Dillon's Rule v. Pueblo City
"By the name of Pueblo, the City shall have perpetual secession and shall have all the powers granted to municipal corporations and to cities by the Constitution and general laws of this State together with all the implied powers granted." (Section 1-3).
xxx
Russell W. Rink was the City Manager of Pueblo City in 1954, the year of Pueblo City's 2nd Constitutional Revolution.
1911 was the year of Pueblo City's 1st Constitutional Revolution.
In 1911, John T. West was the Mayor of Pueblo City. The last one.
xxx
Dillon's Rule is the logical extension of what power statists believe belongs in the hands of a city. Dillon's Rule is a very conservative definition of a city's constitutional standing. According to John Forrest Dillon, a justice on the Iowa Supreme Court a long time ago, Pueblo City is a mere creature of Colorado, & the powers that Pueblo City have are only but privileges Colorado has bestowed upon her:
"The true view is this: Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers & rights wholly from, the legislature. It breathes into them the breath of life, without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so it may destroy. If it may destroy, it may abridge & control. Unless there is some constitutional limitation on the right, the legislature might, by a single act, if we can suppose it capable of so great a folly and so great a wrong, sweep from existence all the municipal corporations in the State, and the corporation could not prevent it. We know of no limitation on this right so far as the corporations themselves are concerned. They are, so to phrase it, the mere tenants at will of the legislature." (John Forrest Dillon, City of Clinton v. Cedar Rapids & Missouri RR, 1868, Iowa Supreme Court).
For Dillon, Pueblo City has limited State sovereign authority, all of which can be taken away at the drop of a hat from Colorado. The rule clearly recognizes the state legislature as the sovereign power and the local government as subordinate. One clear example of this is the Colorado State takeover of 3 Pueblo City schools - Risley International Academy of Innovation (fancy title for a failing school; Risley is Charlotte Macaluso's baby), Bessemer Academy, & Heroes Middle School (aka Heroes K-8 Academy).
In 2003, 39 American states have adopted Dillon’s Rule as the standard bearer rule to interpret the authority of local governments. 9 American states - Alaska, Ohio, Massachusetts, Oregon, Montana, New Jersey, Iowa, South Carolina & Utah - reject the use of Dillon’s Rule (Richardson, Gough, & Puentes, 2003).
Home Rule on the other hand is the inherent power of the people. All power rests in "we the people". The well-spring of democracy springs from the people, & cities are chock full of people, so therefore, Pueblo City, by the virtue of being a city filled with people, has all the powers that extends to a Republic.
Home Rule means you get to rule your own Home city.
xxx
The US Constitution gives itself a "supremacy clause", which is how we know it's supreme, because it says so. Article VI, Clause 2 says that the Constitution & the federal laws made pursuant to it & treaties made under her supreme authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.
There's only a few powers that the US Constitution bequested upon itself - the power to war, the power to tax, the power to print currency, power to raise a military, power to appoint military officers, the power to appoint a cabinet, power to sign treaties, power to establish federal courts, power to establish post offices, power to adjudicate legal disputes between the states, power to pardon, power to regulate interstate commerce, & the power to war against pirates -, & then in the 10th Amendment, all of the rest of the powers in the world are given to the states.
"The powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." ~10th Amendment
The State government shares a bunch of the same powers the Federal government has. Both have the power to tax, the power to establish courts, the power to borrow money, the power to build highways, the power to charter banks & corporations into existence, & the power to condemn private property.
Exclusive powers the US Constitution gives to the State governments are the power to ratify amendments to the US Constitution, the power to issue driver & hunting & marriage licenses, the power to conduct elections, the power to establish local governments, power to regulate intrastate commerce, power to dictate public school policy, & the power to manage public health and safety.
xxx
The US is a "federal system". This is unanimously agreed upon. While Dillon says state legislatures can get rid of cities, the most extreme conservative view would be that they should. A conservative only sees the State government & the Federal government as being the only 2 sovereign powers in the world they must abide by. For conservatives, all power rests in the State government & Federal government, as the 1789 constitution of federal government dictates, & no power is given to the counties, cities, or towns. All power to our 2 big daddy stranges, but none for ourselves.
Dillon's Rule isn't strictly anti-city. Dillon thinks getting rid of cities would be "so great a folly & so great a wrong". Dillon's Rule isn't absolutist, which is a testament to the Rule's longevity. Dillon's Rule offers a strategic concession; namely, that cities should be allowed to exist.
Dillon's Rule offers the least amount a government can be permitted to have, in order to run their city. John Forrest Dillon offers cities ("municipalities") merely a sliver of authority in our 2 sovereign government American land: 1) cities can exist as an administrative unit of the state, &; 2) cities can conduct the little teensy tiny bullshit government business in the city that the State doesn't give a scrap of frog shit about.
John Forrest Dillon crafted 3 very narrow rules for what makes up the power of a city:
1-
"those granted in express words";
2-
"those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted";
3-
"those essential to the accomplishment of the declared objects & purposes of the corporation,-not simply convenient, but indispensable. Any fair, reasonable, substantial doubt concerning the existence of the power is resolved by the courts against the corporation, and the power is denied." (Dillon, 1911, 448).
Take those 3 planks to Dillon's Rule, & put them in your pocket, because that's what Home Rule advocates must combat against.
xxx
The reason why Pueblo City has so much more authority than that which Dillon's Rule permits, is because Pueblo City is a self-executing constitutional home rule city, as opposed to a city who is merely functionally independent, a de facto home rule city, a statutory home rule city. Pueblo City, on the other hand, is actually independent, because Pueblo City is constitutionally protected, thanks to the voters in Colorado in 1912.
John Forrest Dillon only believes that Colorado's legislature can militarily occupy & control Colorado's cities "unless there is some constitutional limitation on the right". Colorado's current 1876 Constitution, specifically Article 20, Section 6, guarantees the right of Pueblo City to be her own municipality, specifically guaranteeing 8 (a - h) powers delegated to "Home Rule" cities. If Colorado's legislature attempted to takeover Pueblo City militarily without just cause, they should expect a war on their hands, especially if the city's officials realize the awesome constitutionally protected power they've got. For the States who do not grant cities Constitutionally protected Home Rule status, a militay takeover by the State with or without just cause would be legal. A takeover by the State without just cause is illegal, at least in Pueblo City it is, and in all of Colorado's home rule cities it is.
When a local professor, who is associated with the "strong mayor" chamber-of-commerce clique, dictates fake knowledge about Pueblo City having "no Constitutional standing", they are wholly incorrect in their assessment of the American political landscape. That same local professor doesn't seem to understand that Pueblo County's government is a Commission-style of government, hence being ran by 3 County Commissioners.
The reason why Pueblo City has "self-executing" constitutional home rule protection, is because the last sentence of Article 20, Section 6 of Colorado's current 1876 Constitution is: "This article shall be in all respects self-executing." The Colorado voters got this entire section turned into Constitutional law precisely on November 5, 1912, the general election day of 1912, because that's the day Section 6 "self-executed".
Remember remember the 5th of November, 1912, the same year the Titanic sank, earlier that year, in April. Woodrow Wilson was also elected President in 1912, so 2 Titantics sank in 1912.
But still. Remember remember, the 5th of November, 1912.
The reason why I trust Russell W. Rink's Pueblo City over Nicholas Gardisar's proposed new Pueblo City is because I trust the wisdom of the ages over my contemporaries.
xxx
Laws passed by Pueblo City supersede Colorado's laws. Laws passed by Pueblo City "shall supersede within the territorial limits and other jurisdiction of said city or town any law of the state in conflict therewith" (Article 20, Section 6, Clause 2).
