“Hurray! That’s all caps. If you want, for our religious community, you can quote me as saying, ‘There is a God.’”

– anti-tax activist Douglas Bruce said when asked for his reaction to news that City Attorney Patricia Kelly was retiring Sept. 30.

Bruce, who has sued the city many times, has been highly critical of Kelly in the past.

There’s no love lost between Bruce and Kelly.

In the past, Bruce has called Kelly a “bad woman” and a ”lawless city attorney.”

Patricia Kelly

Mayor Steve Bach hopes to have a new city attorney by the time Patricia Kelly leaves next month.

“The mayor is beginning the process (of finding a replacement) and will be interviewing candidates for the position,” Cindy Aubrey, the city’s chief communications officer, said today.

Kelly, who has worked for the city for more than 25 years, announced her resignation Friday.

Her resignation, effective Sept. 30, comes after Bach told The Gazette that he was disappointed that Kelly had failed to consult him before drafting a series of proposed charter changes that would have taken away some of his authority.

Aubrey said she was “not sure” whether the mayor would conduct a nationwide search or look for a replacement from within the City Attorney’s Office.

The job has not yet been posted on the city’s website.

City Council President Scott Hente said the mayor would have a couple of good choices if he decided to find a replacement in-house, though Hente declined to give names.

“I have gotten to know a couple of the more senior attorneys over there fairly well. I am very impressed with a couple of them,” he said.

“If he chose one of those, I would be very happy,” Hente added. “If I was in his position, I think I would tend to pick one of those individuals.”

Kelly oversees about 30 attorneys and 27 support staff, according to the city’s website.

“As City Attorney, she is responsible for representation of the City in all cases in federal and state court where the City has an interest and further, is the chief legal advisor to the City Council, all Boards and Commissions, the City Manager, Utilities Executive Director, Board of Trustees of Memorial Hospital, as well as the staffs of their respective organizations, and all other enterprises and appointees of the City,” the website states. “Additionally, the City Attorney’s Office is charged with prosecution of all cases docketed into Municipal Court.”

A handful of proposed charter amendments that Mayor Steve Bach said he didn’t know about until the last minute won’t even be considered by the City Council today.

However, the council is still scheduled to consider a November ballot proposal involving the future of Memorial Health System.

Council President Scott Hente decided not to place the proposed charter changes on the agenda because of the controversy that ensued, council liaison Aimee Cox said.

“With all the concern, it was just decided,” she said. “The president of council controls the agenda and decided not to put those forward on the agenda.”

Cox said the four proposals were “just some ideas” that had been floated around based on a few months of experience under the new strong-mayor form of government.

The proposals, drafted by City Attorney Patricia Kelly, were outlined in a memo leaked to The Gazette.

They included a proposed charter amendment to take away the mayor’s authority to appoint the city attorney and give it to the council.

Another proposal calls for the mayor to execute contracts only for the city government but not for Memorial Health System or Colorado Springs Utilities.

Bach said Kelly had not briefed him on the proposals beforehand.
“These charter amendments were a surprise to me,” Bach said last week.

“There was no discussion with me before they were distributed to the council, which is disappointing in the sense that I think there ought to be a dialogue between the City Attorney’s Office and the mayor,” he said. “I hope this is strictly attributable to everybody being really busy.”

Bach said the city should form a charter review committee to study and recommend possible charter changes after several more months of working under the strong-mayor form of government.

“I think we need to have a more comprehensive look at the charter. We’ve only been doing this for two months,” said Bach, who took the oath of office in June.

Jeff Crank

“Given that some of these proposals take authority away from the mayor – authority granted by voters in an election – and given that you report to the mayor, not to council, it would seem appropriate that the mayor be provided with  some advance knowledge of a ballot proposal which, if passed by voters, would take some authority away from him.”

– conservative radio host Jeff Crank wrote today in an email to Colorado Springs City Attorney Patricia Kelly, who drafted language for five November ballot questions, including one that would apparently give the council the authority to appoint the city attorney — a power currently held by the mayor.

In the email, Crank asks Kelly to provide him with confirmation that the mayor was consulted before the proposals were put forward.

