Campaign sign warfare: Day 1

I had heard that all of a sudden, a slew of Karen Benker campaign signs were popping up in strange places.  I called the City Clerk to verify what I heard about sign placement.  During the candidate orientation (which Karen Benker skipped), it was made pretty clear where you can and can't place campaign signs.  She or her volunteers have decided to ignore that advice.

Signs are being placed in the right-of-way in front of businesses, clear violation.  But in a more despicable act of campaign incivility, Ms. Benker (or her volunteers) must assume because her opponent was able to put a sign in a vacant lot that a Benker sign should also be there, in front of or blocking her opponents sign.

Here's a tip: signs placed on commercial property, even a vacant lot for sale, is still private property where permission is required before placing a sign.  A Benker volunteer was witnessed placing just such a sign, and I find it hard to believe that a landowner who approved Katie Witt's sign placement would also allow a Karen Benker campaign sign.  In another example a Benker sign was placed 1 foot from the shoulder in an area that the right-of-way is at least 10 feet from the shoulder.

From what witnesses saw, the "Benker Brigade" wasn't exactly like fairies sprinkling pixie dust - more like junkyard seagulls dropping, well, you know.  Many of these misplaced signs sounds as if they ended up being dropped into a pile at the City's garage courtesy of Code Enforcement.  Like they have nothing better to do.  I guess if I had more time on my hands I could go around and place signs hither and yon without regard to silly city codes, but I have a job, family, this hobby - basically a life.

This reminds of a similar situation during the January '08 special election between Richard Juday and Gabe Santos.  I even wrote something about it called "(Illegal) signs of desperation".  While you might hear from some sources that all parties are equally guilty in this first big day of sign warfare, I'm hearing from sources closer to the situation that this just isn't the case.  Could it be history repeating?  Is someone getting worried or desperate?  I think someone may need to pool their campaign funds for a possible legal defense.  And this has nothing to do with signs.

More misdirected blame by Sean McCoy

During the September 26, 2009 Coffee with Council, Council member Sean McCoy couldn't hold back his disdain for previous administrations.  An attendee asked a question about the airport issue in regards to the prairie dogs "Which is more important to Longmont?  People, safety, or short tailed furry rats?"  Of course Mr. McCoy couldn't have any of that as he answered "let me straighten that out there" as he went into yet another incoherent rant.

Immediately he went into blaming Leona and Bernie Stoecker, she being a former mayor of Longmont (1993-2001) and he being a hangar owner out at the airport.  Mr. McCoy blamed them for not being aware of the prairie dog and raptor problem, actually called them shortsighted.  I guess I gave Mr. McCoy too much credit in airport issues considering he's on the Airport Advisory Board, as this comment shows a few levels of...well, I'll be nice and say "incorrectness".
 
Anyone with an ounce of common sense, and a little knowledge of the history of the airport, and the Airport Advisory Board itself, would know that Mr. and Mrs. Stoecker often had to recuse themselves from voting on airport issues.  On one hand Mr. McCoy acknowledges their business interest at the airport, but can't put 2 and 2 together (remember, this is an educator) that by that very interest they couldn't possibly be in on those decisions, or maybe he didn't read votes on council or the AAB during that time.  

Whenever you hear Mr. McCoy or his loyal lapdogs complain about past councils, and the "old guard", you should never forget who was on council during that time.  You'd think Mr. McCoy might remember - his dad Tom McCoy.  He was mayor between....nevermind.  I don't personally have anything against Mr. McCoy the elder, but since Sean McCoy brought it up, I got a tip that somewhere around 1996-1997 Tom McCoy was instrumental in some vote (possibly the Wildlife Management Plan, but I'm still digging) that was exactly the cause of this prairie dog problem not just near the airport, but citywide.

I always talk to oldtimers out at the airport, and like any normal pilots, they don't want those prairie dogs or the birds that hunt them anywhere near the airport.  I know, common sense and all, but it's lost of some people.  They also tell me these prairie dogs weren't an issue until the late '90's.  And now, for Sean McCoy who endlessly brings up his dads long council career and his own years of service to the city, to have no clue about the history of this situation - and taking zero responsibility for it - is just ridiculous.

What is it with these radical leftists who must place all blame to those that came before and sit around and complain and procrastinate?  I see Mr. McCoy is taking a cue from his hero Barack Obama, but is this an innate feature, or the product of some kind of indoctrination?  No matter who you have to pick up the pieces from (not that the city was in shambles by any stretch of the imagination, example All America City), it gets really old when all you can do is blame your predecessors and offer nothing to resolve the issues facing the city.

Mr. McCoy also said citizens don't want knee-jerk responses from their elected representatives.  Like that idiotic prairie dog fence the city just wasted money on?  That kind of knee-jerk response?  The FAA saw through that and is using it against the city to withhold grant money, real smooth move.  About $14,000 down the drain.


In a quite shocking comment, to me anyway, Council member Brian Hansen acknowledged the importance of the airport, even mentioned expansion!  This will not make some of his supporters happy, they are quite often on the front lines of anything anti-airport.  He pointed out what many of us have been saying for years: when it comes to this often discussed "economic development" the airport is a vital piece to our economic potential.  But don't tell that to the flat-Earth no-growthers, they won't like Mr. Hansen saying it's a "valuable asset", which of course it is.

Considering everything, maybe Mr. Hansen should take over Mr. McCoy's spot on the Airport Advisory Board - at least he can finish a sentence and be understood.

Profiles in incivility: Karen Benker

Since civility in campaigning seems to be the topic of the month, I thought the residents of Ward 2 would like a peek into their representative who is running for reelection - Councilmember Karen Benker.

On the surface, the statement on her website "My opposition raised an issue about my volunteer work for HOPE..." seems benign enough.  Her opposition could mean anyone, including an opponent or group of people who think she's doing a lousy job as a representative.  But digging a little deeper into op-eds and emails Ms. Benker has sent around puts things into better perspective.

I found an email exchange between Ms. Benker and Greg Burt which is fairly interesting, especially Ms. Benker's overly defensive (turning into offensive) response.  Mr. Burt's initial email said among other things "before I publish this information...I wanted in fairness to give you a chance to explain your actions."  The "actions" in question are her involvement with HOPE, which I agree crossed the line with the "personal or private interest" portion of the relevant Colorado state statute.  It doesn't matter if she didn't financially benefit, which some people seem to be hung up on.

But what did her response include?  Here's some of it, with running commentary: "Mr. Burt, I have heard from several members of the community (like who?) that you are being paid to "investigate" me in case I decide to run for reelection and have emails (these were NOT found during an Open Records request) from folks that substantiate that statement.  I understand (here comes the attack through deflection) you are a former employee of Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave's office and were responsible for much of the negative campaign material coming from her campaign in the last election.  It's too bad that LIFT and Katie Witt (care to substantiate these accusations) are going negative in this upcoming campaign and do not want to talk about the important issues that the city currently is facing."

