When they have nothing else, they lie

Well, seems that a contributor and donor of in-kind contributions for the Karen Benker campaign has just libeled me on the Boulder Weekly website.  I keep being reminded since I'm a public figure, I just have to get used to crap hurled at me from all directions regardless if it's true or not.  Usually it's the Times-Call who will run some half-baked letter from an equally half-baked Longmont citizen who spouts off over me, by name.  "Rules of the game" I'm reminded by them.

I don't mind it most of the time, until it's a flat out libelous lie.  Like this one.
(UPDATE: The fine folks at the Boulder Weekly have removed the false accusation below, and I sent my thanks to them.  I'd still like to know where this guy thinks he saw the following:)

A Daniel Organ of 1536 Foster Ct, Longmont, CO  80501 (in the public record under Benker's campaign report) just said this:  "One of the many outlandish and hateful lies coming from Chris Rodriguez is that Karen Benker wears a nightgown with the words Kill All Christians on it."

Not only have I never said or wrote that anywhere, I didn't even think it.  Nor have I seen it on any other site.  If Mr. Organ has actually seen this somewhere attributed to me, I'd sure be interested in seeing where it is.  Until then, his statement in itself is a "outlandish and hateful" lie, and I'll add libelous.  

I'm sure he, and others who dislike my brand of commentary, are fully aware of the legal team that is backing me in a fairly large Federal lawsuit against the City of Longmont.  You know, the one we just scored a huge victory with?  If he, or any of you, want to play this game, you better be up for it.  

Nothing short of a full public apology will do, or one hell of a correction.  I've already let the Boulder Weekly know what might be coming down the pike on this one.  Maybe Ms. Benker's backers think they can lie and push people around, I guarantee that will not be the case here.

GUEST EDITORIAL: Rich Yale on the Election Committee

Attn: Mayor Roger Lange / Eugene Mei, Esq.
In Re PITBH Tuesday October 28, 2009 testimony of Election Committee Member

Gentlemen,

EC Member Strider Benston's Report to his Council leaders shattered the
professional code of judicial ethics applicable to persons under color of
office such as Longmont's Election Commission Quasi-Judicial, i.e.
"Administrative Judges"; With all due respect to Mr. Benston actions, no
matter how well intended severely damaged the credibility and respect for
the EC at the worst possible timing for the City. Although Mr. Benston
surrendered his own ethical right to endorse political candidates and
influence election campaigns with political bias and ideological
intolerance, these restrictions do not limit an EC members' private comments
on election candidates for public office, but Mr. Benston's bias-intolerant
remarks recorded at Council's PITBH are anything but "private remarks". To
the contrary he used the color of his office to add emphasis to his remarks.

Your attention is invited to the fact that this rule of non political
participation was held to prohibit an incumbent magistrate judge from
publicly endorsing a mayoral candidate in a municipal election because
political endorsements create an appearance of bias. The rule was held
constitutional even under a strict standard of scrutiny, like Longmont City
Council is already under today by a Federal District Judge. See In re
Vincent, 143 N.M. 56, 172 P.2d 605; 2007 NMSC 056.

Until there is a code of conduct the Council has at least two loose cannons
on the EC that put the Council in risk its own strict scrutiny liability
could be expanded by the presiding Federal Judge should it flare into open
controversy with the open strict scrutiny already on LCFPA. Thank you for
your interest and concern for the gravity of the issue raised by the
performance at PITBH, affecting the administration of justice in City
Administrative Justice Process.

A Friend of the City,

Richard Yale

Benker's support melting away

The last campaign reports before Election Day were turned in Wednesday, and it isn't looking good for Karen Benker.  Her financial support, which says a lot about her overall support in the community, continues to dry up.  She only raised $325 between 10/18 - 10/25.  By comparison, her opponent Katie Witt raised $1,555 in the same time frame.

Ms. Benker's funds on hand with a week left in the campaign was a meager $340.  Ms. Witt's: $5,419.

Ms. Benker's total fundraising as of 10/25 came to $7,930.  Ms. Witt: $17,290.

The extent of Ms. Benker's expenditures was a fairly forgettable ad in the Times-Call on Oct 24th.  I follow such things fairly closely, and I had to go find it to remember what it said, and if we forgot, it probably didn't even make it on the radar of voters who don't pay a lot of attention to the campaign.  But this ad was full of the usual falsehoods:

1. Only candidate that signed the laughable civil campaign pledge.  She's kept this pledge by filing one complaint after another with the Election Committee and using it as her free campaign tool.  She's only shown herself to be vindictive, spiteful, and a crybaby.
2. "You are a great member of council, city is better because of you" or some such nonsense.  Yes, it's terrific, just look at all the failure and blight just in her ward alone.
3. Brandon Shaffer's worthless endorsement, big woop.
4. "..woman of high integrity..hard work on Clover Basin"  This is from someone who sends out fawning Benker emails to her neighbors in Clover Basin.  Tip: they don't all agree with you, well, the ones that know the facts of how Ms. Benker about drove a stake into this neighborhoods heart with her ill advised "put it on the ballot" idea.  Integrity?  Please, see #1 again.

"Exploding hits" to a mediocre website is nothing to crow about.  I hope she's not paying too much for that service, it's pretty poorly designed, and is just a whine-fest of what all those nasty people have been saying about her - nevermind it's all true.  And what's with having weird characters (Ø's and ü's) for bullet points?  People know where to get the "real facts", and where to read fairy tales.

I guess the phone banks for her are in action, a whole 2 or 3 people, and I'm sure we'll see the expenditure somewhere for the list they surely had to buy - but haven't yet.  Odd.  Or are they using an old list filled with all those thousands of ballots that have been returned as "undeliverable".  Which is a fitting term for this candidate.

2007 Progressive experiment has failed

Here is my Guest editorial that ran in the Tuesday October 27, 2009 Times-Call.  I didn't title this piece, but they did:

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

Vote Out The Progressives

The “2007 Progressive Experiment” in Longmont has failed.  At least it’s been entertaining to watch and write about, but to the detriment of the city as a whole.  We can’t say we didn’t give it a try, but this regressive Progressive majority on city council has proven to be a real loser of an idea and voters need to undo the mistake of 2007.

To refresh memories, in 2007 Longmont had a block of candidates take over the majority of city council.  This majority includes Sean McCoy, Brian Hansen, Sarah Levison, and Karen Benker – who actually was soundly defeated in her quest for Mayor, but unfortunately remained in office.  Mr. Hansen and Ms. Levison squeaked in with less than a majority and mostly due to third candidates who split the vote.  Mr. McCoy won by a majority, but Ms. Benker lost by a majority.

Even to the bloc’s most strident supporters, they must agree these have been two very divisive and controversial years.  They have also been two very unproductive years rife with costly lawsuits, dwindling tax revenues, and furloughed city employees.  Our council meetings are often 4 hour marathons that end with bickering and indecision.  Procrastination is their credo.

