by Mark Smiley | Oct 23, 2017 | Main Articles
by Ruthy Wexler
Late in August 2017 a Denver school burst onto the national stage when videos of an East High cheerleader crying in pain from “forced splits” went viral. Media anchors across the country expressed shock and assured viewers that Denver Public Schools (DPS) Superintendent Tom Boasberg had fired the coach. Following an investigation, Boasberg removed two longtime staff from the school and said East could “now move forward.” But the Chronicle discovered that DPS had stepped over the real story in its rush to craft one more to its liking — and throw blame as far away as pos
sible.
By the time Denver’s DA announced on October 14, 2017, that there was no basis to press criminal charges, three lives had been irrevocably upended.
How It Started
The videos that upset the world were taken in the first week of cheer camp, June 4-8. Ally Wakefield, the girl in the most-viewed video, showed it to her mother, who complained to East’s Athletic Director Lisa Porter.
On June 16, 2017, Porter met with the Wakefields, along with Principal Andy Mendelsberg, newly-hired Cheer Coach Ozell Williams and Vice Principal Terita Berry, a former Broncos cheerleader, who explained that the forced stretches were not uncommon in competitive sports, but she did not condone them.
Mendelsberg then instructed Williams to discontinue the forced splits. Williams agreed.
After school resumed in August, Porter invited all cheer parents to an August 24, 2017 meeting, where she, Mendelsberg and Berry would hear each parent’s c
oncerns “so we can all work together to support the East Cheer Team.”
But that meeting never took place because on August 22, someone sent the videos to Channel 9 News.
Escalation
“What gets me is that Channel 9 didn’t do any investigative reporting,” said a longtime East teacher. “Once they showed it, everything changed.”
On August 23, 2017, Channel 9 aired the video; immediately, Denver Police opened a criminal investigation and Boasberg placed five DPS staff, including Mendelsberg and Porter, on administrative leave.
On August 25, 2017, Boasberg terminated Ozell Williams and shared that DPS would hire an “outside law firm to conduct an independent investigation.”
On September 22, 2017, Boasberg announced that Andy Mendelsberg would retire and Lisa Porter had resigned. The just-submitted report, said Boasberg, showed the two “did not take the necessary steps to ensure that the physical and emotional health and safety of students on the cheer team was fully protected.”
We Could Have Explained!
“We all knew Andy had followed proper procedure,” said Paul Prendergast, one of many parents upset at Mendelsberg’s departure.
Mendelsberg told those who contacted him, he “could not talk.”
“It was all hush-hush, don’t ask questions,” said a longtime East teacher. “Then it’s, ‘Oh, we have a new principal, isn’t this wonderful.’”
At a September 25, 2017, East Parent Meeting, Boasberg introduced John Youngquist, a former East principal who would return to that position. Boasberg told the hushed crowd that “due to the ongoing criminal investigation” he could not answer questions.
“I need to tell you, this was one of the most painful situations I’ve faced as superintendent … Lisa and Andy are colleagues and friends. But the Independent Report laid out in painful detail how our students’ safety was not properly cared for.”
A month prior, at a meeting with Boasberg, one student asked him, “Did you ever try to talk to any of us cheerleaders?”
“No.”
“Why not?”
“Because I have two daughters and the video upset me,” said Boasberg.
“That got me so angry,” the cheerleader later recalled. “Because we could have explained so easily.”
Story Behind Videos
Cheer mom Darcelle Carter says, “If I wasn’t a sport person, I might sit on my couch, see that video and say ‘Oh how awful!’ But I know better. If someone took a video of my basketball coach in high school m
aking us do 30 suicides and all of us sweating and pleading … “
“Coaches push athletes,” said Nikki Higgs. “Cheerleading is now a very competitive sport. Not pom-poms and dress up. A majority of us parents loved how Coach Williams pushed our girls to excel.”
“Before the cheer camp, we’d gone to clinics and watched Ozell work with the girls,” said parent Ernest Higgs. “That’s where he demonstrated the stretch. No secret! We watched our daughter do the stretch. It hurt. But we understood, it was a coach pushing an athlete.”
Not Forced
“At camp, Coach O explained why the stretch helped, how it worked, that it might hurt,” said Aaliyah Ali.
