Star Chambers

The Harlander · Star Chambers

A little history for the folks. What does Star Chambers allude to? How does it equate to emergencey services and legislation in 21st Century Edgewater?
You only thought your City Charter was clean and green. Just let a little legalize and personal self interest come into play with a hired hand attorney and you will know why the CRCC has been on hold for the past seven months.
To be continued.................................................

Shamed

The greed of a single individual has disgraced the city and the fire department. Ethical judgment has no home Edgewater.

sad · incompetent

Last night was shameful. True. To see people who were previously on the Charter Commission stand before Council and try to convince Council that the Charter language should be ignored was sad.

They would have had council ignore what is written in the charter and then demand instead that their personal intents and desires should rule the day rather than the law as adopted by the citizens. No rule of law for them. Nope, they want secret implied law read between the lines based upon old charter and discussions at meetings and opinions of what ought to be. They want law that they can make up to suit themselves instead of the law the voters thought they were getting when they voted to adopt the charter.

Having seen how these people interpreted the Charter, I cannot imagine a charter review committee with any of these people on it. That scares me greatly. The voters passed this charter and a few people with axes to grind should not be allowed to come in and change what the voters passed. This is supposed to be a democracy, not rule by some small mob.

And then to suggest that the city attorney is ignoring the law is even more disgraceful. Council did its job and applied the charter as written. They refused to make up new law not adopted by the voters. And every council member present agreed. Are they corrupt too? Or, are they reading the words actually on the page -the law approved by the voters - and applying it?

Insulting council and the city attorney is counter-productive. If any members of the community really care about the city and maybe even the rule of law, they should start working to fix the charter and get something ready for the ballot.

Insulted

I would disagree. I did not see one person from the Charter Commission that had a personal ax to grind with anyone. It was Council who chose to ignor Charter 3.4 (3) A person who holds a position as a board or commission member, or is a member of the Fire Department described in Section 10.2 in an elective rank above that of firefighter, or is an officer or employee of the City, shall be deemed to have resigned such position upon taking office as Council member. By a political slight of hand and parsing of words they chose to defeat the purpose of our Charter. The fact that they went back into executive session and that Andrew Bertapelle went into that executive session as the person in question showed a total lack of integrity. The fact that they even discussed a vacancy on Council was a switch and bait game and premature at best. The question is........... can Andy be an officer of the Fire Department, not if there was a vacancy on Council. No matter how you cut it, no matter how you package it, Council damaged their reputation as champions of the Charter and in as much as they have done nothing to seat the CRCC for seven months, it is questionable whether this Council has the integrity to seat that Commission.
Sad should fess up and admit to the fact that he is a Councilman trying to justify this abomination by turning the tables on the former Charter Commissioners. Every member of the Charter Commission in attendance was respectful of the Council unfortunatley the favor was not returned in kind as certain Council members engaged in verbal accusations against former Charter Commissioneers by name. There was not one former Charter Commissioner that stood to gain anything by expressing their opinion to the Council last night but, Council was to busy protecting one of their own to listen.

Guest

agreedo · Bert bad

Volunteers like Bertapelle

me. He thinks we will be fooled by his efforts to serve the community on Council and stepping up as an officer of the fire department. We need the charter police to slap him down! Get him John!

We need to be rid of people like Andrew. He is definitely scum. Right? He has ruined this city. Shamed us. Our repuation will be tarnished. All other volunteers now look bad. Shameful.

I want the charter commission to prosecute this as a misdemeanor under the charter [I know what is says, just ask me]and ask the judge to impose the maximum fine and sentence Andrew to maximum jail time. That is what is clearly called for in the charter. Jail time.

You commit a misdemeanor in this city, you get Fines and jail. That is what we want. Right? Follow the letter of our law. We know what the charter really means. Hey Andrew, how do you look in stripes? Who is with me? Letter of the law. Jail jail jail. Don't mess with us. We will sue the city, I know where the courthouse is [right next to the water park in Golden].

Charter people stand up for our rights. We are so smart and dedicated and worked so hard to tell the city what it needed to do. We passed the charter not the voters, they were just peons doing our bidding, we are the real leaders and legislators. Demand our respect and honor. We have been disrespected.

We cannot rest until Bertapelle is fined and jailed and off council and off the fire department. Let's write a peition to the mayor. She is on our side, not like all those council members all voting against us.

One question, after Andrew is jailed and jsutice is served and the rule of law as we see it is finally respected, how many people will still be on the fire department anyway? About six, maybe seven? Good riddance.

Who wants to step up and be appointed to council? I want a member of the charter people. We need representation. We must unite!!!!

Who wants to organize a meeting?

I agree

Pawnee · Wee Pawns

Council does whatever the attorney tells them to do in secret. I can't believe Joan and Bill went along with this too. Cook is a lawyer so he is in on it. Gardner and Kent probably like Bertapella. I wonder what the attorney did in the Star Chamber to make Jaon and Bill go along? Can we get the tapes?

Why did Bonnie appoint this lawyer? Can she fire them and get Kendra back? Bonnie has really made this all happen.

Guest

In reading the Charter, it is clear the intent of 3.4 (3), regarding the right to serve on council, is that there is to be a safety measure to avoid a conflict of interest between board members, city employees, fire department officers, etc. in serving on council.

The Charter is a document FOR the people, not a document to protect and serve SOME of the people. It is a conflict of interest-- others on boards, city employees and etc, would never be allowed to cross this line. If an ammendment has to be written to correct this, that is fine, we need to do that. Unfortunate, but obviously it has to be done.

But the issue here is integrity. Would anyone else in our city be so presumptuous--knowing the intent of the Charter-- to make such a move? It is a disappointment to me. I personally have nothing against Andrew, but he has made a mockery of a document that was voted on BY the people. It is a document written to serve THE PEOPLE not a person.

