Category Archives: Education

Next Up: Making Colorado Schools Safe For Creationism!

23
  by: Colorado Pols Thu January 31, 2013 at 8:24 AM MDT

UPDATE: A little more information on this bill's origins from the respected DeSmogBlog–the right wing American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), yet again…

One sure sign of a coordinated, ALEC-lead effort is the fact that Colorado's state legislature introduced the ALEC model on the same day as did Oklahoma's. The two states, it's worth noting, share a border on Oklahoma's panhandle. 

On Jan. 18, 2013, eight representatives and four senators introduced HB 13-1089, coining the bills the "Academic Freedom Acts."

Paralleling the language in the ALEC model and the Oklahoma bill, the HB 13-1089 aims to "Inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills," also recognizing that the teaching of the concept global warming "can cause controversy." [Pols emphasis]

One of the senators co-sponsoring the bill, Rep. Scott Renfroe (R-13) is an ALEC dues-paying member. He's also attended at least one ALEC meeting paid for by Colorado taxpayers, according to the CMD's "Buying Influence" report…

But remember, gentle reader, in Colorado, ALEC is not a controversy. So don't expect to see this connection in your local paper. (H/T ClubTwitty)
—– 

(more…)


Full story: Next Up: Making Colorado Schools Safe For Creationism!

Colorado ASSET: What progressives need to know

0
  by: JeffcoBlue Thu January 24, 2013 at 1:45 PM MDT

I just got this email from ProgressNow Colorado. Excellent information:

coassetfacts.jpgToday, the “Colorado ASSET” bill, which will allowВ allВ qualified Colorado resident high school graduates to attend college at in-state tuition rates, is expected to pass its first test in the Colorado Senate Education Committee.

There is a great deal of misinformation being put out about this important legislation by opponents, and we as progressives have an obligation to help set the record straight. Here are some basic facts aboutВ Senate Bill 13-033: learn the truth, thenВ contact your Colorado Senator and urge them to SUPPORT this important bill.

The Facts About ASSET

The fact is, we have already invested thousands educating all of the children who will benefit from Senate Bill 13-033. We have invested in their K-12 education, and these students have responded by succeeding academically in Colorado schools. By providing a path to these bright students to continue their studies, all we’re doing is following through on an investmentВ we’ve already made.

Colorado has a constitutional obligation, backed by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, to provide a K-12 education to every child in our state regardless of their documentation or immigration status. It therefore makes no sense to create barriers for children who have demonstrated academic success in Colorado schools to completing their education. By making college an attainable goal for all Colorado students, ASSET will increase revenue for our cash-strapped institutions of higher education.

Remember, Colorado ASSET will only allow the children affected by the bill to pay in-state tuition at Colorado colleges and universities provided they can meet the following criteria:

  • The student must have already attended a Colorado public or private high school for a minimum of 3 years.
  • The student must have graduated from a public or private high school in Colorado, or received their general equivalency diploma (GED)–here in Colorado.

And of course, the student must meet all of the academic requirements and be admitted to a Colorado institution of higher education.

Many of the currently undocumented students who would benefit from Colorado ASSET are already working their way through the U.S. immigration system and are able to be legally employed. All other students who might benefit are required to seek lawful presence as soon as possible.

Please help us spread the truth about this important legislation.В Click here to send a message to your Colorado Senator right now, urging them to support the Colorado ASSET bill. And forward this message to all of your friends and neighbors so they can get the facts as well.

Thank you. This is legislation that we expect to pass with at leastВ someВ bipartisan support, but it’s critical that we as progressives do everything we can to educate our friends and neighbors, and dispel misinformation. We support Colorado ASSET because it’s the right thing to do, and the right thing for Colorado’s competitiveness in a global economy.

And working together, our great state is going to take this positive step.

Read the full text of the Colorado ASSET bill as introducedВ here.


Full story: Colorado ASSET: What progressives need to know

Ray Scott demonstrates profound dishonesty…or ignorance…you choose

12
  by: Duke Cox Mon January 21, 2013 at 7:58 PM MDT

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Representative Ray Scott of Mesa CountyВ introduced a bill into the Colorado Legislature on Friday that would exempt oil and gas wells permittedВ in the next two yearsВ from the states’ severance tax.В  В He claims the point is to help fund education, because after the two year free ride, he intendsВ subsequent severance taxes will be earmarked to fund college tuitions. Yeah, …right.

His supposition is that a freebie from the state is necessary and desirable to spur a slug of permits that will then create a resultant uptick in drilling, which will then spur job creation. He claims the idea is much like Amendment 58 which went down in 2008 by nearly 60 % at the ballot box…but it isn’t.

The Bill Ritter supported Amendment 58 would have raised severance taxes on O&G production and would have ended the decades long Ad Valorem Tax Credit that alreadyВ allows O&G companies to reduce their severance taxes in the amount of the property taxes they owe.В  This discount, which they alone enjoy, В amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes they don’t pay…year after year. To offer them another freebie and try to link it to a bill that did just the opposite to the industryВ isВ  plainly dishonest.

But, when you are a legislative toad for the oil and gas industry, you can never be quite dishonest enough…so Rep. Scott deals out this whopper…

 “The oil and gas industry in Colorado is arguably the largest industry in our state,

This , of course, is not true…and I believe Ray Scott knows it. В O&G are part of the energy and mining sector of our state economy…a sector which makes up under 5% of our state economic output. He is either lying or ignorant.

he also offers up another gem…

“Each derrick’s going to create potentially 200 jobs. If we could get one extra derrick in Mesa County right now, that 200 jobs is important. If we got five, that’s a thousand jobs.”

I am not sure what sort of math the good Representative is using to calculate this (or where he gets his data), but it is the same sort of calculation, I will bet, that allows the “blonde lady in the black pantsuit” to claim O&G supports 11,000,000 jobs nationally. I have checked withВ  the U.S. Dept. of Labor and I can only say to her, “liar, liar, pantsuit on fire” because she isn’t telling the truth…

and neither is Ray Scott.


