Search by keyword or six-digit Content ID


What's Hot

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Longmont [Change Location]
Looking for Treasure Coast? Click here

Blog Entry 58 of 87 Wrongmont
These are the Longmont stories you may have missed in the local paper, if they ran them at all. I will expand on what was either glossed over or totally ignored - but still may be of interest to you. I encourage citizens to be aware of their local, state, and federal government and to speak up and hold their representatives accountable for their actions - good, bad, or otherwise.

Out Of Order


Something happened at the February 26, 2008 Longmont City Council meeting that so far has gone unreported, and is very troubling. A video of it can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeTDvIyK6WM and at www.wrongmont.com.

Let me set the stage, as the video alone may not explain it all. Late into the meeting around 10:30pm, the council was voting for members of various boards in the city. First, there was some discussion on the nominees, a motion, and a vote by a show of hands. When it was time for the Cable Trust Board, the eligibility of one of the nominees, Charlie Fellenbaum, was discussed followed by a motion by Councilmember Santos that Stephanie Baum be appointed to this board, followed by a second, then a call for a vote. Here's where it got interesting.

Councilmembers Blue, Santos, Hansen, and Mayor Lange raised their hands, signaling a majority of council. Turn the volume up and you then hear Councilmember Benker saying " NO". As the camera changes angles, she's clearly saying that towards Mr. Hansen, hand still in the air. Mayor Lange looks exasperated as he says " Hey Karen?!" as she's clearly out of order. Yet she just takes over the discussion, clearly angry over what just happened. She goes on to comment about Mr. Fellenbaum, who wasn't the subject of the vote, and even claims he has " more interest than the other candidate"! She ends her tantrum by throwing herself back towards her chair in disgust. Mayor Lange rightly points out that there was a motion, and a vote.

Hopefully most of you see what's wrong here, but since I know some of you will defend some of these councilmembers no matter what, I guess I have to explain it. I don't have my Roberts Rules of Order handy, but this was so blatantly out of line it's not even funny. How often do you see councilmembers, during a vote, telling other councilmembers how to vote? Never for me. The Mayor is the chair of this committee, Karen Benker wasn't recognized by the chair, the chair was making it clear with his words and body language that he was not thrilled with her behavior. Didn't stop her though, did it?

So, was Brian Hansen expected to vote a certain way? It's not inconceivable that he misheard Fellenbaum for Stephanie Baum. But what if he really meant to vote the way he did, who is Karen Benker to tell him " NO"? I thought each member was independent? I haven't harped on this " Benker 4" or " bloc of 4" since the election, figuring I'd evaluate each one separately. And some members of council have been making noise about the general public tearing into the new members. Do you want to know why? THIS is why. The point was just proven.

In a private letter to Brian Hansen, who is my ward's councilmember, this is what I said about this so-called 'bloc': " The accusation and assumption (of a bloc) is a lack of independence by individual members, and a vote-by-committee agreement or arrangement. What transpired Tuesday night only reinforces that mindset."

So what was reinforced? The opinion that, a) certain councilmembers pre-coordinate votes as a group, b) perhaps their nominee was a plant - who on council knows him? What were the circumstances of his nomination? I'll leave it to someone else to connect the dots, and there are dots. c) Don't cross the group or show independence without pre-coordinating that - or face the wrath, television cameras or not, and, d) parliamentary rules be damned, there's an agenda to be pushed.

Personally, I'm getting pretty tired of councilmembers like Sean McCoy and his weekly insults (that now include the Times-Call and its TC-Line) and whining about citizens perceptions of the new council. Those perceptions now have some base in reality, as proven above. So please, tell me, with a straight face, that you don't discuss as a group upcoming votes. That you think it's alright to skirt the rules plenty of other councils have abided by. That it's okay to tell other members how to vote during a meeting. This is a disgrace.

One thing I try to keep in mind, especially with my kids, is that it's easy to remember the truth - there's only one version of it. But when you are scheming behind the scenes, and there are a few people involved, it's not as easy to keep your ducks in a row, now is it?