Therefore, a clean sweep and removal of all council members in office prior to 2008 needs to occur.  Mary Blue is retiring, which is a shame as she’s been an exception and an exemplary representative.  Gabe Santo’s joined the council in January 2008 and has often been the sole dissenting vote on some of the bloc’s more ridiculous maneuvers – and deserves to be retained in his at-large seat.

Unfortunately, Council members McCoy, Hansen, and Levison are not up for re-election.  But they can be dealt with in 2 years, or sooner via recall.  Candidates Fissinger, Benker, and Van Dusen are more of the same of the failed regressive Progressive majority we now find ourselves saddled with.  Voters should learn from past mistakes and not repeat them with these candidates.

Mayor Lange, who I respect, admire, and have always supported and voted for in every race he’s even run, has tilted one too many times in favor of this failed bloc.  The denied motion and second (from Santos and Blue, respectively) to end the losing battle with Firestone and LifeBridge was the straw that broke the camels back for me and many other citizens.  When Firestone came to Longmont with an offer of the land that would meet Longmont’s request for this so-called buffer, which in reality is a red herring that doesn’t now nor will ever exist, Mayor Lange and this council turned them away, proving to me this was nothing more than an expensive turf war and an attempt to financially bleed Firestone and LifeBridge.  I’m not a member of that church or a resident of Firestone, but this act was appalling.

Unlike other council members who have been downright rude to me in the presence of my children, Mayor Lange has indelibly left a positive impression on one of my sons to which we are eternally grateful.  While I can’t support him in this race for the other reasons above, I will also not engage in mudslinging or negative attacks that might benefit his opponent, Bryan Baum, who I support.

The same cannot be said for Karen Benker.  Some cities have elected donkeys, dogs, or hoboes to city council.  I would back such a candidate in opposition to Ms. Benker.  Alright, my tongue is slightly planted “in cheek” with that comment, but the actual sentiment is not too far off.  Ms. Benker is basically the leader of the bloc, and as such, sets the tone for the bitter divisiveness the bloc embodies.  A vote for her is a vote for the failed last two years.  About the only thing Ms. Benker has on Katie Witt is her so-called experience.  But this experience has not resulted in a better outcome for the citizens of Longmont. 

I would also argue Ms. Benker’s “experience” when she was Ms. Witt’s age was probably similar to Ms. Witt’s now.  Everybody has to start somewhere.  Incumbency and a self-inflated resume shouldn’t be the main deciding factor in who’s more fit to serve.  Sometimes a fresh outlook and differing life experiences breathe new life into an otherwise stale and stagnant situation.  Unfortunately, this current council majority is worse than stagnation, it’s actually regressing.

So consider the past and the future when you cast your vote, and not some selfish allegiance of what you think a candidate is or isn’t.  And there’s really no good reason not to vote, please exercise this right.

Benker calls for even higher fees?!

Sometimes I wonder if Karen Benker wants to lose this election.  Maybe she has plans for running for some other office in 2010.  Because with still a lot of ballots not yet sent in, a week to go before Election Day, and with a financially struggling constituency, why would anyone in their right mind propose a tax increase?  A significant one at that.  Oh, I know, it's not a tax, but a fee.  Whatever.

At the unusually short October 27, 2009 Longmont City Council meeting, during the often entertaining "Council Comments" section, Ms. Benker asked that the city council look into "rounding up" utility bills, and that she is in favor of it.  At first I shuddered when she mentioned "rounding up", figured it was her political enemies she had in mind, sort of how she's working the LFCPA and the Election Committee.

But she was talking about an idea that's been brought up before, and shot down every time.  At first glance it doesn't sound so terrible, take your $101.35 City of Longmont utility bill and just make it $102, and give the difference to non-profits.  But that's not the whole story, but you probably already figured that out by now.

The reason this has been shot down before is because what's actually rounded up is each individual component of your utility bill, like Water, Waste Water, Trash, Electricity etc.  The previous discussion included the fact that there are often 7 to 10 components of each utility bill.  Meaning your bill could actually go up $7 to $10 a month!  And, in the past, the discussion was that this amount would not go into some pot for non-profits, it would go into the General Fund.  From there, as always, City Council would decide how to deal with that money, which may (or may not) include more (or less) money to non-profits.

Now is Ballot Question 2C starting to mean something different?  If the City gets into this business (which I believe they would do a terrible job at), it's just one more thing to tack all kinds of taxes, or fees, onto.

And I'm not buying this "voluntary" stuff.  It was never discussed as a "voluntary" rounding up, it was a means to get more money to fix ever shrinking tax revenues, and out of control spending.  There have been some angry people about this "quality of life" (is that some kind of joke?) fee, this proposed idea of Karen Benker's would eclipse that easily.

Bad idea before, and still a bad idea, from a hopefully soon to be former city councilmember.  How else do you read it other than a vote for Karen Benker is a vote for higher fee's and taxes?

Benker's complaint costs city hundreds

At the October 26 Election Committee meeting, one of the many complaints that Karen Benker has brought forward was found to be a violation, with a fine of $600.  This was in reference to Longmont Leadership Committee for filing a report of an Independent Expenditure 3 days beyond the 72 hour requirement.

(UPDATED AND MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION BELOW)

So in the first completed action by this committee under the Longmont Fair Campaigns Act the city just netted $600.

Unfortunately, the cost to get that $600 was probably in excess of $1,800!

How's that?  The special prosecutor they hired specifically to do these cases charges around $200 per hour, but the backup attorney stood in at $190/hour, he was there for 5 hours.  In addition, they also have a special counsel separate from the prosecutor, again hired specifically for this committee.  They charge $185/hour, she was also there for 5 hours, so put that all together and you end up with $1,875 spent to squeeze $600 out of an organization.

So the city just lost $1,275, and this case cost more than triple the amount of the fine leveled.

Brilliant.  And this case could have gone either way, imagine if no fine was leveled!

So when you people who have been very vocal about the City Council having no empathy for your financial situation - levying new taxes, I mean fees - now you have a poster child for it.  Karen Benker.  I expect she'll be crowing about this "victory" (nevermind most of her other complaints, and those of her surrogates are getting tossed out by the Election Committee) and has no problem with the special prosecutor and special counsel she voted for being the only ones to actually make any money out of her hissy fit.  Meanwhile, us taxpayers pick up the tab.

Election Committee may be on shaky ground

The people of Longmont changed their form of city government from statutory to home rule in 1961. Under Article XX of the Colorado Constitution, which authorizes home rule in local government, they also wrote and adopted the Longmont Municipal Charter.

The Longmont Municipal Code derives most of its power and authority from the Longmont Municipal Charter.

Because of their constitutional quality, home-rule charters are intentionally hard to amend. Consequently, in order for any material to be added or subtracted, or any change be made to the Longmont City Charter, all such proposals must go to a vote of the people. For council to merely pass an ordinance is insufficient.