Granted, a loophole was found--and our council slithered through it. And not content to stop there many on council chided THE PEOPLE who stood up for our city's charter's intent. There will be other challenges as the city moves forward, that is to be expected. What is not acceptable is that the integity of the Charter and those who worked diligently, under difficult situations, for months and were determined to write the best document they could to protect and guide our city, are subjected to any harsh comments or ridicule.

I would wonder how those we elected to represent us can possibly be trusted to honor us? They were fully aware if they are to represent us on council, it is not acceptable to serve on other boards or commissions. There should be no exceptions. Morally it is wrong. There is no way to justify this. It goes against the will of our citizens. Council is again making this an "us and them" scenario. One giant step backwards. Shame on all of you. We the people expected more from you.

Legally, I guess the city Charter needs a tweak or two. Ethically, our council needs to delve into their own values of what it means to twist the rules and what it means to serve the citizens. Much damage has been done.

Morales · Here here

I agree. Council slithered. We need tweaks. This is a moral issue not a legal issue. The law does not apply. Follow the law. No do not. You tricked me. You are correct sir. Morals are what is needed. My moral compass. We need to follow god's law. The Q'uoran speaks to this. Not man's law. Respect the volunteer's law. Step forward into god's hands. You are all sinners. God does not make loopholes for bad council members or lawyers or charter writers who made honest mistakes. I want prayer required. Everywhere. Let us pray. In silence.

Guest

Most disagreements do not end up on the desk of a lawyer. Honesty, communication, understanding, compassion and compromise are usually the foundation of good decisions made by good people. Edgewater’s current leadership has repeatedly demonstrated that personal conscience, personal values, personal ethics and personal morals have no place in city hall. The law is far more important than a person. As if to say mankind is nothing but a manipulation of the text of a book of law. Edgewater is no longer a community. We are but a mock court. We are a place where words have become sport and people have no face.

guest 1/23 4:35 · correction

To address the post I Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:35 pm

My apologies. I failed to mention that not all of council was at this meeting. There was one member, Jamie McElhany not at the meeting. The vote was made by the others in attendance. I felt it necessary to inform those who were not there that she was not able to weigh in nor voice her opinions. Sorry for the omission.

Oh and glad to see the Stick back up.

Juice

Why do you care. You all act like Bert is taking over the Boston Fire Dept. Even if he serves as a council member and Lt on the fire department he can't use his position to help fire. We live in a city that is broke, were using 30,000 some months in legal fees, don't you have bigger things to worry about???????????????????? other than somebody whos trying to help out a fire department that hardley has any volunteers anymore.

Farmer Scott · Still pissed.

And the Winner is...........we still don't know. However, we do know that the People of Edgewater, did NOT win.

Extremely disappointed,
The Farmer,

PS. The more you tell a child NO; makes certain they will try even harder. I wonder if this scenario isn't the same here?

sacrifice

so your saying we should sacrifice the citizens safety over this...
I for one dont care if he wants to volunteer on the FD and be on council. MORE power to him for trying to improve this city and keep it safe.
Whats the big deal.
we dont have enough people who want to do the FD job and you people want him out because hes trying to help out .
you people need to have your heads examined.
and you wonder WHY people dont want to volunteer.
its because of excuse the language. the nit pickey CRAP like this.

Save Bert

Well said. Bert should be commended for his community spirit and Pride. He wakes up in the middle of the night for free to help keep us safe. Edgewater couldn't survive without all the free stuff it gets. Be Happy and Give Bert a break it's not costing you anything unless a bunch of pinheads get lawyers involved.

choice to make

This is not about asking Bert to quit the fire dept but about making a choice about being an officer in the fire dept or a member of council but not both. That is how the charter reads: (3) A person who holds a position as a board or commission member, or is a member of the Fire Department described in Section 10.2 in an elective rank above that of firefighter, or is an officer or employee of the City, shall be deemed to have resigned such position upon taking office as Council member.

This means no one can serve two positions. Pretty clear. If not, then the mayor could serve as a council member and as mayor, our city clerk could serve on council and as city clerk , our treasurer could serve as council and as treasurer. our attorney could serve as attorney and as council and on and on. Conflict.

Who does not appreciate Bert's dedication and his service, but that is not the issue here.

The Raven · And I said nothing; then they came for me..........

Well! Darth "Cookie Dave" Vader wakes from his Charter Slumber to smite - both in Council Session and on the Stick - the evil ignoramuses and neigh-sayers of the Charter Commission who dare actually speak to Comrade Bert's knowledge of the intent of the Charter Commission in writing a section of the Charter speaking directly to COUNCILMAN Bert's direct plea to the Commission to alter the Charter to favor him, personally, and his personal advantage in the Charter change. As I recall, the Commission debated COUNCILMAN Bert's personal request for a Charter change to give him personal advantage with the new Charter and voted to continue the language of the old Charter which prohibited Fire Department personnel above the rank of Fire Fighter from serving on City Council.
So, When Bert chose to press this issue he knew very well that he was doing so against the explicit intent of the new Charter, no matter what Darth Cooker may want to say. And, Neighbors, that would be the same Dave Vader who NEVER showed up at a Commission meeting - either to listen or to give comment.
There is something PROFOUNDLY wrong with a Council President who is so incredibly arrogant and abusive as to publicly badmouth the good efforts of his fellow citizens when he chose to not take any part in the proceedings, and THEN gave them high praise in front of the Council and the public (check the transcripts) before an issue came up that met his displeasure.
Commissar Cooke's abuse of the citizens at Council meetings is becoming legendary. One wonders why he continues to "serve" an electorate that he obviously despises unless he is in it for some higher office or other gain. I don't pretend to know.
What I DO pretend to know is that Bert knew what the score was before he chose to get a badger to get a weasel to ferret out a loophole for what he wanted to do. Bert - every day now it's you, the mirror, and your conscience. Wake and watch, Councilman, day by day.