So, on July 23rd (date of the above email), before Ms. Benker even announced she was running for re-election, she slung the first mud of the race at Katie Witt.  I bet none of you knew that.  I also bet none of you know the nickname Ms. Benker (or at least her supporters) are using to describe Ms. Witt.  Let's just say it rhymes with itch.  Some people should be careful who they speak to, even some people on the left have consciences and think local politics should at least pretend to be non-partisan.

But there's more, Ms. Benkers email ends with "So what individual or group has hired you?  What are the terms of your contract?  and How much are you getting paid to investigate me?"  I'll remind Ms. Benker she's an elected official who works for us, not the other way around, we'll ask the questions.  This is getting to be a regular defense of the politically coddled incumbency - answer a question with a question and an accusation, if you can get away with it.  Also, I thought she already figured it was LIFT or Katie Witt?  So she doesn't know and is on a feeble fishing expedition, but why not throw out some baseless accusations along the way.  (Remember the "opposition" comment)

Then in a 8/5/09 Times-Call op-ed Ms. Benker continues on her offensive defensive strategy with "A former employee of Rep. Marilyn Musgrave has been hired by one of my political opponents to “investigate” me."  With the lag time between sending in an op-ed and it actually getting printed, this statement was made around the same time as the emails, which means her "political opponents" (and "opposition" on website) comment is again aimed at Katie Witt and/or LIFT.  Again, she can't substantiate this claim, swinging at windmills.

Also included in this op-ed was this: "According to one of his e-mails: 'I’m doing some consulting work for a client in Longmont who is upset with Karen Benker…My client has asked me to catalog the frustrations that Longmont developers have with Karen Benker…He hopes to use this information to persuade voters to vote against her.'”   Odd, I have the email exchange between the two of them and this doesn't appear there.  Could it be this email came from someone else and Ms. Benker didn't properly forward it to the city servers like she's legally supposed to do?

This shrill and unfriendly tone (to put it mildly) is the kind of representation Ward 2 has enjoyed for the last few years.  It would be one thing if it were from an elected official who enjoyed large margins in their elected races, but here are the facts:
2005:  Ms. Benker appointed (or selected, if you prefer) to this seat, not elected.
2005:  Ms. Benker barely wins with only 37% of the vote (beat Alex Sammoury by only 278 votes)
2007:  Ms. Benker loses her mayoral bid only getting 43% of the vote (1,000 votes instead go to Doug Brown who pulled out of the race)

At the very least the newly formed civil campaigns committee should look into this fairly uncivil behavior.  And voters in Ward 2 should think twice before returning Ms. Benker to this council seat.

Telemarketing For America (TFA)

The good little lapdogs of (Community) Organizing For America (never forget the "CO" in ACORN is "Community Organizations") will be coming to a phone near you, probably right around dinner time.  See, you need to be reminded to get in line and support the Obama effort, in whatever shape or form that may be.  Let's take a look at how many "volunteers" are signing on to be involved:

Here's a snapshot of what would appear a fairly large operation, at least you'd think.
Colorado Democratic Party Office (Denver, CO)
777 Santa Fe Dr
Denver, CO 80204
Your energy is needed more than ever to help OFA reach out to our neighbors in gathering support for the President's three principles for real health reform. Reform and change is within our reach--we can't let fear overcome our strongest, most honest hopes for comprehensive change in our health system. THIS IS OUR TIME, RIGHT NOW!

Even if you have only an hour to spare---your efforts will help OFA connect with people that we may not have been able to reach. Every bit helps our cause--so do not hesitate-ACT NOW!

And those "volunteers":
0 people have signed up to attend this event on Thursday, September 3 from 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM.
0 people have signed up to attend this event on Tuesday, September 8 from 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM.
1 person has signed up to attend this event on Friday, September 11 from 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM.
0 people have signed up to attend this event on Monday, September 14 from 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM.
0 people have signed up to attend this event on Tuesday, September 15 from 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM.
0 people have signed up to attend this event on Wednesday, September 16 from 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM.
1 person has signed up to attend this event on Thursday, September 17 from 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM.
1 person has signed up to attend this event on Friday, September 18 from 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM.
0 people have signed up to attend this event on Monday, September 21 from 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM.
0 people have signed up to attend this event on Tuesday, September 22 from 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM.
0 people have signed up to attend this event on Wednesday, September 23 from 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM.
0 people have signed up to attend this event on Thursday, September 24 from 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM.
0 people have signed up to attend this event on Friday, September 25 from 4:30 PM - 6:30 PM.
0 people have signed up to attend this event on Monday, September 28 from 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM.
0 people have signed up to attend this event on Tuesday, September 29 from 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM.
0 people have signed up to attend this event on Wednesday, September 30 from 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM.

Odds are, if you're reading this blog (as in your typical, average, non-U.S. hating American) you probably won't be getting this call - this is more of a preaching to the choir kind of thing.  But I guess anything is possible, our local OFA contingent has been in the paper here recently and occasionally speak at City Council.

They'll be calling you with a prepared script, maybe you should have your own!  Think of it like a candid camera (oh yeah, record it!) or that MTV show "Punk'd" and have a little discussion with them.  Use your imagination, maybe things like:

• Why are you interrupting my dinner?
• Does it hurt to have your own thoughts and spine ripped out?
• Did you always blindly follow marching orders, or did you at one time think for yourself?
• Didn't the early days of the Nazi movement also "rally" their troops like this?
• At what point do you question if what you're doing is right?
• Why do you hate your country so much that you'd just blindly go along with just about anything for the "cause"?
• Are you on drugs, or in need of some?
• No habla ingles.
• Would you be my friend?
• Where can we meet to discuss this?  Dark alley around late o' clock?
• Who are you?  Who sent you?  Are you with the government?!
• What about healthcare for prairie dogs?  No, I'm not joking.

Have fun with it, the possibilities are endless.  Maybe you'll bring a little smile to a fairly miserable bunch of people.  Remember, they won!  They control all branches of our government.  Yet why do they seem more miserable than ever?  Food for thought.

Secret meetings nothing new for Benker

I'm sure it's all a coincidence.  After Longmont City Councilmember Karen Benker get's fellow travelers to join her and form a new majority (bloc) on council, we have record numbers of secret Executive Session meetings (incorrect statements to the contrary from stumbling councilmembers and his dad not withstanding).  Oddly enough, Ms. Benker has a history of this sort of problem.  Again, something many of you probably had no idea about.

Back in 1996 when Ms. Benker was on the RTD Board, the Rocky Mountain News did a series of stories about some problems that board had with secret meetings.  Guess who was in the middle of it?  That's right, Karen Benker.

