Transparency

Lakewood Loses Appeal in Body Cam Case

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on July 25, 2025Posted in Crime, Entrenched Bureaucracy, TransparencyTagged Alexis King, Anita Springsteen, appeal, body cam, Crime, fatality, juvenile, robbery

Lakewood spent two years fighting against releasing body cam footage in a fatal shooting case but has now lost in the Court of Appeals. The issue was first raised by then-City Councilor Anita Springsteen. The original story can be found at Fox31: 17-year-old’s killing by police raises questions for councilor. After turning down multiple requests for the video release, Scripps News filed a lawsuit, naming Springsteen as the requesting official. Lakewood lost in lower court, then appealed and has now lost the appeal. The ruling was made July 10. The footage has not yet been released. By Jeffrey A. Roberts, Executive Director, Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition Appeals court: Children’s Code does not bar public disclosure of blurred body-cam footage showing Lakewood officers killing 17-year-old robbery suspect Colorado’s Children’s Code does not prohibit the public disclosure of blurred body-worn camera footage of Lakewood police shooting and killing a 17-year-old robbery suspect in 2023, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled Thursday. Affirming a district court decision, a three-judge appellate panel rejected the city of Lakewood’s argument that the statute which protects the confidentiality of juvenile records trumps the footage-release provisions in the 2020 Law Enforcement Integrity Act. The statute, the judges concluded, “unambiguously required the court to release” the video. The body camera footage is not a “juvenile record” under the Children’s Code, the opinion says. Rather, “it is a conduit through which information from a juvenile record might be disclosed absent blurring of the video. And even in that circumstance — where the BWC footage might reveal a juvenile record — the statute does not bar release of the footage. The court must still release the footage, but it must blur the video to account for the juvenile’s privacy interest.” The case concerns the shooting of Mariana Martinez by Lakewood police on March 27, 2023. According to a news story, the department initially said Martinez fired at officers but clarified the next day that she pointed a gun at them. First Judicial District Attorney Alexis King found that the officers’ use of deadly force against Martinez “was legally justified to defend themselves and others from the threat posed by Miss Martinez.” Read the full article at CFOIC…

“Rooted In Littleton” Provides Blue Ribbon Example

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on July 20, 2025Posted in Community, Development, Transparency, Word GamesTagged Colorado, densification, densify, denver, desnity, Lakewood, littleton, Rooted in Littleton, survey, zoning

Littleton residents claim to be amateurs in the political sphere but you won’t believe it when you see how they have successfully organized against density-driven zoning changes. Rooted in Littleton got density changes postponed in January and kept fighting to recently gather enough signatures for a petition. Their website reads: “We are passionate about preserving the small-town charm and beauty of Littleton. Our deep roots inform the perspective that good things grow slowly and knee-jerk responses to large social issues don’t produce lasting results. Let’s not let increased density usher in a new era of increased traffic, crime and big city-problems in our little town.” Does that sound familiar? They have many of the same objections to densification as Lakewood residents, such as the attempt to “to erode our home-rule rights with a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach that could strip our community of its uniqueness.” Check out their website for excellent material that could be used as a blueprint for others fighting this issue: Survey Have you ever felt that Lakewood presents data on “housing density and housing shortages in 2024 [that] was insufficient and skewed toward City Council insiders”? That’s what Rooted in Littleton wrote but Lakewood residents have also been making that point for months. The argument really gained traction after the Belmar Park fiasco. (See these articles from savebelmarpark.com: Lakewood’s Housing Affordable Surplus, Lakewood’s 10-year Housing Surplus, Denver Has Enough Housing.) Instead of just complaining about it, Rooted in Littleton organized a survey of their own and provided it for the public. Unsurprisingly, they found that 45% of Littleton residents felt that densification is NOT the best solution The survey they conducted showed that “76% of the survey participants said they want a voice in all major housing legislation, especially as it relates to adding duplexes, triplexes and multiplexes in currently zoned single family residential neighborhoods.” They also found that a majority of people DO NOT believe in the “benefits” of the proposed densification, as shown below: This group is truly inspiring. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard Lakewood residents share the same sentiments that Rooted in Littleton share: Lakewood residents love Lakewood for the existing characteristics. Just like Rooted in Littleton likes their city. Check out their website and spread the word if you know people in Littleton.

