Staggering bill for Election Committee hearings

In my recent "Scrap the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act" I said "The financial cost to the city (special counsel and prosecutor) was in the thousands, while the fines levied were barely in the hundreds."  Apparently I was being too conservative.  The bill (up to this point) is in a city document that may make your jaw drop, even I was surprised.  Be prepared to be appalled.

Within the above document, there is a history of how we got here.  Readers digest version:  Then council candidate Gabe Santos received a $5,000 contribution, there was much crying and whining.  Council member Sarah Levison made the most noise on council and demanded something be done about it.  Along with the former bloc, she pushed through the idea of a Task Force who worked pretty hard at amending the ordinance.  Council member Levison, I'm told, inserted herself a little too much into these proceedings (many eyes rolled) and was heard to utter "Brennan Center" a few too many times for anyone's liking.  Figuring since she liked to hear herself talk endlessly, the others in the group must enjoy it as well (I'm told this was an incorrect assumption).

As predicted, City Council is presented with an ordinance, they discard this and that and end up with a lawsuit-inviting shipwreck.  They decide to invite a few people onboard the Titanic in the form of the Election Committee, what could go wrong?  Many on this committee aren't picked for actual election law knowledge, but because they're political buddies.  They (and this is said right in the city document) learn as they go along at an attorneys fee of around $400/hour.

Sarah Levison noted that to follow Brennan Center's example would give us a document with less of a chance of court challenges.  Well, we all know what happened there; in no time flat there was a court challenge and the City is eating it's lunch, a very expensive one to the tune of around $75,000.  Add to that some of the LFCPA is on the verge of being stripped of some of its language.  So much for the Brennan Center.

But it gets better, and back to the point of this story.  The Election Committee's kangaroo court collected a grand total of $700 in fines.  What were the attorney's fee's to collect that $700?  Estimated at $39,048.  That's right, almost 40 grand!

Council member Levison's mistake, or at least uneducated incompetence, has set back the City of Longmont over $110,000!
 

Karen Benker was partially done in with the failing Twin Peaks Mall.

Sarah Levison has the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act.  I'm not sure which is worse.

There is $14,467 left in the City Council Contingency fund, staff is asking for all of it to partially cover this looming legal bill.  And the spending is not done yet, they just got started.

Also within that city document are suggested changes to the LFCPA.  To help out Council member Brian Hansen - all those suggestions that say Rodriguez next to them, that would be me - you know, the guy who's suing the city over the LFCPA.  He was confused about that recently.  Even though I wasn't on the committee, I submitted a ton of suggestions to make this ordinance a little more acceptable and not so much of a lawsuit smorgasbord.

But Ms. Levison and her followers knew better - as we can all see by the staggering bill that's come due.  Imagine if someone did this not within a bureaucracy, where incompetence like this is somewhat expected and sheltered, but at a company. Not only would someone get fired for this kind of performance, but probably charged with some kind of crime or wages garnished for a very long time.  But this is how people act when it's not really their money.

So, two big numbers to remember:  $110,000 down the drain / 2011 election.  Recalls of sitting council members are just too expensive - wait, now it's starting to make sense!  Then again, people could always just resign, that would probably be cheaper in the long run.

Clueing in the easily puzzled

It's a rare treat for your loyal editor and publisher to respond to the occasional sniping from the pointless peanut gallery.  If I did it all the time, I'd have nothing else to do, and it's boring to argue with the ignorant.

But someone (you've never heard of) has gone out of her way to mention me a couple of times in reference to a recent board appointment, so let me answer.  Her name is Paula Burr (just by typing that, her name exposure just went up 100 fold), an Obamabot from Organizing For America (which probably explains why she doesn't care for me or my appointment) and has repeatedly said she's "puzzled".  I'll try to unpuzzle.