-----------------------------------------------
RTD BOARD MEMBERS SEEK INVESTIGATION INTO 1996 ‘CLOSED DOOR' LUNCHEONS
Source: Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO)
Date: 5/2/1996

Seven members of the RTD board called Wednesday for an  investigation into alleged secret meetings by the other eight members.  ``How can we represent our constituents if meetings are being conducted behind closed doors?'' asked Ron Nichol at a press conference Wednesday.

He said the group, which also includes board members Jon Caldara,  David Bishop, Daniel Gallegos, Terri Binder, Richard Rudden, and Bill  Womack, has not been told about at least three lunch meetings since  December - the most recent being Monday at the Daily Planet Cafe, 1560  Broadway. ``We don't know who was there, what was discussed and who paid the bill,'' said Caldara. ``This was a violation of RTD bylaws,'' which specify how and when board members are to be notified of meetings.

Several members of the excluded group have contacted the Attorney General’s office to see if anything can be done. Patricia Bangert, senior deputy solicitor general, said she wasn't sure yet what the answer was.  ``We're going to call for an investigation into how the  meetings were called and where the records are - we don't even know  who said what,'' Caldara said.

``When a government starts meeting in secret like this, we’re in trouble,'' said Caldara. (doesn't that sound familiar?)   Board member Karen Benker, who was at Monday's lunch, said there was nothing sinister or illegal about the gathering. 
--------------------------------------------------
RTD'S BOARD OF INSIDERS
THE ISSUE: RTD BOARD MAJORITY HOLDS PRIVATE MEETINGS OUR VIEW: HALF THE DISTRICT HAS BEEN CUT OUT OF INPUT.(Editorial)
Source: Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO)
Date: 5/5/1996

The Denver metro area has two RTD boards. The first is the one you knew about, which holds regular meetings at which the public and all 15 district representatives are invited to attend.  The other board is a more exclusive panel. Its eight members belong to the regular board, but also meet on their own beyond public gaze and without the knowledge of seven elected colleagues.

Not to worry, though. One of the eight, Karen Benker, assures one and all that RTD lawyers have given their blessing to this highly irregular arrangement.  ``There is no violation of anything,'' she told reporters. ``We formulated no policy. This was not a secret meeting. It was posted. There was no action taken. It was not a formal meeting.''

Perhaps we should defer to those highly competent RTD lawyers. On  the other hand, the state Open Meetings Law clearly states the  following: ``All meetings of two or more members of any state public  body at which any public business is discussed or at which any formal  action may be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the  public at all times.'' At those meetings, moreover, minutes ``shall be taken and promptly recorded, and such records shall be open to public inspection.''

Yet what do you know? Benker says there are no minutes of the separate meetings at which up to eight RTD board members attended.  There is more. RTD has its own set of bylaws that board members are obligated to follow. The bylaws stipulate that ``notice of special board meetings shall be given to each director at least 24 hours before the meeting. Notice shall be either oral or written.''

None of the seven excluded board members was notified by phone or fax of the meetings, the most recent of which occurred last Monday. In short, board members who collectively represent nearly half of all metropolitan residents have been excluded from deliberations affecting the future of public transit in their districts.

Does this matter? Certainly, although its implications haven't dawned on board chairman Ben Klein. Not only does he insist that the excluded minority has no right to be upset that their colleagues attempted to cut them out of their official duties, he even goes so far  as to describe the minority's resentment as ``childish.''

Klein clearly missed his calling. There must be a theater company somewhere that could use a fellow so obviously tailor-made to play the lead role in a production depicting the life of George III.
-----------------------------------------------------------
RTD BOARD MEMBERS AGAIN ACCUSED OF MEETING ILLEGALLY
Source: Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO)
Date: 8/10/1996

Infighting on RTD's board erupted again this week when five members running for re-election met to discuss campaign strategy.  Some Regional Transportation District board members who were unaware of Thursday's session accused the five of violating state laws regarding public meetings. 

``This group is the most dysfunctional, corrupt, vote-trading board that RTD has ever seen,'' said Director Jon Caldara of Boulder, whose seat isn't up for re-election.  Director Karen Benker of Lakewood, who posted the notice about the luncheon, said no laws were broken.

Benker and directors Bob Tsoning, Edie Bryan, Loren Sloane and Russ Tarver, all light-rail proponents, attended the luncheon at the Denver Press Club.  The notice, which was posted that morning, was not on official RTD stationery, but it said ``public meeting notice,'' and gave the time and place. Under ``agenda,'' it said, ``RTD campaign coordination for November 96.''

Bishop and Caldara said they were upset to learn that Benker had ordered board secretary Sharon Powers not to fax the notice to all directors.  Benker said that her request was misunderstood and that she wasn't trying to keep the meeting secret. She said she told Powers not to fax the notice because ``this was a campaign issue and did not affect the entire board.''  Benker said RTD's attorney advised her that the meeting did not have to be posted because it did not involve district business.  ``But we wanted to be upfront,'' she said, referring to recent criticism over questionable meetings.

In May, seven RTD directors called for an investigation of what  they called secret meetings. The eight RTD members who met maintained they did not break any laws because no policy was formulated.  State law requires that any meeting of three or more of the 15 members be public.
---------------------------------------------------------
Again, our record number of secret meetings must be a complete coincidence.

Benker was bad for RTD and is bad for Longmont.
(Picture source: Times-Call)

September 19, 2009 Longmont foreclosure report

See this weeks update at
Longmont Foreclosures

Longmont residents sue City Council over attacks on free speech

NEWS RELEASE
For Release: September 18, 2009
Contact: Bob Askey
Phone: (303) 416-4307
Email: longmontleadership@gmail.com

Longmont residents sue City Council over attacks on free speech
Council warns citizens: “Don’t get fined for your political views”

LONGMONT – On Friday the Longmont City Council’s Fair Campaign Practices Act drew a lawsuit alleging that it violated First Amendment rights of individuals and organizations.

“Unfortunately, the Longmont City Council passed an incredibly restrictive set of campaign finance laws. This is a blatant attack on free speech. It limits the ability of citizens to discuss and criticize their elected officials, making it harder to hold politicians accountable – which we consider an egregious abuse of power.” said former Mayor Bob Askey, speaking for one of the plaintiffs.

“It might as well be called what it really is: The Longmont Incumbency Protection Act,” Askey added.

In August, the City of Longmont followed up with a warning notice in all utility bills, declaring that citizens could be fined for exercising their free speech, and it further directed that readers to “contact the city clerk” before engaging in any political communications.

“We think the city grossly misrepresented their own law, attempting to enforce it in an unconstitutional manner. The warning creates a real threat of prosecution for those trying to constitutionally exercise their right to free speech” said Scott Gessler, the attorney representing the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit challenges several provisions in the city code, including restrictions on electioneering communications, compelled notices on political advertising, and regulations applying to groups that were never intended to act as political committees.