Full story: Ray Scott demonstrates profound dishonesty…or ignorance…you choose

Great idea! School security guard leaves gun in bathroom

0
  by: JeffcoBlue Fri January 18, 2013 at 6:04 PM MDT

Raw Story has a story that’s so funny it was almost a tragedy. It’s not the whole reply, but here’s one to mention when you debate your gun nut relative next time:

A prosecutor in Lapeer, Michigan says, “No harm, no foul,” after a charter school took the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) advice and hired a armed security guard who promptly left his handgun unattended in a student bathroom.

Chatfield School co-directors Matt Young and Bill Kraly announced last week that they had hired retired Lapeer County Sheriff’s Dept. firearms instructor Clark Arnold as a security guard in response to the December mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

[...]

Wednesday, the school had admitted to The Flint Journal that the retired firearms instructor had made a “made a breach in security protocol” and left his unloaded handgun unattended in the school restroom “for a few moments.”

“The school has put additional security procedures in place that follow local law enforcement practices and guidelines,” a statement from Young said. “At no time was any student involved in this breach of protocol. We will continue to work on improving school security.”


Full story: Great idea! School security guard leaves gun in bathroom

Florida Supreme Court Public Pension Decision Instructive for Colorado General Assembly.

0
  by: Algernon Moncrief Fri January 18, 2013 at 5:24 PM MDT

Florida Supreme Court: Accrued Public Pension Benefits Are Inviolate; However, Pension Benefits Not Yet Earned Can Be Altered . . . Prospectively.

Vested Public Pension COLA Rights in Florida Remain Untouched – Legislative Impairment of Previously Accrued Benefits is Unconstitutional.

The Florida Legislature “Cannot Retroactively Alter Accrued Benefits.”

The Florida Supreme Court has reached a decision (January 17) in the Scott V. Williams public pension case. Yesterday, the Florida Supreme Court held that while the Florida Legislature cannot take back pension benefits that have already been earned, it can change benefits yet to be earned . . . prospectively.  The ruling impacts current, active public pension members in the state.  In accordance with the ruling, public employees will continue to contribute three percent of their salaries toward their pension benefits (previously, the public pension system was “non-contributory.”)  Florida public sector retirees, of course, have completed accrual of public pension benefits, and are unaffected by the ruling.

The Florida Supreme Court ruling reverses an earlier trial court ruling, and is a sad loss for Florida public sector unions.В  Undeterred, union members vow to reverse the decision through the legislative process.

The sponsors of the challenged Florida pension reform legislation argued that the reform measure operated on a purely prospective basis, and accordingly, did not impair any of the state’s existing contractual relationships.  (I cannot fathom how so many members of the Colorado General Assembly reached the conclusion in 2010 that they could legally breach existing public pension contracts in SB 10-001 . . . retroactively seizing previously accrued public pension benefits.)

The Florida Supreme Court decision is in conformance with legal arguments made by law professor Amy Monahan at the University of Minnesota School of Law.В  In her paper, Public Pension Reform: The Legal Framework, Monahan writes:

“What if, ten years into X’s tenure with the state, the state announces that effective immediately, pension benefits will only accrue at the rate of 1% of salary per year?  I have argued that such prospective changes should be permitted absent an explicit agreement protecting against such changes.”

Monahan concludes:

“This Article has argued that pension benefits that have already been earned through services rendered to the state should be protected against impairment, but that it is hard to find legal justification for protecting the rate of future benefit accruals.”

Link to Monahan law article:

http://www.law.umn.edu/facultyprofiles/monahana.html

As I have previously written, Monahan’s arguments have been contested.  Also, many state courts have ruled that employee rights to public pension benefits vest upon commencement of employment, or in the early years of public employment.  It is also legally relevant that prior to enactment of the challenged public pension reform legislation in Florida, the state’s pension system was “non-contributory.”  This fact significantly alters the contractual relationship of the parties in Florida and limits applicability of the decision’s legal rationale to most other public pension systems in the United States.

From the Florida Supreme Court ruling:

“Section 121.101(3), as amended in 2011, continues to provide a 3% cost-of-living adjustment to those persons who retired prior to July 1, 2011.”

(My comment: Note that, according to the Florida Supreme Court, public pensions with 80 percent funded ratios are adequately funded.В  Why does the Colorado General Assembly propose to breach Colorado PERA pension contracts until a 100 percent funded ratio is achieved?В  A ridiculous and unnecessary overreach?)

From the decision:

“the FRS has been operating well above the 80% funding ratio recommended by experts . . ”

From the Orlando Sentinel:

“‘We recognized the authority of the Legislature to amend a retirement plan prospectively, so long as any benefits tied to service performed prior to the amendment date are not lost or impaired,’ wrote Labarga.”

Link:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2013/01/supreme-court-upholds-pension-changes.html

From Reuters:

“Florida legislators were mindful enough of constitutional considerations that when they passed amendments to state pension law in early 2011, they made the changes prospective. В Past pension benefits weren’t affected by the amendments, but after July 2011, the new law said, state workers would have to contribute 3 percent of their gross compensation to a plan that had previously required no employee contribution; and they would have to forgo 3 percent annual cost-of-living adjustments to their pensions. В The prospective consequences of the law seemed to comply with the Supreme Court’s 1981 holding in Florida Sheriffs Association v. Department of Administration, which said that although past benefits are protected under the state constitution’s contract clause, the legislature has the power to change future pension rights.”

“Thursday’s ruling by the Supreme Court reversed the trial court but stopped well short of offering broad support for the constitutionality of pension cost-shifting. В The court reiterated its holding from Florida Sheriffs that state law ‘does not create binding contract rights for existing employees to future retirement benefits’ and said that the new law’s changes were, indeed, prospective and thus legal.”

Link:

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2013/01_-_January/Florida_high_court_upholds_pension_changes,_but_on_narrow_grounds/

From NW Daily News:

“A law championed by Gov. Rick Scott that requires teachers, state and county workers and some municipal employees to contribute 3 percent of their pay to the state’s pension plan was narrowly upheld by the Florida Supreme Court on Thursday.”

“The 4-3 decision reversed a trial judge’s ruling that the law violated the collective bargaining, contract and property rights of about 600,000 public employees including police, firefighters and other first-responders.”

