Recent Posts

Udall Promises “Bold and Productive Action” To Fight Sexual Assaults In The Military

1
  by: nancycronk Mon May 20, 2013 at 4:35 PM MDT

Responding to growing reports of sexual abuse and harassment within the United States military, U.S. Senator Mark Udall announced today he will take a leading role by working on both sides of the aisle to address sexual violence in the armed services. He outlined his plan to find solutions, hold perpetrators accountable, and protect victims from retaliation.

His plans include co-sponsoring "a number of bills" on the issue, and pushing for a provision to the National Defense Authorization Act. One of the bills he intends to support is the Murray-Ayotte Sexual Assault bill, a bipartisan piece of legislation from Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), which will establish a special military counsel to provide legal advice and assistance requested by any military sexual assault victim. The law will require cases to be automatically referred to a general or admiral to ensure greater oversight. The bill will allow cases to be shifted outside of the chain of command if an appropriate investigation does not occur in a timely fashion.

Udall will also co-sponsor a bill from Senators Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) which would require a comprehensive review of the level of training by Department of Defense personnel regarding sexual violence. The bill will call for formal minimum levels of training, qualifications and experience in the areas of sexual assault prevention and response. Senator Udall has previously worked in this area; in 2012's National Defense Authorization Act, he supported the establishment of a panel of experts that will provide recommendations for reducing the numbers of sexual assault within the military.

On his announcement, Udall stated,

"As a father, a Coloradan and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am angered by the failure to stem the tide of sexual assaults in the military. The good order and discipline of our armed forces and the safety of our troops is being threatened from within. We need to make clear that there will be zero tolerance for these horrific crimes and the people who commit them — just as we should in civilian society."

Udall continued, "I will work with my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee to ensure that this year's National Defense Authorization Act takes bold and productive action to solve this problem. Senators from both sides of the aisle have been collaborating on a number of proposals to address the issue. We need policies that preserve cohesion and morale by ensuring that military survivors of sexual assault are confident they will be protected by their chains of command and that their perpetrators will be effectively prosecuted.”

Senator Udall sits on the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee.


Full story: Udall Promises “Bold and Productive Action” To Fight Sexual Assaults In The Military

Today In BS: Scott Gessler and 2012 Voter Turnout Rates

5
  by: Colorado Pols Mon May 20, 2013 at 2:05 PM MDT

Stop Whining About OverreachingAs the Craig Daily Press' Joe Moylan reports:

For Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler, there was no more blatant example of partisan political power than House Bill 13-1303, a 128-page rewrite of Colorado’s voting laws…

On Saturday, Gessler was the featured speaker during the annual Moffat County Republican Party Lincoln Day Dinner at the Holiday Inn of Craig. During his 20-minute address, Gessler outlined for about 40 local residents the flaws he sees in the new law and criticized Gov. John Hickenlooper as being a rubber-stamp governor for a partisan state Legislature…

“We outperform almost every other state in terms of voter turnout and we outperform the eight same-day voter registration states,” Gessler said. [Pols emphasis] “This wasn’t a problem that needed to be solved. Not one Republican amendment was accepted and not one person from my office was consulted on this bill.”

Our friend John Tomasic of the Colorado Independent directs us to this George Mason University chart of voter turnout in the 2012 elections:

State VEP Highest Office
Turnout Rate 		VEP Total Ballots Counted
​Turnout Rate
Colorado 70.3% 71.1%
Minnesota (SDR) 75.7% 76.1%

And that's "Today in BS," folks.


Full story: Today In BS: Scott Gessler and 2012 Voter Turnout Rates

Good Luck With That, Ryan Call

9
  by: Colorado Pols Mon May 20, 2013 at 1:17 PM MDT
See you in 2016?

See you in 2016? Maybe?

As the Durango Herald reported over the weekend, Republicans in Colorado are still looking for that elusive candidate to challenge either Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper or Sen. Mark Udall. We've discussed many times in this space that Colorado Republicans are basically paralyzed under the vice grip of the Tea Party and the far-right; the only way to win a statewide election in Colorado is to run as a moderate, but the GOP can't get a moderate out of a primary. Perhaps both a cause and effect of this problem has left Republicans with quite literally nobody to turn to for help.

In that context, it's hard not to feel sorry for Colorado Republican Party Chair Ryan Call, who can't do much anymore but just admit that the GOP has no bench. From the Durango Herald:

Republicans have whispered about a handful of possible candidates – including two prominent Four Corners politicians – but the party appears to be running into trouble fielding top-tier candidates for these races. Political scientists and strategists say this is just the latest edition of troubles that have dogged the party for the last 10 years…

…The Colorado Republican Party is down but not out, state chairman Call said.

“There’s no question that the bench, if you will, of candidates has suffered as a result of election losses in the past,” Call said. [Pols emphasis]

Call is correct, but it's more than that — even Republicans who have won recent elections (such as Rep. Cory Gardner) aren't really part of a bench that could succeed statewide. Republicans, and Call, know what they don't need.But they still have to square that with a Tea Party crowd doesn't agree about much of anything, even amongst themselves.

Colorado Pols readers have heard this all before, of course, but it's pretty incredible to see the State Party Chair basically admit that Republicans have no bench. The truth shall set you free, or something.


Full story: Good Luck With That, Ryan Call

Let No Facts Stand In The Way Of Rage

13
  by: Colorado Pols Mon May 20, 2013 at 11:02 AM MDT

A brief roundup of reporting on the release late Friday by Colorado Attorney General John Suthers of long-awaited technical guidance for law enforcement on the implementation of House Bill 1224, the bill limiting gun magazine capacity to 15 rounds. Suthers' release of this guidance, which lays out the plain language of House Bill 1224 and seeks to dispel a huge amount of unfounded speculation and misinterpretations of the new law, came on the same day that a majority of Colorado county sheriffs held a press conference with Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute announcing their lawsuit to overturn both House Bill 1224 and the universal background checks bill, House Bill 1229.

Apparently, the sheriffs were a lot more interesting to the media.

Hypothetically, Suthers' technical guidance should take some of the wind out of the sails of opponents–and least those motivated by specious, even irrational interpretations of the bill's language. As the scant press coverage that actually mentions Suthers' memo from the weekend indicates, though, it didn't even slow them down.

7NEWS' Alan Gathright appears to have done the best job explaining what the AG's guidance means:

Some concerns about the law prohibiting the sale, transfer and possessing of large-capacity ammunition magazines might be eased by a legal opinion released Friday by Colorado Attorney General John Suthers and Department of Public Safety Executive Director James Davis. Gov. John Hickenlooper instructed the officials to provide the technical guidance on how law enforcement agencies should interpret and enforce the law. 

Just because a magazine has a "removable baseplate" does not mean it falls under the law's definition of a large-capacity magazine "designed to be readily converted to accept more than 15 rounds of ammunition," the guidance says. "

On many magazines, that [removable baseplate] design feature is included to specifically to permit cleaning and maintenance," the opinion says. "Of course, a magazine whose baseplate is replaced with one that does, in fact, allow the magazine to accept more than 15 rounds would be a 'large-capacity magazine' under House Bill 1224."

So, just having a magazine with the potential to be expanded to hold more than 15 rounds isn't deemed a violation of the law. [Pols emphasis]

The Durango Herald's Joe Hanel reports, if that's a problem for your outrage, the answer is simple: just ignore it. 

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers sent a “guidance” to police around the state Friday about how the law should be enforced. The memo says a magazine shouldn’t be treated as high-capacity simply because it has a removable baseplate.

However, plaintiffs said such guidance is legally meaningless, and they want the law overturned. [Pols emphasis]

9NEWS' Brandon Rittiman wrote a story Friday about Suthers' memo that both explains its meaning pretty well, and helps one understand why the local media has gotten, and continues to get, this story so very wrong.

A broad interpretation [Pols emphasis] of the bill's language banning magazines that are "designed to be readily converted to accept, more than fifteen rounds" could mean that any magazine with a removable base plate would be banned because extenders can be used on some models to increase capacity…

David Kopel, the lawyer suing the state over HB-1224, says the technical guidance does not change the suit because the guidance can always be changed and constitutional concerns remain over having vague language on the books.