Council Finally Votes on RTD Bridge Spending

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on July 8, 2025Posted in Budget, TransparencyTagged bridge, budget, RTD, Shahrezaei

Lakewood City Council will finally vote to spend money on fixing the bridge lights for RTD on July 14. This controversial measure was delayed twice before because of the high price tag for fixtures that do not belong to Lakewood. Now, City Council is scheduled to vote on a resolution to fund this measure through an Intergovernmental Agreement with RTD. It will be on the consent agenda so it doesn’t get discussed, just agreed to, unless someone pulls it for special consideration. As reported in “Shahrezaei’s Bridge Lights“, there are issues to consider, such as why Lakewood would pay for property not owned by Lakewood. Lakewood has recently de-TABORed because they cannot stay within budget without extra money and is looking at eliminating printed newsletters to save money. These measures are evidence that Lakewood does not have money to waste on RTD issues. The staff memo states, “Public outreach for the funding associated with the current IGA amendment was included in the public budget adoption process last year.” At that time, public sentiment was so against the measure that it was not approved, just like it was NOT approved the year before. But now, with little fanfare and no regular agenda discussion session, it’s back. The budget for the lights has come down since it was initially proposed. Originally budgeted for $800,000, which covers the full cost of the lighting, the new agreement splits the costs evenly with RTD, with each party capped at $500,000. In exchange for funding the lighting, Lakewood will be able to help choose the display color.

Residents Accused of Spreading “Misinformation”

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on July 8, 2025Posted in Entrenched Bureaucracy, Sustainability, Transparency, Word GamesTagged Colorado, digital, edition, Lakewood, Looking@Lakewood, misinformation

Word games and a lack of trust have led city staff to accuse residents of “misinformation.” This time, the issue involves the plans to eliminate or reduce physical printed editions of the Lakewood newspaper, Looking@Lakewood. The plans for this switch are still being formed and testing is currently underway — starting with the July edition, which is digital only. Although Lakewood says this is only a test, the city will only commit to one future, printed edition, which substantiates concerns for a permanent elimination. Full elimination may only be conjecture, but according to a response from Lakewood, some city staff believes that mistake is purposeful “misinformation.” This situation is a good example of the word games Lakewood plays and demonstrates the reason that residents continually struggle to make sense of changing policy. The May edition of Looking@Lakewood (below) announced that the July edition would be digital only. When asked about future plans for printed editions, the city responded that the October election edition will be printed and distributed to everyone. This edition is important not only to voters, but to the City Council members campaigning. However, the city response shows no commitment to future printed editions. Rather, they reiterate the cost and sustainability issues the city is concerned about. As the response shows, not even Lakewood can say that printed editions will stay; they can only say they “understand that some residents prefer” a physical copy. They have also said there is no CURRENT plan to FULLY stop mailing. Both of those statements are political word games that make no commitments. Given that evidence, it is easy to see why some residents may mistakenly believe Lakewood has already decided to stop printing completely. Sharing that belief is not “misinformation” but rather “speculation” or, at worst, an honest error. It may also be based on actual experience dealing with Lakewood because historically, the first step Lakewood takes when making a change has been to form a tentative plan, then take a resident survey, and very often to then proceed with the original plan. As long as a printed version is possible in the future, the city can rightly say “Any information you’ve seen or shared that Looking@Lakewood is going completely digital and won’t be mailed ever again is misinformation,” (bold added). Meanwhile, if you are interested in receiving news from the city, you should sign up for the electronic version because, for good or bad, you may not receive a printed version. Resident input is still being taken through the signup below.