After attending Airport Advisory Board meetings for several years, and often asked why I didn't apply for it, I finally did recently.  The reason I never did, not that it's anyone's business, was due to work schedule conflicts, which has been resolved.  Unfortunately, the timing of the interview process couldn't have been worse: they asked me when I could be available on a particular day, to which I answered, and they assigned me a time right in the middle of when I said I could not attend.  I don't have bankers hours, can't take phone calls on the job, nor am easily pulled away while at work - simple as that.

But, I sent an extensive letter to all council members apologizing and explaining why it was impossible for me to attend this interview and went through my rather lengthy background in aviation.  For all of my critics in town, rest assured, whatever you may think of my political writings and positions, my aviation background, all 25+ years of it, is substantial and I'm more than qualified to serve on this board.

But I heard some stories about this so-called interview process, where one applicant said all the council members (I believe it was Sarah Levison and Sean McCoy) were interested in was what the applicant thought of Tom Zweck and the St. Vrain Greenway!   Yes, those should be good indicators of aviation and airport knowledge, if that's what they were looking for.  My application had all the information any serious council member would need to make a decision, but it's obvious from comments and actions before and after the vote that these two council members, along with Brian Hansen, weren't and aren't serious.

One went around spreading bald faced lies about me, one acted like he wasn't sure I was the same Chris Rodriguez that was suing the city (duhh), and another is busily causing discord within the current board and will likely make a third attempt in 3 weeks to undo my appointment.  And that's not even half the story, but I'll leave it there for now.

But the puzzlement really has nothing to do with experience and suitability for the position, it's all about politics.  If people want to play dumb and pretend it's anything else (or are really just dumb), try doing a better job.  Ironically, these same people say my appointment was purely because of politics.  See what I mean?  Now you see why I don't usually argue with the clueless, confused, and ignorant?

Despite petition drive, prairie dog fence at Vance Brand Airport in Longmont is removed

You knew something was up when many advocates for prairie dogs filed into the Longmont City Council chambers last Tuesday night to make pleas on behalf of the ongoing issue of prairie dogs at Longmont's Vance Brand Airport. Others channeled world leaders and one was very persistent in being disruptive and placing signs within camera view of the live meeting.

But, speakers also stated that 3,500 people had sent emails and letters in support of the prairie dogs.

Read the rest of the story at Examiner.com

Scrap the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act

A version of this ran in the Tuesday December 15, 2009 Longmont Times-Call 
 

The Longmont City Council has an important decision to make in the near future:  what to do about the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act (LFCPA).  Whatever honeymoon the new council enjoys will probably come to a screeching halt regardless of how they move forward on this.  Inaction is not an option because of their 7-0 vote to end the lawsuit between the city and multiple plaintiffs (including myself) over the LFCPA, and the terms of that probable settlement.

This was a good first step as it was clear the city would eventually lose this case, might as well stop the financial bleeding now.  Hopefully they will continue this thought process of ending the costly and losing litigation in the cases with Firestone and the Times-Call.  It will hurt a little bit now, but much more later if these pointless cases continue.

Options in this LFCPA matter:

1. Put the ordinance on hold while it is rewritten to reflect the Federal judge's preliminary injunction (Independent Expenditures, electioneering changes, etc)
2. Dissolve the LFCPA and the Election Committee (EC) completely and hit the "reset" button
   

Cold hard truths
Let's face some facts:  This entire exercise starting in early 2008 was a tool of the now deposed "bloc", with some outside help and cheerleading by Richard Juday and some loyal bloc mouthpieces.  It was a direct shot at Gabe Santos and the Longmont Association of Realtors (LAR) because of their (completely legal) $5,000 contribution to him.  LAR is also a plaintiff in this lawsuit, currently the legal bill to settle this case is $75,000!  That's what the City of Longmont will dish out to settle this case, and that bill goes up every day.  Thank you "Bloc et al"!