“The law, which went into effect on July 1, 2011, also repealed 3 percent annual cost of living increases for benefits accrued after that date.”

Link:

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/local/florida-supreme-court-upholds-pension-law-1.80585

From the Miami Herald:

“Scott argued it was unfair that Florida’s public employees didn’t contribute because workers in most other states and the private sector are required to help pay for their pensions if they still have that benefit.”

“The high court majority cited a 1981 Supreme Court opinion that said the law protected rights and benefits already earned but did not preclude the Legislature from altering benefits prospectively for future service.”

“Justice Jorge Labarga wrote for the majority that the same principle applied to the new law that restored employee contributions, so it does not violate employees’ contract rights nor take away property in the form of their pension benefits.”

Link:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/17/3187166/florida-supreme-court-upholds.html

Link to the Florida Supreme Court decision:

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2013/sc12-520.pdf

From the Florida Supreme Court Ruling:

“In so ruling, the circuit court acknowledged this Court’s 1981 decision in Florida Sheriffs Ass’n v. Department of Administration, 408 So. 2d 1033, 1037 (Fla. 1981), in which we held that the preservation of rights statute ‘vest[ed] all rights and benefits already earned under the present retirement plan’ but did not preclude the Legislature from altering benefits prospectively for future state service in the existing noncontributory plan.”

(My comment: According to the Florida Supreme Court, virtually no degree of impairment of existing contracts will be allowed.)

“In determining the question of unconstitutional contract impairment in Florida, where a contract has been found to exist and to have been impaired by subsequent legislation, this Court in Pomponio v. Claridge of Pompano Condominium, Inc., 378 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1979), adopted a balancing approach to determine if a statute unconstitutionally impairs a contract. We recognized in Pomponio that ‘virtually no degree of impairment’ will be tolerated . . .”

“The government’s significant impairment of its own contract is not justified by necessity if ‘the State[] could have adopted alternative means’ of achieving its goals without altering the contract rights.”

(My comment: At saveperacola.com, dozens of “less drastic” alternatives to the breach of Colorado PERA public pension contracts have been documented.)

From the Florida Supreme Court decision:

“We again hold, as we did in Florida Sheriffs, that the preservation of rights statute was not intended to bind future legislatures from prospectively altering benefits for future service performed by all members of the FRS.  We further hold that the 2011 amendments requiring a 3% employee contribution as of July 1, 2011, and continuing thereafter, and the elimination of the COLA for service performed after that date are prospective changes within the authority of the Legislature to make. The preservation of rights statute does not create binding contract rights for existing employees to future retirement benefits based upon the FRS plan that was in place prior to July 1, 2011.”

“As correctly held in Florida Sheriffs, this interpretation would be contrary to the Legislature’s intent as well as the logical meaning of the statute, which is to ensure that the Legislature cannot retroactively alter accrued benefits.”

“The State contends that the 2011 amendments to the FRS operate prospectively only and, thus, the trial court’s order finding that the law impairs existing contract rights of current members of the FRS is inconsistent with this Court’s interpretation of the preservation of rights statute in Florida Sheriffs.”

“Both parties agree that if an existing member of the FRS retired on June 30, 2011, none of his or her benefits would be diminished.”

“Further, the amendments provide that upon retirement, any right to a COLA is limited to a calculation giving credit only for the employee’s service performed prior to July 1, 2011.”

“The State contends that because the 3% contribution requirement and the elimination of the COLA did not take effect until July 1, 2011, and did not diminish any benefits earned as of that date, the amendments were purely prospective.”

“We explained: ‘That rule of law has now been changed by the ‘preservation of rights’ section which modifies the Voorhees rule and vests all rights and benefits already earned under the present retirement plan so that the legislature may now only alter retirement benefits prospectively.’”

“We stress that the rights provision was not intended to bind future legislatures from prospectively altering benefits which accrue for future state service.”

“A reading of the entire decision discloses our conclusion that the preservation of rights statute was enacted to give contractual protection to those retirement benefits already earned as of the date of any amendments to the plan.  We recognized the authority of the Legislature to amend a retirement plan prospectively, so long as any benefits tied to service performed prior to the amendment date are not lost or impaired.”

“We again hold, as we did in Florida Sheriffs, that the preservation of rights statute was not intended to bind future legislatures from prospectively altering benefits for future service performed by all members of the FRS.  We further hold that the 2011 amendments requiring a 3% employee contribution as of July 1, 2011, and continuing thereafter, and the elimination of the COLA for service performed after that date are prospective changes within the authority of the Legislature to make.”

“As we held in Florida Sheriffs, we again hold that the actions of the Legislature have not impaired any statutorily created contract rights and, thus, we reverse the judgment of the trial court on this ground.”


Full story: Florida Supreme Court Public Pension Decision Instructive for Colorado General Assembly.

Coffman Disses Everyone Except Business Majors?

36
  by: Colorado Pols Sat September 15, 2012 at 1:03 AM MDT

Courtesy Westword’s Sam Levin, a fascinating newsletter sent by Rep. Mike Coffman at the end of last month. On the apparent fringe of yet another issue:

I think it is time to question whether a significant number of the majors taught at undergraduate institutions are a good investment.  This relates to the taxpayers, who subsidize the cost of higher education by either bearing part of the cost at public institutions, or by subsidizing loan programs at private ones.  Graduates, with liberal arts degrees, often find entry level jobs that are little better than what they would have gotten had they never attended college in the first place.

The question needs to be raised, during such challenging fiscal environments for both states and the federal government, whether taxpayers should only be subsidizing majors, or curriculums, that directly lead to employment in technically a related field. [Pols emphasis]

Got that? Unless you’re getting a degree that leads to “technical skills,” the government shouldn’t “subsidize” your education–which would presumably mean interest-subsidized student loans in addition to obvious things like Pell Grants. Now, it’s not a coincidence that all those liberal arts, social science, and other majors that don’t, in Coffman’s view, “directly lead to employment,” are the same ones that conservatives perennially complain are hotbeds of “liberal indoctrination.” So there’s that. But is it true that liberal arts degrees are useless in the job market as Coffman suggests? As if “they never attended college in the first place?”

Not according to FOX Business:

Liberal arts degrees get an unjustified bad rap, which is often perpetuated by anecdotal stories about a single person searching for a job, says Carole Haber, dean of the School of Liberal Arts at Tulane University.

“Two misconceptions fuel this discussion:  one, that the ‘worth’ can be measured by dollars alone rather than through higher level skills gained through the degree, and two, that the value can be measured through the individual’s first job, rather than through the life course,” she says.

Liberal arts grads can have an advantage over their peers by potentially earning a higher salary in the future, says Lee.

“There has been data to suggest that even though liberal arts graduates in an entry-level position tend to earn less than their counterparts who have very career-focused [degrees], within 10 to 20 years they tend to outpace their counterparts in terms of income,” she says. [Pols emphasis]

On top of that, a report from the Social Science Research Council shows students with skills typically taught in liberal arts programs tend to be more successful after graduation.

There are a host of other benefits frequently cited to justify the economic value of a nontechnical degree, from proficiency in foreign languages to broad-based critical thinking skills. There are anecdotal scenarios on both sides of the issue–certainly there are both history majors and MBAs who have had employment problems–but there’s really nobody except for hard-core GOP politicians (like Florida Gov. Rick Scott) seriously arguing that these degrees have no redeeming value to either the economy or society. It actually comes across as quite radical.

As Westword reports, Coffman’s opponent ses an opening, and is hitting this one hard:

Ryan Hobart, a spokesman for [Joe] Miklosi, Coffman’s Democratic challenger, sent us this statement in response to the newsletter:

“Making these drastic cuts to state and federal support for higher education would have a damaging effect on Colorado’s economic growth. Mike Coffman also supports the radical Ryan budget, which would cut Pell Grants, allow student loan interest rates to double and end Medicare as we know it — all while keeping taxpayer giveaways to Big Oil and companies that ship jobs overseas. This is just another example of why his agenda of promoting reckless cuts that put the burden on the backs of students and seniors is too extreme for Colorado.”

To be fair, though, fewer history majors could benefit politicians who shoot off at the mouth.


Full story: Coffman Disses Everyone Except Business Majors?

Union Busting in Douglas County

7
  by: madmike Fri September 7, 2012 at 8:19 PM MDT

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



On Sept.5, the Douglas County Board of Education passed a resolution to no longer negotiate a collective bargaining agreement with the teachers’ union, the DCF. This is just one more example of the nationwide Republican plan to break public employee unions. Some time ago the union asked the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment to intervene in the dispute, but so far they have done nothing.  So the time has come to tell Gov. John Hickenlooper to direct the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment to intervene in the dispute as the union has requested.

That’s why I created a petition to Governor John Hickenlooper, which says:

“Gov. Hickenlooper, It is time for you to take a stand for workers’ rights by ordering the Colorado Dept. of Labor and Employment to intervene in the dispute between the Douglas County School Federation of Teachers and the DCSD Board of Education, and put an end to their union-busting tactics.”

Will you sign my petition? Click here to add your name:

http://signon.org/sign/stop-th…  


Full story: Union Busting in Douglas County

Journalists should ask specific questions in candidate questionnaires

3
  by: Jason Salzman Tue September 4, 2012 at 7:43 AM MDT

(Ken Summers backed “Personhood?” Bet he wishes that had stayed in the memory hole – promoted by Colorado Pols)



Publishing the basic positions of candidates, on specific issues and ballot questions, falls into the basic public-service function that journalism shouldn’t let go of, despite the hard times.

But if The Denver Post–or Fox 31 or 9News or KOA or any news outlet–is going to publish candidate surveys (and someone should), please ask specific questions that allow voters to compare candidates in the most meaningful way.

Here’s an example of what a huge difference specificity can make.

In 2008, both the Rocky Mountain News and The Post published candidate questionnaires.

The Rocky’s, which was far superior, asked four broad questions about why the candidate was running for office and his or her priorities. This was followed by a series of very specific yes/no questions, including queries on the death penalty, Roe v. Wade, illegal immigration, and vouchers, as well as questions about whether the candidate supported each of the ballot questions facing voters in the 2008 election.

The Post, on the other hand, asked broad questions about transportation, education, health care, and natural resources, as well as a “wild-card” question.

Among the Rocky’s questions, two were focused on a women’s right to choose.

The first addressed Roe v. Wade.

Here’s how Ken Summers, who was running for HD 22, answered the question:

The Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v Wade decision established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Do you agree with the decision?

Summers: No

In the candidate’s words: Even if abortion is held to be legal, to save the life of the mother and in cases of rape or incest, it is difficult to view it as a constitutional right. I have always viewed constitutional rights as those that are commonly exercised and essential to a free society.

For comparison, in his response to the Rocky, here’s how Ali Hasan, who was running for HD 56 answered it.

Hasan: Yes

In the candidate’s words: It is important to note that I agree that the federal ban against 7- to 9-month abortion should always be upheld.

Another Rocky question addressed personhood, which would outlaw all abortion and common forms of birth control.

While Shawn Mitchell declined to answer, Summers responded as follows:

Do you support Amendment 48? It would ban abortion by defining personhood as beginning at fertilization.

Summers: Yes

In the candidate’s words: A new baseline for this issue is needed. Clarifications will be needed.

Ali Hasan stated flatly in his questionnaire that opposed Amendment 48.

The closest thing The Post’s 2008 questionnaire had to these fun and exciting questions (and answers) was a broad question on the role of state government in providing health insurance, which is important, to be sure, but fails to illuminate narrow, and easily comparable, views on health insurance issues generally, and, specifically, on the topic of a women’s right to choose. In fact, not Summers, Mitchell, nor Hasan voluntarily brought up abortion issues in their answers. The Post’s question, which has unfortunately been removed from its website, was:

Health Care: What role do you see for the state in providing or ensuring health insurance for every Coloradan? What policies do you propose to achieve your vision of health care coverage in Colorado?

So, obviously, The Post’s question is important, but the Rocky’s approach had to have been of more use to voters.

