In the last week, we've noted several contradictory statements by council candidate Scott Gessler regarding his political affiliations. On one hand, he has denied any political affiliations with the GOP; he is representing the GOP-dominated General Assembly in the Colorado congressional redistricting court case. On the other hand, he has mailed out a letter to all registered Republicans stating that he is 'a rising star in the Republican party'.
From Scott Gessler's letter last week to the Colorado Daily:
Sadly, Will Toor sees vast right wing conspiracies wherever he looks - the city council races, districting, the state legislature - you name it. According to him, this conspiracy threatens Boulder's very identity.But intelligent voters should brush these stereotypes aside and look instead at the underlying facts. As one example, the first open space tax was passed by a city council dominated by conservatives, and support for open space in Boulder has been widespread, without regard to silly labels like "liberal" or "conservative."
Also, an article in Colorado Daily:
A simple search on the Web-based "Google" search engine brings up Gessler's name as a member of the Republican National Lawyers' Association (RNLA). Gessler told the Daily his only association with RNLA was to "give them money, and that's all I've ever done for them.""People have essentially taken one aspect of my legal practice and blown it out of proportion," said Gessler. "I represent Democrats, Republicans and people that I don't know what the heck they are. We represented a guy named Jeff Vigil, a Hispanic Democrat activist from Adams County who ran in House District 35. I believed that the county clerk put her thumb on the scales and made it far more difficult for Hispanics to get their absentee ballots. Four or five other firms refused to take the case because it was too hot to handle, and we took it," said Gessler.
It sounds safe to say that Gessler is not particularly affiliated with the GOP!
Next, he mailed out a letter from campaign manager Sandy Hume to all registered Republican voters in the city, stating that Gessler is a 'rising star' in the Republican Party.
From the Daily Camera:
A campaign flier for City Council candidate Scott Gessler has raised some eyebrows because it calls him a "rising star" for the county's Republican Party and urges GOP voters to elect him to the council.Some observers of the election — including Mayor Will Toor, a Democrat — have criticized the flier for injecting party politics into the traditionally nonpartisan election.
Gessler's flier, in the form of a letter from his campaign manager Sandy Hume, a Republican and former county treasurer and commisioner, was mailed to registered Republicans in the city.
Gessler's party affiliation — mentioned in a Daily Camera profile last month — had been seized on by critics, he said.
"It was forced on the campaign," Gessler said. "I decided to try to use it to my advantage."
A public policy attorney for the Denver-based Hale, Hackstaff and Friesen, Gessler serves on the legal team representing the General Assembly in a lawsuit over Congressional redistricting.
Within one week:
In which instance was Gessler misleading the public?
A letter to the Colorado Daily:
Once a parcel of open space is developed into another prairie McMansion Ranchette, it is lost forever! How short sighted is it to fail to preserve these important parcels of land as Open Space because we couldn't agree ahead of time whether or not dogs, bicycles, trails, etc. should or should not be allowed?
Full letter:
The Daily Camera has, for tenuous reasons, opposed the Open Space funding initiative Number 201 in its "Silent Owls" editorial. Contrary to the impression left by this editorial, a large portion of the funds generated by this measure will be devoted to restoring the recent scale backs of Open Space maintenance. Holding the acquisition of more Open Space hostage until the Visitors Plain and other unknown potential regulations are settled makes no sense. If Regulations are "too restrictive" or "lenient", for that matter, they can, from time to time, be changed through the political process. At least there will be something to argue about if the additional Open Space land is preserved. Once a parcel of open space is developed into another prairie McMansion Ranchette, it is lost forever! How short sighted is it to fail to preserve these important parcels of land as Open Space because we couldn't agree ahead of time whether or not dogs, bicycles, trails, etc. should or should not be allowed?Our Boulder Open Space is a wonderful legacy created by generous Boulder citizens who were willing to tax themselves. Nevertheless, the job is not yet done. 7,500 more acres of land have been identified as important to preserve. We as a City should continue this legacy for us and our children's children by finishing the job before it is too late.
