Westminster, CO

Jefferson County Public Schools opened for the new year last week, but 16 of the schools that formerly held kids are now closed due to low enrollment. One of those schools was given back to the city of Westminster.

Sheridan Green was an elementary school. Now it is more than 40,000 square feet of imagination.

"The developer who built this neighborhood wanted it to be a community asset," said Westminster City Council Member Bruce Baker. He feels the old Municipal Court should go and be replaced at the school.

"I don't think most of the citizens in this neighborhood really know we need a new court building," Baker explained.

That is just one of the ideas being put forward. The broad options are to keep for the community or to sell it.

The Rocky Mountain Community Presbyterian Church in Westminster would like to buy it for its congregation.

Other suggestions have been pouring in, including;

Some people indicated they don't want any more housing, while others requested pickleball facilities.

The city posted two "concepts" on its webpage.

"One (idea) is to basically sell it to a church, and the other is to turn it into a recreational space," Baker said.

He feels that decisions have already been made, but Westminster spokesman Andy Le told CBS News Colorado, "we are in the preliminary stages of studying the reuse of Sheridan Green. Westminster doesn't own the building until Sept. 1, and it would be immature for the city to have a fixed idea of its reuse. Much like a house, you wouldn't plan the remodel until you took ownership of the property, and run it through with a fine-tooth comb."

He added that the community does not want a courthouse in the neighborhood.

On Thursday at 6 p.m., an open meeting will be held at the school to further discuss whether to make something out of Sheridan Green or take the "green."

Rick Sallinger

Rick Sallinger is a reporter for CBS News Colorado. Read his latest reports or check out his bio and send him an email.

Twitter

With the tentative approval of a 2-year contract, Westminster Public Schools and the Westminster Education Association will keep their starting teacher salaries at the highest level in the state. Under the proposal, first-year teachers will earn $60,935.

According to the agreement, the salary schedule incentivizes teachers to further their own education. Current teachers will receive a 3% pay raise along with an increase tied to licensed steps and continuing education. The second year of the contract has a similar increase and allows teachers who have earned a doctorate degree to earn up to $120,000 a year.

"This is a good agreement for our staff, our community and most importantly for our students," said Superintendent Pam Swanson in a statement. "When the community approved our mill levy override in 2018, we promised taxpayers that we would focus on attracting and retaining high quality staff. This agreement does just that."

In addition to teacher salary increases, the school said that WPS Education Support Professionals (ESP) will receive a 3% pay increase and agreed-upon steps that will ensure they are among the highest-paid public school employees in the state. Last year, WPS raised the minimum wage to $20 an hour.

CBSColorado.com Staff

The staff at CBS News Colorado is Covering Colorado First. Meet the news team or contact us.

With the tentative approval of a 2-year contract, Westminster Public Schools and the Westminster Education Association will keep their starting teacher salaries at the highest level in the state. Under the proposal, first-year teachers will earn $60,935.

According to the agreement, the salary schedule incentivizes teachers to further their own education. Current teachers will receive a 3% pay raise along with an increase tied to licensed steps and continuing education. The second year of the contract has a similar increase and allows teachers who have earned a doctorate degree to earn up to $120,000 a year.

"This is a good agreement for our staff, our community and most importantly for our students," said Superintendent Pam Swanson in a statement. "When the community approved our mill levy override in 2018, we promised taxpayers that we would focus on attracting and retaining high quality staff. This agreement does just that."

In addition to teacher salary increases, the school said that WPS Education Support Professionals (ESP) will receive a 3% pay increase and agreed-upon steps that will ensure they are among the highest-paid public school employees in the state. Last year, WPS raised the minimum wage to $20 an hour.

CBSColorado.com Staff

The staff at CBS News Colorado is Covering Colorado First. Meet the news team or contact us.

Tax expert warns details about high-profile people in politics often remain hidden from public view

Dan Neidle speaking at the ‘lefty lawyers’ fringe event at the Labour Party conference

IT’S about time somebody spelt out the truth in simple terms about how our libel laws often do more harm than good.

So step forward tax expert Dan Neidle who appeared at a self-proclaimed “lefty lawyers” fringe event at the Labour Party conference and warned that important details about high-profile people in politics often remained hidden from public view.

He has had his own brush with legal threats after writing about former chancellor Nadhim Zahawi’s tax affairs and ending up with a warning that he would be sued for his remarks. But the case became characterised as a SLAPP – standing for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation – and Zahawi, who you probably haven’t heard much of recently, had picked on the wrong guy. Mr Neidle stood by everything he had written about offshore accounts and so on, and used his expertise to avoid what might have been a very long and very expensive legal case.

But speaking to a packed audience in the appropriately named Revolution bar on Tuesday, the lawyer urged an incoming Labour government to shake things up, and help open up the secrets behind those running the country.

Given they are the ones who will no doubt be running the country and therefore face the greatest press scrutiny, perhaps Sir Keir Starmer and co may not be as eager to change the rules as Mr Neidle would like.

