Felice to City Council: Write a better story.

PUBLIC STATEMENT

Denver City Council

 

The matter before Council is fundamentally about the loss of irreplaceable natural area and betrayal of the public trust.

 

But you should reject this insidious scheme because there are too many misleading and deceptive questions about how the deal was made and how much this so-called trade is actually going to cost.

 

As an example of the confusion, the Council bill now describes 11-point-seven acres, when previous discussions have been about 11-point-five acres?

 

Why does anyone think it’s a good idea to build a school in a flood plain?  There are open spaces along south Monaco where even commercial building is prohibited because of potential flooding.  Who actually pays for getting proper drainage at Hentzell Park Natural Area?

 

When Kelly Leid worked for the school district, why did he decide the natural area was the only site for a school building? Did Leid know he’d go to work for Michael B. Hancock who wanted the land for a trade?

 

Leid apparently didn’t even know the land was designated as a natural area.  The Parks Department initially had difficulty describing the land and describing how much land was to be involved.

 

When did Michael B. Hancock promise the building for a domestic violence assistance center?  According to its web site, the center declared it had secured a lease in October, even before the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board considered de-designation.

 

How much is actually going to be spent to renovate a building which School Superintendent Tom Boasberg acknowledges “has outlived it usefulness.”  Who pays if asbestos abatement is required? 

 

Why did Boasberg buy 1860 Lincoln even before the deal on 1330 Fox was complete?  Did he have a secret assurance from the city administration?

 

The school district’s own reports show overcrowding throughout the city.  Is there a plan to build more schools in other locations and does this plan involve taking more parkland?

  

The supporters of this ill-advised proposal will talk about their self-interests and say anything necessary to get what they want at the expense of the general public.

 

Don’t be part of a government whose legacy is the killing of prairie dogs and the deaths of other animals, the destruction of natural vegetation, and the loss of open space.

 

History is full of stories about someone taking land away from somebody else.  Write a better story.

 

 

David P. Felice

April 1, 2013

 

Leading the way

Keshagesh = Greedy Guts

Buffy Sainte-Marie
No No Keshagesh lyrics

Songwriters: SAINTE MARIE, BUFFY

I never saw so many business suits.
Never knew a dollar sign that looked so cute.
Never knew a junkie with a money Jones:
He's singing, "Who's selling Park Place. Who's buying Boardwalk"?
These old men they make their dirty deals.
Go in the back room and see what they can steal.
Talk about your beautiful and spacious skies.
It's about uranium; it's about the water rights.
Put Mother Nature on a luncheon plate.
They cut her up and call it real estate.
Want all the resources and all of the land.
They make a war over it: Blow things up for it.
The reservation now is poverty row.
There's something cooking and the lights are low.
Somebody's trying to save our mother earth.
I'm gonna help them to save it,
To sing it and bring it

Singing: No no Keshagesh:
You can't do that no more, (no more, no more no more)
No, no, no, no Keshagesh
You can't do that no more, (no more, no more no more)
No, no, no, no Keshagesh
You can't do that no more, (no more, no more no more)
No, no, no, no Keshagesh
You can't do that no more, (no more, no more no more)

Ole Columbus he was looking good,
When he got lost in our neighborhood.
Garden of Eden right before his eyes.
Now it's all spy ware: now it's all income tax.
Ole' brother Midas looking hungry today.
What he can't buy he'll get some other way.
Send in the troopers if the natives resist.
Old, old story boys, that's how you do it boys.
Look at these people; ah they're on a roll.
Gonna have it all, gonna have complete control.
Want all the resources and all of the land.
They'll break the law for it: Blow things up for it.
When all our champions are off in the war,
Their final rip off here and is always on.
Mr. greed I think your time has come.
We're gonna sing it and pray it and live it then say it.

