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

Archive for the 'People' Category

Quote of the Day

January 14th, 2013, 4:12 pm by

Welcome home, City Councilman Tim Leigh.

Leigh, who was on vacation in Hawaii, arrived in Colorado Springs on Monday.

He said the first thing he saw when he turned on his phone was a tweet from a Gazette reporter about a new parody Twitter account that pokes fun at him.

The account, which calls Leigh a “flake” and Mayor Steve Bach’s “errand boy,” includes an unflattering picture of Leigh.

“That’s the very first thing I saw when I turned on my cell phone,” he said.

“I want to know where they found that picture. I want to get it reproduced and put that in my City Hall office because that’s how I feel about City Hall most of the time when (my colleagues) vote against me.”

 

Councilman targeted in parody Twitter account

January 14th, 2013, 12:06 pm by

City Councilman Tim Leigh is the target of a brand-new parody Twitter account that pokes fun at him.

The Twitter handle is @NotTimLeigh and describes the account as an attempt to channel the City Council’s “favorite flake” and Mayor Steve Bach’s “No. 1 errand boy.”

“No clue yet what I’ll be doing this week. Still waiting by the phone for @mayorstevebachto call. Hello! Fingers tapping! Sigh,” reads the first — and so far, the only — tweet by @NotTimLeigh.

The Twitter user did not immediately return a request seeking comment.

@NotTimLeigh is following 82 Twitter users and has three followers.

Scratch that.

Make that four followers.

@danieljchacon is now following @NotTimLeigh.

 

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.

 

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

 

Council president outraged by Flakes’ candidacy

January 4th, 2013, 10:15 am by

Andy Westbay and Scott Hawrysiak

Some people say Gary Flakes deserves a second chance.

When he was 16 years old, Flakes and his friend gunned down two teen-age boys who were walking home at night on Valentine’s Day 1997.

The victims — Andy Westbay, 13, and Scott Hawrysiak, 15 — were shot with a 12-guage shotgun.

Flakes was tried as an adult and served more than 12 years in prison. His co-conspirator, Jeron Grant, then 17, also served time behind bars.

But neither was convicted of pulling the trigger. Instead, they were convicted in separate trials as accessories to murder.

Though authorities alleged, based on confessions and witness testimony, that Grant was the trigger man, neither Grant nor Flakes has owned up to it.

Now, Flakes, who says he’s a reformed man, is running for City Council District 4.

His candidacy has opened old wounds for the victims’ families and outraged people in the community.

Among them is City Council President Scott Hente.

“I listened (Wednesday) to a former state representative’s beliefs that this guy should be given a second chance,” Hente said, referring to former state Rep. Dennis Apuan.

“He didn’t give those two kids a second chance back in 1997, did he?”

 

ACLU threatened to sue city in 2001 over ordinance prohibiting ex-felons from holding public office

January 3rd, 2013, 10:13 am by

The candidacy of Gary Flakes has prompted City Clerk Sarah Johnson to research whether ex-felons can serve on the City Council.

“We need to do a lot of research,” Johnson said Wednesday. “I’ve been working with the City Attorney’s Office on that very question, and we are currently researching the answers.”

The issue came up in Colorado Springs before when the Rev. Promise Lee was considering a council bid in late 2000, early 2001.

Lee was convicted of second-degree murder in the 1974 killing of a Fort Carson soldier. Lee was 15 at the time of the crime.

When the council passed an ordinance prohibiting ex-felons from serving on council or even running, the ACLU of Colorado stepped in.

“Eleven years ago, the ACLU of Colorado was prepared to sue on behalf of the Rev. Promise Lee, who was the target of an ordinance passed to prevent ex-felons from running for or serving on the city council,” Mark Silverstein, legal director for the ACLU of Colorado, said in an email Thursday.

At the time, Silverstein sent a letter to former City Attorney Patricia Kelley asking for a repeal of the ordinance.

“The council repealed the ordinance,” Silverstein said.

Johnson, who is relatively new to Colorado Springs, said the city is looking “through all the files to see if the question has come up” and how the city responded.

“Of course, there’s a lot of case law out there on this particular issue,” she said. “Now, I don’t know necessarily in the city. I can’t answer that question. But nationally, it is an issue.”

Silverstein said the law hasn’t changed.

“The law is the same as it was when I wrote the letter in 2001,” he said. “Mr. Flakes has a right to be a candidate, and the voters have a right to consider whether to vote for him.”

