A stunning new analysis shows striking inefficiencies at work in Colorado that should infuriate anyone looking for a smarter approach to federal oil and gas leasing – including both conservationists and energy companies.

In Colorado, leases sold by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have attracted nearly three times the number of costly, time-consuming lawsuits (known as protests) than we’ve seen in the rest of the Rockies. Our new analysis found that 76 percent of leases in Colorado were protested, as opposed to 27 percent in surrounding states, on average.

The analysis is based on BLM data recently released for the first time regarding the number of protests in each state filed by citizens and stakeholders on tracts of lands (known as parcels) available for oil and gas leasing. Protests are one of the key measurements for how controversial a particular decision to lease land for oil and gas development.

The reason for this massive discrepancy is clear:

Helen Hankins, the BLM’s top bureaucrat in Colorado, has failed to implement President Obama’s common-sense leasing reforms – designed to streamline the leasing process and reduce conflict dramatically by requiring research and analysis be completed prior to leasing.

A recent report from the Center for American Progress pointed out that:

Those reforms called for a better balance between developing oil and gas resources and the protection of other public lands resources, including nearby parks and refuges, wildlife, and historic and archaeological sites. “There is no presumed preference for oil and gas development over other uses,” states the reform document.

In other words, the reforms were meant to drive our local economies with a real balance between protecting public lands to support and attract high-wage businesses to the West, and using them to produce American-made energy – which together support 100,000s of jobs.

In states like Utah and New Mexico – where the BLM offices are implementing the reforms – protests are down, and energy is being produced. That approach is working for industry and conservation interests – and most importantly our communities and our families.

But in Colorado, Hankins has turned the President’s balanced reforms into a broken promise for our communities. Instead of helping oil and gas companies responsibly develop oil and gas resources in the right places, while protecting those lands that drive the economy and attract new business, Hankins continues to rely on decades-old plans and analyses – proposing to allow oil and gas drilling near places like Mesa Verde National Park, and Dinosaur National Monument.

By miring all sides in expensive red tape, Hankins has failed Westerners who are doing everything they can to get back to work and support their families. They expect their government to champion the Western way of life, including use of public lands in a balanced way to support sustainable economic growth.

The Obama administration must correct this failure by taking action to follow the directives in the 2010 leasing reforms now.

Secretary of State Gessler filed paperwork to run for governor on Thursday, two days after reimbursing the state nearly $1,300 for a political trip to Florida last year.

His political director, Rory McShane, said Gessler's decision to reimburse the money — which led to an ethics complaint against the Republican office-holder — has nothing do with his election plans…

—–

UPDATE #2: In a obviously closely related development, Stokols now reporting that Gessler has officially filed paperwork to run for governor in 2014.

—–

UPDATE: FOX 31's Eli Stokols:

“After many months of attempting to defend himself from this political attack, it became obvious that the Ethics Commission simply wasn’t going to give the Secretary a fair hearing,” Gessler’s spokesman, Andrew Cole, told FOX31 Denver.

“So he decided to pay the money back in an effort to move on from this episode and get back to work for the people of Colorado.”

—–

Big news today in the ongoing ethics and criminal investigation against Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler. A press release we received moments ago from Colorado Ethics Watch explains:

After nearly seven months of defending himself, and reportedly charging the state more than $60,000 in legal defense bills, Secretary of State Scott Gessler has reimbursed the State of Colorado $1278.90 for state money spent on a political trip to Florida in 2012.
 
Colorado Ethics Watch filed a complaint with the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission in October asking the IEC to investigate and determine whether Gessler misappropriated state funds for personal or political use when he was reimbursed for travel to a Republican election law training event and the Republican National Convention in Tampa in August.  In response to the complaint, the Independent Ethics Commission (IEC) investigated the transactions.  The Denver District Attorney also announced in November that he would launch a criminal investigation.
 
“We’re pleased that the Secretary finally did what he should have done months ago – repay the state for funds used to attend a Republican Party event,” said Luis Toro, director of Colorado Ethics Watch.  “This should send a message to all elected officials that public funds are not for personal or political use.”

It would appear that Gessler has given up the long and costly fight to defend his use of office discretionary funds on what has every appearance of partisan political purposes–the national conference of the National Republican Lawyers Association, and the immediately-following Republican National Convention last summer.

It's possible that conceding defeat and repaying these funds will help Gessler put this ethics and criminal investigation behind him ahead of a possible run for governor next year. We'll see what the IEC and Denver DA do with this, but another way to look at it is an admission of guilt after a lengthy and embarrassing public spectacle.

And that's not so good for one's political career either, folks.

Kopel is not a reputable source of information in the gun policy debate. [Pols emphasis] During a December 2012 appearance on CNN to discuss a high-profile shooting involving an NFL player, Kopel falsely claimed that there is no link between gun availability and homicide rates, even though that fact has been established by numerous studies. Kopel also exaggerated the level of violence in the United Kingdom, which has strict gun laws, compared to the United States, even though the United States far outpaces England — and all other high-income nations — in gun homicide and homicide rates generally.