Article 20, Section 6, Clause 4 of Colorado's 1876 Constitution guarantees that Home Rule cities or towns, "and the citizens thereof, shall have the powers set out in sections 1, 4 and 5 of this article, and all other powers necessary, requisite or proper for the government and administration of its local and municipal matters, including power to legislate upon, provide, regulate, conduct and control" these 8 Powers:
Pueblo City's 8 "Home Rule" Constitutional Powers:
1- Cities can form themselves into any form of government; (a.) The creation and terms of municipal officers, agencies and employments; the definition, regulation and alteration of the powers, duties, qualifications and terms or tenure of all municipal officers, agents and employees;
2- Police Magistrates & courts can be established; (b.) The creation of police courts; the definition and regulation of the jurisdiction, powers and duties thereof, and the election or appointment of police magistrates therefor;
3- Municipal Courts can be created; (c.) The creation of municipal courts; the definition and regulation of the jurisdiction, powers and duties thereof, and the election or appointment of the officers thereof;
4- Cities Control Their Own Elections; (d.) All matters pertaining to municipal elections in such city or town, and to electoral votes therein on measures submitted under the charter or ordinances thereof, including the calling or notice and the date of such election or vote, the registration of voters, nominations, nomination and election systems, judges and clerks of election, the form of ballots, balloting, challenging, canvassing, certifying the result, securing the purity of elections, guarding against abuses of the elective franchise, and tending to make such elections or electoral votes non-partisan in character;
5- Cities can build parks, water projects & LID, or they can liquidate them all. (e.) The issuance, refunding and liquidation of all kinds of municipal obligations, including bonds and other obligations of park, water and local improvement districts;
6- Park & Water districts can be consolidated by majority vote; (f.) The consolidation and management of park or water districts in such cities or towns or within the jurisdiction thereof; but no such consolidation shall be effective until approved; by the vote of a majority, in each district to be consolidated, of the qualified electors voting therein upon the question;
7- Power to Levy Taxes; (g.) The assessment of property in such city or town for municipal taxation and the levy and collection of taxes thereon for municipal purposes and special assessments for local improvements; such assessments, levy and collection of taxes and special assessments to be made by municipal officials or by the county or state officials as may be provided by the charter;
8- Fines & Penalties; (h.) The imposition, enforcement and collection of fines and penalties for the violation of any of the provisions of the charter, or of any ordinance adopted in pursuance of the charter.
xxx
To clarify my point more, & using Dillon's Rule as a Rubric for Pueblo City, here's one small random example.
Pueblo City is guaranteed, constitutionally, by the State, of 8 specific expressed powers. 1 of those powers - Article 20, Section 6, (e.) - guarantees Pueblo City the power to issue, refund, or liquidate "of all kinds of municipal obligations, including bonds and other obligations of park, water and local improvement districts;"
Article 20, Section 6, Clause 4, (e.) is a clear expressed power for Colorado's home rule cities. Pueblo City is constitutionally protected to issue bonds, or to get money from refunds, or to liquidate the City's assets, for 3 specific obligations of: 1) park; 2) water, &; 3) local improvement districts.
Pueblo City can sell their vacant buildings, or the condemned property they've confiscated, to fund park & water projects & "local improvement districts". Pueblo City can borrow money to build those parks & water projects & local improvement districts, or get the money somehow by getting a refund somehow (the "refunding" clause of Article 20, Section 6, Clause 4, (e.) is a bit confusing to me).
xxx
The 2nd plank of Dillon's Rule is that cities have the powers to "those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted;". "Implied powers" are those powers which are not explicitly named in the Constitution but are assumed to exist since they're necessary to implement the expressed powers.
One can dream up unlimited implied powers, which is why the "or incident to" provision is a better gauge for Dillon's Rule, since "incident to" sounds more "adjacent to", versus "fairly implied", because all tyrants can "fairly imply" all powers onto thyselves. The expressed power in Article 20, Section 6, Clause 4, (e.) says that Pueblo City has the power to start parks & water projects, and Pueblo City can get the money to finance the parks & water projects through the liquidation of Pueblo City's assets, or by signing a bank loan. That's the expressed power. The implied power, or the power "incident to" the expressed powers, would be organizing the logistics for those park & water projects. Say an old city parking lot was going to be turned into a park, then that land would need to be purchased, & a demolition crew would be needed. Water projects may have to eminent domain people's properties to get a water line. While buying land for the park & water projects & hiring demolition teams aren't specifically guaranteed for Pueblo City under Colorado's Constitution, buying land & hiring demolition teams for the parks & water projects is an "implied power" because buying land & hiring demolition teams is necessary, therefore "incident to", the expressed powers of building the parks & water projects themselves.
Dillon's Rule can't fuck with any of Article 20, Section 6, Clause 4, (a. - h.) of Colorado's 1876 Constitution. Pueblo City's Home Rule power is a Constitutional power.
xxx
"The issuance, refunding and liquidation of all kinds of municipal obligations, including bonds and other obligations of park, water and local improvement districts;" ~Article 20, Section 6, Clause 4, (e.)
Article 20, Section 6, Clause 4, (e.) means that Pueblo City can make all of the decisions regarding the building of parks & water projects & "local improvement districts" (LID), including hiring & firing contractors, selling one asset to purchase another, taking out a loan, etc. Article 20, Section 6, Clause 4, (e.) allows for Pueblo City to have virtually absolute control over her accounting practices, in regards to constructing parks, water projects, & "local improvement districts". Article 20, Section 6, Clause 4, (e.) means that Pueblo City can issue bonds & contracts for water, park, & LID projects, or sell them; home rule cities have complete authority over the bonds & contracts for water, park, & LID projects.
The term "local improvement district" is vague enough to mean anything. Any "local improvement district" can be created anywhere, & Pueblo City can probably build whatever they wanted in that LID, like say, a Pueblo City Gym to keep the citizens healthy. Pueblo City can take out a loan to build Pueblo City Gym, or they can raise taxes. Raising taxes to build that Pueblo City Gym in the local improvement district would be an implied power, or "a power incident to" the construction of Pueblo's MuniGym.
The first plank of Dillon's Rule declares that cities retain all expressed powers, & the second plank adds implied powers to the expressed powers by giving cities implied powers which are "incident to" those initial expressed powers.
The 3rd plank of Dillon's Rule says a city's behavior must be "essential to the accomplishment of the declared objects & purposes of the corporation,- not simply convenient, but indispensable." The 3rd plank continues by saying if there's "any fair, reasonable, substantial doubt" about the powers a city contains, then the courts shall deny that power (Dillon, 1911, 448).
Pueblo City's City Manager in 1984 was Fred E. Weisbrod. Mr. Weisbrod was such a penny pincher that Pueblo City had a $10 million surplus in 1984 (Sam Azad can claim a similar feat for 2017).
How did Pueblo City's chief executive in 1984 spend that $10 million surplus? $8 million of the $10 million was given to the Sperry Corporation, owned by Elmer Sperry, to bring some promised jobs into Pueblo City.
$6 million was just flatout handed to Sperry Corporation, free of charge, to entice Sperry Corporation to set up shop here in Pueblo City. Another $2 million was used to purchase land for Sperry Corporation, & to help build their factory. Sperry Corporation was bringing in 750 jobs, so Fred E. Weisbrod thought investing $8 million on the Sperry Corporation would be great for Pueblo City. Unfortunately, 2 years later, Sperry Corporation would sell out to Unisys, then later on to LORAL. I'm not sure where that old Sperry Corporation building used to be, or where it is today, if it still exists.
Pueblo City has seen millions of dollars being wasted since then. A few years ago, Superintendent Margarita Lopez wasted over $7 million of D60's money on some New York consultants.
Sperry Corporation was a major electronics & equipment (like New Holland tractors) company who existed more than seven decades in the 20th century (1910 - 1986). Perhaps Mr. Weisbrod thought the Sperry Corporation was a good investment since in 1984, they had been in business for the last 70 years, but only after being in Pueblo City for 2 years, Sperry Corporation was dissolved, & was no more.
Fred E. Weisbrod giving $8 million of Pueblo City's cash to a private corporation with expectations of 750 jobs turned out to be a shitty investment. Not only did Sperry Corporation get a cool $6 million cash gift, compliments of the people of Pueblo City, for no returns, but Sperry Corporation also got Pueblo City to buy the land, the building, & the equipment too. Shit, after setting Sperry Corporation up like that, it's crazy that Sperry Corporation failed, but more importantly, why couldn't Mr. Weisbrod spend that money on a municipal-owned factory? If Fred E. Weisbrod was allowed to build a private factory from the ground up with taxpayer monies, how much more difficult would it have been to buy the land, building, & equipment, & then have $6 million in starter cash to build a factory owned by Pueblo City? At least if that municipal-owned company had to declare bankruptcy, Pueblo City would still own the assets. Instead, once Sperry Corporation went out of business, we lost 750 promised jobs as well as our capital investments. Instead, a bunch of corrupt capitalist pigs laughed at poor Pueblo City, as they pocketed the $6 million cash giveaway, or investing it in cocaine, & then sold the company name & capital the taxpayers of Pueblo City paid for, off for millions, making sure they got golden parachutes on their way out.