“I assume, since under the current city charter the city attorney reports to the mayor and not to council, that you reviewed these draft questions with Mayor Bach before submitting them to council,” Crank wrote.

“I am looking to discuss this issue on my show this week,” he added.

The future of Memorial Health System may not be the only issue that Colorado Springs voters will consider in November.

The Colorado Springs City Council is considering five charter changes for the November ballot, including the question about Memorial, according to a memo obtained by The Gazette.

During his State of the City address, Mayor Steve Bach talked about possible charter amendments to “clean up” the strong-mayor form of government that voters approved last year, and some of the proposed charter changes reflect amendments that Bach discussed in June.

To read more about what Bach said in June, click here.

But city officials haven’t discussed any of the proposed ballot questions in public.

On Monday afternoon, Council President Scott Hente confirmed that council members were considering five proposed charter amendments, but he declined to provide a copy of the memo outlining the proposals to The Gazette

The memo, dated Aug. 12, was written by City Attorney Patricia Kelly and addressed to the mayor and council.

Here is the full text of the memo:

TO: City Council and Mayor Bach

FROM: City Attorney/Chief Legal Officer

SUBJECT: Draft Ballot Questions for Review

DATE: August 12, 2011

According to the Election Calendar as established by law and available on the County Clerk & Recorder’s website, September 2, 2011 is the last date on which ballot issues can be referred to the County Clerk & Recorder.

If City Council wishes to refer any ballot questions to the November 1, 2011 Coordinated Election, it can make that referral at the Formal Council Meeting of August 23, 2011 or at a Special Meeting of City Council upon at least 24 hours of public notice on or before September 2, 2011.

Ballot questions that involve the City Charter must be referred by ordinance; other ballot issues not involving the City Charter may be referred by resolution. Due to the timing of preparing the ordinances and/or resolutions and because these have not been discussed directly with City Council or the Mayor for the most part, I request that you give me any feedback to these draft questions no later than close of business on Monday, August 15, 2011 so that I may prepare the full ordinance and/or resolution for the agenda packet on Tuesday, August 16, 2011. The agenda packet is available sometime shortly after noon on Wednesday, August 17, 2011 for the August 23, 2011 combined Council Formal/Informal Meeting.

Draft Ballot Question #1 re MHS (This question is prepared at the request of the Task Force)

As City Council may lease the assets of Memorial Health System to a nonprofit organization responsible to the City to assure continuation of the mission and services currently provided by Memorial Health System, shall the following ordinances be repealed: Ordinance No. 1854 (1949) that requires City Council to levy a tax to pay for any operating deficit of Memorial Health System, and Ordinances No. 1856 (1949) and No. 3131(1965) that provides for City Council to appoint the Board of Trustees’?”

Draft Ballot Question #2 re Charter delegation of Mayor’s signatory authority (This question is prepared at the request of Chief of Staff)

“Shall the City Charter of the City of Colorado Springs be amended to provide for more efficient administration of the Municipal Government by amending City Charter Art. IV, section 4-10 to read, in part, ‘The Mayor shall execute all contracts for the Municipal Government of the City of Colorado Springs, specifically excluding contracts of Colorado Springs Utilities and Memorial Health System, or may delegate such signature authority solely over Municipal Government contracts in writing, and shall see that all contracts and agreements with the City’s Municipal Government are faithfully kept and fully performed.’?”

Draft Ballot Question #3 re City Council staff; Mayor’s attorney (The part of the question re Council staff is prepared at the request of the Chief of Staff. The part of the question re City Attorney and the Mayor’s Counsel is prepared to accommodate the need of the Mayor for his attorney and to align the City Attorney and City Attorney’s Office with the other provisions of the Charter that have Council authorizing the hiring of staff attorneys, occasional hiring of outside counsel and setting compensation for all attorneys (City Charter Art. XIII, sections 13-80 and 13-90).