A frequent contributor of feature stories to the NRA's magazine, America's 1st Freedom, Kopel promoted the conspiracy theory that the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty — a proposal to crack down on the supply of weapons to human rights abusers — could lead to the "total disarmament of freedom-loving people all over the world."

—–

THURSDAY UPDATE: The Poynter Institute has gotten wind of this story, and the involvement of Dave Kopel–who rather ironically has been visiting faculty at this nationally known journalism school.

Daniele Perazzi died in 2012. The “incident is devoid of any foundation and the news is completely fabricated,” the company said in a statement.

And the woman who contacted the station wasn’t an attorney, KDVR now says. But she wasn’t the only one flogging the story, KDVR reports: [Pols emphasis]

David Kopel, a nationally-recognized Second Amendment attorney with the Independence Institute in Denver, first told FOX31 Denver about the alleged incident Saturday. He referred us to Korrine Aguirre, who, it now appears, concocted an elaborate but false story.

Kopel has been visiting faculty at Poynter and recently spoke at a Poynter seminar on how to cover guns… [Pols emphasis]

We assume they will be asking Kopel to explain this incident in a future seminar.

—–

UPDATE: FOX 31 finally explains what happened here, and you'll never guess where they got it from:

David Kopel, a nationally-recognized Second Amendment attorney with the Independence Institute in Denver, [Pols emphasis] first told FOX31 Denver about the alleged incident Saturday. He referred us to Korrine Aguirre, who, it now appears, concocted an elaborate but false story…

Oh no, Dave Kopel! Better not put this one in your opening statement. And reporters, maybe keep this in mind next time you're inclined to take Kopel's word for something? He's not actually the reliable source he is widely credited to be, this just being the latest example.

—–

Last Saturday, reporter Hendrik Sybrandy of FOX 31 News dropped quite the bombshell:

An executive with a prominent gun manufacturer is on his way back to his native Italy after a taxi driver mistook him for a terrorist on Saturday.

Daniele Perazzi took a cab to the Colorado Gun Collectors Association trade show at the Denver Merchandise Mart around noon.

He had seven shotguns at the time and apparently the guns scared Perazzi’s cab driver who called police and told them he’d just dropped off a terrorist…

The story of the "arrest" of Daniele Perazzi, the president of the Italian firearms manufacturer Perazzi Shotguns, spread like wildfire across gun-rights friendly social media spaces, websites, and talk radio. The Independence Institute's Amy Oliver warned Twitter followers darkly:

There's just one little problem, as 9NEWS' Kyle Clark reported last night: none of it ever happened. 

The gun company, the Adams County Sheriff's Office, Taxis on Patrol and the Colorado Gun Collectors Association all claim the reported incident never happened.

The story has gone viral online and caused concern for gun rights supporters. 9NEWS has received numerous emails inquiring as to why the story isn't being broadly covered…

The Adams County Sheriff's Office, identified in the FOX31 report as the agency that "interrogated Perazzi," said they have no record of arresting, detaining or even contacting someone at the gun show. [Pols emphasis]

"We have no indication whatsoever that we were involved with this," Sgt. Paul Gregory said. "There is no indication that we arrested, detained or contacted anybody from Perazzi. The only knowledge that we had of this incident was from the FOX31 broadcast on Saturday."

Folks, not only was Daniele Perazzi not arrested on Saturday in Colorado, Daniele Perazzi wasn't even in the state of Colorado. In fact, Daniele Perazzi can't be found anywhere on this earth today, because according to a statement from the company, he died a year ago. 9NEWS tracked down the person who allegedly identified herself as Perazzi's "American attorney" to FOX 31, and she's, well, not an attorney. In short, it's all a hoax.

So yes, clearly FOX 31 has some explaining to do as to how this wholly fabricated story made it into their evening news. To us, though, this is just another example of countless falsehoods that have been uncritically spread by local media during the debate over gun safety in Colorado this year. As one example, 9NEWS' Kyle Clark, the same reporter laughing it up at FOX 31's expense today, himself was duped by the Independence Institute's Jon Caldara's absurd predictions that limiting magazine capacity would mean "guns in Colorado will never be able to get a magazine again." Clark's breathless prime-time report on that "possibility" looks silly in its own right now that the Attorney General's common-sense guidance on the new law is out, and Caldara's warning has been shown to be false–just as proponents of House Bill 1224 always said it would be.

The fact is, we don't know of any local media that should be proud of their gun debate coverage. From double standards for what they scrutinized to the subsidy of false claims about the bills, and even total paranoid BS fabricated out of whole cloth as you see above–they all dropped the ball. And the public interest was not served.