©2008 Chris Rodriguez/Wrongmont.Com
(Chris Rodriguez is a Longmont resident, and the editor and publisher of Wrongmont.Com, a community website that raises local issues to increase public awareness and interest)

Guidelines: Be kind. Abusive commentary may be removed. If you believe someone has been abusive, please click "Report Abuse".

SUBMIT COMMENT
Talk Back : submit comments to the blog

*Note: you need to log-in to add a comment or rating.
Thank you! Your comment has been updated.
< BACK | NEXT >
Showing 1-10 of 17 comments

...and my wards councilmember, Hansen, never responded.

After all of the above, the other applicant wasn't even eligible. And then council (four of them anyway) vote to keep a vacant seat vacant, while eligible applicants get turned away? Lame.

Thanks Chris. I agree motive can be important. The problem is figuring it out. Even if asked, there is a real possibility they'd be dishonest. Without knowing Benker's motive, her reaction alone was enough to turn me off. Thanks again for making it accesible. Stephanie, I'm sure you'll do fine, good luck.

Bing, I will approach this position totally non-partisan...really because I'm not sure how partisanship can play in to the Cable Trust Board. I know the affiliation of Roger and Sarah but none of the others. It's truly a board where I don't know how being one party or another could have an effect...that's how the council is supposed to run too but sadly that's not the case. Anyway, I look forward to learning the ins and outs of the board, and being part of the decision making process.

Understood. Motive and intent are important, especially when people in these positions wont answer the questions directly. What else is there to go on in that case? You look at past actions and comments and draw some kind of conclusion, or speculation, if you prefer. I think Benker was po'd because she didnt want there to be a vote at all on this board position, not until the one candidate's eligibility was verified. But no one made a motion on Fellenbaum, someone could have, and Santos threw out a motion for Stephanie, and voila, it passed. Benkers "no" to Hansen though shouldn't be too quickly discounted here though. I'd like to hear his or her take on it, but am not expecting it. And THAT'S bothersome, too.

I didn't mean you specifically.

I just don't see the merit in hypotheticals and guessing as to what people's motives are. I wouldn't even guess that Benker's reaction was based solely on Hansen's vote. It could have been due to any number of things. I wouldn't put much faith in your guesses. It's been my experience that most of the time you think you know why someone does something but most of the time there is no way you could possibly now. Why speculate?

Well, since one councilmembers vote doth not appoint a board member, there is no payback. Have to get a motion seconded and a majority of the vote. Hansen never responded, and only he can answer this question: was that vote a mistake? If so, the bloc argument stands. Benkers indignation about his vote appears he blew it or broke ranks. If it was the latter, great, I love the independence. And just because these 4 start voting against each other doesnt mean there WASNT a bloc, it means they're being more reasonable and independent, a good thing.

But Chris, if I were to use your tact on this council, might I suggest that Stephanie was getting paid back, perhaps by some back room deal, by Santos? I wouldn't, because I don't read minds nor do I think there is a conspiracy. Benker acted like an arse, but htis blows your fears of the bloc out of the water as they didn't vote as a bloc. I don't see any problem with council members talking behind closed doors as long as they do listen to the people and keep an open mind. Perhaps that's exactly what happened here.Congratulations Stephanie, I hope you do good work for the community, I also hope you drop some of your more partisan attitudes since you are working on behalf of all of us now.

I think that's the best way to proceed, Doug, though I remember back before I was appointed to the Parks and Recreation Board in a smaller town in Texas, the community was sent a questionnaire to determine what people wanted as far as a comprehensive parks plan. If I recall correctly, about 20,000 people were polled, and it cost about $20,000 dollars to hire the data collection company to both put the questionnaire together and to compile the results and present the findings to the P&R board. Unfortunately, very few folks bothered returning their surveys. Of course, that might not even apply here. I'm sure the cable board would more than welcome folks who wanted to come to a meeting and make their thoughts known on the issues. I know as a P&R member I was always excited to see someone show up to a meeting who wasn't trying to allot space for parks under power lines or in floodplain.
Showing 1-10 of 17 comments
< BACK | NEXT >