March 3, 2005 PAGE 196
MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING & REGULAR MEETING
The Montrose City Council met for Regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. on the 3rd day of March 2005. Council met at City Hall, 102 S. 2nd St. pursuant to law with Mayor Ronald Dinwiddie presiding and the following Council members present: Brisby, Holland, Junkins, and Slater. Roberts was absent.
Call to Order. Regular meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Agenda. Moved by Holland, seconded by Slater to approve Agenda without Item No. 2 under New Business. All ayes. Motion declared carried.
Page 197 MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 3, 2005, PAGE 2
Ordinance No. 191. Councilwoman Brisby says we had a building inspector at one time. Dinwiddie says we don’t have one now because the City didn’t want to be responsible if they inspected a home and something happened. Brisby also states the City had a building code at one time. Dinwiddie says that code was from the 1980’s. We are now adopting the International Building Code. He says even if we don’t have a building inspector, if someone has a complaint the City could enforce the International Code. Moved by Holland, seconded by Slater to pass on first reading AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MONTROSE, IOWA 2003 BY AMENDING PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO CHAPTER 50 SO AS TO PROVIDE A NUISANCE CODE FOR NUISANCE ENFORCEMENT. Roll call voting 4-0. Brisby, aye; Roberts, absent; Slater, aye; Junkins, aye; Holland, aye. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Ordinance No. 192. Moved by Holland, seconded by Brisby to pass on first reading AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MONTROSE, IOWA 2003 BY ADOPTING THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE. Roll call voting 3-1. Junkins, aye; Slater, nay; Brisby, aye; Roberts, absent; Holland, aye. Motion declared carried.
Ordinance No. 193. Moved by Holland, seconded by Junkins, to pass on first reading AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MONTROSE, IOWA 2003 BY ADOPTING THE UNIFORM CODE ON ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS. Roll call voting 4-0. Roberts, absent; Brisby, aye; Holland, aye; Slater, aye; Junkins, aye. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Ordinance No. 194. Councilman Holland says the Fire Department doesn’t have the Fire Code books. They do not do inspections because of the liability. He says the City can ask the State Fire Marshal to inspect a building if needed. Moved by Holland, seconded by Brisby to pass on first reading AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MONTROSE, IOWA 2003 BY ADOPTING THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE. Roll call voting 4-0.
Slater, aye; Junkins, aye; Holland, aye; Roberts, absent; Brisby, aye. Motion declared carried unanimously.
Ordinance No. 195. Dinwiddie says the City is responsible for the trees between the sidewalk and the street. Moved by Holland, seconded by Junkins to pass on first reading AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MONTROSE, IOWA 2003 BY AMENDING TREES. Roll call voting 3-1. Holland, aye; Brisby, aye; Junkins, aye; Roberts, absent; Slater, any. Motion declared carried.
Hiring Police Chief. Clerk/Treasurer Cirinna says she received ten applications. All had been notified of the physical given by the Sheriff’s Office on March 10, 2005 at Central Lee. Council will meet at 5:00 p.m. on March 10, 2005 to review applications of the persons who have passed.
Dinwiddie went to the ILEA Records Requirement School. He says they realize not all towns hire a Police Chief the proper way. The City will now follow ILEA hiring standards. First there is a physical, the first interview, the MMPI and a second interview; all the while weeding out applicants.
Hiring Reserve Officers. Dinwiddie says we should wait. Kent Rubey concurred, saying we should wait until a Chief is hired.
Authors Note: The City ordinances code does include nuisance drainage ordinance. That code was never recognized when Mark Conlee’s illegal property redevelopment was diverting a significant amount more of stormwater onto my property, causing adverse effects to my property. Including uncontrollable flooding and loss of value. The Mayor states the city could enforce the State uniform building code if needed. There was no effort to do that when Conlee was in violation. The Mayor is mistaken, the city is responsible for any damages due to negligence of the city. Any city who issues building permits, has an appointed building official (in this case Mark Holland) is obligated to oversee compliance to State building code and drainage laws. It is my opinion the Mayor was making this statement to dumb down the citizens attending this meeting. Are people really ignorant to believe these falsehoods? Are there no experts that have access to my posts. Nobody has an educated opinion. WTH is wrong with people who are silent when a brutal intentional attack has taken place against a neighbor, friend and fellow citizen? Any opinion is welcome. If anyone has evidence that a City can legally issue a building permit, have an appointed building official and not be responsible for damages occurred due to the building officials failure to address the concerns of a neighboring property owner, not review the building plans and assure compliance to State building code the show me what I do not know about. Just say something about any of the information I have and will continue to post. I believe the actions of my local government officials are criminal. In violation of my State and Federal Constitutional Rights. I am angry that nobody locally has answered even one of my questions. Now I am posting it publically and nobody has an opinion. GRRRR.
