Lightning Rod Blog

To be fair, shouldn't our mayor endorse other forms of marriage too?

noreply@blogger.com (Percy Conarroe) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:31:00 +0000

(Letter submitted to opinion@times-call.com on Feb. 5, 2012.)

About modern-day Longmont—and I’ve lived in Boulder County for 43 years--it seems that no sooner does one divisive issue such as the proposed LifeBridge annexation fade, than another controversy arises. In this case, the mayor’s action in endorsing same-sex marriages on an advocacy website.

That he has every right as an ordinary citizen to endorse whatever he chooses is indisputable. But I also believe that his signature as mayor indicates or at least strongly implies that he is speaking in behalf of the people of Longmont when, as far as I know, the council has never taken a position on this issue. Nor do we know how many people in our community might feel that if it is wrong to restrict the right to marry, then that freedom should be extended equally to people who passionately believe in polygamy or even same-blood marriage and plead that they too are being discriminated against.

The Longmont Municipal Code provides, among other things, that the city council shall consist of seven members, one of whom is mayor. Each council member is required to affirm support for the U.S. and Colorado constitutions.

Federal Law (1 U.S. Code Sec.7): Under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) the word marriage means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

Colorado Constitution (14-2-104(1)(b): Requires a marriage to be between one man and one woman. Like the federal government, Colorado does not recognize same-sex marriages even if performed in the six states that allow them: New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, plus Washington D.C.

If dozens of mayors across the land wish to sign the advocacy website, that’s between them and their constituents. What happens in Longmont’s local government is my business and yours, as residents.

Percy Conarroe

Hatred, jealousy, and bigotry alive and well on the Longmont Left

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 23:19:00 +0000

From the cluttered desk of the editor...
Again, welcome to Longmont Politics. And by the traffic numbers both on this site and the downloads of the KRCN 1060AM radio show we've been on, we're off to a great start. By design, this site links to Longmont related political stories mostly from other sources. But occasionally we'll throw in some opinion of our own. Like this.

Read the rest at Longmont Politics

Main Street Radio 12/19/11

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 03:58:00 +0000

Main Street Radio on the Radio Colorado Network (KRCN 1060AM) LIVE from Longmont, Colorado on December 19, 2011. Featuring Tom Chenault, Kiki Wallace, former Mayor Bryan Baum, and blogger/activist Chris Rodriguez.

Highlights include: Public speaker treatment at last council meeting, advisory board appointments, Chris takes a councilmember to the woodshed, interesting interactions between council members, El Comite asks for more city money, Bryan gives kudos to Clay Evans for his recent editorial about cronyism, an airplane has a "Christmas Miracle" on Hover, and Kiki goes after the City Manager for his attack on the former mayor.

The show airs on Mondays between 6pm-7pm, the call-in number is (877)711-5611
The RSS link to all shows on iTunes can be found here
Link to this particular show can be found here

Deny public money to political organizations

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:13:00 +0000

On the Tuesday December 20, 2011 Longmont City Council meeting agenda, there is a request from El Comite for $6,900 from the Council Contingency Fund. This fund currently has a balance of $26,982, El Comite is asking for a quarter of it. City Council should deny this request and end the ongoing subsidies to this and all political organizations.

If you're looking for a history of this group El Comite and what they do, go to their website where they state that they are "a grassroots organization dedicated to providing advocacy and social services for Latinos. We provide a variety of ongoing services through paid office personnel and a network of volunteers."

Other opinions of them are that they have a political wing that gets involved in elections and candidates campaigns - especially the recent election with their President Bob Norris strongly advocating for now Mayor Dennis Coombs. I will remind readers that when Mr. Coombs announced his candidacy his main reason was because of the Dream Act - where "qualifying undocumented (or illegal, depending on your point of view) youth would be eligible for a 6 year long conditional path to citizenship that requires completion of a college degree or two years of military service." (Source dreamact.info). Obviously, El Comite was and is strongly in favor of the Dream Act and marched numerous people to the City Council podium about this issue.

Helping out Latino/Hispanics and their support for federal programs is not the issue, whether you agree with them or not. The issue is taxpayer dollars going towards political organizations, or organizations that have political elements within them. Not only is El Comite asking for almost $7,000 for renovations, but they reside in a city building (455 Kimbark) that was donated to them and they have been paying nothing for utilities. So this isn't just a one time request for some assistance, it's been ongoing for several years.

If you read the letter to the city from El Comite about their requests (or demands depending on your point of view), you'll see they've already used up the time of the City Manager, Code Enforcement, and other city employees to formulate this request. Here's a list of what they want your money for: carpeting including pad, linoleum or tile, partitioning materials, paint, ceiling insulation and tiles (for sound proofing), windows, a toilet, duct cleaning, and POD rental.

Depending on an estimate of what that building would fetch on the open market (and go into the city's coffers) and the ongoing utility expenses over the term El Comite has been in this building, it's probably safe to estimate they've been the beneficiary of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Longmont taxpayer dollars. And in the City of Longmont 2012 Budget they are given another $15,000. Yet it isn't enough and they want more?

Longmont City Council should not only say NO to this request, but have El Comite find a way through other grants to pay their utilities and look for a non-city/taxpayer funded building to provide their services from. Doing this may make some, or most, councilmembers uncomfortable, but I personally have no time for excuses when it comes to pandering. They may point out that this is a city building and should be maintained. This is correct, it is and should once again be a city maintained building - for the use of the city or sold on the open market if the city doesn't need it anymore.

It's your tax dollars. Hasn't enough already been spent on this organization? The only way your council members will know is if you tell them.

Main Street Radio 12/12/11

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:10:00 +0000

Main Street Radio on the Radio Colorado Network (KRCN 1060AM) LIVE from Longmont, Colorado on December 12, 2011. Featuring Tom Chenault, Kiki Wallace, former Mayor Bryan Baum, and blogger/activist Chris Rodriguez.

Highlights include: skydiving noise complaints, Vance Brand Airport Master Plan, the new city council, and advisory board and commission appointments. This last issue became heated and a few controversial and surprising comments were shared on-air.

The show airs on Mondays between 6pm-7pm, the call-in number is (877)711-5611
The RSS link to all shows on iTunes can be found here
Link to this particular show can be found here

Political attacks not forgotten

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:43:00 +0000

I read with amusement in the Times-Call, and saw on TV during a recent council meeting, the musings of Longmont Area Democrat (LAD) President and Vice-President John & Judy Bigger in regards to the outcome of Longmont’s election. Maybe they’re not aware that when Mayor Dennis Coombs denounced certain campaign activity that he was, in all reality, talking about them and their cohorts.

Read the rest at Longmont Politics

Latest reapportionment stab no good

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Larison) — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:39:00 +0000

While it's a little soon to grasp the precise details on the latest Dem-railroaded CO House Reapportionment Commission maps, what I'm seeing today is headed in the wrong direction for Longmont...

With this latest commission map, Longmont is back to being split by Dists. 11 & 12, and 11 extends too far southwest toward Boulder--like it's been the previous 10 years. Dist. 10 is pushed south and out of the picture for Longmont, unlike the September commission adopted proposal which had a portion of Longmont west of Main and south of Ken Pratt in Dist. 10. These areas now appear to be back in Dist. 12.

Some key numbers for Longmont: the September proposal had 75,050 of Longmont's 86,270 population in Dist. 11, and the remaining 11,190 in Dist. 10 (none in 12). This new commission map has 59,998 of Longmont's pop. in Dist. 11, and 26,242 in Dist. 12.

The new proposed HD11 is also unbalanced party-wise -- with 35.1% D, 29.9% R, and 34.2% UAF -- whereas the September map had a closely balanced three-way split of competitiveness .

As Clear the Bench Colorado predicts, back to the Colorado Supreme Court we go.

