August 2009

As a follow-up to last week's post about the sudden and mysterious change of city policy regarding storefront signature-gathering, I submitted the following to the city today:

August 31, 2009

To whom it may concern:

Please provide the following documents/information, in accordance with the Colorado Open Records Act:

· The names of the attorneys and companies that contacted the city about changing its petitioning-at-storefronts policy, as described in the August 18 Gazette news story, and any written or e-mail correspondence or requests from those companies and attorneys that were received by the city.

· Internal memos or e-mails between Senior City Attorney Will Bain and other city leaders, including members of City Council, Police Department officials and City Attorney Pat Kelly, pertaining to the policy change.

· Any correspondence between Bain and the outside lawyers or companies requesting the policy change.

· Any Bain correspondence or internal e-mails making reference to Douglas Bruce.

· Any internal e-mails or memos in which Bain or other city staff explaining the legal basis for the policy change.

Thank you for your help in expeditiously fulfilling this request. I can be reached at 719-576-9055 or 337-0355 if you have questions or need clarifications.

Sean Paige

Local Liberty Online

Filing such CORA requests is a pain in the neck. This and other open-records laws -- such as the federal Freedom of Information Act -- are supposed to "let the sunshine in," but they in my view actually have reduced government transparency by creating an elaborate, time-consuming and bureaucratic process that serves as a deterrent to all but the most patient fact finders. A much faster and better approach would simply be mandating that all non-classified, non-proprietary, not private documents be made available on demand. CORA and FOIA invite all manner of game-playing by government insiders, from foot-dragging to "data dumping." But it's often the only way to get any real insight into the government's inner workings.

Now we'll wait and see what comes back.

Readers interested in another examination of the city's policy change should check out this post at the Green Dragon Tavern website. Clearly, this isn't an issue that's going away, until we get more answers from city officials.

The Gazette's Perry Swanson, who writes the paper's always-interesting "Data Geek" blog, today makes three important points, vis-a-vis the property tax hike now on the Nov. 3 ballot.

While it's true that Colorado Springs property taxes tend to be lower than in some Front Range cities, Swanson's data-digging shows that they aren't at rock bottom, as is frequently claimed. Arvada, Westminster, Lakewood and Centennial have comparable or lower tax rates. Are these cities trapped in the Stone Age as a result? Is the quality of life or delivery of government services collapsing? I haven't heard as much.

The second point is that property tax burdens vary greatly across Colorado Springs, depending on location, school district and whether one is living in a special taxing district. The third point is that the burden of any tax hike will fall hardest on people of modest means. Swanson notes that the proposed increase "is a relatively small 9 percent for someone living in the higher-tax northeast part of the city. But for people living in the lower-tax core of the city, it’s an increase of 17 percent over what they’re paying now."

These are good points to consider as the tax hike debate unfolds. Thanks, Perry, for bringing this information to light. What would also be helpful is a little numbers-crunching on the impact this proposal will have on businesses, which pay disproportionately higher property taxes due to The Gallagher Amendment.

News reports about City Council's Tuesday vote on ballot issues make it seem so cut and dry: members voted 6 to 3 not to put an anti-TABOR measure before voters this fall, in a reversal of an informal vote taken a day before, which had a 5 to 4 majority in favor of putting it on the ballot. But what an interesting rollercoaster ride led to Tuesday's surprise ending.

The episode had all the drama usually lacking in this City Council's consensus-driven deliberations; you had shifting alliances, switched votes, strange bedfellows, dueling e-mail barrages, deadlocks broken, changes of heart, compelling testimonials about TABOR, pro and con, public apologies over private e-mails, a surprise ending. I haven't seen anything quite like it during my 7 years in Colorado Springs. And I think the drama and divisions and dialogue were a healthy thing for the city, creating the sort of ferment we need more of around here. I'd like to think I would think so even if the final vote hadn't gone my way.

The majority voted wisely and correctly in my opinion. Burdening the November ballot with a significant property tax increase, along with an attack on the city's TABOR, would have doomed both measures to resounding defeat, leaving the city worse off, and even more divided, than it already is. I said from the start that council would have to choose between a tax increase and a TABOR repeal. By grabbing for both they would get neither. After a lot of lobbying by the pro- and anti-TABOR camps, and all the aforementioned drama, council came down on the side of a tax hike.

That still won't be an easy sell, under present circumstances. But it didn't stand a chance if paired with the TABOR measure. It's that reality, and realization, that ultimately tipped the votes in our favor.