Personally, I believe Fred E. Weisbrod spending $8 million to help a private company establish themselves is unethical as hell. Clause 3 of Dillon's Rule requires Fred to justify his $8 million gift given to the Sperry Corporation be an "indispensable" requirement of the clearly expressed purposes of Pueblo City, Inc. (per the 1954 Charter & 1876 Constitution), without any "fair, reasonable, substantial doubt". Pueblo City didn't need Sperry Corporation. What good did a bankrupted company do for Pueblo City? What a fkn waste of $8 million. Fuck Weisbrod on that bonehead mistake.
Perhaps one could argue that the point of government is to provide jobs for the people, since in America one must have a job, or die, & if Weisbrod genuinely believed that jobs could be produced from his investments, maybe, just maybe, his $8 million investment in Sperry Corporation, 2 years prior to them selling everything to some other corporate behemoth, but not until Mr. Sperry planted a poison pill first, to revenge on those taking him over, could be justified on constitutional grounds. Fred E. Weisbrod brought all of that bullshit drama into Pueblo City's lives, & wasted $8 million.
Not only is it unethical, but having the Sperry Corporation here was not an indispensable requirement for Pueblo City's purposes. I have substantial doubt, much more than the "fair, reasonable, substantial doubt" threshold, which would make that $8 million exchange of cash illegal. Fred Weisbrod should have been thrown in jail over his criminal behavior.
xxx
The clearly expressed purposes & powers of Pueblo City, Inc. come from 4 main sources:
1- the expressed powers of Colorado's "home rule" cities, pursuant to Article 20, Section 6 of Colorado's 1876 Constitution.
plus
2- the expressed powers contained in Pueblo City's 1954 Charter.
plus
3- State statutes.
plus
4- Pueblo City Ordinances.
The laws passed by Colorado's Home Rule cities supersede state statutes "by the charters of such cities and towns or by ordinance passed pursuant to such charters." ~Article 20, Section 6, Clause 6
Breaking Colorado's constitutional Home Rule provisions are "criminal and punishable". ~Article 20, Section 6, Clause 8
xxx
In Russell W. Rink's Pueblo City, Section 1-3 merely states that Pueblo City "shall have all the powers granted to municipal corporations and to cities by the Constitution and general laws of this State".
Article 20, Section 6, Clause 4, (a.) of Colorado's 1876 Constitution says that Colorado's Home Rule cities can form any kind of government they can think up, creating whatever positions is necessary for that city to govern properly:
"The creation and terms of municipal officers, agencies and employments; the definition, regulation and alteration of the powers, duties, qualifications and terms or tenure of all municipal officers, agents and employees;" ~Article 20, Section 6, Clause 4, (a.)
xxx
Section 4-5, (c.), the "Powers & Duties of City Manager" in Russell W. Rink's Pueblo City 1954 Charter, states:
"Prepare the Budget annually and submit it to the Council and be responsible for its administration after adoption;"
Since there's no fair, reasonable, or substantial doubt regarding the 1954 Charter requirement that the Chief Executive Officer must submit a Budget to her Legislature, it's crystal clear that the budget begins with Sam Azad, which is an indispensable declared power for the purpose of the municipal government of Pueblo City.
xxx
"Section 7-2. Submission of the Budget -
Not later than the first regular meeting of the Council in October of each year, the City Manager shall submit to the Council:
a. An annual or current expense budget, hereafter referred to as the "Budget", which shall be a complete financial plan for the ensuing fiscal year, consisting of the budget proper and the budget message;
b. A capital budget."
xxx
There are laws that limit City employees' powers.
Section 2-11 forbids everybody working in city government from profiting off of contracts, although there is a "except it be by competitive bidding" loophole.
Pursuant to Section 2-11, anybody who works for the government of Pueblo City can profit from the contracts & contractors they employ, "except it be by competitive bidding". Since "except it be by competitive bidding" clause is added, that means that Pueblo City's public officials actually can profit, but there has to be some kind of "competitive bidding" due process formality, & as long as there's some kind of "competitive bidding" process, then city council & the city manager & the director of the Stormwater Department can profit handsomely, as much as they want, as much as they can, if they're able to get the city to hire out their own companies & their friends' companies win the "competitive bidding" war with all other companies in the world.
The title of Section 2-11 is "Participation of All Officers and Employees Interested in Contracts*", & Section 2-11 spells it right out in the first sentence:
"No elected official, appointed officer, or employee of the City shall be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in the sale of any land, materials, supplies, or services to the City,..." (Section 2-11);
Section 2-11 was amended by the voters of Pueblo City on November 5, 1963, by 543 votes (6,887 v. 6,344).
Remember remember the 5th of November. 1963. The same year JFK was assassinated.
"Such charter and the ordinances made pursuant thereto in such matters shall supersede within the territorial limits and other jurisdiction of said city or town any law of the state in conflict therewith." ~Article 20, Section 6, Clause 2 of Colorado's current 1876 Constitution
xxx
Russell W. Rink's 1954 Charter owns the name "Pueblo". The city of Pueblo "shall have perpetual secession" & "shall have all the powers granted to municipal corporations and to cities by the Constitution" & "general laws of this State" together with "all the implied powers granted." (Section 1-3).
Russell W. Rink's 1954 Charter guarantees that Pueblo City's municipal constitution will operate within the bounds of the Constitution:
"Section 1-7. Constitutionality - In case any word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, section, or article of this Charter shall at any time be found to be unconstitutional, such finding shall not affect the remainder thereof, but as to such remainder this Charter shall remain in full force and effect until amended or repealed."
xxx
Pueblo's City Council has the power to make contracts "and leases on behalf of the Municipal Government" (Section 3-9, Clause 1). All written contracts & leases City Council obligates the populace to "shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney." (Section 3-9, Clause 2). City Council is allowed to put the Puebloan citizenry on the hook for loans & bonds for decades because "nothing shall prevent making of contracts or spending of money for capital improvements to be financed in whole or in part by issuance of bonds, nor making of contracts of lease or for services for a period exceeding the budget year in which such contract is made." (Section 3-9, Clause 3).
"It is the intention of this article to grant and confirm to the people of all municipalities coming within its provisions the full right of self-government in both local and municipal matters and the enumeration herein of certain powers shall not be construed to deny such cities and towns, and to the people thereof, any right or power essential or proper to the full exercise of such right." ~Article 20, Section 6, Clause 5
xxx
The General Powers spelled out in Section 3-5 in Pueblo's Charter were changed on November 4, 2008 by Pueblo's voters, by a vote of 27,058 to 16,030. The General Powers of Pueblo's City Council is that the Council "shall have all legislative powers and functions of municipal government conferred by general law, except as provided in this Charter." (Section 3-5, Clause 1).
The provisions of Section 3-5:
1) gives Pueblo's City Council all of the legislative power within the boundaries of Pueblo City (i.e. power to pass motions, ordinances, & resolutions, power to appropriate funds, etc);
2) limits Pueblo City's municipal punitive power to less than 1 year of jail, or a $1,000 fine, or both, for the caught criminals who break their ordinances;
3) mandates that fines over $300 must go towards "graffiti control & removal", or for other "law enforcement activities as determined by the Council": City Council's approval is needed to pay a salary for board & commission members, & "all employees in the Classified and Unclassified Service." (as Amended in 2008);
4) gives City Council the power to investigate any & all city agencies, to which they may compel any "officer or employee" to testify, & produce books, documents, & evidence by "subpoena attendance".
xxx
Pueblo's City Council has these 10 Expressed Powers:
1- power to investigate the city's employees, including the police department, which make up over 25% of the city's budget (Section 3-5);
2- power to build libraries & pay for their employees (Section 3-6);
3- power to dedicate or abandon street or alleys (Section 3-7);
4- power to make contracts (Section 3-9);
5- power to initiate independent audits (Section 3-10);
6- power to create new departments, "but may not discontinue any department established by this Charter." (Section 3-12);
7- power to regulate & issue licenses & permits (Section 3-13, as amended in 1973);
8- power to direct the Finance Director and/or City Manager to issue surety bonds "in such amounts as the Council may determine." (Section 3-14);
9- power to pass motions, ordinances, & resolutions (Section 3-16);
10- power to appropriate funds (Section 7-10 & 7-11);
xxx
Current City Council has "Confirmation Powers" for the Budget as evidenced in Sections 7-10 & 7-11. The Budget begins with the City Manager, & the City Council adjusts the Budget to their liking, & then they pass it.