Additional commentary from People's Press Collective (Nov. 30): Seeing Stars: Chicago-Style Gerrymandering in Colorado

Addendum: Original approved map (Sept. 2011)

One Step "Forward", Two Steps Back

noreply@blogger.com (Stephanie Baum) — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:10:00 +0000

Moving Longmont Forward was established for one sole purpose – to remove my husband from office. And by seven-tenths of a percent of the vote, they did. And for that I thank them because our family got to take its first vacation in two years, to Disneyland – a vacation well deserved by all! But, that victory came at a cost, and the cost was truthfulness and integrity in campaigning.

Now, Dennis Coombs will be the first to tell you (because he told us) that he wanted to win on his own merits. But he didn’t, and he knows he didn’t. And now he is admittedly overwhelmed by the magnitude of responsibility that comes with the job and time commitment necessary to get it done. Sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for. And that is true for those who supported the Moving Longmont Forward committee. If this group had produced mailers that were truthful, that’s one thing. But their attack piece was filled with outright lies, misstatements of fact and information taken out of context. When confronted with the truth, Richard Juday showed no remorse but instead played the victim by crying foul about his own failed campaign run. Except the one difference is when he was campaigning, it was his words and actions that were used against him, and when evidence was shown that something about him was incorrect, it was immediately rectified, in one instance with a mea culpa printed in the Times-Call.

All of the inaccuracies of the attack piece have been documented and yet no contributors have stepped forward to apologize or try to correct the mistakes, and in fact some, like the editors behind Free Range Longmont have made sure that everyone knows their support for the group is unwavering despite the lies (but then again, Doug Wray, as part of a Times-Call story admitted that he is only a blogger so he isn’t bound to tell the truth - as if that was news to anyone reading.) But today is a new day and some of those who contributed money to the effort are hoping we all forget.

They’re hoping no one will know that they directly supported a campaign of hate, lies and attacks. People like Jonathan Singer who is running for Colorado House District 11. Does Longmont really want someone representing them who participated in this kind of divisiveness? Sadly, Jonathan already has some affect on our city as he sits on the Planning and Zoning Board. And what about people like Joan Peck, Chair of the Library Board and Darcy Juday, Vice-chair of the Water Board? They also made financial contributions to Moving Longmont Forward and sit on city boards.

Add Kaye Fissinger, another editor of Free Range Longmont who has constantly bad-mouthed Bryan, trying to call him a Nazi and connect him to the KKK - she’s the Chair of the Board of Environment Affairs. Don’t forget Greg Iwan, a regular contributor to Free Range Longmont who is a member of the Longmont Housing Authority. All of these appointees will be up for re-appointment either this year or in the next two, and they all should be removed. They have displayed a bitter partisanship that isn’t healthy for our city and does anything but move Longmont forward.

Of course, there are others who contributed to that hate campaign and who repeatedly lend their pen to the rubbish called Free Range Longmont: Teresa Lichti, Karen Benker, Don and Jerilyn Wilson, Shari Malloy, Padma Wick, Gillian Ivers-Read, Daniel Gould, Robert Drener, Michael Flanagan, Lee Springer, Teresa Foster, Richard Hansen, Strider Bensten, Charles Hanson, Ruby Bowman, Don Boyer, Marisa Dirks, James Kenworthy, Don Coulson and Stephen Szabo. If their names come up as candidates for boards and commissions, show them that they don’t represent Longmont and won’t represent Longmont.

Moving Longmont Forward proved to be a largely inept organization – their attack piece was filled with spelling and punctuation errors, their reports were suspect and had to be corrected on several occasions when omissions were pointed out. Plus, over 60% of their funding was from a Washington Lobbyist group. What is that you say? It was only 30%? I’m sorry, I was using the same math that Moving Longmont Forward used when they said Bryan took “over 60%” of his contributions in 2009 from Realtors and developers when the documents on the City Clerk’s website clearly add up to less than 35%. Proof again that the committee was inept.

As I mentioned, Dennis Coombs is already finding out that you might regret what you wish for, and I think some of the voters are starting to find that out too. Others are going to soon find out that your actions speak louder than words, and like words, they can and will be used against you. Jonathan Singer and his supporters can try and delete every comment questioning his support for negative campaigning but facts are facts and truth is truth and it won’t be covered up.

New site: Longmont Politics

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 22:00:00 +0000

A new site has come to the Longmont political landscape: Longmont Politics. The concept is that of a news, commentary, and opinion aggregator. What's an aggregator? According to Wikipedia, it: "refers to a web site that aggregates a specific type of information from multiple online sources." Longmont Politics goal is to collect and post this information as long as it pertains to politics in Longmont - hence the name, obviously.

We plan on rolling many of our other online activities into this one site. From Wrongmont, Longmont Advocate, and Lightning Rod blogs will come the commentary and opinion element. From VoteLongmont will come the informational and educational element. And from the former podcast will come the reporting and dissemination element.

Based on the recent election cycle, which was an off-year non-federal election, and the highest traffic we've ever seen on our sites (Lightning Rod for opinion and VoteLongmont for non-biased voter information) it was obvious there was plenty of interest in a one-stop shop for politics in Longmont. Now there is one with a name and website address that's easy to remember. www.longmontpolitics.com

Most of the entries will be links back to news and newspaper websites with articles that pertain to local politics. These will be presented with no more than a couple of sentences from the online article, and without commentary. Then, as with the former Longmont Advocate Podcast, there will be something similar to its "City Council Watch", which will hyperlink to upcoming agendas and meetings. Lastly, opinion and commentary. The goal here is to not be a blog, but opinion pieces similar to what is submitted to newspapers for printing. Hence, many of the rules on this site will be similar to some newspaper's policies.

After years of owning sites and being a part of sites with other contributors, it is not the goal of Longmont Politics to build a "stable" of writers and contributors. Nor will it be a "community forum" type of site with the back-and-forth that comes with that (flame wars, sniping, insults, etc). I've seen those kinds of sites go down in flames in spectacular fashion and don't plan on repeating it. There will be no nicknames, pseudonyms, or anonymous posters. All of the above can be found at other websites - if that's your preference, stay on or with those sites.

So if you'd like to send in commentary and opinion to LP, and are not part of a collective on a different website, send your spell/grammar checked piece (no longer than 700 words) to Chris Rodriguez at admin@longmontpolitics.com. In return, your words and thoughts can be seen by hundreds of visitors a day and you can be spared the online attacks so prevalent on other sites - again, there will be no comment section. Not every piece will be ran, especially those not following our submission rules. The Complaint Dept can be set up on your own personal website.

Enjoy.

Thrill Is Gone? Matthews Turns On Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Larison) — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 18:35:00 +0000

For our Longmont Progressive friends, including new HD11 candidate and Obama devotee Jonathan Singer, seems like the tingling is gone for MSNBC's Chris Matthews...

Apply pandering liberally to affected area

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:00:00 +0000

Every so often, our liberal/progressive friends accidentally state their true intentions with their supposed love of “diversity” and “inclusiveness”. What they say is: “There’s a lot of those Hispanics and whoever corals them and their votes will win every election”, in so many words. It’s a national as well as local phenomenon, including right here in Longmont, as the Hispanic/Latino demographic is a force to consider in politics.

When a national radio/tv host speaks on this issue, or any issue that applies to a situation in Longmont, I try to highlight it and draw local parallels. A few days ago, nationally syndicated radio host and best-selling author Mark Levin spoke on this issue and the wider issue of President Obama's hope to "fundamentally transform" (his words) this country.

And the loyal foot-soldiers are right here in Longmont. Unlike them, with the endless pandering, I'll go ahead and say what a lot of you are already thinking. Fellow contributor Dave Larison spelled some of it out in his guest opinion in the Times-Call with what's occurring at the local YMCA, or do we not call it that anymore? See, it's part political correctness, part pandering, with a dash of bigotry masked as "acceptance". In other words, it's what I like to call...crap.

Make no mistake, while I say what I say, I'm not pandering for anyone's votes, money, or attention. And you that take issue with it, I'm not interested in hearing from you, no matter what your political persuasion - as I've heard this pandering from both sides of the political aisle and I'm fairly tired of it. In both party's cases it's for political gain and I'm sure I'm not the only one seeing right through it, so save it.