I pledged during the debate to enter into discussions with TABOR critics about finding reasonable ways that bona fide problems can be resolved. I stand ready to start those discussions at any time. All interested parties are invited to participate. Some solid ideas were floated in the course of this mini-debate. Barry Noreen's TABOR time-out is intriguing. Bernie Herpin has an interesting proposal for dealing with the ratchet effect. Professor Crowley's "cost of government" index also sounds intriguing (assuming I was following what he was saying on Monday). Something workable, reasonable and politically-feasible might well emerge from these discussions.

I applaud everyone who took part in this process, from City Council members to coalition leaders to private citizens -- even the newspaper publisher who brought this idea forward. I think it showed we can have an intense (and I think ultimately constructive) debate without (too much) acrimony or personal rancor. And that in itself is an accomplishment.

I wrote over the weekend about the outrageous and unnecessary costs heaped on this city by the knee-jerk litigators at The Sierra Club. But lacking specifics about actual dollar figures, I could only speculate that it was a huge waste of money. Now I can bring more specifics to the case.

"Our total legal fees for the Sierra Club's Clean Water Act lawsuit are between $1 million and $1.1 million, and probably closer to $1.1 million," Colorado Springs Utilities spokesman Steve Berry told me. “We have not decided at this time how we will handle legal fees reimbursement with the court.”

What Berry’s referring to is the possibility that CSU could also be on the hook to cover some Sierra Club legal bills, even though this was a frivolous lawsuit resulting in a clear win for Colorado Springs. Most of what the group alleged, and sought in the way of damages, was rejected by the court, but the judge – tossing the plaintiffs a consolation prize -- imposed $35,000 in fines for past wastewater violations. “The $35,500 in penalties represents only a handful of events, mostly chlorine exceedance events, which essentially had no environmental impact,” according to Berry.

The Sierra Club will attempt to portray that slap on the wrist as a “victory,” forcing CSU to cover its legal costs under federal court rules that effectively pay these groups to sue. That’s adding insult to injury, in my view. In a sane country, in a just country, The Sierra Club would be reimbursing CSU’s costs, not the other way around, since CSU carried the day.

But this is not a sane or a just country. Although I’m loath to see CSU pour even more money into the case, I think, as a matter of principle, it should resist paying The Sierra Club’s legal bills – a practice which actually invites the sort of knee-jerk litigating for which the group is infamous. I think CSU should bill The Sierra Club for the $1 million, as a symbolic protest against this practice. We also need to change the rules at the federal level, in a way that shifts the costs of frivolous litigating onto those that bring the lawsuits, not those defending against them.

CSU might also send an invoice for the $1 million it’s out to Pueblo DA Bill Thiebaut, who initiated the suit but was later tossed from the case because enforcing federal clean water rules is none of his business. The politically ambitious Thiebaut – who brought the suit to win favor with Pueblo Chieftain Publisher Bob Rawlings, a crusty old water warrior who sells newspapers by vilifying Colorado Springs – has been spinning the issue like crazy, trying to justify his launching of a federal court case that badly bombed. But this all seems designed to deflect questions about whether Thiebaut could have made better use of tax dollars fighting actual crime.

Pueblo voters might well wonder why Thiebaut spent so much time and money posing as the water quality cop on Fountain Creek, even while going easy on drunk drivers -- check this out -- in the steel city. Seems like a case of inverted priorities to me.

Thiebaut is engaged in revisionist spin when he tells The Chieftain that the millions of dollars Colorado Springs is spending to upgrade its wastewater infrastructure was prompted by his lawsuit. CSU's Steve Berry had to set the record straight in the following on-line response to the Chieftain story:

Next Tuesday evening, September 1, the Pikes Peak Economics Club (PPEC) will feature an Oxford-style debate: “Resolved: Economic Recovery is Imminent”. Taking the pro side will be Dr. Fred Crowley, Professor of Economics at UCCS and Director of the Southern Colorado Economic Forum. Taking the con side will be Mark Bogosian, Vice President of PPEC and a local investor.

Moderating the debate will be Dr. Paul Prentice, President of the Pikes Peak Economics Club, Adjunct Faculty at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and Senior Fellow at the Independence Institute.

More information, including time and place, can be found on the “Events” tab on the PPEC website:
https://pikespeakeconomicsclub.com/CMS/PPEC/.

The city-owned hospital has contracted with Denver based neurosurgeons to be on call for emergency room cases as of Sept, 1, today's Gazette reports. And that's good news if you're a Colorado Springs resident who has a head injury after Sept. 1 and Memorial is the most convenient place to take you.

