"what is the best way to get cheap airline tickets phone number 1-800-299-7264"

Denver’s Donnell-Kay Foundation Hears Pension Reform Ideas From Pew Center.

Posted on December 14, 2012January 21, 2013 by PolDancer

On October 17, 2012, the Donnell-Kay Foundation held a “Hot Lunch” meeting in Denver with representatives of the Pew Center and the John Arnold Foundation.

http://www.dkfoundation.org/

My take is that Donnell-Kay is an organization that works for the betterment of Colorado’s education system, but is also an advocate for elimination of public sector defined benefit plans in favor of cash balance or defined contribution plans. I believe that Donnell-Kay finds a kindred spirit in the Pew Center/Arnold Foundation partnership.

Here’s a description of the “Hot Lunch” presentation:

“Josh B. McGee, Vice President for Public Accountability Initiatives at the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, presented ‘Affordable, Sustainable and Secure: Fixing retirement savings systems for future generations.” Also presenting at the “Hot Lunch” was David Draine, lead researcher on public sector retirement systems at the Pew Center on the States.

A Podcast of the presentation is available at a link provided by EdNewsColorado here:

http://www.ednewscolorado.org/…

And, slides from the talk are here:

http://www.dkfoundation.org/si…

I listened to the podcast and looked at the slides. I appreciated Josh McGee’s third slide titled “Colorado Pension Plans – Recommended and Actual Contributions.” This slide addresses the shortfall in the Colorado General Assembly’s annual required public pension contributions over the last decade. (Later in the presentation, David Draine of the Pew Center states that the Colorado General Assembly has underfunded Colorado PERA by $3.5 billion from 2000 to 2011.)

On Josh McGee’s seventh slide he suggests that: “The unfunded (pension) liability should be viewed as government debt.” (Agreed . . . in fact, I’ve noticed that Colorado’s TABOR amendment implicitly recognizes public pension obligations as state “debt,” not to mention Colorado case law, AG opinions, etc.)

On later slides Josh McGee presents the John Arnold Foundation’s advocacy of cash balance and defined contribution plans.

An ednewscolorado.org article covering the “Hot Lunch” presentation quotes David Draine on the reasons for Colorado PERA’s financial downturn: “Contributions weren’t made, benefit increases weren’t paid for and investment returns didn’t materialize, he (Draine) said.”

A person named “Marilyn Sweet” has the following comment (in the comment section) under the ednewscolorado.org article covering the Hot Lunch presentation:

“This article fails to mention that in 2000 the Republican governor and legislators made PERA refund money to employees in the form of Matchmaker which gave us each $40 a month in refunds from the pension system. The fund was 102% funded and apparently this was unbearable to the Repubs. The problem stems from the lawmakers messing with a good system and not ‘banking’ during the good years. Poor business practice at best. Don’t blame the retirees for this shortsightedness.”

(My understanding is that EdNewsColorado is funded by Donnell-Kay.)

In my opinion, the Pew Center appears to be ready to save public resources through the breach of public pension contracts where possible (see comments below in support of pension reforms adopted in Rhode Island and San Jose that seized contracted pension COLA benefits.)

Now for a few quotations from the podcast. David Draine of the Pew Center on the States:

“From 2000 to 2011 contributions from state and local governments in Colorado fell short of what they should have been by $3.5 billion.”

“Ultimately these benefit promises will need to get paid.”

“It is also clear that the longer states delay the more painful the fiscal impact will be.”

(This statement calls to mind an observation from the Illinois pension reform debate:

” . . . a short-lived pension reform that is invalidated by court order after protracted litigation . . . would be a disservice to the taxpayers.”

Gino L. DiVito, Tabet DiVito & Rothstein LLC, Chicago, ILL)

In his talk, David Draine also sang the praises of the San Jose and Rhode Island pension reform efforts (which, by the way, included COLA theft.) Finally, he noted that PERA’s new leader, Greg Smith, was also present at the hearing. As a newly anointed Executive Director, where does Greg Smith intend to take Colorado PERA next?

Josh McGee, of the John Arnold Foundation then spoke. Here are a few quotations:

“We’ve promised one thing and funded something completely different.”

“There is an incentive to underfund these systems.”

(I found it interesting that Josh McGee commented on the loss in pension wealth that his wife [who is teacher] incurred when the couple chose to move from Arkansas to Texas.)

Josh McGee then pointed out the benefits of cash balance and defined contribution plans, and said that the costs of transitioning to a new public pension system is a “red herring.”

“There are no costs to transitioning” to a new plan system.

So, in my opinion, it appears that the Pew Center and the John Arnold Foundation are not attempting to provide objective public policy research . . . they are advocates for specific policy solutions to the public pension underfunding problem, and are apparently apologists for the breach of public pension contracts. (Nothing wrong with being an advocate as long as you let people know!)