Yes, my name ends in UEZ and I have a family with a long history in the Democratic Party. I saw enough pandering and "what was expected" of us, considering our last name, to make me want to vomit. President Jimmy Carter, while he was president, even spent the night at my cousins house under the guise of mixing it up with a poor Chicano family - what a crock that was. (Feel free to look it up, circa 1979 Los Angeles, CA). So before I was even voting age I knew bullshit when I saw it and for more reasons that I'll put in one post vowed to never join that joke of a political party (and will be joining my wife in quitting the other political party).

But I'm always curious how others feel about being a perennial political football. Do you really feel the need for organizations like El Comite or the Longmont Area Democrats to stoke some kind of racial resentment and perpetual victimization? I can't tell you what kind of a laugh I get whenever I see the fairly pale (as in non-Latino) president of El Comite, who is a LAD hack, speak on behalf of the city's Hispanic/Latino population. Rest assured it's not out of any altruism - it's purely political and you're being played like a fiddle. If you're okay with that, have a nice life, at least you know. I prefer to live in the real world.

As I wrote previously, I believe the Hispanic/Latino vote played a part in our recent election. Bryan Baum was clearly against having the city vote on a federal issue (the Dream Act) and Dennis Coombs cited that issue as his main reason for running in the mayoral race. This is old news and not an attack on our new mayor - that's his position on the issue, so be it. When the vote gap is less than 200 votes, it's safe to say this issue may have gotten Mr. Coombs over the hump - that, and El Comite and LAD shilling for him. Problem is, this issue probably won't come before City Council again, and if it did I'm pretty confident the outcome would be exactly the same. Sorry you who voted for him thought differently - this is political reality.

The real question is this: will Hispanic/Latino voters continue to show allegiance to a philosophy (liberalism/progressivism) and leaders (from Obama all the way down) who will say anything for a vote, yet deliver very little? And will they stand for it when they're called the equivalent of an Uncle Tom when they question or abandon these leaders and their ideology?

Do yourself a favor and show some damn independence.

Mayor-elect Coombs begins term on wise and positive note

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 05:36:00 +0000

A while back, then candidate Dennis Coombs inquired about a "beer summit" with me before the campaign season really heated up. Like most of these types of invitations (beer, coffee, lunch, dinner, etc) I receive on a regular basis, I passed as my time is fairly limited - and I wasn't particularly thrilled with the company he kept. I finally responded to that email today and wished him well in his tenure as mayor of Longmont. Based on the events of today, he's off to a promising start.

With about 2 weeks left in the campaign, a fairly despicable group called "Moving Longmont Forward" put out an attack mailer on Mayor Bryan Baum. Around the same time, an attack blogsite put out an attack piece on Mayor Baum about an incident involving a dog fight that had nothing to do with Longmont or the job of mayor. A few days later, Mr. Coombs had a letter in the Times-Call denouncing both of these actions. In it he said, "I would never condone a political attack ad or bringing up of that year-old unfortunate dog story incident". I wasn't convinced, and the same day wrote "Dennis Coombs' denouncements fall on deaf ears". His denouncement was made in the heat of the campaign at a time when every vote counted. As we would find out, literally every vote did matter as the results were as close as an election could be.

On the Friday after the election, Mr. Coombs repeated these denouncements, but with a little more teeth, when he said: "I want all of these negative innuendoes against the Baum family stopped...I never agreed with those attacks. I was never behind those attacks. And if there's anyone who thinks they're doing me a favor by that - don't. I don't need that kind of help." (source Times-Call). This does not fall on deaf ears, and here's why:

Mr. Coombs did not need to make this statement, he won, the race was over. By making this statement, he risks angering a fairly unbalanced segment of Longmont. Unfortunately, these were also the people who helped him get elected in their own nefarious way. These are the people I've written about endlessly on this and other blogs that any serious candidate or representative should steer as far away from - for this very reason. Don't worry, I won't let anyone forget who they are, but all one has to do is peruse this website to see who they are and why they should never be taken seriously - and are basically a tumor on the city.

I guess my detractors could level the same charge at me. The big difference is that, unlike them, I've never targeted spouses of candidates or councilmembers, nor have I seen anyone else do that. This is their bread and butter. The excuse they give is that Stephanie Baum was formerly a blogger and is fair game, which is a similar approach they take with my wife. Here's a tip, you pack of morons: I've been with my wife for four decades, we (Bryan and I) don't think of our wives as bloggers/activists first, which is an activity they've done (blogging) for a short period of time, relatively speaking. They are our wives, the mothers of our children, and we know it drives the haters crazy when they see that couples can actually be an effective team. I'm sure that entire paragraph went right over their narrow-minded heads, but at least everyone else is clear on the difference.

But back to the point. This was as divisive a campaign as Longmont has probably ever seen. With the possibility of delays and recounts, it could have gotten much worse. Bryan Baum and Dennis Coombs took a huge step towards putting that all in the past and putting Longmont before ego's and agendas. They both deserved to be applauded for that. For the record, the Baums had asked me to back off of Mr. Coombs during the campaign - something probably nobody knows. I didn't for a couple of reasons: I saw the abuse my friends (the Baums) were taking at the hands of Mr. Coombs supporters, and while he later denounced them, it was too little too late. All the stumbles Mr. Coombs had made did actually occur, I didn't make them up out of thin air. And again, the company one keeps says a lot.

I did pledge to Mr. Coombs that I would not do what Mayor Baums detractors did to him for over 2 years. Before he was even sworn in they "prayed for locust" and asked that everyone "wear blue" to every meeting, and essentially have a two year protest of the 2009 election. These are the adult children in our midst. I also offered Mr. Coombs my assistance in any airport related matter since I am currently on the city airport board, and overall wished him success. That's how grown-ups operate, regardless if your candidates won or lost.

Those that he denounced though will not receive the benefit of the doubt that I extend to Mr. Coombs. Quoting U.S. Senator John McCain, "I will make them famous and you will know their names". That's not sour grapes or being a sore loser. I consider this election a success as the majority went from 4-3 to 5-2 and I'd take Coombs/Levison any day over McCoy/Hansen. I suspect civility on council will be greatly increased due to the makeup of this council.

My intent is to make sure, dear readers, that those who'd rather rip our city apart for their own political agenda do not skitter away unknown behind the floorboards like the cockroaches they are. This should help pave the way for this council to get down to the business of running the city in a productive way for the benefit of all citizens. Or at least the ones who really want to move Longmont forward.

Longmont 2011 Election Post-Mortem Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 02:59:00 +0000

Well, regardless of how much I'm told how irrelevant I am, since LRod's visits have skyrocketed leading up to and after the election, it appears some people must be curious on my take on Longmont's recent election. I was happy just making my award-winning (and about to win again) chili and listening to music (yep, all 80's) - but I don't want to let down my friends and enemas. So here's some initial observations.

In a word, the results so far are odd. How about strange, or bizarre? More like a little inconsistent. I base my projections on what went on during the campaign season, and more importantly, early return numbers based on city wards, party affiliation of who's voted so far, past turnout, past results, and current trends. It appears at this time that the four races were basically split - with two candidates that the more left leaning faction supported winning and also two candidates supported by the more right leaning factions.

There are rumors of a nearly 50% voter turnout in Longmont, which would be quite high for an off year election. The final numbers coming out of the Boulder County Clerk's Office prior to the election had about 28% turnout up to that point. In 2009 Longmont had a 37% turnout. I assumed about 40%. Based on that I projected 20,000 votes for the citywide races (Mayor, At-Large, etc) and I was pretty close in the Mayor race. Considering Republicans were outpacing Democrats and, in my opinion, there are probably more right-leaning among the unaffiliated, I gave the right-leaning candidates the edge.