I believe most on the Election Task Force had the right idea (that's been tossed around for years) to decriminalize the election code, but some members of that task force and city council wanted to go way too far, coming up with the monstrosity we're now stuck with.  It's an ordinance that a federal judge and the Election Committee's legal counsel and prosecutor have told them repeatedly has some possible unconstitutional aspects to it.  And now we must deal with it.

The Election Committee

I'm the only member of the public that has attended every single Election Committee (EC) meeting, other than some of the members themselves.  It's a shame that current city councilmembers didn't witness these meetings, but probably a blessing that the general public didn't witness them.  These meetings ranged from excruciating, to interesting, to embarrassing - and I'm not just talking about the committee members, but also witnesses and complainants.  Far from a high point in Longmont's history, take my word for it.

Some of the members at times showed blatant bias and favoritism, complete ignorance of the LFCPA, or both.  The financial cost to the city (special counsel and prosecutor) was in the thousands, while the fines levied were barely in the hundreds.  The EC should be stripped of all enforcement actions involving violations and fines - and if there's still some version of an election code, just be tasked with amending it as necessary and then be dissolved.  This has turned into the kangaroo court I had predicted it would because of some, not all, of the members and their actions.

What to do with the LFCPA

This ordinance has been a monumental failure.

• It hasn't lowered the amount of contributions as desired, there was more money contributed.  
• It didn't lessen outside forces getting involved in our election, it increased them.  
• It didn't produce a fair and unbiased body to deliberate possible violations.
• It invited a huge and costly lawsuit to the City of Longmont.
• It got regional attention for its unconstitutionality.
• It echoes the disastrous McCain/Feingold federal campaign law and the headaches that has brought us.
• It will more than likely be used as case law and precedent for other lawsuits against municipalities with similar intentions.

Is this really what we want Longmont to be known for?

Luckily we can fix the mistakes of the past, but city council should not wait too long.  We're under more of a microscope than some people may realize, we need to do this quickly, and right.  End this fiasco, and put this ordinance temporarily or permanently out of its misery.  Or at least severely overhaul it.  Give us something we can be proud of, and not embarassed over.

Enviro board stopped in its tracks

It's becoming obvious that radical environmentalism is one of the chief weapons left-wing Progressives use to impose their socialistic will on individuals, businesses, and free markets. We see it on the national scene with a deluge of climate change propaganda and carbon cap & trade talk, and locally with green building mania and open space overkill.

It seems the city of Longmont's Board of Environmental Affairs (BEA) wanted to get in on the act as well, not surprisingly with lefty zealots Kaye Fissinger and Richard Juday onboard as dominating members. The BEA proposed an ordinance to change the municipal code so they could "proactively" provide input to city council. In other words, they could stick their noses in all city business and affairs as only enviro-Statist types know how to do.

But newly-elected Longmont Mayor Bryan Baum would have no part of this Progressive power play. In perhaps his finest moment to date as mayor, Baum put the BEA in its place as seen in this council meeting video...



The BEA ordinance was subsequently tabled on first reading with Councilmembers Baum, Santos, Witt, and Sammoury voting against the proposal, and three predictable votes in favor by Democrats McCoy, Hansen, and Levison. In a related move later in the meeting, Richard Juday's seat on the BEA was not extended by councilmembers voting in the same way.

Longmont is already reaping the rewards of a new conservative and principled council majority, not the mindless left-wing activism of the bygone Benker Bloc.

Want to be on Longmont City Council?

November 2011 is right around the corner if you think you might be interested in becoming a Longmont City Council member.  The time to start planning is NOW, not in mid-2011.  This doesn't mean you should announce NOW, but it's never too early to get your ducks in in a row.

2011 should be a quite interesting election cycle for city council.  There will be 4 positions available to chose from:  Mayor, At-Large, Ward 1, and Ward 3.  The latter 3 are from the former "Bloc of 4" (we need a new moniker for these 3 - how about "Loathsome Threesome") and are of the liberal/progressive bent.  Their 4th member, former Ward 2 council member Karen Benker, was unceremoniously dumped by the voters of Longmont.  2011 gives the voters a chance to go for a grand slam and rid us of this element for at least a few years.  They had their chance, and have made a mess of things that will take some time to fix.