But they should be at least interested in what he is saying. Even in the world of local newspapers the Westminster Extra has, over the years, been unable to print everything that readers deserved to know.

Silence on important allegations can sometimes be because the cost of even preparing a response against a single legal letter is a drain on ever-shortening budgets. Even if a newspaper knows that it has a 95 per cent chance of defending itself in court, the cost of getting to that stage would risk bankrupting a small title. In those situations, the wealthy can insulate themselves.

“If you are an individual it is irrational to persist with an accusation against someone wealthy and powerful,” said Mr Neidle. “Irrational because you cannot financially win. Even if you are a well-resourced newspaper you still have to factor into the maths the time of spending one or two years defending a libel action. It is not rational for The Times, the Guardian, the FT to spend all of their time defending a libel claim. I’m thankful that they do but they can only just do it – and for most individuals, bloggers, tweeters, it’s impossible.”

Mr Neidle said after repelling Mr Zahawi he was contacted by bloggers and tweeters who had received similar threats. They deleted their work “and in most cases never commented publicly on anything again”.

In other words, scrutineers and critics were silenced. He accepted that among the legal fraternity, he probably wasn’t popular for talking about the need for reform – libel is good work for the lawyers after all.

But one of the suggestions he shared was to push libel cases into a small claims court-style system, which he said would mean “having informal hearings where the best case outcome for the winner is a requirement that the defendant apologises, no costs, no lawyers”.

Or the UK could turn to the example of the United States where those suing must prove malicious intent.

With no change, he warned: “There’s a lot of people in the public eye, and people in the know know stuff about them but cannot print it. That is a threat to the rule of law, it’s a threat to democracy that we have… If we want to hold the wealthy to account, we have to be able to talk about them.”

He’s right, it’s probably not the first thing on Mr Starmer’s to-do list for his first 100 days in Downing Street but it was a fringe meeting with plenty of food for thought.

Tax expert warns details about high-profile people in politics often remain hidden from public view

Dan Neidle speaking at the ‘lefty lawyers’ fringe event at the Labour Party conference

IT’S about time somebody spelt out the truth in simple terms about how our libel laws often do more harm than good.

So step forward tax expert Dan Neidle who appeared at a self-proclaimed “lefty lawyers” fringe event at the Labour Party conference and warned that important details about high-profile people in politics often remained hidden from public view.

He has had his own brush with legal threats after writing about former chancellor Nadhim Zahawi’s tax affairs and ending up with a warning that he would be sued for his remarks. But the case became characterised as a SLAPP – standing for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation – and Zahawi, who you probably haven’t heard much of recently, had picked on the wrong guy. Mr Neidle stood by everything he had written about offshore accounts and so on, and used his expertise to avoid what might have been a very long and very expensive legal case.

But speaking to a packed audience in the appropriately named Revolution bar on Tuesday, the lawyer urged an incoming Labour government to shake things up, and help open up the secrets behind those running the country.

Given they are the ones who will no doubt be running the country and therefore face the greatest press scrutiny, perhaps Sir Keir Starmer and co may not be as eager to change the rules as Mr Neidle would like.

But they should be at least interested in what he is saying. Even in the world of local newspapers the Westminster Extra has, over the years, been unable to print everything that readers deserved to know.

Silence on important allegations can sometimes be because the cost of even preparing a response against a single legal letter is a drain on ever-shortening budgets. Even if a newspaper knows that it has a 95 per cent chance of defending itself in court, the cost of getting to that stage would risk bankrupting a small title. In those situations, the wealthy can insulate themselves.

“If you are an individual it is irrational to persist with an accusation against someone wealthy and powerful,” said Mr Neidle. “Irrational because you cannot financially win. Even if you are a well-resourced newspaper you still have to factor into the maths the time of spending one or two years defending a libel action. It is not rational for The Times, the Guardian, the FT to spend all of their time defending a libel claim. I’m thankful that they do but they can only just do it – and for most individuals, bloggers, tweeters, it’s impossible.”

Mr Neidle said after repelling Mr Zahawi he was contacted by bloggers and tweeters who had received similar threats. They deleted their work “and in most cases never commented publicly on anything again”.

In other words, scrutineers and critics were silenced. He accepted that among the legal fraternity, he probably wasn’t popular for talking about the need for reform – libel is good work for the lawyers after all.

But one of the suggestions he shared was to push libel cases into a small claims court-style system, which he said would mean “having informal hearings where the best case outcome for the winner is a requirement that the defendant apologises, no costs, no lawyers”.

Or the UK could turn to the example of the United States where those suing must prove malicious intent.

With no change, he warned: “There’s a lot of people in the public eye, and people in the know know stuff about them but cannot print it. That is a threat to the rule of law, it’s a threat to democracy that we have… If we want to hold the wealthy to account, we have to be able to talk about them.”

He’s right, it’s probably not the first thing on Mr Starmer’s to-do list for his first 100 days in Downing Street but it was a fringe meeting with plenty of food for thought.