For Ward 1 and 3 that pretty much panned out, except Bagley and Finley won by much larger margins than I projected. At one point Daniels had the exact number I projected for him, but eventually I was off by 38 votes. The order of the candidates in Ward 1 was right on the money, although I figured Painter would have received about 4% more votes and Hansen 1% less. So Wards 1 and 3 held up to the model.

The At-Large race pretty much played out as I assumed and I picked Levison's votes within 100 votes of her final total, and I nailed Gallegos at 25%. Young though way over-performed, pulling in a whopping 1805 votes, congrats go to him, not sure how he pulled that off. One theory I heard was that Republicans may have done some research and found that the other three candidates were all Democrats and either didn't vote at all or threw one at Young - I have no idea of his party affiliation. I hope that's why there was a 1500+ vote discrepancy between the mayoral and at-large race, more on that later. For a newcomer, Heath Carroll pulled in a respectable 5,431 votes and 28%.

Of course, the biggest surprise was the mayoral race, and at this time is only 164 votes apart. Supposedly, the county still has 300 or so votes to count and it will be tough, but not impossible, for Mayor Baum to narrow the gap into the automatic recount area. If Dennis Coombs really pulled in over 10,000 votes (as did Baum), that's quite a performance. Currently the vote sits at just outside the automatic recount threshold, although Mayor Baum could pay for and request one. I don't know how much that costs, and if it's worth it, and we may not have a resolution to this until after the swearing in on Monday.

If Coombs really got that many votes and pulls off a victory, it will obviously be no great mandate, but it will be a victory nonetheless. What's odd is that his victory carried no coattails with it, which to me is why the results are, at the very least, curious. Why would someone vote for him but not the other candidates? Levison had over 62% vote against her, and Hansen and McCoy got smoked. And why would someone vote in the mayoral race, yet leave the At-Large portion of their ballot blank? If there is a manual recount, I'm sure those ballots will be looked at. Out of those 1500+ ballots, could there have been some double votes for mayor? I would assume the machine they use would reject those, but I've heard bad things about their machines at BoCo.

I had heard the Coombs campaign leaned heavily on the Hispanic vote, especially with his Dream Act support. But El Comite also supported Hansen and McCoy, and other literature from various groups supported all four of these candidates as a, ahem, "bloc" of candidates. At least in Hansen and McCoy voters knew what they were getting, for better or worse. Coombs by comparison was an unknown quantity.

And if Republicans came out in equal or higher numbers than Democrats, it can only mean one thing for Baum: they bailed on him. Considering (and some of you may not know this) that the "old guard" or "old money" in Longmont threw Baum under the bus within 2 weeks of the 2009 election - a move they came to regret later when he won - it appears (from this vantage point, which wasn't part of anyone's campaign) that they were willing to watch from the sidelines and let Baum live and die on his own. It's one of many reasons I don't get involved with the "establishment", regardless of what anyone deludes themselves into thinking.

So, bottom line, if current votes hold up, the 4-3 majority on council has now become a 5-2 majority with Coombs and Levison in the minority. Two fairly ideological individuals (Hansen and McCoy) join Karen Benker in Longmont's political dustbin, and we're left with two supposedly fiscal conservatives, or at least that's how they portrayed themselves. Just getting McCoy off the council (and Benker in '09) is worth the price of admission for me, and I think Coombs (should his lead hold up) will be in for a rude awakening to how time and energy consuming the job of Mayor really is. And I'm not sure how enjoyable it will be continually being on the losing side of 5-2 or 4-3 votes.

Either way, good luck to all the victors. More to come...

..........Memo to Sean McCoy........

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Larison) — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 22:33:00 +0000

Election 2011

Daddy McCoy to Junior...

UNELECTMCCOY: Just a reminder - McCoy "Worst Councilmember Ever"

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 05:06:00 +0000

Countdowns
Might be a bit premature, but everyone in Longmont should soon be celebrating the end of the long and miserable tenure of Sean McCoy to Longmont City Council. Barring some serious ballot stuffing and mass hypnosis in Ward 3, the clock above represents the countdown to 7pm Nov 1 - even though the new councilmembers won't be sworn in until next week. Below is the famous, or infamous, McCoy's Greatest Fits.

UN-ElectMcCoy gladly presents a YouTube collection of Sean McCoy's Greatest Fits, leading off with the infamous "lunatic fringe" speech...

YouTube - Sean McCoy targets "lunatic fringe"
January 31, 2008
Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy scolds the "lunatic fringe" in Longmont who don't pay homage to the People's Republic of Boulder. (Council meeting; 1-29-08) Ref:http://longmontadvocate.blogspot.com/2008/02/symbionic-smackdown.html

YouTube - Sean McCoy targets Firestone Mayor Simone
March 19, 2008
Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy accuses Firestone Mayor Mike Simone of slander. (Council meeting; 3-18-08)Ref:http://longmontadvocate.blogspot.com/2008/03/longmontfirestone-dustup-pt3.html

YouTube - Sean McCoy's perceived "agitators and aggressors"
March 26, 2008
Paranoid Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy lauds police presence at the meeting to protect against supposed "agitators and aggressors." (Council meeting 3-25-08) Ref: http://longmontadvocate.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html

YouTube - Sean McCoy fears being taken out of context?
April 02, 2008
Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy claims people are being cute and taking him out of context when reproducing his on-the-record public rants. (Council meeting; 4-1-08)

YouTube - Sean McCoy cheapshots LifeBridge
May 28, 2008
Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy makes snide inferences and exaggerations toward the LifeBridge Christian Church previous annexation process into the city. (Council meeting; 5-27-08)Ref: http://longmontadvocate.blogspot.com/2008/05/city-council-cheap-shots.html

YouTube - Sean McCoy shows anti-growth agenda
July 09, 2008
City Council member Sean McCoy overreacts with anti-development extremism to a simple IGA for potential access points providing better traffic flow along the CO Hwy 119 corridor into Longmont. (Council meeting; 7-8-08) Ref:http://longmontadvocate.blogspot.com/2008/07/let-confusion-reign.html

YouTube - Sean McCoy charges "phony patriotism"
July 15, 2008
Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy makes slanderous remarks toward the Vote! Longmont booth presence at the city's Rhythm on the River event. (Council meeting; 7-15-08) Ref: http://longmontadvocate.blogspot.com/2008/07/phony-patriotism.html

YouTube - Sean McCoy disses Centerra development
January 28, 2009
No-growth Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy decries neighboring Larimer County and the city of Loveland's use of urban renewal tools to achieve its dynamic and successful Centerra development
along I-25. McCoy labeled the process "loose and fast play." (Council meeting; 1-27-09)

YouTube - Sean McCoy: Obama worshiper
January 28, 2009
Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy makes sappy praise and a bumbling reading on the evening of Barack Obama's inauguration. (Council meeting; 1-20-09)

YouTube - Sean McCoy bungles agenda reading
February 26, 2009
Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy stumbles through a consent agenda motion in his typical bumbling style. (Council meeting; 2-24-09)

YouTube - Sean McCoy explains sucking methane gas
April 1, 2009
Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy muddles thru what he learned at recent NLC Conference regarding green initiatives, saying "one of the members of a community close to Portland is sucking methane gas" and "they suck enough methane gas off (from garbage dump) to run a city of 75,000." (Council meeting; 3-31-09)

YouTube - Sean McCoy gripes about noisy minority
May 13, 2009
Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy once again bellyaches saying those who criticize are a "noisy minority" using the local newspaper as a "stick to beat council with on a regular basis." (Council meeting; 5-12-09)

YouTube - Sean McCoy rails against Gabe Santos
May 13, 2009
Worked up Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy denounces fellow councilmember Gabe Santos for his supposed rhetoric and negativity. (Council meeting; 5-12-09)

YouTube - Sean McCoy sinks to a new low
August 18, 2009
Longmont City Council member Sean McCoy re-targets the "lunatic fringe" in Longmont with another round of juvenile name-calling and public insults toward those who raise legitimate concerns about public policy done in secret at council executive sessions. (Council meeting; 8-18-09) Ref: http://longmontadvocate.blogspot.com/2009/08/more-insults-from-longmont-city.html

YouTube - Sean McCoy slanders "radical negative bloggers"
September 1, 2009
Longmont City Council member crosses the line into slander by absurdly accusing "fringe groups like LIFT and websites like Wrongmont and Longmont Advocate" of costing the city millions of dollars in lost real estate and business revenue. (Council meeting; 9-1-09)

Home stretch of Longmont 2011 Election: Turnout and projections

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:00:00 +0000

Predicting voter turnout is never an easy task, especially in off (or odd) year elections like this years. Predicting actual winners is equally difficult as it all boils down to who gets out the vote and who doesn't. I'll try to make a stab at these with educated guesses based on past history and trends.