There is a Catch 22 in the Camera's argument to rely on an improving economy to fund Open Space later instead of acting quickly. The more the economy and tax revenues improve, the greater the pressures for more development will become and hence the remaining parcels will be much more costly to acquire.
As Mayor Will Toor recently stated in support of 201 in the Boulder Weekly, Boulder's sales tax will go from a total of 3.26% to only 3.41%. Broomfield, our biggest competitor for sales tax revenue, has a rate of 3.75%. We can afford this. Let's not unnecessarily silence more owls with unwanted development. Please Vote yes on 201.
Jim and Maura Christoph
Boulder
City of Boulder press release:
Today, the city of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) department will post written comments received from the public on the proposed Visitor Master Plan. Comments, received through open house forums, may be viewed at www.visitorplan.com.
Department staff worked with 11 community groups to produce six proposed alternative management zones and strategies to manage passive recreational use. The proposals were on display at an open house on Oct. 8, and in a virtual open house on the Visitor Plan web site. About 110 people attended the open house on Oct. 8 and over 160 people visited the virtual open house.The next steps in the Visitor Plan process include additional meetings with community groups and the general public in November in anticipation of public review of the draft Plan by the Open Space Board of Trustees early next year. Schedules and updates will be posted at www.visitorplan.com .
For general information on the Open Space and Mountain Parks program, please visit www.ci.boulder.co.us/openspace .
Boulder Weekly's voting guide is out. Check it out. It covers all local, county, and state issues, and also includes some interesting commentary and candidate surveys. Their endorsements:
From Boulder Weekly:
This paper has disagreed with the current council on a number of issues, most notably the ordinance that banned the homeless from begging on street medians.
From the Colorado Daily:
While Mayor Toor is entitled to his opinion, it comes at a cost. As most recognize, it's highly unusual for a sitting mayor to be so involved in campaigning for the council candidates he prefers. (Toor has written other area publications pushing his favorite slate, as well.) That's because there's a strong downside. The campaign rhetoric of stereotyping and name-calling (associating someone with the state's Republican Legislature certainly qualifies as name-calling in Boulder) holds the potential to damage the relationships with any candidate not on the Mayor's list who is elected.
Also:
Partisanship, affiliations, friendships and tit-for-tat exchange of support and favors are hard to suppress. This practice is rearing its head in this election, possibly - or at least in part - to begin setting the groundwork for next year's ballot, when bigger stakes, such as county commissioner, are up for grabs.
A subtle reference to Toor's possible bid for county commissioner?
A letter to the Daily Camera:
Sometime during the night of Oct. 10, an assortment of 11 yard signs relating to the coming election were taken from my front yard. It appears to have been an act of "one-stop shopping" by someone who agreed with me on candidates and issues.
The missing signs were for council candidates Robin Bohannan, Crystal Gray, Shaun McGrath, Mark Ruzzin, Andy Schultheiss and Jack Stoakes. The missing issues signs are "NO on 2C" (dividing Boulder into wards); two signs "Open Space YES" (Issue 201); "YES on 202" (public safety sales tax continuation); and "YES on 1A" (human services in Boulder County).I would like to get signs saying "YES on 1B" (the county jail expansion issue), "YES on 1C" (retention of excess county revenue), "NO on A" (the blank check for state water development), "NO on 32" (passage of 32 will cause residential property taxes to rise more rapidly than they have been rising) and "NO on 33" (which would expand electronic slot-machine gambling in Colorado).
I hope that the person who took my signs will display them prominently on a public thoroughfare to indicate support for these great candidates and the important public issues that affect us all.