Here’s a link to a Josh Mcgee paper recommending DC plans, Cash Balance plans, and Hybrid pension plans:

http://arnoldfoundation.org/si…

Here’s the Donnell-Kay’s position on Colorado PERA:

“The current pension system (PERA) provides none of these assurances; it ensures that salaries are held low, that once a person enters the teaching profession, for example, that they should stay for their entire lifetime, that there is only one way to save for retirement and that wildly optimistic earnings projections will mask a system that is and never will be fully funded.”

Link:

http://www.dkfoundation.org/ou…

Post’s style guide on usage of the phrase “illegal immigrant” raises questions

Posted on December 6, 2012 by Jason Salzman

As an addendum to a shrill column by Ruben Navarette arguing that the term “illegal immigrant” should not be replaced by a phrase like “undocumented worker,” The Denver Post Perspective section published The Post’s guidelines on how Post journalists should use the terms.

Unfortunately, the explanation apparantly only appeared in the print edition.

I was going to ask The Post to put it online, and I’m thinking its omission from the website was just an oversight, but before I did, I thought I’d put it out there for people to see. You can see it on Bigmedia.org here.

My question for The Post, which argues for the use of the term “illegal immigrant” to describe people without documentation, is this: what constitutes sufficient proof that an individual doesn’t have proper documentation?

If someone admits not having proper documentation? If immigration officials or police make this determination? If someone can’t produce documentation immediately? What’s the evidentiary standard?

It’s one thing to label the group of people who are presumably in the United States illegally as “illegal immigrants,” but it’s another to presume any single individual is an “illegal immigrant.”

Last year, Post City Editor Dana Coffield told me that The Post only refers to someone’s immigration status “when it becomes part of and material to the public record”–unlike talk-radio host Peter Boyles who dehumanizes himself and all of us by implying or asserting that someone with a Spanish surname is an “illegal.”

Anyway, I’ll ask The Post my question about its style guide next week, and I’ll include a few of the best questions from my readers, if you have any. Shoot them my way, if you do to tips@bigmedia.org.

Follow Jason Salzman on Twitter @bigmediablog

Cory Gardner, Doug Lamborn Join Susan Rice Bully Squad

Posted on November 26, 2012November 26, 2012 by Colorado Pols

Since the election, it’s been widely reported that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton intends to retire in the next few weeks. Speculation about her possible replacement is currently focused on Susan Rice, the United States ambassador to the United Nations. In the immediate aftermath of the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11th of this year, Rice initially stated on television that the attacks were due to protest over an anti-Muslim YouTube video, though it has been determined to have been a well-coordinated terrorist attack.

Republicans sought before the election to blow the Benghazi affair up into as large a scandal as possible for perfectly understandable political reasons. Now that the election is over, that motive still exists but with a longer view–and congressional Republicans are still pushing the issue. And to a point, they should. Democrats too are interested in fully accounting for what happened.

Unfortunately, as the Washington Post reported last week, Republicans are taking a reasonable point of inquiry way too far, and making a joke of their oversight responsibility:

97 House Republicans co-signed a letter this week warning President Obama that Rice’s public comments after the attack on the mission in Benghazi “caused irreparable damage to her credibility both at home and around the world.”

The members also told Obama that making Rice “the face of U.S. foreign policy” in the coming years as his next secretary of state “would greatly undermine your desire to improve U.S. relations with the world and continue to build trust with the American people.”

“Ambassador Rice is widely viewed as having either willfully or incompetently misled the American public in the Benghazi matter,” the lawmakers wrote. “Her actions plausibly give U.S. allies (and rivals) abroad reason to question U.S. commitment and credibility when needed.”

Signers of this letter include Colorado Reps. Cory Gardner and Doug Lamborn.

In an editorial today, USA TODAY outlines the stupidity, not to mention the almost comical hypocrisy, of Republicans going after Rice over her early comments about the Benghazi attack:

Working from talking points put together by intelligence officials and later edited by others, Rice peddled the story that the attack sprang from a spontaneous protest, spurred by an anti-Muslim video produced by an American.

That account turned out to be wrong, but it’s hardly a reason to block Rice’s potential nomination. After all, if misleading comments based on flawed intelligence were disqualifying, Colin Powell would have been forced to resign as George W. Bush’s secretary of State and Condoleezza Rice never would have succeeded Powell. Powell’s powerful speech before the United Nations in 2003, proclaiming proof of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, helped push the United States into a misguided war. Condoleezza Rice also touted the story line about Iraq’s supposed nuclear program, warning on CNN that “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” No such weapons were found.

Susan Rice’s comments about events in Benghazi are at best a sideshow. Instead of obsessing about what she said on TV after the tragedy, lawmakers ought to be more concerned about finding out what went wrong and preventing a repeat. Why weren’t security warnings heeded and requests for more protection granted? As U.N. ambassador, Rice most likely had zero involvement with those decisions.

