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

Archive for the 'Chris Melcher' Tag

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.

 

Holidays may delay no-solicitation zone discussions

December 19th, 2012, 5:16 pm by

What should Colorado Springs do next in light of a judge’s injunction on the no-solicitation zone?

The Gazette asked Mayor Steve Bach and City Council members to answer the question Wednesday.

Only City Councilman Bernie Herpin responded.

“Before I can comment on the status of the lawsuit and implementation of the no solicitation ordinance, I would need to hear from our City Attorney.  However, we do have an ‘aggressive solicitation’ ordinance on the books that would cover most of the more aggressive panhandling anywhere in the city.  It, like all our laws, becomes a matter of enforcement,” Herpin said in an email.

“I, also, do not understand the comments from the judge about our lack of discussion on other issues with the content of the no solicitation ordinance,” Herpin added. “I recall that we talked extensively about no charity solicitation, specifically about the Salvation Army bell ringers; street performers; sandwich boards; Girl Scouts; and other impacts of the ordinance besides just panhandling.”

City Attorney Chris Melcher weighed in Wednesday afternoon, saying the city had already issued a statement on the matter.

“The release stated that the city would carefully review the written opinion when released next week, consult with legal counsel, and make a decision after a thoughtful review and discussion,” Melcher said in an email.

Melcher also said that Herpin was “absolutely correct” that “there were substantial and detailed discussions in public council sessions that discussed solicitation by charitable organizations,” including the Salvation Army and the Girl Scouts, and solicitation by musicians and other street performers.

“Until we have the judge’s written decision, we cannot be sure what the court meant by those comments or whether the court was simply mistaken in its review of the record,” Melcher said. “The entire City Council proceedings on the ordinance were entered into the record by the city at the hearing, and the record before the court will reflect those discussions. ”

Melcher said it’s unlikely city leaders will be able to discuss “possible next steps” until the next council meeting Jan. 7 because of the holidays.

 

Inventor seeks ethics investigation of councilman

December 13th, 2012, 3:19 pm by

Tim Leigh

The businessman who invented the scrubber technology being installed at the Martin Drake Power Plant downtown is requesting an ethics investigation into City Councilman Tim Leigh.

And David Neumann seems to be hinting that Mayor Steve Bach needs to be investigated, too.

The request for an ethics investigation was filed with City Attorney Chris Melcher on Monday.

Here it is part of Neumann’s letter to Melcher:

“My company, Neumann Systems Group, Inc. (NSG), is a Colorado Springs Utilities (Utilities) ratepayer and a vendor of Utilities. I, David K. Neumann, am CEO and President of NSG. In accordance with the City Charter, NSG requests an ethics investigation of the actions of Councilmember Leigh relative to Utilities, its Officers and Directors, its citizen-owners, its ratepayers, and its vendors. We believe that, (yes, there is a comma here) Councilmember Leigh has conducted a vendetta against Utilities, its officers and Directors and certain vendors of Utilities and has committted numerous wrongful acts potentially in violation of his  fiduciary and other duties as a member of the Board of Directors of Utilities.”

And here is where it gets interesting because Neumann says other “senior elected” officials may be involved, too, though he doesn’t name any names.

“We are also concerned that other senior elected and appointed officials of the City may be involved as well at least in terms of potential appearances of impropriety and potential conflicts of interest,” Neumann wrote in the letter to Melcher.

Today, Neumann contacted Melcher again.

Here is a copy of that correspondence:

Mr. Melcher:

My apologies. I was told that for the second time my request for an Ethics Investigation of Councilmember/Boardmember Tim Leigh did not have the proper terminology for you to consider it valid and to act on it in your proper capacity as City Attorney. Both times you have failed to show me the courtesy of a response which informs me that you are rejecting these requests and the reasons for your rejection. To be clear, I and my company NSG request an investigation of Councilmember/Boardmember Tim Leigh by the City’s Independent Ethics Committee for the reasons stated in the previous two letters/emails that were sent to you.

If this is still not clear enough, then please provide me with the sample format you require for submission of a request. There is none available that I know of and no specific wording required as part of the City Charter.

I look forward to the courtesy of a response from you or your supervisor.

Thanks,

Dave

David K. Neumann, CEO

Neumann Systems Group, Inc.

 

Council to meet in closed session Monday

December 10th, 2012, 11:37 am by

The City Council is scheduled to meet in closed executive session Monday to discuss three legal items.

According to the agenda, the issues to be discussed include:

– legal advice and negotiation consultation with City Attorney Chris Melcher regarding an intergovernmental agreement and contract negotiations

– legal consultation with Melcher regarding an enforcement matter

–  legal advice and consultation with Melcher regarding a pending litigation matter.

