Cooling-off period advisable

     It’s all in the family—the Democratic Party, that is, which enjoys a stranglehold on Boulder County government. First, let it be said that if the three Boulder County commissioners were Republicans engaging in the same sort of behavior, I would criticize them as well. What’s going on here may be perfectly legal, but to some of us it’s objectionable.

    Case in point: The position of County Attorney is up for grabs as of Dec. 21 and term-limited Boulder County Commissioner Ben Pearlman, chairman of the board, says he wants the job, which would amount to a hefty salary increase. (Commissioner $87,500; County Attorney $110,000/$160,000, present CA who is retiring draws $159,220.)

     The fact that Pearlman worked in the county attorney’s office before running for commissioner gives him an advantage that cannot be ignored by his fellow commissioners, no matter their pledge to consider every applicant. However, it will be difficult for commissioners Cindy Domenico and Will Toor to escape the appearance of insider favoritism if they do appoint him. Yet they could look equally bad if they don’t. People might wonder why.

     Future remedy? The City of Louisville at the prodding of resident John Leary adopted a strict Ethics Code in 1992 that, among other things, prohibits Louisville’s elected officials from becoming employees of the city until two years after leaving office. It’s working nicely.

     Maybe it’s time to outsource the county’s legal services. There are plenty of law firms around that should be interested in bidding for a stake in this gold mine. Since the county has to hire special counsel whenever a sticky case arises anyway (e.g., the county’s failed crusade against the Rocky Mountain Christian Church), then why not seek bids and contract out the whole caboodle? Surely, county law is not all that complicated.

Public business, off the beaten path

Some thoughts about the Colorado newspaper industry and its leadership organization, the Colorado Press Association.

WHERE'S THE TRANSPARENCY?

News release: “CU-Boulder names steering committee, discussion groups to plot future of a school or college in the area of information, communication, journalism, media and technology ICJMT,” sent out by the university and forwarded by email on 6/24/11 to past presidents of the Colorado Press Association.

Of the eight discussion groups described in this press release, I see no hint of the small-town publisher’s journalistic “needs.” What sort of an education does it take to be one? These grassroots communicators never ask for special treatment, but institutionally they outnumber dailies in Colorado by about 4 to 1.

But most surprising is that the meetings of these discussion groups at CU will be open to other faculty to attend by invitation, “but are closed to the media.”

We journalists are supposed to frown on the practice of government conducting public business behind closed doors, yet when a public institution decides that it’s okay to shut out the media when deciding the nitty-gritty of how journalists shall be trained, we are expected to look the other way?

POSTAL SERVICE PROBLEMS

It’s a fact: The Postal Service lost $8 billion last year and is pondering the closing of 1 in 10 retail outlets. It has 3,600 offices out of 31,000 up for review. Over the decade, it has closed 7,000 offices.

Of the 3,600 currently facing closure, 61 are in Colorado. A few names I’m familiar with: Arriba, Joes, Matheson, Red Cliff, Wild Horse. (Source: WSJ.) I don’t think any newspaper towns are involved so far. But anytime rural postal service is rejiggered, what happens in one town often negatively affects the newspaper in the nearby town that has subscribers there. Possible outcome: More distribution headaches for small-town publishers.

THE SOUND OF SILENCE

The Colorado Supreme Court in my opinion made a bad decision in letting a Colorado governor use his personal cellphone to conduct public business, declaring it off limits as private when asked by the media to see a list of calls he made.

It is in times like these that the Colorado Press Association should have immediately issued a carefully worded blast for members to voluntarily reprint, challenging the Court’s finding. The newspaper involved protested editorially, but that’s not the same as blanket criticism emanating from the majority of Colorado’s Fourth Estate.

Legally, newspapers have lost a lot of ground in Colorado (take note, J-School) and this is but one example. Just as these words are being written an appeals court decided it’s okay for local officials to cast secret ballots, even in making routine decisions. Transparency, anyone?

What’s so frustrating about so many of these decisions is that it’s invariably the public who is the big loser over the long haul, not the newspaper. We either have open government, or we don’t.

TALK ABOUT OPPORTUNITY

Like the CU J-School turmoil, it seems that some group or groups decided that the Colorado Press Association also needed to be blown to smithereens in order to save it. Once the dust gets settled after all of the commotion and social networking at 1336 Glenarm Place in downtown Denver, I’m hoping to see the display advertising content of The Colorado Editor grow back to its once self-sustaining level. This month there was only one ad. The pages of the Editor, the CPA newspaper directory, and the annual convention program all offer affordable advertising opportunities for media-oriented businesses to connect with newspaper industry insiders. CPA needs revenue, and selling more advertising—although admittedly a tough go—is still a viable option.

As far as I know, CPA is still a press “ink on paper” organization and should be leading the way, by carrying a healthy run of advertising in its own publications.