ALBERT A. BARTLETT, Boulder
We've been wondering how candidate Jack Stoakes proposed to pay for his 'Free Ecopass For Everyone' program. At last Tuesday's candidate forum at the Boulder Co-op, we learned that he is exploring the possibility of a head tax on workers to fund such a program. A few other candidates have advanced the possilbility. Is a head tax fair? Will it help or hurt local businesses? If a head tax were implemented, should it be measured on all workers in Boulder, or only out-of-town workers? We are asking our readers to weigh in via the 'comments' link below.
One Boulder (anti-redistricting) is criticizing the Citizens for A More Representative Government (pro-redistricting) for CRG's characterization of their group as 'grass-roots'.
From the Daily Camera:
CRG reported $19,785 in donations as of last week. A total of $14,405, or nearly 73 percent of the group's war chest, came from a group of 10 donors including the Commercial Brokers of Boulder, Tebo Development Co. and other developers, the Fischer Auto car dealership and one $5,000 donation from Boulder resident Daniel Hersh.
In response:
Citizens for Representative Government members bristled at the suggestion that their campaign is being backed by special interests."For One Boulder to insinuate that anyone can buy an election in Boulder is both offensive and outrageous," said Sally Martin, spokeswoman for CRG. "We had nearly 6,000 people sign the petition that got this on the ballot. ... I would call that a pretty successful grass-roots movement."
One Boulder backers have been irked by the fact that CRG spent $10,000 on cable television ads urging viewers to support going to district elections.Such advertising — relatively rare in local races — was made possible, in part, by the large contributions, some from Boulder business owners who don't live within the city limits, Stevens said.
"It's not like they don't have the right to make contributions to further their interests — they certainly do have that right. But for CRG to suggest this is a grass-roots campaign is not true," Stevens said.
The local chapter of the Sierra Club has accused a Boulder organization formed to endorse City Council candidates of posting incorrect information on its Web site about whom two environmental groups support in the election.Citizens to Elect an Effective City Council listed candidate Scott Gessler's endorsements as including nods from the Sierra Club and the Colorado Wildlife Federation though neither group endorsed Gessler.
The following endorsements have been made by a 5-member citizens panel, and
are based primarily on responses to the Boulder Election Watch survey. The
endorsements were made from those candidates who returned surveys.
Robin Bohannan will represent a voice for a wide spectrum of citizens and service organizations. We feel her commitment to diversity and public services will be both desirable and useful as a council member.
Shaun McGrath presents specific solutions to address both business and
environmental problems. His experience, polish, and credentials seem
appropriate for Boulder.
Crystal Gray has a proven record of public service and progressive values to match. She is a solid, well-rounded candidate and would be a positive addition to the council.
Mark Ruzzin has the background and experience to address Boulder's tough current problems, and his values, as seen in both our survey and his record, make him an invaluable voice on the council.
Andy Schultheiss presents strong concern for the environment and an impressive professional background in his field. His economic and planning concerns are in keeping with Boulder values, and we feel confident that the city will benefit from his approach.
--
Ballot initiative 201 (open space tax): YES
Ballot initiative 202 ('save our services' tax): YES
2A: YES
2B: YES
2C (redistricting proposal): We encourage everyone to vote NO on this ill-considered proposal.
We will be posting more on our endorsed candidates and ballot initiatives soon.
In this week's Boulder Weekly, City of Boulder mayor Will Toor wrote a piece with his views, positive and negative, of the candidates for city council . Given the number of op-ed pieces he has written lately, Toor seems to be concerned about the race. Will Toor:
With six seats up for grabs, it is important to understand the nature of the political shift that is occurring on city council. Council is losing three of its most liberal members, while the two most conservative council members are remaining. Thus, council likely will edge a bit to the right, regardless of the election outcome. However, there is the potential for a much more dramatic rightward shift with the election of a certain mix of council candidates.