The Comprehensive Plan Bait and Switch

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on July 2, 2025Posted in Community, Development, Entrenched Bureaucracy, Transparency, Word GamesTagged 15 minute, 15-minute, bait and switch, community input, comprehensive plan, word games, zoning

Comprehensive plans are easily readable documents that explain a vision for the future of the city in a moment of time. It speaks in plain English to what the zoning code describes in technical detail. The problem is that the zoning code details are what carry the force of law and because technical details are harder to read, it is easy for residents to overlook inconsistencies in proposed zoning compared to plans. This is otherwise known as a bait and switch. For instance, in the comprehensive plan, Lakewood promises to maintain neighborhood character; while in the zoning code, Lakewood implements high-density urbanization which resulted in the destruction of Belmar Park-adjacent property. Pieces of Lakewood’s Comprehensive Plan were used as evidence to fight against the Belmar Park development. Lakewood officials discounted all such arguments. Now that residents have caught on to the inconsistencies, Lakewood staff argues against using the Comprehensive Plan to guide zoning. Instead, Lakewood proposes changing the ordinance so that the zoning code is no longer tied to the comprehensive plan. With this change, residents could not form legal challenges based on compliance with the comprehensive plan and there is less room to fight against maximum buildout in adjacent properties. Do Residents Need a “Vision” Document Why have a comprehensive plan at all? This is a long-term plan that locks in the vision for this moment in time. It includes aspirational goals with no implementation details. Therefore, the details are filled in by staff using their discretion to interpret the zoning code. Technically, one government cannot bind future governments to its decisions. If tomorrow’s City Council wanted to change the vision of Lakewood, it could choose to do so. However, having a long-range plan laid down by yesterday’s Council is a roadblock that is not easily overcome. Residents would better understand the zoning code if each change had to be justified with open debate. Instead, as is currently occurring, the entire zoning code can be changed by saying the code matches the ambiguous goals of the comprehensive plan. For example, the as-yet unapproved Comprehensive Plan seeks affordable housing. Therefore, City Council reasons that ANY CHANGE to the zoning code will be acceptable as long as affordable housing is the intent, not necessarily the outcome. There is no need for an updated 100-page vision plan document to update 300 pages of zoning code. Why not just introduce one little change at a time that is easily understood by the residents, and easily tested for effectiveness? The proposed zoning changes are still being discussed and changed. City Council have taken months to understand these detailed changes. Residents will have a couple weeks. However, residents did spend months providing input into the comprehensive plan, that will no longer have much meaning. The Proposed Change Lakewood intends to remove the binding zoning code connection to the Comprehensive Plan. As first noted by savebelmarpark.com: Lakewood zoning code currently states that the Comprehensive Plan is the foundation for the Zoning Ordinance. However, the proposed redline removes the “consistency with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan”. When the new zoning passes, all the aspirational goals laid out in the plan can be disregarded at will. Which really is no different than today, as shown by the Belmar Park debate except that today such a decision could be legally challenged and tomorrow it can’t. This specific change to the zoning code was not discussed at any public meeting. Comprehensive Plan Goals Not Followed The Comprehensive Plan states (pg 4-10): “Through the site plan review process and design guidelines, ensure that new multifamily, mixed use, and commercial developments adjacent to single-family neighborhoods are compatible by incorporating appropriate design, scale, height transition, and connectivity to seamlessly integrate with the neighborhood.” Residents compiled argument after argument to show that 777 S Yarrow St does not integrate with the neighborhood and does not meet environmental goals from the plan. Residents can clearly see that the Comprehensive Plan promises integration with the neighborhood. Residents can also clearly see that is not what staff implemented be allowing trees cut down to develop to the lot line near Belmar Park and new high-density apartments that don’t match the nearby buildings. . 15-minute Cities In other communities, residents are also waking up to this bait and switch. An opinion piece in the Boulder Daily Camera highlights this problem by examining Boulder’s 15-minute cities. This is particularly relevant since Lakewood leadership constantly mentions their desire for 15-minute city amenities. The proposed zoning code allows retail in residential zones for 15-minute planning. Steve Pomerance, in the Boulder Daily Camera, addresses this issue: “The underlying problem with this whole conceptual framework is the self-contradictory assumption that we can have commercial centers in neighborhoods that provide an adequate variety of goods, services and transit, all within 15 minutes of where people live, but still keep our relatively low-density neighborhoods intact. This is simply not supported by the economics or the geography.” – Steve Pomerance Read the rest of that article to understand the same sense of contrasting values Lakewood is “selling” to residents. The new development at The Bend is promising 15-minute city amenities. “Selling” is the appropriate term used here because the zoning was contracted before the comprehensive plan was finalized. In another eerie coincidence with Boulder, Pomerance wrote, “It’s as if those who wrote these objectives had already decided that the results of the cost/benefit study would support implementing this concept, and thus support the massive densification required to create such neighborhoods. Community Input Into Zoning Up to this point, residents have had no input. It was not a resident-driven development. Lakewood’s Chief of Sustainability and Community Development, Travis Parker, has been attending ward meetings to educate and also to promote the good points of the new zoning code — as if there are no other options. No one has addressed the dissatisfaction with the current densification in Lakewood. Does a desire for affordable housing mean automatic agreement to sacrifice current neighborhoods? More