"Section 7-10. Changes by the Council - After conclusion of such public hearing the Council may insert new items of expenditure or may increase, decrease or strike out items of expenditure, except that no item of appropriation for debt service shall be reduced. If the Council shall decrease the total proposed expenditures, such decrease shall be reflected in full in the Tax Levy. If the Council shall increase the total proposed expenditures, such increase shall be reflected in the Tax Levy or by appropriate provision in other revenues."
"Section 7-11. Adoption of the Budget - Upon completion of the public hearing, but prior to the first day of December, the Council shall adopt the Budget, the Appropriation Ordinance and the Tax Levy Ordinance."
"The statutes of the state of Colorado, so far as applicable, shall continue to apply to such cities and towns, except insofar as superseded by the charters of such cities and towns or by ordinance passed pursuant to such charters." ~(Article 20, Section 6, Clause 6)
xxx
Section 4-4 forbids City Council from interfering in hiring & firing city employees. Currently, the City Manager has the power to hire & fire everybody.
"Council Not to Interfere in Appointments or Removals - Except for the purpose of inquiry, the Council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the City Manager and neither the Council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinates of the City Manager either publicly or privately." (Section 4-4).
City Council can ask city employees or possible new hires questions, but they can't "Interfere in Appointments or Removals". All administrative powers are given to the City Manager, which is why City Council can't "give orders to any subordinates of the City Manager either publicly or privately."
No direct orders can be given to any city employees by City Council, but City Council can pass general ordinances in order to dictate policy. Ray Aguilera can't order Bob the policeman to wear a body camera specifically, but Ray Aguilera can pass a law that requires the entire police force to wear body cameras, & to have them turned on the entire time they're on duty. While City Council can't give any city employee any direct orders, nor "interfere" in hiring & firing, City Council can create a New "Citizen's Complaint & Oversight" Department. City Council can also investigate any city employee, including subpoenaing them to testify & to provide evidence to City Council.
City Council can write recommendations for new hires. City Council should be allowed to give their opinion on anybody & everybody. Many times, governments meet in secret executive sessions regarding personnel matters. City Council also has the power of the purse, because they must adopt the Budget before any money in the Budget can be used.
xxx
Pueblo City can easily supersede State Legislature by passing many Ordinances that cover a range of topics. Pueblo City can also pay close attention to the State Legislature, because if the State Legislature passes some "general purpose" law, it could affect Pueblo City. Pueblo City should remain vigilant against any encroachments on her power & authority, from the State, from the Feds, from the County, from the Banks, etc.
xxx
There's many specific "expressed" powers written in Pueblo City's 1954 Charter, but there's no declared purpose. The 1st & 2nd planks of Dillon's Rule allows for cities to have all expressed powers & implied powers, respectively. The 3rd plank of Dillon's Rule allows cities to have those powers which are "essential to the accomplishment of the declared objects & purposes of the corporation". These "essential" powers of "declared objects & purposes" must be "indispensable" to the government of the city, not merely convenient. If there's any fair/reasonable/substantial doubt regarding these extra "essential" & "indispensable" powers for a city's "declared objects & purpose", then that "power is denied" by the courts. (Dillon, 1911, 448).
Many expressed powers are mentioned in Russell W. Rink's 1954 Charter, but Mr. Rink's Charter doesn't declare any specific purpose for Pueblo City's Charter.
The US Constitution establishes her purposes in the Preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The Preamble of the US Constitution establishes these 5 general purposes for the existence of the federal government:
1- establish Justice;
2- insure domestic Tranquility;
3- provide for the common defense;
4- promote the general Welfare, &;
5- secure the Blessings of Liberty;
Colorado Constitution establishes her purposes in her Preamble as well:
"We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, in order to form a more independent & perfect government; establish justice; insure tranquility; provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare & secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves & our posterity, do ordain & establish this Constitution for the "State of Colorado"." ~Preamble of Colorado's 1876 Constitution
Colorado's Preamble mostly plagiarizes the US's Preamble, with only 1 addition, establishing these 6 purposes for the existence of the State government:
1- independent government;
2- establish justice;
3- insure tranquility;
4- provide for the common defense;
5- promote the general welfare &;
6- secure the blessings of liberty;
Since 5 of Colorado's 6 declared purposes are the same as the US Constitution's, we can assume all of them would be the same for Pueblo City as well.
Article 2, Section 1 of Colorado's Constitution declares that all power lies with the people: "All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government, of right, originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole."
Article 2, Section 2 of Colorado's Constitution declares the Right to Revolution: "The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state; and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States."
Both the Americans & Coloradoan Constitutions protect a boatload of individual freedoms. Article 2, Section 3 of Colorado's 1876 Constitution declares: "All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."
Besides the specific duties of the city's officers, there's no clearly expressed purposes for the establishment of the government of Pueblo City. Pueblo City must infer the purpose of local government from the declared purposes of the State or Federal Constitution, or inferred from a theory of government itself.
Both the US & Coloradoan Constitutions declare these same 5 purposes for government: 1- secure the blessings of liberty. 2- establish justice; 3- insure domestic tranquility; 4- provide for the common defense, &; 5- promote the general welfare. The Coloradoan Constitution adds 1 more purpose: to "form an independent & perfect government".
xxx
Pueblo City has lots of Constitutional Standing. Dillon's Rule severely limits "statutory home rule" cities, but not Pueblo City, which is a "self-executing" Constitutional Home Rule City. "Self-executing" means there's a Constitutional provision which "executes" the Constitutional change into law immediately upon passed, without awaiting the state to implement legislation. "Self-executing" guarantees that Colorado's "home rule" status is secure.
Pueblo City has 8 specific expressed powers listed in the Coloradoan Constitution, including the establishment of a Charter. And that Charter's provisions & subsequent ordinances must be adhered to, or else the person in violation is "criminal", so therefore their crime is "punishable". (Article 20, Section 6, Clause 8.)
Article 20, Section 6 was passed as 1 Amendment by Colorado's 1912 voters, so it's strict "home rule" meaning is crystal clear.
xxx
"The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy." ~Charles de Montesquieu
Brutus I quotes Charles de Montesquieu from "spirit of laws, chap. xvi. vol. I [book VIII]" (sic):
"It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected."
Brutus I in his famous anti-federalist essay continues:
"In every government, the will of the sovereign is the law. In despotic governments, the supreme authority being lodged in one, his will is law, can can be as easily expressed to a large extensive territory as to a small one. In a pure democracy, the people are the sovereign, and their will is declared by themselves; for this purpose they must all come together to deliberate, & decide. This kind of government cannot be exercised, therefore, over a country of any considerable extent; it must be confined to a single city, or at least limited to such bounds as that the people can conveniently assemble, be able to debate, understand the subject submitted to them, & declare their opinion concerning it."
...
"The magistrates in every government must be supported in the execution of the laws, either by an armed force, maintained at the public expense for that purpose; or by the people turning out to aid the magistrate upon his command, in case of resistance."
...
Standing armies "have always proved the destruction of liberty, and is abhorrent to the spirit of a free republic."
...
"A free republic will never keep a standing army to execute its laws. It must depend upon the support of its citizens. But when a government is to receive its support from the aid of the citizens, it must be so constructed as to have the confidence, respect, and affection of the people. Men who, upon the call of the magistrate, offer themselves to execute the laws, are influenced to do it either by affection to the government, or from fear; where a standing army is at hand to punish offenders, every man is actuated by the latter principle, and therefore, when the magistrate calls, will obey: but, where this is not the case, the government must rest for its support upon the confidence and respect which the people have for their government and laws. The body of the people being attached, the government will always be sufficient to support and execute its laws, and to operate upon the fears of any faction which may be opposed to it, not only to prevent an opposition to the execution of the laws themselves, but also to compel the most of them to aid the magistrate; but the people will not be likely to have such confidence in their rulers, in a republic so extensive as the United States, as necessary for these purposes. The confidence which the people have in their rulers, in a free republic, arises from their knowing them, from their being responsible to them for their conduct, and from the power they have of displacing them when they misbehave: but in a republic of the extent of this continent, the people in general would be acquainted with very few of their rulers; the people at large would know little of their proceedings, and it would be extremely difficult to change them. The people in Georgia and New-Hampshire would not know one another's mind, and therefore could not act in concert to enable them to effect a general change of representatives. The different parts of so extensive a country could not possibly be made acquainted with the conduct of their representatives, nor be informed of the reasons upon which measures were founded. The consequence will be, they will have no confidence in their legislature, suspect them of ambitious views, be jealous of every measure they adopt, and will not support the laws they pass. Hence the government will be nerveless and inefficient, and no way will be left to render it otherwise, but by establishing an armed force to execute the laws at the point of the bayonet--a government of all others the most to be dreaded."
