Accusations of betrayal ring hollow
Dear Editor,
At the Town board meeting last night I was accused of betraying my office and participating in secret meetings to decide how to proceed on the recent citizen initiated ordinance. First and foremost, this did not happen. In my almost four years on this board, the only things discussed in executive sessions are the topics specifically identified on the agenda for the session. That is absolutely all that is discussed. Our attorney, our Town Administrator, our Mayor and each of us Town Trustees take this very seriously.
I know that the easy way to deal with someone who does something with which you do not agree is to cry “conspiracy.” It happens all of the time in our society. In this case I will attempt to walk you through how I came to my decision. I cannot speak for my fellow Trustees as we have not discussed it.
When the issue was introduced I thought that it was unnecessary, but I did not have a big problem with it. The number of signatures gathered was very impressive. I will admit that the easy thing to do would have been to just adopt the issue as written. Between the meeting where it was introduced and the meeting in December where we voted, I discussed the ordinance and the ideas behind the issue with many Estes Park citizens. Some of them had signed the petition, and some had not. There was a clear division in views of the people with whom I talked. I became aware that the unanimity of opinion that the petition coordinators were seeking to portray was not the case. That is why I decided to not do the easy thing, but to let the voters decide how they want to proceed. This is why I changed my mind and voted the way I did. There was nothing secret, nothing sinister, just talking with my constituents.
The people who comprise the Town Board are some of the most intelligent, hard working, honest, and selfless people that I know. They are from diverse backgrounds, have sometimes very diverse opinions and were elected in differing times. The Board is able to work together and able to agree to disagree and reach consensus. I feel it a privilege to work with each of them. I would have directly responded last night but I was not feeling well. I subsequently had to leave the meeting. For that, I apologize to all of those in attendance and to the board. I could not, however, let the public accusation go without response.
Chuck Levine
Estes Park Town Trustee
REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION:
24-6-402(4)(e), C.R.S. - For the purpose of determining positions relative to
matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for
negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators – Lot 4, Stanley Historic District and
24-6-402(4)(f), C.R.S. – For discussion of a personnel matter; not involving any
specific employees who have requested discussion of the matter in open
session; any member of the Town Board (or body); the appointment of any
person to fill an office of the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that do
not require discussion of matters personal to particular employees.
It was moved and seconded (Pinkham/Levine) the Town Board enter into
Executive Session for the purpose of determining positions relative to
matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for
negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators for Lot 4, Stanley Historic
District, under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(e) and discussion of a
personnel matter; not involving any specific employees who have
requested discussion of the matter in open session; any member of the
Town Board (or body); the appointment of any person to fill an office of
the Town Board (or body); or personnel policies that do not require
discussion of matters personal to particular employees., under C.R.S. 24-
6-402(4)(f)., and it passed unanimously.
Part of the team…one of the boys. When Chuck ran for office four years ago, he vowed to “heal this town”. Evidently Chuck feels healing the town will only occur behind closed doors in executive session, and hiding behind the mayor who hides behind the town attorney.
We at the Estes Parkian, have lobbied, and written profusely for a transparent government in Estes Park. We still are ardent believers in an open candid town hall. But calling for “transparent oversight”, we did not intent to promote the contranym form of the root usage of transparency.
Transparent as The Estes Parkian intended:
Transparent: adjective, fully defined, known, predictable, said of a subsystem in which matters generally subject to volition, or stochastic state change have been chosen, measured, or determined by the environment. Thus for transparent systems output is a know function of the input and users can both predict behavior and depend upon it. “Candid, frank, open, manifest, obvious, free from guile”.
Transparent as we receive from our elected trustees:
Transparent: adjective, easily seen through a transparent explanation, as in “transparent excuses”, “a transparent lie”.
Chuck wants us to believe it is honorable to go into executive session to discuss the operation of our community in private. Why vale your discussions from us? What could an elected official be doing behind closed doors, with community funds, that couldn’t be accomplished in the public eye? Occasionally it could be reasoned “personnel issues”, but everything else is public business. A PUBLICLY ELECTED OFFICIAL CONDUCTING THE PUBLICS BUSINESS SHOULD DO BUSINESS IN THE PUBLIC EYE!
Chuck couldn’t discuss issues in front of the community that elected him, during the forum that is intended for us to participate, but he can discus issues in secret session, and or only with his close friends, the rest of us…well...we are just out of luck.
Greg White says you can, but should you? Greg White is staff! Greg White has dozens of reasons to hide his,,,goofs.
Who among our elected trustees were elected for their negotiating acumen? How do you choose what you bid and what is negotiated? If a legal action is brought against the town staff or the trustees, because of their actions, isn’t that all of our business? If the trustees and staff cannot operate the community legally, should they be allowed to negotiate settlements to their goofs in private, and hide the large amounts of money these actions cost us all? If all these suits were played out in public, and not negotiated in secret, wouldn’t our elected officials be a lot more judicious stewards? Why should a trustee publish a statement in an editorial explaining ... we cannot tell you what we discussed but it wasn't that?
Chuck you are elected as oversight, our eyes to oversee the operations of this community, you are not part of its administration and operation, trustees are policy creators.
Chuck you claim that the trustees work well together in developing consensus. Is that really your roll? Compromising to vote in a unified block? Our trustees are elected from the community at large, but they are elected for oversight of the essential services the community requires. We should have six different opinions, not a unified front of people working together. Using your logic, we only need one trustee.
Please note; the community did not reelect two incumbents back on the school board, because it was felt they acted to closely in concert. They hired a school administrator from staff that was not qualified. If that is the community standard, we should have four new trustees this spring. The trustees operate in a block, and they just moved the police chief into the “assistant town administrator” position.
Chuck you will not get my vote in April, because you failed leadership 101…you are a follower, you do not speak up, you always go along to get along. I did not speak up, because I had a belly ache is an excuse, like the dog ate my home work.