I’m hoping that this year the Rocky’s 2008 “Ballot Builder” will be a model for journalists.


Full story: Journalists should ask specific questions in candidate questionnaires

Internet podcaster “Mad Jen” stays calm in interview with Colorado State Senate candidate

0
  by: Jason Salzman Mon August 6, 2012 at 6:35 PM MDT

If you’ve ever listened to “Mad Jen’s” internet radio podcast, you know she doesn’t interview many political candidates or politicians. Among other things, she’s too mad.

“I put my faith in ‘We the People,’ not so much in elected officials,” she emailed me recently when I asked why. “My favorite elected officials are long dead and were mostly from Virginia.”

So it was a bit of a surprise recently to find Colorado Senate District 28 candidate John Lyons on Mad Jen’s show.

Given Mad Jen’s feelings about politicians, it was kind of funny that Lyons, right off the bat, had no answer to Mad Jen’s first question, about whether there is “ever a time” when “abortion should be allowed.” Lyons offered pieces of his thoughts to Mad Jen, but he never put them together to form an opinion.

In cases of rape and incest, he told Mad Jen, “I struggle with this issue.”

“I would hope a woman would choose to bring the child to term,” he said, “but I don’t know.”

In the end, he had no answer.

“And so, I wrestle with this, in what instances does abortion, you know, make sense?” Lyons told Mad Jenn. “You understand what I’m saying? And I struggle with that, and I haven’t quite got it.”

Mad Jen definitely understood what Lyons was saying, but she elected not to try to help him do any soul-searching on her radio show.

“It’s not my place to help you along with that,” she said, as if she were scolding a neighborhood kid who lost his baseball mitt, as my own son did yesterday.

“It’s just my place to get your views,” she told Lyons. “But I do encourage you to sit down with some of your supporters and talk this through. Because I think if you sit down and have a good, long conversation with some of them, the issue would become a lot more clear to you and it would be easier for you to stand out and talk pretty solidly about it.”

In an email, I asked Mad Jen, who said she interviewed Lyons at the suggestion of a friend who works for him, if she’d followed up with Lyons, to find out if he’d chatted with pro-life supporters as she suggested.

“I have not checked back with him,” she emailed me. “I would be interested to find out if he’s continued to search for and refine his personal stance on abortion.”

“It’s nearly impossible to tell who real conservatives are until they make it into office and start working,” she wrote. “The [Lyons] interview was for the sake of my audience, and I will leave it for them to decide whether or not he’s a true conservative.”

Mad Jen’s email was signed “WarHawk,” and I asked her if this was her real name. Would she tell me her real name for my article?

“I’m just a regular person,” she answered. “Mother, Wife, daughter, sister who wishes to leave our great nation to my children in better shape than it was when I received it.”

Why does she go by Mad Jen?

“My brand is ‘MADASHECC,” she wrote. “Therefore, I’m ‘Mad Jen.’ But MADASHECC started because I was mad as heck at what’s happening in our nation, and I felt I had to do something about it, so…I started MADASHECC. (Moms’ and Dads’ Associated Society Helping to Educate Conservative Constitutionalists)”

“I don’t necessarily operate as a news source. My goal is education and brining something educational to the discussion,” she wrote. “Often times, what I talk about on the show, I was interested in learning about myself, so I researched the topic and published my findings into a show. I never claim to be the authority on the various subjects that I speak about, though I make great attempts to learn as much as I can, and have everything I talk about be as factual as I can determine it to be.”

Mad Jen promotes her views on her podcast, which airs live on the internet on Saturdays, and social media. Her website contains an extensive archive of her internet podcasts.


Full story: Internet podcaster “Mad Jen” stays calm in interview with Colorado State Senate candidate

Get Your Tickets For Romney At Jeffco Fairgrounds Thursday

38
  by: Colorado Pols Tue July 31, 2012 at 11:31 PM MDT

THURSDAY UPDATE #2: FOX 31′s Eli Stokols:

At a press conference in a Lakewood teacher’s backyard, state Rep. Max Tyler and DNC Vice Chairman R.T. Rybak laughed at the Romney campaign’s refined slogan, “Strengthening the Middle Class”, and argued that the GOP challenger’s policies would do anything but.

“They’re putting up signs that say ‘Strengthening the Middle Class’ because of that study has shown that they will raise taxes on the middle class by $2,000 apiece,” Rybak said. “I don’t think it’s standing up for the middle class to have a whole bunch of us pay $2,000 more to Mitt Romney so we can help pay for another car elevator in one of his five or six or seven mansions.”

…Romney chose not to directly address his recently announced position against the renewal of a Production Tax Credit for wind energy providers.

At least six protestors greeted Romney in the parking lot with signs that read: “We work in wind”, “PTC = Jobs” and “Don’t kill wind jobs.”

—–

THURSDAY UPDATE: The Washington Post reports from Jefferson County Fairgrounds:

Mitt Romney sought to refocus the presidential campaign on the American economy on Thursday, outlining plans to help the middle class in his first rally after a difficult overseas tour.

Before an enthusiastic, mostly older crowd of about 2,000 supporters — with several hundred more gathered outside in the late-morning sun in the hope of catching a glimpse of the presumptive GOP nominee — Romney described a five-point program he called the “Romney Plan for a Stronger Middle Class.”

…Romney’s events Thursday are part of a coordinated effort by Romney’s campaign staff: they organized 24 events across 13 states to tout “Mitt Romney’s plan for a stronger middle class.”

The ideas were a repackaging of broad goals that Romney has talked about for months. They include increasing energy independence, improving education and job training, increasing trade, reducing the deficit and helping small businesses.

What was new was the urgency.

A few points we’ll make about the event today. It does appear that the crowd outside the hall at the Jefferson County Fairgrounds was even larger than the crowd inside the building. Far from being a sign of “overwhelming support,” this is more indicative of poor advance work. Romney’s campaign appears to have distributed many more tickets than the venue could accommodate, and those who didn’t get in line early were out of luck. The tickets were distributed electronically–Romney’s campaign knew how many people had gotten them. We’ve heard that despite the fact that Romney briefly spoke with the crowd outside, many of them were upset.

