LovelandPolitics.com BLOG
All data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only.
Entry for December 19, 2006
photo

Well they did it, the Loveland City Council took the step of passing an ordinance that provides them an end-run around the gift limits of Amendment 41.  From the public, Roger Hoffmann and my father spoke against the measure which did cause a short discussion but Gene Peilin spoke against any the reforms of Amendment 41 which he said he never voted for in the first place.






Nevermind that a majority of Coloradoans did even in Larimer County.  Please post any comments or thoughts you have on this string.  Also, don't forget to call KFKA Colorado AM show since they have also covered this issue.






Brendan


2006-12-20 06:22:16 GMT
Comments (29 total)
Author:Anonymous
I am disgusted. As a homebound senior I couldn't go tell these rascals to stop acting so arrogant. Why did they need to be such burrows and thumb their noses at we people who passed that darn thing!!!!
--Frustrated Granny
2006-12-20 06:50:15 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I am not so alarmed. However, I really thought my old buddy on the council would do the right thing. Oh well - maybe even an honest guy like Gene has just been there too long.
--Bob
2006-12-20 06:52:55 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I watched the meeting from home and how come the Mayor was so darn silent. Doesn't he have anything to say? And why did he ask the City Attorney??? The lawyer was right when he said its policy not a legal question. Does anyone know where was the angry Don Williams? He caused the problem not the guys on the council-you should be reporting on him instead.
--Janey Wells
2006-12-20 06:55:19 GMT
Author:Anonymous
You mean to say 1310 AM (not Kfka cause no one can find it that way.
Good reporting - can hardly stand waiting to see how our local paper covers this one!
--Jim B.
2006-12-20 06:57:03 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Wow is all I can say. I carefully read both the city law and the amendment and boy they really passed a slick one on us. Thanks www.lovelandpolitics.com for telling us the truth of what these guys are upto
--a4cu
2006-12-20 06:59:58 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Janey - welcome back. The Mayor is the quiet type and seldom has much to say at these meetings. Good pictures by the way i watched at home also and they sure looked unhappy about being caught on this nonesense. Gene Peilin thinks he's real smart but really he is a smart ass. No cares to hear his rambling nonesense. I guess i voted for 41 because there was a loophole he could use? Give me a break. What an Ahole!.
--Roxan
2006-12-20 07:03:44 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Thanks Roxan but you better watch your language - Guch cuts those postings when he gets around to looking at what is here.

I have never heard so much horse feathers in all my life. I agree with everything that first guy said. Bren, is that your Dad? Who was talking after him? Was that the guy who ran for County Commissioner?
--Janey W.
2006-12-20 07:09:12 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Yes and yes. I believe it was Liam Weston (Brendan's Dad)and Roger Hoffman who spoke - where were you?
--Jim B.
2006-12-20 07:10:49 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Why do Dave and Steve have their hands over their mouths in your picture. I think this website is rude and should be taken down by the appropriate city authorities.
--Notyourbusiness
2006-12-20 07:16:19 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I agree, these people work hard to serve the public and you just mock them like a circus act. How dare you! What have they ever done to you jackasses?
--Carol
2006-12-20 07:17:43 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Haven't they got enough control of our town? The 1st Amendment of our constitution is not like Amendment 41st of our State constitution. No end-runs the attorney can write to exclude the councilors from public review and comment
--McCoy (not the dead one)
2006-12-20 07:21:25 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Please, can we keep this discussion civil.
I don't agree with the action taken this evening that you have labeled a "end-run"

But I do recall the City Manager stating that one reception puts everyone over the gift limit.

He may have over stated his case at that other meeting but the point remains it contradicts what I heard nearly every Councilor say this evening. They all said they would never reach the limit anyway.

Well, didn't several officials say they regularly take meals from people who want to "inform" them about an issue?

If this is true, they should start paying for their own meals out again since the clearly have lost contact with reality and don't know what it does cost to eat out. I suspect McWhinney brothers alone exceed the limit every month with the number of times I have seen Don and Larry out to lunch with these folks.

Thank you for covering the issue, I just wish this site could have more civil discussions.
--Larry
2006-12-20 07:42:55 GMT
Author:Anonymous
As a city official, I have never been offered anything close to a bribe and not even a little thing like fixing my car for me. No one ever gets rich serving his community the way i and my colleagues do.

However, I do read your comments and will take them seriously under consideration
2006-12-20 07:48:53 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Sir, you missed the point. Even someone who takes free meals shouldn't be serving in a quai-judicial role the way you do over the people of this fair city.

Councilor Klassen (and you missed this in your reporting) had the best comment of all. It doesn't matter if Ceaser's wife is pure, people's perception that she is pure is important as well.