TAKE HEART, SMALL-TOWN NEWSPAPERS

Having published several different small-town newspapers during my 50 years in the news business, I’m pleased to see the national media finally wakening to the critical importance of these small-town information centers. Thanks to author Judy Muller, whose new book “Emus Loose in Egnar,” according to previews, will do much toward igniting a new reverence for, and understanding of, this distinct form of communication.

The following appeared in the July 12, 2011 edition of the Longmont Times-Call as a letter to the editor:

What about Shaffer's record?

To no one’s surprise, state Sen. Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, told a group attending a backyard 4^th-of-July party that he’s running for the 4^th District Congressional seat held by Republican Cory Gardner.

Scarcely front-page material, especially after being pre-released via YouTube, the Times-Call nonetheless did its duty in reporting Shaffer’s confirmation. Fair enough.

But it didn’t stop there. The very next day, Shaffer again made the front page, this time in a lengthy interview so boring that the dramatic backyard scenario had to be trotted out again.

In the interview, Shaffer brags of his “bipartisanship” and how he’s going to straighten out Congress, but doesn’t explain why the state Legislature, where he held a key position, failed to redistrict leaving it to the courts. Where’s the bipartisanship?

When asked at the newspaper what his approach to restoring the nation’s economy would be, he ducked the question by unleashing an attack on Gardner. Not much news there.

Too bad the local press didn’t at least ask him about his voting record and performance evaluations. Here are some data that might be of interest. (Most of this comes from VoteSmart.org):

--Cooperation with small business: Colorado National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) gives Shaffer a score of 33 out of a possible 100.

--NRA, on gun issues, “F.” (A is high on the scale.)

--Colorado Union of Taxpayers, 3.13 out of a possible 100.

Some of Shaffer’s voting record:

--Voted to suspend property tax exemptions for seniors. (A backdoor tax increase.)

--Voted to take away sales tax exemption for agricultural compounds used in the care of livestock.

--Voted to increase vehicle registration fees. (Another backdoor tax increase.)

If and when Congressman Gardner announces his intention, do you suppose he will get “bipartisan” double coverage?

Boulder County running up huge debt buying open space

But first: Saving the environment by living where we work. . .

(To meet space limits, a redacted version of this letter appeared in the 3-8-11 edition of the Longmont Times Call.)

Do we really believe in practicing insofar as possible the concept of living in the same community where we work?

I think Longmont is fully capable of determining its own destiny, therefore its civic leaders should not be buying so readily—both financially and philosophically—into *PLAN-Boulder County’s (People’s League for Action Now) anti-growth strategy of strangling our community with open space and irrevocable easements to kill future housing projects that might become necessary to accommodate any realistic increase in economic activity (jobs) around here.

At stake right now is the possible site for the proposed Aerospace and Clean Energy Manufacturing and Innovation park (ACE), which would create an estimated 10,000 jobs. In the race for this economic prize, according to the Daily Camera, are Erie, Greeley, Longmont, Louisville and Loveland. Noticeably, Boulder doesn’t seem to be interested, probably because it’s out of land for housing and is already overflowing with commuter-dependent industries.

One of ACE’s qualifying requests was for the availability of an existing industrial building of 300,000 to 600,000 square feet. Another request was for a 200-to-400 acre greenfield, shovel-ready with freeway access.

Amateur economist that I am, I’d pick Loveland as the best bet. Longmont made a mistake years ago by not annexing clear out to I-25 and is now forever cut off by you-know-what, but otherwise seems well qualified. Erie has direct access and plenty of room for housing, but has been slow to develop infrastructure for its interstate frontage. Louisville faces Boulder’s end game of buildout and what space is left is ultra-expensive. Since proximity to the University of Colorado as well as the federal establishments already operating in Boulder will be of importance to ACE, Greeley seems a bit distanced from the action.

Having said all this, politics as usual will dominate the selection process. You can count on that.

Percy Conarroe

Longmont CO 80501

*PLAN-Boulder County was launched in 1959 as PLAN-Boulder by two CU professors, Al Bartlett and Bob McKelvey, now retired. This powerful behind-the-scenes anti-growth group controls politics in the city of Boulder and now its influence permeates county government. PLAN-Boulder takes credit for imposing Boulder’s famous “blue line” growth barrier but let NCAR puncture it in 1961 with a facility built on a 500-acre site on Table Mountain. Likewise, in 1964, it let in IBM (located near Niwot, Boulder annexed it by flagpole) but in 1980 drove away Systems Dev. Corp. and its potential 4,000 jobs. PLAN-Boulder County fought the expansion of nearby Superior but was strangely silent when the city of Boulder sold some of its Big Thompson water allotment to the town to spur its housing development. McKelvey has since moved to Montana but Bartlett is still active in the group.

IN ANSWER TO A CRITIC

In his response to the above letter two days later in the 3-10-11 edition of the Times-Call (my, what a quick turnaround!), Mr. Gregory Iwan, who identifies himself as an expert economist, urban planner and real estate appraiser, claims that Longmont already has 4,000 vacant residential lots platted that are “growing tumbleweeds” and, at 1.7 jobs each, those would be sufficient for ACE’s employees.