PS. We, by the way, have a document called the Constitution (remember it, Councilman Gardner?) and a branch of government called the Supreme Court who attempts, year after year, to determine the INTENT - not just the WORD - of that document. It's not so unusual, really Cookie V........

Guest

do you plan on serving as a FD member putting your life on the line ever time the bell rings.
Do you plan on serving this community on council when all you get is backlash.
Do you the ones who think we have a unlimited number of people to fill these positions plan on doing these things. I think not you choose to sit on your collective butts and bitch at someone who lives in the city ( unlike the Clerk , lawyer and the other you said could hold 2 positions) Who wants to serve and protect this community. I dont see what the problem is.
He wants to help out the FD when theres not enough qualified people to fill positions. Hes been doing a bang up job on council and you still have the balls to bitch .
What do you people want. DO you want people who sit on council and complaint and do nothing but. table issues and bring up stupid things that benefit only a select few. ( ie.. Mc Nulty , hale and cassidy ) I have heard Burt talk about getting the IMPROTIANT thing going in this city . the roads the sewers.
So when you have the balls to get up at 2 am and go out in the freezing night to help a neighbor in need you can say that hes serving himself... He is serving the COMMUNITY the whole Community and not just a few loudmouths.

Farmer Scott · Please, stop.

Guest at 11:14. I think your typing could use another drink. Time to goto bed.

Love this town,
The Farmer,

PS. That's a first.

The Harlander

I am not so sure there is a loophole in the Charter. 3.4 (3) is very clear. As someone said earlier there was a bit of legal bait and switch going on as manufactured a reason to ignore 3.4 (3). But that is not all they ignored and not all they should have considered. They forgot to temper their “legal interpretation” with:

ARTICLE VII. CODE OF ETHICS
7.1 Purpose and intent. (1) Whereas high standards of ethical conduct for those participating in local government is a matter of local concern, the City hereby declares that, as a home rule Municipality, and by operation of Section 7 of Article XXIX of the Colorado Constitution, it may adopt standards of ethical conduct that apply to its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteer firefighters and board and commission members to the exclusion of statutory provisions regulating the conduct of those individuals.
(2) It is the City’s express intent to set high standards of ethical conduct that at all times honor the public’s trust and avoid even the appearance of mpropriety, and it is the City’s express intent that this Article VII be interpreted and applied broadly in order to encourage responsible conduct at all levels of service to the City.
(3) The City hereby promulgates its own code of ethics that shall supersede the substantive requirements of Article XXIX of the Colorado Constitution.
(4) The City’s code of ethics, which shall apply as follows, may be enhanced by ordinance in any way that does not conflict with this Charter, in any way that is more restrictive than the requirements of this Article, or in any way that extends the requirements of this Article to other persons or classes of Persons.

I have been around the block long enough to know that if this winds up in District Court, the chances of Councils resolution being overturned is better than 50/50. It was obvious that Andy had not made any decision yet as he stated so at the meeting. This indicates a premature action by Council in declaring a vacancy (the only legal action they did or did not take). The fact that they went back into executive session to receive a legal interpretation of the Charter could very well be a violation of the Colorado Open Meetings act but, would have to be tested at District Court as well. All of this could have been easily handled by the Charter Review and Compliance Commission. How? Anyone including Andy could have filed for a hearing on the issue. The hearing would have been open, using a broader brush, taking into consideration all parts of the Charter that would have bearing on the issue rather than the narrow confines of Councils request of the City Attorney in declaring a premature vacancy. The CRCC hearing most likely would have been one of Charter compliance and not willful violation. The findings of the Commission would have then been vetted by the City Attorney and presented to Council for resolution.

I was perplexed during the Council meeting when Adam stated that one of his considerations was that Andy received a wider margin of votes to be on Council than the Charter received in final passage. Is Adam somehow saying that elected officials that receive a greater number of votes than the Charter received for passage are in some way above the requirements of the Charter and not subjected to it’s provisions? That there is a special governing class created by popular opinion? It is extremely troubling to me that he might have included that concept in his decision making process. Then again, not much made sense at last Thursday nights meeting. After all it is much more important to create a resolution of support for the Denver Broncos than to implement the Charter during this transitional period. Isn't that right President Cooke?

Gag Me

The Harlander · Much ado about nothing

I just finished talking to the City Clerk. I was in error that the Council passed some sort of resolution, they did not. All they did was prematurely declare that there was not a vacancy on Council. In other words, like the Bronco fiasco, the Council did absolutely nothing except insult the Charter Commissions work and the will of the people.
IF Andy decides to try and hold a position as an Officer of the Fire Department while sitting on Council and is successful in that attempt, he will by conflict of interest neutralize his effectiveness in either seat. That would be counterproductive to the City he says he wishes to serve.

Guest

If they did nothing maybe we don't have to pay the attorney fees for all the time they spent on this? Way to go council

Voter

What's really wierd is that Councilman Cooke was calling for massive Charter reform before they have even emplemented it and how they tried to go around it. I'm shocked that Council is attacking the new Charter while the Mayor, who stood up against it at the election, is trying to abide by it. It's all about ethics and I'm making notes for next November.

The Critic

They didn't even look at the Code of Ethics????? I give the Council six big clowns on this one.

Judge-mental · Harlander is right - as always!

OK, everybody, I went on the net and found out where the court is. Here is the address:

Jefferson Combined Court
100 Jefferson County Parkway
Golden CO 80401
Phone: 303-271-6145
Fax: 303-271-6188

Let's work with Harlander and put this stinking deal in front of a judge. Harlander is right, there is more than a 50/50 chance we could win this. That is compelling in my book and is good enough odds to take this to court!! No more tolerating stupidity!!