As of 10/28/11, the Boulder County Clerk's Office is reporting that 170,993 ballots have been mailed countywide, and 38,442 have been returned from voters (22%). 11,281 have been returned "undeliverable" (6.6%). In 2009, Longmont had a turnout rate of about 37%, with about 17,000 votes for citywide races and 7,000 votes in Ward 2. This year, Ward 1 (considering similar turnout) should have less than 7,000 total votes, and Ward 3 possibly less than 6,000 total votes.

Turnout
When I hear people I consider fairly intelligent and aware of what's going on in Longmont ask "is there an election in Longmont this year?", it answers my question of why turnout is always too low in off-year elections. I suspect we'll probably see somewhere between 37%-40% turnout based on a contentious mayoral race, but more likely because of the Comcast/fiber issue (Longmont 2A) as well as the statewide school/tax ballot issue Proposition 103.

Predictions?

As always, results are based on who gets out the vote and who doesn't. I have my own ideas of how it's going to go, but I'll withhold those and point out some numbers.

Mayor
Bryan Baum beat former Mayor Roger Lange in 2009 by 1,364 votes, or about 8%. Mayor Lange was a long-time council member, and mayor obviously, and was well known and well liked. I don't recall any negative campaigning done on his behalf or against him, but he still couldn't hit 46% of votes. To expect a relative unknown (with people doing some dastardly things on his behalf) running a fairly inept campaign, I can't see Dennis Coombs receiving all of Lange's votes, PLUS the other 683 required to overtake Baum. Even take away 500 of Baums votes (highly unlikely) and give them to Coombs and it's still not enough - again, considering Coombs gets all of Lange's votes. I see this race as pretty difficult for Coombs to pull off. As previously mentioned, Baum is far out in front in contributions and spending.

Ward 1
This will be a three way race with the odds of anyone breaking over 50% of the vote unlikely. I think Brian Hansen's negatives, regardless of name ID, and Suzzanne Painter's inexperience coupled with little support in the way of contributions will probably lead to Brian Bagley winning. There's a good chance also that Hansen and Painter will split voters. The more that happens, the better it works out for Bagley. As previously mentioned, Bagley has a huge lead in contributions and spending.

Ward 3
Sean McCoy beat Bonnie Finley by 242 votes in 2007, and they are matched up again for 2011. I can't believe that any city councilmember has higher negatives than Sean McCoy, actually through a source I heard via polling it's not even close. Finley has raised more than 4 times in contributions and has regular ads in the Times-Call print and online edition. Considering everything over the last four years, if 122 voters aren't persuaded to flip to Finley, there is no hope for Ward 3.

At-Large
I suspect this will be the closest of all the races, quite possibly having someone winning by less than 150 votes. Sarah Levison did get 7,009 votes in 2007 to Gabe Santos' 6,319, but they didn't have a viable third candidate (no offense Paul Tiger). Ron Gallegos will peel away some of those 7009 votes, as will Heath Carroll. People that voted for Gallegos in the past in Ward 3 possibly will do so again. Carroll has gained name ID through Times-Call stories of his signs being stolen and his banner being slashed to pieces. Levison has some negative name ID, only second to McCoy, via some polling. Will it be enough? Too close to call.

I keep an eye on the "chatter", and it seems to be leaning towards the current 4-3 council becoming 5-2 at the very least, with 6-1 very possible, and an outside chance at a clean sweep 7-0. In all reality, knowing some of the current and possible future councilmembers, it will never really be a 7-0, and often at times the 4 in the current 4-3 are far from harmonious. How the newer councilmembers blend in is hard to say, but it can't be any worse than Levison, Hansen, and McCoy. As I've written, they are Longmont's version of the "Party of NO" and are obstructionists just for the sake of being a collective pain in the ass, essentially. There's no nice way to put it.

Voters would do well to clean up the mess left behind by the 2007 election and give someone new a chance, with the exception of incumbent Mayor Baum who deserves another 2 year term.

Next, we'll sift through the fallout after the election.

Home stretch of Longmont 2011 Election: The money game

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 03:53:00 +0000

With just a couple of days left to get votes in, there are some races that can already be called. Of course, I'm talking about the money race, as of the 3rd Reporting Period for candidates. People can argue about the importance, or lack thereof, of contributions, but the candidates who raised and spent the most in 2009 won.

The 3rd Reporting Period only went until 10/23/11, so it's possible that some candidates received more in the way of contributions in the final week and beyond - but many candidates contributions had dried up by this last period. For reference, Katie Witt held the contributions record in Longmont based on the $17,850 she raised in 2009. Ms. Witt also won by the largest margin of all the 2009 races.

But Mayor Bryan Baum has eclipsed that this year with the $20,788 he's raised so far. It looks doubtful that any other candidate this year will knock Ms. Witt off of second place all time.

The only way one can say that contributions equal support among voters is to deduct money a candidate is pouring into their campaign. So I deducted candidates contributions to themselves. Leading this category, and by a lot, and by more than any other candidate I've ever seen, is Dennis Coombs. Of his $12,075, $3,800 is his own money. Of course the irony is how his supporters constantly rail against people buying their way into office, and obviously he contributed way more than any citizen could contribute - which is legal in funding your own campaign. So in real money, the mayor's race is: Bryan Baum $20,788.39 to Dennis Coombs $8,275.64. In percentages that's 71.53% - 28.47%.

In the At-Large race, Heath Carroll has contributed $1,200 to his campaign, although more than half of that is from his company and investment LLC. Considering Sarah Levison contributed a lower number ($300) to herself, she ends up on top (so far) with (in real money) $5,326.93, Heath Carroll $4,492.27, and Ron Gallegos $1,488.97. In percentages that's 47.11% Levison, 39.73% Carroll, and 13.17% Gallegos.

In the Ward 1 race, self-funding was nearly non-existent. In real money the totals (so far) are: Brian Bagley $10,208.03, Suzzanne Painter $2,161.30, Paul Tiger $736.12, and Brian Hansen $70. In percentages, well, it's not even close: 77.32% - 16.37% - 5.78% - 0.53% respectively.

In the Ward 3 race, there wasn't a whole lot of self-funding. In real money the totals (so far) are: Bonnie Finley $6,932.94 to Sean McCoy's $1,558.99. In percentages that's 81.64% - 18.36%.

Obviously I don't expect any of these percentages to equal actual vote percentages, but if the past is any indication, the results of who's ahead in the money usually comes out ahead in votes. There has also been money spent in "independent expenditures" on both sides. Based on what I'm hearing from the grapevine, the Moving Longmont Forward attack mailer sent out against Mayor Baum may have the opposite desired effect. I've heard it's mainly being sent to Republicans and unaffiliated voters, big mistake in my opinion. But we'll soon find out the effect of this activity as well as the effect of contributions.

End partisanship with this election

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 15:00:00 +0000

(A version of this article ran in the Saturday 10/29/11 Times-Call)
I get asked all the time why do I get involved in local politics? The answer is twofold. First, local ordinances and regulations have a far greater effect on your everyday life than some behemoth bureaucracy at the federal level. And secondly, it’s easier for a citizen to become knowledgeable of and affect those local policies – in other words, “take on city hall”.