It’s a balance: you always want it to look like you’ve got overflow crowds, but not so much that those crowds get the impression your campaign is incompetent. Today trended toward the latter.

Romney’s speech did seem to be more energetic and focused than prior events in Colorado we’ve seen. There was no opportunity for the press or attendees to ask any questions; had there been, it’s possible Romney would have been put on the spot over his opposition to the wind power tax credit supported by his Republican colleagues representing Colorado in Congress. Romney also got much applause from the debunked claim that President Obama “cut $500 billion from Medicare.” But there was apparently nobody in this crowd who reads Politifact.

We’ll update further with additional press coverage as it comes in.

—–

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney is making his first trip into the Denver metro area this week since losing the Colorado caucuses to Rick Santorum in February. We’ll be there:

This authentic Romney ticket (we’ve covered up the identifying marks) was delivered to us as quickly as we could fill out this RSVP page from Romney’s campaign. Which means you too can see Romney this coming Thursday at 10:45AM at Jefferson County Fairgrounds (doors at 9:45AM)–no four-hour early morning drive to the middle of nowhere necessary. So get yours, and tell your boss you’ve got plans for Thursday morning!

If you know anybody in the wind power industry, maybe they should make it a point to go.


Full story: Get Your Tickets For Romney At Jeffco Fairgrounds Thursday

ALEC In Colorado: A Pox On Both Your Houses

3
  by: Colorado Pols Sun July 29, 2012 at 6:39 PM MDT

The annual meeting of an important yet secretive conservative organization we’ve discussed in this space, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), wrapped up in Salt Lake City yesterday. And was subject to lively protest, as the local FOX affiliate reported last week:

ALEC brings state lawmakers from around the country together with corporate sponsors and some conservative interest groups. They cite free market interests as their prime mission and they call themselves bi-partisan.

In recent years, however, ALEC has lost the majority of its Democratic members and in the past year a number of corporate sponsors have fled as well.

Lisa Graves, the executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy came to Utah to protest.

“They [ALEC] vote on model legislation behind closed doors without the press, without people like you or the public present and then those state legislators come out to their state house and introduce those bills cleansed from any fact that they were pre-voted on by corporate lobbyists,” Graves said…

While ALEC hasn’t lost support among Utah Republicans, Utah Democrats have left the group. Rep. Christine Watkins of Price was the last Utah Democrat to leave ALEC and she did so earlier this year.

The American Legislative Exchange Council ran into controversy this year after relationships between ALEC “model legislation” and a Florida law called “Stand Your Ground” surfaced in the wake of the killing of a Florida African-American teenager named Trayvon Martin. An advocacy group called Color of Change launched a campaign to pressure corporate sponsors of ALEC to withdraw, while others contacted legislators affiliated with ALEC. This campaign has been quite successful in many states, with dozens of major corporations like Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, and General Motors ending their relationship. Some state legislators, mostly Democrats, have been persuaded to publicly distance themselves from ALEC as well.

In Colorado, though, you’ve basically heard nothing about this. Despite the controversy raging in other states, ALEC’s presence here has not received the scrutiny it has received elsewhere.

And there’s a reason: in Colorado, ALEC has its hooks in both parties.

Two of the most controversial pieces of recent education legislation in Colorado, both passed and signed into law with Democratic support, have relationships to the same American Legislative Exchange Council in hot water over “Stand Your Ground” and the killing of Trayvon Martin. The first is Senate Bill 10-191, the “Great Teachers and Leaders Act” creating the new system of teacher effectiveness standards now being implemented. As most of you know, that bill was primarily championed by Sen. Mike Johnston, a Democrat and former school principal.

On the Center for Media and Democracy’s ALEC Exposed website, the ALEC model version of the “Great Teachers and Leaders Act” may be found here. Now, it does appear that in some cases legislation gets promoted by ALEC as a “model” after it passes in a given state; this would be politically somewhat better for Democrats like Sen. Johnston who pushed SB-191 as opposed to them truly having stenographed an ALEC bill. Was SB-191 made an ALEC model bill after it was passed, or before? We don’t know, but no one who was around in 2010 will forget the intense lobbying effort to pass this bill in 2010 over the objections of many Democrats.

Please note that we’re not making any qualitative judgments about this bill or its proponents. All we’re doing is noting the evident relationship between SB10-191 and the ALEC model “Great Teachers and Leaders Act.” The “model text” of SB10-191 comes from a leak of ALEC model bills to liberal activists from mid-2011, as displayed on the ALEC Exposed website.

Another clue pointing to ALEC’s bipartisan reach in Colorado appeared in this report from FOX 31′s Eli Stokols back in May–writing on the signing into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper of House Bill 12-1238, a celebrated but also controversial bill called the “Colorado READ Act.”

Despite some opposition from a handful of Democrats, most of them former teachers, who were concerned that the bill was an unfunded mandate on districts and overly punitive toward struggling kids, the bill sailed through the House with bipartisan support and sponsors, Reps. Tom Massey, R-Poncha Springs, and Millie Hamner, D-Dillon.

With strong support from the business and education reform communities, House Bill 1238 seemed like a slam dunk to cruise straight to the governor’s desk.

But it ran into a stone wall when it moved to the Senate, where Senate President Brandon Shaffer, concerned that the bill was similar to ALEC-crafted retention laws in other states, [Pols emphasis] sent the measure to his “kill committee.”

The bill stalled for weeks as the sponsor, Sen. Mike Johnston, D-Denver, made numerous changes to the bill that Shaffer had demanded.

Ultimately, the problems with the bill were negotiated out, and the bill did pass the Senate in the end with unanimous support. At the time of the passage of SB10-191, ALEC wasn’t on the radar of either the bill’s opponents or the national media as it is today. But even if it had been, in Colorado there are Democrats who will basically defend ALEC’s work, and willingly champion ALEC bills–at least where they have convergent interests.

This has the effect of tamping down the controversy that makes things newsworthy.