~Brutus I, October 18, 1787
xxx
Russell W. Rink was the City Manager of Pueblo City in 1954, the year of Pueblo City's 2nd Constitutional Revolution.
1911 was the year of Pueblo City's 1st Constitutional Revolution.
In 1911, John T. West was the Mayor of Pueblo City. The last one.
xxx
Dillon's Rule is the logical extension of what power statists believe belongs in the hands of a city. Dillon's Rule is a very conservative definition of a city's constitutional standing. According to John Forrest Dillon, a justice on the Iowa Supreme Court a long time ago, Pueblo City is a mere creature of Colorado, & the powers that Pueblo City have are only but privileges Colorado has bestowed upon her:
"The true view is this: Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers & rights wholly from, the legislature. It breathes into them the breath of life, without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so it may destroy. If it may destroy, it may abridge & control. Unless there is some constitutional limitation on the right, the legislature might, by a single act, if we can suppose it capable of so great a folly and so great a wrong, sweep from existence all the municipal corporations in the State, and the corporation could not prevent it. We know of no limitation on this right so far as the corporations themselves are concerned. They are, so to phrase it, the mere tenants at will of the legislature." (John Forrest Dillon, City of Clinton v. Cedar Rapids & Missouri RR, 1868, Iowa Supreme Court).
For Dillon, Pueblo City has limited State sovereign authority, all of which can be taken away at the drop of a hat from Colorado. The rule clearly recognizes the state legislature as the sovereign power and the local government as subordinate. One clear example of this is the Colorado State takeover of 3 Pueblo City schools - Risley International Academy of Innovation (fancy title for a failing school; Risley is Charlotte Macaluso's baby), Bessemer Academy, & Heroes Middle School (aka Heroes K-8 Academy).
In 2003, 39 American states have adopted Dillon’s Rule as the standard bearer rule to interpret the authority of local governments. 9 American states - Alaska, Ohio, Massachusetts, Oregon, Montana, New Jersey, Iowa, South Carolina & Utah - reject the use of Dillon’s Rule (Richardson, Gough, & Puentes, 2003).
Home Rule on the other hand is the inherent power of the people. All power rests in "we the people". The well-spring of democracy springs from the people, & cities are chock full of people, so therefore, Pueblo City, by the virtue of being a city filled with people, has all the powers that extends to a Republic.
Home Rule means you get to rule your own Home city.
xxx
The US Constitution gives itself a "supremacy clause", which is how we know it's supreme, because it says so. Article VI, Clause 2 says that the Constitution & the federal laws made pursuant to it & treaties made under her supreme authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.
There's only a few powers that the US Constitution bequested upon itself - the power to war, the power to tax, the power to print currency, power to raise a military, power to appoint military officers, the power to appoint a cabinet, power to sign treaties, power to establish federal courts, power to establish post offices, power to adjudicate legal disputes between the states, power to pardon, power to regulate interstate commerce, & the power to war against pirates -, & then in the 10th Amendment, all of the rest of the powers in the world are given to the states.
"The powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." ~10th Amendment
The State government shares a bunch of the same powers the Federal government has. Both have the power to tax, the power to establish courts, the power to borrow money, the power to build highways, the power to charter banks & corporations into existence, & the power to condemn private property.
Exclusive powers the US Constitution gives to the State governments are the power to ratify amendments to the US Constitution, the power to issue driver & hunting & marriage licenses, the power to conduct elections, the power to establish local governments, power to regulate intrastate commerce, power to dictate public school policy, & the power to manage public health and safety.
xxx
The US is a "federal system". This is unanimously agreed upon. While Dillon says state legislatures can get rid of cities, the most extreme conservative view would be that they should. A conservative only sees the State government & the Federal government as being the only 2 sovereign powers in the world they must abide by. For conservatives, all power rests in the State government & Federal government, as the 1789 constitution of federal government dictates, & no power is given to the counties, cities, or towns. All power to our 2 big daddy stranges, but none for ourselves.
Dillon's Rule isn't strictly anti-city. Dillon thinks getting rid of cities would be "so great a folly & so great a wrong". Dillon's Rule isn't absolutist, which is a testament to the Rule's longevity. Dillon's Rule offers a strategic concession; namely, that cities should be allowed to exist.
Dillon's Rule offers the least amount a government can be permitted to have, in order to run their city. John Forrest Dillon offers cities ("municipalities") merely a sliver of authority in our 2 sovereign government American land: 1) cities can exist as an administrative unit of the state, &; 2) cities can conduct the little teensy tiny bullshit government business in the city that the State doesn't give a scrap of frog shit about.
John Forrest Dillon crafted 3 very narrow rules for what makes up the power of a city:
1-
"those granted in express words";
2-
"those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted";
3-
"those essential to the accomplishment of the declared objects & purposes of the corporation,-not simply convenient, but indispensable. Any fair, reasonable, substantial doubt concerning the existence of the power is resolved by the courts against the corporation, and the power is denied." (Dillon, 1911, 448).
Take those 3 planks to Dillon's Rule, & put them in your pocket, because that's what Home Rule advocates must combat against.
xxx
The reason why Pueblo City has so much more authority than that which Dillon's Rule permits, is because Pueblo City is a self-executing constitutional home rule city, as opposed to a city who is merely functionally independent, a de facto home rule city, a statutory home rule city. Pueblo City, on the other hand, is actually independent, because Pueblo City is constitutionally protected, thanks to the voters in Colorado in 1912.
John Forrest Dillon only believes that Colorado's legislature can militarily occupy & control Colorado's cities "unless there is some constitutional limitation on the right". Colorado's current 1876 Constitution, specifically Article 20, Section 6, guarantees the right of Pueblo City to be her own municipality, specifically guaranteeing 8 (a - h) powers delegated to "Home Rule" cities. If Colorado's legislature attempted to takeover Pueblo City militarily without just cause, they should expect a war on their hands, especially if the city's officials realize the awesome constitutionally protected power they've got. For the States who do not grant cities Constitutionally protected Home Rule status, a militay takeover by the State with or without just cause would be legal. A takeover by the State without just cause is illegal, at least in Pueblo City it is, and in all of Colorado's home rule cities it is.
When a local professor, who is associated with the "strong mayor" chamber-of-commerce clique, dictates fake knowledge about Pueblo City having "no Constitutional standing", they are wholly incorrect in their assessment of the American political landscape. That same local professor doesn't seem to understand that Pueblo County's government is a Commission-style of government, hence being ran by 3 County Commissioners.
The reason why Pueblo City has "self-executing" constitutional home rule protection, is because the last sentence of Article 20, Section 6 of Colorado's current 1876 Constitution is: "This article shall be in all respects self-executing." The Colorado voters got this entire section turned into Constitutional law precisely on November 5, 1912, the general election day of 1912, because that's the day Section 6 "self-executed".
Remember remember the 5th of November, 1912, the same year the Titanic sank, earlier that year, in April. Woodrow Wilson was also elected President in 1912, so 2 Titantics sank in 1912.
But still. Remember remember, the 5th of November, 1912.
The reason why I trust Russell W. Rink's Pueblo City over Nicholas Gardisar's proposed new Pueblo City is because I trust the wisdom of the ages over my contemporaries.
xxx
Laws passed by Pueblo City supersede Colorado's laws. Laws passed by Pueblo City "shall supersede within the territorial limits and other jurisdiction of said city or town any law of the state in conflict therewith" (Article 20, Section 6, Clause 2).