His equation conveniently ignores the housing that will also be needed to accommodate the increased service, commercial and retail job opportunities that ACE brings. I don’t know where he expects those people to live in order to be near their work place (as I suggested).

Oh, and the owners of those platted lots that are “growing tumbleweeds” do indeed contribute taxes to help fund our schools, county and local governments, including fire and police protection. Perhaps Mr. Iwan can quote some statistics on how much his preferred government-owned open space pays in taxes to help fund these essential public services.

Boulder County, founded in 1861, covers roughly 485,000 acres of which 34 percent or 167,761 acres were already set aside as public land. (Source: Colorado Year Book, 1962-64.) To those 167,761 original acres add the approximate 95,000 acres purchased by Boulder County, the 45,000 acres added by the city of Boulder, and the 2,000 acres added by the city of Longmont, and the grand total of open space acreage totals around 320,000 acres, meaning that roughly 65 percent of the land area in Boulder County is now owned by the government. Conservation easements account for only a tiny portion of the total acreage.

SWIMMING IN DEBT and the newspapers won’t report it. Boulder County, in its frenzy to buy land, has run up a debt of over a quarter-billion dollars. It uses voter-approved sales tax revenues as seed to leverage big, long-term bonded indebtedness. According to the Boulder County Finance Department, this debt totaled $267,852,665 (principal and interest payable) as of its most recent audit report of 2009. How the county commissioners could run up a debt of this magnitude under TABOR should at least be worthy of a news story.

Initiative process already complicated

As if the process is not already complicated enough, Democratic state Sen. Brandon Shaffer of Longmont wants to make it harder for the people of Colorado to initiate their own laws. Surprisingly, the Times-Call agrees.

Our First Amendment right to petition our government is involved here and considering the glut of laws the Colorado Legislature passes every year, mostly to control our lives, the number of initiated proposals adopted by the people pales in comparison. A state web page titled “Session Laws of Colorado 2010 Second Regular Session, Table of Enacted House Bills” shows 431 bills were passed with four vetoed; a separate table of enacted Senate Bills shows 217 were passed with no veto. Total bills enacted, 644?

In contrast, in 2008 only four of 14 proposed amendments passed and in the 2010 election, only one of seven was approved. Don’t underestimate the wisdom of Colorado voters.

Some of Shaffer’s ideas:

--Require a 60 percent majority statewide vote to pass an initiative. (Okay then, to be fair, every law passed by the state legislature should require a 60 percent majority vote in both houses.)

--Require initiative petition signatures to be gathered in each of the state’s seven congressional districts; increase the number of signatures needed. (These steps won’t have much effect on discouraging the moneyed interests but will hamper the process for the common people.)

The basis for most of this ongoing bluster over constitutional amendments is TABOR. Instead of huffing and puffing over that law which has been on the books for nearly 20 years now, why not simply write an amendment to repeal it, gather the necessary signatures and put it to a vote of the people? The same can be said of the Gallagher Amendment and Amendment 23.

Really, are we incapable of governing ourselves?

Opinion piece regarding the Colorado Press Association

As the cliché confirms, the arrangement could not have gone on forever, but the alternative will never be the same. I’m referring to the Colorado Press Association abandoning its long tradition of holding its prestigious annual convention in one of the World’s most prestigious venues—Denver’s grand old Brown Palace Hotel.

I see in the association's in-house newspaper, the Colorado Editor, that after a continuous run of 51 years at the Brown Palace and despite a healthy increase in attendance this past year, the CPA board of directors decided to move the whole caboodle down the street a few blocks. Whether the Associated Press which usually meets concurrently with the CPA will follow was not mentioned.

Memories to some of us are trivia to others. So be it. The shiny new place no doubt has a fancy bar where friends can hoist a few, but I doubt the ambiance will match that of the Ship Tavern. As the new, greenhorn prez of CPA in 1981, I met there with a feisty fringe-group of journalists known as the “surly malcontents” to find out what they had on their minds. Led by Ed Quillen and Bob Cox, their main protest was that the CPA was “run by and for the fat cats.” No, I told them, if that were true then a little guy like me, who started out with absolutely nothing, would never have been allowed to rise to the top. After the second round or so in this inimitable setting, we all got along just fine.

But back to the present: I wish the CPA leaders would have explained the issues in more detail to the members before cutting these historic ties. Have contest awards become the only reliable drawing card? If so, small wonder anyone needs overnight lodging.

As CPA president Jeanette Chavez said in announcing the change of venue, talk of moving the convention was not new. Yes, it’s been moved several times prior to settling comfortably into the Brown Palace. Debra Faulkner, historian at the hotel shared this information:

The first time CPA booked its convention into the Brown Palace Hotel was in 1924. From that year through 1958, CPA utilized four different hotels: the St. James, Albany, Cosmopolitan and finally the Brown Palace.

Alas, it is difficult for some of us to wave goodbye to this long-time, faithful friend of Colorado newspapers.

--Percy Conarroe