The agenda doesn’t provide any more specifics.

The council is discussing three legal items in the open, including a discussion of Amendment 64, the voter-approved ballot question that legalized small amounts of marijuana in Colorado.

Campaign finance changes subject of work session

October 8th, 2012, 11:08 am by

The City Council is holding a work session Tuesday to review and discuss proposed changes to campaign finance disclosure and election code requirements.

The work session will be from 10:30 a.m. to noon in the Pikes Peak Conference Room at City Hall, 107 N. Nevada Ave.

The public is allowed to comment on the proposed changes, which are the result of confusion and other problems that surfaced during the last municipal election.

Click here to see the proposed changes.

Here’s the agenda for Tuesday’s work session:

Introductions

Key Issues

Timeframe for hearing/penalties

– What are appropriate penalty limits?
– How long should process take?

Disclosure requirements

– What information is required and what is filing process?
– Reporting of Independent Expenditures.
– Disclaimers on electioneering communications.
– Conflict between definition of Issue Committee and disclosure requirement.

Termination of committee

– How to affirmatively close?
– Carry-over funds and disposal of unexpended funds.

Enforcement issues

– Ability of Clerk and/or hearing officer for discovery of information and to compel testimony.
– Ability to “follow the money.”

Candidate training

– Manual and training program: who creates, who instructs?

Other Issues

Public Comment

Summary of Council Direction to City Attorney

New deputy city attorney to be paid $160,000 a year

September 25th, 2012, 1:12 pm by

Tom Florczak

Pueblo’s city attorney is coming to work for Colorado Springs.

The city on Monday announced the hiring of Tom Florczak as the new deputy city attorney.

Florczak, who starts Oct. 15, will be paid $160,000 annually — or about $20,000 more than he earned in Pueblo.

Colorado Springs City Attorney Chris Melcher said Florczak will supervise five section chiefs in litigation, prosecution, utilities, municipal and human resources. He will also support Melcher as he advises Mayor Steve Bach, City Council and city enterprises, Melcher said.

“We are very pleased to have Tom Florczak agree to join our office and help us provide the very best legal services to the city of Colorado Springs,” Melcher said in a statement.

“As the Pueblo city attorney and in private practice before that, Tom brings tremendous legal skills and extraordinary judgment developed over 34 years of practice in municipal law,” Melcher said.  “I am thrilled to have Tom join as the newest member of our team, and am confident he will help us continue to improve the Office of City Attorney and our service to this community.”

Melcher said the position of deputy city attorney is new but “fully funded” by the elimination of a prosecutor position and an assistant city attorney position.

“The changes in the office will not result in any increase to the office budget and will not require any new funds from the city’s general fund,” he said.

Melcher said Florczak’s hiring is in no way related to the Southern Delivery System. The water pipeline, which is under construction from Pueblo to Colorado Springs, has created tensions between the two communities.

“We are very excited and pleased to have Tom join our office, and are confident his experience, skill, and judgment will provide an immediate and substantial contribution to the Office of the City Attorney,” Melcher said.

According to the Pueblo Chieftain, Florczak has been Pueblo’s top attorney for the past three years and worked in the Pueblo City Attorney’s Office for the past three decades. The Chieftain also reported that Florczak also worked in former Pueblo City Attorney Tom Jagger’s firm for 31 years.

 

 

 

Schedule for proposed ‘no solicitation zone’

September 10th, 2012, 10:40 am by

Photo by Daniel J. Chacon

Here’s the schedule for the proposed no solicitation zone to fight panhandling downtown, according to a news release from the City Council:

Over the next two months, the “No Solicitation Zone” Ordinance schedule is as follows:

Monday, Sept. 10 – Informal City Council meeting. City Attorney to answer questions from Council and receive direction. Public is welcome; public comment not permitted.

Monday, Sept. 24 – Informal City Council meeting. City Attorney to present draft ordinance. Additional changes may be made to ordinance. Public is welcome; public comment not permitted.

Tuesday, Oct. 9 – Formal City Council meeting. First reading of ordinance. Public welcome; public comment permitted.

Tuesday, Oct. 23 – Formal City Council meeting. Possible second reading of ordinance. Public welcome; public comment permitted.

All meetings will begin at 1 p.m. and will be held in the Council Chambers located on the third floor of City Hall at 107 N. Nevada Avenue.

This schedule is tentative and could change based on Council direction or decision.

Czelatdko points finger at city attorney over McMillion

July 26th, 2012, 9:56 am by

An editorial that resurrected the $1.15 million separation agreement with former Memorial Health System CEO Larry McEvoy led City Councilwoman Lisa Czelatdko to divulge new details about what happened behind closed doors.