Can everyone meet at Angies on this Wednesday after work? How about 6:00? Harlander can tell us what we need to file. If we all chip in a few bucks for filing fees, we can take back this government. Harlander, you have inspired us!!! We are counting on you to lead us into action and fix this mess. This is not a threat, it is a promise, right folks!!!!!

You can tell the judge the whole deal and get Andrew thrown off council and maybe get council thrown off council and get a new lawyer for council who will do what we tell him!!!

See you then.

Guest

I got money and I got motivation. I hope you all are serious and this isn’t just some Stick person vetting an idea. I’d be willing to chance that our lawyer is fine. He is just stuck working at the pleasure of bad civic leaders. Wonder if Phillip, Hayes and Carberry would be interested in defending their work?

Guest · Council President Judge-Mental

No that's just Cooke telling us how stupid he thinks we are. Such a waste of a pretty good sense of parody. He should have stayed with his stand-up gig.

Nurse Phil · Talker

There has always been a quote attributed to John Adams: ". . . to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men." Thanks to H'man for that quote.

John Adams was wrong. This government stuff is not about the law. At all.

It is about people's intentions and feelings. Those things count. More than the letter of the law. Andrew hurt our feelings and council hurt our feelings. Andrew may be a volunteer, but so are other people. We just want to feel valued and appreciated. That's all. Is that so wrong?

Guest

The Harlander told us it was no to do about nothing. A waste of time until Councilman Bertapelle makes a decision. Smoke and mirrors. Nice try Dave but no cigar. How's the band thing going that holds up Council meetings till 7:15? Got the flat notes down yet?

Mapper · Mis-print

Dear Mr. Mental:

I don't think it is still called Angie's. Not sure. Next to US Thai, right?

Just striving for the truth.

I have a vision

I love it, transparencey in government. We can see right through them even when they think they are so clever.

The Harlander

Just for the record. I have not called for any legal action nor encouraged anyone to do so on the Stick. I only alluded to the possibility. At this point I see no sense in taking the Council or anybody else to court. As others have so well expressed, this is a political end game. So let's all put on our Bronco shirts and play politics for a while, after all we have nothing better to do.

For what it's worth... · Ethics, History and an Object Lesson

The often repeated quote, "Those who forget the lessons of history are bound to repeat them." keeps running through my mind as I read about this most recent controversy regarding this Councilman's challenge of the City Charter. I will admit I am very surprised in Council President Cooke and the position he has taken in wanting to dismiss the intent of the Charter in favor of playing lawyer's word games with the Charter especially in regard to this conflict of interest provision.
It wasn't that long ago, as a new Councilman himself, he helped lead the fight to disband the "special Mayor's Committee" to develop 20th and Depew; a committee chosen by the Mayor and comprised of the Mayor's wife, the then Council President and his wife, two more Councilpersons, one ERA member and a single citizen. This "committee" worked unnoticed by the public, coached by a developer, with no requirements to keep minutes, with only a verbal report (often inaccurate) from the Mayor to Council.
They almost got away with turning 20th and Depew into a 155 unit condo/commercial development in a part of town where the study we commissioned told us the area was not hugely viable for retail development.
Can you imagine what a monolithic, post "real estate bubble" shrine of abandoned condos and closing businesses we would have there now if that Mayor's committee had been allowed to continue?
At the time, young Councilman Cooke stated he wanted to be on Council to return transparency and accountability to Edgewater City government. He stated you should never do anything in office you don't want to read about the next day in the papers. He re-wrote regulations for forming committees. He insisted that information not be kept secret from the public and upon becoming Council President insisted that citizens be given ample opportunity to comment in open meeting. What happened to that guy? Where did he go? He has actually accomplished positive things for our City but this fight I don't understand.
This is a simple, common sense provision to prevent conflict of interest. Even with it in the Charter, people have found ways to get around it. The "special Mayor's Committee" being one example from our recent past.
So, why is he dealing from the other side of the deck now? Convenience? Favoritism? Apathy? Or given the level of animosity maybe he is frustrated with Edgewater, burned out. That would be understandable; Edgewater can be a little goofy.
But you can't use the excuse of low FD volunteerism to violate the Charter. If there is low volunteerism have a volunteer drive. I'm always suspicious of being threatened or coerced into doing something.
Back in the old days, I refused to go to Council because there were a few people on Council so full of themselves they enjoyed intimidating residents and using their power vindictively, out of disdain for the very people they represented. Eventually, as it always happens, they received the respect they deserved.
I really don't understand why David or any other Council member would ever want to defy this provision of the Charter - and especially Dave - because it invites the very thing he tried to safeguard against.
Sadly, this controversy smacks of "Good Old Boy (and Girl)" syndrome and I would hate to see that return to Edgewater.

The Harlander

Great post For What It's Worth
I am seeking a home for the audio file of the meeting that I can link you, the people, to. In order that you may be better informed as to the issue before us. Nothing is more truthful than the spoken word. I am certain that you will find the audio transcript compelling.
To be continued.........................

it's worth a lot · Re: Ethics, History and an Object Lesson

[quote="But you can't use the excuse of low FD volunteerism to violate the Charter. If there is low volunteerism have a volunteer drive. I'm always suspicious of being threatened or coerced into doing something.
Sadly, this controversy smacks of "Good Old Boy (and Girl)" syndrome and I would hate to see that return to Edgewater.[/quote]

Your post says a lot, makes excellent points to add to all the other posts about this issue. Thanks.

Former Edgewater Citizen

For What It's Worth,
Sometimes the air gets very rare at City Hall and those we elect to public office soon forget the promises made that put them in positions of power. It is not an uncommon anomaly in politics generally and we as constituents have come to expect it. Rare indeed is the ethical bird politic that stays the course of integrity. There is but a bit of monarchy and entitlement to be found in those whom have survived the ballot box.