“One has to wonder why the Council is so worried about free speech,” said Donny Ferguson, of Western Tradition Partnership. “This city council has attacked private property rights and then attempted to interfere in neighboring communities’ growth plans, and we believe people should know about that. Once they won office, this council tried to silence opposition by making issue discussion a minefield.”

Plaintiffs on the suit are Western Tradition Partnership (a grassroots non-profit focused on land and natural resource issues), Longmont Leadership Committee represented by former city Mayor Bob Askey, Longmont Area Realtors, former Mayor Julia Pirnack, and activist/blogger Chris Rodriguez who runs LongmontAdvocate.com.

To learn more about Western Tradition Partnership, visit www.blog.westerntradition.org
To learn more about the Longmont Area Realtors, go to www.longmontrealtors.com
To learn more about the Longmont Leadership Committee, go to www.longmontleadership.com
Chris Rodriguez’ blog can be found at www.LongmontAdvocate.com

Fine line between stupid and clever

The 1984 movie "This Is Spinal Tap" had one great quote after another.  One of my favorites was from Michael McKean (as David St. Hubbins) that I thought applied to something I read in the paper today, and it goes like this:  
"It's such a fine line between stupid, and clever."

How often to you hear or read someone apologize in this way:  "I'm sorry if I offended you"?  When in all reality this person is saying "I'm sorry you were offended by what I did or said, but I'm not sorry for saying or doing it, it's just an issue you have, not me."  In other words it's not an apology at all, right?  Talk about meaningless mea culpas. 

I guess Longmont City Councilmember Sean McCoy thinks you're all pretty stupid, or won't read his non-apology apology more than once or read between the lines.  For those that don't get the Times-Call, here's what he wrote - with running commentary:

I would like to apologize for upsetting some citizens regarding the comments I made during the Sept. 1 City Council study session concerning a small portion (Insult #1) of the community's uncivil bloggers (Insult #2) and their comments and behavior during this and years past election periods.  I also would like to apologize for providing the opportunity of giving them and others a convenient excuse (Insult #3) to cite my forceful words as their reasons to be uncivil (Insult #4), and for that I am additionally sorry.  (Sorry he provided reasons for people to be offended?  What twisted logic.)
I sincerely back Dr. Richard Juday's "civility and truth in campaigning" efforts and encourage all to do the same.  I further encourage all in the community to be civil and to remember always to speak and write positively about Longmont (echoes of Stalin, Castro, Chavez and others who remind you that you should only talk positively of the mother country.  Sometimes the truth isn't positive.  Does his statement bother anyone else?).  I love Longmont and always want the best for our community  (then resign).   Sean P. McCoy  (left unresolved: the embarassingly ridiculous claim that I/we caused job losses, hurt business opportunities, commercial real estate rental losses, and slow home sales)


Seriously, who helped him write this?  Anyone want to come forward?  He's just not clever enough to hide that many insults in a so-called apology letter to the public.  And if someone truly wanted to apologize, they should do it the same forum they "upset" people in, like during a council meeting.  On TV.  Without further insults.

I'd rather not spend too much time on this, I have bigger fish to fry.  Not to worry though, Mr. McCoy will get his turn when he's up for re-election in 2 years (or sooner if someone were to mount a recall challenge).  But just to put it all into context of who's been civil and who's hasn't (and yes, candidate civility - as well as sitting councilmember civility - isn't a bad thing), here's a walk down memory lane of the last couple years featuring the YouTube videos of Sean McCoy and friends.  Enjoy.

January 31, 2008  Sean McCoy targets "lunatic fringe"
Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy scolds the "lunatic fringe" in Longmont who don't pay homage to the People's Republic of Boulder. (Council meeting; 1-29-08) http://longmontadvocate.blogspot.com/2008/02/symbionic-smackdown.html


March 19, 2008   Sean McCoy targets Firestone Mayor Simone
Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy accuses Firestone Mayor Mike Simone of slander. (Council meeting; 3-18-08) http://longmontadvocate.blogspot.com/2008/03/longmontfirestone-dustup-pt3.html

March 26, 2008  Sean McCoy's perceived "agitators and aggressors"
Paranoid Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy lauds police presence at the meeting to protect against supposed "agitators and aggressors." (Council meeting 3-25-08)
http://longmontadvocate.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html


April 02, 2008   Sean McCoy fears being taken out of context?
Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy claims people are being cute and taking him out of context when reproducing his on-the-record public rants. (Council meeting; 4-1-08)

May 28, 2008  Sean McCoy cheapshots LifeBridge
Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy makes snide inferences and exaggerations toward the LifeBridge Christian Church previous annexation process into the city. (Council meeting; 5-27-08)
http://longmontadvocate.blogspot.com/2008/05/city-council-cheap-shots.html

July 09, 2008   Sean McCoy shows anti-growth agenda
City Council member Sean McCoy overreacts with anti-development extremism to a simple IGA for potential access points providing better traffic flow along the CO Hwy 119 corridor into Longmont. (Council meeting; 7-8-08) http://longmontadvocate.blogspot.com/2008/07/let-confusion-reign.html

July 16, 2008  Sean McCoy charges "phony patriotism"
Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy makes slanderous remarks toward the Vote! Longmont booth presence at the city's Rhythm on the River event. (Council meeting; 7-15-08)
http://longmontadvocate.blogspot.com/2008/07/phony-patriotism.html

January 28, 2009   Sean McCoy disses Centerra development
No-growth Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy decries neighboring Larimer County and the city of Loveland's use of urban renewal tools to achieve its dynamic and successful Centerra development along I-25. McCoy labeled the process "loose and fast play." (Council meeting; 1-27-09)

January 28, 2009   Sean McCoy: Obama worshiper
Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy makes sappy praise and a bumbling reading on the evening of Barack Obama's inauguration. (Council meeting; 1-20-09)


February 26, 2009  Sean McCoy bungles agenda reading
Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy stumbles through a consent agenda motion in his typical bumbling style. (Council meeting; 2-24-09)

April 1, 2009  Sean McCoy explains sucking methane gas
Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy muddles thru what he learned at recent NLC Conference regarding green initiatives, saying "one of the members of a community close to Portland is sucking methane gas" and "they suck enough methane gas off (from garbage dump) to run a city of 75,000." (Council meeting; 3-31-09)

May 13, 2009   Sean McCoy gripes about noisy minority
Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy once again bellyaches saying those who criticize are a "noisy minority" using the local newspaper as a "stick to beat council with on a regular basis." (Council meeting; 5-12-09)


May 13, 2009   Sean McCoy rails against Gabe Santos
Worked up Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy denounces fellow councilmember Gabe Santos for his supposed rhetoric and negativity. (Council meeting; 5-12-09)

June 8, 2009   Longmont City Council vs. Longmont Times-Call
Longmont City Council members Sean McCoy and Karen Benker have it out for the local paper, the Times-Call. Watch the maneuvering in this May 26, 2009 council meeting as the subject shifts from legal notices to marketing materials to, well, any way to divert money away from the paper in this political vendetta.