Tom Tancredo.

As the Denver Post's Kurtis Lee reported late last night:

Former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, known for his strong stances on immigration, said late Wednesday night he plans to formally announce a run for governor on a conservative talk radio show Thursday.

“This Dunlap thing is the last straw,” said Tancredo in a message.

As most of our readers know, former Rep. Tom Tancredo challenged Gov. John Hickenlooper in 2010, following the implosion of leading GOP contender Scott McInnis in a plagiarism scandal leaving the hopelessly unqualified Dan Maes as the Republican nominee. Tancredo temporarily affiliated with the minor American Constitution Party to mount his bid, as it was too late for him to run as a Republican.

Notwithstanding whatever boost a Tancredo campaign might get in the short run from Hickenlooper's controversial decision to grant a reprieve to convicted murderer Nathan Dunlap, the fact remains that Tancredo is a symbol of everything the modern GOP is trying to get away from. Tancredo's anti-immigrant obsession has made him a repellent figure among the fast-group bloc of voters in the United States, and his frequent extreme rhetorical outbursts make Tancredo a severe liability to his political allies every time he grabs a microphone.

Having said that, he did get lots of endorsements in 2010, and just over 36% of the vote in a three-way race.

Does Tancredo have the clout in Republican circles to forestall a widely-expected primary? Or will we see a drawn-out contest between Tancredo, Greg Brophy, Scott Gessler–and maybe others? We, and Gov. Hickenlooper, will be watching closely.

UPDATE: As announced on Peter Boyles' radio show this morning:

–Del the Funky Homosapien

Organizers who were seeking to recall Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Westminster, are suspending their petition-gathering efforts, according to an email obtained by Colorado Community Media on May 22.

Organizers told recall volunteers in the email that they are making a “strategic decision” to suspend their efforts to recall Hudak, so that they could focus on the ongoing recall efforts aimed at state Senate President John Morse of Colorado Springs, and Sen. Angela Giron of Pueblo, both of whom are Democrats.

The organizers said in the email that they intend to “restart” their petition-gathering efforts against Hudak after they are successful in their recall attempts against Morse and Giron.

However, the clock is ticking on that effort. Organizers only have until June 10 to submit more than 18,000 recall petition signatures to the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office.

Over the past few weekends, the number of volunteers working the recall petition beat against Sen. Evie Hudak is said to have consistently dwindled, and it became apparent early on to organizers that they wouldn't come anywhere near the 18,000 signatures needed to successfully place her recall on the ballot. Hudak's signature requirement was the highest of any of the four Democrats who had recall petition attempts begin against them, and as soon as it was clear that opponents wouldn't be mounting paid signature drives against her, Hudak was safe.

With Rep. Mike McLachlan's recall drive having ended in failure yesterday, that leaves only Sens. Angela Giron of Pueblo and John Morse of Colorado Springs as possible legislators up for recall. The statement above about volunteers heading to Pueblo is worth noting, but the fact remains that Morse is the only recall most likely headed for the ballot at this point–and that, should it occur, only the result of a paid signature gathering effort.

Notwithstanding pay-to-play, folks, there's no sign in these developments any "sleeping giant" has "awakened."

The defendant was eligible for the death penalty under Colorado law. The district attorney believed the defendant deserved the death penalty. A jury of twelve citizens of Colorado determined that he deserved the death penalty. And a plethora of appellate courts have upheld the jury’s decision. But Governor Hickenlooper simply cannot cope with the task of carrying out the execution of Nathan Dunlap or exercising his constitutional mandate.

Executive authority to modify criminal punishment is part of our constitutional system, and I respect that. However, the citizens of Colorado deserve honesty and the victims deserve finality. I believe the governor’s decision does not stem from anything but his personal discomfort about the death penalty. I also believe that the governor should have been much more up front with the voters when he ran for office if he couldn’t carry out the death penalty.

I have an excellent working relationship with the governor and I respect him very much. Yet it’s been apparent to me that issues of crime and punishment are not his strength. John Hickenlooper is an optimist. He has proven to be uncomfortable confronting the perpetrators of evil in our society. I saw this when I discussed last year’s juvenile direct-file bill with him. He had trouble comprehending that a 16 or 17-year-old is capable of brutal acts deserves adult punishment. I saw it in his naïve views about the role of administrative segregation in our prisons. And I’ve heard it in my discussions with him about the death penalty. The governor is certainly entitled to these views, but granting a reprieve simply means that his successor will have to make the tough choice that he cannot.

—–

UPDATE #2: Press release announcing today's executive order after the jump.

—–

UPDATE: 9NEWS' Blair Schiff:

Under a reprieve, Dunlap could conceivably be executed some day. The reprieve will stay in place until Hickenlooper or another governor lifts it.

Arguably the most difficult decision of his political career, Hickenlooper's decision may earn him blowback as prosecutors are currently seeking the death penalty against James Holmes for the mass murder at an Aurora movie theater.