Toor is correct. If voters elect a 'balanced ticket' of 3 liberal and 3 conservative candidates, Boulder's city council will swing to the right with a 5-4 conservative majority. At the end of the article, Toor gives a 'word of caution':
Now a word of caution: There are some candidates this year who are just too conservative for Boulder. It is not my policy to criticize individual candidates. However, I urge you to please beware of individuals who seem to espouse moderate platitudes, but have a very different agenda. For example, all the candidates proclaim they are for "open space," but which ones support Ballot Issue 201, which provides funding for the open space program?It is also important to scrutinize the political backgrounds of the candidates. Note the affiliations that certain candidates have with efforts such as the state Republican Party’s attempts to gerrymander congressional districts. Similarly, it is important to consider if a candidate has agreed to abide by spending limits or if it appears they are attempting to "buy" the election. Their actions on these fronts might tell you more about a candidate than the proliferation of their yard signs.
Toor is not naming names, but it seems obvious that he is talking about Scott Gessler. Gessler is a Republican lawyer, and works for the law firm that is handling the GOP side of the Colorado redistricting battle. He also has the largest campaign expenditures ($16,000+) and has not signed the campaign expenditure pledge.
And, Toor's top 7 picks for the 6 open council seats:
With the above issues in mind, along with the importance of having a diversity of views on council, I offer my insights on the most qualified city council candidates. I believe there are seven candidates whose skills and values fit the current needs of Boulder.First is Mark Ruzzin. During Mark’s two years on council, he has distinguished himself as someone with strong progressive values who listens closely to people with other points of view and is able to build bridges with neighborhood groups and the business community.
Robin Bohannan will bring a needed voice to council. As the executive director of the Boulder County Aids Project she understands that a true test of our society is how we treat people in need. Robin’s non-profit management experience also provides her with an appreciation for running a business in Boulder.
As the director of the Colorado office of the League of Conservation Voters, Andy Schultheiss is an effective environmental advocate. Andy also is passionate about affordable housing and has some solid ideas for advancing Boulder’s economy.
Crystal Gray has been active in neighborhood organizations, is a long-time open space supporter, and is co-chair of PLAN-Boulder County. Having worked with Crystal, I know she will be an effective advocate for Boulder’s environmental and neighborhood values.
Jack Stoakes works as the CEO of Liquor Mart. He understands that those things which make Boulder different may be unconventional for businesses, but make it a great place for people to live and for businesses to prosper. I believe Jack, like Tom Eldridge, would be an effective business leader on council.
Shaun McGrath is an analyst for the Western Governor’s Association. He has experience at the state and federal level in water policy, environmental protection and economic development. He is just plain smart, with an ability to quickly grasp issues.
Jim Rettew has been involved in Colorado Democratic politics and has served well on the city’s Transportation Advisory Board. He is a committed advocate of commuter rail between Boulder and Denver. Jim also would be a voice for fiscal efficiency.
Toor has done a great job leading Boulder. Whichever candidates are elected to the council, Will Toor will continue to be an important force on the council with great leadership, knowledge, and consensus-building.
Toor's full article (you'll need to scroll down to find it)
The Daily Camera today released their candidate endorsements:
From the article:
What a difference two years can make.When Boulder voters elected new City Council members in 2001, there were five seats to fill, four incumbents running and a weak field of 15 candidates. This year, there are six seats open, just one incumbent running and the field of 14 candidates is impressive.
So what's changed?
Let's face it: Boulder economic downturn, spurred by the collapse of the dot-com bubble and 28 consecutive months of declining sales-tax receipts, has made serving on the council a less palatable job than in the booming '90s, when members could play Santa Claus. Now, in the midst of severe budget cuts, they've been forced to take on the role of Grinches, albeit reluctantly.
Despite some hopeful signs — i.e. a plan for Crossroads — the tough times are likely to continue for a while. That's one more reason to celebrate the strong field of candidates. Unlike in 2001 (when we made "Five easy choices,") endorsing just six from such a competitive field was a challenge
This ticket was considerably more liberal than the Colorado Daily.