Singing: No no Keshagesh:
You can't do that no more, (no more, no more no more)
No, no, no, no Keshagesh
You can't do that no more, (no more, no more no more)
No, no, no, no Keshagesh
You can't do that no more, (no more, no more no more)
No, no, no, no Keshagesh
You can't do that no more, (no more, no more no more)

Former Councilwoman Donohue's open letter to current City Council members before Monday's decisive vote on Hentzell Park

March 29, 2012

Dear Councilmenber,

File photo of Donohue testifying before City Council

On Monday you will be making a decision that could forever diminish the honor bestowed on former Councilmember Paul Hentzell.

History is a great teacher.  When I was elected to the Denver City Council in 1975, two members of the Council became both my mentors as well as my closest friends.  One was Council Bill Roberts and the other was Councilman Paul Hentzell.

Two more different politicians could not be found.  One, Paul Hentzell, was a very conservative Republican; and the other, Bill Roberts, was what at that time was called a "liberal" Democrat.  One always voted with Mayor McNichols; and the other almost never voted with McNichols.

During my first seven years as a member of the Denver City Council, I also never voted for the schemes and "special interest" legislation proposed by Mayor Bill McNichols.

Mr. Roberts and Mr. Hentzell told me about their experiences as elected officials.  Both had colorful and at times very distressing stories.  Mr. Roberts spent his time on Council losing every issue that he believed to be right.  He was often bitter about the way that minorities and women were treated throughout Denver's political history, especially during the McNichols years.

Mr. Hentzell consistently voted with the McNichols majority until my fifth year on Council.  He finally decided to change his voting pattern and joined a four-vote minority consisting of Councilmembers Roberts, Carpio, Sandos and Donohue.  Four votes suddenly became five.  King Trimble won a replacement election in Council District 8, and our five-vote minority grew to six.  Then a small miracle happened,  In the last year of the McNichols reign the vote count was six to seven on every crucial issue that McNichols placed before the Council.  Finally, Councilwoman Reynolds joined the "minority" coalition and our group grew to seven--the  magic number!

During the last year of the McNichols era, that seven vote majority (with the help of Councilman Hentzell) changed the course of politics at City Hall.  We had the votes to change the City Charter so that Council had to approve all contracts over $500,000, and there were no more "sole source" bond deals.  Bonds had to be competitively bid.  We also changed the Charter to require "line items" on all city bond projects.  Historically, whenever a bond issue was presented to the public, there were simply six or seven broadly defined categories, like "Parks", "Public Works", 'Health and Hospitals", etc., without specific costs for any project.  The agencies just received a lump sum of millions of dollars to be used however each agency deemed necessary.  This may sound like nightmare, but it was every administrator's dream come true--no "check" or "balance" at City Hall!

Change was desperately needed, and it came about because of an odd coalition of Democrats and one brave Republican--Paul Hentzell.

When Councilman Hentzell died many of the citizens and those of us who had benefited from Paul's wisdom and generosity wanted to honor him.  With the help of his family, Hentzell Park was named  in his honor.  

William E. Roberts Elementary School stands today as testament to his remarkable service to the citizens of Denver.

When each of us leaves public service, in the corner of our brains is a little place where we dream that someone will honor the years we spent serving the public.  Some of you no doubt will be honored in a way that is as meaningful as what was given to Mr. Roberts and Mr. Hentzell.

Could anyone ever imagine that the School Board would suddenly diminish Mr. Roberts' tribute and take away any part of the school named for him?  Councilman Roberts was devoted to children's education, just as Councilman Hentzell was devoted to parks.  The years Mr. Hentzell spent insuring that Babi Yar Park became a reality are to numerous to count.

When we choose to honor someone for public service, it should be lasting and irreversible.  We should only do unto others that which we would wish done unto us.

Councilman Hentzell's honorarium should remain unchanged.

Yours truly,

Cathy Donohue

Retired City Councilmember

INC asks for Denver Parks and Rec for clarification

The proposed land swap between the City and County of Denver and Denver Public Schools that has been a point of controversy for months finally heads to Denver's City Council April 1.  INC PARC encourages your attendance at this meeting if at all possible.