June 9, 2009   Longmont City Council shares dislike of blogs and YouTube
Longmont City Councilmember Karen Benker shares a story about "negative blogs", and Sean McCoy reminds everyone of his opinion on "the YouTube type of stuff".


August 19, 2009   Sean McCoy sinks to a new low
Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy re-targets the "lunatic fringe" in Longmont with another round of juvenile name-calling and public insults toward those who raise legitimate concerns about public policy done in secret at council executive sessions. (Council meeting; 8-18-09)

September 1, 2009   Sean McCoy slanders "radical negative bloggers"
Longmont City Council member crosses the line into slander by absurdly accusing "fringe groups like LIFT and websites like Wrongmont and Longmont Advocate" of costing the city millions of dollars in lost real estate and business revenue. (Council meeting; 9-1-09)

Sean McCoy:  The gift that keeps on giving.

Benker taking credit where none is due

Councilmember Karen Benker, based on her actions at the Longmont City Council meeting of July 21, 2009, is no friend to the citizens of Clover Basin.  But you wouldn't think that if you saw this on her campaign brochure and website:

FACT: As of September 15, 2009 the Longmont City Council has not even been presented a Resolution to vote on to dissolve the Clover Basin Fire District Tax (CBFDT).  This will have to be done at a City Council Regular Session, the next one is scheduled for September 22.  But after an inquiry to the City about this issue, I was told (on September 15th) that they don't know how long it will take to have the documents ready.  The next Regular Session is not until October 13th!  While this probably will be accomplished someday, it is not a done deal yet.  Councilmember Benker’s claim is completely false and misleading.

But even if this Resolution was already approved by Council, consider this:  at that council meeting of July 21, and the video is available at the city’s website to see for yourself, Councilmember Benker argued at least 3 times to put this issue on the ballot.  This surely would have meant defeat and guaranteed continuation of paying this tax until 2015!

Councilmember Sarah Levison correctly stated “…a huge amount of money that was taken up of private resources to pass these things (LAVA, Public Safety Tax, Lodgers Tax) – a city initiative.  We all know how much money it costs.  It will take an enormous amount of effort for all the red shirts in the room and all those red shirts sitting at home watching, to educate an electorate who is having a very tough year with taxes.  RTD is not going to go to the ballot.  If you fail in the ballot issue, it will really close the door for allowing us to make any case in the future”  (emphasis added)

Even after a clear and concise explanation of the consequences in going to all of the voters of Longmont, and how it was the absolutely worst option, Councilmember Benker still wanted to press forward with her ballot motion and wouldn’t even consider withdrawing her motion!

On Councilmember Benker’s website she asks:  “Please call me if you hear of something that may not be true and want to verify it's accuracy.  Email: KarenBenkerlg@earthlink.net  Phone: 303.774.7745. 

Maybe you should take her up on her request and ask:
•    Why is she taking credit for something that is still not a done deal?
•    Why did she make a motion for a course of action that would have meant defeat at the ballot box, and a continuation of the tax?
•    Why would she ask to take an estimated $75,000 from the city’s General Fund to put this on the ballot or Special Election?
•    Why would she put the people of Clover Basin, her Ward 2 constituents, in a nearly impossible electoral position, forcing them to spend endless hours and personal expenses on: formation of an issue committee, phone calls, brochures, door-to-door activity, signs, contributions, campaign finance reports, newspaper editorials, website, etc – for ALL of Longmont, not just Clover Basin?

It's obvious Ms. Benker is using this as a campaign issue and as some sort of feather in her cap.  But regardless of how she may have appeared to be an advocate for Clover Basin constituents during the Task Force meetings, her own words and actions paint a completely different picture.

Anyone in this neighborhood who is thinking of supporting or voting for Ms. Benker needs to seriously consider the above information, which is a matter of record, not opinion.  If she had succeeded in her concept and motion, Clover Basin citizens would have been dealt a serious blow.  Explain again how she's an advocate for them?  I don't see it.

Conduct business in public

Letter published 9/15/09
in the Longmont Times-Call

CONDUCT BUSINESS IN PUBLIC

I don’t know about you, but I don’t have much confidence in public officials who duck behind closed doors whenever a sensitive issue arises. First a disclosure: As a longtime newspaper publisher now retired, I have served on both sides of this issue. I’m anti-secrecy; only rarely should it be necessary. While serving years ago as mayor in a different Colorado town, I forbade executive sessions. Despite land deals, personnel issues, lawsuits and attorney-client briefings, we functioned just fine. (SENTENCE REDACTED by Times-Call opinion pages editor: The same openness seems to be working in Boulder where secrecy is banned by the city charter.)
Operating apparently on the assumption that what we constituents don’t know won’t hurt us, the Longmont council’s use of “executive sessions” has become so prevalent that the Times-Call (smoke ‘em out, I say) finally exercised its watchdog role by seeking a court review of the latest episode. A brief history shows that this move is warranted: During 2001, Longmont City Council met secretly four times; in 2006, six; in 2007, seven. But in 2008, the first year of the new majority, the number spiked to 16 and, up until June of this year, there were 11 executive sessions.
This appetite for secrecy also tells me that those in power who act this way are capable of doing everything else they can to control the flow of information, like (I hear) attempting to pull all of the city’s legal notices out of the community newspaper to punish it for what it does or does not write about them. Do you suppose the scheme is to kill the private messenger and then filter city-spawned information through a journal published by city staff? Is that partly what the council’s recently launched newspaper called “Longmont Life” is about?
Secrecy should be a lively item in the upcoming election.
P.

September 12, 2009 Longmont foreclosure report

See this weeks update at
Longmont Foreclosures

Devil in details with BOCO ballot issues

Boulder County has formally posted the language of ballot issues for the upcoming November election, including a preposterous open space sales tax extension that takes fiscal irresponsibility to all-time heights. The enviro-socialist commissioners have really outdone themselves this time around...

COUNTY ISSUE 1A : [Open Space Sales and Use Tax $50M Bond Authorization and 0.25% Tax Extension]

SHALL BOULDER COUNTY DEBT BE INCREASED BY UP TO $50,000,000, WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $140,000,000, WITH NO INCREASE IN ANY COUNTY TAX OR TAX RATE, BY THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENTS… (full text)

So we're talking repayment costs of up to $140 million for voters to extend a sales tax that expires 10 years from now? Are you kidding me? Heck, Boulder County is already a couple of hundred million dollars in hock for open space—they’ve got a staggering 95,000 acres in the program—and now the commissioners are asking voters to approve another $140 million for more open space? Simply outrageous. What’s more, it’s been revealed that BOCO is running 10 percent behind in overall sales tax revenue in 2009. They’re having trouble meeting current obligations, similar to many other local governments. Some fine economic climate for adding hundreds of millions of more debt for green mania, eh commissioners?