Here is the full, unedited text of the ACLU’s 2001 letter:

January 3, 2001

Patricia Kelly

City Attorney

City of Colorado Springs

30 S. Nevada Ave Suite 101

Colorado Springs, Colorado 80901

Dear Ms. Kelly:

I am writing to you about a recently-enacted ordinance, Ordinance 00-175, which purports to make citizens ineligible to serve on the Colorado Springs City Council if they have been convicted of a felony at any time in the past.

The newly-enacted ordinance adds the following section to the Colorado Springs Election Code:

5.1.105: ELECTORS ELIGIBLE TO HOLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE

Every registered elector 25 years of age or older on the date of election who has been a resident of Colorado Springs for one year immediately preceding election, is a citizen of the United States, maintains a residence within the District for election as a District councilmember and within the City for election as Mayor or at-large councilmember, and has not been convicted of a felony in any jurisdiction may be a candidate and hold office.

As this section is written, it forbids individuals from holding municipal office if they have ever been convicted of a felony, even if the sentence has already been served and even if the convicted person’s right to vote has been restored.

I write on behalf of the Reverend Promise Lee, who intends to run for a seat on the Colorado Springs city council in the upcoming election this April.   Rev. Lee was convicted of a felony in the early 1970s, for a crime that occurred when he was fifteen years old.   Since his release from prison, Rev. Lee has become a community leader and an outspoken advocate on matters of public concern.  The newly-enacted ordinance, however, would prevent Rev. Lee from serving on the city council if he were elected.

I am writing to ask that the City of Colorado Springs take immediate steps to repeal the newly- enacted ordinance.

The Colorado Supreme Court has characterized the right to run for public office as a fundamental right.    Cowan v. City of Aspen, 181 Colo. 343, 349, 509 P.2d 1269, 1272 (1973).   “This right may not be infringed upon by invidious discriminatory disqualifications.”  Id.   When the government takes away from the voters the ability to decide who shall be qualified for public office, the government’s reasons must be “real, clear and compelling.”  Id., 509 P.2d at 1273.

I have reviewed the documents that the city council considered last November when it enacted the ordinance that purports to bar Rev. Lee’s candidacy.  In those documents, I do not find any reason for barring ex-offenders from office, let alone a reason that is sufficiently compelling to override Rev. Lee’s fundamental right to participate fully in the democratic political process.

Unlike other states, Colorado does not permanently disenfranchise ex-offenders from voting, nor does it prohibit ex-offenders from holding public office.   The Colorado Constitution makes it clear that convicted felons are barred from voting only during the time that they are confined in prison as a result of their conviction.  Upon release from prison, ex-offenders are restored to their full rights of citizenship.   Nor are ex-offenders barred from holding public office in Colorado, unless they have been convicted of one of the five specific crimes listed in Article XII, Section 4 of the state constitution.  See Colo. Const. Art. XII, Sec. 4 (listing embezzlement of public funds; bribery, perjury, and subornation of bribery or perjury).

Indeed, it is the “strong public policy” of the State of Colorado “to aid ex-offenders in their rehabilitation to society and to insure that they are not discriminated against solely because they, at one time, were convicted of crimes.”  Watson v. Cronin, 384 F. Supp. 652 (D. Colo. 1974) (interpreting C.R.S. § 24-5-101).

It appears that the newly-enacted ordinance was drafted and passed with full knowledge that Rev. Lee was interested in running for a seat on the city council and with full knowledge that the new ordinance would bar his candidacy.   Indeed, an article published in the Colorado Springs Gazette on November 10, 2000, states that the Colorado Springs City Attorney believed that Rev. Lee’s past felony conviction might prevent his candidacy.  The article was published before the newly-enacted ordinance was even presented to the city council.

The newly-enacted ordinance violates the charter of the City of Colorado Springs, which clearly sets out the qualifications for city council and the mayor’s office:

Qualifications.  No person shall be eligible to the office of Mayor or Councilmember unless he or she is a citizen of the United States, at least twenty-five (25) years of age, and shall have been for one (1) year immediately preceding such election a resident of the City of Colorado Springs.  (1909; 1987).

City of Colorado Springs Charter, Section 2-20.  It is clear that the charter sets out only three criteria for eligibility: citizenship, age, and residency.     Rev. Lee is a United States citizen; he is over twenty-five years old; and he has been a resident of Colorado Springs for more than one year.  Under the charter, Rev. Lee is eligible to be elected and to serve as a member of the city council.