To summarize:

1. Even if they’re right, they’re going after the wrong person, and

2. How quickly they forget.

There’s another dimension to this story that we do want to address, though. Following the GOP’s letter and media tour against Susan Rice, who is African-American, some Democrats angrily reacted to singling her out for criticism. Rep. James Clyburn accused Republicans who signed the letter noted above of employing “racial code words,” in part by describing Susan Rice, a Rhodes scholar with a resumГ© to match anyone’s, as “incompetent.”

Without a doubt, the resumГ©s of politicians such as our own Cory Gardner and Doug Lamborn seem quite humble compared to Rice. And after the election we just had, where women and minority voters played a key role in GOP defeats around the nation, making your first big post-election splash by attacking a black woman really seems like a stupid thing to do–doesn’t it?

Bottom line: we’re not going to allege that Gardner and Lamborn had racist or sexist ulterior motives in signing on to this letter. But just as they have the right to throw around specious charges ripe for political backfire, you all have the right to think whatever you want about their motives. And the stereotype reinforced by this episode…is not about Susan Rice.

Lamborn understands Veterans and their concerns

Posted on November 15, 2012December 28, 2012 by Barron X

Some folks, including Vets themselves, might think that what Vets care about are things like medical care and educational opportunities.

Nope.

What Vets really want is a strong economy, even if that means cutting taxes on the rich.

How do I know?

I just got an email from Contressman Lamborn telling me so.

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION JOURNAL ARTICLE: THE COLORADO LEGISLATURE’S SB 10-001 WILL LIKELY BE FOUND

Posted on November 14, 2012January 21, 2013 by PolDancer

. . . UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The Winter 2012 issue of the American Bar Association Journal of Labor and Employment Law includes an article titled: “Public Pension Benefits Under Siege: Does State Law Facilitate or Block Recent Efforts to Cut the Pension Benefits of Public Servants?” The article’s author is Eric Madiar J.D., Chicago-Kent College of Law, currently Chief Legal Counsel to Illinois Senate President John J. Cullerton.

(Note: This ABA Journal article was written prior to the recent Colorado Court of Appeals ruling that Colorado PERA pension COLA benefits are indeed contractual obligations of Colorado PERA and Colorado PERA-affiliated employers.)

Below I provide excerpts from the article of relevance to the 2010 breach of PERA pension contracts by the Colorado General Assembly, (and of course, some of my own observations relating to the excerpted material.)

IN SB 10-001, THE COLORADO GENERAL ASSEMBLY ATTEMPTED TO USE MARKET VOLATILITY TO JUSTIFY THE BREACH OF PENSION CONTRACTS.

From “Public Pension Benefits Under Siege”:

“Rahm Emanuel’s statement after the 2008 election aptly described the current climate: ‘You never want a serious crisis to go to waste . . . [because it] provides the opportunity . . . to do things that you could not do before.’ Thus, for proponents of pension reform the window of opportunity is open.”

(My comment: It is uncanny how closely these remarks from Rahm Emanuel in 2008 track the comments of SB 10-001 co-prime sponsor Josh Penry in 2009 [they both like the word “window.”]

The Penry “Can’t Miss This Window” comments:

“Senator Josh Penry, in a videotaped discussion with Representative Mike May, [videocenter. denverpost.com] said ‘we can’t, can’t miss this window.’ And, . . . we have an opportunity to pass something that Republicans have long advocated, a significant increase in retirement age, which the PERA Board embraced, reigning in the cost of living increases . . .”

“Penry went on to say, ‘I think it is important to pass something because if you lose actuarial necessity, as you know, it becomes extremely difficult to increase retirement age. You cannot change course and this year, when PERA’s investment numbers come out, their investment returns . . . numbers are going to be significant, like double, 15-16% investment return. So that could change the specter of actuarial necessity. We gotta’ do it this year or else these other structural changes won’t be possible.”)

Link to Penry comments:

http://www.leg.state.co.us/Cli…

SB 10-001 WAS SIMPLY ABOUT TAKING MONEY, THE LAW WAS IGNORED.

From “Public Pension Benefits Under Siege”:

“Second, a legal calculus does not motivate changes portrayed as ‘pension reform.’ Rather, as Eden Martin of Chicago’s Commercial Club candidly explained ‘[this is] not about the law at all, it’s about the politics and arm-wrestling over money.'”

“These two points are significant because they frame our larger discussion of whether the law provides states with a means to achieve a particular political objective: the unilateral reduction of public pension benefits to avoid painful tax increases, service cuts, or both. In Illinois, the answer is unequivocally ‘no'”.

” . . . the article concludes with a prediction that courts in Colorado . . . are likely to invalidate pension reform efforts . . .”

“Most states follow the contractual approach based on court decisions or specific constitutional or statutory provisions.”

“One issue common to all reform efforts is whether those reforms violate the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution or its state equivalent. This issue is paramount because pension benefits are essential components of compensation and largely determine whether public servants and their dependents may live with a modicum of economic independence upon retirement.”