A second county ballot issue pushes more enviro overkill, this time with debt repayment costs of up to $180 million, although BOCO would only be responsible for a mere $85 million...

COUNTY ISSUE 1B : [ClimateSmart (CEOLID) $85M Bond Authorization]

SHALL BOULDER COUNTY DEBT (FOR CLEAN ENERGY OPTIONS LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND SIMILARLY SITUATED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS IN OTHER COLORADO COUNTIES) BE INCREASED BY UP TO $85,000,000, WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF UP TO $180,000,000, WITH NO INCREASE IN ANY COUNTY TAX OR TAX RATE, PROVIDED THAT AT LEAST $45,000,000 OF SUCH DEBT AND AT LEAST $95,000,000 OF SUCH MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST SHALL BE PAYABLE FROM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON PROPERTIES IN SUCH OTHER COUNTIES AND OTHER AMOUNTS PAYABLE BY SUCH OTHER COUNTIES, RESULTING IN A NET OF $40,000,000 OF DEBT AND $85,000,000 OF MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST PAYABLE FROM SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IN BOULDER COUNTY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING THE COSTS OF CONSTRUCTING, ACQUIRING AND INSTALLING SOLAR AND OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS OR ENERGY-EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS FOR PROPERTY OWNERS THAT CONSENT TO BE INCLUDED IN SUCH DISTRICTS…(full text)

Just like on the national scene, the screaming message that must come from citizens to the Powers That Be is, "How are we going to pay for this?"

City Council opposed to openness in government? (Times-Call guest opinion, published 9/10/09)

Wow, it has been a busy couple weeks in town on the 1st Amendment front for the City Council Bloc of 4 and its surrogates! Both the city and its supporters are suddenly actively seeking to prevent and stifle exchange of information and free expression of ideas.

In an attempt to disenfranchise the citizens of Longmont by eschewing a public, permanent record of city business as called for by the city charter, they’ve called to quit publishing city notices in the newspaper. Instead, they are tossing around the idea of internet only, or putting it in the City Line with your electric bill (which only comes once a month, I believe). 

The council claims that it would save the city some much needed cash to overlook that particular rule in the charter. Of course that makes me wonder how much more money could be saved if they cut their already expensive-- and still mounting--losses by dropping the appeal of their court loss to Firestone and also releasing the tapes of their secret meetings about that appeal rather than pay legal fees to defend against yet another lawsuit. But that’s another article...

Let’s get something straight. Reading a Times-Call editorial about why it is so important for the city council to continue to publish city notices in our local paper may be less than persuasive.  After all, the TC has a dog in this hunt. Pulling the notices would mean lost revenue. I’m here to give you the citizen’s argument on why it is utterly important to have public, permanent records published in hard copy format from a source other than the government.

First, this is baldly discriminatory. Not all people have access to the internet, and this would particularly effect low-income households and seniors. By refusing to follow city charter and publish the notices in a newspaper the city council disenfranchises citizens and creates an undue hardship in obtaining information. Bad! I would like to think this obvious fact is oversight by the four council members (Benker, McCoy, Levison and Hansen) pushing for this, as anything else could really call into question their motives. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt on that.

Secondly, and in my opinion most importantly, a physical record is crucial. The nature of the internet is inherently fluid.  Sources are nebulous at best. Navigating websites can be onerous. Links can be difficult to find, pages get lost, can be disabled and are open to hackers looking to amuse themselves or worse. Preeminently, it leaves open the possibility that public records can retroactively be tampered with or simply disappear, with no proof that there was even a change made. Corruption would be that much harder to trace.

 The newspaper is tangible evidence of public record, a physical manifestation of our history. Once printed, it cannot be changed. And if there happens to be a mistake, the paper is held accountable, a retraction or correction must be printed. That’s not the way of electronic communication. If something changes, just go in and delete it. If there’s a mistake, a couple strokes of the keys will in effect rewrite public record. 

At this point we have to wonder why the council would want to make it harder for the public to participate in local government. Their actions have repeatedly shown a reluctance to have the open, honest government they all campaigned on. They seem angry to have to share their information at all.  We have one councilman who is openly hostile to his constituents. They’ve had more “private” meetings than ever. They have shown general disregard to the sunshine laws meant to ensure accountability and transparency of government. And now they attempt to ignore the city charter. What’s next? They’ll hold city council meetings in total privacy and let us know the outcome?

As if our local government working to make it harder to track their movements weren’t enough, we now have a local activist, Richard Juday, proposing to start a group to monitor civility in local politics. I completely agree that the recent past has been rife with out-of-control mud-slinging. I was appalled at the depths to which groups like “What’s in it For Longmont” stooped in spreading misinformation and untruths about Lifebridge and its members as well as the repellant inappropriateness of the man who recently ad hominem attacked Councilman Santos at council. 

It is about time we self-appoint some arbiters of civility, freedom of speech and expression (you know, the First Amendment) be damned! That Mr. Juday doesn’t want to include any of the “usual suspects” is a great caveat, but I can only assume that by the inclusion of former city councilman (and current councilman Sean McCoy’s father) Tom McCoy, that close relatives of the “usual suspects” are, in fact, welcome.  Therefore, I would like to volunteer myself for this group. 

I feel my perspective as an independent conservative mother of three small children gives me a strong sense of dispensing “moral suasion” (the act of making others adhere to a policy by “pressure”, rather than “force”-- yes, I had to google that one) and would be a useful counterweight to Mr. McCoy’s “progressive” ideas. Not to mention my dogged belief that all speech, even-- no, especially, unpopular speech needs to be protected. Think of me as a watchdog to the watchdogs. 

I hope I hear from Mr. Juday soon about the first meeting. Perhaps he should advertise it in the paper to ensure a wide audience?

Reveal lawsuits' cost (Times Call letter to the editor - published 9/8/09)

It's time for the City of Longmont to tell it's residents the running total for costs involved in the ongoing lawsuits and appeals with the town of Firestone over the LifeBridge Union annexation, including the monthly cost for the attorneys in this particular case. We've heard a lot about the open space involved and how we need to keep Longmont a "free-standing" community. But, this is an election issue.

City council members who are up for re-election have taken public positions on this as have candidates who are running. Councilmembers Karen Benker and Roger Lange, as well as candidate Kaye Fissinger have stated publicly that they support the city continuing the lawsuits. Councilmember Gabe Santos has asked during a council meeting that it be dropped, and candidate Katie Witt has stated publicly that it also be dropped. Because the legal aspects of this issue have been discussed behind closed doors, the voting public deserves to know the amount that this is costing the taxpayers of Longmont in order to make an informed decision this November and properly weigh whether a candidates postion is valid based on the pros and cons of this important campaign issue.