Which brings us to the forming of the city’s new Election Committee. The City Council may have erred in expanding this committee to seven members from three without first amending the charter, thus conceivably rendering the committee’s work moot. (And, please, this may seem trivial unless we’re interested in the Rule of Law. Also, this is no reflection on the individual committee members.) Here’s what the Longmont Municipal Charter says:

2.2 REGISTRATIONS, JUDGES, CLERKS AND ELECTION COMMISSION

The Council shall by ordinance establish the method for the registration of electors; the qualifications and compensation of election judges and clerks, and the boundaries of election precincts. The Council may by ordinance establish an election commission consisting of the city clerk as chairman; and two additional members to be appointed by the Council with such powers, duties, terms and qualifications as provided by ordinance.

Firestone's noose tightening around Longmont

Firestone finds way to Union

Mayor says move could void litigation

Times-Call October 23, 2009

Firestone moves closer to developing Union parcel in Longmont

Denver Post October 26, 2009

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

People can't say they weren't warned about this.  The Benker Bloc and their allies running for Council (Fissinger and Van Dusen) and to some extent Mayor Lange, need to have a "come to Jesus" moment on this one.  I warned back in May 2008 that Longmont's strategizing was awful and it was just about checkmate.  Now this needs to be collectively hung around the necks of the above parties, including the detestable "What's In It For Longmont" group and their mindless followers - many of which are campaign contributors to the candidates above.

Just do a search in the upper left side of this page and use the terms "Firestone" "LifeBridge" "Union Annexation"  and "anti-LifeBridge" to get a history of this sad saga in Longmont's history.

Not just are the people who drove this issue losers, but all of us taxpayers in Longmont are also losers in this situation.  Thanks for worse than nothing. 

Campaign finance complaints filed against Fissinger

I had forwarded to me two complaints (with multiple possible infractions) filed against Longmont City Council at-large candidate Kaye Fissinger.  Apparently, the City Clerk will present these to the Election Committee on Monday Oct. 26 for them to do their Preliminary Findings one way or the other.  I wrote about the first possible violation, but didn't file a complaint as I figured the Election Committee would just find it on their own as they went through campaign reports.  They didn't, but someone else went through the trouble of reporting it, good for them.

I guess we'll see if there's a sliding standard for different candidates.

The first complaint has to do with an amended report, the second has to do with the huge billboard that's been driven around town.  It's hard to miss, and probably scares kids.  Personally, I think Ms. Fissinger will be a footnote to a footnote in this election and propelled into 4th place (out of 5) since Ed Dloughy isn't even campaigning.  And then it will be back to screaming at us from the podium with all kinds of conspiracy theories and anti-church rhetoric.

If you're torn on who to vote for in this at-large race (you get 2 votes for 2 people), and don't want to throw away a vote on Ms. Fissinger, you can pick Bill Van Dusen (but if you were thinking of voting for Ms. Fissinger you probably already voted for Mr. Van Dusen), Alex Sammoury or current City Council member Gabe Santos.  The latter two offer you the best chance at actual grown-up leadership, not the abrasive style of Ms. Fissinger or the go along with the Benker Bloc rubberstamping of Mr. Van Dusen.  We already got the "look Ma, I got elected" scenario with Brian Hansen two years ago, we don't need to repeat it with Mr. Van Dusen, with all due respect.

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

Three (3) separate loans were made to this campaign, but were not reported on the 10/13/09 campaign report SCHEDULE E, which is a violation of 2.04.204(G) (promissory note or report on a form filed with City Clerk for candidate loan to themselves).  2.04.207(A)1 states this shall be reported on the 21st day before the election.  The penalty for not filing this report 2.204.211(C)1 is $400/day, 3 days elapsed before this report was made.  The Election Committee needs to determine if this is three (3) separate reports (although they each have different dates as noted below) or one(1) report of three (3) loans.  The total fine is either $1,200 or $400.

The dates and amounts of these loans were: 8/20/09 $579.35, 9/4/09 $231, 10/9/09 $94.54 - totaling $904.89.  As stated above, these loans were later reported in an amended report on 10/16/09 (3 days later).  Under 2.04.211(C)5 the penalty is $100/day for each violation.  3 violations x 3 days = $900 fine.

The source of these funds were not disclosed and it needs to be determined if this could be a violation of 2.04.204(A) ("conduit"), whereas the candidate is trying to hide a contribution or contributor.  2.204.211(C)4 penalty for "acting as a conduit" is $400 for each violation.

2.04.207(A)1(c), separate from the 2.04.207(A)1 violation above, was also violated for 3 days as the incorrect amounts were reported for total of contributions reported (loans), expenditures made (incorrectly denoted in original campaign report as "In-Kind Contributions), and balance of funds at end of reporting period (off by $25.95).  There are no specific fines for these types of mistakes entered on campaign reports, so 2.204.211(C)13 ("Any violation of this Act not otherwise set forth herein") may need to be applied, which is $100.  The Election Committee needs to determine how many of these "not otherwise set" kinds of violations occurred.

Supporting documentation is the 10/13/09 and 10/16/09 original and amended reports made by "Elect Kaye Fissinger" that the City Clerk and Election Committee already have copies of.

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

There is no accounting for the expenditure or in-kind contribution in the 10/13, 10/16, or 10/20 Elect Kaye Fissinger campaign reports for a large billboard that has been driven around Longmont that bears Ms. Fissingers likeness, name, and electioneering information (Vote For Kaye Fissinger).  In addition, the added expense of the use of the vehicle and fuel must be accounted for.  This is not a yard sign, it's approximately 10' x 20' and can only be displayed on a stationary or moving vehicle.

This has been seen around Longmont since at least 10/8/09 at the Candidate forum at Silvercreek High School, and is still in use at this date. 

2.04.211(C)5 Failing to disclose a contribution or expenditure - $100 per day for each violation, for up to 10 days.

It has been displayed for over 10 days and should be subject to the maximum $1,000 fine.
The expenditure or in-kind contribution of the use of the vehicle and fuel is a separate infraction of over 10 days equaling an additional $1,000 fine.

Election Committee must start all over

Something's rotten in Denmark.  Well, actually here in Longmont.  Something about the preliminary findings that the Longmont Election Committee has done so far just didn't pass the smell test for me - and now I know why.

A fair chunk of the people chosen for this committee had the full backing of the Benker Bloc, which is no surprise and I guess is their right as they were elected.  (Full disclosure, I volunteered for this committee to make a point.  But oddly, and as I expected, I had 4 people vote against me, wanna guess who?  Considering the fiasco the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act and this committee have become, I couldn't be more thrilled to not be a part of it).  From the very first meeting (and I'm the only member of the public, other than most of the committee members, that has been to every EC meeting), some members were concerned with possible conflicts of interest over past associations and contributions to candidates.

This became much more of an issue when it was time to do the first set of preliminary findings that were based on complaints by Council member Karen Benker.  Election Committee member Marilyn Hughes had to make a "declaration of association", saying "earlier this year before the campaign season started, I did write a letter to the editor of the Longmont Times-Call and it was published where I supported a number of endeavors that Councilwoman Benker was instrumental."  She didn't believe she needed to recuse herself - and didn't.  She had, and has, to repeat this for every single hearing. 