Article 20, Section 6, Clause 4 of Colorado's 1876 Constitution guarantees that Home Rule cities or towns, "and the citizens thereof, shall have the powers set out in sections 1, 4 and 5 of this article, and all other powers necessary, requisite or proper for the government and administration of its local and municipal matters, including power to legislate upon, provide, regulate, conduct and control" these 8 Powers:
Pueblo City's 8 "Home Rule" Constitutional Powers:
1- Cities can form themselves into any form of government; (a.) The creation and terms of municipal officers, agencies and employments; the definition, regulation and alteration of the powers, duties, qualifications and terms or tenure of all municipal officers, agents and employees;
2- Police Magistrates & courts can be established; (b.) The creation of police courts; the definition and regulation of the jurisdiction, powers and duties thereof, and the election or appointment of police magistrates therefor;
3- Municipal Courts can be created; (c.) The creation of municipal courts; the definition and regulation of the jurisdiction, powers and duties thereof, and the election or appointment of the officers thereof;
4- Cities Control Their Own Elections; (d.) All matters pertaining to municipal elections in such city or town, and to electoral votes therein on measures submitted under the charter or ordinances thereof, including the calling or notice and the date of such election or vote, the registration of voters, nominations, nomination and election systems, judges and clerks of election, the form of ballots, balloting, challenging, canvassing, certifying the result, securing the purity of elections, guarding against abuses of the elective franchise, and tending to make such elections or electoral votes non-partisan in character;
5- Cities can build parks, water projects & LID, or they can liquidate them all. (e.) The issuance, refunding and liquidation of all kinds of municipal obligations, including bonds and other obligations of park, water and local improvement districts;
6- Park & Water districts can be consolidated by majority vote; (f.) The consolidation and management of park or water districts in such cities or towns or within the jurisdiction thereof; but no such consolidation shall be effective until approved; by the vote of a majority, in each district to be consolidated, of the qualified electors voting therein upon the question;
7- Power to Levy Taxes; (g.) The assessment of property in such city or town for municipal taxation and the levy and collection of taxes thereon for municipal purposes and special assessments for local improvements; such assessments, levy and collection of taxes and special assessments to be made by municipal officials or by the county or state officials as may be provided by the charter;
8- Fines & Penalties; (h.) The imposition, enforcement and collection of fines and penalties for the violation of any of the provisions of the charter, or of any ordinance adopted in pursuance of the charter.
xxx
To clarify my point more, & using Dillon's Rule as a Rubric for Pueblo City, here's one small random example.
Pueblo City is guaranteed, constitutionally, by the State, of 8 specific expressed powers. 1 of those powers - Article 20, Section 6, (e.) - guarantees Pueblo City the power to issue, refund, or liquidate "of all kinds of municipal obligations, including bonds and other obligations of park, water and local improvement districts;"
Article 20, Section 6, Clause 4, (e.) is a clear expressed power for Colorado's home rule cities. Pueblo City is constitutionally protected to issue bonds, or to get money from refunds, or to liquidate the City's assets, for 3 specific obligations of: 1) park; 2) water, &; 3) local improvement districts.
Pueblo City can sell their vacant buildings, or the condemned property they've confiscated, to fund park & water projects & "local improvement districts". Pueblo City can borrow money to build those parks & water projects & local improvement districts, or get the money somehow by getting a refund somehow (the "refunding" clause of Article 20, Section 6, Clause 4, (e.) is a bit confusing to me).
xxx
The 2nd plank of Dillon's Rule is that cities have the powers to "those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted;". "Implied powers" are those powers which are not explicitly named in the Constitution but are assumed to exist since they're necessary to implement the expressed powers.
One can dream up unlimited implied powers, which is why the "or incident to" provision is a better gauge for Dillon's Rule, since "incident to" sounds more "adjacent to", versus "fairly implied", because all tyrants can "fairly imply" all powers onto thyselves. The expressed power in Article 20, Section 6, Clause 4, (e.) says that Pueblo City has the power to start parks & water projects, and Pueblo City can get the money to finance the parks & water projects through the liquidation of Pueblo City's assets, or by signing a bank loan. That's the expressed power. The implied power, or the power "incident to" the expressed powers, would be organizing the logistics for those park & water projects. Say an old city parking lot was going to be turned into a park, then that land would need to be purchased, & a demolition crew would be needed. Water projects may have to eminent domain people's properties to get a water line. While buying land for the park & water projects & hiring demolition teams aren't specifically guaranteed for Pueblo City under Colorado's Constitution, buying land & hiring demolition teams for the parks & water projects is an "implied power" because buying land & hiring demolition teams is necessary, therefore "incident to", the expressed powers of building the parks & water projects themselves.
Dillon's Rule can't fuck with any of Article 20, Section 6, Clause 4, (a. - h.) of Colorado's 1876 Constitution. Pueblo City's Home Rule power is a Constitutional power.
xxx
"The issuance, refunding and liquidation of all kinds of municipal obligations, including bonds and other obligations of park, water and local improvement districts;" ~Article 20, Section 6, Clause 4, (e.)
Article 20, Section 6, Clause 4, (e.) means that Pueblo City can make all of the decisions regarding the building of parks & water projects & "local improvement districts" (LID), including hiring & firing contractors, selling one asset to purchase another, taking out a loan, etc. Article 20, Section 6, Clause 4, (e.) allows for Pueblo City to have virtually absolute control over her accounting practices, in regards to constructing parks, water projects, & "local improvement districts". Article 20, Section 6, Clause 4, (e.) means that Pueblo City can issue bonds & contracts for water, park, & LID projects, or sell them; home rule cities have complete authority over the bonds & contracts for water, park, & LID projects.
The term "local improvement district" is vague enough to mean anything. Any "local improvement district" can be created anywhere, & Pueblo City can probably build whatever they wanted in that LID, like say, a Pueblo City Gym to keep the citizens healthy. Pueblo City can take out a loan to build Pueblo City Gym, or they can raise taxes. Raising taxes to build that Pueblo City Gym in the local improvement district would be an implied power, or "a power incident to" the construction of Pueblo's MuniGym.
The first plank of Dillon's Rule declares that cities retain all expressed powers, & the second plank adds implied powers to the expressed powers by giving cities implied powers which are "incident to" those initial expressed powers.
The 3rd plank of Dillon's Rule says a city's behavior must be "essential to the accomplishment of the declared objects & purposes of the corporation,- not simply convenient, but indispensable." The 3rd plank continues by saying if there's "any fair, reasonable, substantial doubt" about the powers a city contains, then the courts shall deny that power (Dillon, 1911, 448).
Pueblo City's City Manager in 1984 was Fred E. Weisbrod. Mr. Weisbrod was such a penny pincher that Pueblo City had a $10 million surplus in 1984 (Sam Azad can claim a similar feat for 2017).
How did Pueblo City's chief executive in 1984 spend that $10 million surplus? $8 million of the $10 million was given to the Sperry Corporation, owned by Elmer Sperry, to bring some promised jobs into Pueblo City.
$6 million was just flatout handed to Sperry Corporation, free of charge, to entice Sperry Corporation to set up shop here in Pueblo City. Another $2 million was used to purchase land for Sperry Corporation, & to help build their factory. Sperry Corporation was bringing in 750 jobs, so Fred E. Weisbrod thought investing $8 million on the Sperry Corporation would be great for Pueblo City. Unfortunately, 2 years later, Sperry Corporation would sell out to Unisys, then later on to LORAL. I'm not sure where that old Sperry Corporation building used to be, or where it is today, if it still exists.
Pueblo City has seen millions of dollars being wasted since then. A few years ago, Superintendent Margarita Lopez wasted over $7 million of D60's money on some New York consultants.
Sperry Corporation was a major electronics & equipment (like New Holland tractors) company who existed more than seven decades in the 20th century (1910 - 1986). Perhaps Mr. Weisbrod thought the Sperry Corporation was a good investment since in 1984, they had been in business for the last 70 years, but only after being in Pueblo City for 2 years, Sperry Corporation was dissolved, & was no more.
Fred E. Weisbrod giving $8 million of Pueblo City's cash to a private corporation with expectations of 750 jobs turned out to be a shitty investment. Not only did Sperry Corporation get a cool $6 million cash gift, compliments of the people of Pueblo City, for no returns, but Sperry Corporation also got Pueblo City to buy the land, the building, & the equipment too. Shit, after setting Sperry Corporation up like that, it's crazy that Sperry Corporation failed, but more importantly, why couldn't Mr. Weisbrod spend that money on a municipal-owned factory? If Fred E. Weisbrod was allowed to build a private factory from the ground up with taxpayer monies, how much more difficult would it have been to buy the land, building, & equipment, & then have $6 million in starter cash to build a factory owned by Pueblo City? At least if that municipal-owned company had to declare bankruptcy, Pueblo City would still own the assets. Instead, once Sperry Corporation went out of business, we lost 750 promised jobs as well as our capital investments. Instead, a bunch of corrupt capitalist pigs laughed at poor Pueblo City, as they pocketed the $6 million cash giveaway, or investing it in cocaine, & then sold the company name & capital the taxpayers of Pueblo City paid for, off for millions, making sure they got golden parachutes on their way out.
Personally, I believe Fred E. Weisbrod spending $8 million to help a private company establish themselves is unethical as hell. Clause 3 of Dillon's Rule requires Fred to justify his $8 million gift given to the Sperry Corporation be an "indispensable" requirement of the clearly expressed purposes of Pueblo City, Inc. (per the 1954 Charter & 1876 Constitution), without any "fair, reasonable, substantial doubt". Pueblo City didn't need Sperry Corporation. What good did a bankrupted company do for Pueblo City? What a fkn waste of $8 million. Fuck Weisbrod on that bonehead mistake.