“Shall the City Charter of the City of Colorado Springs be amended to provide staff to City Council by amending City Charter Art. III, section 3-10(e) to read, in part, ‘The Council shall appoint by the concurring vote of a majority of its members, the City Attorney and any other staff that City Council may need in the performance of its responsibilities for the entire City’ and by adding a new sentence to City Charter Art. IV, section 4-40(e) to read, ‘The Mayor may also appoint an attorney to serve as the Mayor’s legal advisor that is not a part of the City Attorney’s Office and shall not provide litigation services to the City’ and by deleting the position of City Attorney from City Charter Art. IV, section 4-40(f)(2).’?”

Draft Ballot Question #4 re Strategic Plans (This question is prepared at the request of the Council liaison)

“Shall the City Charter of the City of Colorado Springs be amended to provide for one strategic plan of the City Municipal Government by amending City Charter Art. IV, section 4-40(b)(1) to read, in part, ‘The Mayor shall work with the City Council to develop one strategic plan that prioritizes goals for the City Municipal Government and that establishes measurable outcomes.’ and further amending City Charter Art. III, section 3-10(c) to read, in part, ‘In accordance with the Strategic Plan for the Municipal Government, City Council shall prioritize its goals and establish measurable outcomes for those goals.?”

Draft Ballot Question #5 re Ordinances and Resolutions (This question is prepared to align consistent responsibilities for the Mayor)

“Shall the City Charter of the City of Colorado Springs be amended to provide for the Mayor’s signature on ordinances and resolutions solely for the City Municipal Government, specifically excluding Colorado Springs Utilities and Memorial Health System, by amending City Charter Art. III, section 3-70(f) to read, ‘The City Clerk shall sign and attest all ordinances and resolutions. The Mayor shall sign and attest those ordinances and resolutions pertaining to the City’s Municipal Government.’?”

Please let me know if you have any other questions that you may wish to consider. Thank you.

Patricia K. Kelly

City Attorney/Chief Legal Officer

Terri Velasquez

“Robyn Cafasso, Chief Deputy District Attorney with the El Paso County District Attorney’s Office called at 11:48am (May 23, 2011). She said they are prosecuting Ray Marshall and Landco and are looking for additional information on the construction projects at 19 N. Tejon and the Gas Ops building related to El Pomar’s contract. She said they are interested in construction invoices from Landco or whatever we might have related to the two projects. She said she knows there is a confidentiality agreement for the civil lawsuit, so the D.A.’s Office would be happy to provide a Court Order or whatever is needed to enable you to turn the documents over. She has already spoken with Elena Nunez and Pat Kelly and has been referred to various people and your name also came up.”

– city employee Denise Hoover wrote in an email to Terri Velasquez, the city’s former director of finance and administrative services.

Velasquez’s response?

“Denise, there is very little information that I can provide. Please have her work with (City Attorney) Pat Kelly and (City Auditor) Denny Nester.”

UPDATE: To see which employees make more money than the mayor, click here.

Mayor Steve Bach may be the head honcho at City Hall, but he’s hardly the highest paid.

As the city’s chief executive, the mayor gets $96,000 a year.

Poor Bach.

According to information requested by The Gazette, there are 429 employees of the city, Memorial Health System and Colorado Springs Utilities whose base pay is higher than the mayor’s.

The request was strictly for base pay and didn’t include other forms of compensation, such as bonuses or overtime.

So by year’s end, many more city employees – especially police officers, firefighters and nurses – will likely make more money than Bach.

Even Bach’s chief of staff, Steve Cox, makes more than his boss – almost twice as much, in fact.

Cox, a longtime city employee, is paid $182,448 a year.

Cox is the second-highest paid municipal government employee.

The highest paid is City Attorney Patricia Kelly, who gets $183,736 a year.

Assistant City Manager Nancy Johnson is third with a base annual salary of $165,899, though Johnson is poised to take a pay cut in her new job as director of parks, planning and public works.

In a recent interview, Bach said the city and The City Committee — a group of business leaders who have been studying city operations for the past year — plan to hire a consultant to complete a thorough wage and salary review of city employees.

“For the … civilian positions, we’re going to compare to the local private sector – major private sector corporations in Colorado Springs,” Bach said. “That’s our competition, isn’t it?”

At Utilities, CEO Jerry Forte is the highest paid employee with $276,750 a year in base pay.

Forte is also entitled to receive incentive pay. His 2010 incentive pay was more than $76,000.