Well, I found it.  It was on June 14, 2009.  Depending on how you view when the "campaign season started" keep in mind that Ms. Benker's challenger for the Ward 2 seat, Katie Witt, filed for her candidacy on March 6, 2009.  Three months before Ms. Hughes op-ed.

But what is the Election Committee's view of when the "campaign season" starts?  One only has to go back to the October 19, 2009 Election Committee meeting to find out.  On this night, Karen Benker's complaint against Greg Burt was tossed out as it fell outside the 90 day window before an election, therefore not meeting the definition of "electioneering".  Some EC members said maybe the election cycle should be changed to election year.  Why not go with infinity, plus one?  Another member asked about when other candidates announced their candidacy, hinting that's when the election cycle, or campaign season, started.

But more to the campaign season and Ms. Hughes timeline:
March 6 - Katie Witt announces she's running for Karen Benker's Ward 2 seat 
April 1 - Ms. Hughes encourages fellow Longmont Area Democrats at their meeting to submit their names for the Election Committee
April 28 - Ms. Hughes' is appointed to the Election Committee (Benker voted for her)
June 14 - Ms. Hughes' overly favorable Karen Benker Open Forum letter in the Times-Call
August 2 - Karen Benker announces candidacy

I'm willing to bet a cheeseburger that Ms. Hughes heard about Ms. Witt's announced candidacy, and/or saw this quote from Ms. Benker:  “declaring your intent to run for City Council office in March, I think, is way premature. It’s too early.  This is not a presidential race; this is not a congressional race; this is Longmont City Council. Let’s get some perspective here.”  And while I acknowledge that it was a different election cycle (a whole 2 years ago), Ms. Hughes donated $150 in cash and in-kind contributions to Ms. Benker as well.

Based on all of the above, Ms. Hughes should have recused herself from the discussion and votes on these, and any future cases involving Ms. Benker.  Ms. Hughes was the acting Chair for the first round of preliminary findings and drove the discussion.  All of the preliminary findings found in the positive regarding Karen Benker should summarily be disregarded and the process needs to be started over from the beginning.

Unethical Shaffer endorses unethical Benker

Color me skeptical, but I found the endorsement of Longmont City Council member Karen Benker by Colorado State Senator Brandon Shaffer fairly ironic - and pretty pointless.  Make no mistake, this was tactical as Mr. Shaffer ran against Ms. Benker's opponent Katie Witt for State Senate last year.  People can point out that Mr. Shaffer beat Ms. Witt, but he isn't on the ballot this year.  His brand, along with Ms. Benker's and the entire Democratic Party has sunk at such a pace in the last year that even surprises me.

But back to the irony:  As I've written in many other places, Ms. Benker has a problem with transparency in regards to Colorado's Sunshine Laws.  Well, you know what they say about birds of a feather (they tend to flock together, in case you didn't know).  Mr. Shaffer was recently in the news over some of his own transparency problems.

State Senator plays it fast and loose with Open Meetings law  (6/21/09)

Culture Of Corruption: Brandon Shaffer  (6/18/09)

Colorado senate president: Exclusive Dem retreat a "mistake" (6/16/09)

Shaffer defends staffer’s bonus (6/16/09)

Colorado Senate to repay funds (6/18/09)

Brandon Shaffer has a problem with transparency  (2/25/09)

Funny how when elected officials are term limited, they feel free to go hog wild and disregard laws and ethics.  Basically, an endorsement by Brandon Shaffer isn't worth the newspaper it's printed on.

Maybe Ms. Benker could have gotten an endorsement from State Representative John "Jack" Pommer.  Then again maybe not:

Pommer has no time for campaign rules  and more of the same here  (4/6/09)

Now Pommer is taking possibly illegal contributions?  (4/18/09)

Oh well, nevermind, another term limited Democrat who can't follow the law.  Are there any honest ones at all?

Progressively regressive for Longmont and America

It is important for common-sense citizens to realize that in opposing the Bloc of Four in Longmont we are fighting the greater agenda of the Progressive Movement, the Modern Liberal, the Boulder Mentality--whatever you want to call it.

It seems that every issue with these leftists comes down to extreme environmentalism, fiscal irresponsibility with taxpayer monies, and basic government control of our lives and free markets. They are driven by some utopian vision; we are driven by what is right and responsible and what works.

Look at the local prairie dog issue, for example. No one wants to be cruel to wildlife, but the Progressives take it to the point where the rights of animals take precedent over the welfare of humans. This is the case at the Vance Brand airport, where prairie dogs have created a human safety issue and should be eradicated. People like Councilman Sean McCoy talk about moving the p-dogs from Longmont elsewhere, perhaps Weld County, but NOBODY WANTS THEM! Even enviro-crazed Boulder County doesn't want them. Again it comes down to what is right and responsible and what makes sense.

Progressives often have extreme views with little truth or valid information, such as with the current Longmont vs. Firestone annexation lawsuits regarding the LifeBridge/Union development. The leftest radicals cannot win on the principles, the facts, or logic, so they go to the politics of personal destruction and religious bigotry. I could name names but any fair-minded Longmonter knows who and what I am talking about.

No commentator on the national scene better describes the pitfalls of the Progressives than conservative radio show host Mark Levin, whose latest outstanding book, “Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto” spent 12 weeks atop the New York Times' best-seller list ...

"The Modern Liberal (the Statist) believes in the supremacy of the state, thereby rejecting the principles of the Declaration and the order of civil society...For the Statist, liberty is not a blessing but the enemy. It is not possible to achieve Utopia if individuals are free to go their own way. The individual must be dehumanized and his nature delegitimized. Through persuasion, deception, and coercion, the individual must be subordinated to the state. He must become reliant on and fearful of the state. His first duty must be to the state--not family, community, and faith, all of which have potential of threatening the state. Once dispirited, the individual can be molded by the state." (substitute the Bloc for Longmont--but no longer after Nov. 3, 2009!).

Big city's big guns aimed at Longmont?

Judging from the outbreak of newspaper racks planted around Longmont by his Denver News Agency to accommodate the remade version of their freebie YourHub.com, henceforth to be known as the Longmont Ledger, Denver newspaper magnate Dean Singleton clearly has his eye on the Longmont market. The last time I noticed, Singleton owns or controls 60 dailies and 97 non-dailies. Operating through DNA’s Daily Camera of Boulder, Longmont resident Clay Evans of that newspaper will be in charge of the reconstituted Longmont Ledger.

Some speculation has risen as to the DNA’s right to use the title of a longtime Longmont newspaper of the same name, which ceased publication years ago, the Longmont Ledger. It's been my experience that there would probably be no barrier to reusing the title unless some publisher of the Ledger at some time or other had registered the name as a trademark or printed a copyright symbol in the masthead. Either of those acts might complicate things.

A brief rundown on some of Longmont’s newspaper history as gleaned from the extensive works of the late Walter Stewart, who was a professor of journalism at UNC, and his wife Elma St. John Stewart:

Longmont Times founded in 1871 by Elmer Beckwith.

Longmont Ledger founded in 1879 by Charles Boynton and J.J. Jilson; name changed to Boulder County Commercial Ledger in 1970.