He did concede that the court may decide to adopt the guidance or set down other clarifications of the law in its ruling. [Pols emphasis]

Bottom line: a "broad interpretation" of just about any law could lead to ridiculous and unworkable "unintended consequences." In situations where a law is not controversial, this is not a problem, as no responsible person in charge of implementing said law would ever interpret the law that, you know, stupidly. But in the case of these gun safety bills, where opponents have freely employed total bullshit to frighten the public, it is entirely natural, even expected, that they will also insist on the most absurd, draconian interpretation of these laws imaginable–for as long as doing so has any political benefit.

In 2006, Colorado voters overwhelmingly passed Amendment 41, an "ethics in government" measure that was bitterly opposed by elected officials and lobbyists. Persons with freebies and/or access to lose under Amendment 41 lurched from one crazy "unintended consequence" to another in an effort to scuttle the bill, and then to discredit it into meaninglessness after passage. Sob stories about children being denied scholarships and other untold heartbreak flooded an accommodating local press.

And then adults interpreted the bill like adults, and amazingly, none of that stuff happened.

In the case of House Bill 1224, it has always been our contention that the language in the legislation, "designed to be readily converted," correctly and precisely narrowed the scope of magazines that would be banned. We have always maintained, and still firmly believe, that no court will come to the nutty conclusions about the plain language in this bill that opponents imagine. We have watched this year as that language has been second-guessed and misinterpreted by opponents with an interest in raising alarm, grounded in fact or not–and uncritically repeated by local media who were apparently too busy making sure their hair was perfectly coiffed for their big story to look critically at the story.

At some point, the misinformation is going to end. The game will be up for those benefiting from lies, and some people in this town who call themselves "journalists" will, we sincerely hope, have some introspection awaiting them.


Full story: Let No Facts Stand In The Way Of Rage

Lobbyist Radio Host and Lobbyist Guest Express their Screwy Feelings on Internet Radio

3
  by: Jason Salzman Mon May 20, 2013 at 8:47 AM MDT

(Eww – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Lobbyist Corky Kyle, who runs the Kyle Group, hosts an internet radio show called “In the Lobby,” which promises to give “you a backstage pass to the heated industry of lobbying and politics.”

Here’s the backstage view you got when Kyle had Tony Gagliardi, a lobbyist for the National Federation of Independent Business, on the show May 7 (@24 min).

Kyle: All right. We’re back. We’re back, after the exciting first segment of our show. How’s it feel, Denver, to be a small businessman? Did you just want to bend over and grab the Vaseline®? Or maybe they’re not going to use Vaseline ® this time. I don’t think they are.

Gagliardi: They’re not even going to take you to dinner.

Kyle: They’re not even going to take you to dinner! That’s right! And, on top of that, they won’t even kiss you!

Gagliardi: [laughing] I know.

Kyle: What the heck is going on with this?

Watch here @ 19:30:

Kyle and Gagliardi were upset with the legislative session, generally, but in particular, they didn’t like a bill that would subject businesses with 15 or fewer employees to workforce discrimination lawsuits, even though damages and penalties would be limited.

“I represent 7,500 members in this state and another 2,000 in Wyoming,” Gagliardi said on the show. “And the worst thing I hated to see come out of this session was the lack of respect for those who actually generate the infrastructure in this state, and that’s business.”

But was it ok to compare the legislation and the session to being butt f*cked with no Vaseline or anything more advanced?

I don’t think so. Do you?

“I stand by that, even though it may be a little vulgar,” said Kyle, adding: “If someone can show me where small business was helped, I’ll eat my hat and buy them dinner.”

For his part, Gagliardi told me.: “I would stand by my comment as far as lack of respect [to small businesses]. The question is, was respect shown to the small business community during this session? And the answer would be no.”

But what about the specific wording of the radio conversation?

“In that venue, playing off Corky’s comments, it’s not something I probably would have said in mainstream, but in that venue, given the context, and given what had happened the previous 120 days, I would probably stand by it,” said Gagliardi, adding that on internet radio “they really do push the envelope with more open dialogue.”

He’s right about internet radio (See shows like “Panties.”), but I can’t find any shows, featuring serious lobbyists and legislators, like “In the Lobby” does, that hit such obscene notes.

Anal sex came up the other day on Grassroots Radio Colorado, but the reference point was host Ken Clark’s story about how somebody ” rear-ended me” (as in a car accident). His co-host dropped the line: “That’s what she said.”

I don’t recall Kyle’s “In-the-Lobby” show, which has featured dozens of elected officials, including leadership from both parties, getting so deeply in the gutter before.

I asked Kyle if he was changing his show, trying to be more abrasive, so to speak.

“I think it’s starting to change on me because I just don’t like the way things are going [in the Legislature.] Before, the whole premise of the show was, ‘if you don’t get involved in legislative process, you get what you get.’ All of a sudden things have gotten very contentious. You have to draw a line, and people want to hear different things. I want legislators on who will express some sentiments…. I don’t like the way it’s going. Small business is getting the shaft so bad.”

Still, Kyle says that anyone who knows him will say that he’ll treat guests with the respect they deserve.

“I really do try to go down the middle,” he says. “That particular day it got a little stupid. I figure after 32 years, I get a hall pass.”


Full story: Lobbyist Radio Host and Lobbyist Guest Express their Screwy Feelings on Internet Radio

At Least She’s (Hopefully) Not Your School Board Member…

10
  by: catpuzzle Mon May 20, 2013 at 7:30 AM MDT

(The battle of Andrea Merida vs. everybody else rages on – promoted by Colorado Pols)

It’s always good to see our elected officials take to the interwebs to engage in some good ol’ interaction with the people they are supposed to be representing.

Of course, for most politicians, that might mean responding on twitter or engaging on facebook. But for a select few, it might just mean getting down in to the trenches, and starting a good old flame war.

And few are more likely to be engaging in some good ol’ blog-post-comment-wars (general belief is she had quite a few sock puppet accounts here on Pols back in the day) or general online "trolling" than the Denver school board’s very own elected super-troll, Andrea Merida (when she isn’t busy imploding in some other way, of course).

What follows is almost too ridiculous to be true. It's simply incredible that she’s (still) an elected officia, and in a job that’s important!

So, check out the kind of elected official her constituents are lucky enough to enjoy!

First, Merida gets started with a snarky comment about “fiduciary responsibility”, an interesting direction for her to go in, but certainly a phrase she's heard other people use, even if she doesn't seem to fully grasp it..

Andrea Mérida says:

May 15, 2013 at 4:40 pm

Thanks for the suggestion Alex, but I would never advocate for such a thing. The public dollar needs oversight by an elected body. It’s called “democracy” and “fiduciary responsibility.”

Unsurprisingly, the target of her snark responds. And makes a very fair point (i.e. let’s not forget that Merida stole / wasted thousand of DPS dollars)

Alexander Ooms says:

May 15, 2013 at 11:17 pm

Andrea, well, what can one say. Charters schools: can’t live with them, can’t live without them. It must be love.

You make an odd distinction since many oversight bodies are appointed, not elected, (FDA, SEC, Supreme Court Judges, Cabinet members, etc) partly to try to limit partisan political influence. But then again, you do have a pretty unique insight, as not many people have first-hand experience with fiduciary responsibility that merits coverage in the editorial section of the Denver Post: http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_18808091

And then things get GOOD! By which I mean Merida falls completely off the rails and down the hill and all the way around the bend.

Andrea Mérida says:

May 16, 2013 at 8:15 am

Sure, why bother with the Colorado Constitution, which establishes the oversight authority of the Board of Education with elected members, when you can just take cheap personal shots?

Charter schools are the law. We each took to uphold the law, but the other side of the law is that the board has to authorize them. We raise the issue about how much time is spent on charters because we care about quality (as should you), not because we’re having a time-management issue. I know you know this.

