Letter to Gateway News Editor Kathy McIntyre From Commerce City Council Member Jim Benson

Kathy:

I continue to read both articles in and letters to the Gateway in which the entire council is lumped in to the mess created by the September 1, 2009, city manager contract.

For the record, I voted against this outrageous deal, and so did Kathy Teter. I agree with most everything people are saying about this issue.

I have asked the city manager to make some good faith showing in this matter by simply paying for his taxes and insurance every month, but he refuses to do so, stating "I don't have to." I have also asked him to pay the city the approximate $70,000.00 he cleared on the sale of his Arizona house in early October 2009, but he refuses to do so, again, because he doesn't have to, but he also "thanks" me for making these suggestions.

Please if you can, in the future, make some differentiation between "the council" and the two of us who voted against this contract.

Please publish this letter in the next issue of the Gateway.

Thanks,

Jim Benson
Commerce City
City Council Ward II
303-288-7011

26 comments:

Orion, Commerce City Voter and Citizen said...

great platform for a mayor race.
I HOPE YOU ALL GET IT!

PRO CITY said...

I wonder how Kathy Teter feels about being lumped in with Jim speaking on her behalf?

Not going away said...

I would like an answer to this question:

WHY DID THE CITY MANAGER GET $72,000 IN CASH OF THE TAXPAYERS MONEY FOR A SUPPOSED LOSS ON A HOUSE IN ARIZONA THAT HE SOLD FOR A PROFIT AND FOR A HOUSE IN REUNION THAT HE HAS NOT BOUGHT YET OR GOTTEN A MORTGAGE ON OR PAID A DIME ON? THERE WERE NO LOSSES SO WHY WAS HE GIVEN THIS MONEY???????

Anonymous said...

Jim Benson and Kathy Teter did the right thing by voting against all this ridiculous deal. They should not be lumped in with the rest of the council. I as a citizen wish that all the people that are on council now would do the right thing and demand with a new contract that the city manager pay house payments, taxes, and insurance every month on the house in Reunion. There was no problem changing his contract about that house several times before when it assisted Flannery, so change it again and this time assist the taxpayers. Also demand the $72,000 cash back. If Flannery does not agree to this, then FIRE HIM IMMEDIATELY.

Yuri, From CC said...

our city manager is kinda of an A-#%&@

Anonymous said...

FYI - The City manager contract is a binding legal document.

Anonymous said...

There are three sides to this. First, there is the governace side- why did council think the contract was reasonable and/or needed? What did the citizens get for it? Second, there is the legal side- yes it is a binding contract. The most controversial side is the ethical side. Why did the city manager not disclose the impending sale of the AZ house? The 5 day difference between signing the contract and selling the house tells me he was gaming the city at the citizens expense. He was underhanded and sneaky. It speaks to his lack of character. Why council continues to defend the city manager for this fraud is beyond me. The city manager should be accountable for this unethical act, that may be fraud.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Benson did vote against it....
but at the public meeting stated he was ONLY against the portion of the contract, on taxes and insurance on the house, ( he had a problem with that).
NOT the entire deal!
Benson, be honest tell the whole truth.
You are not being transparent in your letter, and your set up for mayor is obvious!!

Anonymous said...

Sure, the horse looks dead, but we should probably hit it a few more times to be positive ...

Anonymous said...

This guy probably wasted more than 72000 of our tax dollars in cash and man-hours with his legal challenges and claims against the city. I sure hope people don't buy into his crap tryin to get votes

Christol, Commerce City said...

Benson is the same guy who tried to change the name of the city and also bring us a seat tax!

Anonymous said...

Gateway! Any news of Benson running for mayor?

Estelle Remington said...

Industry Standards

The Sunday, June 20, 2010, Denver Post had an interesting article about our economic crisis and the high salaries of CEO's in Colorado companies. The highest paid CEO in Colorado, Gregory B. Maffel of Liberty Media Corp. earns $87.5 million dollars a year. The Bureau of Labor Statistics and Denver Post writer, Thomas McKay broke these earnings down and compared them to an average Colorado wage of $45,990 per year and a minimum wage at $15,142 per year. The average wage earner in Colorado would have to work 1,902 years to earn $87.5 million dollars. The minimum wage earner would have to work 5,778 years to earn $87.5 million dollars. Moreover, current CEO's of major Colorado companies receive equally large dividend earnings off of stocks, option awards and company perks. These executives earn top wages in a company whether their companies make a profit or not. These top CEO's earn wages and receive awards and perks inconsistent with actual company profits and out of all proportion to area wage earners. This, then, is the Industry Standard across Colorado and these United States.

