Longmonts Fair Campaign Practices Act challenged

The new Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act (LFCPA) apparently has some detractors.  I received a copy of the following complaint:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CITIZENS FOR LIBERTY

Longmont Colorado

Mayor Lange,

Be advised that the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act (LFCPA) is an egregious violation of the Consitution of the State of Colorado, as well as an odious assault upon the rights and citizens of Longmont and Colorado.

The Citizens for Liberty is currently preparing a legal challenge to this ordinance.

Refer to: Colo. Const. art. II, sec.10; cf. Colo. Const. art. XXVII, sec. 5

The City of Longmont is hereby directed to immediately withdraw this ordinance.

The City of Longmont is cautioned to seek competent legal counsel, and citizen input, before attempting to unconstitutionally restrain the rights of citizens.

You have been advised and warned.

Arlo Fenointer
Director
Citizens for Liberty

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know if this person or group really exist, I've never heard of them nor has anyone else I've asked.  I'm not so sure of the validity of any of the above, but that's not to say someone else out there might be thinking the same thing.  I have some serious issues with parts of this new ordinance which I will spell out one at a time - mostly unintended (I hope and assume) consequences.

After sending several questions and concerns to the Election Committee, and going through this ordinance over and over, I'm coming to the opinion that the effect of these new rules, intended or not, will stifle citizen involvement in the campaign process.  I think more people will feel the rules are so complex and convoluted that it's just not worth their effort to get involved, unless they have an attorney on retainer at all times.  I'll give you specific examples in the weeks ahead.

I didn't like that the budget for their "special counsel" had to be as high as it was ($10,000 for now), but considering what may be to come, they might need every penny of that and then some.  The Election Committee and City Clerk may not answer certain questions pertaining to the ordinance, except with the disclaimer "I'm not an attorney" and refer it to the City Attorney or Special Counsel.  The fact they are concerned about the money for this special counsel tells me they expect legal challenges, or questions they just can't or wont answer.

Which brings me back to the beginning of this story: If they have to have an attorney on hand all of the time, and all of the murkiness of this ordinance (in my and others opinions), maybe it wasn't written as well as previously thought.  Or maybe people are realizing that if read literally this ordinance is not very citizen friendly. 

Do-gooders who do no good

While posting over at Longmont Foreclosures I thought this weeks entry was relevant to the upcoming election.  Not only do we have a councilmember (Karen Benker - and she's not alone) who wears her "helping the homeless" badge a little too prominently, and the possibly unethical political influence with the whole HOPE situation, but also a candidate (Kaye Fissinger) who benefited from the affordable housing program under Ms. Benkers watch.

It's no wonder the whole concept of public financing of campaigns was brought up, why not?  You've subsidized at least one candidate already (via a house), how much more would it cost to buy someones signs and advertisements?  A pittance by comparison.  Did you also know some of those subsidized homes have been foreclosed on?  Pay in the beginning, and again at the end - what a deal!  How much better can it get?

(remainder from Longmont Foreclosures August 29 report)
Ward 2 (Karen Benker's ward) had double the other two wards combined in new foreclosures this week..  There were 11 new foreclosures reported in Longmont this week, with a total of 60 in the paper.  Ward 2 is not far behind the leader (Ward 1) in foreclosures, and will soon top 100 since this site began in April.

Councilmembers (especially Ward 2's Karen Benker) continually try to get more people into homes they probably can't afford.  These public do-gooders do anything but good for these peoples pride, which is probably permanently damaged by getting into a home (or car, see Cash For Clunkers) they never would be able to make payments on consistently, and the subsequent humiliation of default.  To those people, I say these government types who you think are your friend, giving you subsidies that they can later brag about and campaign on, only exacerbate and continue the cycle of poverty for most of the people they encounter.

Helping people in off the street and out of the cold is one thing.  Exploiting people for personal gain, and putting them in a potentially financially destructive situation is another. Just a setup for failure - the more people that figure it out the better.  And sooner rather than later.

August 29, 2009 Longmont foreclosure report

See this weeks update at
Longmont Foreclosures

Large majority against Firestone litigation

The Longmont Times-Call recently did a poll with the question "Should the city continue its lawsuits against Firestone regarding annexations?" The results are in, and it's pretty lopsided:

With 537 total votes
Yes 134 (24.95%)
No 403 (75.05%)

In addition there's an online petition for Longmont to drop the lawsuits and appeals against the Town of Firestone. It shot up to over 120 names and email addresses fairly quickly before the Times-Call pulled its link down from the comment section of the above poll. For reference, the idiotic backyard chicken online petition still hasn't gotten half this number, and look at all the time council spent on that.

The comments in the TC poll and every story on this subject show a strong dissatisfaction of how council is handling this situation, and the Executive Sessions involved, including a lawsuit from the Times-Call itself.

Quiet through most of this is the group of people ("What's In It For Longmont?") that did their best to get rid of LifeBridge and their attempts to build outside of Longmont. That might be because one of them is running for City Council (Kaye Fissinger), another one got trounced in the last election (Richard Juday) partially based on his involvement with this anti-LifeBridge drive, and the others who make occasional embarrassing appearances before city council.

This same group went out and got over 6,000 signatures to overturn the Union Annexation, which probably wasn't easy and is admirable on that basis - about the only thing about this group that is admirable unfortunately. As time has gone on, more people tell me they were misled when told what the petition was about. None of them probably knew of the hidden cameras (under tables, below skirt level) and the flow charts this group followed targeting rank-and-file church members. Around the same time LifeBridge's sign was repeatedly vandalized. But I'm sure that's all a coincidence.

Also MIA are their cohorts in Firestone, aka InformFirestone, who claimed to be a watchdog for various issues, not just the Union Annexation. Turns out, like plenty of people figured, they were just a one trick pony and their website doesn't exist anymore. I wonder what happened to that fictional attorney they used for their (and WIIFL's) unethical letter they sent out to Firestone residents. I hear alot of complaining about a mailer that went out in Longmont about Richard Juday, but what about this letter? It looks awfully fishy. Could make for a good campaign question for Kaye Fissinger. And who paid for that mailer (that had WIFFL's name on it)? I only mention it as these are the same people who pushed for Longmont's campaign law to be changed, guilty feelings probably, as they knew what people were capable of.