“On its face, the (Contract) Clause provides in absolute terms that ‘No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contract.'”

U.S. SUPREME COURT: STATE ATTEMPTS TO BREACH THEIR OWN CONTRACTS, IN THEIR OWN SELF-INTEREST, RECEIVE VERY LITTLE DEFERENCE.

From “Public Pension Benefits Under Siege”:

“In 1977, however, the (U.S.) Supreme Court clarified that state attempts to impair their own contracts, ESPECIALLY FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS, were subject to greater scrutiny and very little deference because the STATE’S SELF-INTEREST IS AT STAKE. As the court bluntly stated:

A governmental entity can always find a use for extra money, especially when taxes do not have to be raised. If a state could reduce its financial obligations whenever it wanted to spend the money for what it regarded as an important public purpose, the Contract Clause would provide no protection at all . . . Thus, a state cannot refuse to meet its legitimate financial obligations simply because it would prefer to spend the money to promote the public good rather than the private welfare of its creditors.”

(My comment: Precisely.)

A STATE’S IMPAIRMENT OF ITS OWN CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS IS UNREASONABLE.

From “Public Pension Benefits Under Siege”:

“An impairment is unreasonable if it targets a known problem that existed at the time of contract formation UNLESS THAT PROBLEM HAS CHANGED IN KIND, not merely in degree. Impairment is permitted only if there are no less drastic alternatives available for safeguarding

the important public purpose.”

(My comment: Colorado PERA has always been well

aware of the “problem” of dips in securities markets. Colorado PERA employs investment professionals who have made a life-long study of market volatility. Having testified before legislative committees for years regarding potential pension reform measures to address the bursting of the “dot-com” bubble in 2001 it is not reasonably possible for Colorado PERA officials to claim ignorance of the “problem” of market volatility. The problem grew a bit larger in 2009, but it did not change “in kind.”

Less drastic alternatives? Here at saveperacola.com dozens of “less drastic” alternatives to the breach of public pension contracts are on the record.

Finally, it should be noted that PERA pension contracts are formed every day of the year under any vesting scenario that PERA might espouse . . . each day many PERA members reach five-year vested status and many PERA members retire.)

THE COLORADO GENERAL ASSEMBLY HAS FAILED TO PROPERLY FUND THE PERA PENSION.

From “Public Pension Benefits Under Siege”:

“(The Colorado case also raises) . . . the question whether cutting benefits is a reasonable and necessary means to protect the pension system when, for decades, the state failed properly to fund the system.”

(My comment: It is satisfying to have the Colorado General Assembly’s habitual failure to meet its obligations to the PERA pension published in a law journal of the American Bar Association. The entire American legal community should be made aware of the negligence of the Colorado General Assembly.

As we have seen, the Colorado General Assembly has skipped $4.3 billion in annual required contributions to the PERA pension fund [as identified by PERA’s actuaries] in just the last decade. News accounts from the 1990s reveal that the General Assembly also traditionally underfunded the pension during that decade. As we have seen, it has been PERA Board policy in the past to underfund the pension [90 percent ceiling on AFR.] Moreover, [and incredibly] members of the Colorado Legislature have, in the past, criticized the PERA pension as “overfunded” when its actuarial funded ratio was at 87 percent.

To wit, in 1985 Colorado PERA’s Field Education Services Division Director Dennis Gatlin stated that: “PERA’s funding ratio was at 87 percent, and legislators claimed that the association was ‘too well-funded.’ In 1970, the ratio was 54 percent, he added. According to Gatlin, PERA has been overfunded, when its assets equaled more than its liabilities, only twice in its 73-year [My comment: now 81-year] history, in 1999 and 2000.”

Here’s a link to Dennis Gatlin’s comments in the Silver and Gold Record:

https://www.cu.edu/sg/messages…

“The Colorado Supreme Court in the McPhail case . . . observed that ‘a cardinal principle of justice and fair dealings between government and man, [is that] the parties shall know prior to entering into a business relationship the conditions which shall govern that relationship.'”

When all of this is taken into consideration, how is it possible that the Colorado General Assembly might consider its breach of pension contracts in SB 10-001 to be in any way “reasonable”?)

CHANGING THE GROUND RULES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME IS NOT CONSONANT WITH AMERICAN TRADITIONS OF FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE.

From “Public Pension Benefits Under Siege”:

“The (Colorado) retirees sued under the Contract Clause of the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions to retain the higher COLA rate that was in place when they retired or became eligible to retire. Colorado case law appeared to support their position.”

” . . . a 2002 Colorado Supreme Court decision may have indirectly modified it (McPhail.) In Estate of DeWitt, the court held that the Contract Clause of the U.S. and Colorado Constitutions only protects a contract affording a plaintiff ‘a vested right.'”

(My comment: As we know, the Colorado Court of Appeals recently found that Colorado PERA retirees do have a vested right to their PERA pension COLA benefits. Colorado Court of Appeals: “We consider McPhail and Bills dispositive [indisputably bringing to a conclusion a legal controversy] of whether plaintiffs here have a contractual right to a particular COLA.”)