Longmont Call founded in 1898 by George W. Johnson.

Longmont Times and Longmont Call merged in 1931 to become the Longmont Times-Call. The Lehman family became owners in 1957.

Longmont Scene founded in 1970 by Agnes Roberts bought and merged the Boulder County Commercial Ledger in 1971.

Longmont Scene suspended publication in 1978.

Longmont Ledger or Leecher?

In what appears to be the last YourHub to be delivered to Longmont, I saw on page 3 something that made me chuckle.  Apparently the YourHub print edition, which comes in Thursday's Denver Post will be replaced by the Longmont Ledger (not to be confused with the Longmont Leader) on Sundays.  This will also be part of the Sunday Boulder Daily Camera.  That wasn't the funny part, this is:


It said "On October 25, we will re-launch the Longmont Ledger, the oldest newspaper in Boulder County, established in 1879."  Sounds pretty romantic, including a history of this newspaper and the recently deceased owner .  Now the Denver Post/Daily Camera has "adopted" this moniker and plan to make Mr. Robert Keeler (said former owner) "proud".


Only one problem, most of the above story is complete bullflop.


Hearken back, not to 1879, but to September 25 - 2009.  "Camera launches Longmont Weekly" was a press release about a weekly joint publication between....drum roll, the Daily Camera and the Denver Post.  Now wait a sec, Longmont Weekly?  Longmont Ledger? What's the story?  Turns out the wizards at each of these non-Longmont businesses didn't look into the actual registration and/or trademark of the Longmont Weekly name.  Ironically, it was already taken....

By the Longmont Daily Times-Call!  The very company these entities are trying to take advertising dollars and subscribers away from.  Is the term "carpetbagger" appropriate here?  What surprised me is that we haven't heard Councilmembers Sean McCoy or Karen Benker suggest we use this new paper for our Legal Notice's, since they sure don't want them in the Times-Call but have offerred no realistic alternative.

I'm sure all of you "Shop Local" types, which Ms. Benker often pretends to advocate for, are appalled by this outside corporation (last I heard the DC is owned by the DP) trying to help put a local business under.  If so, perhaps some of you so-called local business supporters should cancel your Denver Post and Daily Camera subscriptions and subscribe to the Times-Call.


Or at least call the DP/DC on this desecration in the from of honoring the Longmont Ledger name by "adopting" it for themselves.  Of course you now know it sure wasn't their first choice.

U.S. District Court grants plaintiffs Preliminary Injunction

This is a stunning, and probably costly defeat for the City of Longmont.  But a victory for the 1st Amendment. 
Here's a link to the entire document.

And a Denver Post article.
...more on this to come.

Judge suspends some campaign-finance rules

Van Dusen wrong about point of lawsuit

Longmont City Council candidate Bill Van Dusen wrote a guest opinion in the October 18, 2009 Longmont Times-Call entitled "More transparent campaigns make for more informed voters".  Some of his positions were just shot down by a federal judge in the Preliminary Injunction that was just handed down in the case of Western Tradition Partnership, et al v. The City of Longmont  (full disclosure, I'm also a plaintiff in this ongoing case)

His piece was a veiled attack on former Longmont mayor Julia Pirnack in reference to an earlier piece she wrote about the importance of anonymity.  He even goes as far as justifying Longmont's draconian requirements in the ridiculously written Independent Expenditure portion that was just deemed null and void by the judge in this case.  His example?  Another terrible piece of legislation called the McCain-Feingold Act, the very law that has brought us 527 groups and the fiasco we find ourselves in every election cycle.

If you read through his op-ed it's full of items the judge took apart in his order for this injunction.  He also completely misses the point of why this lawsuit was filed, at least from where the judge found myself to have "standing":  The red herring he throws out is that he thinks it's all about people trying to hide their identity, that's on overly simplistic view of this that anyone who went to the trouble of reading the legal briefs or attended the court dates would have known better.  He obviously didn't, along with a bunch of people who are chiming in with absolutely no idea of what they are talking about.

I even said in court I would be more than happy to make any report and not hide my identity if it were similar to what candidates had to do, which is report at set dates throughout the campaign.  But instead, I have to file within 72 hours, make sure each affected candidate is notified (which I assume would take Certified Mail to truly accomplish), put on the flier (or whatever it is) the name of the registered agent (tough to do when an individual can't be considered a committee nor can have a registered agent) AND design into the flier all of this and the dollar amount before going to print.  All things that are nearly impossible to determine beforehand (don't forget possible postage) - and the judge agreed.

Sorry I had to go through that entire diatribe to explain it, but some people, apparently Mr. Van Dusen included, just don't get it.  He appears to be fully onboard with the Fair Campaign Practices Act, and it bothers me (and should bother you) that he doesn't even question what might need to be questioned.  That's not a sign of a leader in my book.  We've had enough of the "go along to get along" type of politicians around here.  Enough already. 

Maybe Mr. Van Dusen should stick to his specialty in tax law and not constitutional law.

Why Karen Benker should lose

I'm sure the title "Why Karen Benker should lose" was instantly assumed to be some kind of political philosophy or opinionated piece, but that's not really the intent.  This is all about the numbers.

Vote breakdown, by the numbers

First, a little history.  Karen Benker (pictured at left) was appointed (selected, not elected) to City Council in early 2005 due to a vacancy in the Ward 2 seat.  She ran for retention of that seat in November 2005 and won.  But the numbers are interesting:  She only got 2,355 votes (or 37.1% of the vote) and only beat Alex Sammoury by 278 votes.  In 2007 she ran for Mayor, and in Ward 2, her ward, she only got 2,942 votes and lost citywide to Roger Lange by 7%.  Some people chose to vote for someone who pulled out of the race (Doug Brown) instead of her.  Total votes over two elections in her home ward 5,297 - her reputation has only declined since that time.


For reference, her opponent Katie Witt (pictured at right) ran for Colorado State Senate in November 2008 and was clearly identified on the ballot as Republican.  Even in an admittedly terrible year for Republicans, she received 6,105 votes in Ward 2.  This was less than a year ago, Karen Benkers last race was 2 years ago.  The 6,105 people who voted for Katie Witt knew then and can assume now what her political affiliation is, and there's little reason to believe they would change their vote for her in a larger statewide race now that she's running for a municipal seat.  These people may have donated money, put up yard signs, and obviously marked their ballot for Katie Witt - I see no good reason why a large percentage of them wouldn't do the same again this year.

The money, by the numbers

In any normal year, a city council candidate raising the kind of money Karen Benker raised in the first reporting period would be impressive.  That number was $6,885.37 in contributions and in-kind contributions spread over 69 people (70 counting her own $777.65 contribution).


But this isn't a normal year.  Her opponent Katie Witt more than doubled Ms. Benkers fundraising by collecting a whopping $14,628.81 in contributions and in-kind contributions, which was by far the most raised by any of the ten candidates running for city council.  These contributions were made by 112 individuals (add to that those that had their spouses listed) and 7 organizations/companies, which are nothing more than groups of people pooling their resources together.