The Colorado Daily's endorsements for City Council:
Ballot Issues:
201: Open Space YES
202: Gen. Fund tax extension NO
2A: Codify municipal judge reporting YES
2B: Create city council executive sessions YES
2C: City council districts/direct election of mayor NO
The CO Daily writes that
"Explanations of our endorsements can be found in the Opinion section of the Colorado Daily newspaper beginning this week and running through election week."
It looks like the Colorado Daily is endorsing a 'balanced' or even conservative slate of candidates, with Campbell, Gessler, and Polk on the conservative side, and Stoakes, Gray, and Ruzzin more on the left. We'll have to wait to see their explanations until at least Friday. In any case, with Campbell, Gessler, Polk combined with current councilmembers Eldridge and Riggle, the Boulder City Council would have a 5-4 majority of business-oriented or conservative members.
Although this election has been characterized by many peoples as the most important in many years, the press coverage at times has been sparse and insubstantial. Is the local media abicating their role in educating the voting public? Where is the scrutiny and analysis of candidates and ballot issues? Our take on recent media coverage of the election follows.
Redistricting debate and candidate forums
There was no coverage of last Thursday's PLAN-Boulder redisricting debate besides announcements of the event before it occurred. That seems ridiculous -- no reporters were even present. There has been some reporting on candidate forums early on from the Colorado Daily and very little reporting on candidate forums from the Daily Camera. That too has been disappointing. We have enjoyed KGNU's on-air candidate forums; they invited only 2-3 candidates at a time and asked specific questions.
The Daily Camera this week will finish publishing candidate profiles for all city council candidates. The profiles report on the major points that the candidates' are emphasizing in their campaigns. However, there is little or no analysis or scrutiny of candidate or committee statements.
Politics in Boulder are different than other cities. Candidates know that Boulder is a left-leaning and progressive population -- and almost all say that they "support open space", "support alternative transporation", promote "economic vitality", "support the environment", and the list can go on. Obviously, there is a wide range "wiggle room" within those statements. We are not seeing enough effort to determine where candidates really stand on those issues.
The Rocky Mountain News reported today that FIDOS, a dog-oriented citizens' group as well as the newly formed Friends of Open Space Access, are opposing ballot issue 201, which provides funds for open space through a sales tax increase.
Two dog owner groups say they will urge members to reject the 0.15 percent sales tax to protest a proposed plan that might restrict pooches on some of the city's 42,000 acres of open space.The city's open space board is considering the restrictions as part of a new management plan.
"We think if we can stop the tax this year, we'll still have some leverage at the bargaining table when we finalize this . . . plan," said Dan Sukle, head of Friends Interested in Dogs and Open Space, or FIDOS.
...
Ruth Wright, a longtime open- space advocate and leader of the drive to increase the tax, said all of FIDOS' members probably won't oppose the tax.But, she said, "We're worried because we've never had that kind of opposition before."
She said the dog groups are being "very shortsighted."
"Where are we going to get money to build new trails? We've already cut down half the ranger program, so people who fix trails are gone," Wright said.
...
With the city's economy on the skids, revenue from the open-space tax plummeted from $18 million in 2000 to a projected $14.7 million this year, said Delani Wheeler, who manages the department's finances. The department has less money to maintain open space and only about $1 million for new acquisitions."We don't have a pot of savings sitting around from bond sales," Wheeler said.
In today's League of Woman Voters candidate forum, Crystal Gray, who was endorsed by FIDOS, expressed dismay that FIDOS had rejected the open space measure. Candidate Shaun McGrath also was concerned, saying that issues of land use could be worked out concurrently with the acquisition of Open Space. We agree. Given that the new Visitor Plan is not linked to the ballot measure, it doesn't seem logical to come out against the ballot measure. The Visitor Plan is controversial -- but the ballot measure should be judged on its own merits.