---

On March 19 INC PARC sent out a flier received from Denver Parks and Recreation announcing 4 public meetings concerning "Outdoor fee based events" to be held April 9-20.  At the committee meeting held the same night the "committee agreed that the title was misleading and the actual reason for the meetings , and the input that DPR wished to receive from the public, was not apparent. The presumed topic was what has been called “Commercial Use Policy” heretofore.  DPR will be notified promptly that a new flier with considerably more and clearer information should be sent" (Please see meeting notes from March 19).
On March 26 an email letter was sent to Manager Lauri Dannemiller. At this time no response has been received.
See letter below:

March 26, 2013
To: Lauri Dannemiller
Manager of Parks and Recreation
From: INC Parks and Recreation Committee
We request the announcement for the four public meetings of the Outdoor
Fee-Based Policy be redistributed and better reflect what is being presented at
the meetings and what DPR wants in the way of feedback. Even the picture on the
announcement seems confusing and misleading. At the INC meeting, March 19, the
policy was not available on the Parks website. A draft policy should be
available on line before the public meetings and with sufficient time for people
to read and evaluate the policy to obtain feedback requested by DPR. The
announcement does not direct the public to the policy nor does it have an
address to find the policy on line.
We question the clarity of the policy title. It was referred to as a Commercial
Use Policy during the stakeholders' meetings and when you came to our meeting.
We believe Commercial Use Policy better represents the intent and what is
contained in the policy. With the title of Outdoor Fee-Based Policy one is
lead to believe fees will be discussed and is the focus. Will a fee structure
be discussed at these meetings?
We question what will be done with the feedback received. What flexibility is
there in making changes to the policy before it is adopted?
The Commercial Use Policy for Denver Parks is a major change in how our parks
will be viewed by businesses and users. The impact to park users will be
significant. A clarification as soon as possible of the policy and what will be
done with the feedback is crucial to have a transparent and open public process.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Katie Fisher
Maggie Price
Co-Chairs INC Parks and Rec. Committee
 

The Vern Wagner Saga: Sentencing Hearing - March 26, 2013

Vern Wagner leaving the Fairplay courthouse
 after sentencing on March 26, 2013.

Hartsel cattle rancher Vern Wagner appeared before Judge Green in the Fairplay courthouse yesterday to be sentenced in the criminal trial in which he was found guilty of one count (out of four) of misdemeanor animal cruelty on Feb 1, 2013. He was found guilty of cruelty in the death of single cow, #132, of Wagner's over 1200 head, after the harsh Spring of 2011. Cow #132 was found by the Park County Animal Control dead and "dragged behind a rock".
On April 28, 2011 John Salazar, Department of Agriculture Commissioner, wrote to Judge Thom LeDoux of the 11th District that "the Department would be satisfied with one conviction of animal cruelty and restitution appropriately directed to the Park County Sheriff's Office." (Letter at the bottom of the page here.)
Wagner was sentenced to 30 days in jail (suspended) and  80 hours of community service. Restitution to the Park County Sheriff's Office (for the countless hours they must have spent persecuting Wagner over the years) was not even asked for by the prosecution. Judge Green noted that Wagner had no resources left. Having already been stripped of over $1 million worth of cattle and $2 million worth of land, Wagner himself told me "I'm broke".
Wagner also told me the story of cow #132: "While the snow was still deep, Animal Control officers scared her off the road and into a snow bank. I had to haul her out. They told me that the cow looked thin and needed to be fed. She was already finding spring grass, but I made sure she had plenty of hay and protein blocks. Five weeks later, I found her stuck in a pond marsh. Once again I had to haul her out, but she was weak from exposure and died that night with water in her lungs. I didn't get a chance to tell the story because my attorney advised me not to take the stand in my own defense."
Wagner is preparing to appeal the long string of civil cases presided over by a different judge, Judge Groome. Wagner's dealing with Groome go back 10 years, from before Groome was a Judge.
That story has yet to be told, and it answers the big question: Why on earth would Park County and it's sheriff's and animal control officers go after one law-abiding rancher with such a vengeance?
The Saga of Vern Wagner, to be continued...