The other top earners at Utilities include Chief Energy Services Officer Bruce McCormick, whose base pay is $245,003, Chief Water Services Officer Gary Bostrom, whose base pay is $224,390, Chief Planning and Finance Officer Bill Cherrier, whose base pay is $220,002 and Carmelo “Carl” Cruz, whose base pay is $194,064. Cruz is the utility’s chief customer and corporate service officer.

At Memorial, the highest paid employee is Dr. Bryan Mahan, whose base pay is $588,079.

Memorial CEO Larry McEvoy and Dr. Laura Klein are tied for second with base annual pay of $550,000.04.

Dr. Aime Hollard isn’t far behind. Her base pay is $550,000.03.

The City Council is scheduled to meet behind closed doors today with City Attorney Patricia Kelly to talk about “economic development projects involving the electronic industry, election matters and storm water matters,” the agenda states.

The item involving “election matters” is new.

The agenda doesn’t go into specifics, so it’s unclear exactly what issue the council is discussing in executive session.

But earlier this month, Colorado Ethics Watch filed a complaint against Americans for Prosperity, saying the group was violating election laws by not reporting its donations and expenditures. Conservative radio host Jeff Crank is the group’s state director.

This is the second time that the council will meet in executive session to discuss an economic development project involving the electronic industry and pending litigation regarding storm water.

The city and El Paso County officials are at butting heads over the city’s plans to collect delinquent storm water fees by recording prejudgment property liens at the county.

“This has been going on for years, with a wink and nod, as long as the political activity in question serves the interests of a council majority, or of certain past city managers, or of a city attorney who has a real genius for finding legal technicalities to justify questionable activities.”

– former Councilman Sean Paige, who wrote in his blog today that the city has turned a blind eye to on-the-clock politics in the past.

Paige’s blog post was triggered by a “politically charged email” sent by the Colorado Springs Police Protective Association to some city employees at work alleging that mayoral candidate Steve Bach would implement slash-and-burn policies if elected.

In his blog, Paige mentions that The Gazette had a story in April about Colorado Springs Utilities employees meeting to discuss elections “but lost interest when it learned that the Police Chief wasn’t in attendance.”

After learning about the meeting, The Gazette interviewed a manager and a spokesman at Utilities last month who said that while the meeting took place at a city-owned facility, it didn’t occur while employees were on the clock.

Councilman Sean Paige wants City Attorney Patricia Kelly to investigate whether officials at Memorial Health System broke the law by using public resources for political purposes.

A number of politically related actions by Memorial seem “to violate the widely recognized prohibition against using public funds and assets for political purposes,” Paige said today in an e-mail to Kelly.

Here is the e-mail Paige sent to Kelly requesting the investigation:

Dear Pat:

A number of items came to my attention this weekend that again raise concerns about whether public resources are being improperly used for political purposes in regard to the Memorial ownership issue.  These activities appear to me to violate the widely-recognized prohibition against using public funds and assets for political purposes. I ask that you to investigate the following matters and explain, citing the law, why they do or don’t constitute prohibited political activities.

I received calls over the weekend from several people about radio ads run during the CC hockey game – I didn’t hear them myself and don’t yet have a transcript — touting the potential change of Memorial ownership, which in my view became a political issue many months ago. I know you’ve said before that this won’t become a political issue, technically, until something is officially on the ballot, but I respectfully disagree with that analysis and think that leaves the door open to a lot of mischief. The PERA revelation momentarily sidetracked the effort to put an ownership question on the April ballot, but it’s been a political issue, in my view, since the commission recommendation was made. Plus, this council voted in support of putting the recommendation before voters – why wouldn’t that vote trigger the prohibition against politicking from taking effect?

The second item that came to my attention was a publication by Memorial of an election guide, which specifically references candidate positions on the ownership issue (and which misrepresented the position of the so-called Reform Team, according to Mr. Bruce). Alleged misrepresentations aside, I find it highly improper and irregular for a city-owned enterprise to be publishing any sort of election-related materials or “guide,” since I have always believed public entities should remain officially neutral on such matters. I might be wrong, but this seems not just inappropriate but unprecedented. Are you aware of any other instances in which city enterprises have published voter guides?  What is your legal opinion on the propriety of doing so?