Save the Land at the Old Lutheran Hospital

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on June 30, 2025Posted in Community, Development, TransparencyTagged high-density, historic, lutheran, urban, wheat ridge

Wheat Ridge is facing the same pressures as Lakewood. Both cities want to turn established neighborhoods and properties into something completely different with little public input. Does any of this sound like the Belmar Park problem to you? High-density, no setback, no parking… a big change that the city has to make big changes for while not listening to big public pushback. Update: A quick count of the days shows that Wheat Ridge is giving residents 9 days to petition instead of 10 because July 4 is a holiday. There’s always another challenge. Let your Wheat Ridge friends know to get over to sign soon! From Stop Zoning of High Density Housing in old Lutheran Hospital Save the land at the Old Lutheran Hospital from becoming a high-density housing project! 1,200 Signatures needed. Wheat Ridge residents: Meet at The Historic Blue House @ Old Lutheran Hospital to sign June 24-July 3 , 7am-7pm What’s up with the new zoning of the old Lutheran campus?Here’s what people are saying: A change of this magnitude should be voted on by all citizens of Wheat Ridge. Allows the creation of a crowded urban environment on much of the property: More than 2,000 housing units can be built, according to the developer. [Sec. 26-1404]Maximal building coverage. [Sec. 26-211, 26-1405] No setbacks. [Sec 26-1405] Minimal landscaping and open space [Sec. 26-1405; 26-1409, 26-502]. No parkland dedication to the City is required. [Sec. 26-414] Minimal parking [Sec. 26-1407, wheatridgespeaks.org/items/1522] Variances from even these minimal standards are allowed, including variances of morethan 50%. [Sec 26-1416] No Historic Designation or Registry of the Blue House, Chapel or Tuberculosis Tent. Nothing about affordable homeownership. [It’s not found anywhere in MU-LLC regs.] No limit on the number of units that can be rentals. [It’s not in the MU-LLC regulations.] NO traffic studies have been done. Read more about this issue on their facebook page And find time to sign their petition at one of the meeting times: at The Historic Blue House @ Old Lutheran Hospital to sign June 24-july 3 , 7am-7pm

Zoned Out: How Lakewood is Selling Out its Neighborhoods

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on June 17, 2025Posted in Development, Entrenched Bureaucracy, TransparencyTagged Colorado, eliminate, high-density, home rule, Lakewood, single family, zoning code1 Comment