Perhaps one could argue that the point of government is to provide jobs for the people, since in America one must have a job, or die, & if Weisbrod genuinely believed that jobs could be produced from his investments, maybe, just maybe, his $8 million investment in Sperry Corporation, 2 years prior to them selling everything to some other corporate behemoth, but not until Mr. Sperry planted a poison pill first, to revenge on those taking him over, could be justified on constitutional grounds. Fred E. Weisbrod brought all of that bullshit drama into Pueblo City's lives, & wasted $8 million.
Not only is it unethical, but having the Sperry Corporation here was not an indispensable requirement for Pueblo City's purposes. I have substantial doubt, much more than the "fair, reasonable, substantial doubt" threshold, which would make that $8 million exchange of cash illegal. Fred Weisbrod should have been thrown in jail over his criminal behavior.
xxx
The clearly expressed purposes & powers of Pueblo City, Inc. come from 4 main sources:
1- the expressed powers of Colorado's "home rule" cities, pursuant to Article 20, Section 6 of Colorado's 1876 Constitution.
plus
2- the expressed powers contained in Pueblo City's 1954 Charter.
plus
3- State statutes.
plus
4- Pueblo City Ordinances.
The laws passed by Colorado's Home Rule cities supersede state statutes "by the charters of such cities and towns or by ordinance passed pursuant to such charters." ~Article 20, Section 6, Clause 6
Breaking Colorado's constitutional Home Rule provisions are "criminal and punishable". ~Article 20, Section 6, Clause 8
xxx
In Russell W. Rink's Pueblo City, Section 1-3 merely states that Pueblo City "shall have all the powers granted to municipal corporations and to cities by the Constitution and general laws of this State".
Article 20, Section 6, Clause 4, (a.) of Colorado's 1876 Constitution says that Colorado's Home Rule cities can form any kind of government they can think up, creating whatever positions is necessary for that city to govern properly:
"The creation and terms of municipal officers, agencies and employments; the definition, regulation and alteration of the powers, duties, qualifications and terms or tenure of all municipal officers, agents and employees;" ~Article 20, Section 6, Clause 4, (a.)
xxx
Section 4-5, (c.), the "Powers & Duties of City Manager" in Russell W. Rink's Pueblo City 1954 Charter, states:
"Prepare the Budget annually and submit it to the Council and be responsible for its administration after adoption;"
Since there's no fair, reasonable, or substantial doubt regarding the 1954 Charter requirement that the Chief Executive Officer must submit a Budget to her Legislature, it's crystal clear that the budget begins with Sam Azad, which is an indispensable declared power for the purpose of the municipal government of Pueblo City.
xxx
"Section 7-2. Submission of the Budget -
Not later than the first regular meeting of the Council in October of each year, the City Manager shall submit to the Council:
a. An annual or current expense budget, hereafter referred to as the "Budget", which shall be a complete financial plan for the ensuing fiscal year, consisting of the budget proper and the budget message;
b. A capital budget."
xxx
There are laws that limit City employees' powers.
Section 2-11 forbids everybody working in city government from profiting off of contracts, although there is a "except it be by competitive bidding" loophole.
Pursuant to Section 2-11, anybody who works for the government of Pueblo City can profit from the contracts & contractors they employ, "except it be by competitive bidding". Since "except it be by competitive bidding" clause is added, that means that Pueblo City's public officials actually can profit, but there has to be some kind of "competitive bidding" due process formality, & as long as there's some kind of "competitive bidding" process, then city council & the city manager & the director of the Stormwater Department can profit handsomely, as much as they want, as much as they can, if they're able to get the city to hire out their own companies & their friends' companies win the "competitive bidding" war with all other companies in the world.
The title of Section 2-11 is "Participation of All Officers and Employees Interested in Contracts*", & Section 2-11 spells it right out in the first sentence:
"No elected official, appointed officer, or employee of the City shall be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in the sale of any land, materials, supplies, or services to the City,..." (Section 2-11);
Section 2-11 was amended by the voters of Pueblo City on November 5, 1963, by 543 votes (6,887 v. 6,344).
Remember remember the 5th of November. 1963. The same year JFK was assassinated.
"Such charter and the ordinances made pursuant thereto in such matters shall supersede within the territorial limits and other jurisdiction of said city or town any law of the state in conflict therewith." ~Article 20, Section 6, Clause 2 of Colorado's current 1876 Constitution
xxx
Russell W. Rink's 1954 Charter owns the name "Pueblo". The city of Pueblo "shall have perpetual secession" & "shall have all the powers granted to municipal corporations and to cities by the Constitution" & "general laws of this State" together with "all the implied powers granted." (Section 1-3).
Russell W. Rink's 1954 Charter guarantees that Pueblo City's municipal constitution will operate within the bounds of the Constitution:
"Section 1-7. Constitutionality - In case any word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, section, or article of this Charter shall at any time be found to be unconstitutional, such finding shall not affect the remainder thereof, but as to such remainder this Charter shall remain in full force and effect until amended or repealed."
xxx
Pueblo's City Council has the power to make contracts "and leases on behalf of the Municipal Government" (Section 3-9, Clause 1). All written contracts & leases City Council obligates the populace to "shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney." (Section 3-9, Clause 2). City Council is allowed to put the Puebloan citizenry on the hook for loans & bonds for decades because "nothing shall prevent making of contracts or spending of money for capital improvements to be financed in whole or in part by issuance of bonds, nor making of contracts of lease or for services for a period exceeding the budget year in which such contract is made." (Section 3-9, Clause 3).
"It is the intention of this article to grant and confirm to the people of all municipalities coming within its provisions the full right of self-government in both local and municipal matters and the enumeration herein of certain powers shall not be construed to deny such cities and towns, and to the people thereof, any right or power essential or proper to the full exercise of such right." ~Article 20, Section 6, Clause 5
xxx
The General Powers spelled out in Section 3-5 in Pueblo's Charter were changed on November 4, 2008 by Pueblo's voters, by a vote of 27,058 to 16,030. The General Powers of Pueblo's City Council is that the Council "shall have all legislative powers and functions of municipal government conferred by general law, except as provided in this Charter." (Section 3-5, Clause 1).
The provisions of Section 3-5:
1) gives Pueblo's City Council all of the legislative power within the boundaries of Pueblo City (i.e. power to pass motions, ordinances, & resolutions, power to appropriate funds, etc);
2) limits Pueblo City's municipal punitive power to less than 1 year of jail, or a $1,000 fine, or both, for the caught criminals who break their ordinances;
3) mandates that fines over $300 must go towards "graffiti control & removal", or for other "law enforcement activities as determined by the Council": City Council's approval is needed to pay a salary for board & commission members, & "all employees in the Classified and Unclassified Service." (as Amended in 2008);
4) gives City Council the power to investigate any & all city agencies, to which they may compel any "officer or employee" to testify, & produce books, documents, & evidence by "subpoena attendance".
xxx
Pueblo's City Council has these 10 Expressed Powers:
1- power to investigate the city's employees, including the police department, which make up over 25% of the city's budget (Section 3-5);
2- power to build libraries & pay for their employees (Section 3-6);
3- power to dedicate or abandon street or alleys (Section 3-7);
4- power to make contracts (Section 3-9);
5- power to initiate independent audits (Section 3-10);
6- power to create new departments, "but may not discontinue any department established by this Charter." (Section 3-12);
7- power to regulate & issue licenses & permits (Section 3-13, as amended in 1973);
8- power to direct the Finance Director and/or City Manager to issue surety bonds "in such amounts as the Council may determine." (Section 3-14);
9- power to pass motions, ordinances, & resolutions (Section 3-16);
10- power to appropriate funds (Section 7-10 & 7-11);
xxx
Current City Council has "Confirmation Powers" for the Budget as evidenced in Sections 7-10 & 7-11. The Budget begins with the City Manager, & the City Council adjusts the Budget to their liking, & then they pass it.
"Section 7-10. Changes by the Council - After conclusion of such public hearing the Council may insert new items of expenditure or may increase, decrease or strike out items of expenditure, except that no item of appropriation for debt service shall be reduced. If the Council shall decrease the total proposed expenditures, such decrease shall be reflected in full in the Tax Levy. If the Council shall increase the total proposed expenditures, such increase shall be reflected in the Tax Levy or by appropriate provision in other revenues."
