PreserveLouisville (Colorado)--Preserving Our Small-Town Character

It is now an all-too-common sight in old town Louisville: historic buildings and houses being razed and replaced with new buildings and houses that bear no relation to those they replaced. The irony is that many of those who chose to raze and build in old town were drawn in the first place to old town because of its character and charm, the very characteristics they are helping to undermine.

In the November election, residents can give city officials more options to avert the destruction of historic structures in old town. On August 5, the City Council voted to refer to Louisville voters a measure that, if approved, would essentially create a fund the city could use to give owners of historic buildings and houses a financial incentive to preserve them.

The measure increases the city’s sales tax by one-eighth of 1%, or .125%, for a period of 10 years.

It is worth supporting. Over time there will be continuing pressure in our historic old town to “scrape” historic commercial and residential structures. As a result, we might not recognize our old town in 15 or 20 years. The historic-preservation fund is an investment in our future.

Transparency in government

The Boulder Valley school board violates the sunshine laws

School district voters approved a ballot measure authorizing the Boulder Valley School District to issue nearly $300 million in bonds for improvement of schools. Louisville Middle School, built in 1939 as Louisville High School, needs modernization and more space. It is scheduled to receive some $16 million for renovation.

What few knew until late in 2007 was that the District plans to demolish the historic façade and other historic parts of the building. After many members of the District and Louisville community spoke up against the demolition, the District agreed to reconvene the “Design Advisory Team,” or DAT, so that it could take additional public input on the fate of the school’s historic components.

The DAT later reaffirmed its decision to destroy the historic façade, a decision the BVSD school board approved.

What even fewer knew was that during the purported reevaluation process, the school board was, in effect, holding illegal meetings behind closed doors. As reported in the Daily Camera, on at least three occasions, three members of the school board engaged in e-mail discussions with each other, copying in the other four board members, about the “reevaluation” process and the planned destruction of the school. On a number of other occasions, one or two members sent messages about the process and the planned destruction and copied in the other board members.

These emails violated both the text and spirit of the state Open Meetings Act. The board president, Helayne Jones, claimed that there was no open-meetings violation. Superintendent Chris King suggested that discussion of public business by three board members is a violation of the Act falls into “gray areas” of the open-meetings laws.

Ms. Jones’ and Mr. King’s comments are astonishing, since they suggest that, at the time of the news article, neither had read the Act yet. School boards are covered by the Act. Colo. Rev. Stats. § 24-6-402(1)(c). The Act specifically provides, “If elected officials use electronic mail to discuss . . . public business among themselves, the electronic mail shall be subject to the requirements of this section.” § 246402(2)(d)(III). The “requirements of this section” include a requirement that “[a]ll meetings of a quorum or three or more members of any local public body, whichever is fewer, at which any public business is discussed . . . are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times.” § 246402(2)(b).

Like everyone else, public officials make mistakes. When they do, the proper response is to fix the mistake. In this case, after Ms. Jones and the board were alerted by a private letter about the violation of the Act, Ms. Jones made no attempt to contact the letter writers, who were BVSD constituents. Instead, she directed the board’s lawyer to write back. As lawyers are apt to do, the board’s lawyer simply avoided discussing whether there had been a violation of the Act.

Board member Laurie Albright had a better response when the Camera reporter spoke with her: ““I honestly didn’t know that an e-mail I might have written responding to colleagues about an issue was a violation of any policy. . . . Once we learn what the law is, I am positive this will never happen again.” So did board member Jim Reed: “I’m used to the corporate e-mail-type of experience where you get an e-mail and reply to all. . . . I didn’t realize I wasn’t complying, and I want to be fully compliant and transparent moving forward.”

©All materials created for publication on this website are subject to copyright laws. Permission is granted to use materials so long as you make it clear that the materials were copied from this web site.