DUNCAN CAMPBELL: Duncan Campbell, 808 10th Street. I'm here to talk about the proposal to extend the time for the Academy Group to sign the MYLAR. Tonight, I heard Tim Honey, our City Manager, make a statement that the University wanted to go into the meeting with the Regents on May 20th with all of their options open. Our City Attorney Joe De Raismes said that until that May 20th meeting the University told him that they did not want to prejudge any of the options. And those are two statements that are worth examining here as to whether or not they actually square with the facts.

We have persistently and repeated made the offer to the University to review with them the alternative option of the so-called French Proposal, the revised Cohagen Plan that you're all familiar with. We sent that to Mr. Takeuchi, we proposed to get together and meet with him. We were rebuffed in a letter about 6 weeks ago saying basically we don't want to talk to you. Both the University and the City Manager have refused to allow observers from the public to be present at their private discussions regarding this matter. So one has to really raise the question: Is the University really in good faith here in looking at all the options that are available to save the building or to dispose of the property.

The City Manager said tonight that he really believes that after listening to Vice-Chancellor Takeuchi for an hour and a half, that Mr. Takeuchi will present a very complete analysis of the full range of options available to the Regents. Now of course I'm not contesting what Tim is believing after talking with Stuart Takeuchi for an hour and a half. We've not been given even 1 1/2 minutes to talk with him. We have no way of evaluating what Stuart Takeuchi is doing on the French Proposal, whether he's even considering it, whether he's going to present it to the University, or whether the many serious financial problems with that proposal, which were presented to you at the March 16th meeting of the Council, will even be addressed, or whether they will be papered over. In particular, Charlie Demerit, 26 years vice-president of Financial Lending with Colorado National Bank, after having reviewed all the financial statements, which are the only ones existent at this point of ADG, prepared by Michael Weatherwax and by Gary Bird, made the statement which was read to you on March 16th, that this project is simply unfinanceable.

Historic Boulder, whose latest publication here on April 29 I received when I got back to town today in the mail, the only communication we've heard from them since we met with them about 6 weeks ago...this was the one that was mentioned by Bob Greenlee earlier tonight, purports to have made an exhaustive fact-finding statement here which describes the feasibility of saving the Academy structures. In that exhaustive statement no mention whatsoever is made the French Proposal, it's not even mentioned, and none of the problems that were presented to you on March 16th are addressed in any manner whatsoever.

So we have to wonder why is it that people keep persistently coming back with what seems to be a very bad proposal. Why are they not willing to even give fair consideration to this other perfectly feasible proposal that's already been approved once by the Planning Board in 1984? Well, one of the things that's come to my attention since March 16th, is that Jim Lease, who is the partner of Chris Shears, one of the architects here, made a statement to a young woman who is preparing a graduate project on this Academy situation, that they have already spent $600,000 on this project. That's a lot of money. And guess what? If this doesn't go forward, the principals are going to loose a lot of money. And who are those principals? Chris Shears, the architect, former president of Historic Boulder, current board member. Gary Bird, former law partner of Regent Chairman Peter Dietze. Who's the main financial guy here, maybe it was his $600,000 which was lost. Tom Surgine, lifetime client of Peter Dietze.

MAYOR DURGIN: Mr. Campbell, can I interrupt you for a second? I'm really quite uncomfortable with City Council meetings and television being used by speakers to...

CAMPBELL: Get the facts out?

DURGIN: No. No. Not at all. To criticize members of the community when they don't have an opportunity to respond.

CAMPBELL: They were here earlier. They've had plenty of opportunity to respond.

DURGIN: I'm just hoping what you could do sir, is to leave out some names and talk about the facts.

CAMPBELL: These are the facts. These are all a matter of public record. These have been spoken about before, and I think it's time that we kind of think about them again.

COUNCIL MEMBER POMERANCE: I'm interested to know... (interrupted)

DURGIN: I'm interested to know as well. I'm concerned about this becoming an opportunity, and we've had it a couple of times tonight, for people quoting other people when they don't have a chance. I'm just sort of raising an issue. You can think about it.