None of this is meant to understate the fact that ALEC, in Colorado as elsewhere, is an overwhelmingly GOP-dominated organization. The state chairs of ALEC are Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman and Rep. Libby Szabo. A much longer list of ALEC “model legislation” in Colorado can be attributed to Republicans than Democrats, from Amy Stephens’ “Emergency Firearms” bill HB12-1064 (ALEC link here) to HB12-1111, Szabo’s voter ID bill (ALEC link here). Needless to say, Sen. Johnston didn’t support those bills. In fact, he would probably object to education bills he’s sponsored being lumped in with such wacky and/or dangerous right-wing bills. Of course, then he’d have to explain why some of his bills appear to be ALEC bills too.

With ALEC in the national headlines almost daily, sufficiently toxic that dozens of major corporations have fled and Democrats have joined in condemning their influence in state legislatures around the country, we thought you’d like to know more about why they are “not a story” in Colorado–despite influence as deep here as, well, anywhere.

In Colorado, the politics of ALEC get kind of messy.


Full story: ALEC In Colorado: A Pox On Both Your Houses

John Hickenlooper’s Great Idea: TBD Citizen’s Summit

1
  by: nancycronk Sun June 24, 2012 at 10:32 AM MDT

I spent Saturday at TBD — a very lame name for a pretty cool idea. Governor Hickenlooper wanted to bring together one thousand civic leaders from all over the state, educate them on the basics of the budget process in Colorado, and give them ample opportunities to talk to each other about how best to move forward, in a completely nonpartisan environment.

The name TBD means “To Be Determined”, which I am told, refers to the fact the completed program still does not have a permanent name. When I was initially invited to join the group, the name was daunting — despite a vague description on a website, I had no idea what I was in for.

TBD took place over two weekend half-days in various regional locations, and culminated in a day-long Summit in Denver. Two other cities in CO joined the Denver group by Skype. The main content of the workshops revolved around five key areas previously chosen by a “framing committee”: transportation, health care, state workforce, education and the state constitution. These key areas became the framework for discussion and debate.

Lt. Governor Joe Garcia attended the full day Summit with us, and Governor Hickenlooper attended the last portion of the Summit, giving closing remarks, and inviting all of us to stay  involved on state matters. I overheard the Governor say to someone at one point, “That’s a very interesting idea. Why don’t we go for a beer and talk about is some more?”

During the course, participants were given reading materials, an overview of how the budget process works, and how TABOR, the Gallagher Amendment and the Colorado Constitution interact. Every step of the way, we were given questions to answer about our personal values, which were tabulated electronically in real time using college test-taking hand units. After each participant voted on a question, the results were displayed immediately on a large screen, sometimes prompting further discussion. During the Summit, we transferred those values into the State Budget using the Backseat Budgeter. As you would imagine, balancing Colorado’s budget is much harder than it looks, and almost every attempt resulted in a smack against the infamous “Wall of TABOR”.

I found the whole process to be fascinating. Logistically, the program clearly had some bugs — there were questions that didn’t make sense at first glance and needed to be clarified, and there were times when our small groups did not understand what was being asked of us. Sometimes the pace seemed very rushed; other times a little slow. Because this was the first year for TBD, I’m confident will be worked out for future year’s workshops. The high-tech classroom worked well for the most part, and clearly furthered Hickenlooper’s brand as the geeky but lovable Governor who thinks outside the box.

Because the room was filled with municipal and county leaders rather than elected officials, I found it refreshing to talk honestly to people without partisan politics getting in the way. The participants were from a wide range of geographical areas, political affiliations and demographical groups, and I learned a great deal about why people vote the way they do. I also gained a better understanding of the mechanics that make balancing the state budget so complex (and frustrating).

TBD was presented through a private organization and paid for through contributions to a 501C-3. No state dollars were used to pay for any of it. Summaries of the statewide discussions and votes can be found on the website: http://tbdcolorado.org/

I strongly encourage my fellow activists and blog readers to apply to the program the next time it rolls around. The time commitment is minimal, the educational opportunity is great, there are free meals, you meet interesting people from all over the state, and when the temperature is 103 degrees outside, the air conditioned classroom is a godsend. And maybe the best part of all … the opportunity to see the Governor’s face when the vast majority of the room expresses their serious reservations about fracking.


Full story: John Hickenlooper’s Great Idea: TBD Citizen’s Summit

It’s Union-Busting Time In Douglas County Schools!

9
  by: Colorado Pols Thu June 21, 2012 at 8:57 PM MDT

When we last discussed the Douglas County Board of Education–far and away the most politically activist school board in the state and the center of a major controversy over the funding of religious school tuition with tax dollars–we noted with amusement that the members of this board, which has made so much of the “political meddling” of the union representing over 70% of Douglas County teachers, were endorsing Mitt Romney for President.

Over the last couple of weeks, the Douglas County school board has moved into the next phase of their politically activist agenda. After miring themselves in a lawsuit over religious school vouchers, they’re now all about breaking the Douglas County Federation of Teachers.

Here’s a letter forwarded to us today that was sent to Douglas County teachers represented by DCFT, summing up the state of contract negotiations:

For 40 years the Douglas County Federation has negotiated in good faith with the Douglas County School District. In fact, we were proud to ask the District to join us in open negotiations for the first time ever. Unfortunately, the new leadership of the District has made it clear they no longer have any intention of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the organization to which more than 70 percent of its teachers belong.

We are saddened and disappointed with the actions and decisions of the current Douglas County School Board and District Administration; formally our district had always been a place of collaboration. Prior to the change in leadership, the DCF and District gained national recognition for their collaboration. Working together with the District we created a school system so renown that many families moved to our community because of our schools…

We strongly believe our teachers must have a CBA.  Therefore, we conceded issues we believe are important to ensure that a settlement would be reached. These concessions included:

‐ Agreement that the District will no longer deduct dues for Federation members

‐ Agreement that Federation officers will no longer be considered employees or Teachers on Special Assignment

‐ Agreement to work together to improve communication between the Federation and the District

Each represents a significant compromise for our organization, and each was offered under the belief that the District was negotiating in good faith to reach a CBA with its teachers. Unfortunately, each time we made progress in Negotiations the Douglas County School Board moved the goal posts. We made a request for an outside facilitator/mediator in February, a request which was denied.  We made another request during the last Negotiations sessions; again we were met with refusal even though Federal Mediation would not cost the District any money.  It is now clear from their public statements that the DCSD BoE has no desire to reach a CBA with teachers. [Pols emphasis]

It’s important to recognize the major concessions that the DCFT made to the Douglas County school board: ending paycheck dues deduction? Ending district benefits for union liason employees? In the realm of collective bargaining, these really amount to giving away the “crown jewels”–concessions offered by the union just to keep the process going. For these concessions to not be good enough proves the intentions of the school board to end the role of the union in negotiating on behalf of teachers entirely, because there’s not much left they can take away.