“The deferred compensation analogy (construal of public pension benefits as ‘deferred compensation’) exists as a means to achieve a specific objective. That objective was best explained long ago: ‘Whether it be in the field of sports or in the halls of the legislature it is not consonant with American traditions of fairness and justice to change the ground rules in the middle of the game, [Hickey v. Pittsburgh Pension Board, 1954; accord Colorado Supreme Court, Police Pension and Relief Board v. Bills, 1961.])”

THE COLORADO GENERAL ASSEMBLY USED THE PERA PENSION AS A “CREDIT CARD” TO AVOID TAX INCREASES. THE MOST RECENT MARKET DOWNTURN WAS “A POLITICAL OPPORTUNITY.”

From “Public Pension Benefits Under Siege”:

” . . . public employees have diligently and faithfully paid their contributions while their government employers have failed to pay their required share. Indeed, for decades, states have treated pension systems as a credit card to pay for government services and avoid tax increases or service cuts.”

“Public pensions are under siege because the current fiscal climate in most states presents a political opportunity for change. For lawmakers, it is simply politically more palatable unilaterally to cut pension benefits for public employees and retirees than to raise taxes, cut services, or both.”

(My [extended] commentary: The Colorado General Assembly cannot legitimately blame the constitutional TABOR amendment for limiting their revenue and pension funding options. Nothing prevented the General Assembly from referring a constitutional amendment to the people to address PERA pension funding. Why did the General Assembly not take this step before embracing the breach of its contractual pension obligations? This would have demonstrated “good faith.” Nothing prevented the General Assembly from enacting legislation that would properly place the costs of any pension reform measure on PERA-affiliated employers [who are after all contractually obligated to fund pension benefits.] Instead, as the prime sponsor of SB 10-001 has told us, the bill asked these PERA-affiliated employers to pay a mere 10 percent of the costs of the 2010 pension reform. Nothing prevented the General Assembly from exploring options for increased revenues that could be directed toward pension obligations, from sources beyond TABOR’s restrictions. Why did the General Assembly fail to appoint a study committee to explore potential sources of revenue by which it could meet its contractual pension obligations? Instead, the General Assembly abdicated this role to the lobbyists. One should note that a preponderance of PERA-affiliated employers have already exempted themselves from TABOR restrictions through “de-Brucing.” Most PERA-affiliated employers cannot claim that TABOR presented an obstacle to their ability to raise funds. In fact, just a few weeks ago dozens of Colorado governmental entities succeeded in raising new revenues through ballot measures. Nothing has prevented the General Assembly from historically choosing to place expenditures to meet its contractual obligations above its discretionary expenditures. Nothing prevented the General Assembly from retaining all of its revenues, and directing more of these revenues to meet contractual obligations, instead of making annual $100 million discretionary grants for property tax relief. Further, the General Assembly has been under no legal obligation to historically direct $500 million of its revenues to local government public pensions while ignoring its own PERA pension obligations. Nothing prevented the General Assembly from exploring the issuance of pension certificates of participation and taking advantage of historically low interest rates. The General Assembly was under no obligation to enact legislation under Governor Bill Owens slashing its revenue stream. Nothing prevented the General Assembly from asking its own lawyers to provide a legal opinion regarding the constitutionality of their pension reform proposal [or did they?] Nothing prevented Governor Ritter and the General Assembly from sending an interrogatory to the Colorado Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of their proposed pension reforms. The Denver Post editorial board encouraged the General Assembly to take this step. Why did the General Assembly ignore this advice? Did the General Assembly simply not want to hear the answer? Or, perhaps it was the lobbyists who did not want to hear the answer?)

COLORADO CASE LAW TAKES A CONTRACTUAL APPROACH TO PUBLIC PENSIONS, THUS, SB 10-001 WILL LIKELY BE FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

From “Public Pension Benefits Under Siege”:

“The adoption of the contractual approach by Colorado . . . however, make(s) it more likely that pension reform efforts (the COLA provisions of SB 10-001) will be found unconstitutional.”

A PDF of the Madiar paper is available on the website of the National Conference of State Legislatures at the following link:

http://www.ncsl.org/home/searc…

Will the GOP ever learn?

Posted on November 8, 2012January 18, 2013 by Automaticftp

I wrote about the challenges of the GOP 3 years ago, here: http://www.coloradopols.com/di…

From what I can see, and continue to read, the GOP has completely failed to adapt to the changing political landscape. Others have written extensively on the reasons Mr. Romney lost – and, in my view, he lost rather decisively. The race was not as close as many Republicans would like to believe, and the demographic trends are not in their favor.

The GOP’s blind and headlong race to oblivion is not a positive development in American politics. We as a country thrive when our elected representatives can talk to, and work with, each other. We need them to approach representing us not with hellfire and brimstone, but with reason and understanding of the broader context in which they work.