When one compares, the Industry Standard with Commerce City's City Manager, Jerry Flannery, who received $522,000 in the form of a Bonus for relocation and a home loan that he has steadfastly refused to pay any money on. That, Industry Standard says that it doesn't matter if the city manager does a good or bad job in making money for the city nor does it matter that the perks of office would take the average wage earner, $41,747 in CC about 12.5 years to earn $522,000 or a minimum wage earner, $15,142 about 34.4 years to earn. Currently, Mr. Flannery earns $172,800.00 per year, about $3,600 per week, about $720 per day and about $90 per hour. It would take Mr. Flannery 11.5 weeks to earn the average workers salary for one year and 4 weeks and 1 day to earn the minimum wage salary for one year. It does not matter if the city taxpayers can not afford this kind of extravagance with our money, It only matters that CC keep up with current Industry Standards according to City Council's majority vote excluding James Benson and Kathy Teter who voted against Flannery's contract, Aug. 31, 2009. This Industry Standard makes no sense to begin with. Is any CEO or City Manager worth this kind of money in this economic crisis? This is a "Breach of Trust" and disconnect between City Council excluding Benson and Teter and new members and CC taxpayers!

Finally, it breaks a person's heart to read the story of "Joe the poor man" in the Gateway News, Vol. 6 Issue 11, about Commerce City's wage earners who have lost everything in this economic crisis and compare the earnings of Colorado's CEO's and our City Managers. Two deputy city managers earn $130,000 each per year.

Anonymous said...

Jim, I think your representation of ward 2 was awful. We didn’t finance your house but would you resign and return all monies we paid you?

Estelle Remington Part 1 said...

$72,000 Payment

So many people have asked about the $72,000 payment to City Manager, Jerry Flannery, that we will share the explanation given by City Attorney, Bob Gehler. Kathy McIntyre, The Gateway News editor, sent this question on Mar. 11, 2010 to the Mayor, City Manager, Flannery and the two deputy managers. However, the question was turned over to City Attorney Bob Gehler to answer. In May, 2010, taxpayers asked this question of City Council and it was again referred to the City Attorney to answer the $72,000 question. Mr. Gehler said he had answered that question in a letter to the Gateway News and that is all that he would have to say on the matter and we could share it any way we wanted to.

In Bob Gehler's letter, he offered two different explanations about the $72,000 payment given to Mr. Flannery by city council on Aug. 31, 2009. The first explanation was that the loan (Reunion house.) was to provide short-term support to Mr. Flannery because we were in "need of strong executive leadership." (To our knowledge, this was Mr. Flannery's first position as a City Manager.) The City did not expect " Real Estate markets to fail the way it did in 2007." The money was given to protect the "interests of the city" with compensation consistent with Industry Standards. The city expert for Industry Standards was Bill Becker.

As part of the offer to recruit Flannery the city agreed to loan him $450,000 for a house in Reunion. No Offer Letter was written, thus, this offer must have been an oral agreement and we have no idea of the timing of this loan offer. The house in Reunion was a sample home and the city spent $50,000 to up-grade the house. Mr. Flannery's first day of work was July 5,2007, his first Employment contract was dated June 11, 2007 and mentioned only payment of relocation expenses and a housing allowance of $1,500 per month for three months or until Flannery "ceases to incur dual expenses of maintaining his residence in Flagstaff, Az." June 18, 2007, the first Amendment was made to the Employment contract and now mentions a $450,000 home loan at no interest payable in full in six months. Also, said, Flannery must sell his house in Flagstaff, AZ, first.

Estelle Remington Part 2 said...

On July 19,2007, the Promissory Note on taxpayer's Deed for the Reunion house states that "Borrower may repay the principal amount outstanding under this note, in whole or part, at any time." Flannery's Employment contract was amended four times up to July 5, 2009, then a second Employment contract was written on Sept. 1, 2009, leaving out the wording that had been in said contract for these past two years about the sale of the Flagstaff house. Which, was put on contract to sell, Sept. 6, 2009 and sold Oct. 5, 2009 for a $88,400 profit. However, City Council did not find out until March of 2010.