By Karen Gordey You’d be forgiven if you missed it — after all, the City didn’t exactly roll out the red carpet for public input — but Lakewood is in the middle of completely rewriting its zoning code. And on May 21st, the Planning Commission passed 16 amendments in one night. Sixteen. Because who doesn’t want to restructure the entire city with the speed and clarity of a late-night city hall cram session? Here’s the kicker: Lakewood is a home rule city, meaning we have the power to make our own land use decisions. But instead of using that power to protect neighborhoods or push back on one-size-fits-all state mandates, the City Council passed a resolution last year (Resolution 2024-62) that basically says, “Tell us what you want, Colorado — we’ll make it happen.” Meanwhile, six other cities are suing the state to protect their local control. Lakewood? We’re sending engraved invitations to the bulldozers. If you’re not paying attention yet, you should be. Because staff expects these changes to take effect in September and if residents don’t start showing up and speaking up, we’ll be stuck with zoning we didn’t ask for, can’t undo, and won’t recognize. “Home Rule vs Statutory Rule” Before we go any further, it is important to understand the difference between statutory rule and home rule. So that there is no confusion, I went to the Colorado Municipal League’s website (www.cml.org). The following is their explanation of the two: “Colorado cities and towns operate under provisions of Colorado state statutes (and are referred to as “statutory” cities and towns) unless voters adopt a municipal charter to become a “home rule” city or town. Home rule is based on the theory that the citizens of a municipality should have the right to decide how their local government is to be organized and how their local problems should be solved. Municipal home rule derives its authority directly from the Colorado Constitution. It affords residents of cities and towns that adopt a local charter freedom from the need for state-enabling legislation and protection from state interference in “both local and municipal matters.” The Lakewood City Charter was established on November 1, 1983. While it has been modified by the voters 5 times (the latest on November 2, 2004, we are still a home rule city. Lakewood City Charter and Lakewood Together Page 27 of the City Charter talks about planning and zoning. According to the charter, the city council could have established Ward Advisory Committees to try to corral all these changes but instead are using Lakewood Together for community input. In fact, I attended the Ward 5 meeting on June 14th and Councilman LaBure said that he tried to create committees last year and did not have support for this. Let’s take a look at the Lakewood Together site. On the front page of the zoning updates section (Lakewood Together Zoning Updates), it clearly references the state law requirements and again we are a home rule city so we are allowed to do what is best for our community. This will be important to remember when I talk about the 16 amendments. The 2024 City Council Resolution: Pre-Commitment to State Zoning Goals The City Council passed a resolution Resolution 2024-62 that sounds harmless — values like affordability, walkability, and sustainability — but when you read the details, it’s a blueprint for surrendering home rule. The resolution adopts state-level zoning goals before zoning code revisions or public feedback were complete. That includes: Bottom line: Lakewood didn’t just “revise” its zoning goals; it absorbed the state’s playbook wholesale. This was covered briefly by the Lakewood Informer: Jedi Mind Tricks – The New Zoning Code WILL BE Good Why Didn’t Lakewood Join the Lawsuit with Other Home Rule Cities? Good question! Recently, six Colorado cities banded together to sue the state over its new zoning mandates — arguing that the laws violate their constitutional rights as home rule municipalities. (6 Front Range cities sue over housing laws, governor’s threat to withhold state funds) Lakewood? We sat that one out. At the Ward 5 meeting on Saturday, June 14th, I asked our Councilors a simple question: Was our absence because of Resolution 2024-62, which essentially pre-commits Lakewood to implementing state zoning goals? And if the lawsuit is successful, meaning those cities win back their rights to local control, won’t we be stuck with sweeping zoning changes we didn’t have to make? Councilman LaBure responded: “We are a home ruled city but we are also a state entity. The state passes things all the time that encroach on local control. The argument has been historically well zoning and parking issues and all those things are matters of local concern and not the state concern. And Judiciary had tended to draw a line there. However, the state has increasingly been making the argument that there is a housing crisis statewide so we need more and more control over local zoning issues because it is actually a matter of state concern. I would have been happy to have jumped on that lawsuit however, other cities already did it and we are part of the Colorado Municipal League (CML). And CML has supported that lawsuit and in that sense we are member and if not the largest so in some sense we are part of that because of our CML affiliation. And it is a fair question to ask about if the lawsuit is successful, then we would be stuck with zoning changes that were not needed.” Translation: we could have stood up for home rule; but we’ll just let other cities take the heat and hope our dues to the Colorado Municipal League somehow cover us by association. Councilor Nystrom added that she did ask the City Attorney the same question but didn’t get a clear answer. She also pointed out that HOAs aren’t safe from this zoning overhaul either. While HOA covenants are seen as contracts between homeowners and their associations, local

