|Municipal Judge Presiding Over Cases
Despite Losing Authority
|See the City of Loveland emails between
Councilman Troy Krenning, City Manager Bill
Cahill and others as the revelation unfolded the
city's deputy judge presided over cases long after
his appointment expired.
click here to download the emails
|Excerpts from Councilman Krenning's
"On a bigger scale if my assessment is
correct and indeed Mr. Packard has sat
as a judge lacking proper authority I
may ask our City Attorney to review
every case he sat on and offer an
opinion about any decision he has made.
Although we are talking about municipal
court, if he accepted pleas or rendered
verdicts I suspect each and every one
of those decisions could either be void
or voidable. This could be a real mess.
And, unless and until we can make a
determination that Mr. Packard's
standing as a deputy judge is lawful I
think his status as a deputy judge
should be suspended.
As for the $10k, I think the Mayor ran
that by me during phone calls last
week. If you believe that amount is
appropriate I don't care to second
guess that decision so I'll drop that
Please do not expend any additional
time over the weekend working on my
issues, the weather is much too nice to
spend time inside working!
I suspect that the City Attorney's
office is not able to conduct this
inquiry as it is conflicted. I can't
imagine any action taken by Packard
that did not also have an appearance of
an assistant city attorney involved.
Maybe we will get lucky and the only
thing that Packard did was set new
court dates, that would be a "mere
irregularities" as you have described.
But if he took a plea or imposed a
sentence, I strongly object that such
actions would be "mere irregularities"
and should be vacated and the citizen
.......concerning "until replaced."
Since I expect that we will be seeking
a new judge soon I would like to think
that this new judge could have some say
in who, or even if we need, to appoint
as a "deputy judge."
s asked by Cslr McKean, why is this
tagged a confidential?
Lastly, please advise if a similar
"agreement" exists with Bill Starks.
This would be best described as the
"cover up " option and I will not
support it; in fact I will loudly
oppose it. As you have pointed out in
paragraph 4 of your email below, if
challenged.....I AM CHALLENGING IT. I'm
not waiting for a citizen to bring a
challenge against an action that is
illegal by the City and for which no
citizen is likely to ever know. Please
consider this the challenge you have
This situation is almost square with
the situation where the City went back
and retroactively approved the building
permit for the neighbor of Morgan that
has now brought us so much anguish. At
what point do we stop looking for ways
to fix (cover up) our mistakes and
simply admit them and then deal with
them? I know that the policy of the
City seems to be that the City is
always right. This is not a policy that
I share in or support.
As I previously stated, I want the City
1. Immediately suspend Mr. Packard;
2. Immediately notify Bill Starks that
the "two years or until a replacement"
language is invalid and he should not
rely on it past the expiration of his
two year term.
3. Appoint special counsel to go back
and research what actions have been
taken by Mr. Packard and report to the
If Starks and/or Packard want to
challenge the validity of their
respective contracts then they should
seek counsel and go for it. That
portion of their contract is severable
and the City should defend the
citizens, NOT Starks and Packard.