The death toll in the Dunlap case is not as high as the 2012 Aurora theater shooting, but it shares similarities. Dunlap was convicted in 1996 of killing four employees at a Denver-area Chuck E. Cheese restaurant in 1993. The jury sentenced him to die. His last guaranteed appeal was rejected this year. His execution was scheduled for August 2013.

FOX 31:

The reprieve can only be lifted with another executive order, and Hickenlooper said at a 2 p.m. news conference it’s highly unlikely he will revisit the issue again.  That means it would be up to his successor to decide to stay the execution or allow it to resume.

“This weighed on me heavily for a year,” Hickenlooper said in explaining his decision to reporters.  He spoke slowly and deliberately.

“I could not find the justice in making” a decision to allow Dunlap to die, he said.

—–

We'll update shortly with coverage and the full text of the statement–word breaking now that Gov. John Hickenlooper has granted a temporary reprieve to death-row inmate Nathan Dunlap,  citing questions about the application of the death penalty generally–while acknowledging the "horrific" nature of Dunlap's crime. 

Gov. Hickenlooper grants temporary reprieve of death sentence

Gov. John Hickenlooper signed an Executive Order today that grants Nathan J. Dunlap, also known as Offender No. 89148, a temporary reprieve from his death sentence.

The Colorado Constitution provides for one final review by the governor before the State executes another human being. This check is one that, from its Common Law origins, embeds in the governor the authority to grant a reprieve. Not taking action in this case was not an option.

“I have taken this responsibility seriously,” Hickenlooper says in the Executive Order. “As Governor, I must either direct state employees to execute a human being, or I must exercise my constitutional authority to stop an execution. Both paths require an affirmative decision by me, and the prospect of either decision has been daunting. It has forced me to think of the issue in a personal way because it is on my conscience the decision will weigh. I am confident that most Coloradans – no matter what their views on the death penalty may be – will respect and understand the unique burden of this decision.”

The governor met in recent weeks with prosecutors, clergy, victims and their families, law enforcement, defense attorneys, and countless other people to discuss this case and the death penalty. In granting the reprieve, the governor used the Executive Order to explain a number of issues, including:

Colorado’s imperfect capital punishment system 

“If the State of Colorado is going to undertake the responsibility of executing a human being, the system must operate flawlessly. Colorado’s system for capital punishment is not flawless. A recent study co-authored by several law professors showed that under Colorado’s capital sentencing system, death is not handed down fairly. Many defendants are eligible for capital punishment but almost none are actually sentenced to death. The inmates currently on death row have committed heinous crimes, but so have many others who are serving mandatory life sentences. … As one former Colorado judge said to us, ‘[The death penalty] is simply the result of happenstance, the district attorney’s choice, the jurisdiction in which the case is filed, perhaps the race or economic circumstance of the defendant.’ Indeed, ‘Death, in its finality, differs more from life imprisonment than a 100-year prison term differs from one of only a year or two,’ U.S. Supreme Court Justices Stewart, Powell, and Stevens wrote in a 1976 decision. Thus, they said, ‘there is a corresponding difference in the need for reliability.’”

Issues surrounding the statutorily required drugs for lethal injection 

“… as a result of the infrequent use and application of the death penalty in Colorado, the State is not immediately equipped to carry out a death sentence. Recent restrictions imposed by pharmaceutical companies and the Food and Drug Administration make procuring these drugs challenging. We must ensure that individuals facing the death penalty are afforded certain guaranteed rights of due process before a state proceeds with an execution.”

National and international trend toward abolition of the death penalty 

“Maryland, Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois and New Mexico recently repealed the death penalty. There are now 18 states without the death penalty and 7 of the states with the death penalty (including Colorado) have not carried out an execution in at least 10 years. There has been a moratorium on executions in California for more than 6 years due to concerns regarding the constitutionality of their execution procedures. And the death penalty is effectively suspended in Oregon, where the governor has imposed a moratorium on the death penalty for the duration of his service as governor. Internationally, the United States is one of only a handful of developed countries that still uses the death penalty as a form of punishment. Approximately two-thirds of countries worldwide have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice, largely due to concerns regarding human rights violations. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun said, ‘The death penalty experiment has failed.’”

“My decision to grant a reprieve to Offender No. 89148 is not out of compassion or sympathy for him or any other inmate sentenced to death,” Hickenlooper says in the Executive Order. “The crimes are horrendous and the pain and suffering inflicted are indescribable. I have enormous respect for the jurors who deliberated over Offender No. 89148’s case, the decision they rendered, and the amount of reflection they demonstrated in discharging their civic duty.”

The order says more than 15 years have passed since that jury convened, “and we now have the benefit of information that exposes an inequitable system.”