The Illusion of Debate: How Lakewood’s City Council Rubber-Stamps Policy

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on June 3, 2025Posted in Entrenched Bureaucracy, Transparency, Vote TallyTagged Accountability, Lakewood City Council, rubber stamp, transparency, unanimous, voting record

By Karen Gordey As you may or may not have heard, Kairoi—the Texas developer behind the 777 S Yarrow Street project—cut down more than 60 mature trees on May 12th. The community response was swift and emotional. That evening, a large group from the Save Belmar Park movement filled the back of Lakewood City Council chambers and voiced their outrage during public comment. Many echoed the same call: every sitting councilor—save perhaps one—needs to be voted out. The next day, I drove to Belmar Park to see the damage for myself. As I pulled up, I noticed two current council members chatting nearby. I spoke with one of them off the record for about 25 minutes. When I said, “Isn’t this what you voted for?” the councilor quickly replied, “No, I didn’t vote for this.” Skeptical, I went home and reviewed voting records for the past two years. And they were right—technically. The 777 S Yarrow project didn’t come before City Council. It went through the Planning Commission and the City’s Planning Department. But that wasn’t the end of the story. When I tried to dig deeper, it became clear how inaccessible the City’s meeting records really are. Minutes from meetings are supposed to be approved during the Consent Agenda at every regular council meeting. But finding the actual minutes? Nearly impossible. For instance, during the May 12, 2025 meeting, Council approved minutes from March 24, April 14, and May 5—but none were linked or attached. On February 24, they approved minutes from December 9, 2024. Again, no actual documents. You can technically find every ordinance and resolution passed by council here: https://www.lakewood.org/Government/Departments/City-Clerks-Office/City-Council-Ordinances-Resolutions. But it’s a list, making it difficult for residents to hold individual councilors accountable. The Consent Agenda, meant for quick approvals of non-controversial items like meeting minutes, ordinances on first reading, or ceremonial resolutions, is often a catch-all for measures that go unscrutinized. Councilors can ask to remove items for discussion—and did so multiple times in 2024. But here’s something you may not know: residents can request that items be removed too. Once passed, the items removed from the consent agenda are discussed and voted on, then the rest of the agenda is addressed in order., And while the Consent Agenda script claims that first-reading ordinances are published in the Denver Post—none have appeared in the last two years. Don’t take my word for it. You can search the Denver Post’s legal notices here: https://marketplace.denverpost.com/marketplace-denver/category/Miscellaneous/Legal%20Notices and on the state’s required public notice database: https://colorado.column.us/search/ (which is moving to: https://www.publicnoticecolorado.com). So how did your councilor vote? Here’s a breakdown of every vote not passed via the Consent Agenda Here’s what I found: Also included in that spreadsheet is a tab for study sessions and workshops. These are arguably more important than council meetings themselves. That’s where councilors hear presentations on major issues—always from city staff or invited parties that support the city’s position. No opposing views. No residents. By the time a topic comes up for public hearing (on second reading), the council has already made up its mind. Is it any wonder residents feel ignored and angry? Let’s talk transparency. The Budget & Audit Committee—tasked with overseeing your tax dollars—hasn’t met once in 2025. Back in January, Ward 5 councilors proposed expanding the committee to represent all five wards. That proposal was shot down. Only three wards are represented. Two wards remain unheard. And all this under a City Manager pulling in over $400,000 a year. When government struggles with the basics—recordkeeping, transparency, fair representation—it often fails on the big things too. Isn’t it time for a better way? If you’re tired of a council that listens to developers more than residents, tired of unanimous votes that ignore dissent, and tired of a system where transparency feels like an afterthought—then do something. Start asking questions. Email your councilor. Demand meeting minutes be posted, ordinances be published, and your ward be represented. Government works best when it’s held accountable. And in Lakewood, it’s time we started holding ours to a higher standard.

