The November issue of Looking@Lakewood included a column reflecting on Lakewood’s style of government. Lakewood’s city charter set up a council-manager form of government. Per the article, this form involves hiring “a professional city manager who puts those [city council] policies into action by directing and overseeing the day-to-day operations of the city’s departments and staff members.”

                As pointed out in the article, the advantage of the council-manager form is to minimize the potentially unethical influence of elected officials. It relies on an experienced and non-political manager to oversee operations. Not discussed in the article is that the disadvantage of the system is the development of an entrenched bureaucracy.

Mayor Adam Paul also chose the November issue of Looking@Lakewood to write about the council-manager form of government. He writes, “My role, in combination with council members, is to work together, as no one council member can direct staff.”

Mayor Paul notes two different actions: directing staff and working together. It appears that Mayor Paul meant that council works together, and staff work together…. Separately.

Council Member Olver asked to work with staff and describes running into “roadblocks”. In this same November issue of Looking@Lakewood, Olver writes, “… after I asked to be included in staff discussions about a topic in which I’m an expert [a department director said]: “It would not be best practice to invite an elected official to join an internal staff meeting.”

Apparently, city employees may feel that discussion equals direction and will enforce working separately.

However, there is another explanation when viewed from a stakeholder perspective. According to ProjectManagement.com, “When you plot your stakeholders on a power/interest grid, you can determine who has high or low power to affect your project and who has high or low interest. People with high power need to be kept satisfied while people with high interest need to be kept informed” (see chart below from same source).

Using this chart, we can assume that Council Member Olver is low on the power scale, so no one on city staff thinks he is in the “keep satisfied” category. This theory is further proved by the simple observation that Council Member Olver’s column totaled 164 words, similar to other council members, while, coincidentally, there appeared to be two rebuttals to his remarks, spread over two columns totaling about 600 words.

Council members have zero power in day-to-day decisions, and according to the column example, get told so regularly. Council members do not have the power to hire and fire or spend funds. They cannot self-publish a city-wide publication like Looking@Lakewood. City management has that power. So the question to ask is, does the city use that power to bring you all the information, or only the information it wants you to see. For example, did the city tell you about the possible formation of an entrenched bureaucracy?

Calvin Coolidge warned about bureaucracy overwhelming democracy in a speech he gave in 1926:

No plan of centralization has ever been adopted which did not result in bureaucracy, tyranny, inflexibility, reaction, and decline. Of all forms of government, those administered by bureaus are about the least satisfactory to an enlightened and progressive people. Being irresponsible they become autocratic, and being autocratic they resist all development. Unless bureaucracy is constantly resisted it breaks down representative government and overwhelms democracy. It is the one element in our institutions that sets up the pretense of having authority over everybody and being responsible to nobody.

https://blog.acton.org/archives/70151-calvin-coolidges-warning-entrenched-bureaucracy.html

At the Jeffco School Board meeting on November 11, 2020, people for and against the school closures made their final statements. At the end, the Board voted unanimously to close 16 schools for the good of the District.

Every member of the public speaking about the closures spoke against it, often passionately, always prepared, and often just asking for more time.  Speakers asked for more time because so many points of consideration were raised during this process. The Board responded that they said in August that the schools would close. The public discussion was only to discuss how “best to make the transition.”

The public presented statistics to show that students receiving free lunch or are non-white are more likely to be affected by this decision. The Board agreed but said that is one reason for the closures. By closing the schools, the Board ensures that students receive access to programs that the larger schools may have but the smaller ones lack.

Charter schools were shielded from closures. Ironically, many charters show successful models of education at smaller levels that the school board could adopt to save the schools, if they were willing to do so.

School board members spoke equally passionately and thoughtfully for the closures. One member was disturbed by reduced mental health care at smaller schools. One was disturbed by the reduced access to programs, such as a literacy program.  One explained that smaller schools have been an economic drain on the District for years, if not decades.

The ending arguments seemed to focus on the economics for the District and the level of program access. Closing these schools will save around $7M. On the other hand, as was mentioned by several members of the public, The District could afford pay raises for central administration staff of approximately the same amount. This shows sacrifices by the students, families, and local school staff for the benefit of the District.

This decision seems to enshrine the philosophy of the Greater Good – sacrifice the small and the marginalized for the Greater Good of The District. It seems that Jefferson County Public Schools has decided that the only possible model for a successful school district is large schools, possibly far outside local neighborhoods, with education primarily about programs, rather than the classroom. This decision would be a surprise to small schools around the state. It can be done.

An excellent analysis of what brought us here can be found at:

Guest contribution from Joan from Lakewood…

From: “Joan from Lakewood”
Date: November 9, 2022 at 11:02:52 PM MST
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Injustice with land development in Lakewood at 4th and Union

Dear XXX,

Thank you for reaching out to me today. It was kind of timely. You see I have not received any resolution to the FOIA that I file with the GSA. I was supposed to receive an answer on 11/3/22 and I had explained to them that would not be helpful as the title was to be transferred on 10/31/22. But I have since learned that the transfer of the title has been delayed. So I have sent a registered letter to the National Archive Administration Service which is the oversight organization for Federal FOIA requests. I hope to get the information or a resolution. Soon. 