I’d like to know what your personal stake is when charters get authorized. How much do you stand to gain when we do? Do you get a bonus? Do you own some sort of service provider for charters?

Your sexist, troll-like behavior needs to be dealt with once and for all. So tell us how charters augment your bottom line.

Being called a troll by Merida is certainly something special, since she’s pretty much an expert on the subject. Screaming “sexist!” is a particularly nice touch. Did everyone catch the sexism directed at her? No? Of Course not. But that’s why Merida is an expert in trolling. She screams at people on the internets from a small dark basement that isn’t even close to the real world. And then she makes some crazy baseless claims about her counterpart!

Surprise, surprise, he responds! Rationally, fairly, and with a bit of humor.

Alexander Ooms says:

May 16, 2013 at 1:44 pm

School oversight varies considerably; some boards are elected, some appointed, some are a mix, and some cities have mayoral control. I have not seen any research on the supremacy of any single system, and I don’t have the certainty that you do that any one is flawless to the exclusion of the others.

As I think you know (perhaps you don’t), I receive no financial benefit from my work with charter schools. Zero. Not even an expense account to run up. Nor have I ever been paid by a political campaign, or any other political interest group.

I won’t ask you to list your similar interests, as you have shown a disinclination to be transparent about your personal finances, and I’m not clear it is really relevant. Public money, and the accountability of elected officials, is a little different. I thought the Post was clear on the distinction. Do you think the coverage on ColoradoPols was better? http://coloradopols.com/diary/42517/has-andrea-merida-paid-back-her-overages-yet

“Sexist troll” is a new one. I confess I have never thought that trolls have a gender. Sexless trolls I get, but sexist? Going to have to let that image go.

But don’t worry, that won’t stop our Andrea from getting in the last word (don't get your hopes up, this is actually going to go on for a long time, unfortunately). And she’s going to make it good, right?

Andrea Mérida says:

May 16, 2013 at 3:27 pm

Since all you have to harp on is a closed issue, here you go: http://andreamerida.com/resources/dps-budget/expenses/

The page has been up on my website for a while, and it shows that I pay my own way. Or do you only pay attention when it’s time to troll?

Err, hm? A closed issue? Probably not – she’s up for re-election this year (crazy she's running, honestly), and I’d expect that someone basically stealing thousands of dollars of district funds, and then fighting against funding for DPS schools (She led No on 3B) is going to have a lot of explainin to do. The only thing her website shows is that she has some nonsense convoluted explanation for her spending, but it really doesn’t hold water. But her, she doesn’t really need an explanation because people who disagree with her are TROLLS, haven’t ya heard?

Troll-troll-troll-troll-troll.

So then she gets asked a reasonable question – has she actually paid back the money (and also – fairly – what’s with all the troll-talk?)

Alexander Ooms says:

May 16, 2013 at 10:54 pm

I think the issue would be closed if you were to repay the expenses, in the spirit of the fiduciary responsibility of democratically elected officials. Or because you said you would. I’m not clear if you have done that yet. If you have, this would be a good time to say so.

I fully admit I don’t read your site. I assume that is a link to the detail of your board expenses. That’s terrific, and I commend you for doing creating it. How different is it than this one? http://coloradopols.com/diary/16307/what-andrea-merida-was-misspending-our-tax-money-on

And seriously, what’s up with the troll obsession?

Apparently, her page says she paid back the district! I must have missed that part.

Andrea Mérida says:

May 17, 2013 at 9:39 am

And here’s where you’re being selectively obtuse, or “troll-like.”

The page says clearly that I have. Read it.

So did Alexander Ooms.

Alexander Ooms says:

May 17, 2013 at 10:31 am

Ok, I did read it (and I encourage others to as well). It does not say, anywhere, that you have repaid the district for the expenses you incurred.

What it says is that you are now spending less than what you believe you are entitled to, so by your fiduciary accounting, at some point you will be even.

I find that a bizarre interpretation: First, this is not a stipend, it is reimbursement for legitimate incurred expenses. Board members don’t get a credit if they don’t spend it. And if an employee is caught stealing money from their organization, they don’t normally just say “I’ll work for free for a while and it will all work out.” And the primary question is if those expenses are legitimate, and if they are not, why you did not then pay the district back for them.

Based on previous reporting and your webpage, it is pretty clear that there are thousands of dollars of expenses that were not legitimate. And now it is also clear that you have not paid them back. And that the statement “I have” is not truthful. I think those qualify as fact — even in some mythical troll-land.

Confronted with the truth about her misleading comments (read: lies) about the money she wasted, she decides to change the subject by going on the attack with some conspiracy theories (which don’t matter, and I don’t know or care the truth about – though given her record its probably false) that aren’t even relevant to the specific topic (the money she wasted) about a guy who isn’t an elected official anyway. Also, she's supposed to behave better than this, but obviously that ship has long since sailed with her…

Andrea Mérida says:

May 17, 2013 at 11:44 am

What’s interesting about your interpretation is that my board colleagues don’t agree with it. None of my expenses were deemed inappropriate, nor was I ever asked by them to “pay back” anything. Go back and check the record. I foot the cost of my office myself, and no one else does that.

Now it’s your turn. According to your bio at Strive’s website, you’re “managing partner at ClearCreek Partners, and also serves as a member of the board of directors for the Colorado Charter Schools Institute, the Charter Schools Development Corporation.”

A cursory examination shows that ClearCreek does venture capital matchmaking. Charter Schools Development Corporation “finances and builds great charter schools.” I wonder how often you counsel your clients to invest in charter schools and reap the tax write-offs. I wonder how much you charge for such a matchmaking service. It must be pretty lucrative, since you have time to act like an internet troll all day.

So tell us more about those relationships, Alex. I’m sure it’s all very legal.

Dude addresses the accusations with a flat out no – he’s able to be honest about them, in stark contrast with Merida  who can’t be honest about the money she wasted.

Alexander Ooms says:

May 17, 2013 at 1:39 pm

You keep saying how you believe all your expenses are appropriate, without actually defending them. Again, there is a pretty good list here: http://coloradopols.com/diary/16307/what-andrea-merida-was-misspending-our-tax-money-on You could tell us why specific ones are all somehow legitimate, but you won’t (and honestly, who could blame you).

It’s clear as well that you have quickly switched your position and are no longer claiming that you have paid anything back. And it is does not look to me like your colleagues are in agreement: http://www.ednewscolorado.org/news/four-of-seven-dps-board-members-overspend

I do appreciate the usual Whack-A-Merida approach of attacking others when your conduct is found wanting, and golly it’s fun to build conspiracy theories, but there is absolutely no overlap between my professional life and my volunteer duties as a board member for any organization. I don’t benefit financially, period.

Glad we finally took a respite from Troll Mania. And with it we might end this thread.

I’m basically tired of copy and pasting this crap from her but since it’s the last comment there now and she’s still being awful and nasty and whatever…

 

Andrea Mérida says:

May 17, 2013 at 2:05 pm

No, we’re talking about YOU now. I genuinely want to know how lucrative your relationships around charter school funding is playing into all this.

I’m waiting…

Guys she’s excited now! Attacking other people with baseless allegations, that’s the sort of trolling she lives for!! She wants to talk about YOU! Not about her own ridiculous record, or the school district’s money that she wasted…

I’m exhausted. How is she still on the school board? Ugh.


Full story: At Least She’s (Hopefully) Not Your School Board Member…

Do Colorado PERA Retirees Have a “Duty to Die”?

1
  by: Algernon Moncrief Sun May 19, 2013 at 6:23 PM MDT

The average age of a Colorado PERA retiree has now passed 70 years.  In 2010, a majority of the members of the Colorado General Assembly determined that these Colorado residents were no longer full "citizens" of Colorado.  They no longer deserved protections afforded by the Colorado Constitution.