CAMPBELL: I'm going to make a quote right now, Mayor Durgin, that you can attest to. When Gary Berg was present at Sheila Khan's neighborhood meeting, our neighborhood meeting, you were there along with Councilwoman Martin. We raised the question to Gary Berg about our concern of what the University would do with this property on reversion, and Gary Berg, in an attempt to assuage us, and assure us that they would use it for all time as a congregate care facility, said, and I quote: "The University would be foolish to use this project on reversion, as anything other than a congregate care facility. This is a very lucrative market and this project should be a real money-maker." Now is that the kind of policy that we want to make in Boulder, to strip elderly who are fairly wealthy, who can pay $150,000 to $200,000 apiece of their deposit in their waning years, or do we want to give fair- minded consideration to other proposals like the one we've put forward, which shows an integrated community of elderly, families, and a community center. My question to you is: why does this ADG thing keep coming back and our French proposal get frozen out, over and over again? All we're asking for is good faith, fair consideration of all the options.

DURGIN: Thank you, Mr. Campbell. What I was going to suggest is that it's fine to talk if someone is in the room and can respond, but I'm concerned about people saying "I've heard that, X, Y and Z", when that person is not here. It's going on, over television, repeated a number of times in the community, and I think we have an equity issue.

COUNCIL MEMBER GREENLEE: The Mayor's made and perhaps some others, I don't know how we address the problem, and maybe we don't, But I think it would be helpful to think about some kind of written statement that we could provide, over here, about decorum, and what we think is proper sort of, information to be given to the council. I am really upset and getting somewhat sick about the way certain people conduct themselves in these chambers. You know, we all have issues that we care deeply about, but when it gets to the level of personal attacks and innuendo and everything else, I am very concerned. So I would like to take, Dick [Harris, Councilman and ACLU member], with deference to first amendment problems, perhaps a crack at, perhaps some other communities do this, and maybe we could just take a look at how other people may handle this.

CITY MANAGER HONEY: What you're suggesting is a set of protocols that we would just have available for everybody, and the Mayor [unintelligible] at the beginning of the meeting cite those...

GREENLEE: Make reference to it?

HONEY: Yea.

DURGIN: My concern was that, and it happened by one speaker in advance of the one that I finally reprimanded, and time ran out, so I was sort of saved by the bell, quite literally. But I think what happens is, the people watching at home say: "It was not objected to by Council, therefore, someone said it in a public hearing, therefore it must be true." And I'm very worried about "I heard a rumor that", and somehow that gets translated into truth. And I think we do a remarkable job on Council on treating each other and citizens, I hope, with respect and deference, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that same kind of behavior, but Joe, as I think Dick pointed out, we have to balance first amendment...

COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS: Absolutely

GREENLEE: And I like to sit here for most of these presentations, but quite frankly, when it gets to that level, I reserve the right to get up and leave and not listen.

COUNCIL MEMBER BJ MILLER: Sometimes there has been of late a tone of nastiness which, when it gets to that level, especially of personal attack...

GREENLEE: It's just not appropriate.

MILLER: ...is unpleasant.

COUNCIL MEMBER SALLY MARTIN: I think the most pragmatic thing to do, is to have a discussion with our audience about what is effective lobbying. Because if a person is here trying persuade us in their direction, to have personal attacks on us, on other audience members and on our staff, is the least effective way of lobbying, and I think if we can suggest that to people, and if they realize, I mean people can come and attack if they want to, but if they understand that it's going to get them, probably, the opposite reaction that they're hoping to get from us, and work toward some sort of positive statements. I noticed one person came to support something and never got around to it, because they were so, you know they never got around to the content of what they were trying to talk about, because they were so into criticism. That's not to say that we shouldn't be criticized because I think that certainly we don't do everything correctly, according to what everybody would want us to do, and I'm willing to take criticism, but I am concerned about ..sometimes we can speak back, but oftentimes our staff just sits there, and if we don't respond then other people may think that we agree with it... [my copy of tape runs out here -ed.]