“Coach went around and asked each girl if she wanted to do it,” said Shailee Morse. “It was voluntary. Not forced like the news said. Ally said she wanted to do it. The first time, she’s like, ‘I’m not comfortable.’ Ozell stopped. Then she wanted to do it again. They had a conversation. ‘If you do it, you gotta commit to being down for the full 30 seconds. Otherwise it won’t do you good.’ Ally said okay.”
“We all knew it would hurt,” said Nyla Higgs. “Coach said, whatever helps get us through, we should do, like cry, curse, whatever. Ally could stop at any time! But because of what she said before, we believed her crying was her way of getting through it. She never told us different.
“Afterwards, Coach went around and asked if anyone felt forced or bad about the stretch. No one did. Then we took a lunch break and danced the whole time, Ally too. That whole next week, we danced, went to Elitches, ran around.”
Lawsuits
“When it all came down, we were blindsided,” said cheer mom Annie Morse.
At least five sources attest they saw a post by Ally Wakefield on Facebook to the effect of: Watch how DPS will pay for my college tuition.
On CNN, Kristen Wakefield said, “[In that video] People are attacking my little girl and no one stopped them.”
“That’s for a lawsuit,” said one parent. “Attack? Don’t make me laugh.”
“Look at the video,” said cheer parent Darcelle Carter. “Those girls are holding her up.”
“Believe me, if you’ve got a pulled hamstring,” said Morse, “you don’t go dancing around like she did.”
“We’re not blaming [Ally], she’s too young to understand the consequences,” said Nikki Higgs.
The Wakefields’ lawyer did not respond to requests for comments.
Not So Independent
DPS now refers all questions about the cheerleading incident and its aftermath to the official Report of Investigation Concerning Matters Involving the Denver East High School 2017/ 2018 Cheer Team, posted helpfully online.
But many aspects of this supposedly definitive report are troubling.
Instead of the promised “outside” law firm, DPS hired Davis Graham & Stubbs (Davis Graham), which the District has been paying $100,000 per year, with Deputy Counsel Michael Hickman the main contact in real estate transactions. DPS General Counsel Jerome Deherrera was an attorney at Davis Graham.
“The blatant conflict of interest is appalling,” said a Denver attorney.
One East parent read the whole 30 pages, “… only because I thought, soon I’ll see the part that made them let Andy go. Nothing! I’m a professional and I tell you, this report did not make sense.”
“What disturbs us,” said Ernest Higgs, “is that we shared our thoughts in good faith with the investigators. But in the report, they mention the T-shirts we wore but left out our full comments. That’s not a real investigation.”
Three Lives
Being principal of East was Andy Mendelsberg’s dream job.
Now, at 49, he’s cut adrift from the work and kids he loved.
While on leave, Mendelsberg wrote a four-page letter to DPS, laying out in earnest detail how he’d done his job correctly. He’d followed procedure by speaking (on June 16, for 13 minutes) with the school’s Human Resources Officer Saundra Stanfield. He contacted DPS’s legal department on June 18, had a 19-minute conversation about the videos with Michael Hickman, who did not ask for the videos or mention abuse. When Mendelsberg expressed concern that the videos might go viral, Hickman replied, “I think the process outlined after that meeting will ameliorate the situation.”
In the official Davis Graham report, Hickman says he asked for the videos and Mendelsberg refused.
Interviewed on October 16, an emotional Mendelsberg stated, “That is simply a lie.”
Mendelsberg, at least, is getting “continued payment” — DPS refuses to call it a settlement — from the District.
Lisa Porter, about whom colleagues say, “This school was her life,” got nothing.
Ozell Williams’ reputation is smashed.
Before he came to East, Williams was known in the tumbling world as “an incredibly caring, talented coach,” says former student Hannah Shelput. “Everybody knows he is not that person depicted in the press.”
Over a dozen parents came forward to say how positively Williams’ coaching affected their children. “Ozell overcame obstacles. He gets very excited about others overcoming obstacles,” said Shalondra Haggerty.
Mariah Cladis, assistant coach at East, said, “I just wish people knew about the numerous meetings Ozell and I had. He got so excited about making the girls laugh or thinking how to steer them toward college.
“Maybe a little too ambitious for them sometimes, but oh, he would never hurt them. That’s not what was going on.”
