Amy Conklin Sends Special Alert

SPECIAL ALERT from Conklin 4.02.10 – Follow this link to read.  Several people have sent this to me and I thought it was worth the Blog.

4 Responses

  1. Amy you need to settle down! First of all there has been no action taken as you claim on firing Judge Kimmel. As you know it is on the agenda for the meeting coming up next Tuesday and until the Council votes Judge Kimmel has not been fired.

    I have a little more confidence in our Council than you do and having served on a board and having to make decisions on personnel I know that there is a lot that the public does not and will not know about the current circumstances; unless Judge Kimmel wants to make the circumstances public.

    Having attended the last meeting of the Council, where the Council met in an Executive Session prior to the scheduled meeting with Sterling Ranch, and seeing Judge Kimmel there I had to wonder what might be up. The Council hires and fires three people on the City’s staff; the City Manager, the City Attorney, and the Judge. Seeing both Jim Woods and Suzanne Staiert present in chambers during the executive session and seeing Judge Kimmel in the foyer my mind started wondering what the executive session might be about. My conclusion was it might have something to do with a kid spending time in jail over an overdue DVD.

    We may never know the reason why Judge Kimmel’s removal is on the agenda but because it is on the agenda there must be substantial support from the entire Council for it to be there.

    I do agree with you that it will be an important meeting to watch or attend. Judge Kimmel has received good reviews from previous Council’s and from this Council as constituted before November. If he is being removed I would bet my house that there is good reason for the action. Let’s ee how the vote goes before we start crying Chicken Little.

    Now on to your second charge – Doug Clark did not call the Sterling Ranch proposal “stupid” and then gavel and close the meeting on March 23 without allowing a free and independent study on Sterling Ranch. Clark gaveled the meeting closed after a motion to adjourn into an executive session to further discuss the annexation proposal with their attorney did not pass. I have personally talked to those that voted no to the executive session and they weren’t saying no to the proposal – they were saying no to discussing it outside of the public’s view. In fact, Sterling Ranch was scheduled, per Bruce Stahlman’s request, to be on the agenda April 5th to continue the disucssion but in public. According to Bruce he had concurrence with the majority of the Council to place the item on the agenda.

    However, before April 5th arrived Sterling Ranch developer, Harold Smethills, pulled the plug on any further talks.

    Doug Clark did call the proposal for annexing Sterling Ranch into Littleton a “stupid idea” but that was later, afer the March 23rd meeting, in a Denver Post story. It is important to get the story straight and spinning two different incidents into one is not an honest representation of the facts..

    I will post the Sterling Ranch letter on the Blog for others to read.

  2. Carol, you pretty well covered the points I intended to make, though you might have noted also (in case Amy missed this, too) that Doug voted in favor of going into executive session to discuss negotiating strategy that evening.

    I’m not clear what Amy meant by an “independent study” of SR’s proposal. (Surely more than one might learn from following her link to the SR website?) Staff did evaluate major issues they saw arising from the proposal; and Council and staff clearly intended to follow up with more detailed review—until SR pulled the plug, rather than be tarnished by an outright rejection and potential challenges to some of their “facts”. Their tap-dance around the water and sewer scenarios likely would have gotten tripped up on some discomforting realities; and did anybody note that their rosy financials included no capital reserve or replacement contributions at all?

    A deal that looks too good to be true may not inevitably prove to be just that—but true fiscal (and moral) responsibility warrant prudence and an inclination to skepticism. “Stupid” may sound premature or harsh, but it looks in this case to be a good first approximation.

  3. Dave – Glad you mentioned Doug’s vote. I had thought about it when I first got the ALERT and then promptly forgot the most obvious fact. Good catch!

  4. Sterling Ranch: The March 23 meeting ended abruptly, with some members of Council thinking it was done, others confused and others eager to talk about it. Some thought that not going to executive session meant that they wouldn’t continue discussion. Mayor Clark said he would have gone to executive session but voted against SR, and not going to exec saved him 20 minutes.

    So it took a couple of days to figure out it wasn’t dead — yet — but as I reported in the April 1 Villager, even if SR didn’t pull out, Council was already aligned to vote it down — Councilman Trujillo made his intention clear at the meeting, Councilwoman Cole was under the assumption her intentions were clear, and Councilwoman Brinkman and Mayor Clark were speaking out against it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: