Ken Salazar Lies to Dodge Concerns of Western Slope Stakeholders

Published on September 24, 2012 by

An email invitation was sent from the office of Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar dated September 11, 2012, announcing a stakeholder’s meeting in Western Colorado:

From: Office of the Secretary
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 3:02 PM
To: Office of the Secretary
Subject: Join Secretary Salazar in Grand Junction this Saturday, September 15th

Department of the Interior Home Page  U.S. Department of the Interior

Please join Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar for a stakeholder meeting to discuss the President’s America’s Great Outdoors Initiative and the Administration’s conservation accomplishments and outdoor economic development.  Secretary Salazar will explore how outdoor recreation, travel and tourism are serving as economic engines in the Grand Junction community, provide updates on Colorado America’s Great Outdoors projects and answer questions from the audience.

When: Saturday, September 15, 2012
Time: 12:30pm – 1:00pm (MDT) – Check-In1:00pm – 2:00pm (MDT) – Meeting & Discussion
Where: Colorado National Monument – Saddlehorn Campground Amphitheater(near the Visitor Center Complex – map attached)Grand Junction, Colorado

We look forward to your participation.  RSVP with your contact information toDOI_Events@ios.doi.gov by 12:00pm (MDT), Thursday, September 13, 2012.

 

As it turns out, glaring grammatical errors in the email were not the only problem with this communication.  Secretary Ken Salazar, it appears, didn’t really want to meet with stakeholders on the Western Slope after all.

An email dated September 14, 2012, was sent to the same stakeholders announcing that the meeting had been canceled due to a “scheduling conflict.” Secretary Salazar gave no further details in the notice but did send his apologies.

From: Office of the Secretary [mailto:OfficeoftheSecretary@ios.doi.gov]
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 11:11 AM
To: DOI_Events
Subject: CANCELED: Join Secretary Salazar in Grand Junction this Saturday, September 15th, 2012
Importance: High

 Dear Friend,

 Due to a scheduling conflict, the stakeholder meeting scheduled for Saturday, September 15 in Grand Junction, has been canceled. We apologize for any inconvenience this has caused you. Secretary Salazar appreciates your support, and looks forward to discussing these important issues at a future date.

Sincerely,

Office of the Secretary

Grand Junction’s stakeholders include organizations and individuals who have an interest in how decisions by Ken Salazar’s office may impact access to outdoor recreational opportunities, the costs involved in conservation efforts, and the effect such decisions might have on private property adjacent to federal lands in Western Colorado. By and large these stakeholders (specific names withheld) are not happy with the Secretary of the Interior’s office and the negative effects that regulations on energy, access to public lands, and costly EPA mandates have had on the economy of Grand Junction and surrounding towns. Given the less-than-warm feelings between the Secretary of the Interior and stakeholders in Western Colorado, one might theorize that Salazar got cold feet. However…

The few times that Secretary Salazar has visited the Western Slope he has conducted his meetings at the Colorado National Monument, a natural wonder managed by the National Park Service. The Colorado National Monument is a popular biking, hiking, and car-touring destination for tourists as well as locals. One of the stakeholders to whom Ken Salazar’s office sent out the initial meeting invitation and the subsequent cancellation notice, had an associate who was biking  the “Monument” on September 15.  According to this stakeholder, who wishes to remain anonymous:

“(name withheld) was riding bike up there that day and saw the government cars and the guys there to meet with Salazar. Jay Seaton from the (Grand Junction Daily) Sentinel was one of them–Interesting that the Sentinel didn’t cover his visit???”

Colorado’s Western Slope has suffered greatly during Ken Salazar’s tenure as Secretary of the Interior.  It comes as no surprise that he would want to avoid the tough questions and concerns of businesses and organizations who have been harmed by his policies.  It also comes as no surprise that Salazar would meet with Jay Seaton, the publisher of the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. Since Seaton’s company purchased the Sentinel in 2009 it has taken a decidedly leftist turn and is infamous among locals for its bias toward Liberals and Democrats and its fawning, kid-glove treatment of the Obama Administration.

What is surprising is that a Secretary in the executive branch of the United States government could be so duplicitous and cowardly when it comes to addressing the problems of the people his department is supposed to protect. Ken Salazar is not up to the job of managing the enormous responsibilities of the Interior Department, but he is up to schmoozing with his buddies in the press while ignoring the fact that his policies are harming real businesses and destroying real lives in Colorado.

 

PAY TO PLAY? Hickenlooper and the disgraced trustees

Published on July 12, 2012 by

As most Colorado news junkies know by now, 9 of the state's 10 appointed public trustees resigned this week and another “retired” following a Denver Post investigation into their offices' spending habits. While the Hickenlooper administration is frantically trying to distance themselves from the trustees he appointed, one thing they can't whitewash is the trustees' financial support of Hick during his campaign two years ago.

Perhaps liberal front-groups Common Cause and Colorado Ethics Watch could have addressed the trustees' contributions to the Governor instead of offering half-assed excuses in the Post article.  Among the trustees, eight donated directly to Hickenlooper:

Carol Snyder (Adams) $190 to Hick
Ana Marie Peters-Ruddick (Arapahoe) $900 to Hick
George Kennedy (Douglas) $175 to Hick
Thomas Mowle (El Paso) max $1050 to Hick
Margaret Chapman (Jeffco) max $1050 to Hick
Deborah Morgan (Larimar) $975 to Hick
Paul Brown (Mesa) $900 to Hick
Susie Velasquez (Weld) $125 to Hick

The other two trustees, Richard Gebhardt (Boulder) and Nick Gradisar (Pueblo), didn't donate to Hick, but have a history of donating to Democrats. While no one is suggesting Hickenlooper has stooped to Chicago-land “pay-for-play” politics, he wouldn't be the first prominent Democrat to reward campaign donors with cushy government jobs either.

The only question left is whether it will be a prerequisite for the trustees' replacements to also have donated to Hickenlooper's coffers.


 

Nudge, Nudge: CEA’s “Non-Itemized” Math

Published on May 15, 2012 by

With the anticipated Democrat-imposed demise of House Bill 1333, which would have given Colorado teachers monthly discretion to opt in or out of a union, the legislation's biggest opponent — the Colorado Education Association — won a temporary victory. Currently, educators in many districts have as little as 2 weeks during a busy time of the year in which they have to visit the union office or union rep to revoke their membership. The only argument presented by CEA and its favored legislators to oppose HB 1333 was a bogus claim that giving teachers such freedom would undermine the “local control” of privately-negotiated collective bargaining agreements.

Seriously, folks? Clearly, union officials are uncomfortable talking about this issue and would love to make it go away quietly. While their hopes for widespread inattention may be dashed when it comes to this issue of teacher options, they maintain an advantage when it comes to incredible campaign finance reporting logic.


In a post last fall at Public Sector, Inc., I detailed the scheme. All CEA members make automatic contributions to the union's state campaign warchest and have at least one annual refund opportunity through the “Every Member Option” program. Teachers filing the request before December 15 receive $39 in return.

Since these funds are filtered invisibly from individual educator paychecks up through the local union office, the trail of how fungible dollars reach CEA's small donor committee is rather opaque. Under existing campaign finance law, individual contributions of $20 or more must be itemized in reports to the Secretary of State. Anything less is lumped into the “non-itemized” category. But how do you define an individual contribution from automatic payroll deductions of $3.25 (or less) apiece?

It's how we get the clever fiction that the small donor committee (known as Public Education Committee) reports exactly $250,000.00 in “non-itemized” contributions on its most recent report. More than 99 percent of the committee's revenues have been “non-itemized.” Not that this is a new development by any stretch, given some of their previously reported “non-itemized” contribution hauls:

  • October 13, 2010: $220,000.00
  • April 25, 2010: $350,000.00
  • July 16, 2008: $250,000.00
  • July 2, 2008: $480,000.00
  • April 25, 2008: $150,000.00
  • July 12, 2006: $78,000.00

“It's amazing how we end up with so many perfectly round numbers in our non-itemized contributions. Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge. Non-itemized. Know what I mean?” … “I beg your pardon!” … “All those non-itemized contributions we deducted.” … “What are you saying, man? Come on out with it!” … “It's a lot of cash. To fund campaigns, political campaigns.”

In one sense, yes. Nearly $600,000 now sits in the Public Education Committee account, which represents about half the cash on hand for 17 registered teachers union political committees. Compiled info on the last few election cycles give a strong hint where teachers union committees probably will direct these dollars. On the most recent report, the Public Education Committee's only expenditure was $5,000 to their sister Wisconsin affiliate for “coalition work.” I wonder what that's about.

In the end, no one disputes the rights of private organizations like the teachers union to raise and spend money on political speech under the same rules as everyone else. But it's only reasonable to ask whether the current system might contain a loophole or two.

What other groups get the benefit of government systems to provide regular collections for their political activities? What other groups can report exactly $250,000.00 in “non-itemized” contributions with a straight face? But perhaps the biggest question that remains: Do we just have to live with it? Or can something be done any time soon to put the election process on a level playing field?

 

REGISTRATION GAP: Democrats Falling Far Behind In Voter Registration, Big Hill To Climb In General

Published on April 30, 2012 by

The change in voter registration in Colorado since the last Presidential election is striking. In 2008, for the first time ever, Democrats were at near parity with Republicans in registered voters in Colorado. Four years later, they are lagging behind badly with six months to go until Election Day.

In 2008, Secretary of State records show that Democrats had 1,056,077 registered voters, only slightly behind Republicans 1,069,497 registered voters.

As of April 1, 2012 that gap has widened considerably, with Republicans holding a 30,000 voter lead in total registered voters, but a whopping 120,000 voter lead in active voters.

The Obama campaign utilized the long and drawn out primary with Hillary Clinton to boost voter registration totals for Democrats in 2008, but without a primary this time the Obama campaign is struggling mightily to find ways to turn that around. 

Reports The Denver Post's Sara Burnett:

Faced with a voter registration disadvantage of more than 100,000 people – a number that has grown since the start of the year – President Obama’s re-election campaign spread out across Colorado over the weekend, trying to close the gap.  

The campaign held about 60 education sessions for volunteers between its 13 Colorado offices, Spokesman Michael Amodeo said. Those volunteers then walked targeted neighborhoods and high-profile areas such as Boulder’s Pearl Street Mall, asking people to update their voter registration.

The active voter registration advantage that Republicans have, and are continuing to build on, is a serious problem for the Obama campaign. With active voters voting at over ten times the rate inactive voters do, that gap is surely causing some serious heartburn at Obama HQ. 

As the race in 2012 is virtually guaranteed to be close in Colorado — the last poll had Romney and Obama tied at 47% — partisan turnout could be pivotal in swinging the state one way or the other. 

If Democrats don't fix the voter registration gap soon, they could be in serious trouble come November. 


 

Transparency for Higher Ed Struggles, Bears Fruit in K-12

Published on April 30, 2012 by

A couple months ago I noted that Colorado's education transparency train was rolling forward. While the locomotive hasn't been derailed, since that time the engineer has pulled the brakes a couple times. HB 1118, the open union negotiations bill, was sent to its death in a Democratic-controlled Senate committee. Meanwhile, Rep. B.J. Nikkel's higher education transparency bill — HB 1252 — has spent many weeks accumulating dust while the session clock quickly approaches midnight.

But just within the past few days Coloradans have been reminded why having the sunshine is so important. Witness the latest investigative report from 7News' John Ferrugia and Arthur Kane:



In a time of tight budgets, teacher layoffs and increased fees, school districts are still spending money on expensive meals, teacher parties and even gift cards, a CALL7 “You Paid For It” investigation found.

CALL7 Investigators reviewed check registers and credit card databases for the major metro school districts and found thousands of dollars spent on a public relations consultant, gift cards, staff parties and meals at top restaurants. While the totals would never fix the districts' budget deficits, the spending shows that administrators are not cutting potentially wasteful at the time many schools are cutting education resources.

Typical of the genre, the story features a couple “Aha” moments in which local school district administrators have a hard time trying to justify some questionable expenditures. Metro area voters who may have to decide a number of local school tax initiatives this fall might be none the wiser if not for such investigative work.

It's important then to remember that a 2010 law requiring significant online financial transparency from Colorado school districts really made this story possible. A local news agency conceivably could have used the Colorado Open Records Act to uncover some or all of the information featured in the report. However, it would be difficult to generate the “probable cause” needed to spend even more resources and man-hours on an investigation.

The Independence Institute was at the forefront of the call for school spending transparency in 2009 and in 2010. More recently, my former intern Devan Crean and I were able to shine the spotlight on how well (or how poorly) local K-12 agencies were complying with Colorado's Public School Financial Transparency Act. In the immediate aftermath of that report, we heard from several school districts eager to fix their shortcomings.

Let's be clear. The results of neither the 7News investigation nor our 2011 issue paper necessarily indicate some sort of concerted effort among local education agencies to hide their financial activities. Jeffco Public Schools, a district featured in the article for a concerning apparent conflict of interest, actually posted a searchable spending database before the 2010 law was adopted. While transparency may sometimes prevent problems from occurring, in large bureaucracies it often may only help to show the problem is there.

On the other hand, my colleague Amy Oliver has found evidence that indicates why some higher education officials have lobbied this year against transparency legislation. Nine days remain until the end of the legislative session, and HB 1252 finally is scheduled to be heard tomorrow by House Appropriations. The likelihood of both passing the House and speeding through the Senate at this point seems like a daunting challenge.

The fight to preserve and expand government sunshine is ongoing. In spite of setbacks, we need to keep urging Colorado's education transparency train forward to make some more progress. And soon. If you can't defend it, don't spend it!

 

FLASHBACK: Obama In Colorado In 2006 Talking About Gas Prices, Perlmutter & “Confused” Americans

Published on April 23, 2012 by

With Barack Obama coming back to Colorado tomorrow for his latest campaign event funded by taxpayer dollars, we thought it would be illuminating to take a look back at another Obama campaign visit. In 2006, Obama, who was then just a US Senator known primarily for a speech he gave at the Democrat National Convention in 2004, came to campaign for then-candidates Ed Perlmutter and Bill Ritter in Aurora.

Only weeks after giving the speech in Colorado Obama made the decision to run for President. 

Video of that visit made its way into our inbox this morning via three YouTube videos. Check out a clip here: (Part Two, Part Three)

A more professionally shot and full version of the speech can be found here.

The sections of the speech highlighted below are from the full version of the speech. (click here)

The speech provides a fascinating look at Obama when he could pass the blame onto another President for economic troubles and high gas prices. 


But the more things change, the more they stay the same. 

Back in 2006, just as in 2012, Obama was a fan of flaming conspiracy theories about high gas prices. In 2012, he refuses to take blame for the results of his failed energy policy and instead blames oil speculators. But in 2006, he claimed that right after the election, gas prices would drop, insinuating the President had plenty of control over gas prices. 

Obama on gas prices:

Obama: And then they look at energy. One of the things I'm most pleased about all across the country, despite the fact that gas prices have gone down, folks have still saying we want an energy policy, first of all they understand those prices are going to do what right after the election? They're going back up. So they know that.  [Peak emphasis]

The speech also provides an early look at Obama's eventually disastrous campaign to push through Obamacare. He explains that people across the country were complaining about how spending so much on health care wasn't solving the problem. 

So what did Obama do to fix the problem? He spent $1.76 trillion on Obamacare, according to the Congressional Budget Office. 

Obama on health care:

They say how is it that we are spending more money than any nation on earth on health care and yet not only do we have 46 million uninsured but we also, for those who have health insurance are seeing their co-payments and premiums and deductibles going up. Small business owners can't afford to give themselves health insurance, let alone employees.  

Ford Motor Company announced today $8 billion losses partly because they can't compete in terms of the health care costs that go into each and every car.

And so they ask why is it if we're spending that much money we can't have better outcomes? Why can't we provide coverage for every child and adult? Why can't we provide basic care? Why can't we do something about that. So they're looking for a change.

His elitism shines through even then, with Obama describing Americans as sometimes getting "confused" because they don't have time to read "every page of The New York Times or The Washington Post."

Obama on "confused" Americans:

One of the things you come away with when you travel all across the country is the recognition that the American people at their core are a decent people. They get confused sometimes. You know they listen to Rush. Mainly though they're just busy. And they're tired. They're not always paying attention. They're trying to get their kids to school on time. They're trying to get to the job and pay the bills. So they're not reading every single page of The New York Times or The Washington Post. They're not watching those cable shows. They have got better things to do. [Peak emphasis]

Echoes of Obama’s later comment that small town Americans “cling to their guns and religion”?

As Obama was in Colorado to campaign for one-term former Governor Bill Ritter and Congressman Ed Perlmutter, here’s how he describes the pair.

Bill Ritter, who I think, exemplifies the kind of common-sense, no-nonsense, get-stuff-done type of governance that every state deserves. He is gong to be an outstanding Governor on behalf of Colorado. We're going to be looking for big things out of him.

And Ed Perlmutter, this guy, he has got so much energy, I don't know, we got to, we got to fasten him down sometime because he is always fired up, ah, on behalf of the people he seeks to serve. He understands that this is not simply about ambition, but this is about service. And ultimately, that's the kind of person you want representing you. Somebody who is going to be thinking about you first in each and every day when he wakes up in Washington and he's going to the floor of the House of Representatives to figure out how he can improves the lives and well being of the people he is representing. He's going to be an outstanding Congressman. You can bank on that. [Peak emphasis] 

With Obama at a 36% approval rating in Jefferson County, the heart of Perlmutter's district, expect to see this video and quotes from it in campaign ads this year. 

We wouldn't be surprised to see Obama's quote on gas prices and “confused” Americans show up in ads either.

 

EXCUSES DON’T PAY THE BILL: Obama’s Latest Campaign Ad Tries To Deflect Blame For High Gas Prices

Published on April 3, 2012 by

UPDATE: Here is the spot Obama attacks in his campaign ad:


———–

Barack Obama's latest campaign ad is full of excuses. It's not the most ideal way to begin a re-election campaign as an unpopular President. In an ad now playing on Colorado televisions, Obama's campaign tries to blame high gas prices on…Mitt Romney. 