Agreeing with lobbyists in 2010, a majority of Colorado legislators decided that this group of elderly Coloradans should have no voice.  They were a burden on Colorado.  Lifetimes that had been spent serving Coloradans deserved no recognition.  Thousands of these PERA retirees were in hospitals or nursing homes.  Under no circumstances would these PERA retirees ever show up at the Colorado Capitol's lobbies to defend their constitutional rights.  The State of Colorado's contracts with these "residents" were inferior to the state's contracts with corporations.  Colorado PERA retiree contracts could be casually discarded.

"You've got a duty to die and get out of the way," said former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm decades ago.  The former Colorado Governor was speaking in support of physician-assisted suicide; nevertheless, his words came to mind in 2010 when the Colorado General Assembly voted to break Colorado's contracts with elderly Colorado PERA pensioners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lamm

The State of Colorado, the 15th wealthiest state in the nation, a state with an unexpected billion dollar tax bonus in next year's budget, a state that pumps $700 million into pensions that are not its responsibility while ignoring its own pension contracts, a state that recently granted $105 million in discretionary property tax relief . . . that state is burdened by its elderly and therefore must illegally seize their property.

As Colorado PERA officials have informed us, Colorado legislators have skipped out on their pension obligations for a decade . . . they haven't paid their pension bills (ARC).  In 2010, a majority of Colorado legislators decided to try and use recent market volatility as an excuse to take money from this group of PERA retirees (who, by the way, bear no "market risk" in their "defined" benefit pension plan.)  Colorado legislators decided to inflict a compulsory "shared sacrifice" on PERA retirees. This "shared sacrifice" was put into Colorado law, to help keep taxes low in the state with the lowest per capita state tax receipts in the country.  Each new year finds thousands of criminals convicted in the United States for misappropriating the assets of the elderly . . . tapping an old man's bank account for a "compulsory shared sacrifice."

IS THE STATE OF COLORADO OBLIGATED UNDER COLORADO LAW TO REPORT ITSELF FOR "ELDER FINANCIAL ABUSE"?

I find tremendous irony in the fact that the Colorado General Assembly has recently enacted legislation that requires reports of financial abuse of Colorado residents over 70 years of age.

"SB 13-111: Requiring Certain Mandatory Reporters to Report Suspected Abuse of Persons 70 Years of Age or Older."

(My comment: The taking of one-third of an at-risk elder's contracted, accrued, earned, "fully-vested" pension benefits to maintain Colorado's position as a "tax haven" is undeniably abusive.)

"Under the bill, on and after July 1, 2014, certain professionals (mandatory reporters) who observe the abuse or exploitation of a person who is 70 years of age or older (at-risk elder) or who have reasonable cause to believe that an at-risk elder has been abused or has been exploited and is at imminent risk of abuse or exploitation are required to report such fact to a law enforcement agency within 24 hours after making the observation or discovery. A mandatory reporter who fails to report commits a class 3 misdemeanor."

(My comment: Under this legislation, a person who steals a paltry $1,000 from an at-risk elder must be reported.  Why should an organization that illegally takes one-third of an at-risk PERA retiree's pension not also be reported?)

"A person who exercises undue influence to convert or take possession of an at-risk elder’s money, assets, or other property commits statutory theft."

"Within 24 hours after receiving a report of abuse or exploitation of an at-risk elder, a law enforcement agency shall notify the at-risk elder’s county department and district attorney’s office of the report. The law enforcement agency shall complete a criminal investigation when appropriate. Upon completion of an investigation, the law enforcement agency shall provide a report of the investigation to the at-risk elder’s county department and a district attorney’s office.

"On or before January 1, 2014, the peace officers standards and training board (P.O.S.T. board) shall create and implement a training curriculum to prepare peace officers to recognize and address incidents of abuse and exploitation of at-risk elders."

http://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/elder-law/

From the SB13-111:

"(e) The general assembly should study and implement specific recommendations for combating financial exploitation of elder adults . . ."

(10) "EXPLOITATION" MEANS AN ACT OR OMISSION COMMITTED BY A PERSON WHO: (a) USES DECEPTION, HARASSMENT, INTIMIDATION, OR UNDUE INFLUENCE TO PERMANENTLY OR TEMPORARILY DEPRIVE AN AT-RISK ELDER OF THE USE, BENEFIT, OR POSSESSION OF HIS OR HER MONEY, ASSETS, OR PROPERTY;

(My comment: "Deception . . . undue influence to permanently . . . deprive an at-risk elder . . . of her money."  This phrase perfectly encapsulates the Colorado PERA legal, lobbying, and political campaigns to break Colorado PERA retiree pension contracts in 2009/2010.)

(12) "Position of trust" means assuming a responsibility, duty, or FIDUCIARY relationship toward an at-risk adult . . .

(My comment, Colorado PERA statutes: “As FIDUCIARIES, such [PERA Board] trustees shall carry out their functions solely in the interest of the members and benefit recipients and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits and defraying reasonable expenses incurred in performing such duties as required by law.”)

"THEFT FROM THE PERSON OF AN AT-RISK ELDER BY MEANS OTHER THAN THE USE OF FORCE, THREAT, OR INTIMIDATION IS A CLASS 4 FELONY WITHOUT REGARD TO THE VALUE OF THE THING TAKEN.

(7.5) ANY PERSON WHO EXERCISES UNDUE INFLUENCE TO CONVERT OR TAKE POSSESSION OF AN AT-RISK ELDER'S MONEY, ASSETS, OR OTHER PROPERTY COMMITS THEFT . . ."

(My comment: Colorado Court of Appeals on PERA pensioner property rights: “See Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 579 (1934) (contract rights can constitute property interests protected by the Takings Clause) . . . In light of our conclusion that the court erred in that regard, we also reverse the summary judgment on the Takings Clause claim.”

http://saveperacola.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/2012-10-11-judgment-reversed-and-case.pdf

For the complete bill, SB13-111, visit this link:

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/3006FD57CDD34B8287257AEE00570CDC?open&file=111_rer.pdf

In an eleven-page letter, dated August 2, 2010, from the Ritter Administration (Office of the Colorado State Controller) to the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, GASB, (the national regulator for public pension plans) officials of the Ritter Administration note that SB10-001 will cost every Colorado PERA retiree $165,000 over the next 20 years.  Ritter Administration officials in 2010:

“In Colorado, a class action lawsuit has been filed challenging recently passed statutory reductions in annual COLA increases which for an average member would result in $165,000 of reduced benefit over a 20 year period.” You can read the entirety of the letter on the GASB site here:

http://www.gasb.org/cs/ContentServer?site=GASB&c=Document_C&pagename=GASB%2FDocument_C%2FGASBDocumentPage&cid=1176157387791

Colorado Coalition for Elder Rights and Abuse Prevention:

"Our mission: to promote state-wide understanding of elder/at-risk adult abuse and the rights and protections available to elder and at-risk adults."

"What is financial exploitation?  The improper use of an elder’s funds, property or assets constitutes financial exploitation or abuse."

"By far, the greatest number of elder abuse cases involves some type of financial exploitation."

http://ccerap.org/

Not even the retiree organization, Colorado AARP, will defend the constitutional rights of Colorado PERA retirees.  In 2009/2010, the Colorado AARP decided to do nothing to defend PERA retiree constitutional rights.  Here is a statement from an AARP representative: “The (Colorado) AARP state office, with input from our volunteer leadership, reached the decision to monitor SB10-001.”  How does the "monitoring" of a breach of contract protect the interests of retirees?

"AARP ElderWatch is designed to operate as a clearinghouse for complaints, educational information, and training materials dealing with the financial exploitation of elderly Coloradoans."

http://hotline.aarpelderwatch.org/public/home.html

Colorado PERA active members, is this the future you desire?  A future in which contractual rights to your accrued benefits can be casually ignored by your employer?

Colorado PERA retirees, when state legislators ignore the Colorado Constitution they have sworn to uphold, courts must necessarily intervene to defend that constitution.  Support the rule of law in Colorado.  Contribute at saveperacola.com.  "Friend" Save Pera Cola on Facebook!


Full story: Do Colorado PERA Retirees Have a “Duty to Die”?