“It is a legitimate question whether we as a state should be taking lives,” the order says. “Because the question is about the use of the death penalty itself, and not about Offender No. 89148, I have opted to grant a reprieve and not clemency in this case.”

The Executive Order signed today will remain in effect until modified or rescinded by future Executive Order of the Governor. Offender No. 89148, meanwhile, will remain in administrative segregation.

Colorado Sen. Pat Steadman is being recognized today at the White House as a "Harvey Milk Champion of Change." From Fox 31:

Over the last few years, as LGBT advocates have pushed for a new civil unions law, many of them lauded the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Pat Steadman, a long-time lobbyist on equality issues, as “Colorado’s own Harvey Milk.”

…The Champions of Change program was created as an opportunity for the White house to feature groups of Americans – individuals, businesses and organizations – who are doing extraordinary things to empower and inspire members of their communities.

In 1992, Steadman organized the lawsuit challenging “Amendment 2,” the voter-approved anti-gay initiative that made Colorado known for a time as the “Hate State”; the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the statute in 1996 in the landmark Romer v. Evans ruling.

The civil unions legislation was finally passed this year and signed into law in March.

Thank you, Sen. Steadman, for decades spent fighting for equality for every Colorado family! Your work honors Harvey Milk's legacy every day.

We missed Dick.

Veteran GOP operative Dick Wadhams has signed on as general consultant for the leading candidate in one of the GOP’s top Senate pickup opportunities.

Former South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds announced on Wednesday that he has retained Wadhams to help lead his campaign.

The election next year will come a decade after Wadhams’ last triumph in the state — managing now-Sen. John Thune’s 2004 upset of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle.

“Dick’s reputation as a battle tested strategist, coupled with his insight into South Dakota’s political landscape make him the perfect complement to our team,” Rounds said in a statement. “We’ve been considering individuals to fill this role for months and we continued to come back to Mr. Wadhams.”

It's been a rough few years for the formerly legendary Colorado GOP chairman Dick Wadhams. Arguably Wadhams' greatest triumph as a campaign manager came in South Dakota, though, when he masterminded Sen. John Thune's 2004 victory. Wadhams gained his reputation after massaging former Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado, one of the least inspiring men to ever serve in the United States Senate, into two election wins over Democratic challenger Tom Strickland. Since 2004, however, Wadhams has presided over a string of defeats for Senate candidates in several states including Colorado continued losses for the GOP as Colorado party chairman, and the 2010 gubernatorial debacle that more or less broke the party's back here. Wadhams fell so far, so fast, that it's easy to forget that he was once near the pinnacle of his profession; Wadhams managed the 2006 re-election campaign of Sen. George Allen in Virginia, which was supposed to have been a formality along the way toward a run for President in 2008. But then "Macaca" happened.

Perhaps Gov. Mike Rounds will be Wadhams' ticket back to winner's circle. His résumé‎ hopes so.

Last year, the National Association of State Budget Officers published an Issue Brief that places public pension funding in a state budgetary perspective.  The Issue Brief brings perspective to the Colorado General Assembly's breach of Colorado PERA public pension COLA contractual obligations in 2010.  A lawsuit contesting this state taking of PERA public pension benefits, Justus v. State, is currently pending before the Colorado Supreme Court.

"For over 60 years, the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) has been the professional membership organization for state budget and finance officers."

http://www.nasbo.org/about-nasbo

The Issue Brief, "A State Budgeting Perspective on Public Pensions," is available at the following link:

http://www.nasbo.org/sites/default/files/pdf/A%20State%20Budgeting%20Perspective%20on%20Public%20Pensions.pdf

Below, I provide a few important excerpts from the NASBO public pension Issue Brief (and my observations):

"This brief examines a number of pension issues from a budgetary perspective. A budgetary perspective considers long term pension funding adequacy, and the financial cost of promised benefits in relation to the rest of current state spending."

"Most public pensions have retained a defined benefit status in which retiree payments are guaranteed under state statute, constitution, or contract law."

(My comment: When the Colorado General Assembly enacted the bill breaking Colorado PERA retiree pension contracts in 2010 [SB10-001], scant attention was given to the fact that the issue of governmental taking of contracted public pension COLA benefits had been previously litigated in Colorado.  Decades ago the Colorado Supreme Court invalidated the taking of contracted COLA benefits by Colorado governmental employers as a means of escaping their contracted public pension debt.  Colorado state and local government employers cannot "define" their way out of their contractual public pension COLA obligations in statute or ordinance.  How did the Colorado PERA Board of Trustees and Colorado's public sector unions arrive at the conclusion that state and local government employers, after benefiting from the labor of their employees, did not have to pay contracted deferred compensation for that labor?  This notion defies Colorado case law, and common sense.