But that begs the question of why Memorial's incumbent provider of these services walked off the job a number of weeks ago and has refused to return, for reasons that remain a mystery. There may be an innocent explanation for this. But if there is one, why all the hush-hush? I won't re-write my blog post of several days ago. But I still think the public is owed an explanation of what sparked the impasse, since it could say something critically important about how the city-owned enterprise is operating, so to speak.

Answers anyone?

Am I the only person in town who’s curious about why the brain surgeons who staff Memorial Hospital’s emergency room walked off the job, and why they might not return for an unspecified period? So far the reasons have been a well-kept secret. All we know from Gazette reports is that the dispute doesn't seem to be about compensation.

But that leaves a lot of wide open space in which the imagination can wander. And a wandering imagination can take you into some weird places.

We’ve been told it’s not about compensation. So what else could it be?

Maybe the dispute hinges on the snacks they offer in ER vending machines. The brain surgeons want Skittles in there, but Memorial’s vendor doesn’t carry that brand. Maybe the brain surgeons finally had it with the cafeteria food, or got bumped from their prime parking spots, to make room for the proctologists, and this is retaliation. The brain surgeons prefer Brazilian dark roast, while the ER coffee is French roast. The brain surgeons got sick of all the brain surgeon jokes.

Then there are less innocent possibilities. Staffing levels aren’t adequate. Somebody’s professionalism isn’t up to par. The brainscopes – or whatever you call those things – and other pieces of equipment keep crapping out. The scalpels aren’t being sharpened each night. The terms of a contract have been broken. Something's gone wrong inside the ER.

A private hospital has the privilege to keep such matters private. But Memorial, as we know, is a city-owner enterprise, meaning it’s subject to a greater degree of public scrutiny and transparency than a private counterpart would be. I know that’s a source of frustration for Memorial insiders. But it’s also a reality, which the people who run the enterprise must learn to live with.

I think the citizens of Colorado Springs are owed a full explanation of what’s going on here, since the secrecy just breeds suspicion, rumors and needless speculation. If it’s a relatively minor matter that in no way reflects on the operations of the hospital, there’s no reason not to open up about it. If it’s something more serious – something that highlights major problems with how the hospital is functioning – than the public – and Memorial patients – need to know about it.

Memorial enjoys many benefits from being a city-owned enterprise. But one of the trade-offs is that it doesn’t have the right to keep things private that the public should know. Permitting a culture of secrecy to take hold inside Memorial or any other city enterprise doesn’t just invite butt-covering and the papering-over of problems, but it exposes the taxpayer-owners to risks and liabilities they have a right to be aware of. And that’s particularly true when the enterprise is making life or death decisions every day.

Calling all spin doctors. Calling all spin doctors. The Sierra Club could use your help.

The hyper litigious green group is desperately trying to "spin" its defeat in the Fountain Creek lawsuit into some sort of victory, as today's story in the Pueblo Chieftain indicates. But that's hogwash. A federal judge threw the plaintiff a bone for its time and trouble, by imposing a $35,000 fine on CSU for past sewage spills, but otherwise stuffed the Sierra Club on everything else -- ruling that Colorado Springs has been taking adequate steps to upgrade its wastewater treatment system, that the state is doing an adequate job of enforcing relevant regulations, and that little of what the plaintiff's alleged, or sought in the way of "damages," had merit.

What wasn't explicitly said in the ruling, but which came through loud and clear, was this message: It's not the job of lawsuit-happy environmental groups and politically-ambitious local DAs -- Pueblo's Bill Thiebaut, who initiated the suit -- to enforce water quality rules in Fountain Creek. Those who have that responsibility are already making progress, said the federal judge, without the need for a three-ring sideshow. So go back to chasing criminals, Pueblo DA. Go back to netting butterflies, Sierra Club.

This was clearly a "win" for the city of Colorado Springs -- and a defeat for Springs-bashers downstream who want to paint this city as a bad actor in the Arkansas Valley water wars. But it didn't come without a price tag for CSU ratepayers, since even frivolous lawsuits are expensive to fight. Untold man-hours went into compiling the boxes of documents sought by the plaintiffs. Inside and outside counsel has to be paid for. Dollars were spent on lawyers that could have been spent on activities that would actually do Fountain Creek some good. The suit became a drain on the resources and energies of many people at CSU.

What did all this cost? I'll be calling CSU Monday to get an answer to that question. But we know this much: it was money wasted, to fight a frivolous and meritless federal lawsuit, all because Pueblo's DA and The Sierra Club wanted to grab a few easy headlines by posing as the defenders of Fountain Creek. The instigator, Pueblo DA Bill Thiebaut, was thrown off the case, by the way, when the federal judge ruled that he had overstepped his authority. That waste of tax dollars is something Pueblo voters will have to hold him accountable for, if they care enough.