All Tea Parties Are Not Created Equal

49
  by: Konola Sat May 18, 2013 at 9:31 PM MDT

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Recently Kevin McCarney was quoted, first in the Denver Post and later in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, in stories about how the IRS went after conservative groups and how Western Slope Conservative Alliance (WSCA) was hassled by the IRS and still does not have its not-for-profit status. These days WSCA is calling themselves Freedom ! Colorado.

There is a long and quite sordid story behind this story, and it is about the Republican Party being scared to death of the Tea Party. The Tea Party, truly a grass roots movement, grew out of discontent with government spending. But locally it got hijacked by Western Slope Conservative Alliance, an invention of the Republican Party. Kevin McCarney, recently transplanted from Chicago, eventually joined the hijackers. However one of the first hijackers was Janet Rowland, Mesa County Commissioner at the time, previous candidate for Lt. Governor, and current Director of the Center for Local Government at Colorado Mesa University, another Tim Foster Republican hire.

I’ve been told that Richard Shoenradt, a previous Tipton staffer and one of the first directors of WSCA advocated for WSCA to be called Western Conservative Coalition (WCC) just to irritate Western Colorado Congress (WCC), which works diligently to protect the air, water, and soil quality on the Western Slope, and frequently is at odds with the oil and gas industry. Full disclosure, I sit on the board of Western Colorado Congress.

But I digress. The original Tea Party event in Grand Junction was put together by GJResult/Tea Party. It was a rally in Lincoln Park with as many as 3,000 attendees protesting what they perceived as runaway spending by the government. At the time Janet Rowland offered to put organizers in touch with a local DJ with a sound system. With the day of the event approaching, Rowland announced that she had promised speaking slots to several Republicans and that the Republican Women would handle the sign-up for the event. GJResult/Tea Party considered themselves non-partisan and did not want the GOP to control their event. Rowland threatened to cancel the P.A. system, effectively blackmailing the Tea Party into submission on that day.

I heard much of this story from a local activist who calls himself American Patriot. His frustration with trying to tell the story to local reporters led him to start posting comments at my blog. To his surprise, even though I’m a known liberal, I did not delete his comments. You see, I actually believe in free speech. I rarely agree with American Patriot on policy issues, but I do believe he has a right to speak his mind, so I had no problem with allowing those posts to stay available to the public. Eventually Kevin McCarney started posting there also. Still further along the time line, McCarney dictated that nobody should post anything at my blog, although American Patriot continues to post occasionally to this day.

It didn’t take long for GJResult/Tea Party to realize that the Republican Party was not a trustworthy partner in their grass roots efforts. Two months after its founding, the two Tea Party friendly members of WSCA were voted off the board. Once these individuals were removed, the remaining board was a who’s who of Mesa County Republicans: Jennifer Bailey, President (Two Rivers 9:12 Representative); Janet Rowland, Vice President (At-Large Member); Rose Pugliese, Secretary (Mesa County Young Republicans Representative, and current County Commissioner); Richard Shoenradt, Treasurer (At Large Member); Lois Dunn (At Large member and current Mesa County GOP Chair); Ruth Ehlers (Mesa County Republican Women Representative, and immediate past Mesa County GOP Chair), Karen Kulp (At Large member); Jeff Laney (At Large member); Duncan McArthur (At Large member); Sandy Peeso (Pro Second Amendment Representative); Kelly Sloan (Americans for Prosperity- Mesa County Chapter Representative, advisor to Steve King and a Canadian citizen); and Doug Thompson (At Large Member). 

When WSCA refused to allow the grass roots to vote on board members, GJResult/Tea Party, the actual grass roots group, officially resigned from WSCA. They believed in the democratic process. Eventually, in order to accept tax-deductible donations, WSCA allied themselves closely with Americans for Prosperity, at least that is where their on-line donations at the website were directed.

Another thing sticking in the craw of GJResult/Tea Party was their support of Bob McConnell for the CD3 seat. WSCA endorsed Tipton, who won the primary with 56% of the vote to McConnell’s 44%. GJResult/Tea Party felt the wishes of the grass roots were steam rolled by the local Republican Party which was on the Tipton bandwagon. To this day, GJResult/Tea Party does not support Tipton, despite his occasional teabag lapel pin.

GJResult/Tea Party began chaffing at the notion that WSCA would call themselves “THE” Tea Party. This hubris on the part of WSCA is largely why they are now known as Freedom ! Colorado. GJResult/Tea Party registered Western Slope Conservative Alliance/Tea Party with the Secretary of State in order to thwart WSCA efforts to call themselves “The” Tea Party and anointing their candidates with the tea party label.  It took almost two years for WSCA to realize that they did not own the Tea Party iteration of their name.

Thus began the name game. Both WSCA and the grass roots GJResult/Tea Party began searching for names, although for different reasons. GJResult/Tea Party needed a name for a sister group in Delta which had been using the name Western Slope Conservative Alliance/Tea Party. Various names were considered, including Colorado Liberty Alliance which was already taken by a Colorado Springs consulting group, which didn’t stop McCarney from using it for a while.  Another choice was Colorado Freedom Alliance, which GJResult/Tea Party registered on 1/17/13.  But that name was tainted when Kevin McCarney used it as his group name in sponsoring an “open carry” rally two days later. On 2/14/2013, GJResult/Tea Party registered the name Freedom Colorado. A little more than a week later, Kevin McCarney’s group sponsored a fundraiser, as a not-for-profit, at a local Grand Junction restaurant. This was a cash only fundraiser, presumably because they did not have the documentation required to open a checking account anywhere. Freedom ! Colorado is the name currently being used by the group formerly known as WSCA, although they frequently forget to use the exclamation point in communcations.

Kevin McCarney is the current leader of Freedom ! Colorado, but he lost his position as Vice Chairman of the local GOP during the last reorganization. It seems the Country Club Republicans got a little tired of the sleazy and controversial “educational” events promoted by Freedom ! Colorado, i.e. Agenda 21 conspiracy theories and “open carry” events.

It isn’t likely that McCarney decided on his own to go to the Denver Paper. American Patriot, co-founder of the GJResult/Tea Party, theorizes that Janet Rowland made the suggestion. It is a strategy that she has used in the past. McCarney is not the most reputable person on the planet, so it is amusing that he is now being given a voice by Front Range newspapers. For the record, Ray Scott and Kevin McCarney are friends. McCarney managed Ray Scott’s last campaign. There are unsubstantiated rumors that Scott helped McCarney hide assets from the IRS when McCarney pursued a personal bankruptcy, bringing the IRS story full circle.


Full story: All Tea Parties Are Not Created Equal

Senators Bennet and Udall: Make Farm Bill History

2
  by: MichaelBowman Sat May 18, 2013 at 7:11 PM MDT

"Why use up the forests which were centuries in the making and the mines which required ages to lay down, if we can get the equivalent of forest and mineral products in the annual growth of the hemp fields?"

~Henry Ford

 

The United States Senate will have the opportunity to make history this week while debating the 2013 Farm Bill: a full debate on the re-legalization of industrial hemp via an expected floor amendment.  The crop of our forefathers.  A crop deemed so critical to our nation's future that farmers in Colonial America were under a mandate to grow the crop.  The crop that made possible Ben Franklin's Colonial Free Press.  The crop that clothed our early military; protected our pioneering ancestors as they crossed our vast prairies -  and counted 16 million acres of production in the 1862 Census. The crop USDA deemed so critical to national defense the federal prohibition was lifted during WWII.

It was a tragic confluence of events that lead to the demise of hemp.  Prohibition was in its waning days, and the federal bureaucracy built around alcohol seizure no longer had a mission – a focus on narcotics would be the lifeline for the bureaucracy.  Our nation was on the cusp of launching an economy mobilized by Rockefeller's new-found 'black gold'; the synthetic clothing market and the advent of the agricultural chemical industry was in its infancy at DuPont.   And media titan Randolph Hearst,  the owner of significant forestry assets, had launched an all-out media war on Hispanic immigrants and marijuana.