So in summary:

• They have divided the community along religious lines.

• Their petition didn't make it to the voters of Longmont.

• Their candidate was destroyed in the Special Election.

• Firestone voters saw through them and defeated them at the ballot box. Although democracy means nothing to these types of people if they don't get their way, so the courts are their fallback plan, and that's where we are today.

• The courts have sided in a lopsided manner against Longmont.

• Their elected councilmembers have had to resort to a ridiculous amount of secret meetings to carry out their campaign against Firestone and LifeBridge.

This group and their movement have brought nothing but shame to Longmont, and they've really accomplished nothing but increased hate and discontent. The candidates and current councilmembers they back have proven with their records in the last 2 years that they have no place in this city's government.

This is a relevant campaign issue, ask each council candidate where they stand on it. No fence riding allowed.
--------------------------------
It's ironic that this issue came up in the comments section of a recent Times-Call article, I wrote the above before that and almost a week ago.  Someone in the TC comments sure sounds like a member of WIIFL, a council candidate, or a current councilmember.  This is gonna get good, real good.

Reminder of 2007 election results

The 2009 Longmont municipal election is coming up, I thought this would be a good time to look back at the election of 2007 that brought us what has been called the "Eastern Bloc", the "Benker bloc", the "Bloc of 4" etc.

Total votes cast 40,051

Votes for Benker, McCoy, Levison, and Hansen (aka the "Bloc of 4")  18,453        46.1%

Votes for opposing candidates                                                    21,598        53.9%

You're reading that correctly, they didn't get a plurality or majority.  I included links to definitions as some in the city don't know the difference.  The point is Longmont did not swing blue, or left, like some would like you to believe.  The election of Gabe Santos in January 2008 proved that.  When voters in Longmont actually show up to vote, leftist, radical, anti-growth, anti-development, anti-religious candidates lose.

When the vote is suppressed, or the system makes it harder for citizens to get involved and engaged (like the incumbent bloc's overly restrictive "fair" campaigns act), candidates like "the bloc" win.

Food for thought...

Uh oh: Wrongmont revived for the upcoming election!

Just when you thought it was safe to surf the internet...

My much praised and maligned website Wrongmont is BACK for the upcoming 2009 Longmont municipal election!

For those unfamiliar with Wrongmont's history:  It's a website I started back in 2002 and was instantly noticed by the Longmont Times-Call (even made the front page).  I also was highlighted in Yellow Scene when they wrote, "By founding Wrongmont.com, Rodriguez became one of East (Boulder) County's early independent publishers."  I also got my share of detractors along the way, more fuel for the fire.

I retired (temporarily, it turns out) Wrongmont on April Fools Day, 2008.  Even people who agreed with the site didn't like the name, too negative they said.  And some fools in the area thought there was shame involved with that site and its name - nothing could be further from the truth.  I still sign comments on the Times-Call website with the name Wrongmont.  I'm proud of some of the things that site accomplished and take back nothing. 

In the time since, I started a voter registration drive/get-out-the-vote project Vote! Longmont, I was the Longmont Examiner, the Denver Aviation Examiner, and had a podcast for about 8 months - all things that took a considerable amount of time, more time than I had to commit to them.  Luckily, my wife has taken over the Longmont Examiner spot and most of the responsibility for Vote! Longmont, and I've added contributors to Longmont Advocate to spread the workload and get different viewpoints.  Contrary to what some might think, it's never been about me.  I like to come up with ideas, get them off the ground, get others interested and motivated to get involved, and then leave it to others who may do a better job in the long run.  Other than the Examiner spot I resigned from and the podcast which I terminated (which I can fire up again at any time) the other sites are getting better traffic than ever, in large part due to the people who have come on board.

Which gives me more time to be focused on what I like most, local Longmont politics.

So, I thought it was apropos to bring Wrongmont out of mothballs and use it as a news aggregator for all things related to the upcoming election.  The original premise of the site was "what's wrong with Longmont?" - not that "everything was wrong with Longmont" as some fairly dim people concluded.  But what you will find on the site now is exactly what (in my always humble opinion) and more importantly who is wrong for Longmont.

There are articles that go back years about current council candidates, and more added all the time.  Many were pulled right off Longmont Advocate, some from other news sources and authors.  I want to make it as easy as possible for people to find information on these candidates, and as was always the underlying goal of Wrongmont and every other site I've edited/published - to get as many people interested and involved in local politics.  That goal has never changed - whether it was public speaking, a blog, a podcast, or a voter registration drive.

So, sit back and sift through the years worth of material I've provided.  Subscribe to the RSS feed, or check back regularly.  At the very least, learn about what's going on and who's involved in your local government, maybe even write your own letters to the newspaper, speak at City Council, and ask tough questions.  And of course, VOTE!  Let's see something better than the usual lowly -50% voter turnout.

Benker kneecaps public speakers

I'm sure it was just an oversight, but there's little excuse for Councilmember Karen Benker (in her recurring role as Mayor ProTem as Mayor Roger Lange was absent) to cut off Public Invited To Be Heard at the August 18, 2009 Longmont City Council meeting.

She's been at enough meetings (and chaired enough) to know that at Study Sessions there is only one opportunity for the public to speak to City Council.  This comes at the beginning of the meeting, and unlike Regular Sessions which has another public speaking opportunity at the end of the meeting, there is no second chance for citizens to speak at Study Sessions.  That's why after all the names are read off of the sign-up sheet that the floor is opened up for others who wish to speak that didn't sign up.

In many cases those people didn't sign up because they were lazy.  They either arrived late, or as is the case for me personally, I don't usually sign up because if someone else speaks to my issue, I don't waste everyone's time and go up and repeat it.  (Others could take a clue there)

The other reason I'm not going so easy on Ms. Benker (other than I feel she's done an subpar job at best as a councilmember) is because of her many statements in the past on this subject, like

• "I think government hasn't been listening like it should." 

• "Sometimes it's a matter of respect, listening to folks..."  This from someone who wanted to be Mayor full time.  I guess that respect-for-the-folks thing went out with her failed Mayoral bid.
  

Back in 2007 during the Mayors race, she said 

• "We need to listen better and have an open-door policy toward our residents and make them feel welcome at City Council meetings.  After all, we are here to serve the needs of the city and the people.  We need to move "public invited to be heard" back to the first part of council meetings to make it more convenient for those who attend and wish to speak.  This is small change, but a big message to our residents that they are important and valued."  