The Sierra Club soldiered on, however -- because bringing mechanically-mindless lawsuits is what environmentalists do these days, in order to demonstrate their love for the the planet. This suit cost CSU ratepayers untold thousands of dollars, but probably cost the "club" nothing, since federal rules require that these groups be reimbursed their legal costs, whether they win or lose. It pays to sue, in other words. Then we wonder why these groups are constantly suing.

The Sierra Club, just as a reminder, is one of the reasons Colorado Springs is hard up for money. The city is forced to spend an unnecessary $1 million a year to resurface city-owned Pikes Peak Highway, as the result of a past Sierra Club lawsuit alleging that the gravel surface threatened fish species on the mountain. Whether it's truly a threat hasn't been demonstrated. It's just an allegation -- which is all green extremists need in order to make cities like Colorado Springs bend to their wishes. Are these supposed endangered fish thriving now, as a result of the expenditure? Who the hell knows? One suit down, let's move on to the next -- that's the way lawsuit-happy groups like The Sierra Club operate.

So if you're one of those who's constantly bemoaning the lack of money in the city; one of those who worry that policemen will be laid off, or parks will go brown or that the Uncle Wilber Fountain won't be turned on each summer, send a letter of complaint to the local chapter of the Sierra Club, which is costing the city $1 million a year on Pikes Peak Highway repaving, as the result on another frivolous lawsuit.

A jury may ultimately have to decide whether Douglas Bruce was guilty of trespassing as a result of Costco-gate. I have my doubts about whether he was guilty of impeding store traffic -- which is not the same thing as being annoying to Bruce-bashers who shop at (or manage) Costco -- since I once endured a stern and lengthy lecture from Bruce on the dos and don'ts of handing out campaign literature at storefronts. But that's not the point of this post.

The focus on Mr. Personality tends to distract us from the real story, which was buried fairly deep in The Gazette's most recent write-up. Here's the story within the story, in my opinion:

"Police officers [who ticketed Bruce] were enforcing a revised city policy regarding where activists can collect signatures on private property that Bruce knew had been changed this month and which he says is illegal and singles him out.

Before the policy was changed Feb. 16, petitioners could collect signatures on private property as long as they didn't harass anyone and the property is accessible to the public, such as shopping centers and malls.

The new directive to police, based on research by Senior City Attorney Will Bain after the city was contacted by lawyers representing business owners, states the property owner's permission is required except at the city's two malls."

I think more has to be known about what prompted the city to quietly change its longstanding policy on petitioners; about whether there was any sort of public process leading up to such a momentous decision; about whether City Council signed off on, or had a hand in directing, this change; about what "business owners" asked the city for the change; about why these businesses got their way so easily, without the city fighting for the public's right to petition in front of stores.

And then there's the question of whether the change of rules is legal and constitutional. Just because a city attorney says it is, after some cursory research, and puts it in a memo to the police, doesn't make it so. It's legality will be tested if the city is foolish enough to take this case to trial. My guess is that the city will try to avoid that, because it's not standing on solid ground. I'm sure Bruce is prepared to have a field day -- just imagine the photo ops and free publicity! -- if it comes to that.

This wasn't an insignificant policy change, given the importance that gathering petition signatures plays not just for Bruce but for all Coloradans. That most of us are learning about a Feb. 16 policy change in August raises questions about how this all came about, and about what might have motivated city officials to make the change.

Bruce may come off a little paranoid claiming that the new rules are aimed at him. But it's not beyond the realm of possibility, either, given the bad blood that exists between Bruce and the city, and the tit-for-tat tactics those tensions have spawned on both sides. City officials do everything in their power to thwart and obstruct a man they see (probably with good reason) as their nemesis. Isn't it possible -- just possible -- that they were more than happy to change the rules in a way that made life a little tougher for Mr. Petition himself?

It's just possible, in my view -- which is why I think the public is owed a more complete explanation of why and how all this came to pass. All of us -- not just Douglas Bruce -- have an interest in ensuring that unnecessary obstacles aren't erected to our rights to free speech, to peaceably assembly, to participate in a political process in which gathering signatures plays an increasingly important part.

Store owners have property rights that ought to be respected -- though shame on those that don't consider it part of their civic duty to allow unobtrusive political activities to take place out front. But city officials don't have to seem so eager to accommodate their wishes, and ought to work with these store owners to maintain access, not restrict it.

Why the city didn't do that is a much bigger story than Doug Bruce getting a ticket.

Keeping Orwell at bay means insisting that words and phrases be used with precision, lest their meanings be inverted or perverted, ala "1984."