Since DPS fired Williams, his business Mile High Tumblers has suffered. He’s had trouble finding work. Even reporting the ‘no basis for criminal charges’ story, media outlets continued to describe Williams as “the coach that physically forced girls into splits.”
“It’s like Ozell was just … a forgotten person,” said Carey. “How can you do that, leave someone behind in the dust?”
And For What?
To address this crisis, DPS hired the PR firm Ground Floor Media, Flynn Investigations, Davis Graham attorneys charging between $385 -$485 per hour for many hours of interviews; and made a substantial financial arrangement with Mendelsberg.
All the above is paid for with taxpayer money.
And for what?
“Why would DPS want to get rid of a principal who made East better and better until it was the most requested high school?” said parent Megan Ackley. “It doesn’t make sense.”
A source close to DPS said it does make sense. “Boasberg has been upset with East’s ever-increasing importance, how it keeps getting bigger. He wants to cut it back. And at such a visible high school, Boasberg prefers to have someone he can manage.”
From all accounts, Mendelsberg was an outspoken individual who let his teachers teach.
Did Boasberg see the cheerleading incident as a way to get rid of Mendelsberg?
Why didn’t the whole thing stop when Williams agreed “no more forced splits?”
Why did DPS cave to a few families’ threats of lawsuit? Why didn’t they — as Nikki Higgs plaintively asks, “… let the cheerleaders — the real eyewitnesses! — tell what really happened?”
As long as the Board remains silent, and DPS continues to shroud its doings in secrecy, we won’t know the answers.
by Mark Smiley | Oct 23, 2017 | Main Articles
Denver City Council Votes 8-5 In Favor
by Lisa Marlin
On a cool autumn Saturday morning in a northwest Denver neighborhood, children ran through leaves in their front yard, a young man walked a small dog down the sidewalk, and an older woman swept her front porch. If not for the modern clothing they wore and the kinds of cars parked along the curb, an outsider might think they’d stepped back in time because many of the houses here date back to the late 1800s and early 1900s. Most of the homes’ exteriors have changed little over time and now they never will, at least not substantially.
An 8-5 vote by the Denver City Council in their September 25, 2017, meeting approved the designation of a Landmark Historic District for Preservation of Packard’s Hill, making it the city’s 53rd historic district. Voting in favor of the historic district were councilmembers Brooks, Espinoza, Clark, Kashmann, Kniech, López, New and Ortega. Councilmembers Black, Flynn, Gilmore, Herndon and Susman voted against.
Located near Highland’s Square’s trendy shops and restaurants, the area is approximately within the bounds of Lowell Boulevard and Osceola Street between 32nd and 35th Avenues in West Highland.
The designation ensures the preservation of 173 older homes within the district, known as contributing structures. Demolition of the homes and new builds, while not forbidden, are now strictly limited. A month following the vote, residents on both sides of the issue talked about its impact.
“It means that we can walk up and down our neighborhood and continue to enjoy the fabulous history and character and feel that it is being honored by the city of Denver and the neighbors,” said Marie Benedix who has lived in the neighborhood 10 years. In 2015, Benedix began working with Historic Denver, in partnership with the West Highland Neighborhood Association (WHNA) that received a State Historical Fund grant to research and survey the neighborhood. She would garner 77 signatures of neighbors who supported the designation. She is relieved the ordinance passed.
But not everyone is pleased including Kevin O’Connell who bought a Victorian house here in 1995 with his wife, adding a contemporary home on an adjoining lot in 2003. “All the repairs you do on your house will cost more money,” he said, explaining how the designation adds steps to the city review process for exterior home improvements and additions. Furthermore, he said, “If something happens to our non-contributing structure, we can’t put it back the way it is.”
This is why he organized a group earlier this year called Keep West Highland Free. The group collected 75 signatures to petition against the designation. “We did everything we could in our power as a grass roots organization,” O’Connell said. “Unfortunately, the process is really stacked…”
The public hearing during the council meeting lasted five hours as 80 people representing both sides gave their views.
“With a split constituency, I have to ask myself, what are the consequences of this vote either way?” said Rafael Espinoza who represents Council District 1 where West Highland is located. He expressed surprise at the number of people in opposition, not having been given their petition until that night, but he felt that the criteria for historic designation had been met and it would be better overall for the area. “We’re losing history at an alarming clip. In the other conversations we’ve had about where all the demolitions in Denver are occurring, over 80% of them are in District 1. I believe as the LPC [Land Planning Commission], that it should go through.”