You all missed a great opportunity to show the community you care and will stop the practice of accepting hand-outs from developers like free meals. I have a friend who is a local builder and he told me everyone knows that to get something important done you need to wine and dine the City Council.

Well, I think it needs to stop right now no matter how you voted this evening.
--Leroy
2006-12-20 07:54:03 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Please get real. Everyone knows the city council enjoys those free meals and sports tickets that everyone in city all knows about. They wouldn't change the language for the same reason they voted to weeks ago for it without even a single question. They enjoy the perks of being on council and will fight (even dirty) to keep those good times flowing.
--kirk
2006-12-20 08:01:26 GMT
Author:Anonymous
They must think we are really stupid. What a slap in the face to every voter in this community. I will not forget this come election time.
--Bret
2006-12-20 16:56:32 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I was wondering if they were so interested in meeting the pension funds bidding to "rent" city money for short term cash flow (a particularly bad idea) only to get another fancy meal.

I think I heard Walt say he needs to get free meals when people are gicing him information.
--Joan
2006-12-20 16:58:32 GMT
Author:Anonymous
You probably meant "giving" him information. Nice to see you are still out there Joan K. if thats you - give me a call.

For everyone else, I was terribly hurt at the comments by the Mayor Pro Tem that we don't know what we are doing as a public. He seems nearly hostile to people who just want to see our government operate in a clean and open manner. Also, I agree with the earlier comment that Daryle was great with his comment although he finally seemed to cave-in to peer preasure and thumb his nose to the voters as well.

Thanks
--Grace
2006-12-20 17:03:41 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Finally, I am staying home today and out of that storm to get caught up around the house. I will go and read all the articles I missed here. I agree with previous posts that the council made an arrogant and defiant act last night by ignoring the voter's plea for clean government.

Loveland has been marked by the Counsel as a town that is really controlled by special interests. They may not be getting rich but the free meals they are eating certainly has helped the development community get what they want.
--Todd Lukens
2006-12-20 17:08:10 GMT
Author:Anonymous
What happened to our city's honorable politicians like Jim Disney and Joe Jobailey?

What a crowd of self-interested, arrogant special interest oriented politicians more worried about feeding at the trough of lobbyists instead representing the hard working people who elected them.

I am really upset that they can't comply like everyone else with the simple $50 per year gift ban from one source.
--Terry the Merry
2006-12-20 17:13:52 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Gene Peilin was talking jiberish. On one hand he said no one never exceeds the gift limit already while on the other hand he complained that Amendment 41 was a burden he wasn't willing to accept. Which is it Mr. Peilin?

Please give us a little more credit. Sir, your arguments employ a circular logic which means they self defeat. I would love to "inform" you about some important issues in my area but really I don't care to buy your dinner.

Oh well.
--Leroy
2006-12-20 17:18:39 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Free meals? Is that what this is really about? Why don't they have the courage to post an answer here WITH THEIR NAMES! The Council of Cowards waiting to hear from the attorney on a policy issue really got my goat! Who do they think they are?
--Marge
2006-12-20 17:22:28 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I need to watch the meeting on the re-run cable channel 3. This is unbelievable. What were they thinking?
--Jim
2006-12-20 17:24:13 GMT
Author:Anonymous
It is spelled Pielin not Pielin.

And yes I agree, his argument was circular and lacked any credibility. At least he did admit he didn't like Amend. 41 and intends to undermine it. The Mayor didn't say anything.
--Jon
2006-12-20 19:33:07 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I meant not Peilin as someone spelled it earlier.
--Jon
2006-12-20 19:34:08 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Thanks for your coverage of this issue. I never saw it mentioned anywhere else and I wanted to know what these guys were going to do.

Jan Brown told a friend of mine it was exactly like Amendment 41 with just some very small changes. After reading both I realize this was not the case at all. Its too bad, I wonder if she was just following the City Manager or also new what she said wasn't true.

In any case, everyone who voted for Amendment 41 needs to take note the loveland politicians see themslves as above these limits. Lets get them out next time we have the chance!

Dave
--Dave - 27 year Loveland resident
2006-12-21 20:04:37 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Those dirty bums! How dare they! What are we a bunch of idiots who don't matter t'all. I don't care how you spell Pielin - he is the lead bum of them all!
--Sam
2006-12-26 23:39:16 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I think there is already enough said but let me add one thought. Would the current City Council even stay in their jobs if they couldn't keep gifts from developers? Don't be naive - you act as though they may have really done the right thing and agree to the popular limits on gifting.
--Sam
2006-12-27 20:03:56 GMT
Author:Anonymous
I agree but no one else runs for council jobs. Maybe some of you posting here need to consider running next time the job is open in your district?
--Dennis O.
2006-12-30 05:19:24 GMT
Add to My Yahoo! RSS