Seriously, anyone who watches or attends these City Council meetings, do you feel welcome by some of these councilmembers?  Yes, "welcome to our chambers, you lowlife so-and-so" or other such namecalling if you happen to disagree with the Benker-wing of council.

So, as you can see, Public Invited To Be Heard is not off Ms. Benkers radar, she's said plenty about it in the past, more than most.  Considering the final speaker that night dealt some shots to her and her fellow travelers on council, it makes me reconsider if it was an oversight at all.

Markey's absurd statement about the Public Option

Congresswoman Betsy Markey made an absurd statement when she visited Longmont to talk about health care last week that no one seems to be questioning. And then she repeated it last night during her tele-town hall.

Markey claims the premiums for the government-run public option will cover the entire cost of the program. She said the public option will not be subsidized with taxpayer dollars the way Medicare and Medicaid need to be.

How is that possible? Watch this Daily Times Call video. She makes the statement just over half way through the video: http://www.timescall.com/multimedia/video/

Insurance only works when you have a majority of healthy people paying premiums so the insurance company has money to pay the bills of those who get sick. The government public option program will attract all the sick people who currently can’t afford the premiums of private insurance or the people who can’t get private insurance because of preexisting conditions. If the government program accepts all these people, the premiums would have to be incredibly high to pay for the medical treatment these people need.

But this public option promises to offer health insurance premiums that are affordable. This can’t work unless doctors are forced to accept these patients at very reduced rates, the government forces lots of healthy people into the public system, or the premiums for the public option need to be extremely high. There is no other way it can work and still be solvent.

Betsy isn't thinking through what she is saying. What am I missing here?

www.veritasconsulting.biz

Longmont election picture comes into focus

Today at 5pm was the deadline for candidates to turn in petitions to run for municipal office. I was at the City Clerks Office at the deadline to see if there were any surprise candidates, and to see what the final list of candidates looked like. You can see the list so far of who's on the ballot at this City Clerk link.

What was more interesting in who showed up was who didn't show up. In the race for Mayor, former city councilmember Dan Benavidez did not turn in petitions by the deadline and will not be on the ballot. The same goes for At-Large candidate Bryan Boothby, a no-show at the deadline. Both of these candidates could still be write-in candidates, but their names will not be on the ballot, basically making their run nearly impossible.

Also in the race for Mayor, Jeff Thompson turned in his petition, but as of 5pm the required 50 signatures weren't yet validated. At-Large candidate Jonathan Singer turned in his petitions, but needs a few more signatures as some were invalidated. And another At-large candidate showed up at the deadline (a newcomer whose name has not yet been announced in the paper) but he's in the same boat, needs more validated signatures. These candidates have until Friday August 28 to get the required number of valid signatures. But besides these three, no other candidates can get their name on the ballot - only write-in is a possibility.

There were rumors of other candidates, but they turned out to be just that, rumors.

Here's how the ballot looks so far (according to the City Clerk site):

Mayor
Roger Lange (incumbent)
Bryan Baum

At-Large (two highest vote getters)
Gabe Santos (incumbent)
Alex Sammoury
Bill Van Dusen
Kaye Fissinger

Ward 2
Karen Benker (incumbent)
Katie Witt

Our Vote! Longmont page will update these races as changes are made (on the Candidates page), as well as the candidates for the St. Vrain Valley School Board.

Make sure you are registered to vote in the City of Longmont, especially if you've recently moved. If you voted in the last election (November '08) and haven't moved, you should be registered. If you haven't voted in the last 2 general elections, you may have been purged from the voter rolls. You can check your registration at this Boulder County link. October 9th is the last day to register to vote.

August 22, 2009 Longmont foreclosure report

See this weeks update at
Longmont Foreclosures

Guest Editorial: Rich Yale on the antics of Sean McCoy

Dear Councilman McCoy,

As a veteran who defended your right to serve the Citizens of Longmont; and for your children’s generation and for your grandchildren’s generations’ right to live equally in freedom and prosperity I am deeply offended by your bias statement of acrimony against any activists with “an agenda” on the new economic advisory board, like someone from the Longmont Association of Realtors. This means it is official policy of Longmont City Council to forbid any small business person from participating on the new economic advisory board who knows anything about new business development to advise the Government.

Your disgraceful, shameful attitude is not only a disgrace to your own father’s honorable service as a United States Army Veteran, but to the very credibility of the City Council to uphold its duty to honor and protect the right of every citizen to be included in America’s covenant that “All men are endowed by their Creator with Certain inalienable rights”, among which include the right to freedom of speech, and the right to participate in government by the people, of the people and for the people.

Your bigoted opinion of small business people would make the sacrifice of every American Soldier, Sailor, Marine, Coast Guardsman and Airman in vain if it were to preserve as the majority opinion of this Council.

Yours truly,
Richard Yale
Former USAF & USAR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll add that I thought it was hilarious, and completely hypocritical, for Councilmember McCoy to say anything about appointing certain types of people to an advisory board. He used the word "active" derisively, and "boisterous", and anyone with a "personal axe to grind". Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. McCoy and his fellow travelers have been stacking every advisory board in town (when there's unfortunately an opening) with their cronies beyond the point of ridiculous.

When they don't find someone to their liking, they refuse the applicants, ask for a new bid on the position, make all of their little calls behind the scenes, and voila, like magic people of their ilk show up as applicants. Sometimes even after the bid is closed, but those rules aren't for them.

In the above example, Mr. McCoy specifically goes after those evil realtors (I bet everyone reading this knows a realtor, be it a friend or relative) at the Longmont Association of Realtors. More payback for the contribution they made to Gabe Santos, a completely legal one at that. Have I mentioned lately that Mr. Santos' competition in that race (Richard Juday) said he would've taken that contribution if they offered it to him? Little things like that don't matter to obsessively vindictive types like Mr. McCoy and his cohorts on and off of council.