That's why I have to say a quick something about the "public option" -- the term that's now widely used by politicos, pundits and serious journalists to describe a health care fix that should more accurately be called "the government option." Most Americans have seen through the obfuscation, thankfully, which is why the "public option" seems to be going down in flames, following an August recess in which congressional town hall meetings actually made news. But some of us might still be gulled into thinking that a "public option" would be under the control of the "public," meaning the people, instead of the government -- which today doesn't really represent the people or serve the people, but more often looks out for itself.

I realize that government these days is often referred to as the “public sector,” as juxtaposed against the “private sector,” but that’s something that also must change. Let’s call the “public sector” what it really is, which is the “government sector,” and start calling the private sector the “productive sector,” denoting the fact that everything the government sector spends, and frequently squanders, it takes from producers in the private sector.

So let's all stop using the term "public option" and begin using the more accurate "government option," just to end whatever confusion might still be out there, sown by the Orwellians who do the "messaging" in Washington.

Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein can't be dismissed as some knee-jerk right wing wacko, or as a shill for health insurance industry, so what he has to say in today's column about the liberal fetish for the "public option" -- which should more accurately be described as "the government option" -- will hopefully change some minds in the fever swamps of the Potomac.

The obsession on the hard left about forcing a "government option" down America's throat, now that Democrats are in a position to do so -- even though a government option won't resolve (and could worsen) many of the problems with American health care -- shows that there's much more ideology than practicality in what the Democrats are up to, according to Pearlstein.

"The public option is nothing more than a political litmus test imposed on the debate by left-wing politicians and pundits who don't want to be bothered with the real-life dynamics of the health-care market. It is the Maginot Line of health-care policy, and just like those stubborn French generals, liberal Democrats have vowed to defend it even if it means losing the war."

Read the entire column. Share it with your friends. It's one of the most clear-headed items I've seen on the topic, coming from someone with no overt ideological ax to grind.

The White House may have bungled the health care reform debate, as many pundits are saying. But it's done a much better job of dealing with a sidecar controversy, of firearms carried openly at political rallies, by keeping its cool and not engaging in hair-trigger responses. The same can't be said for knee-jerk anti-gun groups, who are now in the position of arguing that the Second Amendment and state gun laws don't apply when the president comes to town.

The gun-toting is obviously intended as a test and a provocation -- as an in-your-face challenge to a president whose positions on the gun issue have spurred suspicion among Americans who jealously guard their Second Amendment rights. An overreaction by the White House -- even if it came in the form of Secret Service mandate that protesters come unarmed -- would only refuel fears that Obama is a gun-grabber. But so far, at least, the president's PR people have played it perfectly by playing it cool.

Here's today's Washington Post:

White House Backs Right to Arms Outside Obama Events
But Some Fear Health Talks Will Spark Violence

Armed men seen mixing with protesters outside recent events held by President Obama acted within the law, the White House said Tuesday, attempting to allay fears of a security threat.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said people are entitled to carry weapons outside such events if local laws allow it. "There are laws that govern firearms that are done state or locally," he said. "Those laws don't change when the president comes to your state or locality."

Anti-gun campaigners disagreed with Gibbs's comments, voicing fears that volatile debates over health-care reform are more likely to turn violent if gun control is not enforced.

"What Gibbs said is wrong," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Individuals carrying loaded weapons at these events require constant attention from police and Secret Service officers. It's crazy to bring a gun to these events. It endangers everybody."

The past week has seen a spate of men carrying firearms while milling outside meetings Obama has held to defend his health-care reform effort. On Monday, a man with an AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle strapped to his shoulder was outside a veterans' event in Phoenix. He was one of a dozen men who reportedly had guns outside the forum.

Phoenix police made no arrests, saying Arizona law allows weapons to be carried in the open.

Last week, a man with a gun strapped to his leg held a sign outside an Obama town hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., that read: "It's time to water the tree of liberty."

Before the same meeting, Richard Terry Young, a New Hampshire resident, was arrested by the Secret Service for allegedly having a loaded, unlicensed gun in his car. Young was stopped inside the school where Obama held the forum, having reportedly sneaked past a security perimeter.

Ed Donovan, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said incidents of firearms being carried outside presidential events are a "relatively new phenomenon." But he said the president's safety is not being jeopardized.

"We're well aware of the subjects that are showing up at these events with firearms," he said. "We work closely with local law enforcement to make sure that their very strict laws on gun permits are administered. These people weren't ticketed for events and wouldn't have been allowed inside and weren't in a position outside to offer a threat." The immediate area occupied by Obama on such trips is considered a federal site where weapons are not permitted, Donovan said.