Of even greater importance is what's left in their accounts for their campaigns to work with.  This shows the managerial and money management skills of the candidates.  After the first reporting period, Karen Benker had $1,879.59 of funds on hand.  Katie Witt had $7,187.77, which is more than the entire amount Karen Benker has raised to date ($6,885.37)!  In the election before the election - the money race - Katie Witt has doubled up on Karen Benker on contributions and tripled up on remaining funds on hand.  


Money doesn't always equal votes come Election Day.  But the people who do contribute have a vested interest in their candidate, and are usually motivated to get the word out to have their investment pay off.  If the larger contribution amount was just due to a few big donors, that would be one thing.  But the vast majority of Katie Witt's donors were small amounts, and the number of donors was at a rate of 1.6-to-1 of Karen Benkers.  

You'll also notice on Karen Benker's report a lot of the same names, or last names, spread around in the money and in-kind contribution sheets.  There is some creative math to keep some donors just barely under or at the contribution limit, with 94 cents here, 6 cents there.  Her report tells me that she just doesn't have widespread, grass roots support - pretty much the same cast of characters you'd expect to see - and/or their family members.


Money has a way of creating momentum - everybody wants to back a winner and jump on the bandwagon.  Who wants to throw away good money after bad, or after a losing effort?  Money also has a way of compounding momentum with the ability to send out more mailers, more phone calls, more advertising and signs - and more volunteers who want to get in on the action.  This is politics at its best as these people are not likely to go away after the election and a fair percentage will remain engaged.  


Unless there's cheating involved.  I'll cover this and the amount of ballots that were mailed out in an upcoming piece.
----------------------------------------------------------
(UPDATE) The 10/20/09 reports are out and the financial trends continue to go well for Ms. Witt, and poorly for Ms. Benker.  In a week, Ms. Benker raised $695 - $250 of which was from the Fraternal Order of Police, and the rest divided up amongst 6 individual donors.  Ms. Witt raised $1,107 - $80 were from 2 companies, the remaining $1,027 from 19 individual donors.  Total donors are roughly 76 for Benker, 138 for Witt, which improves the ratio to 1.8-1 for Witt.



Of greater importance was the available funds on hand for the last two weeks of the campaign.  Ms. Benker had $484 left.  Ms. Witt had $5,837 left.  Where before Ms. Witt had a 3-1 advantage in funds on hand, it is now 12-1.  If you get any mailers or robocalls from Ms. Benker, be suspicious.  These things cost money, usually more than $484.


Like I said in a Times-Call comment "No wonder Benker is lashing out in all directions, including wasting the Election Committee's time and insulting citizens. She's not quite the budgetary wizard she paints herself to be, as these numbers clearly show. It appears no one wants to give her any money, comparatively speaking. Why throw good money after bad? While contribution differences don't always equal election results - who's shoes would you rather be in right now?"

Benker's Freudian slip?

Saw this on Best of Longmont today.

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

Very interesting.  This isn't the first time, accidental or not, that Karen Benker has asked us to forget things we observe.  Remember her saying we should not pay attention to what we currently see at the Twin Peaks Mall.  It is a little tough to try to "forget" her "results" because she's constantly boasting about, and inflating, them.

"Continue to bring the change"?  So this "change" thing is an ongoing operation from a 4+ year "old guard" bureaucrat like Ms. Benker?  Please.  Time to make a change alright, in the Ward 2 City Council seat.


Sometimes, true feelings (like what you see above) just accidentally come out.  It's just easier to be yourself, but if she did that, this election would be a landslide...and not for her. 

Karen Benker tries to use Election Law to punish free speech

The freedom of speech and the freedom of the press are precious rights worth defending. That's why we should all be alarmed with how Council woman Karen Benker is using Longmont's campaign laws to intimidate people who express their opinions and report information critical of elected officials.

Last week Benker filed a complaint with the Longmont Election Committee against me because I was hired to investigate and write about some illegal activity Benker was involved with related to some city funds she helped get for a non-profit in town. The story was well documented with witnesses and city documents. (Click here to read the stories) But in the name of electioneering transparency, Benker thinks I'm obligated to tell the world who paid me to do this work.

I have to admit, in the past I thought it was a good goal for campaign giving to be transparent, but I’m having second thoughts. There are unintended consequences. Do we really have a right to know how our neighbor spends his money? Don’t we generally consider that a privacy issue. So why have we changed our opinion when it comes to money spent on campaigns?

Former Longmont Mayor Julia Pirnak made a great point in an recent editorial reminding us that sometimes people have a legitimate reason to print their opinions anonymously. The Federalist Papers, which Thomas Jefferson said were "the best commentary on the principles of government which was ever written,” were originally printed under the pseudonym “Publius." The authors obviously thought having their names attached to these writings would lessen their impact. But Longmont election law would have declared these writings illegal.

So why do Longmont residents feel the need to express their opinions about candidates anonymously? Council members in Longmont have the power to negatively impact business owners and developers who must come before the council to get approval for their business ventures. It is hard for some business owners to involve themselves publicly in elections, knowing the potential consequences to their livelihoods.

The irony is that Longmont's new election laws are not stopping people with lots of money from anonymously spending money to affect the elections. First they hire people like me, who report carefully researched articles in local blogs about candidates like Karen Benker. Then you have other organizations that are created like the Longmont Leadership group. They create a new organization with some public faces, but where does this organization get its money? Who knows? This law hasn’t stopped anonymous giving at all. It has only intimidated the average Longmont resident from communicating their opinions about local politics. The campaign rules are complicated and in order to stay out of trouble, the common working people stay quiet and uninvolved. And that is just what people like Karen Benker want. She wants to intimidate those thinking about actively opposing her.

When the election commission invalidated Karen Benker claim that I violated Longmont’s Campaign Law last night, they said what I did was legal because the article I published on a blog occurred 90 days before the election. This is true, but it leaves the impression that if the article was written within the 90 days, Karen Benker might have had a claim. The election commission should have explained to Karen Benker and the citizens of Longmont that news articles and opinions written for blogs are not considered campaign expenditures according to Longmont's electioneering laws.

Here is what the Longmont’s law says about campaign expenditures: expenditures do not include: “News articles, editorial endorsements, opinion or commentary writings, or letters to the editor printed in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical not owned or controlled by a candidate or political party.” I was paid to conduct research in order to write news articles and commentaries.

The Longmont law also requires all independent expenditures on campaigning over $100 to be reported to the city. But I didn’t make any expenditures over $100 to publish these articles, so I’m not sure why Karen Benker filed this complaint against me. She is really after the person that paid me. She filed the complaint to intimidate me and others out there interested in expressing their opinions or reporting information that makes her look bad.

If political speech is free speech it must be unregulated. If I have to report to the city how much money I spend to express my free speech, that equates to regulating free speech. What government regulates, it ends up controlling. If we believe in free speech then we have to put up with speech we don’t like and we have to trust the public has the wisdom to decipher truth from falsehood. Instead of complaining about my articles and running to the city to have me prosecuted, Benker should have defended herself based on the facts. She didn’t even attempt to do that. I gave her an opportunity to explain herself before I published my articles, but she didn’t answer my questions.