City Park Super Playground Meeting notes

Earlier this week, representatives of some City Park neighborhoods got together to discuss the planned "super playgtround" at City Park.  Here are notes from that meeting: 

 “Re-Imagine” playground
1. Parks and Rec is asking for input from the neighborhoods AFTER decision is made
a. This is sales job
2. All reps from RNOs should be identified by name and RNO – including INC rep
3. Purpose of a park: quiet repose or “utilized”
From a woman in City Park West to (Assistant Parks Manager) Scott Gilmore:
“Our previous administration appeared to view our parks as venues to be exploited for commercial profit. This was a matter of grave concern to those of us who value parks. I had hoped that things would change with a new administration and new Council representation. Sadly, however, it would seem that the new team places no value on parks: they are simply vacant land to be traded for a new building or from which portions can be ceded for expediency. However, please know that the residents of our neighborhoods value our parks as the precious treasure they are. We know that, once given up to development or some other use, parks can never be recreated. It is my hope that Denver does not lose the great American legacy of Frederick Law Olmsted, Theodore Roosevelt, and our own Robert Speer through thoughtless dispensation of irreplaceable park land for short-term expediency.”
Issues:
1. Safe pedestrian crossings – 17th Street, Colfax, York, and 23rd.
2. Parking
a. Parking at the zoo or Museum is at the opposite end of the park
b. East is filled during the day.
c. Park Planner Britta Herwig told the developer (who asked about it) that he didn’t need to add underground parking and that it was not a problem
d. There is a new 192 unit apartment building being added into South City Park – that will mean there is no longer parking available for most residents
3. Liability issues
a. The City by statue has ZERO liability for anything that happens in the park. (Karen Aviles, City Attorney}
b. That would put sponsors liable to be sued (they should know that)
c. Lessons of USOpen Air – let sponsors know not well received and not wanted
4. Do our own surveys
a. Ask about parking concerns
b. Ask about liability issue
c. Ask about pedestrian crossing
d. Ask about police presence (a number of pedophiles live at the All Inn just a block from the park)
e. Where will Easy High School practice now?
f. It is strictly a business project – not a park enhancement
5. City Park is already a destination park with the museum and the zoo – 5 million people a year.
a. This will make another reason to come and the vast majority drive – it isn’t the near neighbors who walk that are a very big percent of visitors.

Your legislators at work on A64 - listen in now (10:00 am)

A64 joint select committee meeting room 356 Capitol Building, going on now - listen in here. Tune in again tomorrow (Tues.) at 7:30 am.

Inside Deal

From Dave Felice:

If you had any thought the city is altruistically adding five "new" acres of park land in Montbello to partially make up for the loss of Hentzell Park Natural Area, think again and read the attachment.

The proposal involves acquisition of the land by Urban Land Conservancy, which will then transfer the property to the city, which will lease the land to ELK (Environmental Learning for Kids). 

Founders of ELK?  Deputy Parks Manager Scott Gilmore and wife, Stacie.  ELK executive director is Stacie Gilmore.  Member of ELK Advisory Board is Scott Gilmore.

In May 2012 -- months before the November election, but apparently after the deal was made with DPS and the City for the park swap with 1330 Fox -- Gilmore sought an informal opinion.

Gilmore apparently seized the opportunity to be rewarded for good and faithful service to Michael B. Hancock as Council District 11 representative on Parks Advisory Board, even after getting appointed to Parks Department.  But Gilmore also created plausible deniability by stepping aside only slightly after the deal was in place. 

You would probably like for the city to provide property on which you could operate your business.