Likely Defect Identified in Planning Commission Software

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on May 5, 2025Posted in Development, Entrenched Bureaucracy, TransparencyTagged Belmar Park, lakewoodspeaks, Planning Commission, public hearing, site plan, Travis Parker

From savebelmarpark.com The 777 S Yarrow public hearing is very close on: May 7th at 7:00 PM at 480 S Alison Parkway, Lakewood, CO You may now enter public comments online at: https://lakewoodspeaks.org/meetings/869. You may have to click on item 3. Unfortunately, a likely defect in the Planning Commission’s online file upload process has been identified and was reported via a follow-up public comment. However, that public comment was rejected by Lakewood for violating comment policy. It appears the comment was rejected out of an assumption that the Planning Commission software could not possibly be broken. The city clerk was also very helpful in providing examples of other comments with attachments that were publicly posted as proof that the upload process is not broken. Notably, NONE of the examples provided by the clerk included the .doc file extension. Therefore, because Lakewood was obviously not going to investigate a reported defect that could potentially have been suppressing public comment file attachments for a long time, perhaps years, I investigated. It turns out that the Planning Commission does NOT accept all of the file extensions specified on the file upload dialogue (which is shown in the image at the top of page). Once I converted the .doc file to a .pdf file, then the upload process was successful! If you upload a file with a supported .doc file extension, for example, it appears to work properly. However, if your comment is approved for publication, the attachment is never displayed. This is a material error because members of the public may reasonably assume their upload was successful since no error message is ever produced at any point in time during this process. Nor does the moderation process capture file upload errors and notify users. Nor are members of the public ever advised that the software may be unreliable and may silently dispose of file uploads. Upon reviewing public comments just this morning, one person who supports approving the Kairoi project referenced his attached letter. But no attached letter was displayed. So his attachment may also have been lost by the software. Therefore, members of the public or any parties with a matter to be heard by a quasi-judicial panel could upload files for the official hearing record and discover after the hearing record is closed that their file uploads were rejected. Then it is too late to re-submit their files. This problem is also complicated by a significant conflict of interest due to the fact that Mr. Parker, Lakewood’s executive in charge of making development recommendations to the Planning Commission and/or City Council, is also and incredibly an advisor on the executive team of the same software company that is at the crux of possibly suppressing public comment by silently rejecting documents intended for quasi-judicial hearings. We suggest the city is indifferent both to the public perception and the risks of this conflict of interest. We also suggest that as a result of enabling this conflict of interest, the city is also indifferent to the requirement for software quality control. Please consider that a quasi-judicial hearing is a legal proceeding. What if the clerk of a court periodically discarded or lost documents delivered by litigants without telling anyone? What do you think would happen to that court clerk if this malfeasance came to light after years of discarding court documents? We are not suggesting any Lakewood employees are disposing of these files. The comparison is being made to the apparently inconsistent software vs what if an employee hypothetically did the same thing? We doubt that an employee would get off so easily. But in Lakewood, the software does get off easily. And consequences can be significant if a court is not diligent regarding management of important technology used in processing court documents or evidence. Consider the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and the fiasco over their DNA tests. It was recently revealed that hundreds of DNA tests were allegedly ‘manipulated’ over a 30-year time period and as a result material facts were omitted from official records even though no DNA matches were falsified. The CBI Director stated: ““Our actions in rectifying this unprecedented breach of trust will be thorough and transparent.” Will Lakewood be as forthcoming regarding ignored software defects that potentially corrupted public hearing records? Has this defect been suppressing relevant files for years? It is possible. Especially considering Lakewood does not seem responsive to any report that the software does not work properly. Anyone who has previously reported a problem may have received a similar response that it was user error because other people can upload files – but of a different file type. Therefore, we strongly urge that Mr. Parker be required to recuse from any matter that may eventually involve the Planning Commission or City Council where the PeopleSpeak software is used to accept public comments for any quasi-judicial hearings or city council meetings. In the meantime, any past decisions made by the Planning Commission or City Council where online public comments were accepted from the public should be reviewed and new hearings potentially announced once the software is fixed. Stay tuned and thanks for listening, Steve