How to get started

At the very least you should become acquainted with how the City Council operates, and the issues of the day.  The best way to do this is attend as many council meetings (Tuesdays, 7pm) as possible.  You can also watch it on TV (Ch. 3), but being there, and being seen and heard, has more impact.  Try to get on an advisory board, committee, or commission.  While they just assigned a slew of citizens to boards, there are always openings.  Write in to the Times-Call on city related subjects.  Speak at Public Invited To Be Heard.  Attend various advisory board, committee, and commission meetings.  Basically, do your homework and get noticed.

Time and Money

Getting on city council can be an expensive and time consuming undertaking, do you have the time and energy to follow through with it?  For reference, current Ward 2 council member Katie Witt announced in March for a November election (8 months) and raised almost $18,000.  This was just for an area that was a third of the city.  At-large and Mayoral candidates have to cover the entire city.  Basically, in the last election, the people who raised the most money won.  The ones who raised little to no money lost.  It's difficult to knock on every door, especially in an at-large race, in a few months time, so mailers and phone calls become more important and they aren't cheap or free.

Be focused

Figure out which ward you live in and which race you will enter.  As stated earlier, Ward 1 (Brian Hansen) and Ward 3 (Sean McCoy) will be up for re-election in 2011.  If you live in Ward 2 you can only run for at-large (Sarah Levison) or Mayor (Bryan Baum), or you could move.  As long as you've been in a ward for one year, you can run for that seat (verify this with the City Clerk).  Like Benker before them, Hansen, Levison, and McCoy are vulnerable and easily beatable - that is if they aren't recalled before 2011.  This could be the best chance for an average (non-radical) type of citizen to serve their community on council.

Make a plan

Once you decide you want to run for city council and for which seat, start a soft campaign.  This means getting your name and face out there, but not necessarily in the context of a future candidate.  People get turned off by long campaigns and announcements that are too soon, but you as a future candidate may need all of that time, and raising contributions to be in the game come Fall.  A few yard signs and appearances at a forum or two just won't cut it anymore.  People have to know your name and what you stand for, don't be shy about it.

In closing

This is not the first time I've made a call for citizens to consider serving on council.  When citizens are apathetic to what's going on in their community, we end with historical anomalies like the detestable "Bloc of 4".  They represented influences foreign, and detrimental, to Longmont and were due to voters just not paying attention.  While I did comment a little before their '07 electoral victory, like most people I wasn't very engaged in the campaign.  Since I'm interested in Longmont's future, and weeding out what's wrong with Longmont, it was obvious the first positive step was to, and is to, break up the bloc - which was accomplished and continues.

While I suppose I could always run, I'm more interested in helping someone else get elected as long as they are as far as possible from what the bloc represented, are serious, and have the time and energy to endure a grueling campaign.  But mostly, they must have Longmont's best interests at heart and are willing to serve.  It's not for everyone - as Benker, McCoy, Levison, and Hansen have proven - much to the city's chagrin.

In future entries, I'll discuss the current council members and the seats they will be defending in 2011.  If you think it's too soon to consider these things, you're wrong.  While candidates have won riding the coattails of others and had no clue why they won, like Brian Hansen, that's the exception, not the rule.  Serious candidates and future effective representatives need to be prepared to be put in such an important position - and not the proverbial gee-whiz deer in the headlight kind of novices that have plagued us and need to be replaced in the next election.

Strange days indeed

After being involved with the Vance Brand Airport and attending Airport Advisory Board meetings for years, figured it was time to finally apply for this board and serve the community.  Despite some pretty shady and underhanded maneuvers by some council members, your humble editor/publisher received a majority of votes to become a regular member for 3 years.  Also, Council member Katie Witt has replaced Sean McCoy as council liaison.  Now there's some change we can believe in!