LovelandPolitics.com Blog

For years we received complaints from across Loveland by citizens regarding neighbors polluting their environment with smoke from a chimney or backyard fire ring.

We haven’t covered these stories for a number of reasons. The most obvious reason is the he-said-she-said nature of these disputes plus determining who is telling you the truth is very difficult.

Perhaps the most prominent dispute involved a Loveland Police Officer who lives in Emerald Glenn and maintained a fire ring in his backyard. After the HOA (Home Owners Association) stepped-in neighbors claimed the Loveland Police disturbed the subdivision with retaliatory enforcement of city laws. One complainer was ticketed for not leashing his cat while another was ticketed for having a pile of sand in his driveway according to one of the officer’s neighbors who is also a spokesman for a prominent local entity. One response by neighbors was to use derogatory messages about the officer in their WiFi signal names/identity.

Loveland’s new council is being asked to consider an ordinance modeled on one in Ft. Collins outlawing smoke nuisances. One potential controversy for the proposed ordinance is section 7 which prevents the accused from knowing his accuser until he or she goes to court.

7. Identity of Complainant: The identity of complaining citizen is kept confidential until a violation has been charged and a summons has been issued to appear in Municipal Court..

You can watch the meeting on Loveland’s channel 16 (Comcast cable) or attend in person at 6:30 PM Tuesday night (Nov. 15) in City Hall.

A number of people have contacted us asking where are the closed session tapes from the 40 minutes of a council executive session a judge recently ruled should have been in public.

The answer is the city has not yet released the tape recordings from that portion of their closed session meeting. The city has until August 15, to appeal the judge’s decision. Once the time for an appeal has passed, the tape will need to be released per the court’s direction.

One defense those on council seeking reelection are using is to claim that out of the some 30 hours of closed session meetings only 40 minutes were ruled inappropriate. In fact, the Judge reviewed much less than 30 hours and still found 40 minutes that should not have been discussed or decided in a closed session meeting.

We equate this defense to a bank robber telling a judge, “your honor I robbed the bank on only 1 day last year but was never in trouble the other 364 days so why are you judging me on only that 1 day?”

According to one Councilor, Councilman Daryle Klassen pushed for the decision to remove one candidate for city manager thus getting the entire council in trouble by taking their decision in private. Of course, any councilor who knew they were acting outside state statute should have gotten up and left the room if that is indeed what occurred.

We have been told it is unlikely the city will appeal the judge’s decision by August 15, thus the tapes will be released after that date. The City Council closed sessions must be recorded according to state law in the event there is a later dispute about whether the executive session was appropriate.

Whether Councilman Klassen is really to blame as some of his colleagues claim will be resolved once the tapes are released. Either way, if Klassen’s colleagues knew what he suggested was illegal than why did they contribute to the decision instead of getting up and walking out?

Maybe because they thought nobody would ever find out?

Last Friday District Court Judge Devin Odell ruled the Loveland City Council violated Colorado Open Meetings Law (C.R.S. 24-6-402) during closed meetings in August and September last year regarding candidates for city manager. Judge Odell ordered approximately 40 minutes of tape recordings from those closed meetings that he reviewed in chambers be released to the public.

Loveland City Attorney John Duval has for too long allowed city managers and various councils the ability to choreograph their public actions from within private meetings in violation of Colorado’s ‘open meetings’ laws. Perhaps the best example of this was the 2007 council meeting when the council voted to buy 98 acres along Highway 402 and I-25 without hardly a discussion. When one councilor asked questions the other retorted angrily he already agreed and knew everything about the deal (from closed session decisions). see story and video.

Congratulations are in order for the Loveland Reporter-Herald. They were able to take Duval’s sometimes twisted legal rationalizations to a judge for clarification. Hopefully, Mayor Gutierrez and some others elected on a platform to be more transparent will understand staff isn’t always right – you need to use your own judgement once in a while.

Admittedly, this is old news but when a member of Loveland’s City Council is seen as taunting or ridiculing a constituent for expressing a view and she responds — people are interested in the whole story and we only provided a piece of the story in the right news column on the homepage. Here is the rest of the story -

Last year, Loveland resident Terra Mascarenas sent an email to the Loveland City Council asking whether the city would consider changing the annual ringing of veteran bells throughout the city to a later hour of the morning. Mascarenas argued that she has little time to sleep when not working and waking-up at 4:00 AM made it difficult for her to go back to sleep thus making the rest of the day a struggle to stay awake.

In his response, Councilman McKean included the following paragraph when describing his reaction to the popular annual veterans event in Loveland:

“I did not, for a minute, think of myself. Sadly you did. I have to tell you that I pity a self absorption so deep that one of the truly unique and remarkable events in Loveland offers could not touch you in a less selfish more transitional way.”

Mascarenas complained in reply, “..you blatantly called me, a Loveland voter and taxpayer, selfish and self absorbed for not appreciating a Loveland “tradition.” I never once used name calling in my email. However, you became prejudiced and disparaging, because I have different ways of showing support, and don’t appreciate ONE tradition that you support in Loveland. Your answer is to resort to derision.”

While McKean’s odd choice of words doesn’t rise to the mocking and ridicule Councilwoman Johnson has used when communicating with city volunteers, it did initiate a number of follow-up emails by other people like Jodi Radtke to other councilors that are now part of the public record.

Do you think McKean’s comments were appropriate or out of place?