The GOP should be concerned that despite putting forward their best candidate in Mr. Romney that they lost so decisively. While there is talk of the need of the GOP to be more inclusive, I would point out that the same talk took place after the 2008 election. Nothing, it seems, has changed.

John Odom Rises!

Posted on September 30, 2012September 29, 2012 by Colorado Pols

With fewer than forty days until election day and just two weeks until mail ballots drop, Jefferson County Commissioner John Odom has finally ended months of silence and hit the campaign trail. Well, at the very least, he’s sent out his first major fundraising pitch.

From the Odom campaign:

Since John Odom was appointed Jefferson County Commissioner in March of 2011, Jeffco has become one of the most fiscally sound governments in Colorado. Within just a few short weeks after Commissioner Odom’s appointment, the commissioners cut tens of millions of dollars of planned county spending. But that was just the beginning….

In August of 2011, the United States of America had it’s credit rating downgraded for the first time in history by S&P. It was shortly after this downgrade that another rating agency, Moody’s, took a hard look at Jefferson County. The result? Moody’s promptly upgraded Jefferson County’s credit rating.

Then in August of 2012 another rating agency examined Jeffco’s financial health. Fitch upheld Jeffco’s credit rating and reported, “Extensive financial planning and conservative management practices have contributed to the county’s solid financial operations.”

FACT: Jefferson County was the only government in Colorado to receive these two excellent report cards!

And just recently, Jeffco’s EXTERNAL auditor, Eide Bailly, came back with their report on Jefferson County. Their findings simply could not have been better! Jefferson County received an unqualified or “clean” opinion from Eide Bailly and the auditor went on to say, “This is the highest and best opinion an auditor can give.”

While many cities and other municipalities around the country find themselves in dire fiscal situations, strong leadership has kept Jefferson County fiscally sound! In order to maintain this responsible approach to government in Jefferson County, we need John Odom to be re-elected County Commissioner!

A contribution of $500, $100, $50, $10 or even $5 will go along way to re-elect John! You can contribute easily and conveniently, just click the link to our website below! You can contribute with your credit card via paypal or mail a personal check!

This is the best possible messaging Odom could use, although there’s no question it’s a little late. Jefferson County’s credit rating was, in fact, upgraded by Moody’s and the county was given high marks by an external auditor.

John Odom isn’t solely responsible for Jeffco’s financial health — nor is any single commissioner, though all three claimed credit for it during a telephone town hall last week. That said, voters are willing to attribute a region’s economic outlook, good or bad, to those in office. This is one area where incumbency helps.

The “I helped strengthen our economy” talking point also enables Odom to campaign against President Obama. The commissioner can now piggy-back on Mitt Romney’s assertion that Republicans are better for the economy, and in Odom’s case, there’s at least anecdotal evidence to back that up. Most people have no idea who the commissioners are or what they do, so the more Odom can tie his star to the national campaign, the better. The same goes for Democrat Casey Tighe, but because he’s not an incumbent, he won’t be selected to introduce his party’s nominee, to use a recent example.

Odom’s now given good reason for voters to re-elect him, aside from the ol’ “I’m an incumbent Republican” line, and that’s a start.

It’s just odd that such a simple argument has taken so long to craft.

Why Politics and Friendship Don’t Always Mix

Posted on September 29, 2012September 29, 2012 by Colorado Pols

Political patronage is as old as our current conception of democracy itself. That’s because there’s nothing necessarily wrong with awarding jobs to friends and supporters upon taking office — those who have continually offered their support, after all, are also capable of offering sage advice and grounding a candidate once they’re elected.

In the case of Denver Mayor Michael Hancock’s friend and former staffer Wayne McDonald, however, lies an important lesson: Don’t appoint friends to political or advisory positions unless you’re confident they’re both capable of doing the job well and positive that they won’t paint your administration in a bad light. McDonald, Hancock’s college classmate, was dismissed from his position as the mayor’s “special projects” coordinator after allegedly sexually harassing a female Denver police officer with whom he had a professional relationship.

McDonald now plans to file suit against the city to clear his name, but neither that potential litigation nor the circumstances surrounding McDonald’s dismissal were sufficient cause for Hancock to end their personal friendship, according to a recent report at Westword.

From Sam Levin:

McDonald is a longtime friend of the mayor; he was appointed as a “special projects coordinator” but fired in May, after allegedly making inappropriate comments in front of a female Denver police officer. His legal team has filed a notice of claim, and plans to file the official lawsuit in the next month or so. In addition, his attorney, Anne Sulton, has also filed an Ethics Board complaint, on view below. Sulton says he asked for an investigation before he was fired, and is now requesting one via the upcoming lawsuit and the ethics complaint.

But questions of unemployment benefits are not the only concerns Sulton raises when she is asked to respond to the mayor’s comments.

“I know that since my client has been fired, [Hancock] has been calling [McDonald] and his wife and sending text messages to my client,” she said.