Although, many state legislators were generally aware of the recent Colorado Attorney General's Opinion stating that impairment of contracted PERA benefits would be unconstitutional (during debate of SB10-001), few had read the on-point case law, Bills or McPhail.  In 2009/2010 the Leadership of the Colorado General Assembly, encouraged by self-interested public sector unions, preferred to keep rank and file members of the General Assembly in ignorance.  Thus, Leadership abdicated legislative policy-making authority in this area to the state's pension administrator, Colorado PERA.  The Colorado PERA Board of Trustees conducted a statewide campaign to persuade Colorado PERA retirees to relinquish their contractual pension rights.  As planned, the PERA Board of Trustees presented a preordained conclusion to take "fully-vested" PERA retiree pension COLA benefits to the Legislature prior to the 2010 legislative session.

Although encouraged to do so, the Leadership of the General Assembly did not pursue an interrogatory to the Colorado Supreme Court requesting an opinion on the constitutionality of their proposed taking of PERA retiree public pension benefits.  The Leadership of the General Assembly did not propose that an interim study committee be appointed to examine potential PERA pension reforms that would comply with the Colorado Constitution.  Such actions on the part of the General Assembly's Leadership would have resulted in a level of knowledge of public pension contractual rights on the part of the members sufficient to prevent even 27 statehouse lobbyists from pushing SB10-001 through the legislative process.)

NASBO:

"The yearly . . . employer contribution to the fund comes directly from the state’s operating budget and is called the annual required contribution or (ARC).  The ARC represents the level of payment needed for the state to keep pace with the accumulation of benefits."

"When states contribute significantly less than the ARC, assets in the pension fund may not be able to meet the liabilities that accrue, which can necessitate future taxpayer dollars to cover the cost of benefits for services delivered in the past.  States must consider the issue of equity because, as the Government Accountability Office points out, 'When the ARC is not paid in full each year, future generations must make up for the costs of benefits that accrued to employees in the past.'"

(My comment: On August 11, 2009, at the Denver meeting of the Colorado PERA “Listening Tour” Colorado PERA’s General Counsel Greg Smith blamed the Colorado General Assembly for the decline PERA’s actuarial funded ratio: “We have not been paid what’s called the actuarially required contribution.”  “We’ve not been receiving that full contribution in any of our divisions for many years . . . seven years to be specific.”

Link: http://www.copera.org/pera/about/listeningtour.htm)

This legislative habit of failing to pay annual public pension bills [the ARC deficiency] has been referred to as "taking a pension holiday," or "putting state expenditures on a credit card."  Skipping out on required PERA pension bills allowed the Colorado General Assembly to redirect this money to discretionary state programs.  Colorado state legislators have racked up their PERA credit card balance on an extended "pension holiday."  Rather than acting responsibly and facing the consequences of their negligence, state legislators now seek to raid Grandma's bank account to pay off their credit card debt.  These are our state leaders . . . setting a example for today's youth.)

NASBO:

"The amount owed on unfunded liabilities can be paid over time because the obligations are amortized much like a mortgage payment."

(My comment: Colorado PERA Executive Director Meredith Williams in "Setting the Record Straight":

“PERA is a long-term investor with an investment horizon that spans not just 10 years, but 50 or 70 years.”

https://www.copera.org/pera/about/issues.htm

Silver and Gold Record, March 9, 2006:

“Williams noted that most people don't have enough money to pay off their mortgages, and that PERA's assets have exceeded its total liabilities only twice in its 75-year history. ‘We have 74 percent of the mortgage, but some people are making hay out of that,’ he said."

https://www.cu.edu/sg/messages/4871.html)

NASBO:

"When a pension plan’s accrued actuarial liability exceeds the actuarial valuation of assets the plan is said to have an unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) or unfunded liabilities."

"The ratio of liabilities to assets is depicted as a pension plans’ funding ratio, which indicates the level of funds available for paying accrued benefits. The benchmark for many state and local plans is to maintain an 80 percent funding ratio or enough assets to cover 80 percent of accrued liabilities."

(My comment: “Mr. [Meredith] Williams was quoted in the same report as saying ‘Most pension funds are considered sound at 80 percent funding levels.’”

“Meredith Williams ‘said at the Senate Finance Committee hearing [on SB10-001] in January that PERA needed to be funded at 100 percent.  When the PERA representatives  were asked by a member of the committee why in view of the fact that PERA had only been funded at 100 percent for about seven of the past thirty years [actually two of the last eighty-one years], it was necessary now.  The answer was ‘it just makes things easier.’”