A symptom of most people in a community like Longmont is apathy on local issues. They may vote every four years for President, maybe, but they are oblivious to the issues that more closely affect them. Turnout numbers support this as many registered voters don’t even bother filling out a ballot during odd years like this one. They probably don’t know what ward they live in, what a ward even is, who their councilmember is, or who the candidates are.

Oh well, you know that old saying about leading a horse to water…

If there was a third reason I liked following local politics it was because of its non-partisan nature. Most city issues don’t have to be ideologically driven, either right or left. In the first few years I followed and wrote about city council I couldn’t tell you the party affiliation of council members. I spoke to them all, and vice-versa, and it was never an issue.

That all changed in 2007. At around that time things were pretty, well, boring, for lack of a better word. In politics, boring can be a good thing. But beneath the surface an ideologically-driven agenda to transform local politics into a political machine was afoot. In Longmont it culminated with the election of four ideologically driven individuals taking majority control of city council.

They had the backing and support of much larger organizations that had nearly unlimited funds. Read the book “The Blueprint” by Adam Schrager and Rob Witwer to get a feel for this. Its epilogue reads “With discipline and focus, they have pioneered a legal architecture designed to take advantage of new campaign finance laws and an emerging breed of progressive donors who are willing to commit unprecedented resources to local races.”

For their efforts, they got current councilmembers Sarah Levison, Sean McCoy, Brian Hansen, and former councilmember Karen Benker installed on our council and a 4-3 majority. These four wasted no time in instituting the agenda they were groomed for. In fact one of their first efforts was amending Longmont’s own campaign finance law. They proudly wore their political ideology on their sleeves, falsely assuming the citizens supported their agenda.

They moved quickly to change Longmont in their ideological and partisan image – and for their efforts were met with one lawsuit after another from neighboring towns, the local newspaper, and citizens and local organizations. They took every cheap shot possible against a local church, LifeBridge Christian Church, essentially driving them out of town and into the hands of Firestone. They also voted to stall any possible improvements at the Twin Peaks Mall. This was all part of the plan, and all on the agenda.

But Longmont citizens paid the price for this “bloc’s” efforts - through multiple losses in court, a massively diminished Twin Peaks Mall, and the subsequent lost tax revenue and lost jobs. Their road to Longmont’s destruction was slowed in 2009 with the decisive vote against their leader, Karen Benker, who was as divisive and ideological as they come.

But three of them still remain on council – Levison, McCoy, and Hansen.

I don’t usually endorse candidates as my style is to point out voting records, statements, and positions of elected officials. The three above councilmembers are all running for re-election and do not deserve to be retained on city council. I’m endorsing Mayor Bryan Baum, Brian Bagley, Heath Carroll, and Bonnie Finley for Longmont City Council. These four candidates represent different political parties, not that it should matter, and I’d prefer for now on that it doesn’t matter. This is not about party; it’s about competence and confidence in our elected leaders, and learning from past mistakes for a better future for Longmont.

Don’t forget to fill out your mail-in ballot.

Leftwing political committee scrambles to “fix” campaign report

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:51:00 +0000

Within about 12 hours of this blog's reporting of Moving Longmont Forward's questionable campaign report and $1,500 contribution by big labor organization AFSCME, their registered agent Teresa Lichti had to scramble to the Longmont City Clerk's office to amend their report. Although this was reported as a violation of the LFCPA, it appears the presumption of innocence might be overplayed when there should be a question of honesty.

The complaint reads as follows: Alleged Violation(s): Failure to disclose a contribution
A $1500 contribution made by AFSCME to Moving Longmont Forward was received on 10/14/11, which is during the 2nd reporting period which closed on 10/15/11. MLF made their amended 2nd period report on 10/19/11 but did not report this contribution. It was reported on 10/26/11 in their 3rd report, 12 days after the contribution was received. Also, this AFSCME contribution was not reported as a “political committee contribution” on Schedule A.

-----------------------------------

This violation was supposedly remedied by Ms. Lichti producing a check from AFSCME that was dated 10/14/11 and received on 10/17/11. Then why did she report just one day earlier that it was received on 10/14/11? And that 10/14/11 date clearly falls into the 2nd reporting period, yet was put in the box of 3rd reporting period on their report. I see now that there's no "Amended 3rd Report", they just lined through 10/14/11 and wrote 10/17/11. See for yourself.

You may also notice at the top of this report that there's a check box for PERIOD 4, not PERIOD 3, that is until this is just lined through also. At what point does the City Clerks Office not assume "honest mistakes"? These sure aren't the only "flaws" in their reports - which will be written about soon, and have been reported to the City Clerk and the Times-Call. These, though, won't be so easy to weasel out of.

In my opinion, Ms. Lichti and her leftwing operatives at Moving Longmont Forward didn't want it known that they received big labor, outside-of-Longmont funding to carry out their hate crusade against Mayor Bryan Baum - while also advocating for Dennis Coombs, Sarah Levison, Sean McCoy, and Brian Hansen. Or at least not have it released to the public until less than a week before the election.

On its face, read literally, there were irregularities in the campaign reports for Moving Longmont Forward. Or Ms. Lichti can just play the innocent and ignorant card, which the former is unlikely while the latter isn't. Added to the upcoming complaints against this group, at some point the City Clerks Office will have to enforce our campaign law or what's the point of having it and its associated fines?

Or, next time I get ticketed for running a stop sign, I should just ask the officer if I could just back up or go around the block and stop at it next time. Pretty ridiculous, right?

Moving Longmont Forward…with big outside political money

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 04:30:00 +0000

Remember all of those people wailing about big, outside money affecting our elections in Longmont? Well, now they are doing it themselves, but it must be okay since it’s them doing it, right? Wrong. The political committee “Moving Longmont Forward” (MLF), which recently sent out a factually and grammatically challenged attack mailer against Mayor Baum, is now the beneficiary of money ($1,500) from mega-union organization AFSCME.

They sound familiar? AFSCME, or the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, was behind all the demonstrations, riots, and various other questionable activities in Wisconsin recently. Now they’re involving themselves in Longmont’s politics by contributing to MLF, no doubt begged by MLF members and/or their registered agent, Teresa Lichti.

While the contribution itself is legal, although reveals some serious double-standard hypocrisy from those asking for and accepting this money, there are problems with how MLF reported it and could be a violation of Longmont’s Fair Campaign Practices Act (LFCPA). An ordinance I know a little something about.

First, this contribution was received on 10/14/11 which is during the 2nd reporting period. MLF did not report this contribution on their initial or amended 2nd report (10/19/11). They finally reported it on their 3rd report (10/26/11) as occurring in the 3rd reporting period but the date given (10/14/11) is clearly in the 2nd reporting period. This is a violation of 2.04.211(C)5 and has a fine of $100 a day for up to 10 days, this was more than 10 days.

Secondly, this was clearly a “political committee contribution”, but was not reported as such in MLF’s 3rd report. There is a separate area on Schedule A for this kind of contribution, and it was not reported in that area. If this was not a PAC contribution and was just a transfer from one non-profit to another, MLF needs to show some proof that it is a 501(C)3 or 501(C)4, and AFSCME will have to report this on their tax returns as such.

This is not the only possible (and quite probable) violation by MLF of the LFCPA, nor the least costly potentially. Ignorance of our local laws by this group, which include Karen Benker who is quite aware of the LFCPA, is no excuse and they should be cited to the full extent of the ordinance. Their registered agent, Teresa Lichti, had the gall to publicly question my first-hand experience in Federal Court when I sued the City of Longmont over the LFCPA (which I won), telling me what occurred even though she wasn’t in attendance. So they had to know I would be looking at every campaign report, including theirs.

And now they’re going to get hit where it hurts, in the pocketbook. I’m sure AFSCME or some other big money organization will bail them out again. But citizens should never give any of these people a second chance.