Longmont councilmember's mistatement of facts

Longmont City Councilmember Sean McCoy is either telling a bold faced lie, has been misled, or is trying to mislead in his statements about the amount of Executive Sessions this current council has held. Just so no one's being taken out of context or misquoted, watch this video:

That quote was "we've (this council) had no more Executive Sessions than any other council that he (his father Tom McCoy) served on (which was up until 2005)." Got it? Pretty straightforward statement. He then went on his tirade insulting citizens who dare question that, or him. (see related More insults from Longmont City Council's "educator")

Well, there's only one version of the truth and facts can be pesky things. Here are a few facts:

From 1991-2002 the most Executive Sessions in one year was 8 (in 2002).
For those 12 years the average yearly amount of Executive Sessions was 5.
From 2003-2007 the most Executive Sessions in one year was 10 (in 2003).
For those 5 years the average yearly amount of Executive Sessions was 8.

During those 17 years there were several new councilmembers who came on board, I'm sure they had to be "brought up to speed" on legal issues as well. I guess they were just speedier learners than the "Class of 2007".

Sean McCoy and his fellow voting bloc (Benker, Hansen, and Levison) came on in late 2007.
Executive Sessions for 2008 = 16
Executive Sessions for 2009 = 11 (just up until June)

That's 27 over a 19 month period, almost 1.5 per month!

What was that statement he made during the council meeting again? "We've had no more Executive Sessions than any other council that he served on."

Mr. McCoy should really get his facts and stories straight before going on a rant, which included insulting citizens who were technically correct to complain about the high amount of (secret) Executive Sessions. Mr. McCoy owes the public an apology over these, at best, misleading series of statements, at worse, a flat out lie to further his argument and attack on citizens.

These councilmembers took an oath when they were sworn in. Wouldn't that make all of their statements made during a meeting considered "under oath"? I'm not a lawyer, but someone should seriously look into the legal ramifications of Mr. McCoys actions at the August 18, 2009 Longmont City Council meeting to see if censure, at the very least, is appropriate in this situation.

Or is lying from a city council seat, in council chambers, during council proceedings acceptable now?

Local content, global reach

Just a quick note about a comment Longmont Councilmember Karen Benker made about "bloggers" a few months back. She complained about (supposed) businesses outside of Longmont considering not coming here because of the content on some local blogs. What she and others on council should be concerned with isn't so much the flow of information (that pesky Freedom of Speech again), but not handing out so much fodder to anyone paying the slightest attention.

If businesses or individuals have concerns of coming here, it's this council and the hairbrained activities of individual councilmembers that are the issue - not the repeating, reporting, and editorializing of it.

Unfortunately (for them, not me) here's what a typical (and latest) 12 hour period looks like:











Making bumbling local councilmembers international superstars! Yeah, I know, I'm insignificant, disconnected, and shouldn't be listened to. Unfortunately (again, for them, not me), I am (listened to, not disconnected!) Closer to home, and possibly including companies in the U.S. concerned with relocating here, lets zoom in:














So to all you companies concerned about coming here (a claim that is either exaggerated or invented) hear this: Longmont is a great place to bring your business, despite the efforts of councilmembers like Benker (we'll try to rectify that situation in the upcoming election). Sites like this point out what parts of Longmont could be improved upon, and how to bring this city back to the greatness (All America City, etc) it once enjoyed. You and your company could become a part of that rehabilitation, as well as removing from council those who are taking Longmont down a road to mediocrity, at best.

And why wouldn't you want to be part of a city with lively debate and engaged citizens anyway? If you just want sheeple, maybe you should consider going somewhere else.

More insults from Longmont City Council's "educator"

You'd think it would be a good thing that we have an (endlessly self-described) "educator" on our city council. A learned person to bring enlightenment and civility to our weekly proceedings. Well, in Longmont's case, you'd be dead wrong.

Case in point: Councilmember Sean McCoy, vocation: educator, apparently.

Now class, here's how an educator should be a shining example - and to whoever is responsible for the hiring and continuing employment of such an example, here's a model employee.

Just in the matter of a few minutes in the August 18, 2009 Longmont City Council meeting, Mr. McCoy hurled the following insults to members of the community: "nonsensical spin of the lunatic fringe" "feeble attempts" "silly spin" "fringe group" and "crazy talk". For you Civics types, what you see here is a person who really loathes freedom of speech, unless it involves him calling you names. Reminder, this is an adult and an educator.



Members of the public have had enough with the Executive Sessions at the rate of over 1 a month since November 2007, and have said as much in various venues. The local paper (the Times-Call) even filed a lawsuit against Longmont City Council over this matter, specifically a vote taken during one of these many "secret meetings" (the term that really seemed to bother Mr. McCoy - feel free to use liberally). Mr. McCoy complained that no Sunshine Laws were broken, but I guess we'll find out about that in court. Votes are not supposed to be taken during these Executive Sessions, for those that don't know.

I know Mr. McCoy won't answer this question, or might not even see this post (but I'm sure his mental patient followers will): With your Sunshine Law comment, are you saying a straw poll wasn't taken during an Executive Session?

As far as the namecalling and childish, and rather buffoonish, behavior - we're all pretty much used to that coming from this councilmember. All one has to do is look at all the YouTube videos amassed in the last two years to get a picture of this individuals state of mind. In a fairly cowardly way he rarely puts a name to the object of his insults. Members of the public have written letters to the editor or said a few words in front of city council, but the Times-Call actually filed a lawsuit! He must be talking about them this time, right? It must be frustrating and confusing to keep focused on your enemies when apparently that includes everyone.

It would at least be taken more seriously if it was delivered in a coherent way. As an "educator" you would think there would be slightly better than pre-pubescent speaking skills (even while reading prepared diatribes). Again, you would be dead wrong.

Hey, here's a great new nickname: The Educamator! Or Edumacator?

Longmont group part of White House screwup

Sometimes guilt by association is a necessary part of politics. As anyone who reads this blog knows, I'm no fan of hero worship when it comes to politicians. All one has to do is look to past examples where this has gone really, really bad. I'm also not a fan of jumping on political bandwagons and avoid it as much as possible, even if it's a cause, position, or person I may personally agree with. I tend to look differently at that particular cause, position, or person when it/they try to get this cult of personality thing going for them. Sort of like what Obama did in this last election cycle, and the mindless (of some, not all) following he gathered.

The problem with groups like this is they don't seem to know when to step back and take a look at what they (or their leaders) are doing, and if it's very smart. Example: Longmont Organizing for America, which use something like my.barackobama.com/xxx for their website address. I already mentioned them in my "Neighborhood liars, thugs, and brownshirts" story, and this isn't a rehash of that, there's more interesting national news regarding them.