Best of luck
MC

Guest

I want a public explanation as to why the City Attorney and City Council ignored 7.1 (2) .

Simon Says

Gardner’s hands aren’t clean either. I just listened to the recording of the meeting. He said that he told the charter commission at a charter meeting that the wording was ambiguous. This is simply a lie. I was there and he never said anything of the sort. Maybe in private someplace, but not at a charter meeting.

Do none of these people think for themselves?????

On Charter Commission · I was there

In fact the wording of 3.4(3) was not changed from the old charter as we were advised by the Commissions attorney that it did not need changing and was very clear to the issue that a Council person could not be a member of the Fire Department described in Section 10.2 in an elective rank above that of firefighter, or is an officer or employee of the City. Were we ill advised or is Council? Was this clause misinterpreted over the past 15 or so years?
I contend that Council had no choice the other night to declare a vacancy but not for the stated reasons. They could not declare a vacancy simply because Andy had not yet accepted the appointment to the 1st Lt. position on the Fire Department. If he does accept that position and stays on Council we will have big time issue involving a lot more than section 3.4 (3) of the Charter. There are going to be issues in 7.1 (2) and all of 7.2 and 7.3. Members of Council stated they were uncomfortable and disappointed with Andy even considering holding both positions. Just wait, if he moves forward in that direction Councils nightmare is just beginning.

A concerned Citizen

Let me get this straight. Your saying the vacancy issue should not have come before Council because there was no competent evidence to believe a vacancy existed and therefore Council had no choice but to vote that there was no vacancy. What in the world was the Council President thinking when he put it on the agenda and then acted on it.

The Harlander

Not to belabor this issue anymore but Dave Cooke made a big point that intentions are never enough, we must follow the letter of the law and nothing less. Seems the Colorado Ethics Commission doesn't see things that way:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/...anel-interprets-gift-ban-to-mean/

We all know our Charter also addresses intention in 7.1(2). It is my thinking that Council needs to rethink not whether there was a vacancy last week but the precedent they established by thier preemptive action.

For what it's worth... · To MC

What a wise and elegant post. Thank you. I hope you will stop in for a "visit" more often.

Guest · Reprise

I just read both of these threads.Beyond all the finger wagging, and toe stomping, indignant posturing and assorted histrionics there is one voice, in my opinion, who said it all and that was this post:

Just a Citizen · Lapse of ethics

I agree that may be the core issue but there was something very wrong with the way Council proceeded, from Andy attending the executive session to the very issue of whether there was any compelling evidence to question whether a vacancy existed. There was a serious lapse of ethics on the part of some members of Council and that bothers me a great deal.

Mickey Mouse

I don't see a conflict at all. The only difference between an Officer Position on the Fire Dept and that of a Firefighter is a vote of there peers. Berts vote as a Councilman will be the same if he's a Firefighter or Lt.

Save your fight for something that will mean something this clearly does not.

A real person

So the officers of the Fire Department have no administrative duties or powers over the Fire Department? They don't have the authority to establish policy and set budgets? Are you saing their positions are only cosmetic, for show? They only get to dress up and play like they are real officers of a public saftey department? I hope that ain't true.
Besides, Council's interpretation goes well beyond the Fire Department. It includes all Officers of the City (City Manager and Department Heads), employees and Boards and Commissions.
In other words Council could hire one of it's own to be City Manager.

The Harlander

Guest

Well yeah, but have you forgotten how the charter is to be interrupted?

9.1 City Manager. (1) The City Manager shall be the chief administrative officer of the City. As such, he or she shall possess, have, and exercise all the administrative powers vested in the City. The City Manager shall serve at the pleasure of the Council for an indefinite period, and shall be removable by the Council at its pleasure. The City Manager shall be chosen by the City Council solely on the basis of his or her administrative qualifications.

Since the decision is to be based SOLEY on the basis of qualifications, all those other paragraphs with the fancy numbers in front of them don’t count. Especially since (1) comes before (4).

Guest

Cooke
Get off the Talking Stick. Dang attorneys.

Shark · Lawer,lawer. Who has the lawer?

Nothing is lawer proof, not even our City Charter. That's why they make the big bucks and have the egos to go with them.

Mad

There is nothing wrong with the new Charter. It is very clear by word and intent. The fact that some of our Council Representatives are ego-maniacs totaly lacking any ethical principals is the real issue. They abuse their access to legal council by turning our founding document against its own citizens and then they laugh at our supposed stupidity. These people have made me very angry. Like Bush, they place themselves on a pedastal, above the law. They should be ashamed of themselves, Andy most of all. He can't make a decision and were supposed to feel sorry for him. I voted for him because I thought, from his campaign promises, that he could make the hard decision.

Hurt

There isn’t a single sentence in our language that can’t be picked apart and misconstrued by somebody. That is why the value of an elected official must be measured by their ability to ethically understand and implement the intent of the people they have been elected to represent. Elected officials who exemplify the notion that a Representative Democracy releases them from their obligation to represent the opinions of their constituents are contemptible.

We elect people because we trust them, not because we need them to chide our efforts and our dreams. A title engraved on a name badge doesn’t make one respectable. How a person responds to the people that have entrusted them speaks volumes about their true character.

Burned · To Hurt

I hope everyone reads your post. It is a pity candidates forget to mention this particular notion until after the election. Next time I know it will be the first question I ask of anyone running for Edgewater City office and it will determine my vote.
That is if they have the backbone to be honest about it.

Citizen

Hurt
Thank you for the words of wisdom. I, like Burnt, will use your words as the hallmark that I hold candidates and more particularly incumbants to in future elections.