Meanwhile last night at the Green Mountain Water Board, the board passed a ban on allowing employees to dig or work underground on that property. So perhaps the developers will be in touch with the CDPHE to do a deep drive into what is actually on that property. 

Lastly with 123 passing and allowing Tabor Refunds to be used for affordable housing and perhaps that is a source of funding for this project, I am sure the tax payers would not want to have their tax money used in such an unjust manor. 

If you still wish to speak to me, why don’t you call early next week and I will look at my schedule then. 

With Regards, 

“Joan from Lakewood” MT(ASCP)

Ps this might be a mute point as I have heard that there is funding issues with the lenders and developers. You see the Feds have raised the lending rate at least 4 points since this bid was made. And there may not be the collateral to make this a viable loan. 

On Nov 9, 2022, at 10:43 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Joan,

Thanks for sharing your concerns with me and the leadership team here at CDPHE. I tried calling you back but declined to leave a message. I’m happy to talk through this with you. This week may be hard because of the task force that is meeting today and tomorrow, but is there a time next week that works for you?

On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 4:45 PM “Joan from Lakewood” wrote:

Dear XXX

I have been expressing concerns over a piece of 59 acres of Federal Center Land since 2018 as to the possible toxic contamination of the land and the unwise move to develop it. I am aware that the CDPHE supposedly has all the studies that have been done as the CDPHE was involved in the placement and development the RTD rail line next to this property.

There is an Ordinance with the city of Lakewood called the strategic
growth initiative (SGI)
(Previously known as Ordinance 200) that calls for public hearings when a developer want to build over 200 units in Lakewood. A developer can get around the public hearings if the development has over 20% of the units dedicated to affordable housing.

A developer purchased the GSA land to place 1800 units on this possibly toxic land. That means at least 360 units of affordable housing.

Affordable housing has a large percentage of lower income and people of color.

I honestly feel it is inequitable to have children of lower means and color on this land. Land that people of means would not allow their children to live on.

I believe this is the very definition of systemic racism.

I have filed a FOIA with the GSA in Washington DC.

The real dilemma I have is that I believe the title of this land will be transferred on Monday 10/31/22 and the FOIA has been extended to 11/3/22. Although I am told that there is little that can be done to stop this land transfer and development, I still think it is wrong.

“Joan from Lakewood” MT(ASCP)

At one time, our schools were so full that many had “temporary” buildings to house all the students. At one time, we the taxpayers voted for money to remodel buildings through 2022, assuming the schools would be used. At one time, school land was permanently lost after being sold to developers. Jefferson County is still living with the effects of these decisions, but Jeffco School Board seems intent on not learning from mistakes.

Jefferson County School Board is voting to close 16 schools throughout Jeffco by consolidation. The school consolidation plan is based solely on student enrollment. They are not considering the economic impact on the school district, the staffing budget and least of all – impact to the family. Was it studied? There is also no mention of the effect on public trust by spending money on remodeling buildings they propose to close. For example, Green Mountain Elementary School was remodeled through the summer of 2022, and if approved by the Board, will be closed less than two years after the remodel.

Can the economic benefits be fully understood without a 10- to 20-year plan, including future demographic changes and defined economic plans for the real estate? Abandoned buildings can cost millions to refit. Acquiring lost assets can cost even more, if even possible at all. Apparently, future plans for the land and buildings will be considered in January, so have not been factored in at this point.

In an age where parents beg for smaller class sizes, Jeffco touts the ability to combine small classes into larger ones. Jeffco School Board itself does not list any benefits to THE STUDENT for school consolidation, besides “services and activities”

Data is not presented that families would wish to close schools because of a lack of “services and activities.” In fact, since those who desire that option can already use the School Choice Program, the remaining families demonstrate the need or desire for schools to remain open. Public outcry, both online and in public meetings, demands to keep current schools open. Reasons given include household economics and neighborhood social ties.

Public outcry is impassioned. There is at least one online petition to keep Jeffco schools open. Reasons listed on the petition include student safety, long-term neighborhood viability, property values, and equity. See Jeffco’s site to find that a plan is already in place with unambiguous terms that this WILL happen.

No information has been presented regarding population studies, including data that has already been collected from constituent cities.   When asked at public meetings, the answer was that the board is studying the issue. Interesting to note that schools like Foothills Elementary, which will apparently survive the consolidation, was once under-enrolled to the point of considering closure but is now the school of choice due to demographic change. Studies on how many other schools are in similar condition are unavailable.

Alternatives to full school closure have not been presented. For example, closing half the building, alternative staffing models or engaging charter school models. Statistics discussed at public meetings indicate enrollment declined by 20% due to covid; however, enrollment could increase by 20% if we really understood the deeper reasons of what drove them away. Such statistics also disprove the notion that students remain for extra “services and activities”.

How times have changed.

When Green Mountain Elementary School was opened in 1963, Lakewood wasn’t even an incorporated city but the residents numbered around 90,000 (https://www.lakewoodtogether.org/Lakewood50/news_feed/fifty-years). Population has increased to 156,000. Statistics indicate that enrollment numbers are not the problem. Jeffco schools numbered 39 in 1950 and now total 166. The key appears to be long-term planning for long-term changes and asset management. That is what Jeffco residents are missing to believe the best choices are being made for Jeffco schools.