Thus was borne the "Marihuana Tax  Act of 1937";  legislation devised by Henry Anslinger and his uncle, Andrew Mellon of Mellon Banks to tax the production of industrial hemp.  And with the new tax, the production of hemp became an uneconomical alternative to the newly developed energy, synthetic clothing and chemical industry derived from fossil resources controlled by titans DuPont and Rockefeller.  Mellon was the banker of both DuPont and Rockefeller.  It's not terribly hard to do the math.  The more things change, the more they stay the same.

And with the enacting of the Marihuana Act came the demise of Henry Ford's "Iron Mountain" project where he had developed a sedan made of industrial hemp composites that was powered by ethanol fermented from hemp.  He had also developed an entire line of hemp-based  lubricants and industrial products.  

Forward to 1970 and the birth of our nations failed 'War on Drugs'.  Marijuana is defined as a Schedule 1 narcotic, on par with cocaine and heroine by the DEA, despite the fact the Congressional intent stated emphatically: 

 

    "nothing in this Act is meant to prohibit the production of hemp for industrial purposes"

 

In 2012 Colorado voters passed a constitutional amendment, Amendment 64, which in addition to legalizing adult use of marijuana also legalized the cultivation of industrial hemp by Colorado farmers.  Touting wide bi-partisan support, the amendment garnered more votes than our President.  The Colorado legislature acted swiftly and by Sine Die 2013 had put in place a regulatory framework for hemp.  The legislation passed third reading in both chambers with a unanimous vote.

Thus, an industry was borne.  Now the conflict between Federal and State law must be resolved.  And from this growing conflict between state and federal law (18 states took various legislative action on industrial hemp this year) was borne the "2013 Industrial Hemp Farming Act", known in Congress as S. 359 and H.R. 525.  Both Chambers tout broad, bi-partisan support.  But this legislative journey remains unclear.  The Judiciary Committees were given jurisdiction in their respective chambers.  In both cases, no hearings have been scheduled.  It's even more unclear whether the bills will be heard at all this year, given they are in the queue behind Immigration Reform.

Is there a better, more efficient way to move this legislation on an issue that broad support from across the political spectrum?  Yes – a floor amendment during the full Farm Bill debate in the Senate this week.  And we need the pro-active leadership of our two Senators.

Industrial Hemp has the potential to add a new, vibrant  addition to our agricultural 'horn of plenty' in Colorado.  The crop requires few chemical inputs; its water requirements are minimal when compared to many traditional crops across the eastern plains and western slope.  Its ability to remediate soils has at the potential to heal salt-laden agricultural soils and mitigate heavy metal contamination from old mines and superfund sites.  The United States is the largest consumer market of hemp products in the world – a $400 million annual market demand met exclusively from imports.  American farmers remain the only agriculturalists in the industrialized world to be prohibited from its cultivation.  

And while giving Colorado farmers a crop alternative to help them meet their ever-growing water resource challenges, the crop also gives us significant environmental benefits:  its ability to extract enormous amounts of atmospheric carbon from the atmosphere.  Hemp extracts four times the CO2 annually per acre than does a standing forest.  Annual dry biomass yields per acre range from 2-3x the amount of biomass produced by either a corn or switchgrass crop;  ethanol-from-hemp reduces the greenhouse-gas-emissions by 86% when compared to transportation fuels from petroleum.

It is expected that Senator Mitch McConnell will introduce a floor amendment to the 2013 Farm Bill on Tuesday that would remove hemp as a Schedule I narcotic, legalizing its cultivation under federal law, and moving jurisdiction of the crop from DEA to USDA.

Despite recent demands on House members from the Heritage Foundation to not move on any legislation, (which also includes the Farm Bill) the action will be in the Senate on Tuesday.  A unique opportunity for our Senators to lead the fight for the passage of this amendment – and stand with the 55% of their fellow Coloradans who so wisely legalized the crop six months ago.  

Senators Bennet and Udall, please take a proactive role on this potentially historic event.  Farmers, conservationists, the environment, our natural resources and the state economy will be the benefactors of your leadership.  

 

 


Full story: Senators Bennet and Udall: Make Farm Bill History

Raw Story: Colorado GOP state senator ducks questions from Aurora victim’s father

11
  by: Colorado Pols Sat May 18, 2013 at 12:01 PM MDT
Colorado GOP state senator ducks questions from Aurora victim’s father (via Raw Story )

The father of one of the victims of the July 2012 mass shooting in Colorado told Talking Points Memo on Friday that his state’s Senate Minority Leader, Bill Cadman (R), rebuffed him while sharing pictures of his son. “I walked right up to him, and I handed him one of the pictures, and I said, ‘…




Full story: Raw Story: Colorado GOP state senator ducks questions from Aurora victim’s father

At Least He’s Not Your Guilty City Councilman

9
  by: Colorado Pols Sat May 18, 2013 at 11:37 AM MDT
As featured at Mugshots.com.

As featured at Mugshots.com.

That is, unless you live in Grand Junction, Colorado. The Sentinel's Paul Shockley reports on the final disposition in the domestic violence case against newly sworn-in City Councilor Rick Brainard:

Grand Junction City Councilor Rick Brainard pleaded guilty Friday after a thwarted bid to end his domestic-violence case with something less than a guilty plea.

Brainard, 51, tried to plead “no contest” under a deal with the Mesa County District Attorney’s Office in which he would have been placed on a deferred judgment and sentence for 18 months, aside from a suspended jail sentence. Brainard sought permission to travel out-of-state…

“I will not accept a nolo contendere plea,” the judge said. “It’s guilty or not guilty.”

And with that, Brainard was left with little choice but to plead guilty to misdemeanor assault. He received an 18 month suspended sentence, with a domestic violence screening and community service. If Brainard successfully completes these requirements, he can get the conviction expunged from his criminal record.

As far as the public record is concerned, what's done is done.

Shockley reports that another contingent of taped-mouth women protesters was present as yesterday's hearing. It still appears Brainard intends to live this conviction down and remain on the city council, but either way the difference between a nolo contendere and a guilty plea wouldn't have helped his popularity much with them.

Laiche acknowledged his client “at some point and time needs to apologize to her.”

…When confronted by an officer with details about the incident, Brainard admitted he’d grabbed her, pushed on her chest, pulled her hair and slapped her on the left side of her neck and cheek area, according to the affidavit. Brainard told the officer he slapped the woman because she needed to “shut her mouth,” the affidavit said. [Pols emphasis]

This isn't some indiscretion in the distant past–Brainard assaulted this woman three days after winning office. As we've said previously, the indifference shown by Brainard in taking office after this is something we don't think would would be tolerated in many other parts of the state–and points to a, for lack of a better word, dysfunction in the culture of beet-red Mesa County, Colorado. Where are the civic leaders to say "enough, Mr. Brainard?"

Each day is a welcome fresh opportunity to prove us wrong.


Full story: At Least He’s Not Your Guilty City Councilman

BREAKING: Sky Will NOT Fall When Magazine Bill Takes Effect

35
  by: Colorado Pols Fri May 17, 2013 at 4:53 PM MDT

Late this afternoon, the office of Colorado Attorney General John Suthers released a long-awaited technical guidance letter prepared for the Department of Public Safety on the implementation of House Bill 1224, the magazine limit bill. This technical guidance was requested by Gov. John Hickenlooper at the signing of HB-1224 into law, following the many objections raised by opponents of the legislation that the bill would "ban all magazines," or at least all magazines "with a removable baseplate" or other design feature that could hypothetically allow them to be expanded beyond the legal maximum of 15 rounds.

As we have reassured our readers over and over, but unfortunately local media has failed to clarify for an anxious and misinformed public–even helping spread baseless speculation–that is not going to happen.

Definition of "Large Capacity Magazine"

Under House Bill 1224, the term "large capacity magazine" is defined, in part, as follows: "a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip, or similar device capable of accepting, or that is designed to be readily converted to accept, more than fifteen rounds of ammunition."

The phrase "designed to be readily converted to accept more than fifteen rounds of ammunition" has prompted questions regarding the scope of the definition, particularly because some ammunition magazines include features, such as removable baseplates, that can be removed and replaced, or otherwise altered, so that the magazine accepts more than fifteen rounds.

