avoid conflicts of interest. How is it possible for you to do the will of your boss the Mayor under threat of termination, while simultaneously representing the best interests of the City, the Council and Colorado Springs Utilities when their interests are in conflict?

David K. Neumann

 

City schedules closed-door session to discuss no-panhandling zone lawsuit, ethics complaints

January 4th, 2013, 11:24 am by

The City Council is scheduled to meet behind closed doors Monday to discuss a lawsuit over a no-solicitation zone downtown.

Monday’s informal agenda included a closed executive session for “legal advice and consultation” with City Attorney Chris Melcher regarding the status of a complaint filed against the city by the ACLU, which says the zone violates the First Amendment.

After the closed session, the council is scheduled to reconvene in open session and have a “general discussion” about the status of the case, according to the agenda.

The lawsuit over the no-panhandling zone isn’t the only item scheduled to be discussed in closed legal session.

The council also is scheduled to receive “legal advice and consultation … regarding the processes and procedures for ethics allegations against councilmembers.”

That item may be tied to an ethics complaint filed against City Councilman Tim Leigh by David Neumann, who claims Leigh “has committed numerous wrongful acts potentially in violation of his  fiduciary and other duties as a member of the Board of Directors of Utilities.”

Neumann has a $73.5 million contract with Colorado Springs Utilities for scrubbers at the Martin Drake Power Plant downtown. The contract and the scrubbers themselves are the subject of intense debate among city officials.

 

Bruce calls salary increase for council members ‘beyond audacious’ but is open to paying them more

December 28th, 2012, 12:46 pm by

Douglas Bruce says he would publicly oppose a proposed ballot measure in April to give City Council members a salary increase.

“For whatever that is worth,” said Bruce, an anti-tax activist who was convicted of tax evasion and other crimes last year.

But Bruce said he’s open to the idea of paying council members more than the $6,250 a year they get now.

Yes, you heard that right.

Bruce, who has clashed with council members in the past, thinks the council should get more money.

Bruce said he objected each time a proposal to increase council members’ salaries was brought to voters, primarily because Colorado Springs was paying a city manager under the old council-manager form of government.

But the switch to a council-mayor form of government “ostensibly” created some savings because the mayor is paid $96,000 and the city no longer has a city manager.

“Since we’re saving some money, I don’t have an objection to paying the council because there’s a savings in one area of administration or leadership and some of that can go to paying people who are undercompensated,” Bruce said.

“But, having said that, to sextuple their salary is absurd. I mean, that’s beyond audacious. It’s not even borderline greed. It’s wallowing in greed,” he said.

Bruce said he did some calculations and figures that council members should be spending about 20 hours a month in meetings “if they didn’t engage in these silly marathon spectacles about solicitation on the sidewalk and what do we do about homeless people and all these problems that they’re manufacturing.”

Council members have two informal and two formal council meetings each month, and they meet once a month as the Utilities Board.

Council members also serve on various boards, committees and commissions, but Bruce said that’s unnecessary.

“They don’t need to serve on all these boards and committees. They need to simplify city government. That’s why we have a mayor. The mayor is supposed to be the administrator,” he said.

Bruce also thinks council meetings need to be run more efficiently. He said council meetings should last no longer than four hours each.

“They have these meetings that are much longer than they need to be, plus of course they waste a lot of time on ceremonies,” he said. “They have these meetings and they have people twirling their batons or singing America the Beautiful.”

Bruce proposes paying council members $15,000 a year, or $62.50 an hour for 20 hours of meetings each month.

“That’s more than your average plumber or electrician or somebody that actually does something useful,” he said, adding that a 140 percent increase “would be enough.”

Paige advocates for evening council meetings

December 28th, 2012, 10:23 am by

Sean Paige/Photo by Daniel J. Chacón

Don’t expect  former City Councilman Sean Paige to appear in any campaign ads supporting a proposed ballot measure that would increase the pay of a future City Council.

“I have a one word rebuttal to those who believe better pay will result in better leadership: Congress,” Paige commented on a story on gazette.com about the proposed salary increase.

“Congress isn’t any less of a circus because each of the clowns now makes $174,000 per year, plus a king’s benefits and pension package,” he said.

Paige, former editorial page editor of The Gazette and currently deputy director of the Colorado chapter of Americans for Prosperity, says he has a “simpler” and “more affordable” solution to increase the pool of council candidates.

“The easiest way to increase the number and quality of people able to serve on City Council/Utilities Board — if that is the primary goal here — is to move meeting times from weekday afternoons, when most people are working, to evening hours, which would permit more people not only to serve but to attend,” he said.

Paige left a lengthy comment backing the idea of moving council meetings to the evening.

Here is the rest of his comment:

I pushed for this while on council but the idea was shot down, for reasons that were either silly, self-serving or outdated. Daytime meetings are a relic of the city manager system, in my opinion, when what was convenient for city employees was more important than what was convenient for the public at large. That model is gone now so a re-thinking is in order.

This simple change would cost nothing but greatly expand leadership opportunities for people who work 9 to 5. If we did it now, or very soon, the pool of people interested in running for council in April would grow considerably. Many cities function quite well with councils that meet in the evening. Marathon sessions that stretch until midnight could be avoided simply by running meetings with more efficiency.

Meetings would be attended not just by the narrowly-interested, who happen to have an item of special concern on the docket that day, but by the general public, who may be prevented from taking part now by day jobs. This new arrangement might be less convenient for the city or utility staff who are required to attend, and it might increase the city’s coffee bill by a couple bucks each month, but those are small drawbacks as compared to the obvious advantages.

Jumping directly to paying council members $45,000 per year, without first trying this much simpler and more affordable way to broaden the leadership pool, is a leap too far, in my opinion, which will flop at the ballot box. I also agree with those who say we still have some work to do, sorting out roles and responsibilities, particularly pertaining to utilities business, before we can determine a more equitable pay rate for councilors. More responsibility might argue for more pay, but I don’t see that responsibilities have grown any — and they may even be diminished somewhat under the new structure.

Finally, I would be more supportive of paying council members more if there were fewer of them — 5 instead of 9, for instance. I’ve never understood why a city this size needs a 9-member council, when 5 would probably do just fine. That’s my 2 cents worth, off the cuff. I reserve the right to add another dime or quarter as the debate unfolds.