With all of this in mind, the Douglas County Federation of Teachers has appealed their case, asking for the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment to intervene. Not surprisingly, the notoriously anti-union Denver Post weighed in today with an editorial (as opposed to an actual news story) saying that the state shouldn’t do that, since “99 percent of Dougco teachers have indicated their willingness to return next fall…even without a union contract!”

Thanks, Dean Singleton, but 70% of them have one right now.

Folks, if Douglas County is going to proceed from religious school vouchers to the overt busting of their teacher’s union, one ideological crusade to the next, should that be done in the light of day–or by running out the clock, and gumming it to death on a hostile editorial page?

If this effort prevails, most parents in Douglas County will never have that conversation.


Full story: It’s Union-Busting Time In Douglas County Schools!

GOP Setting Up Metro State For Election Year Grandstand?

10
  by: Colorado Pols Wed June 20, 2012 at 6:42 PM MDT

FOX 31′s Eli Stokols reports:

Republican Attorney General John Suthers issued a formal opinion Tuesday afternoon that Metro State College of Denver cannot legally create a new, lower category of tuition for undocumented students.

The school’s Board of Trustees voted 7-1 earlier this month to do just that, reigniting the debate over tuition equity just a couple of months after state lawmakers again killed a bill that aimed to make college more affordable for qualifying illegal immigrants…

Metro State’s President, Dr. Stephen Jordan, and Trustee Melody Harris are set to meet Wednesday afternoon with the Joint Budget Committee at the Capitol after Chairwoman Cheri Gerou requested a meeting to determine how the school decided to move ahead with its proposal.

“My goal is not to make this any more political than it already is,” said Gerou Tuesday. “I just want to find out what Metro’s thought process was, why they decided to do this, because they never hinted they were going down this road when they presented to us before.”

As the state’s only 4-year open enrollment “college of opportunity,” downtown Denver’s Metro State would always have been one of the more affected schools from any legislation or policy change easing the burden on undocumented students. Metro’s comparatively low tuition, and relatively high dependence on state funding compared to other institutions, make the school naturally more vulnerable to the political whim of legislators holding the purse strings.

Proponents say there is legal precedent for Metro’s policy change, and point to a California Supreme Court decision, Martinez vs. Board of Regents of the University of California, which held that “exemption from nonresident tuition did not violate statute prohibiting education benefits to unlawful aliens on basis of residence.” An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.

Regardless, after Attorney General John Suthers’ non-binding advisory opinion yesterday, there is a great deal of attention focusing on this afternoon’s meeting of the legislative Joint Budget Committee. GOP JBC chair Rep. Cheri Gerou has come uncomfortably close to making threats to Metro State’s funding in news coverage of Metro State’s original decision. There are differing opinions as to the range of options Republicans on the JBC might entertain to deal with this “problem.” But given the free-wheeling lack of discretion with legislative power we’ve seen this year, it’s probably wise to not rule anything out in advance of today’s meeting.


Full story: GOP Setting Up Metro State For Election Year Grandstand?

Union Thugs to Storm Douglas County???

0
  by: DougcoDem Thu May 24, 2012 at 7:51 PM MDT

There seems to be more and more grumbling over the high handed actions of the GOP/ALEC elected DougCo school board. Recently some Board members and the Superintendent were criticized for using their phones to text while on stage at several graduation ceremonies. In addition, at the last BOE meeting there were calls for the removal of former Tom Tancredo foot soldier Katherine Vitale from her Board appointed committee position. It seems Ms. Vitale posted the salary and leave information of the Union president on Facebook. This information could only have come from a source on the BOE or in Human Resources. The post was quickly taken down but I’m told screenshots exist. Ms.V indicated in a recent post that it is her job to confront those critical of the Board on Facebook and other sites. Having read her recent comments she follows the Tommy T book of charm and grace when posting.

It has been a tough couple of weeks for the BOE!

So, rather than let the opportunity to privatize a highly successful school district slip away, GOP chair Mark Baisley is playing the community organizer/union thugs card to rally the troops. See for yourself.

From: Margo Knutson

Sent: Wed, May 23, 2012 9:28 am

Subject: Standing up to Union Intimidation in Douglas County

Hi Coffee Patriots:

This is a call for action to support our Douglas County School board on Thursday. Please see our DCGOP Chairman Mark Baisley’s message below and participate if you can. Thanks. Margo

Friends:

I have received word that professional union organizers have arranged for up to 1,000 demonstrators to descend on Douglas County this Thursday in order to intimidate educators during open negotiations. With the observation area holding only about 100 people, we can only surmise that the union is intending to create a media spectacle both inside and outside of the building as a show of force to educators and as a message to the residents of Douglas County that they are in charge.

I am asking that you join me at school district headquarters, 620 Wilcox Street, Castle Rock, CO 80104 this Thursday afternoon, May 24, at 3:00PM to get a seat in the observation area or by 3:45PM outside the building. Our purpose will be to show the teachers and school district leadership that the residents of Douglas County support them as they negotiate a new contract. While those observing inside will be asked to remain silent, the educators will appreciate seeing supportive faces in the audience.

The residents of Douglas County provide an education system for the sake of our young citizens and the future of our economy. We value and appreciate the great educators who share in this noble goal. It is regrettable that outside interests are asserting themselves into our community.

See you Thursday. Thank you.

Mark Baisley

Chairman

Douglas County Republicans”




Full story: Union Thugs to Storm Douglas County???