Evidence based on hearsay, “Mark Conlee says” when my evidence was hard copy documents, photos and witnesses described as “experts in their own right” and compelling list of witnesses in its own right.
APRIL 7, 2005, PAGE 204 MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING PAGE 2
1. Drainage ditch. Mark Conlee spoke with Council regarding runoff from his property into a neighbor’s yard. He says Craig Junkins dug a trench and all is well now.
a. Standard procedure would be that the complainant would confirm whether an issue has been resolved.
b. Mark Conlee saying all is well now was far from the truth. Nothing had changed at all.
c. There was no excavation of a ditch in front of the Conlee property. Easily detected with the naked eye
d. The drainage problem was caused by the non conforming in size of the new structures and illegal change of the frontage of Conlee’s property. Easily detected with the naked eye.
May-5-2005 MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING
2. Councilman Junkins said he talked to Mark Conlee and according to Mr. Conlee his lawyer told him there wasn’t a problem.
a. Jeff Junkins has an existing conflict of interest as he is a fellow employee of Mark and Linda Conlee.
b. Junkins made this statement at a public meeting as if it were a fact, possibly giving the general public attending a false opinion of the law.
c. The lawyer Conlee is speaking of, is not a lawyer at all, he is misrepresenting his brother, Lee County Detective Bob Conlee to be a lawyer. Conlee did not seek legal advice from a licensed attorney until later in the year.
OCTOBER 6, 2005 MONTROSE COUNCIL MEETING
3. He (Mark Conlee) said her fence blew over during a recent storm.
a. Mark Conlee is lying about my curtain blowing over, had that of happened he would have had pictures for evidence
4. Conlee says there is a lot of traffic there.
a. Mark Conlee has no view of my driveway from any spot on his property.
b. He fails to mention there is a 4 way stop on my corner. Everyone stops at that corner from any direction.
c. He is defaming my character to be involved with illegal drug activity to collude with his brother’s, Lee County Detective Bob Conlee’s, defaming statements about my character.
d. The fact that I operated a successful upholstery business does bring clients to my home, however it’s not a lot of traffic.
5. Conlee stated Mark Holland told him he could put a fence on his side of the line he shares with Melody Boatner.
a. By making this statement Conlee indicates Holland has responded to his questions.
b. In my complaints against Conlee’s redevelopment, Holland refused his appointed duty.
c. Holland stated that he had no intention of addressing my concerns about the nuisance drainage caused by the illegal redevelopment.
6. He (Mark Conlee) says he has put weed killer on his side of the fence.
a. Photo evidence proves this is a false statement made by Mark Conlee
7. He states Melody Boatner has put a black curtain on an insecure structure.
a. I did put a privacy curtain up, however it was not insecure. I was well within my rights to install a privacy curtain. I have the right to enjoy my own property. However what I could control on my own property was very little without taking up arms. I have the right to take up arms to defend my property and my person. Being a reasonable person I expected the law to intervene they did, but not upholding the law, what they did was in violation of State and Federal law.
b. Mr. Conlee made a habit of hollering across the yard at me telling me that he was over the setbacks and such. Out of sight, out of mind.
c. He would make sure my customers saw him by walking to the center of his yard by giving them an intense look of disapproval. This made my customers uneasy. His actions were not that of a reasonable normal person.
d. Had Conlee not been allowed to violate the law and change the frontage of his property to be the alley he may not have had the impression that my backyard was his backyard. It is actually his side yard. He committed perjury in his civil case against me stating he did not change the frontage of his property.
e. Conlee has no backyard to speak of as his entire property lot is filled with oversized structures that overfill his allotted space.
8. Conlee says Boatner has broken the law with her wording.
a.This is another false statement made in a public forum for the purpose of giving the community an unfavorable opinion of my character.
b. I was well within my right to post “Do not spray weed poison on my property.
c.The sign was on my property
9. Conlee says the black plastic on the lawn is a nuisance.
a. There is no ordinance stating black plastic is a nuisance, the material was not black plastic it was commercial landscape fabric.