The Associated Press reported today that "The White House is blaming unnamed political groups for the unsolicited e-mails it had wrongly insisted no one was receiving from its online operation." I'll help out and name one of those unnamed political groups: Longmont Organizing for America. They sent us an unsolicited email from Senior Advisor of the President David Axelrod, and included their own commentary, which in part included:
"You may have already received this email from David Axelrod, Senior Advisor to President Obama, but Longmont Organizing for America would like to emphasize the importance of forwarding this " Reality Check" information to your family, friends and neighbors."

I'm sure other arms of Organizing for America sent out similar emails to thousands of people. These are the so-called groups the White House is blaming for this massive spam attack. This is also connected to the White House email address (flag@whitehouse.gov) that was a collection point to turn in and monitor dissidents of (so-called) health care reform. Is this what we've become as a society? Sad.

Getting back to the local aspect of this: did anyone else notice the complaint in the TC Line about political activities at the local farmers market? Guess what one of the activities listed on Longmont Organizing for America (can we cut the BS and call it was it is: Longmont Organizing for Obama) is? Yep, activism at the local farmers market. Anything for the cause, right? Even if it means bothering people in public (or spamming them online), the masses must be educated!

The people behind this should be fairly familiar to anyone who watches local politics. (The following is the case for the most part, with some exceptions)

• They are the same people trying to kick LifeBridge out of town, go after rank and file church members, and want to block any possibility of them building their new church outside of Longmont (after forcing them out).
  
• They were strong backers of the majority of council who were voted in back in '07 (McCoy, Levison, Hansen, and Benker in her losing bid for Mayor).
  
• They endlessly parade to the podium in support of these councilmembers - sort of like the blind hero worship they have for Obama, based on no real results, but just because they are on their side.
  
• They are in favor of continuing litigation (and endless wasting of money) against the Town of Firestone and LifeBridge.
• They back council's position on backyard chickens and the endless hours of wasted time spent on that issue.
• They back council's position on limiting spraying for West Nile Virus, meanwhile traps around the city are catching elevated numbers of the types of mosquito's that carry WNV, and people have contracted the virus.

There's more, including the way they go after people with differing opinions in the above examples, often in a fairly nasty way. Again, anything for the cause(s), right?

This group is closely aligned with Karen Benker and Sean McCoy (who made an unforgettable speech about his hero), who in their own words during council meetings have gushed over Obama (not as much lately) and are all smiles when these people march before the podium. The other birds of a feather who are candidates this year are Kaye Fissinger (about the worst candidate this city has seen in a long time), Jonathan Singer (had some emails with, seems like a decent guy, but the DNC/Obama thing is a little much for me), and Bill Van Dusen (know very little about - does anyone? - except runs with the same crowd as the above).

If what this group does or says (look at that list again) aligns with your thinking, then there are your candidates.

If not, then you know who to vote against.

Primer for upcoming Longmont elections

I get asked all the time things like "how do we get rid of these losers"? and "I want to recall councilmember X", and "when's the next chance to vote them all out"? So, in an ongoing series I'll try to break down the current makeup of Longmont City Council and who's up for re-election and who's not. The recall issue, that's a little more complicated, but I'll get to that later.

First off, Longmont has 7 councilmembers including a Mayor. 4 are "at-large", including the Mayor, which means everyone in the city gets to vote for those seats. 3 seats are for the 3 particular wards in Longmont. Only people who live in each ward can vote for that wards candidates. Here's a map of the wards:






















If that image is a little blurry, check out this link from the city's website.

The current races that will be on this November's ballot are for Mayor, Ward 2, and 2 At-Large seats. Here are the candidates, listed in order of their announcements (from our Vote! Longmont page)

Mayor
Roger Lange (incumbent) (Times-Call announcement)
Dan Benavidez (Times-Call announcement)

Ward 2
Katie Witt (Times-Call announcement)
Karen Benker (incumbent) (Times-Call announcement)

At-Large (2 positions)
Gabe Santos (incumbent) (Times-Call announcement)
Alex Sammoury (Times-Call announcement)
Kaye Fissinger (Times-Call announcement)
Jonathan Singer (Times-Call announcement)
Bryan Boothby (Times-Call announcement)
Bill Van Dusen (Times-Call announcement)

As you can see, 3 of the current councilmembers are not up for re-election, that will occur in 2 years. They are:
Ward 1 - Brian Hansen
Ward 3 - Sean McCoy
At-Large - Sarah Levison
But recall is always an option. Personally the way I feel about recalls is this: if people are stupid enough to vote these people in, well, they get what they deserve. Also, recalls are expensive. I've been told that to get something like this on the ballot it would cost around $75,000. That could turn out to be double that if the recall is successful and another special election is needed to fill the seat.

With all that being said, sometimes it's cheaper on the city as a whole to get rid of a problem than to leave it in place. A good example is the ongoing very expensive litigation with Firestone, which is being allowed to continue and progress by Lange, Benker, McCoy, Levison, and Hansen. Lange and Benker will have their fate decided by the voters in November, but the other three will still be around. Might be cheaper in the long run to get rid of 1, 2, or all 3 of them to change the course of this sinking ship.

Of course it would be insane to consider putting into office any candidate who favors the continued wasting of money. Kaye Fissinger has made it more than clear she intends to continue down this road. I'd like to hear the other candidates stance on this, and will post it here. Obviously, based on his motion to end the Firestone litigation, Gabe Santos wants this all to end. Ward 2 candidate Katie Witt has expressed her disapproval of these endless lawsuits and appeals in the Times-Call and her blog. And unless Mayor Lange changes course soon (like yesterday) this issue could doom his candidacy and continuation of his role as Mayor.

Endorsements? Like I said before, an endorsement from me might be the kiss of death for some candidates, but after we get the final list of candidates (around August 24th) I might make some suggestions, and maybe even predictions later on.

Is city council paying attention to the foreclosure report?

According to the Longmont Foreclosure Report, there have been 262 foreclosures since April. This map breaks them down by ward AND by Longmont City Councilmember.

How often have you heard councilmembers of those wards address this? As such, the Longmont Examiner can only suggest what their responses might be...