FIDOS website: http://www.fidos.org
Open Space Visitor Plan: http://www.visitorplan.com
Other articles:
FIDOS opposes tax measure, Daily Camera
Group draws line on new tax, Daily Camera
Monday, October 6 is the last day to register to vote. You can check to see if you are registered here. Because this is a mail ballot election, you also must be an "active voter" to vote in this election. From the Boulder County press release:
An INACTIVE voter is a registered voter who failed to vote in the November 2002 General Election. Inactive voters are considered "registered to vote," but must reactivate their record before a ballot will be issued to them.If an Inactive voter no longer resides at their "address of record," the voter needs to update his or her voter registration with the new address. Updating the record will make the voter ACTIVE again.
If the inactive voter has not moved, the voter needs to stop by the Clerk and Recorder's office or complete a voter registration form to reactivate their record. This can be done at the Boulder County Clerk's main office at 1750 33rd St. in Boulder or at one of our two branch offices (722 Main St. in Louisville or 529 Coffman St. in Longmont).
If the reactivation is completed on or before Oct. 6, 2003 (the last day to register to vote) the voter will receive a ballot automatically. If the record is reactivated after Oct. 6, the voter will not automatically receive a ballot in the mail and the elector must formally request one.
To formally request a ballot, or to get an emergency voter registration, an elector must appear, in person, at the main office of the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder, 1750 33rd Street in Boulder.
Last night PLAN-Boulder held a debate on the redistricting ballot question 2C at the CU Law School. Unfortunately, attendance was sparse and consisted mainly of PLAN members. Given the importance of this issue, we were surprised to see that few of the general public and apparently no one from the press besides BEW was present.
From the pro-2C group Citizens For A More Representative Governement (CRG), former council members Rich Lopez and Sally Martin were present. From the organization opposed to 2C, One Boulder, former councilmember Allyn Feinberg and Boulder "founding father" Al Bartlett were present.
Sally Martin said that local issues such as the Academy project on University Hill could have been taken care of easier with a local councilmember rather than the full city council. She was somewhat on the defensive, making frequent assurances that many liberals, Democrats, and environmentalists were supporters of question 2C as well as more conservative interests. Martin emphasized her support for organizations such as PLAN-Boulder and the Sierra Club and expressed her hope that they would continue to be influential under 2C.
Rich Lopez was more partisan, cricitizing not only the current at-large system, but also bringing up issues not directly related to 2C. Lopez praised candidates in this election who chose not to take matching public funds for their campaign and characterized past city councils as having "a lack of vision". He said that directly electing the mayor (as under 2C) would allow the public to decide on a mayor with leadership skills and a vision for the city. He said that 2C would bring much needed diversity to the council, since more ordinary people would run. The CRG side characterized 2C as enabling candidates run with less money and time.
Al Bartlett characterized the initiative as giving "big money" and special interests more influence than the current system. Six councilmembers focused on their own wards and a stronger mayor, he said, would allow special interests to concentrate their money and energy on the mayor. The councilmembers elected from wards would be concerned with "paving potholes" and would have their attention diverted from the larger interests of the community. He said that "big money" and business interests have always had representation on the city council, but are pushing this initiative to gain control of the city.
Feinberg said that the initiative, while well-intentioned, is legally flawed and would reduce the amount of choice that voters currently have. Instead of being able to vote for all 9 council members, under 2C voters would be able to vote for a maximum of 4. Feinberg and Bartlett criticized 2C for the possibility of candidates running unopposed in districts, a situation which has occurred in the BVSD election this year and in other cities. Feinberg criticized question 2C for not changing the current campaign finance law, which is written for an at-large city council race. After 2C, the same candidate spending limits would be valid for a single ward rather than the entire city.
Our analysis:
We will be conducting interviews with representatives from CRG and One Boulder. Check back for more information.
There is another debate on this issue, sponsored by the Boulder County Democrats. It will be in the format of the Lincoln/Douglas debates.
Thursday, Oct 09 from 7:00 PM - 8:00 PM
CU campus, Eaton Humanities Bldg, Room 150