Our forefathers died to protect our freedom of the press because they believed in the power of the truth. We need to stand up and defend it once again. We need to renew our belief in its power and our trust in the public's ability to decipher fact from fiction. As the English poet John Milton famously said, "Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter." [Milton, "Areopagitica," 1644]

Benker decries robo-calls, then engages in them

Yet another case of the pot calling the kettle black.  Longmont City Council member Karen Benker has filed a complaint with the Elections Committee about a robo-call that went out recently.

And yet, she just interrupted people's Sunday with this robo-call herself.  I guess for someone who basically lead an anti-LifeBridge, anti-church, anti-religious movement, it's your problem if you have better or more important things to do on Sunday:
------------------------------------------

Hi this is Karen Benker. For the past 4 years I have served as your city council member and I am seeking reelection this year. Over the past couple of weeks many of you have received phone calls and fliers in the mail that have lied about my work on council. During my tenure as councilwoman I have faithfully and honestly represented my district. I am asking you now, do not to believe these lies paid for by outside interest groups from Montana who are spending thousands of dollars slandering my name. I am a true advocate for you. Again this is Karen Benker, and I hope you will vote for me this week. If you have any questions about my votes on city council, about my position on an issue, or the work I have done on your behalf please call me at 303-774-7745 or go to my website www.karenbenker.com. This phone call was paid for by Benker for City Council, Dennis Etchells, Treasurer.

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

"Faithfully and honestly"?  I don't live in Ward 2 so I didn't receive many of these mailers or calls, but they sound pretty spot on and not full of lies or slander.  Ms. Benker apparently, as the great Jack Nicholson once said, "can't handle the truth".  And she wants to make sure the truth is whitewashed as much as possible before Election Day.

I don't think so.

Benker SPAMS Prospect

Seems Longmont City Councilmember Karen Benker sent out some SPAM emails to her neighbors in the Prospect neighborhood.  Here it is below (in black) with some additional made-up lines thrown in (in red) to make it more interesting.  Enjoy.

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

Hi everyone,
Yes, it's that time of year again...football, falling leaves in Prospect, and elections.  (But Sunshine Law violations and misleading about "accomplishments" is a year round activity that keeps me quite busy)

Gotten any strange calls lately?  (UFO's got you down?  People stalking around your home or place of business?)

As you know, I am (unfortunately) running for reelection to City Council and am facing a very negative campaign from folks that are (spreading the truth about me, and) refusing to file campaign expenditure reports and are hiding behind a Montana non-profit called Western Tradition Partnership (well, actually I'm not being totally truthful.  WTP has made contributions to Longmont Leadership Committee, who are filing campaign expenditure reports) Seems weird (like, totally weird) that out-of-state and out-of-city folks (darn city folk) are involved in a Longmont campaign.  (Sort of like how the Democratic Party has funded my campaigns in the past)

Please do not believe these lies and distortions of my record (as they are pretty much 100% true). If you want more info, go to my website (www.KarenBenker.com) or, better yet, please give me a call at 303.774.7745. (And don't forget to ask me about Clover Basin, Secret Executive Sessions, and Open Records violations - three of my favorite subjects, along with pushing churches out of town, harrasing their members, and suing neighboring cities)

I ask you for your vote (but if you're smart, you'll mail it in after Election Day, or just vote for my opponent Katie Witt). Many thanks.

Hope to see you at the chili cook off.  (Don't forget to try the Backyard Chicken and Prairie Dog Surprise recipes!)

Karen Benker

Fissinger's Friday night document drop

It appears Longmont City Council at-large candidate Kaye Fissinger has learned a trick from her fellow travelers in the White House:  dump bad news late on Friday to avoid the news cycle.  Nice try, but no such luck.


It appears that Ms. Fissinger, or whoever is filing her reports, made a few boo-boos on their initial campaign report on October 13th (you can see it here).  In what basically was an admission of guilt (several times over), she made an amended report on Friday October 16th (which can be seen here).  Didn't hear about it?  Well, now you have.  And I'm sure the Election Committee when they meet on Monday October 19th to look over campaign reports will see these mistakes.

The rumor mill

A couple of months back there was this rumor going around about two candidates in particular getting shady under the table contributions from outside organizations.  Those two candidates were Karen Benker and Kaye Fissinger, the organizations were MoveOn.Org and ProgressNow (or ThinkProgress).  After seeing the initial campaign reports, those rumors appeared to be just that, rumors.  But Ms. Fissinger's amended report re-opens the possibility these rumors were true.

It's expensive to violate the LFCPA

Something that wasn't reported in the initial report were three so-called loans Ms. Fissinger made to herself.  The dates and amounts of these loans were: 8/20/09 $579.35, 9/4/09 $231, 10/9/09 $94.54 - totaling $904.89.  As you can clearly see, these were all made before the 10/13/09 reporting date.  If this money was received through some intermediary, like one of the organizations above, this would be what the Longmont Fair Campaigns Act (LFCPA) classifies as a "conduit".  Section 2.204.211(C)4 of the LFCPA has a penalty for "acting as a conduit" at $400 for each violation.  $400 x 3 = $1,200 fine.



But let's say it was an honest mistake in reporting, that there was no shady conduit-like contributions.  Failing to file a contribution falls under 2.04.211(C)5, the penalty is $100/day for each violation.  3 violations x 3 days = $900 fine.


What else was possibly violated?  2.04.207(A)1(c) was also violated for 3 days as the incorrect amounts were reported for total of contributions reported (loans), expenditures made (incorrectly denoted in original campaign report as "In-Kind Contributions), and balance of funds at end of reporting period (off by $25.95).  There are no specific fines for these types of mistakes entered on campaign reports, so 2.204.211(C)13 ("Any violation of this Act not otherwise set forth herein") may need to be applied, which is $100.  The Election Committee needs to determine how many of these "not otherwise set" kinds of violations occurred.  There are at least three violations in this area = $300 fine.


Lastly, 2.04.204(G) (promissory note or report on a form filed with City Clerk for candidate loan to themselves) was also violated.  2.04.207(A)1 of the LFCPA states this shall be reported on the 21st day before the election.  The penalty for not filing this report 2.204.211(C)1 is $400/day, 3 days elapsed before this report was made.  The Election Committee needs to determine if this is three (3) separate reports (although they each have different dates as noted above) or one(1) report of three (3) loans.  The total fine is either $1,200 or $400.


The Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act was amended to get this kind of shady campaign activity out of our local elections.  It's ironic (but not really) that someone like Ms. Fissinger, who essentially screamed from the podium in favor of this ordinance, will probably be the first to be found in violation of it.  By my math, there's the potential for $3,600 in fines.  Maybe it's time for a new round of "loans".


As an aside, none of the above violations are part of the lawsuit or possible preliminary injunction of the LFCPA by the plaintiffs in the case (which includes myself).  So even if the judge in this case grants us a preliminary injunction, the above possible violations can still be acted on from the Election Committee.  The others brought forward by Karen Benker would be subject to the injunction as they pertain to Independent Expenditures.