Dennis Coombs' denouncements fall on deaf ears

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:24:00 +0000

In the October 26, 2011 Times-Call mayoral candidate Dennis Coombs tried to distance himself from the smear and hateful campaign his supporters are carrying out on behalf and to the benefit of his mayoral run. He also said he'd run a "clean and positive" campaign, which is a little hard to believe considering the repeated shots he's taken at his opponent, current Mayor Bryan Baum.

First, he was warned repeatedly, either directly or indirectly, of his affiliations with certain people and groups in the city. When he whined about my writings, which he apparently obsessively keeps an eye on, he was reminded of the even more hateful bloggers he gladly was in bed with. Well, now they've stepped over the line with their ridiculous "dog biting" story and Mr. Coombs is trying to distance himself from that stink with his letter to the editor. Sorry, it sticks to you Mr. Coombs, you were warned.

Second, he tried to distance himself from the hateful group "Moving Longmont Forward" and the attack mailer they put out on Mayor Baum. Their contributors are also contributors to Mr. Coombs, as well as elements of Longmont Area Democrats - a group he had no problem with attending their events even though he knew, or at least now knows, what they were capable of (attack politics). Unlike other candidates, Mr. Coombs was the beneficiary of not just one mailer by Moving Longmont Forward, but two. Sorry, I just don't believe he knew nothing about any of this. If that's true, he's seriously out of touch with what's going on in this city politically - which is what I figured all along anyway.

Lastly, he claims he kept his end of a supposed "gentleman's agreement" between himself and Mayor Baum to not go after each other. At nearly every forum or debate Mr. Coombs did not hesitate to make disparaging comments about Mayor Baum. When given the chance to respond in kind at the Chamber of Commerce event at Silvercreek High School, Mayor Baum would not get in the mud with Mr. Coombs and said he was a friend that he'd not say anything negative about.

If Mr. Coombs seriously and honestly feels he's run a campaign with "honesty" as he wrote, then he's either living this campaign season with blinders and earmuffs completely oblivious to what's going on around him and on behalf of him and has no business being mayor. The people who have carried out this hate campaign to his benefit, with or without his knowledge, are the kind of people he surrounds himself with. And the company you keep says a lot about your character - and is even more reason why he should be nowhere near the mayoral chair.

"Goldilocks" Levison "just wrong" for Longmont

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 23:45:00 +0000

If you are a subscriber to the Times-Call you saw a fairly self-centered and egotistical editorial by Longmont City Councilmember Sarah Levison. This is par for her course as she's often referred to herself as the "hardest working member of council." Talking endlessly does not equate working hard, it just equates...talking a lot. But the "Goldilocks" reference she used is apt, but not in the way she means.

Enjoy this YouTube video of an old Fractured Fairy Tale featuring Twisinella Woofinfinkle - aka Goldilocks. Pay special attention to the line "She was especially careless with things that belonged to other people", exactly!

This is hilarious and fits Ms. Levison to a tee. If you saw my recent piece on why she should not be retained on city council, you'll recall the circular reference. The part of this cartoon where Goldilocks goes in circles following her own footsteps, for hours, is spot on. Then, similar to how Ms. Levison has no qualms about suggesting you give up more of what you own to the government, Goldilocks has no problem just walking into some bears home, eating their food, breaking their furniture ("Somebody's been rocking in my chair, and were they ever heavy") , and sleeping in their beds. Hey, why not? It's all part of the collective plan.

The rest of her editorial was equally comical, saying how "corporationy" some other members of council are - straight out of the Mockupy Longmont playbook. She actually had the gall to brag about her horrid changes to Longmont's campaign law - the one the city got sued over and lost, that one. Notice all the things she tried to do, and mostly failed due to lack of seconds on her motions or just voted down. She's just not in step with Longmont.

Then she shills for her fellow "bloc"heads, and not very convincingly. Although I liked her description of Sean McCoy as "soft skilled", I think she misspelled "soft headed". Speaking of soft headed, she also endorsed Dennis Coombs for Mayor, who so far hasn't proven much of anything, except the knack to show up unannounced and uninvited to various events where he usually stands off in the corner and lurks. Most people wouldn't know him if they tripped over him, so their reaction must be "who is that guy over there?"

After this election, he's sure to return to the safety of obscurity. Councilmembers Levison, McCoy, and Hansen should join him and keep him company. Hopefully tonight will be the last night we'll see any of the above in council chambers. One can hope anyway.

(Hat tip to the Longmont Examiner for the video find)

Sarah Levison should not be retained to Longmont City Council

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 07:39:00 +0000

I’ve noticed a lot of readers have been finding my blog through searches for candidates in the At-Large race. I think voters are torn and are trying to find reasons to vote for someone, or against someone. Personally I think this race will be the closest of all of the council races, and still too close too call. But I can think of a few reasons, and one in particular, to not vote for incumbent Sarah Levison.

I’ll gloss over the obvious personal reasons, like Ms. Levison's repeated attempts to remove me from the Airport Advisory Board. She also has a knack to talk endlessly, almost to the point of circular conversations with herself, and on average her long dissertations must add about an hour to every council meeting. She was instrumental in kicking the BMX organization out of Longmont, and tried to get an estate sales tax - aka Death Tax - going in Longmont as well as a Garage Sale Tax. She talks more about "investments" than any other councilmember, and "investment" to a politician means a "tax" or "fee" to the rest of us. Her tantrums are legendary, often trying to abuse rules in our city charter (click here for a classic example from May 18, 2010)

But the main reason why people should consider an alternate candidate is Ms. Levison’s involvement in the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act (LFCPA).

Immediately after being elected in 2007, Ms. Levison became obsessed with the LFCPA and was on the Task Force to institute some changes that ended up being disastrous for the City of Longmont. Ms. Levison pushed hard for contribution and spending limits under the guise of "transparency" - and even tried to make all citizens in Longmont pay for candidates campaign activities. Also known as "public financing of campaigns". Thankfully, that was one step too far for council and it went away - until next time she attempts it.

The implication made, and often fairly bluntly by Ms. Levison and her followers, was that unknown sources of money - and large amounts - could taint our election process. The "we'll never know" excuse was made repeatedly about money coming in. So you would think, of all candidates, Ms. Levison would be careful to not show the slightest hint of campaign shenanigans and would be extremely transparent in her campaign reporting.

You'd think...but you'd be wrong.

As of the 2nd reporting period of campaign activity, Ms. Levison has raised around $3,800 in contributions. Fully a third ($1,197) are of the "non-itemized" variety. In other words, a third of Ms. Levisons contributions we have no way of knowing who they were from, how much they were for, and when they occurred. That is more than any other candidate or committee. So for a third of the money she's collected there is ZERO transparency, nada, none, ZILCH. Under the definition of hypocrisy, I believe there is a file photo of Ms. Levison.

Does that mean she's broken the law, or to be correct our LFCPA? No. It is legal for candidates to collect up to $50 from individuals and not report it. That was raised recently from $20 (or $25) and I believe Ms. Levison voted against that change. Yet, regardless if it's $20, $30, or $49 Ms. Levison is taking maximum advantage of this part of the rule in the face of her objections to people doing this very thing - taking unknown amounts of money from unknown people or organizations.

That money could be coming from the very forces outside of Longmont that she wanted to avoid having an impact on our elections. Ms. Levison also benefited from a mailer put out by a political committee Moving Longmont Forward that has a lot of "non-itemized" contributions themselves. They reported an electioneering communication to advocate for Ms. Levison - and there's a fair chunk of money they collected that we have no idea from where it came.

This is the very activity that Ms. Levison, Brian Hansen, Sean McCoy and their loyal followers used as an example of why the LFCPA had to be changed in the first place. Yet it's okay when it's done on their behalf? I don't think so.

Bottom line: Ms. Levison's negatives far outweigh her positives and Longmont voters should consider voting for another candidate. I know and am on good terms with both of her main opponents to one degree or another. Ron Gallegos served Ward 3 previously, but is getting little support as far as contributions and has said some controversial things that may not win over undecideds. Heath Carroll is a relative newcomer, but also the fairly successful business owner of Carroll-Lewellen Funeral Home and Foothills Gardens of Memory Cemetery. All three candidates are registered Democrats - apparently that matters as I've been asked and people have been Googling these candidates along with "party affiliation" in their searches.