...click here to read them at the Longmont Examiner

August 15, 2009 Longmont foreclosure report

See this weeks update at
Longmont Foreclosures

Transparency and honesty tough for some

It's always amusing for me to take a national topic and apply it to things right here in Longmont. Today I'm going to do the opposite.

Of course we all know by now some members of Longmont City Council have a real problem with open government and transparency. For those with short memories, there was a block of candidates back in 2007 who made no attempt to hide they were indeed a, well, block of candidates. They got funding from the same sources, they shared ad space, they appeared together at party (Democratic of course) functions (and still do), and they shared in their victory as a, well, block. The title they attained went from "block of candidates" to 'Bloc of 4'. Say that around them now and they either try to deny it or get visibly irritated. Hey, embrace what you are.

(In case there's any mystery to who this refers to, it's Karen Benker, Sean McCoy, Sarah Levison, and Brian Hansen. Richard Juday attempted to join this, ahem, elite crowd, but got trounced in the special election by Gabe Santos.)

But back to this transparency thing: these former candidates (and their loyal mouthpieces) sure went to great lengths to say how closed off and non "open" our previous council was. This was their rallying cry. That, and how they would do things differently. Well, they have. Worse. They now hold the honor of the most secretive and closed city council in recent memory/history.
And like the national example I'm about to show you, they (and their loyal mouthpieces) sure don't like to be called on it. They even have the nerve to go after and call names of those that put into daylight their questionable, and possibly (no, probably) illegal ways.

Thanks to the miracle (and a new found one to some city councilmembers) of Open Records, here's what goes on behind the scenes. This is just what we know about, I'm sure there's more and worse.
----------------------------------
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Douglas Wray
To: Kaye Fissinger ; Duane Leise
Cc: Sean_P_McCoy ; Sarah Levison ; Karen Benker
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 9:29:14 AM
Subject: Time to kick Chris' ass again

http://longmontadvocate.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=393481#

This boy really needs to come down a peg (or six)

d

M. Douglas Wray
macguiguru@spamcop.net
-------------------------------------------------------
Well that subject and text sound like a threat, wouldn't be the first.
The picture you see below and to the right of current councilmember Karen Benker and candidate Kaye Fissinger, there's an interesting story behind that:
Pratt to Fissinger: Analyze this!
And then there's this:
----------------------------------------------------
----- Forwarded by Open Records City Council/Longmont on 06/18/2009 12:15 PM -----
From: "Karen Benker"
To: "Douglas Wray"
Cc:
Date: 04/08/2009 07:20 PM
Subject: Re: Please go vote.
Bizarre Question.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Wray"
To: "Kaye Fissinger"
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 6:22 PM
Subject: Please go vote.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/longmont-co/T3PUM3UGTT9FKCOU3

Yet another noise poll.
I wonder who's paying the Rodriguezes?

d
------------------------------------------------------
This was referencing a poll we didn't post, someone else did. But it brings up an interesting point: We don't get paid by anyone to do anything. But the fact these types of people would think it gives you an insight to what they probably do. I always wondered why they threw around "paid hacks and shills" or "agents". I guess since it's normal for them to engage in such behavior, the simpletons must have figured everyone else does it, too! Sorry to disappoint.

But now on to the national example of this, and never forget that Councilmembers Benker and McCoy drooled on endlessly about their national leader Barack Obama - but not as much anymore, wonder why? (Lets also never forget these two councilmembers are card carrying and trained members of Progressive Majority, a hard left organization that has no place in local non-partisan elections and elected offices). Seems this administration is also having something of an issue of secrets, badmouthing and gathering information on their opponents, and missing a little part of the law that is similar to our Open Records laws around here. Watch this video for an explanation of what I mean:



Catch that? This cute little flag@whitehouse.gov (the email address to report people saying bad things about Obama's health care plan today, who knows what tomorrow) by accepting a single email and not keeping it breaks the law! Personally, I don't see how anyone - liberal/conservative/libertarian/anything - wouldn't have a huge problem with this. Right, they're not going to keep or collect information based on these emails. Then why ask for them?

In closing, just like I said in my earlier "Amateurism from the top down" piece, you have to take these people collectively as a group (and they love that collectivism stuff). If you like secrets, information gathering on political enemies by elected officials, closed government, and basically just stupid and ignorant behavior - well, then you've probably already stopped reading by this point and most of us could care less what you think. The rest of you need to vote these kinds of people out of office ASAP and not allow their fellow travelers anywhere near elected office.

GUEST EDITORIAL: Mark Alexander on Transparency

Transparency preferred, but not required. That ought to be the job posting for our council member openings. It would seem that the definition of transparency has been obscured in the last election cycle. The growing dependence on executive sessions is more than disheartening. It is shameful. Have our elected council members forgotten they are servants to a city? Can you imagine owning a business with a dozen employees who meet to discuss how they will work for you but not allow you to have knowledge of it? Even unions have to divulge on the table when negotiations are happening. Not so for our Council.

Longmont, take note that you are on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars you did not authorize to be spent. You were not asked if you wanted an appeal after losing this frivolous lawsuit. We have no idea if 4 or 7 members pressed forward for the appeal of the Union annexation loss. The executive session shields that information from the citizen, the voter, and the employers of this council.

To Gabe Santos, At-Large Council Member and candidate, I say THANK YOU for motioning to end this waste of money and resources. Rise up Longmont! Be heard by this Council lest they assume your silence is approval for their will imposed upon you.

To the sitting Council members, what is kept in darkness will be brought to the light. Are you so frightened to have your discussions, intentions, and agendas exposed? As your employer you are all on notice, embrace transparency, drop the lawsuit, or be fired beginning this November.

Neighborhood liars, thugs, and brownshirts

Woah, now that's a title, right? Well, bear with me and see how what you've seen in the news in the last week over the healthcare issue is playing out right here in Longmont.

As you've no doubt heard by now, if one of President Obama's little minions even gets the whiff of someone writing anything negative about his healthcare plan, they should turn you in, using a special email address at the White House. I wish I was making this up, but I'm not.