In our brief chat yesterday, Hancock told us he has not spoken to McDonald in a while, and that may be true, Sulton said, pointing out that to the best of her knowledge, McDonald has not responded to any of the mayor’s messages.

“I think it’s highly inappropriate for the mayor to be calling the man’s wife and sending texts to my client,” she said.

By Sulton’s estimate, the mayor has reached out to McDonald and his family at least three times with texts and calls — mostly in the immediate aftermath of firing him. When pressed on the matter back in June, Hancock told reporter, “We’re still friends.” [POLS Emphasis]

This story has always contained an element of the absurd. A close friend of the mayor’s, appointed to a relatively senior position within the administration, allegedly harassed a female police officer. It’s a compelling story for a lot of reasons, chief among them is the fact that Hancock should’ve dealt with this issue on a personal level. Nobody knows went on behind closed doors, but if Hancock had made a personal appeal rather than assigning two functionaries to tell McDonald, as Levin reports, to resign or “be fired,” there’s a good chance the latter could’ve left with both his personal and Hancock’s professional reputations intact.

Unfortunately, the time for personal appeals was over the second McDonald was forced out of his job. Hancock may believe that he and McDonald are “still friends,” but they aren’t. Their “friendship” ended when their professional involvement did. Setting aside the lawsuit, McDonald became toxic to the administration when he was fired for inappropriate conduct. Even if Hancock would like to stay friends, he certainly can’t do it publicly without calling into question his rationale for hiring McDonald in the first place. It’s an unfortunate reality in politics that sometimes “friends” get in the way of governing. That’s certainly the case here.

No matter how guilty Hancock felt about having to let his friend go, or rather, having his staff let his friend go, he should not have attempted to communicate with McDonald after the fact. Period — no texts, no phone calls, no e-mails. By staying in touch with his old college pal, Hancock directly links himself to what should otherwise be a personnel issue.

Reaching out makes Hancock look like a guy reluctantly forced to end a relationship with an old flame: “Listen, you can’t work here anymore, but we can still be friends, right?” Hancock almost seems guilty for what he had no choice but to do.

If Hancock wanted to keep McDonald as a friend, he shouldn’t have hired him in the first place. This far in, however, he can’t simultaneously maintain the friendship without jeopardizing his image as mayor.

That would seem like common sense to most politicians, but with Hancock, it’s just another piece of evidence that he hasn’t yet figured out what he should and should not do in his position.

No on 3B Campaign Very Angry About Lots of Things

Posted on September 26, 2012September 26, 2012 by Colorado Pols

We received a rather odd press release today from Earleen Brown, ostensibly the spokesperson for the No on 3B campaign organized in opposition to the Denver Public Schools proposed bond and tax override measures. In it, Brown, a known education gadfly associated with anti-reform group DeFENSE Denver, complains about the “ways in which opposition to the 466 million dollar bond has been stifled.” Brown’s objections aren’t necessarily without merit, but they’re presented in such a way that frames the No on 3B group as, well, a little amateurish.

From Brown:

1 – As of today, September 25, 2012, the only way to clarify which initiative is associated with the mill levy and which initiative is associated with the bond is through a direct phone call to the Denver Elections Division, or by visiting the No on 3B Denver website. The distinction is not published on the Denver Elections Division website, on the Denver Public Schools website, or on the Yes on 3A/3B website. The lack of access to information makes it nearly impossible for voters to properly educate themselves about the separate initiatives.

2 – A call to the Denver Public Schools communication office, to clarify the initiatives, was met with a suggestion to visit the Yes on 3A/3B website – once again, that website makes no distinction between the two initiatives. DPS, as a publically-funded entity, should not be directing voters to a CAMPAIGN website rather than providing that information, itself, or referring voters to the Denver Elections Division.

3 – After the ballot language for 3A and 3B was submitted to the Denver Elections Division for final approval, attorneys for Denver Public Schools called the Elections Division to reverse the order of the initiatives on the ballot – this was verified by the Elections Division.

4 – The last minute shuffling of the initiatives, and withholding of documentation clarifying which initiative is associated with the mill levy and which is associated with the bond delayed the formation of our group which is opposing the bond.

5 – Upon confirmation that the bond initiative is 3B, an issue committee was formed and the registered agent reached out to the League of Women Voters to take part in the forum last night. Our request to participate was denied for the stated reason that our issue committee was not formed in time.

6 – The opponent, who was selected by the League of Women Voters to present the “con” position, is from Lakewood and has a relationship to Denver only as a renter. She publicly stated, during the debate, that she assumed she was being asked to speak about Jefferson County’s 3A and 3B initiatives. Being as it was, no legitimate oppositional voice was made or heard during the debate last night.

Our position is NOT about whether or not we agree with a tax increase, it is NOT about whether or not we believe that taxpayers should provide money for education, it IS about the voters of Denver having a clear understanding of the issues on the ballot, and having the opportunity to hear both sides of the debate.

