|Loveland's Independent News Source
|"....This was a publicly-noticed meeting, so it is not an executive session or a secret meeting
in any way. Further, Colorado law allows recording by an individual of conversations in which
that individual is present. Provided that the individual is present, no permission for
recording is needed from others in the conversation.
I simply want to make Council Members aware of this. "
William D. Cahill, Loveland City Manager
|"This is asinine. As I read these emails it all boils down to, "It wasn't me".
That said, it wasn't me. Daryle, you make a great point and one that I
wholeheartedly agree with. These are public meetings and so, instead of someone
taking notes on a pad there may be a recording to memorialize the conversations."
Loveland Councilman Hugh McKean
|"It wasn't me. I don't know what the concern is about whoever it was.
Any publicly advertised meeting is open to recording by anyone, So, whoever did the
recording did nothing, NOTHING, illegal nor irregular. Any member of the public, or any
member of the council, or anyone from C & W would have placed a ten foot tall tape deck
on the table, asking NO permission and recorded the entire conversations. The same
fact pertained to the museum meeting with the legislators. So, what's the beef ? "
Councilman Daryle Klassen
|Councilman Ralph Trenary
|"Attorneys are prohibited from recording conversations."
Councilwoman Cathleen McEwen
|"It couldn't have been me. It's too hard to conceal my reel to reel."
Mayor Cecil Gutierrez
|Below are excerpts from the thirteen emails traded between councilors on the topic.
To read the full text of the emails click here.
|"I find this all quite disheartening. In my first two years on council, I thought we as
representatives of our community have done an admirable job of learning to work
together, respect differences, cross divides, and pull in the same direction for the
people of Loveland. While taping public meetings is not illegal, and I don't fear what
might be recorded, the practice of doing so for release to the press or a blogger for no
other purpose but to stir up ill will and apparent distrust of fellow councilors is sad,
Councilwoman Joan Shaffer
|"I find myself in agreement with Cecil and Joan. While I have no issue with the
recording of any posted meeting, I find it very surprising that someone would do it
such an underhanded manner"
Councilman Phil Farley
As I was told by my first speech broadcast and journalism teacher, 'There is no such
thing as a dead microphone.' Because we do not particularly like what the blogger had
to say (and that includes me), we then try to make an issue out of a microphone that
was or was not in sight. This seems to imply that what we might, or might not say, has to
do whether there is a microphone in sight. This in sight, or out of sight is a non-issue. A
public meeting 0f public officials, duly advertised, does not require anyone to hold the
microphone up in the air for all to see. Enough spin on this. I'm wondering if we learned
anything by the $25,000 we recently spent. Yes, we are talking about legality. Totally."
Councilman Daryle Klassen
|"I am concerned by the content and consistency of your position on these deceptive and
damaging recordings. Let me convey my highest assurance that I have yet to see any
evidence or argument that would lead me to consider dismissing, ignoring nor forgetting
what has been done to this Council.
It is the absolute truth that on Nov 29 the blogger was not present. To date there is no
admission of who was acting as the agent/source of the blogger. This is deceptive.
Unless you are implying that one of our guests or city staff were the agent of this
blogger, then we are regrettably facing the likelihood that a member of City Council
made the recording. This strikes me as a betrayal of professional conduct and fiduciary
trust amongst the members of the Council.
To deny this as the situation of Nov 29 implies that the recording was made by an
unknown person outside of that meeting room. That would constitute clandestine
surveillance and imply the use of specialized technology. A new factor that could result
in further investigation as it removes the present at the meeting or party to the
I object to your inference that criticism of these secret recordings is a recurrence of
errors made during Executive Session and then subjected to a lawsuit. Irrelevant. The
sequence of events, circumstances and actions of those present show no similarity.
Failing to cross the line into illegal conduct does remove the fundamental conclusion
that the creation of the Nov 29 secret recording by a member of the Council was wrong. I
have yet to see any desire for an investigation aimed at any finding of civil or criminal
I am reassured by numerous expressions that regardless of the cloak of legality, the Nov
29 secret recording was wrong. My fundamental standards of moral and ethical conduct
do not allow me to condone letting this slide by without protest and condemnation."
Councilman Ralph Trenary
|Councilman Fears Surveillance
of Public Meetings
Accusations Fly Via Email - Trenary Is Angry and wants investigation