Finally, I was just provided a copy of an email — pasted below — that appears to have been sent to Memorial staff last Thursday or Friday, urging them to lobby state legislators against a bill that would amend the Hospital Transfer Act in a way that potentially benefits this city. The bill was introduced last Thursday from what I understand (though Memorial’s efforts to lobby against it predate that by weeks). This clearly constitutes lobbying, and the recruitment of public employee into lobbying, on what’s also clearly a political issue. I would ask that you investigate this matter and render a judgment on the legality/propriety of it as soon as possible.

Please also indicate which of these activities, if any, were cleared with your office before they were undertaken.  And if you signed-off on them, I would appreciate knowing the details of those exchanges.   Thanks in advance for your swift and diligent attention to these matters. And please give me a call if you need clarification on what I’m seeking.

Sean Paige

Below is the Memorial email:

From Cari Davis
Today 01:19 PM

Subject:       Urgent Legislative Issue–Your Help Needed!

We need your help with an important legislative issue!!! And we need it now!

Please consider contacting the five legislators listed below regarding
SB11-202, designed to change the Colorado Hospital Transfer Act! Note that
Sen. Cadman is the bill sponsor and a member of our local delegation.

This bill, if it passed, would make it so that monies from a sale of
Memorial could be used for ANY purpose, not just health care. We are
opposed to this legislation as we believe that any money generated from
patients should remain dedicated to health care.

Exercise your right to express your opinion with your legislators. Read the
bill (attached below), form an opinion, and express it with the Colorado
State Senate’s Local Government Committee (names, contact info below).

Thanks. We need your action now. AND….please tell your neighbors,
friends, co-workers about this so they can take action as well.

* * *

URGENT CALL TO ACTION

Legislative Action Alert: Colorado Hospital Transfer Act

Legislation aimed at changing the current Colorado Hospital Transfer Act
has been introduced into the Colorado Senate (SB11-202). We urge you to
contact the Senate Local Government Committee members (listed below),
asking them for a “no” vote on SB11-202.

The original intent of The Colorado Hospital Transfer Act was to ensure
that proceeds from any sale of a nonprofit hospital to a for-profit
organization would be reinvested to protect the health care needs of the
community.

The current proposed legislation would change the law to allow the proceeds
from the sale of any county- or municipally-owned hospital to a for-profit
corporation to be siphoned off for any use approved by the voters.

This bill has profound implications for hospitals, health care and
communities throughout Colorado.

If this bill passes, and Memorial Health System is sold to a for-profit,
three key things happen:

1. An estimated 700 jobs currently in Memorial’s support services
departments could be eliminated.

2. Local decision-making on health care could be taken from the community.

3. Profits could leave our community, go to corporate, and be redistributed
throughout the for-profit system and/or to its shareholders/investors. This
means money paid by local patients for health care would leave our
community.

Contact the following legislators now—Tell them that you are opposed to any
change in the Colorado Hospital Transfer Act and urge them to vote “no” on
Senator Cadman’s bill (SB11-202) to amend the Colorado Hospital Transfer
Act.

Senate Local Government Committee Contact information:
Chair Senator Joyce Foster
Capitol Telephone Number (303) 866-4875
Email: joyce.foster.senate@state.co.us

Vice-Chair Senator Jeanne Nicholson
Capitol Telephone Number (303) 866-4873
E-Mail: jeanne.nicholson.senate@state.co.us

Senator Dr. Irene Aguilar
Capitol Telephone Number (303) 866-4852
Email: irene.aguilar.senate@state.co.us

Senator Bill Cadman
Capital Telephone 303-866-2737
E-mail: bill.cadman.senate@state.co.us

Senator Ellen Roberts
Capitol Telephone Number (303) 866-4884
Email Address: ellen.roberts.senate@state.co.us

Group email distribution list, in case you’d like to send them a group
email:
joyce.foster.senate@state.co.us;
jeanne.nicholson.senate@state.co.us;
Irene.aguilar.senate@state.co.us;
bill.cadman.senate@state.co.us
Ellen.roberts.senate@state.co.us;

* * *