We're sure all of the Coloradans paying over $4 a gallon in parts of the state are glad Obama has found someone else to blame.

See the ad here:

We know David Axelrod, Obama's message guru, is dying to go negative against Romney, but an ad blaming an opponent who hasn't even been selected yet seems desperate, at best. 

As Bill Clinton's political guru once said, "if you 'splaining, you losin'." 

What's worse is we don't think the Obama campaign is the least bit prepared to fight a battle over energy prices. 

After all, it is President Obama's Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, who said he wants gas prices to be at European levels, which are currently over $8/gallon.

The President himself said his energy policy would cause "electricity rates [to] necessarily skyrocket."

A campaign of excuses isn't very effective.

Just ask the voters.

The Washington Post and ABC News did ask them recently, and 2/3 of Americans blame Obama for high gas prices. That's actually in a poll.

You don't have to trust a political blog or the President on that stat. 

The numbers don't lie, and no Presidential campaign ad is going to do much to change that.  

 

Public Policy Polling

Published on April 2, 2012 by

Hey everyone!  Make sure to go to publicpolicypolling.com to vote for Colorado!  The winning state gets a new poll done by Public Policy Polling!

 

Colorado education transparency train rolls on

Published on February 29, 2012 by

Yesterday Colorado's House Education Committee gave a bipartisan endorsement of HB 1152, a measure sponsored by Rep. B.J. Nikkel (R-Loveland) to create a publicly-accessible, Web-based financial database for the state's colleges and universities. Higher education has been one of the few sectors of government to avoid the online transparency trend. My colleague Amy Oliver demonstrated how the existing open records law is not enough to fulfill citizens' right to know.

Colorado's K-12 establishment first experienced its own uncomfortable confrontation with the issue in 2009. Senate Bill 57 — requiring school districts to post online revenue and expenditure databases — was never supposed to see the light of day. But the loud voices of everyday citizens, demanding “show me the money,” kept the Senate Education Committee from killing it quietly.

While interest groups eventually were able to buy time and rally opposition to derail SB 57, they recognized the growing steam behind calls for change. Rather than jump in front of the oncoming transparency train, the school board and school executive associations hopped on board. The lobbyists steered it clear of few of the more promising provisions, but 2010's House Bill 1036 represented a largely positive step of good faith openness.


By that time large districts like Jefferson County and Douglas County had set the standard for searchable online financial databases — which goes above and beyond the requirements of HB 1036. The legislation phased in a series of new posting requirements, but enforcement has been mostly dependent on bottom-up pressure. As of last fall only 26 of the state's 178 school districts were fully in compliance, a number that almost surely has risen in the intervening months.

Is the law perfect? By no means. There is room for improvements, some of which will be made more feasible by technological advances.  Is the K-12 transparency problem largely solved?

No.  It has been crucial to open up the books so taxpayers can go online and see how money is spent. But it also would improve oversight to open up the full policy making process so employees, citizens and their watchdog (the press) can observe all of how the sausage is made. House Bill 1118 by Rep. Kathleen Conti (R-Littleton) would require school districts and unions to make the bargaining process open to public scrutiny.

Let's face it. In a tough economy and tighter budget times, everyday citizens have become more engaged with how scarce tax dollars are being used. But part of the process remains unseen. Union agreements bind many local school boards in how they use public funds, while also setting priorities and policies for local schools and classrooms. Of 41 Colorado districts with union negotiations, all but 2 remain essentially closed from public view. What other private group do we allow to have secret meetings with government officials over tax dollars and official policies?

Two efforts last year to open union negotiations — an unsuccessful one in Jefferson County and a mostly successful one in Colorado Springs — initially fueled the momentum. This year the pressure is coming from Douglas County residents, who have posted an online petition to support union bargaining transparency.

To be absolutely clear, we're talking about a measure that would empower eyes, not voices. It wouldn't be productive to let citizens and members of the press to chime in and disrupt the process, but it would be valuable to allow them to observe the tradeoffs and the justifications for union perks, such as taxpayer-funded leave days. Teachers also would have the opportunity to see whether their union truly bargains for them in good faith. And unions would be reminded that they are bargaining ultimately against taxpayers, not district administrators.

Government higher education is one step closer to following the lead of K-12 and other agencies, and posting their finances online. Meanwhile, school districts and teachers unions face the prospect of having backroom dealings brought into the light. Opponents may win one or both of the current battles, but the larger tide is turning against them.  Public education is closer to becoming more truly public property. Colorado's transparency train rolls on.

 
© 2011-2013 Colorado Peak Politics