10. The Conlee’s say they have never had words with her and they have done nothing wrong.
a. He has had words with me such as hollering across the yard to inform me that he was over the setbacks.
b.He along with the police chief acting as a witness advised me that he was going to violate the civil court ruling that cited my right to enjoy my property, by physically moving the landscape timbers I had placed on my side of the common boundary to divert the excessive stormwater runoff that he intentionally diverted onto my property.
c. They have violated every law in the book regarding redeveloping a legally nonconforming property.
d. However it is the duty of the City of Montrose to oversee that the redevelopment is compliant to State law.
e. The false statements he made to the public defaming my character were enough to give an unfavorable opinion of the general public, I was unable to wear clothes and was unable to function enough to publicly challenge him on his false statements. Not that I have the duty to hold him accountable to the law, that is the duty of law enforcement and the city.
11. They were attacked with the writing on the curtain and are emotionally upset.
a. This is not even debateable, I had every right to post “do not spray” and to install a privacy curtain
b. At the time there was no city fence ordinance.
c. I was physically and emotionally and financially destroyed by the intentional terrorist acts committed against me by Mark Conlee and his conspirators of local government authorities. Using chemicals as a weapon is according to law an act of terrorism.
d. My right to equal protection of the law was violated by the criminal offenses committed by Conlee and the other officials who acted on his behalf.
e. Evidence shows Conlee was actually advised by Mayor Dinwiddie not to encroach on the property line, to set the fence back from it. Conlee did not take Mayor Dinwiddies advice. Conlee installed his wooden fence with the wrong side out, however no person ever made him do it correct and compliant to State building code.
e. Conspiracy against rights and Deprivation of rights under color of law. Both of which are violations of Federal law.
12. According to Chief of Police Brent Shipman the reason he acted as a witness that Mark Conlee gave me advance verbal notice that he was going to violate the civil court order was because “Mark Conlee told him” that the wooded staubs I had put as markers 36″ away from the common boundary were survey markers.
- a. Police Chief told me this several hours after he acted as a witness for Conlee giving me advanced verbal notice
- b. Who would take a man’s word for something knowing there was a civil dispute between the parties involved
- c. Police Chief also advised me that Mark Conlee told him that I had paid for half of the survey. Complete fabrication, Conlee stated in court that he was going to have a survey done, he never did. I certainly did not pay for half of it.
- d. How ignorant for any reasonable adult to believe a survey marker is made from wood, wood rots. Survey markers are metal and do not rot away.
- e. It is hard to decide if Shipman is fabricating this information about Conlee or if Conlee actually told his this fabricated story. Chief Shipman had issues with being truthful early on in his short career as City of Montrose Police Chief. He was given the option of resigning and the City would give him a favorable recommendation at whatever department hired him next or he would be terminated for ethical violations. He slipped his resignation under the door of City Hall. He was hired as an officer in the Quad Cities, I believe Davenport but not positive. The staubs are 1½” X 8″ commonly used by construction companies.
- f. On one of the occasions when the city charged me with frivolous charges Officer Shipman was in the courtroom and made the statement that “he was wrangled into filing the complaint against me.” The city attorney immediately requested the judge to dismiss the case and the City of Montrose, Ia would pay all court fees. I never had to utter one word.
PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS:
A Leadership Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement
Protecting Civil Rights: A Leadership Imperative
All law enforcement leaders recognize the ethical and legal imperatives to which they and their officers must adhere to ensure that civil rights of all individuals in their communities are protected. Law enforcement officers, in fact, are the most visible and largest contingent of the nation’s guardians of civil rights. Every police officer commits to upholding the nation’s prime guarantor of rights, the U.S. Constitution, when sworn into office. To be effective, a police department and its individual officers must be seen primarily as protectors of civil rights, rather than agents of social control whose main purpose is to limit individual freedoms. The effectiveness of police in their varied missions—from law enforcement to community service—depends on the trust and confidence of the community. Public trust and confidence are severely reduced when individuals’ civil rights are compromised. And when any community perceives that its civil rights are systematically violated by the police, all sense of trust, cooperation, and partnership between the police and that community will be undermined. Understanding these ethical imperatives, law enforcement leaders must be continually vigilant to ensure that the actions of their officers do not violate civil rights and do not compromise public support. Officers are granted a tremendous amount of authority and discretion to enforce the law, that is, to protect individual rights from being infringed upon by others in the community. At the same time, officers themselves must act within the confines of the Constitution while executing their tremendous power and wide discretion. They must never consider themselves above the law while executing their responsibility to enforce the law. This commitment is what distinguishes police in constitutionally based, democratic societies like ours from police in nondemocratic countries, where they too often are perceived as oppressive agents of a government whose main purpose is to restrict, rather than protect, the rights of civilians.