The only potentially troubling part of the story surfaces in the final paragraph I excerpted, which seems to indicate that the Secret Service is involved in the active surveillance (that it is "well aware") of individuals who choose to come armed to rallies -- which raises the possibility that these people might be placed on Secret Service "watch lists" simply because they're exercising their state and federal gun rights at a political rally.

The Secret Service is expected to keep track of individuals who pose credible threats to the president, but does someone who shows up at an Obama event openly armed, as a way of making a statement about gun rights, end up on, or belong on, such a list? That's a question that bears more scrutiny and debate as the situation evolves.

Barack Obama came out swinging against congressional earmarks (formerly known as pork projects) yesterday, during an appearance before a veterans group in Phoenix. It was a message custom made not just to please the vets but to boost flagging poll numbers:

“Every dollar wasted in our defense budget is a dollar we can’t spend to care for our troops, or protect America or prepare for the future,” Obama told a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Phoenix. “If a project doesn’t support our troops, if it does not make America safer, we will not fund it. If a system doesn’t perform, we will terminate it. And if Congress sends me a defense bill loaded with a bunch of pork, I will veto
it.”

But the president hasn't landed a glove on Congressional earmarks in the early rounds of this bout, despite earlier vows to veto earmark-laden spending bills, and the practice of earmarking is bigger than ever in Congress, according to Washington waste-watchers, despite Speaker Pelosi's now hollow-sounding pledge to clean up Congress.

I'll believe it when I see it, in other words. And it will be interesting to see if the president's no-earmarks stance extends to the many non-military spending bills now in the works. If so, he ought to start limbering-up his veto hand now, lest a cold start lead to a repetitive motion injury later this year.

It will also be interesting to see how Obama the government waste warrior deals with another pork-related issue that made headlines yesterday -- a request from American hog farmers for a $250 million federal bailout.

"The [National Pork Producers] council wants the USDA to spend at least $150 million on pork products for various programs, including immediately buying up to $50 million of pork for federal food programs, using fiscal 2009 funds before the fiscal year ends on Sept. 30.

The USDA spent $62.6 million in 2008 buying pork for food programs, according to the council. The producers are also asking Congress to lift a spending cap that limits spending on pork for certain food programs. In addition, the council requested $100 million to help address the H1N1 virus, including $70 million for swine disease surveillance."

George W. Bush cracked open the door to a federal takeover of American public schools with the unfunded mandates imposed on states via No Child Left Behind. Barack Obama is tearing that door off its hinges, and driving a truck through the gaping hole, by using stimulus funds to buy state compliance with his own education agenda, as the New York Times reports today.

"Holding out billions of dollars as a potential windfall, the Obama administration is persuading state after state to rewrite education laws to open the door to more charter schools and expand the use of student test scores for judging teachers.

That aggressive use of economic stimulus money by Education Secretary Arne Duncan is provoking heated debates over the uses of standardized testing and the proper federal role in education, issues that flared frequently during President George W. Bush’s enforcement of his signature education law, called No Child Left Behind."

Both efforts travel under the guise of "reform." Both efforts include elements that many backers of improving education can support in principle (higher standards and more accountability in the case of NCLB, for instance, and more charter schools in the case of Obama's No Taxpayer Left Alone program). But neither initiative serves the long-term interests of American public education, since both represent an unprecedented assault on state and local control of public schools.

No sector of American society that falls under federal dominance has flourished as a result. On the contrary, virtually everything Uncle Sam touches goes to hell in a handbasket. That's reason enough to be wary of Washington's growing involvement in public education under Bush and Obama. And because federal involvement never comes without strings attached, and a hefty price tag attached, it's better in the long-run that such matters remain under state and local control.

I personally would like to see more charter school-averse states change their attitudes toward the schools, so I might at first blush be inclined to applaud the Obama administration's use of stimulus funds as leverage against charter-resistant states. But because I try to see 2 or 3 moves ahead, I also anticipate that the Obama administration and its teacher union allies will eventually use this same leverage to force the unionization of charter schools, and to impose federal standards on them, effectively robbing charter schools of the things that make them unique, independent, effective and appealing.

That's why this backer of charter schools is skeptical of Obama actions that seem, on the surface, to be pro-school choice and pro-school reform. Beware Greeks bearing gifts. Charter schools have a better chance of remaining genuine charter schools if they stay free of the federal government's -- and Barack Obama's -- smothering embrace.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is a human jukebox. His tune is constantly changing, depending on what he thinks his audience wants to hear.