May 31, 2012

Mr. Scott Gilmore

Deputy Manager of Parks and Planning

201 West Colfax Avenue, Department 601

Denver, CO 80201

RE: Case 12-23 – your request for an advisory opinion

Dear Mr. Gilmore:

On May 24, 2012, after discussing the matter with you, Denver Board of Ethics considered the request for an advisory opinion that Manager of Parks and Recreation Lauri Dannemiller filed on March 15, 2012.

The facts as the Board understands them are as follows. You are the Deputy Manager for Parks and Planning of the Parks and Recreation Department. You and your wife, Stacie Gilmore, founded a non-profit organization called Environmental Learning for Kids (ELK) about 16 years ago. You have never been a paid employee of ELK. Your wife is now the executive director of ELK.

The Parks and Recreation Department is partnering with other communities in the metropolitan area to obtain funds from the federal government from a settlement of litigation concerning environmental contamination at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, now transformed into a National Wildlife Refuge. One of the four projects in Denver’s proposal is to purchase land in the Montbello neighborhood that would be leased to ELK. Manager Dannemiller says that:

In order to avoid a conflict of interest, before submitting the application (for funding to the federal government) Denver Parks and Recreation put a plan in place which removed Mr. Gilmore from the decision-making process. Mr. Gilmore took no direct official action in the decision to go forward with the application. Mrs. Gilmore met only with Manager Dannemiller and (Director of Planning) Gordon Robertson to provide background on the necessity of the project to the Montbello area…All recommendations for projects from this fund came from Gordon Robertson…directly to Lauri Dannemiller, Manager of Parks and Recreation.. Ultimately, funding will be accepted by the Mayor and City Council for final approval.

Manager Dannemiller asked: “Given these circumstances, does the Ethics Board perceive any conflict of interest in our proposed handling of the application process and future securing of funds from this settlement?”

On another subject, you and/or your wife informed several young people in the ELK program that paid summer internships will be available in the Parks and Recreation Department, with the selection process being managed by Career Service Authority. You say that you recognize that the ELK young people must be given no special preference in selection of the interns and that any non-ELK applicants must be treated fairly and measured by the same criteria.

Conflicts of interest are regulated by Section 2-61 of the Denver Code of Ethics:

Sec. 2-61. Conflict of interest while employed.

The purpose of this section is to avoid influence on the official actions of city officers, employees or officials by their private or family interests,

(a) Except when advised by the city attorney that the rule of necessity applies, an officer, official, or employee shall not take direct official action on a matter before the city if he or she or a member of the immediate family, a business associate or an employer other than the city of the officer, official or employee has any substantial employment, contractual, or financial interest in that matter. A substantial interest shall be deemed to exist if:

(1) He or she or a member of the immediate family, a business associate or an employer other than the city is the other party in the matter;

(2) He, she, a spouse, a domestic partner or minor children solely or aggregated together, a business associate or an employer owns or own one (1) percent or more, or a member of the immediate family other than a spouse, domestic partner or minor children own or owns five (5) percent or more, of another party in the matter;

(3) He or she, a member of the immediate family, a business associate or an employer is an officer in another party in the matter;

(4) He or she, a member of the immediate family, a business associate or an employer is directly involved in obtaining the city's business for another party in the matter;

(5) He or she, a member of the immediate family, a business associate or an employer is directly involved in negotiating the contract or preparing the bid, proposal, response to a request for qualifications, or similar document for another party in the matter, other than in a purely clerical capacity; or

6. A member of his or her immediate family performs more than a nominal portion of the work in the matter, or supervises or manages more than a nominal portion of the work…

(f) Officers, employees or officials who are prohibited from taking direct official action due to a substantial conflict of interest shall disclose such interest to his or her colleagues on a board or commission or to his or her supervisor or appointing authority, shall not act or vote thereon, shall refrain from attempting to influence the decisions of others in acting or voting on the matter and shall work with his or her supervisor or appointing authority to ensure that the matter is assigned to someone without conflicting interests.