Across the United States, law enforcement personnel have an overwhelmingly positive record of accomplishment for respecting and protecting civil rights. Leaders should find it heartening and a source of pride that the vast majority of the countless interactions that officers have with civilians result in actions that are conducted lawfully, professionally, and within constitutional boundaries. The fact that the overwhelming majority of police officers routinely respect civil rights under the most trying and volatile conditions is remarkable. Given the risks inherent in police work and the grave consequences that can occur when civil rights are violated, law enforcement leaders must be unwavering in holding their officers accountable. Their officers are vested with authority and discretion that can be abused. Unlike any other profession, the possibility of violating civil rights, or being perceived as violating civil rights, is inherent in many of the duties officers are required to perform on a day-to-day basis. Unfortunately, the notoriety and harm that arise from even isolated instances of civil rights violations can easily overshadow the vast majority of police-civilian encounters that are performed respectfully and professionally. Law enforcement leaders bear the tremendous responsibility to ensure that individual officers and units within their agencies uphold the law and its most basic guarantees.
Realistically, law enforcement leaders recognize that on rare occasions officers will violate a civilian’s civil rights, wittingly or unwittingly. On even rarer occasions, groups of officers or small factions within an agency may act without regard for civil rights, perhaps even asserting that effective law enforcement can come only at the expense of civil rights. Leaders must be resolute in their responses to isolated incidents of civil rights violations to minimize damage and set a clear example. In the case of officers who systematically violate civil rights, their behavior must not be tolerated and action must be decisive and uncompromising.
Effective leaders, supported by the managers who serve them, must strive to identify and intervene when officers exhibit potentially problematic behavior before it escalates to the point of violating civil rights. Against this backdrop, the seriousness of law enforcement leaders’ responsibility to communicate a consistent and far-reaching commitment to civil rights protections cannot be overstated. Although laws, departmental policy directives, and standard operating procedures are critically important, law enforcement executives’ leadership and communication skills are the most critical elements for ensuring that officers regularly exercise sound judgment and engage in professional and ethical policing. Law enforcement leaders can and must demonstrate a fundamental and complete allegiance to civil rights protections in a coordinated manner using multiple approaches. They must clearly convey a simultaneous commitment to effective law enforcement and civil rights protection; they must codify this commitment in their agency’s mission statements; they must ensure that their department’s policies are clear, sound, and consistent with civil rights guarantees; they must train and supervise officers in manners that are consistent with this commitment; and they must respond to alleged civil rights violations with vigilance and with fair and decisive action. As law enforcement leaders succeed in these regards and make these efforts transparent to the public, they validate the core premise that civil rights protection is not only an ethical and legal imperative but a practical imperative as well. Protecting civil rights is good for police, good for the community, and essential for maintaining the partnerships that must exist between the two.
Federal Investigations: A Response to “Patterns or Practices” of Civil Rights Violations Despite the ethical, legal, and practical imperatives to protect civil rights, law enforcement officers occasionally abrogate their oaths. When these unwitting or intentional violations of citizens’ civil rights go unaddressed, they can escalate into more widespread patterns or practices of civil rights violations that can undermine the credibility of an entire law enforcement agency and erode public trust and confidence. Moving beyond isolated instances, pattern or practice violations of civil rights comprise an urgent call to law enforcement executives and the municipal, county, or state governments under which they serve to reassume the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that officers uphold their oaths of office and adherence to constitutional guarantees.
During the last decade, the federal government has responded to such situations in the rare, but urgent circumstances where allegations of pattern or practice civil rights violations have arisen. The passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law No: 103-322) enabled the federal government to take action to remedy any pattern or practice of conduct by state and local law enforcement agencies “that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” In response to this enabling legislation, the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice assumed the responsibility for investigating alleged pattern or practice civil rights violations and for establishing remedies to such violations.