The Harlander

Andy Bertapelle resigned from the City Council this evening. This is not some sort of political victory to be savored, Council lost a good man. I for one admire his committment to our Fire Department and wish him well, if he had decided to stay on Council and not accept the Fire Department possition I still would have wished him well. As painful and bittersweet as it must have been, he made the ethical choice and should be applauded for it. I'm not so sure that I share that enthusiasim for some of the rest of Council. Perhaphs it's time for a little soul searching.
The intent of the people have been served. Thank you Andy for your service on Council and Godspeed in your new office in the FD.

Farmer Scott · Good choice.

Andy,
I want to thank you for making the tough choice. I personally want to thank you for your previous work on Council and the Fire Dept. You are a treasure and the City should be forever thankful. Please, continue your good work.
Your neighbor,
Scott Hastie

Ashamed

You all did a great service basically forcing a good council person to resign in order to hold a volunteer position with the FD. I hope Andy can forgive you all because if it was me it would be a wound that would take a long time to heal.

Good Job petty citizens of Edgewater.

Guest

Last week Council basically said Andy could hold both possitions, no one forced him to resign from Council. There were some Charter issues and Andy let reason and the Charter prevail. Don't trash on the Citizens for setting good policy regarding the seperation of powers in Government. 1st LT on the Fire Department isn't the same as vounteer fireman, it is an administrative position in a City Department.

The People · What did we do?????

Cooke, Gardner and McElheney railed against the Citizens last night and Andys resignation statement wasn't exactly a sweet goodbye either. Bossert and Martin showed class. So let me ask this question of the other four. Just exactly how was this the publics fault? The very public you took an oath to represent. Were we at fault to pass the Charter, a Charter Gardner and McElheney actively campaigned for, and that we expect it be followed?
There was a whole bunch of childish behavior last night at Council. Bill and Joan appeared to be the only adults sitting up there.

Guest

For the Future · Andy's Honorable Service

Andy,

Thank you for your service to to Edgewater, both to the Fire Department and on the City Council. You have done well at both and now will be missed on Council.
Something that has been lost here, in the arguing about the immediate situation, is that you and your supporters can feel free to write and circulate a petition to change that particular Charter provision if you feel that it does not serve the City. I have heard that some people believe that this and other provisions of the Charter were run through by just a few people and that the citizens voted the whole charter in just to get in a city manager. This may be true, but it should not stop concerned citizens from exercising THEIR rights to amend the charter if they think it is wrong. That includes the Council President who took it on himself to insult and dishonor the Charter Commission members who worked hard to produce what they thought was a good document - a document that Council, when they accepted it, complimented.
I'm betting that with the backing of the Fire Department and their supporters an amendment could be passed and that you would be able to easily get an open seat, just as you did in your first go around. And it would be done the fair way, not by having a lawyer tear down what Edgewater built up.

Thanks again, Andy, and good luck.
A Fellow Citizen

Disturbing · Re: What did we do?????

I was there

Or just maybe the City Attorney read a little furthur into the Charter and corrected his legal opinion. Remember last week Andy had not yet accepted the FD position so they had no choice but to vote a vacancy did not exist. This week Andy accept the position and I believe they had no choice under the Charter.
For the Future
Certainly you could put an initiative on the ballot to allow FD Officers to serve in elected positions but that would be contrary to the American tradition of seperation and balance of power. The Charter Commission rangled with this very issue for three nights and they found compelling evidence that allowing an ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER of the Fire DEPARTMENT set on the LEGISLATIVE Council would create serious conflict of interest issues. The Commission actually tried to find a way to allow Andy to serve in both positions but the minuses of that situation far outwieghed the pluses. It was never a personal issue, it was a good government issue.

first and last post · a little P'o-

So this is it - the talk around town- the ever enlightening edgewatertalkingstick. I cant believe that it took so long to find this through google. After reading post after post on this I think that a better name for this would be edgewater-stalking-stick, or the edgewater- i need a life - stick.

I am sure that in the end City Council would have had no choice but to abide by the new charter, too bad that things did not get a chance to run that course.

I am not on Council nor do I want to be, when I see something interesting on the agenda or something that conserns me directly, I attend the meeting, if I have issue I stand up and say something. Like or dislike the answer from Council, I dont sit around and stew about it, thinking of ways to make a mountain out of a molehill.

To take things to such a level as to sit in every meeting, every week and try to find something wrong with the process or the people WE elected to implement that process is uncomprehensible to me. If something is wrong then yes, lets fix it but hiding behind this mask of "protecting the people" from the evil-bad City Council is mind boggling.

Now, guess what, there is an opeining on Council. Here is your opportunity to make a difference, step up and see if you have what it takes to actually make a difference instead of complaining about everything.

Use some of that energy you have for checking these posts every hour on something worthwhile, something that will actually help the community. But I doubt that will actually happen, because if I went to a Council meeting 5 years from now the same people would be there - lurking to find issues and cause undue drama despite whoever is serving on Council.

With all due respect - GET A LIFE:flower:

You should be ashamed

There is so much more important issues in this town to take up than getting Andy kicked off council. How about living in a town where the police department has 1/2 of it's staff in a condemmend rodent infested building and the rest in a building owned by a bar. This town is really getting to be a joke it's to bad most of you can't see it.

I second that

to the last 2 posts... here here....

Guest

Freedom of speech. What can I say. You do things your way and other people do things thier way. I see the Stick as an asset. Most folks who post on the Stick are involved as are the people who go to Council regurally. They sit on Boards and Commissins an volunteer time to the City. They are there to applaud when applause is earned and they are there to critisize when it is warranted. Talking Stick poster alert the community to criminal activity and announce civic events. Even some Council people are posters to the Stick. So go your way and never return here if that is your pleasure, after all lots of people claim they do not read the Stick.

Citizen

crap sticks

and what about the ones who deny ever posting on here then announce at council that they were the ones posting at 1:30 just people who like to stir up the crap....... you know who you are.

Guest · Welcome...