Promote transparency and allow the voters to make an informed decision, including what voting for a candidate and his/her position on this means and the cost or benefit to them. Anything less is a disservice to the voters of Longmont and they deserve to know the facts.

Brigette Rodriguez
Coordinator, Vote! Longmont

Related:

Longmont Citizens against throwing our money down the toilet: Longmont residents begin online petition regarding Lawsuit against Firestone annexations

Times Call online poll results regarding the lawsuit against the Firestone annexations

My guest editorial in the Times-Call

Some of you may not live in the Longmont area, or don't subscribe to the local paper, the Times-Call, so below is the guest editorial they ran on Sunday September 6, 2009.  They don't post these on their website.  It was based on my earlier "Shifting blame for incompetence and failure", and was shortened slightly for space and the title had "to others" added to it.  All in all I'm pretty happy with how the paper handled it, and in a first they mentioned my websites which was important to keep it all in context.

Like I've always said, I'm not the competition as some there have said, I'm more the Times-Call Supplement.  My editorial, like many of my writings, was brutal in spots and I avoid being politically correct.  A newspaper can't always be so direct for various reasons.  I don't have advertisers to worry about, and I'm not afraid to offend if a point needs to be made.  But make no mistake, while I may not always agree with the paper, and while I may not share the following sentiment with all newspapers, I believe we need a paper like the Times-Call and I want it to thrive, not just barely survive.  I'm sure I'll be writing more about this as the attacks from our local government against the paper continue...but now:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shifting blame to others for incompetence and failure

By Chris Rodriguez / Guest opinion for the Times-Call

With great amusement, I watched City Councilman Sean McCoy go on the attack at the Sept. 1 City Council meeting.  I will only speak for my part of his tirade; LIFT and Longmont Report can speak for themselves.  I will point out LIFT's blog hasn't had any new entries for more than a year, and Longmont Report hasn't had any activity since February.  He also mentioned YourHub, which in Longmont has slowed to a trickle of activity.  I write most of the Longmont-specific articles and nearly all politically related articles.  So it's obvious who he's talking about.

So, let's go through his tirade one point at a time:

• 
  
  
  He endorsed Richard Juday's Civil Campaigns concept.  Ironically, earlier in the day I communicated my ideas and concerns with Richard.  I thought it was pretty productive and constructive.  Mr. McCoy reinforced my main concern and stuck a shank in the back of those trying to get this group going. I doubt this group, headed by his father Tom McCoy, will "denounce" Sean McCoy for what he did .
• 
  
  
  He used the terms "radical," "negative," "fringe groups" and "radical fringe elements" to go after people he disagrees with.  All I can say about that: deluded paranoia.  And this guy is a teacher!
• 
  
  
  His laundry list of placing blame goes beyond the point of ridiculousness.  I would like one shred of proof that I/we:
  •  have "hurt businesses and financial opportunities for Longmont and her citizens;"
  • are responsible for "the millions of dollars in commercial real estate rentals that must have been lost;"  or
  • negatively effected "job growth for Longmont citizens. "   

Even if you disagree with everything I've ever written or think one person out of nearly 90,000 people on a blog that costs ZERO to run could do all that, you are either a) a mental patient, b) so blind (or fearful) in your allegiance to this ideology that you're beyond reason and help, or c) giving me/us way too much credit.  I am a bit flattered he thinks I have that kind of influence. As misguided and delusional as those claims are, I don't find it remotely possible.

I know the vast majority sees this exactly for what it is: a political hatchet job and an attempt to silence detractors.  This is not new, but this is now being done at a governmental level, with Mr. McCoy speaking as an elected representative of the city.

Mr. McCoy is attempting to shift blame that rightly belongs on himself and his fellow "bloc of 4" members (Karen Benker, Sarah Levison and Brian Hansen) who have dragged this city and its image to gutter levels.  Their anti-business, anti-growth and anti-religious policies speak for themselves.

The simple fact is, they don't like anyone to point out any of the above. This is one extreme they will go to, to try to silence and turn the public against their critics.  Another method is the Civil Campaign Committee Mr. McCoy endorsed.  Another method is the onerous and convoluted "Fair" Campaign Practices Act.  People like Mr. McCoy either assume you aren't paying attention or you can't understand and are easily manipulated.

Me?  I'm not into treating adults like children (except for those who act like children) and figure you don't need to be told how to think by some nebulous committee or an elected loudmouth.

I know many of you will not get into this ring out of fear of retribution -- you are a city employee or are a  business owner who fears the city will make life or staying in business extremely difficult.  Some of us say the things you think but are afraid to say.  We get all kinds of nastiness thrown our way --  vandalism to our houses; insults to our wives, families and our dogs; racial epithets; and Internet stalking, intimidation and harassment.

But next time, you could be under the proverbial gun.  Are you "radical"?  Do you consider truth, or one's opinion of truth, "fringe" or "radical"?  Do you appreciate government officials leveling these attacks and insults, whether on the federal level collecting e-mail addresses and comments they consider "shady," or at the local level displaying this utter contempt for citizens?

I'm not asking for your sympathy or money; I don't need either.  I'm suggesting you get involved and be heard on this.  Or sit idly by and hope you're not next.


Chris Rodriguez is the editor and publisher of Wrongmont and Longmont Advocate and is a regular contributor to YourHub and the Times-Call.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
What was I talking about?  Watch the following video:

September 5, 2009 Longmont foreclosure report

See this weeks update at
Longmont Foreclosures

Shifting blame for incompetence and failure

It was with great amusement as I watched Longmont City Councilman Sean McCoy go on the attack at the September 1, 2009 Longmont City Council meeting.  I will only speak for my part of his tirade, LIFT and Longmont Report can speak on their own behalf.  I will point out that LIFT's blog hasn't had any entries on it for over a year, and Longmont Report hasn't had any activity since last February.  He also mentioned YourHub, which the Longmont hub has slowed to a trickle of activity in the last year.  Most of the Longmont specific articles and nearly all politically related articles are written by myself.  So it's obvious who he's talking about.

So, lets go through his tirade one point at a time:

• He endorsed Richard Juday's Civil Campaigns concept.  Ironically, earlier in the day I had had some communications back and forth with Richard about this, sharing my ideas and concerns.  I thought it was pretty productive and constructive.  But what Mr. McCoy did following this endorsement reinforced my main concern with this group, and of course stuck a shank in the back of those trying to get this group going.  Why do I doubt that this group, headed by his father Tom McCoy will "denounce" Sean McCoy for what he just did?  This will show what this group is made of, or if it's just a sham protecting like-minded council members and candidates.
• He used the terms "radical" "negative" "fringe groups" and "radical fringe elements" to go after people he disagrees with.  All I can say about that: deluded paranoia.  And this guy is a teacher!
  