During the last decade, the Special Litigation Section has investigated an array of alleged pattern or practice civil rights violations including the following:
- Unlawful or excessive use of force
- Inadequate training on use-of-force techniques
- Racial profiling
- Illegal stops and searches
- Intimidation by police
- Harassment of civilians in retaliation for reported misconduct
- Inadequate supervision
- Failure to investigate alleged officer misconduct.
Investigations by the Special Litigation Section resulting in a determination of actionable civil rights violations generally have been resolved through negotiated agreements in the form of memorandums of agreement (MOA) or consent decrees. Through such agreements, the federal government and law enforcement agencies agree to a course of action to correct the patterns of civil rights violations and to remedy the conditions that allowed the violations to occur. Since 1994, 14 agencies have been or currently are under federal monitoring as a result of civil rights violation investigations. While these 14 agencies represent an infinitesimal fraction of the country’s nearly 18,000 state, county, local, tribal, and special jurisdictional law enforcement agencies, the impact of these federal investigations and agreements has been and continues to be profound and far-reaching.
Oh my this would be similar to the criminal offenses committed by City of Montrose, Ia clerk Celeste Cirinna. City of Montrose. Ia clerk Celeste Cirinna
“When elected officials engage in corruption it erodes public confidence in our democratic system of government,” said Dana J. Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. “Burfoot’s well-publicized criminal exploits have eroded public confidence in how their tax dollars are used and managed, and his selfish actions feed the worst perceptions about public employees, of whom the vast majority perform their duties selflessly and admirably. I want to thank the Assistant United States Attorneys and the FBI for their diligence and dedication in pursuing this important case.”
Existing Conflicts of Interest between the individual local government officials in regard to the illegal property redevelopment, illegally issued building permits, intentional negligence by Appointed Building Official Mark Holland. Named as a relevant issue for warranting a public corruption investigation by the FBI.
Conflict of Interest existing between named Government officials
Mayor Ron Dinwiddie Seller Lot 105 N 5th St Buyer Mark Conlee
Members on Montrose Volunteer Fire Department, (relevant due to suspicious fire)
Mayor Ron Dinwiddie Mark Conlee
Council Member/BCA, Fire Chief Mark Holland Council Member Jeff Junkins
Council Member Jeff Junkins Council Member Mark Conlee Linda Conlee
Lee Co. Detective Robert (Bob) Conlee Siblings Mark Conlee
Council Member Mark Holland Siblings Member Judy Brisby
Lee County FEMA Officer Steve Cirinna spouses City Clerk Celeste Cirinna
City of Montrose and Lee County, Iowa Law Enforcement\
Lee Co. Detective Robert Conlee special relationship Lee Co. Attorney Michael Short
Lee Co. Dep. David Hunold special relationship. Montrose Police Chief Karl Judd
Montrose Chief of Police Brent Shipman Lee County FEMA Officer Steve Cirinna
After being told by Mayor Dinwiddie that this was a private issue I went to City Hall. I got copies of the building permits on file for Mark Conlees new garage and his new home. This one for his new home.
I hired Steve Swan to sue the City of Montrose in July 2005. This is not typical for a neighbor to have to do, the building authority has the duty to address residents concerns regarding nuisance drainage issues caused by new property redevelopment. He sent this letter to Conlee that afternoon. He lied by continuing to claim he filed a complaint against the City of Montrose. He stated that we would sue both parties, the City is where the money is at. Based on the fact that the building permits are illegal, the redevelopment of the legally non conforming property is illegal I knew full well who the liable party was. So what does his failure to represent my best interests fall in the justice system. An investigation would be required to find that evidence. The evidence supports the least of his immoral, unethical behavior is legal malpractice. This could be due to his physical disabilities, This man is morbidly obese. For him to actually get to the courthouse to file a complaint on behalf of a client has to be extremely difficult for him. He had to set on four chairs in the courtroom. I filed a complaint but of course the sided with Swan, We agreed to barter services for this case, after which he sent me a bill for $4000.00. I never was billed after I filed the complaint. Is it not the his responsibility to present evidence and question witnesses? He never did that either. I believe the evidence supports his actions are within that of a co-conspirator.
Evidence that was withheld or suppressed by City officials and Lee County attorney that proves ethical and criminal offenses have been committed against me.Evidence that was withheld or suppressed by City officials and Lee County attorney that proves ethical and criminal offenses have been committed against me. Evidence that was withheld or suppressed by City officials and Lee County attorney that proves ethical and criminal offenses have been committed against me.
Suppressed and previously withheld from the civil case Conlee vs Boatner EQEQ