Also in favor was Wayne New of Council District 10. “I have the highest percentage of historic districts in the whole city. I have the high-end Country Club that loves their historic district as much as the moderate priced Alamo Placita. All I get is overwhelming support for their districts because it protects the character of their district. It does deter development that changes character.”
Mary Beth Susman of Council District 5, known for being in favor of high density development in virtually all cases, voted against it citing that the opposition did not have equal access to city resources to prepare their case. “I did speak with Planning last year to ask ‘let’s open this up and take a look because I think both sides should have access to the same city resources.’ I feel very strongly that compromise can be worked out.”
Kevin Flynn of Council District 2 also voted against it. “Because of the deep division in the community, I really believe that this needs more consensus so I believe I have to oppose this.”
A few weeks later, O’Connell said he is still taken back by the vote of the council. He is considering turning one of his homes into rental property, as some of his neighbors have told him they may do as well. “It took a lot of fight out of everyone. It lasted a long time and was a grinding process,” he said. “It has really torn the neighborhood apart.”
On the winning side, Benedix agreed that it was a lot of work, as did Marilyn Quinn from the WHNA design and preservation committee. She lives in the neighboring Ghost Historic District and helped prepare the application. “It has been all-consuming at times and we are very happy that the majority of council agreed with us,” Quinn said. Her committee is planning to offer free design review consultations to help homeowners with the historic guidelines, such as knowing that they can paint their homes any color they choose, but window and door replacements require design review, and contributing structures may only be demolished if economic hardship is established at a public hearing of the Landmark Commission.
Benedix said she’s generating ideas to make the history of Packard’s Hill more available to people who come to visit the area. “It is important to know we have these connections and ties to the people who came before us,” she said.
More information about the Packard’s Hill Historic District and links to the historic guidelines can be found at www.historicdenver.org/packards-hill-proposed-historic-district/.
by Mark Smiley | Sep 25, 2017 | Main Articles
by Mark Smiley
The unrelenting urbanization of the Cherry Creek and Country Club neighborhoods goes on unabated. The Cherry Creek Shopping Center announced that it had terminated the lease of the Safeway store on the northeast end of the mall where it had been a tenant for over a half century. The Shopping Center is separated from the the gigantic and highly controversial Country Club Tower and Gardens (the “Tower”) by the Denver Country Club green space.
The Tower is, in fact, two 30-story twin skyscrapers that block the view of the mountains for significant Cherry Creek and Country Club areas. The buildings have 533 apartment units, but inadequate parking according to experts which causes the overflow to jam the local streets. The Tower charges premium prices with small studio apartments going for $1,438 and two bedroom two bath units leasing out at $2,151.
With the help of the politically connected real estate lawyer Tom Ragonetti and the highly controversial and widely despised former City Councilman Chris Nevitt, developer Pat Broe received all of the applicable zoning, density and height restrictions waived by the City Council notwithstanding adamant opposition from local neighborhood groups. Critics charged that the parking provided is grossly inadequate and will result in the overflow making on-the-street parking difficult if not impossible on certain days. The Tower looms over the two and three story structures in the West Washington Park area. The massive Towers are slowly being occupied and are anticipated to create traffic nightmares on South Downing Street and Speer Boulevard.
One West Washington Park resident Pam Johnson stated, “Our neighborhood’s misery and degradation is Pat Broe’s monetary profit.”
On the other side of the Denver Country Club, Nick LeMasters, the general manager of the Shopping Center, in a press release stated that: “This move underscores the changes happening in the retail sector and the Cherry Creek shopping district as well as our commitment to Cherry Creek Shopping Center’s continued success as the region’s premier shopping destination.”
In a telephone interview with the Chronicle, LeMasters indicated that the Shopping Center had already budgeted a significant investment to redo and update the northeast portion of the Shopping Center where Safeway and Rite Aid wer
e once located. He also stated that the Shopping Center had longtime contractual commitments with a new tenant or tenants to take over the space after a complete redo of the area. LeMasters opined that a public announcement on the new tenant or tenants would likely occur late this year or early 2018.