Springsteen Files Injunction Regarding Emory

By Lakewood News from KarenPosted on May 4, 2025Posted in Development, Entrenched Bureaucracy, Jeffco, TransparencyTagged Anita Springsteen, Emory, injunction, open meetings

Former Lakewood City Councilor and attorney Anita Springsteen is no stranger to Lakewood’s backroom dealing and use of executive sessions. Springsteen has filed two lawsuits against the city for using “negotiations” as the context for an executive session. Allegedly, those meetings were open meetings violations because they didn’t provide enough detail on the “negotiations” involved. Those allegations are playing out about the purchase of Emory school. Even residents living next to Emory had no idea the city was trying to purchase the school for the Action Center. Springsteen filed an injunction to prevent the city from voting on the property purchase April 28 but Springsteen says “the Court held that the issue was moot when Council held the vote despite being on notice of the request for injunction.” She plans to refile the motion to prevent further actions by the city. She is also communicating with the Jefferson County Schools so they are on notice of breach of fiduciary duty. Councilor Mayott-Guerrero asked for an attorney to explain why residents have not seen open conversations about purchasing Emory before. The attorney for the city said negotiations are protected by executive sessions so there has been no public notice until now. The April 28 meeting, during which this conversation and vote took place, was duly noticed, he advised. Unfortunately, that still left many residents in Lakewood feeling like they were unprepared, not informed and left in the dark. Which is entirely reasonable since, as Lakewood just admitted, they did not tell residents they were working on this until now. Lakewood did not put the address of the property on which they were negotiating in the notice for executive sessions. City Council and staff were very clear that this was only the first step and that the city needed to proceed in this matter so they could progress to formal negotiations. But then what were they doing in previous executive sessions? Lakewood could have been transparent and told residents in September of 2023 that they were interested in buying the school on behalf of the Action Center, as documents show. Instead of fully explaining the plans for Emory, Lakewood cried “misinformation” and only addressed limited misunderstandings. There are also allegations that Jeffco was hiding talks because they were involved in negotiations to sell the property four months before it was officially disposed of. Council and staff still say that no decisions have been made and that they will listen to resident input at future meetings. Of course, that’s a variation of what they have said for the past year and a half while decisions were being made. There is no indication that plans will change based on resident input at the city level but that may be different at the school district level. There is also the possibility that the expanded interests of the Action Center will persuade people that this is the best use of Emory. The purchase of Emory for the Action Center was a priority for Lakewood since the school’s closing. It was the first and only one on the municipal option list to begin in January of 2024. Springsteen was one of four Councilors who demanded transparency before allowing an executive session to proceed. The session involved the City Manager’s contract renegotiation. The four Councilors calling for transparency prevented a super majority vote, which is required for an Executive Session to proceed. This forced the contract renewal to take place at a public meeting so that the public could see who voted to renew the City Manager’s contract, which increased her benefits. Springsteen has filed three lawsuits regarding open meetings violations, two of which pertain to property negotiations. Springsteen says “the third case was for an Executive Session involving ‘legal advice’ on a CCU issue that had already been resolved upon appeal a year prior, which calls into question the purpose of the meeting.”