I think we've had enough controversy on this council in the last four years, and Sarah Levison has been a part of that. Most people don't want to have to keep a wary eye on their elected officials, wondering what nefarious plans they are trying to institute while they aren't paying attention. From my observations, Ms. Levison is a "big government" type of individual and is always busy trying to insert more and more government intrusion and involvement into your life. Just do a search on this blog (or Longmont Advocate) with her name and you'll find all you need over the last 4 years.

It's time for someone new. Apparently someone feels threatened by Heath Carroll as he's had up to 50 campaign signs stolen and had his large banner cut to shreds. I'm in no way implying Ms. Levison or Mr. Gallegos had anything to do with that, because I don't believe that. But I know some of Ms. Levison's supporters - and I wouldn't put anything past them. If you don't want to vote against her, then vote against them, and vote against lawlessness.

Related: "Goldilocks" Levison "just wrong" for Longmont

Longmont City Council Ward 3: Bonnie Finley

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 05:32:00 +0000

(The following was submitted by candidate for Longmont City Council Ward 3 Bonnie Finley and appeared in the 10/21/11 Times-Call)

How to win employers and influence job growth

Our national and local economy have changed dramatically over the last several years. Longmont has seen its share of job loss. I have several ideas that can help us regain our advantage in attracting new primary employers that can provide jobs to our city.

First, the city of Longmont needs to undertake a comprehensive review of its impact and development fees. The fees we now charge for development need to be updated to make certain they are in sync with the programs they support. Our philosophy toward impact and development fees should be re-evaluated, as the successful cities in the future will need to be competitive by creating incentives and assistance programs for business expansion and retention. We need jobs and the way we will be successful in gaining them is by creating an environment that is more competitive with other communities along the Front Range. For example, the practice of evaluating annexations by “exceptional benefit” is unique to Longmont and sends the wrong message to businesses that their annexation will be judged subjectively, and this will certainly not influence job growth in a positive direction.

Second, Longmont needs to evaluate and revise its development review process to make it more timely for a business to get through our system. It is now an extremely cumbersome process that needs to be streamlined. For example, filling vacant commercial or industrial space is often subject to a “change of use” review where current development regulations and zoning standards are applied retroactively to existing properties. These properties often have physical space limitations that would not allow for more parking, more landscaping or bigger setbacks. The process can take months, and this often prevents a business from moving into a vacant space. The purchase of the old Chevy dealership by Pacific Auction took months longer than it should have because of this process.

Third, increased investment in public infrastructure where that infrastructure is absent, deficient, deteriorated or where it supports specific city economic programs should be a priority. Public infrastructure can be used to prime the pump for private investment. For example, if some aspect of public investment at the Twin Peaks Mall could lead to an increment of redevelopment that included a new state-of-the-art movie theater, that could drive further development. This is just one example of how the city can spur economic growth.

Fourth, we need to ask our current primary employers what could be done to encourage them to add new jobs. We need to also ask those businesses from whom they get their goods and services and invite those companies to relocate here. This could create a unique synergy among employers in our city and provide more jobs for its residents.

The City Council of Longmont needs to send a positive, consistent message to the business community and to prospective businesses. Council members who have been openly critical of organizations that promote the economic growth of Longmont and are even openly critical of their existence do a great disservice to job growth.

This denigration undermines efforts to grow our local economy and sends a negative message to businesses looking to locate here. Council members who publicly demean other council members, residents or city staff create a sad parody of our highly partisan federal government. Leadership and civility would be an encouraging and constructive contribution by council. City Council needs to set an example of explicit teamwork to demonstrate why Longmont is the exceptional place we know it to be.

Business decisions regarding relocating or expansion are made on a number of factors, which include the stability and the encouragement of local government, access to a qualified, educated workforce and overall quality of life. Longmont has much to offer in the way of its natural beauty, exceptional parks, recreational opportunities, viable downtown and cultural history. We have an educated workforce. We are located in the perfect spot: close to both the mountains and to Denver. The conditions that make Longmont a great place to live also make it attractive to potential employers. We just need to put the whole package together to compete with our neighbors and encourage job growth. I know we can accomplish this goal with dedicated teamwork by City Council. I’d like you to help me be a part of this renaissance of my hometown by voting for me for City Council.

Bonnie Finley is a candidate for the City Council Ward 3 position.

Longmont Mayor: Bryan Baum

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Rodriguez) — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 05:00:00 +0000

(The following was submitted by Longmont Mayor Bryan Baum and appeared in the 10/22/11 Times-Call)

Promises fulfilled as mayor

As the end of my first term as mayor draws near, I look back on the changes that our city has gone through. When I took office, I was excited about embarking on a new journey. While I had been extremely involved with many local nonprofits, often as board president, I had never held a public elective office. I quickly learned how very different the public and private sectors operate — at different speeds with different motivations.

Two years ago, I made three commitments to Longmont’s residents and with confidence I can say “I did what I said I would do.” The first was to be a responsible steward of our community’s assets and investments. My voting record shows I have always chosen to do what’s best for all of Longmont.

Some decisions weren’t easy, like voting against a nonbinding resolution supporting the federal DREAM Act. While I supported the kids who spoke to our council in favor of the act, our charter directs us to focus on local initiatives, not federal. Some votes were easy, such as being the lone vote to designate funds to a variety of local nonprofits serving hundreds of residents from diverse segments of our population rather than dedicating all the money to one government-based program helping just a handful of families.

Another commitment I made was to listen to all residents and be a decision maker. I didn’t agree with every resident that I spoke with, but I was always willing to listen. During the process to decide on allowing medical marijuana dispensaries, I spent hours of my time touring facilities, conversing with owners and their clients, responding to phone calls and reading emails.

After gathering information from stakeholders on all sides of the argument, I decided it was in the best interest of Longmont not to have the dispensaries. I listened and was a decision maker for all concerned.

The final commitment was to embrace the philosophy that Longmont is “open for business.” The most concrete example is the recent sale of Twin Peaks Mall.

Since taking office I have worked tirelessly to find a solution to help our struggling retail center. I brought equity partners to the former owners and discussed financing options with them.

Ultimately the decision to purchase by the current managing firm brought the resolution we had been seeking. They saw that the mayor and council majority haven’t hesitated to make decisions — we have not fallen victim to “paralysis by analysis.” I made it clear that Longmont was, indeed, open for business and this was a major factor in NewMark Merrill deciding to purchase the mall.

Although many people see the mayor’s office as largely ceremonial, I have been an active player in proactively engaging local employers to find solutions to help them not only stay in our community but to be successful doing so. One of my focuses as mayor has been to monitor how our municipal government interacts with our local employers, at times encouraging city employees to move at the “speed of business” to ensure that jobs stay in Longmont. I had a considerable role in securing new businesses like Sprouts Farmers Market, but also helping orchestrate plans to keep existing organizations like Pacific Auction and OnCore in Longmont.

These are real jobs that I fought to keep from relocating to surrounding communities. I am proud to say that not only did we keep these jobs, but we garnered promises of new job creation.

The last two years have been an eye-opening experience. In this election I have seen my Winnebago, my dog, my wife and my kids personally attacked as a means of defeating me as your mayor. But I continue to join in many of our diverse population’s cultural festivities, meet literally thousands of our residents, and all along I am encouraged by those who have taken the time to stop me on the street to thank me for a job well done. I look forward to many new experiences and even more opportunities to let Longmont reach its fullest potential over the next two years. It has been an honor to serve you, and I promise, if re-elected, to continue to “do what I say I will do” over the next two years.

Please take some time to visit my website, www.baum4mayor.com. I would be honored and privileged to receive your vote, and to continue serving you for two more years.

Mayor Bryan L. Baum is running for re-election.