The City and County of Denver has significantly reduced the parking requirements for new projects in the Cherry Creek and Country Club/West Washington Park area on the theory that it will cause people to abandon automobiles and take bicycles or public transportation instead, notwithstanding the fact there is no pub
lic transportation in this area of the city beyond RTD buses.
The lack of parking in Cherry Creek North due to minimal parking requirements by the City and County of Denver caused the Cherry Creek Shopping Center to install an elaborate paid parking system for anyone visiting the mall with a car for more than one hour. The paid parking resulted in a dramatic public outcry. (See Glendale Cherry Creek Chronicle April 2017 front page story “Denver City Planning Choking Cherry Creek Businesses.”)
While it has been steadily rumored that the Shopping Center intended to construct an apartment house or condominium on a portion of the Shopping Center’s land, General Manger LeMasters reiterated that was simply not true and that the Shopping Center was absolutely committed to being the premier retail shopping center in all of Denver and Colorado.
In fact, Safeway expressed a hope that it may return in some form to the Shopping Center, declaring, “We hope to be given an opportunity to return to the area as the mall considers redevelopment plans over the next several years.” Safeway’s long-term lease had terminated back in December 2015 and the store was apparently on a month to month basis since that time. Back in May 2015 Safeway told the Chronicle that, “We look forward to serving our customers in this neighborhood for years to come.”
The Cherry Creek area was once considered a low density and quaint area, but that is all in the past. It is expected that downtown Denver and the Cherry Creek area will be merged. Already Speer Boulevard from Downing to downtown is becoming canyon-like with increasing high buildings crowding both sides of the road.
It is anticipated that the single-family homes in the Country Club area will disappear similar to what happened to once stately homes along Sherman Street and Colfax Avenue 100 years ago. It is also anticipated that the Denver Country Club which has been at its location since 1905 will move outside the City and County of
Denver as it is slowly surrounded by massive apartment buildings.
Critics indicate that Denver under Mayor Hancock has ceased to be a “Cow Town” but what will replace it will be a typical high density and, in many areas, an unpleasant concrete jungle.
by Mark Smiley | Sep 25, 2017 | Main Articles
Some Residents, Users Say The Revamped Loop Road Completed This Summer Is A Travesty
by Glen Richardson
Denver’s Washington Park was acquired in increments between 1899 and 1904 and designed in stages by Reinhard Schuetz as a green space of lakes, gardens, trees, open area and vistas to be peacefully and quietly enjoyed by the public. “Denver’s Parks & Recreation has un-greened the park by painting red, green and white lines on pavement everywhere and installing controlling signs and stanchions to herd pedestrians, facilitate autos and especially bicycle passage,” declares resident Frank Hegner.
Hegner is talking about the 2.2-mile stretch of pavement known as the Loop Road that encircles the park. Changes and a new addition to the route completed this summer threw him and hundreds of other park users for a loop. He tells the Chronicle, “It is only a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt in these merging, confusing lanes of unsightly, costly insanity.”
It is the addition of a third lane not familiar to pedestrians and bicyclists that upset users the most. It’s a “bicycle alley” created by the city as a new fast lane designed especially for them, many tell the Chronicle. “You’d think there was a race track out there,” says David Matthews. He should know, he’s been walking and pedaling the route for 45 years and is a board member of the West Wash Park Neighborhood Assn. In addition to the fast lane the city has painted 150 new stencils on the asphalt path, installed 100 vertical signs explaining the new layout and erected a series of barriers to block cars from turning onto the loop. All at a cost of nearly a quarter of a million dollars.
Political Process
Denver Parks & Recreation’s response is that the changes were made based on comments from residents. “It’s not something we invented,” retorts project supervisor Jason Himick. It is true the parks department listened to residents at three public meetings plus published a 100-page report outlining the plans. In rejoinder, many users tell the Chronicle, “It’s part of the political process whether for a proposed urban development or planned park changes, but the City’s strategy policy always remains unchanged.”
One unidentified speaker at the public meetings even appeared to warn attendees that Parks & Recreation were only practicing a political process: “I’ve had enough experience in the world and as an attorney to know that once consultants are hired, somebody has made up their mind to do something. I would urge that as little as possible be done.” Belinda Bagley who lives on South Franklin says the most accurate statement made by department consultants during those meetings was that the majority of people who use the Park were satisfied with it and did not wish to see it changed. At those meetings she pointed out, “Most of the time the park is not crowded. There are a few peak times when congestion might cause various difficulties, but that is the exception rather than the rule.”