"Section 7-11. Adoption of the Budget - Upon completion of the public hearing, but prior to the first day of December, the Council shall adopt the Budget, the Appropriation Ordinance and the Tax Levy Ordinance."
"The statutes of the state of Colorado, so far as applicable, shall continue to apply to such cities and towns, except insofar as superseded by the charters of such cities and towns or by ordinance passed pursuant to such charters." ~(Article 20, Section 6, Clause 6)
xxx
Section 4-4 forbids City Council from interfering in hiring & firing city employees. Currently, the City Manager has the power to hire & fire everybody.
"Council Not to Interfere in Appointments or Removals - Except for the purpose of inquiry, the Council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the City Manager and neither the Council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinates of the City Manager either publicly or privately." (Section 4-4).
City Council can ask city employees or possible new hires questions, but they can't "Interfere in Appointments or Removals". All administrative powers are given to the City Manager, which is why City Council can't "give orders to any subordinates of the City Manager either publicly or privately."
No direct orders can be given to any city employees by City Council, but City Council can pass general ordinances in order to dictate policy. Ray Aguilera can't order Bob the policeman to wear a body camera specifically, but Ray Aguilera can pass a law that requires the entire police force to wear body cameras, & to have them turned on the entire time they're on duty. While City Council can't give any city employee any direct orders, nor "interfere" in hiring & firing, City Council can create a New "Citizen's Complaint & Oversight" Department. City Council can also investigate any city employee, including subpoenaing them to testify & to provide evidence to City Council.
City Council can write recommendations for new hires. City Council should be allowed to give their opinion on anybody & everybody. Many times, governments meet in secret executive sessions regarding personnel matters. City Council also has the power of the purse, because they must adopt the Budget before any money in the Budget can be used.
xxx
Pueblo City can easily supersede State Legislature by passing many Ordinances that cover a range of topics. Pueblo City can also pay close attention to the State Legislature, because if the State Legislature passes some "general purpose" law, it could affect Pueblo City. Pueblo City should remain vigilant against any encroachments on her power & authority, from the State, from the Feds, from the County, from the Banks, etc.
xxx
There's many specific "expressed" powers written in Pueblo City's 1954 Charter, but there's no declared purpose. The 1st & 2nd planks of Dillon's Rule allows for cities to have all expressed powers & implied powers, respectively. The 3rd plank of Dillon's Rule allows cities to have those powers which are "essential to the accomplishment of the declared objects & purposes of the corporation". These "essential" powers of "declared objects & purposes" must be "indispensable" to the government of the city, not merely convenient. If there's any fair/reasonable/substantial doubt regarding these extra "essential" & "indispensable" powers for a city's "declared objects & purpose", then that "power is denied" by the courts. (Dillon, 1911, 448).
Many expressed powers are mentioned in Russell W. Rink's 1954 Charter, but Mr. Rink's Charter doesn't declare any specific purpose for Pueblo City's Charter.
The US Constitution establishes her purposes in the Preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The Preamble of the US Constitution establishes these 5 general purposes for the existence of the federal government:
1- establish Justice;
2- insure domestic Tranquility;
3- provide for the common defense;
4- promote the general Welfare, &;
5- secure the Blessings of Liberty;
Colorado Constitution establishes her purposes in her Preamble as well:
"We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, in order to form a more independent & perfect government; establish justice; insure tranquility; provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare & secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves & our posterity, do ordain & establish this Constitution for the "State of Colorado"." ~Preamble of Colorado's 1876 Constitution
Colorado's Preamble mostly plagiarizes the US's Preamble, with only 1 addition, establishing these 6 purposes for the existence of the State government:
1- independent government;
2- establish justice;
3- insure tranquility;
4- provide for the common defense;
5- promote the general welfare &;
6- secure the blessings of liberty;
Since 5 of Colorado's 6 declared purposes are the same as the US Constitution's, we can assume all of them would be the same for Pueblo City as well.
Article 2, Section 1 of Colorado's Constitution declares that all power lies with the people: "All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government, of right, originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole."
Article 2, Section 2 of Colorado's Constitution declares the Right to Revolution: "The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state; and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States."
Both the Americans & Coloradoan Constitutions protect a boatload of individual freedoms. Article 2, Section 3 of Colorado's 1876 Constitution declares: "All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."
Besides the specific duties of the city's officers, there's no clearly expressed purposes for the establishment of the government of Pueblo City. Pueblo City must infer the purpose of local government from the declared purposes of the State or Federal Constitution, or inferred from a theory of government itself.
Both the US & Coloradoan Constitutions declare these same 5 purposes for government: 1- secure the blessings of liberty. 2- establish justice; 3- insure domestic tranquility; 4- provide for the common defense, &; 5- promote the general welfare. The Coloradoan Constitution adds 1 more purpose: to "form an independent & perfect government".
xxx
Pueblo City has lots of Constitutional Standing. Dillon's Rule severely limits "statutory home rule" cities, but not Pueblo City, which is a "self-executing" Constitutional Home Rule City. "Self-executing" means there's a Constitutional provision which "executes" the Constitutional change into law immediately upon passed, without awaiting the state to implement legislation. "Self-executing" guarantees that Colorado's "home rule" status is secure.
Pueblo City has 8 specific expressed powers listed in the Coloradoan Constitution, including the establishment of a Charter. And that Charter's provisions & subsequent ordinances must be adhered to, or else the person in violation is "criminal", so therefore their crime is "punishable". (Article 20, Section 6, Clause 8.)
Article 20, Section 6 was passed as 1 Amendment by Colorado's 1912 voters, so it's strict "home rule" meaning is crystal clear.
xxx
"The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy." ~Charles de Montesquieu
Brutus I quotes Charles de Montesquieu from "spirit of laws, chap. xvi. vol. I [book VIII]" (sic):
"It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected."
Brutus I in his famous anti-federalist essay continues:
"In every government, the will of the sovereign is the law. In despotic governments, the supreme authority being lodged in one, his will is law, can can be as easily expressed to a large extensive territory as to a small one. In a pure democracy, the people are the sovereign, and their will is declared by themselves; for this purpose they must all come together to deliberate, & decide. This kind of government cannot be exercised, therefore, over a country of any considerable extent; it must be confined to a single city, or at least limited to such bounds as that the people can conveniently assemble, be able to debate, understand the subject submitted to them, & declare their opinion concerning it."
...
"The magistrates in every government must be supported in the execution of the laws, either by an armed force, maintained at the public expense for that purpose; or by the people turning out to aid the magistrate upon his command, in case of resistance."
...
Standing armies "have always proved the destruction of liberty, and is abhorrent to the spirit of a free republic."
...
"A free republic will never keep a standing army to execute its laws. It must depend upon the support of its citizens. But when a government is to receive its support from the aid of the citizens, it must be so constructed as to have the confidence, respect, and affection of the people. Men who, upon the call of the magistrate, offer themselves to execute the laws, are influenced to do it either by affection to the government, or from fear; where a standing army is at hand to punish offenders, every man is actuated by the latter principle, and therefore, when the magistrate calls, will obey: but, where this is not the case, the government must rest for its support upon the confidence and respect which the people have for their government and laws. The body of the people being attached, the government will always be sufficient to support and execute its laws, and to operate upon the fears of any faction which may be opposed to it, not only to prevent an opposition to the execution of the laws themselves, but also to compel the most of them to aid the magistrate; but the people will not be likely to have such confidence in their rulers, in a republic so extensive as the United States, as necessary for these purposes. The confidence which the people have in their rulers, in a free republic, arises from their knowing them, from their being responsible to them for their conduct, and from the power they have of displacing them when they misbehave: but in a republic of the extent of this continent, the people in general would be acquainted with very few of their rulers; the people at large would know little of their proceedings, and it would be extremely difficult to change them. The people in Georgia and New-Hampshire would not know one another's mind, and therefore could not act in concert to enable them to effect a general change of representatives. The different parts of so extensive a country could not possibly be made acquainted with the conduct of their representatives, nor be informed of the reasons upon which measures were founded. The consequence will be, they will have no confidence in their legislature, suspect them of ambitious views, be jealous of every measure they adopt, and will not support the laws they pass. Hence the government will be nerveless and inefficient, and no way will be left to render it otherwise, but by establishing an armed force to execute the laws at the point of the bayonet--a government of all others the most to be dreaded."
~Brutus I, October 18, 1787
Comments
Post a Comment