So, you have never been here before.
Fine.
Welcome to the Talking Stick. Everyone's ideas are welcome here.

Dog Day · “Kiss me - I like to be kissed when I’m getting ....”

There is a very unfortunate thing happening here. Andrew Bertapelle, while the catalyst of the conflict, is also a bit of a victim.

The real thorn isn’t Mr. Bertapelle serving as both fire department administrative staff and council member. The sticky part is council’s display of irreverence for the charter, the people drafting it and the process by which charters are created.

The state puts in place a process that requires charters to be created by laypeople of the community of which the charter will serve. The process does not allow for unlimited time to review and test every conceivable situation that might arise during the life of a charter. Edgewater’s budget didn’t allow for a team of attorneys to spend an unlimited amount of time to wordsmith every idea or thought that was brought to the floor. We could play semantics until the cows come home, but a charter is a guiding document not a service contract. In fact much of what council has said during recent meeting regarding how to use the words of the charter are contrary to what experts advised the charter commission during their deliberations.

To his credit, from the beginning, Council’s President has been very forthright in his opposition to the new charter. He appears to be intent on proving it to be worthless. It is through this tainted set of lenses that an ambiguity that has been described as having ‘obvious intent’ was confronted instead of discussed. Would it have been so hard for council to have said, in an open forum, ‘Hey look, one of our members has a great opportunity to serve as an officer with the fire department. This might be a problem. Let’s talk. Maybe we can work something out.’ Instead we adjourned to the Star Chamber seeking legal interpretations of a document that even the attorney said could only be interpreted by a court. By the end of it citizens were berated for not contacting Mr. Bertapella to discus their thoughts when in actuality council made a point of not disclosing Mr. Bertapelle’s potential appointment as an officer with the fire department until the second week in and after their Chamber session.

While remaining tight lipped about the issue, council repeated statements about the charter and what a difficult time council was having trying to use it because of the poorly written and poorly reviewed work that naïve voters just barely voted in. Fact is that particular section of the charter was taken from the 1992 charter with absolutely no substantial changes to the wording or the punctuation. Why did council consistently record remarks about the ‘new’ charter being such a shoddy piece of work? Who knows, but it was the beginning of a very divisive chain of events.

The damage is done and the wounds are deep. Will we recover from this unilateral lose of trust and respect? Not during this council’s reign. The slaughter of the Charter of the City of Edgewater has just begun.

The Harlander

That pretty much covers it. Hope your wrong about the slaughter of the Charter deal.

Star Chambers, the history:
http://www.bartleby.com/65/st/StarCham.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber

Council appears to be conducting a lot of the peoples business in Star Chambers these days leaving the publics imagination to fill in the blanks.

Fact Fan · Repeat Post Performance

Somethings deserve to be said twice. This post is a good example. This is for those who may have missed it last night.
Dog Day
Guest
Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 7:26 pm Post subject: “Kiss me - I like to be kissed when I’m getting ....”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a very unfortunate thing happening here. Andrew Bertapelle, while the catalyst of the conflict, is also a bit of a victim.

The real thorn isn’t Mr. Bertapelle serving as both fire department administrative staff and council member. The sticky part is council’s display of irreverence for the charter, the people drafting it and the process by which charters are created.

The state puts in place a process that requires charters to be created by laypeople of the community of which the charter will serve. The process does not allow for unlimited time to review and test every conceivable situation that might arise during the life of a charter. Edgewater’s budget didn’t allow for a team of attorneys to spend an unlimited amount of time to wordsmith every idea or thought that was brought to the floor. We could play semantics until the cows come home, but a charter is a guiding document not a service contract. In fact much of what council has said during recent meeting regarding how to use the words of the charter are contrary to what experts advised the charter commission during their deliberations.

To his credit, from the beginning, Council’s President has been very forthright in his opposition to the new charter. He appears to be intent on proving it to be worthless. It is through this tainted set of lenses that an ambiguity that has been described as having ‘obvious intent’ was confronted instead of discussed. Would it have been so hard for council to have said, in an open forum, ‘Hey look, one of our members has a great opportunity to serve as an officer with the fire department. This might be a problem. Let’s talk. Maybe we can work something out.’ Instead we adjourned to the Star Chamber seeking legal interpretations of a document that even the attorney said could only be interpreted by a court. By the end of it citizens were berated for not contacting Mr. Bertapella to discus their thoughts when in actuality council made a point of not disclosing Mr. Bertapelle’s potential appointment as an officer with the fire department until the second week in and after their Chamber session.

While remaining tight lipped about the issue, council repeated statements about the charter and what a difficult time council was having trying to use it because of the poorly written and poorly reviewed work that naïve voters just barely voted in. Fact is that particular section of the charter was taken from the 1992 charter with absolutely no substantial changes to the wording or the punctuation. Why did council consistently record remarks about the ‘new’ charter being such a shoddy piece of work? Who knows, but it was the beginning of a very divisive chain of events.

The damage is done and the wounds are deep. Will we recover from this unilateral lose of trust and respect? Not during this council’s reign. The slaughter of the Charter of the City of Edgewater has just begun.

Guest

not as much as in the past..... if someone sues the city then they have to do those in your so called "star Chamber" and our last mayor was notorious for that.... So dont blame the council for other indiscretions we have had far less with this council the with the one in the past so just give it up.

Elmer Fud · be vewy, vewy cafu...

Not to stir anything up, just a point of perspective, someone, and I can't remember who, told me Boulder CC hadn't been in Star Chambers for something like 8 years.

Ohhh! Please!! · you people make me wanna lose my lunch

BFD!!!
who cares what happens or does not happen in other cities,this is EDGEWATER, yes we have to have things discussed behind closed doors. SO WHAT!!! it eventually comes out to the public.
JUST GIVE IT A REST.
Geezeee ya bunch of geezers!!