"Shortly thereafter, the Real Estate Market failed." ( No date is given. We believe that was between 2007 and 2008.) "The Arizona house could not sell," Letter, Mar. 2010, sold Oct. 5, 2009. "The Reunion house decreased in value by 20 to 30 percent." Actual decrease was around 11 percent. "The Reunion house showed a loan value of $292,000." Even though no money was ever exchanged between the city and Mr. Flannery the city showed a deficit of $164,525. Between the mortgage loan value, $365,000 and a loan value of $292,000. "The city's share of the loss was $82,000" so, $72,000 was proposed, Aug. 31, 2009, plus payment of Real Estate taxes for the next two years until Sept. 1, 2011. The city thought the $72,000 would be a "fair solution" to the city's problem. The Reunion house has since recovered most or all of his previous value.

The second explanation offered: A survey of "relocation benefits across the country confirmed that $72,000 in payment for Relocation benefits was a reasonable justification for discounting the loan." Between June and August 2, 2007 when the Flannery's moved into their Reunion home and I say their home because the Deed is in their names. The Flannery's were paid $20,000 for relocation expenses from Flagstaff to Commerce City. (All of these receipts are on file.)

Not going away said...

yes estelle,

Now we are left with the simple question:

WHY DID THE CITY MANAGER GET $72,000 IN CASH OF THE TAXPAYERS MONEY FOR A SUPPOSED LOSS ON A HOUSE IN ARIZONA THAT HE SOLD FOR A PROFIT AND FOR A HOUSE IN REUNION THAT HE HAS NOT BOUGHT YET OR GOTTEN A MORTGAGE ON OR PAID A DIME ON? THERE WERE NO LOSSES SO WHY WAS HE GIVEN THIS MONEY???????

Anonymous said...

Gateway,
can you report on COLORADO COURT CASE: 10-CV-01328

PRO CITY said...

WHERE DID YOU GET THAT CASE NUMBER FROM?

Anonymous for many reasons said...

Is city going to go to court with this one or just settle out of court?

Anonymous said...

The city manager contract is NOT A BINDING LEGAL DOCUMENT!!! Anymore than any of the several OTHER contracts were with the current and hopefully soon former city manager. What a bunch of garbage, all Flannery has to do is snap his fingers and the city attorney and mayor bow down and change any contract with Flannery he wants. If any contract with him was binding the taxpayers would have already been paid for the house. Flannery is a liar, he said he would pay for the house when he sold his house in Arizona, which he has. That was in the FIRST LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT. The city attorney, mayor, city council, and all the city managers, what do we have three?, are all so stupid they make me livid. There is hope Commerce City, within sixteen months the whole gang of them will be gone. Thank God.

Anonymous said...

The city manager contract is NOT A BINDING LEGAL DOCUMENT!!! Anymore than any of the several OTHER contracts were with the current and hopefully soon former city manager. What a bunch of garbage, all Flannery has to do is snap his fingers and the city attorney and mayor bow down and change any contract with Flannery he wants. If any contract with him was binding the taxpayers would have already been paid for the house. Flannery is a liar, he said he would pay for the house when he sold his house in Arizona, which he has. That was in the FIRST LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT. The city attorney, mayor, city council, and all the city managers, what do we have three?, are all so stupid they make me livid. There is hope Commerce City, within sixteen months the whole gang of them will be gone. Thank God.

Sans said...

So, I guess it is "legally binding" until you legally amend it?

Ryland, North Range said...

Okay I give up, what is case # 10-CV-01328

Anonymous said...

Wow anonymous you are so right.
In sixteen months we can have a new council.
I for one pray it won't include the old Ford regime.
That was one for the books.
Talk about deals, personal taking of citizen monies.
Hummer limos in Vegas, he thought he was king!

The Deal Breaker Council said...

This current council is quickly being defined as the "deal breaker council"

If they do not address this situation, they will go down in history as the 'deal breaker council" despite their vote on it.

I suggest they address the question that deal breaker has boiled down to: WHY DID THE CITY MANAGER GET $72,000 IN CASH OF THE TAXPAYERS MONEY FOR A SUPPOSED LOSS ON A HOUSE IN ARIZONA THAT HE SOLD FOR A PROFIT AND FOR A HOUSE IN REUNION THAT HE HAS NOT BOUGHT YET OR GOTTEN A MORTGAGE ON OR PAID A DIME ON? THERE WERE NO LOSSES SO WHY WAS HE GIVEN THIS MONEY???????