ISSUE # 60....Ant Byte: SycophANTs Unite to Protect Mick

"Nobody thought about it... That this program (subsidized housing in Aspen) would last 30 years and that these buildings would need to be maintained." 

-- Jackie Kasabach, Housing Frontiers Group member and former member of City Council, 4/18/11.

"APCHA doesn't have the time to do this stuff." 

-- Marcia Goshorn, APCHA board member, Housing Frontiers Group member and current candidate for City Council, 4/18/11.

HOUSING FRONTIERS: A LEADERLESS GROUP THAT MEETS IN SECRET, KEEPS NO NOTES

The Red Ant recently attended a meeting of the Housing Frontiers Group (HFG), an obscure extension of the housing authority (APCHA) according to some, a group working for the city manager through assistant city manager Barry Crook according to others, a group recognized and funded by city council according to council minutes, and an "independent advisory body" and "off-shoot of the (now-defunct) Citizen's Budget Task Force with no subservience to APCHA," according to two HFG members.  Go figure.  "Most of the group's time (over the past 2.5+ years) has been spent on developing a program that helps affordable housing homeowners associations complete studies on capital reserves needs," according to HFG member Andrew Kole, in a May 2010 interview with the Aspen Daily News.  The need to study the capital reserves scenarios (or lack thereof) at the subsidized housing projects in APCHA's portfolio stems presumably from the dire situation at Centennial that is estimated to cost in the $10-$20M range to repair, and the revelation that the HOA there has an abysmal capital reserves collection record and a grossly inadequate reserves balance. 

All current candidates for office were invited to the same meeting I attended to learn about what the HFG has been doing, as "subsidized housing capital reserves" stands to become a hot campaign issue.

A PUBLIC BODY, OR NOT?  SHOW US YOUR RECORDS!

Despite allocating $130K in public funds for the capital reserves studies (in a 70/30 split with the various housing projects), APCHA director Tom McCabe and members of the HFG do not and will not  voluntarily make their records publicly available, nor do they keep minutes of their meetings.  When the records (specifically, the draft results of capital reserve studies conducted to date at 22 of 35 subsidized housing projects) were requested using the Colorado Open Records Act, MAJOR deflection and dissention on the HFG began.  Colorado Revised Statutes define a "local public body" as "any board, committee, commission, authority, or other advisory, policy-making, rule-making, or formally constituted body of a political subdivision of the state and any public or private entity to which a political subdivision, or an official thereof, has delegated a governmental decision-making function but does not include persons on the administrative staff of the local public body."   

In other words, McCabe's unwillingness to take minutes aside, it's pretty obvious:  the HFG is a public body, given that its members were appointed at the city manager's recommendation during the summer of 2008 and the group has made many major decisions and recommendations on public policy matters.

And notably, 3 members of the HFG are running for office (Andrew Kole, Adam Frisch and Marcia Goshorn).  Now's the time that this get resolved!  Information has been leaked that the 22 studies to-date show frighteningly deficient capital reserves scenarios.  We're talking tens of millions of dollars in the aggregate. The subsidized housing projects in APCHA's portfolio are "community assets" and the public has a right to know what's going on, where the candidates stand on the issue, and especially what we might be on the hook for!

DENIALS ABOUND

There is great denial that the HFG is a "public body" that must make its records public.  HFG member Pete Louras insists that city attorney John Worcester, acting in his self-ascribed role as the city's supreme court justice equivalent, "issued a ruling" that the HFG is not a public body therefore they do not need to keep minutes or adhere to open meetings laws.  When pressed, Louras could not produce said ruling.  McCabe even went so far as to state, "Because we do not take minutes and do not make public notices of our meetings, then we are not a public body."  Nice circular logic between the two, huh!?  As reported by the Aspen Daily News in January 2010, Worcester has stated in the past, based on his reading of the above quoted law, that unless a body has a "governmental decision-making function," it is not subject to open meetings laws.  The groups either are public and therefore must follow all open meetings regulations - such as noticing meetings, taking minutes and providing e-mails if asked - or they are not.  There is no gray area in the law that would allow a public body to meet in the open but not require it to take minutes or disclose their documents, for example, according to Worcester. 

But Worcester has gotten himself into a pickle before on the public meetings/open records front with his thinking.  Attorney Steven Zansberg, who specializes in Colorado open meeting laws, disagrees with Worcester.  Using another "secret meeting" that Worcester approved as an example, Zansberg told the Aspen Daily News that both formally constituted advisory bodies and delegated governmental decision-making authorities must adhere to open meetings laws.  "When they are meeting to discuss public business, the public has a right to attend."  In the case of the HFG, the public can attend (if they happen to learn of the meeting), but no records are kept or shared with the public in clear violation of open meetings laws.

Does anyone - particularly candidates Goshorn, Frisch and Kole - actually believe that information about significant deferred maintenance exposure in APCHA complexes is NOT public businesses??  Even the HOAs were told up front that the reports would go to APCHA, a public entity.

WHY THE SECRECY?