The term "designed," when used as a modifier, denotes a feature that meets a specific function. This suggests that design features that fulfill more than one function, and whose function is not specifically to increase the capacity of a magazine, do not fall under the definition. The features of a magazine must be judged objectively to determine whether they were "designed to be readily converted to accept more than fifteen rounds."

Under this reading of the definition, a magazine that accepts fifteen or fewer rounds is not a "large capacity magazine" simply because it includes a removable baseplate which may be replaced with one that allows the magazine to accept additional rounds. [Pols emphasis] On many magazines, that design feature is included specifically to permit cleaning and maintenance. Of course, a magazine whose baseplate is replaced with one that does, in fact, allow the magazine to accept more than fifteen rounds would be a "large capacity magazine" under House Bill 1224.

Here's the full text of the memo, which also explains the meaning of the "continuous possession" language in the bill–and again, the plain interpretation of the bill does not lead to the wild unforeseen consequences Republican opponents insisted would be the result. With both of these provisions but particularly the language on whether magazines were "designed to be readily converted," it is obvious now that opponents like Jon Caldara of the Independence Institute were not telling the truth when they claimed that House Bill 1224 would mean "almost all guns in Colorado will never be able to get a magazine again." It means that every reporter who uncritically reprinted this lie now needs to write another story explaining how that wasn't true.

And folks, we're not going to forget this. The amount of misinformation spread about this legislation by opponents, and too often subsidized by reporters dismayingly willing to trade long-term credibility for short-term scoops, was totally unacceptable and needs to be called out. A lowly political blog should not be the only media source telling the public the truth about this bill, but that really does seem to be what happened in this case.

The people of Colorado deserved better. And we hope they finally get it now.


Full story: BREAKING: Sky Will NOT Fall When Magazine Bill Takes Effect

Hick Signs Next Year’s State Budget; Provides More Evidence that the State Faces No Financial “Crisis” Warranting Breach of its Pension Contracts.

2
  by: Algernon Moncrief Fri May 17, 2013 at 12:26 PM MDT

STATE LAWYERS ARGUE THAT COLORADO CANNOT MEET ITS OWN CONTRACTUAL PENSION OBLIGATIONS.  IF THIS IS TRUE, HOW HAS THE STATE MANAGED TO PAY $700 MILLION FOR PENSIONS THAT ARE NOT ITS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION?

Three years ago, a mob of statehouse lobbyists (paid by self-interested parties) set their sights on breaking Colorado state and local government pension contracts.  These 27 lobbyists successfully persuaded a majority of Colorado state legislators to attempt to break the contracts of Colorado PERA pensioners.  In effect, the lobbyists intend to use the force of government to take money from older Coloradans to subsidize state and local government budgets.

The pensioners whose property was seized immediately filed a lawsuit, Justus v. State.  A defendant in the case, the Colorado PERA pension system, notes (in its May, 2010 Motion to Dismiss, page 12) that even the prime sponsor of the legislation they are attempting to defend considers Colorado PERA's pension debt to be a "financial liability" of the State of Colorado.

From the PERA Defendant's Motion to Dismiss:

"Senate Minority Leader Penry, another co-sponsor of the bill, called PERA’s unfunded pension liability the 'single largest financial liability facing the State of Colorado.' Id. at 9-10 (statement of Sen. Joshua Penry, Senate Minority Leader)."

The PERA Defendants also note, on page 27 of their Motion to Dismiss, that " . . . PERA is . . . an instrumentality of the state . . ."

http://saveperacola.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/2010-05-10-pera-defendants_-motion-to-dismiss-first-amended.pdf

The PERA Defendants highlight the fact that Colorado PERA pension debt is a financial liability of the State of Colorado in legal briefs, so why have they bothered appealing a recent Colorado Court of Appeals decision making this same finding?

The PERA Defendants would have us believe that meeting contractual public pension obligations is a financial burden on the State of Colorado.  The defendants would have us believe that the State of Colorado has insufficient financial resources to perform under the Colorado PERA pension contract.

If meeting contractual Colorado PERA pension obligations is such a burden on the State of Colorado, why has the Colorado General Assembly recently and voluntarily agreed to finish paying off $700 million of public pension liabilities that ARE NOT its contractual obligation?

The State of Colorado, the 15th wealthiest state in the nation, is fortunate to find itself with an extra $1 billion in next fiscal year's budget.  Yet, the defendants in the case, Justus v. State, would have us believe that the State of Colorado faces such a severe financial "crisis" that it cannot afford to meet its contractual pension obligations.

Further, if the State of Colorado is indeed confronted by a "financial crisis," how has the Colorado General Assembly managed to give away $105 million in discretionary property tax relief in next year's state budget?  The PERA Defendant's arguments continue to defy logic.

When a person hires a lawyer to file a civil case, isn't it generally safe to assume that the person will try to help their lawyer win the case?  That the person will avoid, to the extent possible, actions that are contrary to his legal interests?  If an organization is sued and hires a law firm to defend its interests, is it not generally expected that the organization will act in its own defense, and assist the law firm in building a defense?

The State of Colorado is an organization that is currently being sued by its retired workers.  The State of Colorado and its pension-administering arm, Colorado PERA, have in-house attorneys, state attorneys general, and an outside, hired law firm defending their breach of Colorado PERA pension contracts.  You might expect that the Colorado General Assembly, as a branch of Colorado state government, would assist this host of lawyers in building a case.

You would be wrong.

When the Colorado General Assembly broke the state's pension contracts in 2010, politics was in the driver's seat.  Is it really a surprise that short-term political considerations predominate in the minds of politicians?  Nevertheless, one might expect that Colorado state legislators would at least temporarily attempt to set political considerations aside in order to help Colorado PERA's in-house and outside hired attorneys build a defense in the case, Justus v. State, i.e., establish "actuarial necessity."

One would be disappointed.

In 2010, when a majority of state legislators violated Colorado PERA pension contracts, politics controlled.  Political calculations and ambitions continue to control in 2013.  At the recently concluded legislative session, Colorado legislators could not (even temporarily) resist the impulse to provide political favors to constituents and lobbyists in order to avoid harming the state's case in the PERA COLA lawsuit.  Thus, while their lawyers are trying to establish an atmosphere of "financial crisis," state legislators are using this year's billion dollar tax bonus to provide a gift to local governments, paying off local government legacy pension liabilities.  With an extra billion dollars in their pockets, we did not see a single Colorado legislator propose that the General Assembly meet ITS OWN contractual pension obligations.  At the recently concluded 2013 legislative session, not a single state legislator suggested that a good faith effort be made to catch up with a decade of underfunded PERA pension contributions.  Instead, we see a $105 million purchase of votes in the form of a discretionary grant of property tax relief.  We see local government lobbyists persuade state legislators to use state government resources to meet local government legacy pension debt.

I have no objection to discretionary expenditures that are deemed appropriate by the Colorado General Assembly.  However, I do object to arguments by attorneys representing the State of Colorado that the state cannot meet its own contractual pension obligations while it is giving away revenues to pay off local government pension obligations.  Having made such appropriations, representatives of the Colorado General Assembly cannot legitimately argue in court that financial need has forced the Legislature to break Colorado PERA pension contracts.

Business Week:

"Lawmakers are also paying down $140 million in state debt for police and firefighter pensions, and adding $30 million for water storage projects in rural Colorado."

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-04-29/hickenlooper-signs-next-years-budget-for-colo-dot

Note again, that this $140 million is not "state debt," in spite of the effort of politicians to portray these local government pension liabilities as "state debt."  This deception serves their political purposes.

September 19, 2012, FPPA testimony (Dan Slack, CEO, FPPA) regarding the obligation of the State of Colorado to pay for local government "Old Hire Police Officers Pension Plans" to the Colorado General Assembly's Police Officers and Firefighters Pension Reform Commission (29 minutes into the hearing):

"So the State has made certain commitments, but has been very careful not to make binding obligations upon itself as the state to provide some assistance with funding for these plans."