Guest

Yeah! We got Homeland Security issues! Like all them local terrorist that attend Council Meetings and post on this disgusting blog or whatever it is. Our Town Council needs protecting. If you don't like our town the way it is why don't you move to Nederland. Bunch of troublemakers!

Guest · Got a Life, just don't know if I got a town to live it in

Guest · Re: a little P'o-

Outraged

Who are you people to ruin Andys life? He never did anything to you. Why do we even need a charter, don't we have a City Attorney? You just like to stick your nose in other peoples business.

The Harlander

He's a stong man · the shoe doesn't fit - does it?

Outraged,

Andy is much stronger than you give him credit for. It will take a lot more than some world-wide-web blog to 'ruin' Andy. Outside of the Talking Stick what the heck has happened that outrages you so much?

Guest · outraged

"Who are you people to ruin Andys life?" said Outraged.

No one is out to ruin Andy's life. Your statement is outrageous in itself. Andy had a choice to make; that has been done. He is a an outstanding citizen, fireman and will no doubt be an asset as an officer on the fire dept. He was an asset to council. However, this issue does not have to do with Andy in particular, but with anyone who would ask to be allowed to serve on both a board, a commission, be an employee, or on council. You can only serve one body at a time. If you think it is personal you are wrong. Edgewaterites applaud and admire citizens who will serve their community. Don't try to make it something that it isn't. This is not personal.

Charter Chaser · To Outraged

Ode to nuts

The stick is typical of the joke Edgewater has become. If you read all the posts it's mostly a laughable collection of views from handfull of people who seek power in the only place anyone would ever take the time to listen to them. I have no doubt we will get a City Manager and in about 30 days the nuts will come out of thier shells attacking the work of the manager. Because after all they think they are smarter than the pro hired to do the job. In thier minds they should have the job if it was not for the multiple felony convictions, or the lack of that darn diploma. Edgewater will always be a joke until the manager rules and the nuts get tossed in the can.

Oh nuts

Yeah, Edgewater can be broken down into two groups. Those Ode to nuts likes and those Ode to nuts doesn't like. Since Ode to nuts posts on the Talking Stick he/she must be in the unlikeable group. That would make Ode to nuts the perfect person to fill the vacancy on Council. So what about it Ode? Do you have the ..........................?

Ape Man

Ed G Waters

Ode to nuts
I resemble that statement! Hell, I'm a pilar of the community, I support most of the bars in Edgewater. I recycle more damn aluminum in a week than most people do in a lifetime. I told you what, I didn't need no damn diploma to do it niether.

Eau d'nuts · To Ode to nuts

Sorry, Odie, you and your rant are not worth the sweat off a good (felonious or nut) citizen's ............... brow

We may be unedumicated, but we're nut stupid!

Play Ball · Work it out

If the Council could identify the "Lynch Mob" for us I would like to see The Council take on The Lynch Mob in a dodgeball competition next Saturday night at JHS, of course the P&R Director would have to officiate.

Guest

That’s not fair. Real live council people against a bunch of virtual little stick people. Stick people got no fingers, they can’t throw the ball.

\ ( ) /
\ | /
|
/ \
/ \

Hang em high

I thought The Lynch Mob was the Charter Commissioners who addressed Council at the January 22nd fiasco.

Sports Fan

I believe it was Councilman Gardner that referenced The Lynch Mob. How about it Adam, who is The Lynch Mob? We want a game!

Sideliner

According to Charter would the Mayor be on Councils team or would she be on The Lynch Mob team? Would that require a legal interpretation from the City Attorney? I suppose they would have to go into Star Chambers to discuss it.

Guest · City Council for 500, Bob

Cake walk. If the game takes place before a CM is on board, the Mayor doesn't have a team. She is her team. After the CM is on board she plays with Council. The Lynch Mob's team membership changes all the time and as they are fingerless anarchists they can't play dodge ball anyway. They might be able to play soccer by hurling their colorful, little, round cyber-bodies at the ball, although in all likehood they would only bounce against the screen. With no rules, because they are the Lynch Mob then the Mayor can play on whatever team she wants, in fact, Council and the Lynch Mob and the Mayor can all chose up sides and be on whatever team they want be on too or they could elect to play independently of each other. That's always an option.

My money, please?

Stickean

Only one question left. If The Lynch Mob (otherwise known as Stick People)are fingerless posters on the Talking Stick, how is it they can post on the Talking Stick without fingers?

Concerned Citizen · Back on topic

Since the topic of this thread is Star Chambers and not dodge ball, I have a question. At last weeks Council meeting I heard Council ask the City Attorney for several interpretations of the Charter. They did this right out in front of the public yet, just a week prior they had to go back into executive session to receive an interpretation of the Charter. This does not make sense to me. Can anyone explain to me the difference between last Council meeting and the one before?
This is a serious question, I would appreciate a serious answer.

Genius · I know! I know!

They bounce on the keys?

Star Chambers

incompetent

Bert bad

Wee Pawns

Here here

correction

Still pissed.

And I said nothing; then they came for me..........

Please, stop.

Much ado about nothing

Harlander is right - as always!

Council President Judge-Mental

Talker

Mis-print

Ethics, History and an Object Lesson

Re: Ethics, History and an Object Lesson

I was there

To MC

Reprise

Lapse of ethics

Lawer,lawer. Who has the lawer?

To Hurt

Good choice.

What did we do?????

Andy's Honorable Service

Re: What did we do?????

a little P'o-

Welcome...

“Kiss me - I like to be kissed when I’m getting ....”

Repeat Post Performance

be vewy, vewy cafu...

you people make me wanna lose my lunch

Got a Life, just don't know if I got a town to live it in

Re: a little P'o-

the shoe doesn't fit - does it?

outraged

To Outraged

To Ode to nuts

Work it out

City Council for 500, Bob

Back on topic

I know! I know!