Some on the HFG argue that people's feelings might be hurt by public discussion and dissemination of the information they have compiled.  Attorney Zansberg points out that almost any topic can receive a "more frank discussion" in private, but that's not an option.  "It's not up to the board, committee or city attorney to make the decision" about what can and cannot be discussed in private.  "You don't get to say that because we discuss sensitive things that we are not subject to open meeting laws," he said.

Incidentally, Louras and Goshorn have a track record on anti-transparency.  Both served on the Citizen's Budget Task Force when the $75M Burlingame "discrepancy" was uncovered.  Louras went so far as to demand that the committee vote on whether or not to have open meetings as the debacle was unfolding, as if that was a legal choice.  He was of course voted down and the Burlingame bomb went off.  He's simply using the same playbook here.

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

The HFG's Pete Louras, Jackie Kasabach and Marcia Goshorn are all servile flatterers and long-time campaigners for our dear leader Mick.  And as you know, Mick is running for re-election.  These three awkwardly hijacked the April 18 meeting with ridiculous filibustering (the first 20 minutes were spent debating everything from meeting calendars to the genesis of the HFG - a problem easily solved had someone/anyone taken the minutes) and in doing so, prevented the normal weekly distribution of an updated spreadsheet on the status of the capital reserves studies at the 35 targeted housing projects. (It's likely that because "others" -- the public AND The Red Ant -- came to the meeting the "sensitive" records were kept under wraps!)   Jackie even went so far as to tell her colleagues Andrew, Adam and Marcia that they "shouldn't talk during the meeting since they are running for office."  (Do ya think she'll go to council and ask Mick, Steve and Ruth to zip it?)  And Louras even moved to suspend all HFG meetings until after the elections are over -- in order to keep the secrets safe (that could be June 7 if there is a run-off)!

Here's what's REALLY going on:

• Goshorn (a candidate herself and APCHA board member) is a  neighbor of mayor Mick's in the Common Grounds subsidized housing project.
• It has been leaked to The Red Ant that Common Grounds has one of THE WORST housing  capital reserves scenarios on a per-unit basis among the 22 draft studies thus far. 
• In other words, mayor Mick does not in any way lead by example, but rather, lives in a subsidized housing project that operates by and advocates for MINIMAL/NO collection of reserve assessments in favor of "special assessments" when needed.  (Yeah, right:  a $100+K cash call for a new roof in subsidized housing!?)
• The dissemination of the capital reserves study results (albeit in draft form) will reveal Aspen's "man of the people" as a subsidized housing hypocrite amongst his key demographic:  with Mick as mayor, the city has garnered a citizen's group (the HFG) to educate/convince/induce the various APCHA properties to step up their capital reserves commitments while his HOA does nothing of the sort.
• The study results will expose the long-hidden liabilities and structural problems in the housing program, and this will frighten residents, especially owners.
• The realities of the city and county governments' turning a blind eye to critical housing program shortcomings, oversights and mismanagement from the start will negatively impact plans for more subsidized housing development, particularly Burlingame 2.
• When housing is sold by one owner to the next, APCHA oh-so-briefly assumes ownership in the chain of title.  This inherently puts the local government at great financial risk when they do not disclose problems and deficiencies (financial or otherwise) to the buyer.
• As if getting financing (which now requires 10-20% down) isn't difficult enough for aspiring subsidized housing buyers, deficient HOA capital reserves scenarios will make it even more so, and may likely make it impossible.

The Red Ant believes the big effort to keep this mum by Pete, Jackie and fellow candidate Marcia is two-fold:  first, to keep Mick's hypocrisy from becoming a personal campaign issue for him.   And secondly, it's to avoid the ugly truth about the long-ticking time bomb of the housing program's Achilles heel that Mick and other creators of the program have kept secret for years.  Sorry, it didn't work.  And now the cat's out of the bag.

CITY ATTORNEY'S PUBLIC OFFICE HOURS?

John Worcester.  So, Aspen's overpaid ($161,720 in 2010), and in the eyes of The Red Ant, dishonest and corrupt Aspen city attorney allegedly "issues rulings" for entities that purportedly aren't public??  Does he additionally hold court for the purpose of dispensing legal advice to other non-public local entities?  Really??  Is THAT in his job description?  When are these office hours?  This should be advertised because local attorneys charge upwards of $250/hour! (NOTE:  The Red Ant personally wouldn't take Worcester's legal advice - nor pay a nickel for it - even to get my dog out of the pound.)  

NOW THAT IT'S KNOWN OUR SUBSIDIZED HOUSING PROJECTS HAVE NO MONEY, WHO PAYS?

That's the $20M question.  For the owned units at the Centennial subsidized housing project at least.  The Red Ant has asked all of the candidates to address this question and will share their answers in the next issue of The Red Ant -- the endorsement issue.

But in the meantime, remember, subsidized housing has been a voting tool in Aspen for over 30 years:  "Vote for me, I got you a house."  While the housing we've paid for as a community is not yet in shambles, their financial resources certainly are.

Make this an issue this week at the candidate forums and debates!  Ask the candidates questions about their views on solutions to this major financial issue and on adherence to open meetings laws and principles of transparency.  And look for the endorsement issue of The Red Ant - coming soon!

If you need my preliminary endorsements in the meantime, please reply to this email and give me your phone number.  I will call you with my most current thoughts.