So, I'm sure our local Longmont Obama Love (LOL for short) operation, Longmont Organizing for America, has a direct line to report such things. I also see they're regurgitating the mostly false talking points, but should we not discuss such things (the falsehoods) out of fear of almost Nazi-like reporting procedures (brownshirt reference)? Or would it be wrong to speak our minds so as not to be tarred as radicals and plants of Big Medical or K-Street lobbyists? Some people have even been beat up at town hall meetings, but surely not by the gentle souls who just want peace, love, and understanding (thug reference), right? Hey, wasn't it Obama that said (about non-Obama believers) that his followers should "argue with them and get in their face"? (yes, he did).

If you're going to cower to these type of people, allow me to say what you probably already know or are thinking:

Lets get to local specifics: LOL is repeating this "47 million uninsured" hogwash, lets dissect this often repeated, and possibly believed lie. They get this number from a 2006 Census Bureau report (46.6 actually). Of those, 9.5 million were not US citizens, oops. Another 17 million lived in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year, ya think they could afford insurance? Before answering, ask how many tv's, cars, cellphones, and video game systems they own first. 18 million of these uninsured were between the ages of 18-34, probably in good health and chose not to purchase insurance. There's more, like most were only temporarily uninsured between jobs and half regained it within a few months. Needless to say this 47 million is part of the big lie. It's probably a quarter of that number. But who needs facts to get in the way of good ol' propaganda. Oops, did I say propaganda? Yes, I did.

LOL mentioned this public option, another lie, but they're only repeating what they are being told what to repeat and believe, they can't take all of the blame. I know people might change their mind and all, but Obama said the following way back (not) in 2003:


“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.” (emphasis added, just in case you missed that)

And it's an outright insult to any reasonable persons intelligence (who also sees how socialized medicine is working in Canada or the U.K.) to say the word "quality" in the same sentence as this healthplan. How about the word rationing, how about end-of-life discussions? That's right, if you're a certain age it might just be more fiscally feasible to let you die. And the physically/mentally challenged and handicapped? Obama's health care advisor (Rahm Emanuels brother Ezekiel) basically said "screw em", due to their "level of productivity to society", or lack thereof I guess, in his warped view. Real nice people here.

This is what our local followers are buying in to and are even trying to get a "Virtual Collection of Declarations" as they come to a neighborhood near you "canvassing". Of course you should be civil if they knock on your door, but I wouldn't expect the same if you bring up these inconvenient truths to them. They'll also probably advocate (I love how much more this particular word, advocate, has been used lately) for some local city council candidates. It appears candidate Jonathan Singer is part of this bunch, as are most of the local apologists for this mostly failed majority on City Council (Benker, McCoy, Levison, and Hansen).

Now, do I believe all of these people are evil? No. Misguided? Maybe. But mostly I think it's just people who got all wrapped up in this cult of personality thing, are mostly political and civic lightweights who jumped on the bandwagon. Doesn't mean there's no hope for them, I'm sure many are seeing things in a different light as some may have lost their jobs, homes, etc.

But we should never let them into elected office or take their advice on who we should vote for. Let the adults and more rational people take care of that, kids, okay? Thanks. Now run along.

August 8, 2009 Longmont foreclosure report

See this weeks update at
Longmont Foreclosures

Longmont breaks rules for Councilwoman Karen Benker's non-profit

City rules are city rules...but sometimes suspicious exceptions are made.

The city of Longmont supposedly has strict application deadlines each year for non-profits seeking city funds. But on rare occasions the rules are waived. Longmont city staff made one of these suspicious adjustments two years ago when it let a several-month-old non-profit called Homeless Outreach Providing Encouragement (HOPE) bid for city funds after missing the application deadline. The question is, did Councilwoman Karen Benker's membership as a HOPE board member influence the decision?

Benker is already under fire for allegedly breaking state law by trying to persuade a fellow council member and the city's housing and human services board to give HOPE $10,000 while she was a member of the HOPE board. Read more

Click here to see how the Boulder DA's office is allowing politics to influence the city contracting process.
Click here to read a detailed account of how Benker tried to get HOPE a $10,000 city contract while a member of HOPE's board.

(c) Veritas Consulting, LLC

Boulder DA okays politics in city contracting

Before I launch into explaining what I think Boulder County District Attorney Stanley Garnett and Councilwoman Karen Benker did wrong, let me start out by saying something nice.

I think it's impressive that Benker volunteers helping Longmont's homeless as a volunteer with Homeless Outreach Providing Encouragement (HOPE). Handing out blankets and other supplies to these people where they live on the streets is difficult work. Homeless people typically have severe personal problems and many are mentally ill. I don't know many politicians who go out of their way to rub shoulders with the homeless. I think it would do us all good to get more personally involved with the poor.

But that being said, I think Benker hopes her service to the poor will overshadow the fact that she broke state law when she tried to persuade fellow Council member Sean McCoy and the Longmont Housing and Human Services Advisory Board to give HOPE a $10,000 city grant.

The Boulder District Attorney's office has already reviewed the evidence I gave them about this case and concluded Benker did nothing wrong. For many this determination is supposed to end this discussion. But I would plead with you to not depend on an attorney from the same political party as Benker to be the last word on this issue. This law is not that complicated. Read it for yourself: Read more


(c) Veritas Consulting, LLC

It's on! Longmont Times-Call sues Longmont City Council

My jaw about hit the ground when I saw this headline on the Times-Call website:

Times-Call sues City Council
Lawsuit seeks tapes of closed meeting

After catching my breath, I really wasn't surprised at all. Just a quick glance at some recent posts on this website should have been a warning to this council. (The lawsuit is over Longmont's appeal to the Firestone lawsuit, and how they possibly abused the Open Meetings/Records law)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, May 2, 2008 Longmont: Take The Deal

Sunday, June 7, 2009 Longmont running out of moves

Thursday, June 25, 2009 Longmont's Open Meetings violations

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 Longmont's secret meeting addiction

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 Rogers Rules of Order

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 Citizens speak out over Firestone legal actions

and lets not forget:

Monday, June 8, 2009
Longmont City Council vs. Longmont Times-Call
----------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the PDF of the actual filing.

This could be politically devastating to the councilmembers who want to keep this charade alive, especially if the public gets a hold of these tapes. The lawsuit, if the Times-Call wins, allows a judge to hear the tapes and release (to the Times-Call) the relevant portions of it. What the paper does with that information will be interesting. Unfortunately, what we may not get to hear are the conversations leading up to this questionable "straw poll" (a vote they took concerning the appeal) which could be the most interesting of all.