On a Facebook post of Gazette editorial page editor Wayne Laugesen, Czelatdko revealed discussions in closed executive session.

Here is what Czelatdko wrote, with edits:

I was actually in the closed executive session Wayne Laugesen and so know exactly what was said and not said. What was not said was a 1.2 million dollar severance package was being given to (former Memorial Health System CEO Larry) McEvoy.

What was said was:

1) Why is McEvoy here in chambers announcing a resignation with no announcement of it on the agenda or notification to Council from the City Attorney’s Office?

2) What was said from the Memorial Hospital Board Chair Jim Moore, was that they (board and Chris) were working on a severance package for McEvoy up to 18 months and that they had been working on possible packages for two weeks under the direction of Chris Melcher

3) What was said was that no Memorial contract would be valid without the signature of Jim Moore and Chris Melcher

4) And lastly, what was said was the reminder that Council, the City Attorney’s Office and Memorial board could not enter into any contracts over 1 million dollars without all three parties acknowledging it. This understanding was put in place a month prior to protect the lease negotiations and keep the current admin entering into big money contracts that UCHealth might not want.

When I left that room I know myself and many of my colleagues who did not support retention packages thought, ‘Good luck getting us to agree to anything more than his agreed contract package,’ and we went home after a 7-hour meeting day.

Wayne, please, please stop perpetuating incorrect information and writing articles based on non factual assumptions. Did (council President Scott Hente) and (council President Pro Tem Jan Martin) know more specifics? I don’t know. Do you know for a fact? Did (Councilman Merv Bennett) and (Councilwoman Brandy Williams) know? I’m not sure. Do you? All I know is Council was told by Jim Moore that Chris Melcher, City Attorney was assisting in package negotiations. Chris did not refute that as he stood there listening to Jim speak. Chris confirmed to Council what I mentioned above regarding signatures needed for agreed contract limits and Council was told a package would come back for confirmation. No confusion for me when I walked out of the room that the city attorney who is suppose to serve both Council and the Mayor, who dare Council question or challenge his legal opinion, had it under control and was working on it with the board. Assumingly looking out for the best interest of council and the city.

I also know after the nightmare began, Chris Melcher, city attorney informed council that he paid for an outside legal consult who confirmed the board could do what they did, that if we challenged them through litigation which (Councilwoman) Angela Dougan, (Councilman Tim Leigh) and myself all said we’d support, the City would be responsible for paying all their attorneys, fees, etc and they probably would win costing the taxpayers millions more of wasted dollars. Chris told Council it was a weak case to challenge, a done deal, basically Council would have to take the lumps, and the lame press release was put out by my colleagues (I was flying with space command) that we would not pursue the matter further. So as I see it everyone won but Council and the health payers.

Memorial and UCHealth got rid of McEvoy who was tainting the campaign and poisoning the morale of hospital employees, the Board showed defiance and wielded their authority one last time, McEvoy lost a job but got a heck of a lot of money, and Council gets the blame for not overseeing the Board more thoroughly. A board who legally was given full authority and fiduciary responsibility years prior. I can only assume that decision was because the prior council thought it made sense to appoint a full time board of knowledgeable people who could dedicate their time to the health system and report back monthly to council. Council, who back then, was a part time, poorly compensated body in charge of the city, the health system and the utility company. Council, who now is even more limited and minionized by certain vocal, agenda driven, influential people, who so obviously serve one master. All I can say is I hope someone is keeping track of some of these personnel issues and making permanent notes in personnel files.

Chieftain says city ‘fudged’ on stormwater promise

July 16th, 2012, 9:44 am by

Colorado Springs has “fudged” on its promise to deal with stormwater.

So said the Pueblo Chieftain in an editorial Sunday.

“We are urging the Bureau of Reclamation to open a supplemental environmental impact statement to determine if there is any scientific basis to the Springs’ claims that its stormwater problems are under control,” the editorial stated.

“So far, Reclamation has relied on political promises to address stormwater, rather than seek scientific information in granting approval for the Southern Delivery System. The strongest response Reclamation has given to critics of these promises is that an “adaptive management program” will evaluate impacts from SDS and fix problems as they occur.

“This is smoke and mirrors.”

The editorial — titled “Control? What control?” — notes that City Attorney Chris Melcher raised concerns in March about the need to fund stormwater.

The city should be spending between $13 million and $15 million annually on stormwater needs, city officials have said.

“That amount is but a pittance of the $500 million Colorado Springs admits it needs to address all of the capital and maintenance needs of its existing stormwater system,” the editorial states.