This release leaves out a ton of details, but here’s what we were able to piece together:

1) Last night, the League of Women Voters hosted a forum on 2012 ballot initiatives.

2) The No on 3B campaign was unable to participate in that forum because their issue committee was formed too late to meet the LWV’s deadline.

3) The No on 3B committee would’ve been formed earlier had DPS not reversed the order of initiatives on the ballot.

4) DPS is actively campaigning for 3A and 3B.

5) The woman selected to enunciate the opposition argument at last night’s forum was pretty confused about what was going on.

6) The No on 3B campaign is very, very mad.

Brown and her group are on safe ground with most of their grievances. DPS probably shouldn’t be directing inquiries about the bond and mill measures to a campaign website, though there’s no question that the district supports the effort to pour more money into their coffers. Similarly, the League of Women voters should’ve allowed representatives from the Denver opposition campaign to speak at a nonpartisan forum instead of assigning their spot to a woman who clearly showed up to the wrong event.

At issue, then, is the fact that this is the first interaction the No on 3B camp has had with the media. This “press release” was sent to nearly every political journalist in the greater Denver area. If the opposition group had instead sent out a standard release with information about their effort and a few quotes from sympathetic community leaders, they probably would’ve gotten some attention in the local market. At the very least, they would’ve set the stage for future coverage.

Instead, 50 Denver reporters received a strange and verbose e-mail filled with complaints from a campaign effort they’ve never heard of. That makes the 3B opponents seem like amateurs at best and an irate and ill-organized group of pseudo-activists at worst.

Neither outcome is desirable, and both could’ve been avoided had Earleen thought a little more deeply about how she wanted to introduce her effort to the press.

Lang Sias Will Make Sure Your Kids Can Compete…Somewhere

Posted on September 19, 2012September 19, 2012 by Colorado Pols

This is the second poorly vetted mailer from the Sias campaign and the third from a Jefferson County Republican this cycle.

There’s simply no way to defend such general sloppiness when it comes from candidates locked in hyper-competitive races. These Republicans, after all, are spending coveted campaign dollars on literature that hurts their electoral efforts. Make no mistake, mail pieces that contain typographical errors aren’t only wasteful, they paint the candidates represented within them as careless at best and stupid at worst.

If you’re going to spend tens of thousands of dollars to design and distribute a lit piece, you surely can afford to spend the 15 seconds it takes to guarantee you’re being presented in the best light. Doubtless the Sias campaign or its consultants debated which photo to use and what text to highlight. Those fastidious decisions, however, are effectively canceled out when simple, grade-level mistakes aren’t caught and corrected — especially in literature about education.

With so much spent shooting themselves in the feet, you’d think these campaigns would the common-sense to hire somebody to proofread. Hell, they could probably share the same guy! It couldn’t take more than one billable hour for an editor to say “Hey, you forgot to finish your sentence” or “Your list isn’t numbered correctly.”

Bottom line: This type of laziness — and that’s what it is — is not now and will never be acceptable for ostensibly “credible” general election candidates.

—–

Another from the unfortunate campaign mailers department (a regular favorite of ours), here’s a new piece that just arrived in Senate District 19 mailboxes–the key race in northern Jefferson County between Democratic incumbent Sen. Evie Hudak and Republican Lang Sias. From the flagship Republican Senate “independent effort,” the Senate Majority Fund:

Got that, swing voter? Sias will help our kids compete–you just don’t know what at! It’s best to not allow the recipient’s mind to wander as a result of a printing error like this. Glossy color mailers, after all, are quite expensive. A mistake of this glaring nature and magnitude defeats the purpose of sending the mailer. It’s worse than sending nothing at all, beyond the wasted money. For those that don’t wind up directly in the circular file, this screwup is the only thing that’s memorable. In short, better proofing urgently needed at the Senate Majority Fund.

What will Sias “make sure our kids can compete in?” Since they don’t specify, a poll follows.

Crossposted from Colorado Pols

Search Results for: what is the best way to get cheap airline tickets phone number 1-800-299-7264

Denver’s Donnell-Kay Foundation Hears Pension Reform Ideas From Pew Center.

Post’s style guide on usage of the phrase “illegal immigrant” raises questions

Cory Gardner, Doug Lamborn Join Susan Rice Bully Squad

Lamborn understands Veterans and their concerns

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION JOURNAL ARTICLE: THE COLORADO LEGISLATURE’S SB 10-001 WILL LIKELY BE FOUND

Will the GOP ever learn?

John Odom Rises!

Why Politics and Friendship Don’t Always Mix

No on 3B Campaign Very Angry About Lots of Things

Lang Sias Will Make Sure Your Kids Can Compete…Somewhere

Recent Comments

Posts about

Posts about

Posts about

Posts about

Posts about

Newsletter

Login

Recent Comments

Posts about

Posts about

Posts about

Posts about

Posts about

Newsletter