As a Colorado senator, Salazar pandered to the zero-drilling crowd by doing everything in his power to block energy leases on the Roan Plateau, throwing an 11th-hour monkey wrench into an exhaustive, multi-year public process that had struck a sensible balance between economic and ecological values. And one of the first things Salazar did after confirmation was unilaterally withdraw a number of drilling leases in Utah, after green extremists, led by the actor Robert Redford, raised a fuss over them.

Salazar's record as senator was consistently anti-drilling. He opposed opening ANWR, and supported drilling moratoriums off the east and west coasts. When gas prices went stratospheric last summer, and angry Americans began chanting "drill baby drill," Salazar made a minor position shift, by saying he was open to a little more drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. In another pander to FFPs (fossilfuelphobes), Salazar obstructed oil shale development on the Western Slope.

His record as a politician has been consistently anti-oil and gas development. He's been the happy lap dog of green extremists. And that's why he was a terrible choice for interior secretary -- a position that should be filled by a realist, not a radical.

The human jukebox was in drilling country yesterday -- Colorado's Western Slope -- so he was suddenly sounding bullish on natural gas development. He told editorial board members at the Grand Junction Sentinel exactly what they wanted to hear:

“The future of natural gas is very bright,” Salazar told The Daily Sentinel editorial board after he presided over the dedication of the Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area.

Natural gas is one of the sources of fuel he’s recommending President Obama look to as the nation’s energy policy is being shaped, primarily because it’s considered to be less a source of greenhouse gases than other fossil fuels, he said.

As a senator from Colorado, Salazar had been critical of the Bureau of Land Management’s leasing of lands on the Roan Plateau for natural-gas drilling. That plan is now the subject of a federal lawsuit and there are efforts to reach a settlement, Salazar said.

He ruled out withdrawing the Roan Plateau leases, as he did with 77 contentious leases in neighboring Utah near national parks, because the Roan leases had been signed, giving the buyers a property right he was bound to protect, Salazar said.

The process with the Utah leases was not so complete, he said."

I assume Sentinel board members were savvy enough to know they were being slant-drilled by Salazar. Maybe they were just too polite to call him out on his revisionism, his dishonesty and his inconsistency.

In fact, the Utah leases were as "complete" as the process allows. All the necessary procedures had been followed. They posed no threat to any national parks (except in the fevered minds of zero-drilling groups). Salazar's actions constituted an abuse of power, as shown by the fact that a number of them have been reinstated by a review board.

And the Roan leases only became a "property right" (I'm not sure Salazar really understands the concept) over the boisterous objections of then-Senator Salazar, because the Bush administration, to its credit, refused to nullify years of study and work by an agency Salazar now overseas, the Bureau of Land Management. Salazar's anti-drilling antics failed to block the Roan leases, but they cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue, since his efforts to derail drilling on the Roan scared-off many potential bidders, driving down expected proceeds from the auction.

The future of natural gas in America does indeed look bright -- imported natural gas, that is. Most domestic supplies of oil and natural gas remain off limits to drilling, thanks to green extremists and the politicians, like Salazar, who carry water for them. The future is bright for the foreign countries and foreign-owned companies that are hoping to get Americans as hooked on natural gas imports as we are on oil imports. The future will be dim and uncertain for domestic natural gas development, as long as the radicals, rather than the realists, are in charge.

Mayor Rivera has been cleared in the USOC conflict of interest case. Congratulations, Mr. Mayor. But the exoneration would have meant more if the ethics commission had done a more credible job.

The Business Journal's John Hazlehurst does a good job of critiquing (albeit mildly) the superficial "investigating" and less-than-convincing findings of an ethics commission that on Monday exonerated Mayor Lionel Rivera in the USOC conflict of interest case. But a few of John's points could use amplification.

The witnesses the commissioners chose to interview were the same people who negotiated and strongly supported the first (and second) USOC deal, as Hazlehurst points out, plus a close friend of Rivera's on council. These aren't the sort of witnesses who would bring a lot of objectivity to the issue. And they certainly wouldn't be inclined to blow the whistle on the mayor, or suggest that there was anything untoward about a process in which they participated. Most witnesses offered up by the accuser were ignored, because the information they had "was either duplicative or not germane to the issue of the Mayor’s involvement in the USOC project,” according to the commission. But how can one reach that conclusion without first hearing what they might have to say?

When someone did recall events in a way that seemed to raise questions about the level of Rivera's involvement in negotiating the deal, or in bringing LandCo to the table, the credibility of that information was consistently discounted by commissioners. Former USOC CEO Jim Scherr is on the record as saying that the city played a significant part in the selection process. Yet the commission didn't interview Scherr, in order to square this account with those who told the commission that the selection process was dictated solely by USOC. Wouldn't a phone call to Scherr have been warranted?