Fissinger lied about Benker's anti-LifeBridge involvement

No one likes a liar.  I know, we almost expect it from politicians, but still.

Back on June 25, 2009 in a Times-Call op-ed, City Council at-large candidate Kaye Fissinger said this: "No council member organized, directed or actively participated in this effort." The effort she speaks of is the petition drive in 2007 to overturn the annexation of the LifeBridge/Union property east of Longmont.  The same one we're mired in an endless amount of losing litigation over.  One of Longmont Advocate's contributors, Nicolle Pratt, wrote an excellent piece about this worth reading to refresh your memory.

A photograph of Ms. Benker in What's In It For Longmont's HQ was part of Ms. Pratt's story, but was forcefully yanked down after one of her supporters demanded it be removed.  Well, the following email is proof enough of Ms. Benker's more than idle involvement in that sordid affair that almost tore this community in half.  I wonder if this email was sent to the city's server as mandated by state Open Records law.

To: prospectcommunity@yahoogroups.com
From: lassiegirl@netscape.com

Subject: Fwd: [prospectcommunity] Sign petition?
(UPDATE) Date: Tue Sept 11 2007 3:33 pm  (How nice, let's all spend 9/11 trying to kick a church out of town)

Hi all,
If anyone is interested in signing the citizen petition to put the Union annexation to a vote of Longmont residents, I will be on my porch this Saturday morning from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. with a petition.
Karen Benker
303/774-7745

--------------------------
(UPDATE) Date: Wed Sept 12, 2007 9:31 pm

I forgot to include my address when I sent out the first email. Sorry about that.
This Saturday morning from 9:00 am to 10:00 at 1919 Andrew Alden Street you can sign the annexation petition to put the issue to a vote.
I have two lions (that look like collies) on my front porch.
Karen
---------------------------------------------
So, here we have a sitting councilmember, Karen Benker, who lost this annexation vote 1-6, actively participating in this petition drive to undo the vote of a super-majority on council.  I'm not sure if there was any lawbreaking involved there, but it sure seems pretty unethical, and one heck of a conflict of interest.

And we also have a council candidate, Kaye Fissinger, who's a regular agitator at the podium during council meetings, telling an outright lie in an op-ed in the Times-Call.  Ms. Fissinger was one of the main ringleaders of this anti-LifeBridge, anti-church, pro-hate operation and recent uncovered emails between these two people (along with that banned photograph) show they are partners in crime, so to speak.


It's hysterical looking back at the comments by these two over the last couple of years about LIFT, and that people may be doing shady things behind the scenes to corrupt local politics and win elections.   

THEY SHOULD KNOW!

Lady's and gentlemen - I bring you truly what is "Wrong with Longmont" (hence the site name).  They are the corruptocrats, they are the secret handshake committee out to get their political enemies, they skirt our laws and ethical standards.  They are everything they seek to rid the city of.  Come Election Day, get rid of them.

Voters should be Benker's judge and jury

Voters in Longmont by now have received their mail-in ballots for city council candidates and various other races and issues.  But this year you should consider yourselves not just voters, but judge and jury.  We have a council member and candidate who has skirted Colorado’s Sunshine Laws for two decades and so far has gotten away with it.  This time around you, the voter, can deliver much needed justice.

The person in question is Council member Karen Benker.  Back in the ‘90’s an issue that was brought up repeatedly by the Rocky Mountain News through articles and editorials was charges she violated Open Meetings laws.  Her fellow RTD board members echoed this sentiment and a recall effort was attempted against her, although thrown out on a technicality due to jurisdiction.

As everyone should know by now, Ms. Benker is part of a council with a staggering amount of secret Executive Sessions, so much so that the Times-Call is suing this council over it.  And now it has been revealed that she has repeatedly, and intentionally in my opinion, disregarded the Open Records law when it comes to making her emails public.

The amount of evidence that I have provided to the Boulder County District Attorney’s Office is a thick pile of attachments, I’ll try to summarize:  I included relevant portions of the Colorado Public Records Law (C.R.S 24.72.201) and an administrative regulation from the City of Longmont.  Included within them the issue of confidentiality comes up.  This is the clause Ms. Benker is trying to use as her reasoning, or excuse, for not forwarding the emails in question.  It’s made pretty clear that the actual word “CONFIDENTIAL” must be in the subject line of the email and “just because a message is labeled “CONFIDENTIAL” does not mean that it will be exempt from disclosure” (from 2.07 of “Longmont’s Electronic Records, their retention and availability to the public” administrative regulation)

Further, in the April 29, 2008 Longmont City Council Study Session, Ms. Benker asked the City Attorney specifically about this, and he clearly said it was not up to the receiver, in this case a council member, to determine the confidentiality of a communication – it is up to the sender.  But these emails had to do with city business, not a personal note asking how the family was doing or anything along those lines.  This was about funding anomalies concerning Ms. Benkers dealings with H.O.P.E. and the emails alluded to “frustrations that Longmont developers have with Karen Benker” (from Ms. Benkers 8/5/09 Times-Call op-ed).  As you can see these are clearly not private or personal communications, they relate to public policy.

To prove this is not an election issue or some hatchet job, not only have I written about this for over 18 months, but the Times-Call did a series of stories and an editorial about it last June – before Ms. Benker even announced her candidacy.  Her latest violation occurred in late July 2009, after all of the public attention was paid to this issue.  In Ms. Benkers emails that were made public and in her op-ed she quoted directly from the emails in question, which would make the material within them public information and no longer confidential.  She had the option of redacting the names of the people who sent her those emails, but after more than 2 months she has still not forwarded these to the city’s server as mandated by law.  Instead she has insulted me, my website, and the other individual who dared question her activities (Greg Burt). 

To further make the case that this isn’t an election issue, I am requesting the DA’s office pursue this regardless of the outcome of the upcoming election.  Of course, it’s inevitable that it indeed will have to be considered during this election season because Ms. Benker has recently (allegedly) violated this state statute, and the coincidence of the time of the year.  Due to the DA’s Office time constraints (and they have not indicated they will even consider this case) they may not be able to get to it before Election Day.  This is after all just a misdemeanor, but punishable by a fine of not over $100 and/or imprisonment for not more than 90 days.  If that maximum penalty wasn’t written for repeat and intentional violators, why was it written at all?  And if this law won’t be enforced, why bother having it?

The DA’s office didn’t pursue the previous complaint against Ms. Benker (possible C.R.S. 24-18-109 violation), which doesn’t exactly mean she’s innocent of it, and I don’t know if they’ll pursue this either.  Regardless of that, thankfully the largest jury in the city – the voters of Longmont – can render their own judgment in this matter.

On Ms. Benker’s website she says “Longmont voters are smart, don’t be fooled!”  Not only has she tried to fool the citizens of Longmont, she’s tried to hide it by abusing Open Records and Open Meetings laws.

A vote for Karen Benker is a vote for continued dishonest government.  A vote is a terrible thing to waste.