• His laundry list of placing blame goes beyond the point of ridiculous.  I would like one shred of proof to the following.  According to him, I/we have:

1. "hurt businesses and financial opportunities for Longmont and her citizens"
2. are responsible for "the millions of dollars in commercial real estate rentals that must have been lost"
3. negatively effected "job growth for Longmont citizens"
   
4. and if we hadn't been "so negative in their actions" more "home sales"could have ocurred.  

Now, even if you disagree with everything I've ever written, if you think 1 person out of a population of nearly 90,000 people on a blog like this that cost ZERO could do all that - you are either a) a mental patient where "incredibly stupid" doesn't even begin to cover the diagnosis, b) so blind (or fearful) in your allegiance to this ideology that you're beyond reason and help, or c) giving me/us way too much credit - but thanks for the thought!  I am a bit flattered that he and his ilk think I have that kind of influence, as misguided and delusional as those claims are, but I just don't find it remotely possible.

Thankfully, I know most normal people (the vast majority) see this exactly for what it is: a political hatchet job and the attempt to silence detractors.  This is not new for me, but this is now being done at a governmental level with Mr. McCoy speaking as an elected representative of the City of Longmont.

I'm sure I don't have to point out to any rational thinking person that all Mr. McCoy is attempting here is shifting the blame that rightly belongs with himself and his fellow "bloc of 4" members (Karen Benker, Sarah Levison, and Brian Hansen) who have dragged this city and its image to gutter levels.  Their anti-business, anti-growth, and anti-religious policies speak for themselves inside and outside of this city.

The simple fact is they don't like anyone to actually point out any of the above, and this is one extreme they will go to to try to silence and turn the public against their critics.  Another method is the Civil Campaign Committee Mr. McCoy endorsed.  Another method is the onerous and convoluted "Fair" Campaign Practices Act.  People like Mr. McCoy either assume you aren't paying attention, or are too stupid to understand and are easily manipulated.

Me?  I don't care one way or another if you read or follow what I write.  Take it or leave it, buy my arguments or not.  I'm not into treating adults like children (except for those who act like children) and figure you don't need to be told how to think by some nebulous committee or an elected loudmouth.

I know, because I'm told, that many of you will not get into this ring out of fear of retribution - either as a city employee, or a business that fears for their leases with the city, or the city making life or continuing to stay in business extremely difficult.  But some of us out here say the things you think but are afraid to say out loud.  We get all kinds of nastiness thrown our way for doing it - like vandalism to our house; insults to our wives, family, and even our dog;  racial epithets; and internet stalking, intimidation, and harassment.

But next time this could be you under the proverbial gun.  Are you "radical"?  Do you consider truth, or ones opinion of truth, "fringe" or "radical"?  Do you appreciate government officials leveling these kinds of attacks and insults, whether it is on the federal level collecting email addresses and comments they consider "shady", or at the local level displaying this utter contempt for citizens?

I'm not asking for your sympathy or money, I don't need either.  I'm suggesting you get involved in your own way and be heard on this.  Or sit idly by and hope you're not next.

It's Showtime!

I guess I should thank Longmont City Councilman Sean McCoy for directing all of you to my various websites.  Since you're probably here based on his tirade of September 1, 2009, here is the video and a transcript:

"I want to throw my sincere support towards Richard Judays civility movement.  I’m concerned with the actions of radical, negative bloggers that write on YourHub and call in to the TC Line, fringe groups like LIFT and websites like Wrongmont, and Longmont Advocate, and the Longmont Report.  My concerns are that we’ll never know how these groups and individuals have hurt businesses and financial opportunities for Longmont and her citizens.  We’ll never know the millions of dollars in commercial real estate rentals that must have been lost.  We’ll never know the job growth for Longmont citizens and the home sales that could have happened if these people hadn’t been so negative in their actions.  I urge all of you out there to be productive and civil in this next election cycle and to ignore these radical fringe elements that run down the city council and the city.  Thank you."

Last year, this same city councilman wondered about the "threshold" to take legal action against a city official, in that case former Firestone Mayor Mike Simone.

I guess we're about to find out.

Pot, meet kettle Pt. 1

You know, contrary to what some may think, I get along with just about anybody.  Even those I vehemently disagree with, poke fun at, or campaign vigorously against it's nothing personal, until they make it personal.  Case in point: this week was three busy days of being out and about at various activities here in Longmont.  We (we being my wife and I) met a lot of people, shook a lot of hands, saw some old friends, made some new ones, and met people who knew me but not vice versa.  Inevitably one is bound to bump into those you have disagreed with, poked fun at, etc - which did happen.

At the unveiling of art at the airport and the reception that followed, we had a nice chat with Councilmember Sean McCoy - no, Hell didn't freeze over.  Unlike some others I've seen who go out of their way to make people uncomfortable in public, it's just not how I operate - even if it involves someone I have lots of reasons to be unhappy with (no need to rehash), many of them personal. While my schedule hasn't allow me to attend the Airport Advisory Board meetings since Mr. McCoy became the council liaison, I do appreciate the pro-airport/aviation comments he makes at City Council.  I failed to mention it at the time, so I am now.  We also agreed Longmont is a great place to live.


Another person who had a bone to pick with me following last years Special Election was Richard Juday.  Much of his displeasure was over the infamous mailer that had my Wrongmont site name on, but that I had nothing to do with, nor did I want my site name on.  The second I saw it I knew it was going to be a hassle I didn't want and didn't ask for.  But I listened courteously for a couple of hours, found out many things we had in common, but made it clear (and I'll make it clear as well) that I make no apologies for fighting for what I believe, and if anyone is expecting any apologies, they probably shouldn't.

It also needs to be pointed out (and for you that read me regularly, you already know this) that most of what occurred during that election season was quotes and stances just being repeated.  When someone, especially someone running for elected office, has their positions and talking points (or voting record) out there for the world to see, they are open to scrutiny on those positions.  That's mostly how I operate and always have, and I knew all I (or others) had to do was just repeat what this particular candidate said, did, or stood for and the election process would follow its natural course.  And it did.  Again, no apologies, and I sure don't apologize for success.  But again, it's not personal.

That long introduction leads us to something I do take personally, infringing on my freedom of speech.  Mr. Juday is partially responsible for the Elections Task Force (he demanded it after the last election) and the Fair Campaign Practices Act that it spawned.  That alone was bad enough in how it created an atmosphere of convoluted rules, fines, and stifling of free expression.  But it must not have gone far enough as now Mr. Juday wants a Civil Campaigns Committee.  There is so much to say on this subject, including examples of fairly uncivil behavior by supporters of Mr. Juday ("What's In It For Longmont" members, including Kaye Fissinger for starters) that the hypocrisy and double standards are breathtaking.  This, and the supposedly Fair Campaign Practices Act are such an affront to the First Amendment it will take more than one blog entry to cover in detail.  So stay tuned...