On behalf of Rev. Lee, I ask that the Colorado Springs City Council take immediate steps — at its next scheduled meeting on January 9, 2001– to effect the repeal of the newly-enacted Section 5.1.105 of the city’s election code.

Sincerely,

Mark Silverstein,

Legal Director, ACLU of Colorado

 

 

VIDEO: Flakes refers to murders as ‘the situation’

January 3rd, 2013, 9:40 am by

Gary Flakes, who was involved in one of the most high-profile crimes in Colorado Springs history, announced his bid for City Council District 4 on Wednesday night.

The 32-year-old started the announcement by thanking everyone who was there.

Then, Flakes brought up the shotgun slayings of Andy Westbay, 13, and Scott Hawrysiak, 15, on Valentine’s Day 1997.

“This was definitely very emotional for me to have to go through, and I know that some of the families and friends is having to really relive the situation,” he said.

“I’m running for City Council because I understand the needs of this community. As a young person, my actions devastated the community and brought grief to two families. The teenager who committed those acts made me the young leader I am today. Today I will use my life experiences, my knowledge, to make the lives of young people better and to help all of District 4 live up to its greatest potential,” he said.

CLICK HERE to watch video of Flakes announcing his candidacy.

 

Quote of the Day

December 20th, 2012, 5:16 pm by

Rich Coolidge

“To refer to Ethics Watch as a legal-based watchdog group is total bunk. I mean, it’s very clear that they’re a liberal group that only attacks Republicans, and if you look at the data, that’s all they attack.”

– Rich Coolidge, communications director for Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler, who was listed in Colorado Ethics Watch’s Top 5 ethical scandals of 2012.

Here’s what Ethics Watch wrote about Gessler:

“Scott Gessler’s Personal Piggy Bank:  Controversial Secretary of State Scott Gessler made a name for himself while attempting to reshape Colorado election and campaign finance laws in this election year.  He earned fame of a different kind when a review of public records revealed evidence of misuse of public funds by Secretary Gessler, including the use of state funds to cover travel expenses for partisan events, which implicates several laws against public corruption.”

 

Watchdog group lists state’s top five ethical scandals

December 20th, 2012, 12:19 pm by

Secretary of State Scott Gessler was named in the report

Whew.

Nobody in the city of Colorado Springs made it on Colorado Ethics Watch’s 5th annual report on the top ethical scandals of 2012.

The report focuses on “the five most public and egregious lapses in judgment and ethics by public and elected officials,” according to Ethics Watch, a Denver-based legal watchdog group.

“The report highlights the lack of structure of Colorado’s government to prevent and respond to corruption, and the need for ethics enforcement to match the laws that are currently in place to keep state government clean,” the group said in a news release.

Colorado Springs was on the list of ethical failures last year because of its embarrassing confusion about campaign finance laws.

“The five scandals detailed in this year’s Ethics Roundup are the clearest examples of where our enforcement system is working, and where it is lacking,” Director Luis Toro said in a statement.

“When a city council is its own ethics panel, or where a public official who has been convicted of crime related to his office and awaits trial for more such crimes is still in office, we know we have a problem.  The sooner local governments and our state legislature recognize the shortcomings in our enforcement systems, the sooner we’ll have government that we can all trust,” he said.

In a telephone interview, Toro said Ethics Watch is “keeping an eye” on a recently filed request for an ethics investigation of City Councilman Tim Leigh.

“At this point, we just don’t know enough to say this is really a big deal,” he said. “It may turn out that next year this blows up. I know there’s so much money involved with the Drake power plant that if it’s big, it’s going to be really big.”

Toro said his organization is also keeping a close eye on “all these issues” with Mayor Steve Bach around open-records requests.

“That’s been kind of a hot and cold thing. It sounds like there hasn’t been as much problem lately,” he said. “We were certainly aware that there’s been a lot of questions about his transparency.”

Among those listed in the group’s Top 5 ethical scandals of 2012 is Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler, who is the subject of a criminal investigation that grew out of a complaint from Ethics Watch.

Gessler’s communications director, Rich Coolidge, called Ethics Watch is a liberal group that targets only Republicans.

“They’re trying to get Gessler attached to corruption,” he said. “They’re writing this to fudge it and make it look sensationalized.”