(g) No officer, employee or official may have any other employment or position which is incompatible with his or her duties or that adversely affect the interests of the city. (emphasis added)

“Direct official action” is defined in Section 2-52(b) as:

(1) Negotiating, approving, disapproving, administering, enforcing, or recommending for or against a contract, purchase order, lease, concession, franchise, grant, or other similar instrument in which the city is a party. With regard to "recommending," direct official action occurs only if the person making the recommendation is in the formal line of decision making.

(2) Enforcing laws or regulations or issuing, enforcing, or regulating permits, licenses, benefits or payments;

(3) Selecting or recommending vendors, concessionaires, or other types of entities to do business with the city;

(4) Appointing and terminating employees, temporary workers, and independent contractors.

(5) Doing research for, representing, or scheduling appointments for an officer, official, or employee, provided that these activities are provided in connection with that officer's, official's, or employee's performance of (1) through (4) above. (emphasis added)

The Board of Ethics advises you and Ms. Dannemiller that the Code of Ethics will not be

violated if you did not and will not take any direct official action regarding the ELK

program, if the land is obtained and leased to ELK and that you must not attempt to

influence the decisions of others in the Parks and Recreation Department regarding ELK,

including Mr. Robertson. The Board urges you to be particularly mindful of the need to

separate yourself from any decisions at Parks and Recreation regarding ELK in order to

avoid the appearance of impropriety, particularly since Mr. Robertson directly reports to

you. In addition, in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety, you should remove

yourself from any role in interviewing or selecting young people from ELK for any Parks

and Recreation internships.

The Board thanks you and Ms. Dannemiller for submitting this request for an advisory opinion and you for attending the Board’s meeting on May 24, 2012.

For the Board of Ethics:

Leslie M. Lawson

Chair

Copy: Lauri Dannemiller

Denver Police Survey

Dear Denver Citizens,

You are probably aware that we have been making a great deal of changes in the Denver Police Department. I can assure you, that although some are questioned, they are all made to create a department focused on preventing crime. This will make Denver an even better place to live than it is now!

One of the important changes we have been working on is transparency. I know that a community cannot fully trust and engage with its police department unless it can have full trust that decisions and actions are made for the right reasons; and that when mistakes are made, we own up to them and tell you.

Trust is achieved through transparency - and for transparency to work, there must be an exchange between the police and the community.

I have released a short survey I am hoping you will complete. The questions are taken from a similar National Survey (used to measure cities against one another). These questions are specifically related to feelings people have about safety in Denver. I view that as a critical responsibility of a police department. We will use these results to better adapt our police response and better understand how people who live and work in Denver feel.

For this to be successful, we need a large sample of people to complete the short 3-minute survey. I am asking that you take the survey and share it with people you know. It will truly help make both the police department and city of Denver better. Take the survey here:https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/7PPL26C (Ed. note: Now closed)

Sincerely,

Robert C White

Chief of Police

Joe A. Montoya

Denver Police Department

Commander District Three

Office: 720-913-1275

Cell: 720-641-0996

E-Mail: Joseph.Montoya@Denvergov.org

Community Town Hall on The School Finance Act

Tuesday, March 26th 

6:00 - 7:30 pm 

Washington Street Community Center

809 S. Washington St, Denver

Sen. Aguilar welcomes Reilly Pharo with the Colorado Children’s Campaign where she serves as the Vice President of Education Initiatives. The Colorado Children’s Campaign advocates for children at the State Capitol and in communities across Colorado in the areas of K-12 Education, Early Childhood and Child Health.

Colorado’s mechanism for financing its public schools, the School Finance Act, was last overhauled in 1994. Senator Michael Johnston has introduced the first major effort in nearly 20 years to modernize school financing. The goal of the bill will be to make our school financing more equitable and sufficient for every school district in the state.  Please join us and learn about school financing and how this will impact the education for Colorado’s children.

Senator Aguilar hosts regular town hall meetings in her district. As always, the public is encouraged to participate and ask questions of the Senator and panelists and to share input and ideas. All of her town hall meetings are free, non-partisan and open to the public.