Link:

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013A/cslFrontPages.nsf/Audio?OpenPage)

The fact that FPPA Old Hire Pension Plan unfunded liabilities are not a contractual obligation of the State of Colorado is also made clear in Colorado statutes and in the language of Referendum C.

The discretionary nature of state grants to fund Colorado local government pensions is stated clearly in the “Legislative Declaration” (preceding Section 31-31-101, C.R.S. ) in Colorado law.  Section 31-31-101, C.R.S. Legislative Declaration:

“The general assembly further declares that state moneys provided to municipalities, fire protection districts, and county improvement districts DO NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTINUING OBLIGATION OF THE STATE to participate in the ongoing normal costs of pension plan benefits, except for state funding of death and disability benefits as specified in this article, but are provided in recognition that the local governments are currently burdened with financial obligations relating to pensions in excess of their present financial capacities.”

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/70EFF65CF1F144CF87257B34007B5B95?Open&file=SB234_r1.pdf

A few years ago, a Colorado Department of Treasury JBC Budget Briefing document provided an accounting of the Colorado General Assembly’s historical discretionary grants to meet local government public pension obligations:

http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/jbc/2011-12/trebrf.pdf

Here are a few excerpts:

“State Contributions for Local Fire and Police Pension Plans: Since 1980, the State has contributed almost $540 million to the FPPA to eliminate the unfunded liability of the ‘old-hire’ pension plans.”

From page 29 of the JBC document:

“To put this figure in perspective, the total state General Fund operating budget in the FY 1978-79 Long Bill was just over $1.0 billion. Thus the $500 million shortfall in local plans represented nearly half of the annual state General Fund budget. If the magnitude of this shortfall were adjusted for inflation, it would exceed $1.8 billion.”

From page 31 of the JBC document:

“During the ensuing years, the State's contribution to the old hire plans equaled about 41 percent of the total combined contributions of the state, local governments and employees.”

From Senate Bill13-234  – $132.4 million to pay off local government pension obligations (this appropriation, coupled with funding in next year's Long Bill brings total state appropriations to pay off local government pension obligations to approximately $700 million):

SB13-234, CONCERNING THE STATE'S AUTHORITY TO PREPAY ITS OBLIGATION FOR THE UNFUNDED ACCRUED LIABILITY OF OLD HIRE PENSION PLANS THAT ARE AFFILIATED WITH THE FIRE AND POLICE PENSION ASSOCIATION.

(My comment: Note the deception present even in the title of the bill.  As with SB10-001, the rank and file membership did not bother to root out deception.)

Page 2:

"(b) ON MAY 31, 2013, THE STATE TREASURER SHALL TRANSFER ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-TWO MILLION FOUR HUNDRED NINE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED THIRTY-NINE DOLLARS FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE OLD HIRE PLAN MEMBERS' BENEFIT TRUST FUND CREATED IN SECTION 31-31-701 (6)."

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/70EFF65CF1F144CF87257B34007B5B95?Open&file=234_enr.pdf

Next year's property tax relief grant, from the Colorado Long Bill – $105 million in property tax relief:

Colorado State Budget 2013/2014 (Long Bill SB13-230), page 238, "Homestead" property tax relief grant: $105,200,000

http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2013A/csl.nsf/BillFoldersSenate?OpenFrameSet

Denver Post:

"But Joint Budget Committee vice-chairwoman Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, lauded her colleagues on the committee and noted that with Colorado's economic recovery, the state is no longer in a position that requires it to cut programs."

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23131374/hickenlooper-sign-next-years-20-5-billion-colorado

HICK'S LETTER TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON THE 2013/14 STATE BUDGET.

April 29, 2013:

"With thanks to the members of the sixty-ninth General Assembly, this budget is the result of a bipartisan dedication to Colorado’s values.  We are enacting this budget at a unique time in our
history.  After enduring a significant economic downturn, Colorado’s economy is outperforming the nation’s.  The resulting recovery is allowing us the opportunity to allocate resources for the common good."

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadername2=Content-Type&blobheadervalue1=inline%3B+filename%3D%22A+letter+to+the+general+assembly+from+Hickenlooper.pdf%22&blobheadervalue2=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1251854377268&ssbinary=true

Denver Business Journal:

" . . . Hickenlooper on Monday signed into law the $20.5 billion state budget for the 2013-14 fiscal year . . . "

"The new eco-devo money — a priority for Hickenlooper since he introduced his proposed budget in November — includes:

• $2.9 million more for incentives for relocating and expanding companies.
• $1 million for increased film incentives.
• $2 million for increased tourism marketing and development of a state branding campaign to attract tourists and entrepreneurs.

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2013/04/29/hickenlooper-signs-state-budget-with.html

Boulder Daily Camera:

"Lawmakers are also paying down $140 million in state debt for police and firefighter pensions, and adding $30 million for water storage projects in rural Colorado."

"We're in the happy position of no longer having to cut programs," said Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, one of six budget writers.

http://www.dailycamera.com/nation-world-news/ci_23135284/hickenlooper-signs-next-years-state-budget

KDVR:

"Republicans support those pieces of the budget, as well as a measure House Republicans fought for to pay off a long-standing debt to the Fire and Police Protection Association."

http://kdvr.com/2013/04/29/hickenlooper-signs-next-years-20-5-billion-budget-into-law/

(My comment: Can you believe the voracity with which Colorado media will gobble up the propaganda?)

 

COLORADO COURTS: MEMBERS OF BOTH MAJOR PARTIES HAVE BEEN LOBBIED HARD AND PERSUADED TO TAKE MONEY FROM PENSIONERS, SO PLEASE GIVE IT YOUR BLESSING.

Much has been made in the press (and in legal briefs) of the fact that both Democrats and some Republicans voted for SB10-001 in 2010.

From the Colorado PERA Defendant's Motion to Dismiss:

"In a BIPARTISAN effort to address this critical funding shortfall, the General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 10-001 to make changes to the state pension system."

http://saveperacola.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/2010-05-10-pera-defendants_-motion-to-dismiss-first-amended.pdf

Of course, the term "shortfall" implies that PERA-affiliated employers need the ability to "pay off the mortgage" today, which is untrue.  If a Colorado PERA "critical shortfall" existed in 2010, as we have seen, the General Assembly is itself the author of that "critical shortfall."

This PERA Defendant argument distills to: "Colorado courts we both want to take money from old people, so please give it your blessing."  The fact that both a Republican and a Democrat support a bill does not necessarily place the stamp of morality or constitutionality on the legislation.

If a lobbyist persuades one Democrat and one Republican to mug an old lady, is the mugging thereby rendered "moral" because it was a "bipartisan" mugging?  If a lobbyist persuades both a Republican and a Democrat to raid an old lady's bank account, will the theft conform with statutory or constitutional law in the United States?  After all, it was a "bipartisan" theft.

Occasionally, members of both political parties find collusion in their interest.  Many Colorado conservatives would like to see the Colorado PERA defined benefit plan eliminated entirely.  A fraction of these conservatives will look the other way if constitutional rights are trampled in the process (as we know, not all conservatives will look the other way.)  Many Colorado Democrats naturally want to serve the interests of organized labor.  In 2009, Colorado's public sector unions decided that the breach of Colorado PERA retiree pension contracts would help to minimize future pension contributions from their dues-paying membership.  So, the unions supported SB10-001, and convinced some of their legislative friends to ignore their oaths of office.  As always, follow the money.

In 2010, it happened that "bi-partisan" Colorado political interests intersected on immoral and unconstitutional ground.  Collusion benefited some Democrats and some Republicans.  In this environment, a collective push from 27 lobbyists was sufficient to enact SB10-001.

Colorado PERA active and retired members, politics can be a filthy business.  Don't let dirty politics rob you of your constitutional rights.  Contribute at saveperacola.com.  "Friend" Save Pera Cola on Facebook!


Full story: Hick Signs Next Year’s State Budget; Provides More Evidence that the State Faces No Financial “Crisis” Warranting Breach of its Pension Contracts.