Link:

http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/clics2010a/commsumm.nsf/b4a3962433b52fa787256e5f00670a71/84960fa73d53e222872576c600712e80/$FILE/10HseFin0210AttachG.pdf

In February 2011, Colorado PERA's General Counsel wrote in the periodical "Government Finance Review," that, in order for a PERA pension reform to be found "reasonable" under the law, changes to the Colorado PERA pension must be "the minimum changes necessary."  The next year, June 26, 2012, Colorado PERA’s independent actuary, Cavanaugh MacDonald Consulting, LLC, wrote in the 2011 Colorado PERA CAFR: that the 100 percent funding threshold put into Colorado law by SB10-001 is much stronger than is necessary [i.e., not "the minimum change necessary"] to meet public pension regulatory [GASB] standards.  Alteration of the statutory Colorado PERA pension contract in 2010 [SB10-001] by incorporation of this 100 percent PERA pension funding threshold placed unnecessary financial pressure on the PERA pension trust funds, creating the Legislature's desired rationale for breaking pension contracts, and does not represent the "least drastic" reform option available to the Colorado General Assembly.

You can see that, in 2010, when Leadership decided to attempt a Colorado PERA pension contract breach, they were determined to "go big."  If they were going to use recent [2008/2009] market volatility as a “window” to attempt to slash state and local government pension debt, why not roll the dice and slash the PERA pension debt dramatically?  Why not push 90 percent of the cost-shift in their bill, SB10-001, onto PERA retirees?  PERA retirees were weak and unrepresented . . . an easy target for PERA’s hired lobbyists.  Instead of placing a PERA pension funded ratio of 80 percent in the title of SB10-001, why not bet the farm and stick in a 100 percent funded ratio threshold?  [Note that another state that has been condemned for its attempt to take public pension COLA benefits, Rhode Island, proposes to continue its own pension theft until just an 80 percent funding threshold is achieved.  The Rhode Island theft is thus, comparatively, the lesser crime.]  This is what happens when lobbyists run the legislative show. Greed takes over.

Note this 2012 Fitch Ratings position on public pension funding levels: “Fitch generally considers pensions with funded ratios 80% and above to be well-funded.”  Also, in a 2011 Fitch Ratings report, Fitch notes that a 70 percent actuarial funded ratio for public defined benefit pensions is considered an “adequate” actuarial funded ratio.

Link:

http://www.ncpers.org/Files/2011_enhancing_the_analysis_of_state_local_government_pension_obligations.pdf)

Back to NASBO:

"In the past, pension dollars accounted for a much greater share of state budgets than they do today (See the graph on page 4 of the NASBO Issue Brief.)"

"Overall, pension contributions represent a small percentage of states’ operating budgets at roughly 3.8 percent."

(My comment: Jennifer Paquette, Colorado PERA Chief Investment Officer, May 22, 2011, Denver Post:

“In fact, employer contributions to pensions account for just 2.16 percent of all Colorado state and local government spending, according to 2008 U.S. Census Bureau data.”

Note that according to the NASBO graph, in the 1980s, U.S. state and local government expenditures to meet public pension obligations reached six percent of total state and local government expenditures, nearly three times Colorado's public pension burden in 2008 as identified by Colorado PERA's Chief Investment Officer above.)

NASBO:

"Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, October 2010 – Public Pension Contributions as a Percent of State and Local Government Budgets."

NASBO:

"Pension liabilities can also be viewed as a debt structure component, comprising one aspect of a state’s long-term outstanding debt. Therefore, state pension systems are a factor that rating agencies consider before issuing an opinion on a state’s ability to repay debt obligations. The degree to which states consistently pay their ARC indicates that other debt obligations will likely be met through the normal budget process."

"Pension obligations are referred to as 'riskless' because the payments are guaranteed to beneficiaries."

Link to complete NASBO public pension Issue Brief:

http://www.nasbo.org/sites/default/files/pdf/A%20State%20Budgeting%20Perspective%20on%20Public%20Pensions.pdf

Colorado PERA active and retired members, the proponents of SB10-001 would have you, and Colorado courts, believe that your accrued pension benefits are a burden on Colorado state and local governments.  In reality, pension contributions made by Colorado governments are a fraction of public pension contributions in other states.  The Colorado General Assembly and self-interested lobbyists want to conceal many truths from you and the courts.  Help bring the truth to light in our state.  Do your part to preserve the rule of law in Colorado.  Contribute at saveperacola.com.  "Friend" Save Pera Cola on Facebook!

In a show of arrogance that has become too typical of the Colorado State Office of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the agency is ignoring a Federal judge, media requests, stakeholders, and the public in denying public information about public activities on the public lands, according to the Durango Herald:

“This isn’t a widespread issue of public concern. It is primarily press that are concerned about oil and gas leasing and activists that are opposed to oil and gas leasing.”

The state 'Communications Director', one might assume, has the job as a public employee working on public lands issues and spending public monies, of informing the public and managing media relations.  The 'press' and public are–this common-sense assumption goes–the PRIMARY purpose of his receiving a Federal salary as a taxpayer-funded public employee.

But apparently not for BLM Colorado–where public information is no such thing, and the public and media are merely distractions from what ever other self-determined more important things, like defending illegal agency actions perhaps, or intentionally seeking to divide communities. 