There are, of course, those that are happy with the changes including Tim McHugh, President of FANs (Friends & Neighbors of Wash Park). He says the process included, “a wide variety of park users who consider th
e best interests of all who use the Loop Road.” Frank Miltenberger — another park stakeholder — believes the process was fair, though not everyone got everything they wanted.
Safety Concerns Overlooked
The single thing residents and users at the public meetings seemed to agree on was that speed is a worry. “Slow is safe,” many suggested. Furthermore, a number of people spoke about concerns, even fear, of bicycles moving at fast speeds. “Anyone moving at speeds that do not allow for quick stops or turns is a concern. The slower the safer,” warned Glen Legowik.
Matthews — the FANs board member who objects to the changes because of bike speed — personally witnessed a serious accident when a bicyclist entering the park from Marion Parkway hit a car coming out. He’s seen less serious altercations among bicyclists and pedestrians when one strays into the other’s lane. “There just need to be a few things that say, ‘slow down, it’s not a race track.’ I’m not at all against people riding their bikes here, but we’ve got to have some way to do it safely.”
As for the signage, Humboldt Street’s Jenna Moore admits the former one-way arrows confused people. But she says all that was needed was to paint an additional arrow pointing the opposite direction where the original pedestrian arrows were painted. Similarly, signage that informed cyclists that they need to stay in their lane would have helped.
Baffling Symbols
For Washington Park Loop Road bikers, walkers, runners, rollerbl
ading, and dogs this is what the lanes ahead now look like: The two outer lanes are for one-way wheeled traffic only, each marked by a bicycle and a rollerblade stencil. Unfortunately, however, many are confusing the rollerblade symbol as a footprint-marker indicating use for pedestrian traffic.
The outermost lane is slower; the middle lane is for passing. In at least one stretch the middle lanes open up to car traffic, too. The pedestrian lane, closest to the park interior, has a pedestrian symbol and is reserved for foot traffic and leashed dogs walking in both directions.
Critic Matthews suggests that adding the new lane has squeezed pedestrians to one side. Furthermore, he notes the entire metro area has 10-foot bike paths for two-way traffic but all of a sudden 18-feet is required in Wash Park.
Flawed Process
Ultimately many Washington Park residents feel they were in some sense conned once again by the Hancock Administration generally and the Parks & Recreation Department specifically. Many believe that the administration is attempting to control traffic by making owning an automobile a difficult and expensive proposition.
The transportation alternative preferred by the administration for most people is either bicycles or public transportation. Thus when the Wash Park Loop was being conceptualized the city’s preference for bicycles overrode any input from local residents at the meetings concerning pedestrian travel.
What were all those meetings about?” demanded Matthews of the Deputy Manager of Parks & Recreation Scott Gilmore, who off
ered to “remove some curb” at the narrowest points in the pedestrian lane. (Parks & Recreation later did this.)
But Matthews was angry. “Sc
ott, you took the side of the bikes. They have 18 feet! What about the people?”
Gilmore finally retorted that there were many other paths for people to walk on in Washington Park.
“What I’ve found in this job,” Gilmore said wearily, “is that you can never please everyone. Never. They wanted a safer road. It is so much safer.”
Gilmore did acknowledge he could have “communicated more fully” at various points. “But nobody likes change.”
Back in 2014, the stakeholders asked that the Loop Road’s essential nature not be changed — and that everyone who wanted to use it be accommodated.
It appears Parks & Recreation saw both things weren’t exactly possible. Residents argue that with more honest communication, stakeholders could have been true partners in envisioning the outcome — instead of, as Matthews feared, “being just used to show there was public input.”
administration.
Judge Arthur Goldberg ruled that “the loss of a mature (tree) canopy is materially detrimental to the habitat and the neighborhood,” that the project could imperil the course’s historic status, and that he hated to see it closed for construction. Nonetheless, he ruled in favor of the City and County of Denver over its citizens once again. The City and County of Denver has never lost a lawsuit
brought by citizens over parks and open space destruction during the entire Hancock Administration.