I strongly feel this council holds so many secret meetings because they don't want certain things they say to be heard by the public. All one has to do is watch all of the YouTube videos in my channel to see why they'd rather not be heard. I suspect there's all kinds of name calling and stuff us citizens wouldn't stand one second for. This is a cowardly maneuver to avoid the light of public scrutiny, nothing more, nothing less. If you thought they said crazy things in public, one can only imagine what they say when they figure you'll never hear it.

Hats off to reporter Rachel Carter and Lehman Communications Corp. for taking this bold move. To some trying to avoid the truth, you'll now be Public Enemy #1. But not here.

Sign the petition to end the Firestone lawsuits and appeals

I had a feeling sooner or later something like this would come about: a petition for Longmont to drop the lawsuits and appeals against the Town of Firestone. Here's how it reads:
---------------------------
We, the taxpayers of Longmont , demand transparency from our City Council. We demand fiscal responsibility in this time of budgetary shortfall. We demand our hard earned tax dollars be spent in the best interest of our community. We demand our council represent the electorate, not a special interest agenda.

Because of this, we feel it is time to drop all lawsuits and appeals with the City of Firestone. We feel our tax money is better spent keeping our city workers on the job than throwing money down the drain. We feel we deserve to know exactly which members of our council continue to fight for appeals when we have had judgments against us telling us we have no case. We feel that while we can't take back the hundreds of thousands of dollars we've already spent, that this needs to end now before we spend another cent.

We're asking you, our Longmont City Council Members, to end this fight. You promised us more open government, yet have held a record breaking number of secret meetings; we request you release the tapes to those meetings to hold true to your promise.
--------------------------------
Go sign the petition at this link: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/not_another_cent/

Sometimes you need to put yourself on record, have your voice heard. If at all possible, you should sign this petition with your name, not anonymously. But I, probably more than most, would understand why you would be hesitant to use your real name. We have goons and thugs in this city who do all they can to keep people who would normally jump into this fight silent.

You've seen them, you've heard them. To make their point they go after anyone and everyone even slightly related to this subject - whether they are leaders of LifeBridge, realtors, developers, right down to your everyday church goer. They have elected and appointed officials who carry forth their agenda, if you read this site at all you know who they are.

They use tactics to silence YOU, and I suspect they will attempt to take any and all names of people who sign this petition and do something nefarious with the information. That's how they operate, basically the worst of Longmont and society in general. Real scum of the Earth types.

They haven't succeeded in silencing me and others who speak out on this, are you going to let them silence you?

Political influence used for Longmont non-profit

I originally published this story last week on the Facethestate.com political news website. This version of the story is a bit longer and the order of the article is a bit different, but the facts are the same. I gave the information I discovered about Council member Karen Benker to Boulder District Attorney Stanley Garnett, but he decided not to investigate. I will include his office's response in a post very soon and you will see how Garnett's office is clearly misrepresenting the law when it claims there isn't enough evidence to warrant an investigation.

In an letter to the editor in the Times Call today, Karen Benker says I've been hired to go on a fishing expedition. Well she is partly right. I run a consulting company called Veritas Consulting and I offer investigative journalism services to people interested in exposing the truth. I've been hired to document stories about Karen Benker and the Longmont city council that many have only heard in rumor form. But it didn't take a expedition to find these fish, they are everywhere and right below the surface. It just takes some time and effort to catch them. The following story is simply the first fish I reeled in.:



Longmont Council member Karen Benker allegedly tried to persuade her city's housing and human services board and a fellow city council member to give a $10,000 city contract to a non-profit called Homeless Outreach Providing Encouragement (HOPE) while Benker served on the charity's board.

Colorado state law specifically forbids a city council member with a personal interest in a matter pending before the governing body from trying to influence the other members about that matter. It also requires a council member to disclose the personal interest to the government body and abstain from voting on the matter ( CRS 24-18-109(3)(a)). Read More

Citizens speak out over Firestone legal actions

At the August 4, 2009 Longmont City Council meeting, several speakers came to the podium during Public Invited To Be Heard to voice their opinion about the ongoing legal battle with the Town of Firestone. It was something to behold, and most of these people should be proud of themselves. A couple of others should hang their head in shame, along with some councilmembers.

What was impressive was the diverse group of speakers and how they put across their feelings on the subject. I didn't know or have ever seen a good lot of them, which made it even better. I heard in the lobby that it was about 10-3 against the lawsuits/appeals and secret meetings this council has been holding. The couple who actually spoke in favor of throwing more of our tax money down the rat hole and to hell with relations with our neighboring city were no big surprise, but were vastly outnumbered and outmatched by some of the other speakers.

My wife and I spoke, but there were 3 others in particular who really dealt the best blows, and totally caught me by surprise. One didn't hold back, stating odds of Longmont actually winning an appeal (not good), and actually uttering "bloc of 4" and then directed his ire towards Sean McCoy when he started grinning and rocking back and forth in his chair, obviously ticked off. One was a realtor who said "really it's a bloc of 5" and let them have it. And one was a young guy who chastised councilmembers for their lack of order, specifically (but not by name) Sarah Levison for speaking over Gabe Santos. Tough acts to follow.

The overwhelming message being sent was support for Gabe Santos' motion to end the lawsuit and appeals against Firestone, and to end all the secret Executive Sessions and release the tapes of those meetings. They were reminded of their campaign promise of open, transparent government, to which I added "but like other politicians from the top down, that promise apparently had an expiration date."

What will council do with this? I'd guess nothing, completely ignore it, it doesn't fit the agenda of a majority on council, so it will go nowhere. Sorry speakers, better luck next time.

I reminded council this will be a campaign issue this year and in 2 years when Levison, McCoy, and Hansen are up for re-election. We already know how one candidate feels about this as At-Large candidate Kaye Fissinger is ecstatic that the lawsuits will continue. How about you other candidates, including Karen Benker? We obviously know how Gabe Santos feels, as well as Mary Blue (she seconded the motion, but is not running for re-election), and Mayor Lange (he killed the motion).

I have a challenge for every council candidate: you submit to me in the comments section where you stand on this issue (and stay on topic, don't ramble or make a speech) and I'll publish it. If not here, make your voice heard on this somewhere, don't even try to duck this important issue. I'll make sure to point it out if you do.