Colorado's North Fork Standing Up

This particular matter has its roots in the BLM Colorado State Office's reckless oil and gas leasing policy that willfully ignores local communities, other federal agencies, state wildlife officials, local businesses and the public, to lease whatever public lands secret industry representatives nominate.  This is despite Colorado having the oldest land use plans in the Mountain West, many dating back to the 1980s–like that that governs the public lands in the North Fork–most of which fail completely to properly account for, describe, consider or protect the resources and uses that exist or depend upon these lands today. 

Citizens for a Healthy Community–a Delta County based conservation group–partnered with the Western Environmental Law Center to file lawsuit seeking the names of the nominators who put forward the contentious leases in that valley.  They won that suit. 

Here is what the judge wrote:

So, a Federal judge acknowledges that sharing information on public lands and public minerals is in the public interest and orders the public employees at a public agency to release that (public) information. 

And the senior staff at BLM Colorado Office responds, to paraphrase: Make us (again). 

Following the judge's decision and the BLM Colorado's clear loss in court, others–including the Durango Herald–have now sought identical information regarding contentious leases in their communities.  Such as those surrounding Mesa Verde National Park opposed by the BLM's own sister agency in the Department of Interior, the National Park Service.

Now, the Colorado State Office of the BLM, our public employees spending our public monies to manage our public lands and minerals, is refusing to release that information. Again.  Because, apparently its Communications Director has better things to do than communicate. 

Maybe like spending more time in court defending the indefensible, losing more lawsuits, and greasing the skids for oil and gas in violation of what the Federal courts have found to be in the public's interest. 

–Mary Oliver

I caught a piece on NPR just recently by reporter Jackie Northram. She tells the story of a $15 billion expansion project at the Sabine Pass natural gas terminal.

Phase one of the expansion will enable the facility to export (emphasis mine) U.S. natural gas worldwide. 5 LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) storage tanks, each containing 160,000 cubic meters of liquefied natural gas are nearing completion.

The terminal was built at a time when it was widely believed there would be a deficit of natural gas here in the U.S.  Charif Souki, the CEO of Cheniere Energy, says back then it was believed Sabine Pass would be busy and profitable for many years.

During the gas boom, many believed that America would benefit from the enormous reserves of natural gas being unlocked. Some foresaw a future with gas powered cars taking us back and forth to work. The industry would survive nicely and big money would be made. America would be energy independent and T Boone Pickens would be stylin'… he convinced a bunch of investors that the price of methane would be resilient. That hasn't happened.

The Big Five Oil companies don't really focus on the U.S., however. They have bigger fish to fry..and a much more lucrative market "out there".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/nov/30/shell-gazprom-global-cooperation-pact

 Ay Caruso, an energy specialist with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says the decision was met with a huge amount of skepticism. He says at the time natural gas prices were still high in the U.S. and it was hard to see how the costly process of liquefying and shipping the gas could actually turn a profit.

GUY CARUSO: In fact, when he first mentioned that idea, some of us were wondering how he could possibly think it would work. And now he's considered to be, you know, prescient and, you know, with a great vision. And…

Federal permission has been given to sell American natural gas to the Dominican Republic, Columbia, potentially Brazil, Chile, Uruguay.  The next step geographically would be to go to Europe…home of both Royal Dutch/Shell AND Gazprom…neat.

 The first tanker of LNG is expected to ship out of the Sabine Pass terminal in late 2015 or early 2016; it will mark the U.S. entry into the export market for natural gas – which until now has been dominated by countries such as Qatar and Russia.

I hope all the "Drill, Baby, Drill", patriots are ready to pay a LOT more to heat their gunsheds. America is being "fracked" to pieces in order to line the pockets of people like Rex Tillerson, Peter Voser, et al. A few jobs?…sure…a few trillion gallons of poisoned water? Count on it…

More lies from the "Lady in the Black Pantsuit"?

I wouldn't be surprised.

Former Lakewood legislator Betty Boyd

Boyd served 12 years in the state legislature, starting in the house in 2000. She was reelected twice, and in 2006 Boyd was elected to fill the vacancy in the Senate District 21 seat. She ran again and won in 2008.

“I was in the first class of leadership in Lakewood, and was first interested in running for city council, but due to urging of others, I went to the state level and my focus changed to work there,” she said. “Now it’s coming full circle, because I’m back to try for council.”

Incumbent Wiechman has his sights set on Mayor in 2015

Wiechman is a bit of an odd bird to say the least. He was in the news earlier this year for an "IT problem" related to pornography on his iPad, and in 2011 he drew the ire of fellow council members for basically offering to underwrite the campaign of anyone who ran against a handful of people Wiechman didn't like.

One of the people who took him up on the offer, Pete Roybal, did get elected; his campaign committee was later fined for improper reporting around a loan from Wiechman. Several other potential candidates reportedly declined Wiechman's overtures.