The commission determined that "city staff" was solely responsible for deciding which local developers got a chance to bid on the deal. But how did city staff make that determination? Did they go through the Yellow Pages, looking up random developers? Why were four in the mix and all the rest excluded? Did the assistant city manager make the selections, and on what basis did he do so? His personal preferences? Did the mayor or anyone else on council offer helpful suggestions? Did all four bids for proposal go out simultaneously?

These are the kind of questions an ethics commission should be asking, and demanding documented answers to. But this commission seemed content to skate over the surface of things, accepting what they were told at face value. The panel was initially told that the mayor's financial dealings with LandCo's Ray Marshall ended in October 2007. But closer examination of the documents provided to the panel showed that the relationship ended in January 2008. It's an interesting discrepancy, that begs for an explanation and at least raises questions about what we think we know about the Marshall-Rivera relationship. But the commission, typically, leaves that loose end flapping in the wind.

The unwillingness of this commission to look one level below the surface, to demand internal documents that would cast more light on the process, or to lend any credence to statements or recollections that tend to contradict the mayor's version of events, results in a report that reaches unsatisfactory, face-value conclusions. Given that the impartiality of this panel was called into question from the start -- one political ally of Rivera's had to step down and a former city attorney remains on the panel -- one might think the commissioners would have gone out of their way to do a thorough and credible job, neatly tacking down all these loose ends. But this isn't what they did.

Read the report for yourself here. You be the judge of whether my assessment is unfair.

Just one more observation, then I'll let this go.

Those citizens who might consider bringing ethics allegations forward in the future should take note. It's a do-it-yourself process in Colorado Springs. Don't expect to get help from the ethics panel in seriously investigating or substantiating your claims. You'll get no moral support from city insiders, if a city insider is the subject of the allegation. You'll have to do your own open records requests in advance, and depose your own witnesses in advance, if you want the commission to consider this information. Your motives for blowing the whistle could be publicly called into question. And a satisfactory outcome is probably a long shot.

But if you're still willing to make an ethics complaint, despite all the hassles, costs and backlash it could bring, go for it. The ethics commission is standing by, ready to go through the motions.

I haven’t been pleased by some of the shout-downs and shoving we’ve seen at Congressional town hall meetings this August. But there’s a heavy dose of hypocrisy when the calls for civility and reasoned debate come from folks on the political left.

We rarely hear such complaints when the “angry mob” is advancing a “progressive” agenda: when certain politically-incorrect speakers are shouted down on campus; when the anti-war protests of the 1960s got raucous; when anti-free trade groups disrupt international economic conferences; when environmentalists loudly protest logging projects or other alleged attacks on the planet.

More annoying than the double standard, though, are condescending White House lectures on how the rest of us ought to behave in the presence of His Eminence, Barack Obama, when he blesses fly-over country with an audience later this week.

Here are a few paragraphs from Monday’s Grand Junction Sentinel:

"At the same White House press briefing in which it was announced the President will be coming to Grand Junction to possibly host a town hall meeting here, the tensions at similar style meetings across the country was touched upon.

“I will tell you this,” Robert Gibbs, White House press secretary told media on Friday, according to a White House transcript, “The President believes, and has always believed, that town hall meetings are a very useful place for the discussion of issues to talk about the decisions that are facing him and the American people. They ought to be able to be conducted without shouting and shoving and pushing and people getting hurt.

I think we can have honest policy disagreements without being either disagreeable, or certainly without being violent.“And I think anybody that has a strong opinion should come to a town hall meeting, but also respect that others may want to also take part in the town hall meeting, or you know, may just want to listen to the debate. And if somebody is yelling, or if somebody particularly is being violent, I’m not entirely sure that helps the entire process for anybody involved.”

Coloradans don’t need lectures in civility from the White House spokesman. I understand that Democrats like treating most people like children, by promising cradle-to-grave paternalism. But it's still insulting to hear them talking to the rest of us as if we were unruly kids who need a time out.

The shouting and finger-pointing may not follow the debating rules of the Oxford Union, but it does deliver a message, loud and clear, that not everyone is embracing ObamaCare. Whether this is a minority opinion won’t be determined until next election season. But that’s beside the point, since the art of protest is the art of making even a minority view seem politically potent.

It’s an art that the political left mastered long ago. Anti-war protesters of the 1960s didn’t represent the majority view (if I recall the polling data correctly), but they changed national policy by grabbing headlines. Environmental extremism isn’t the majority view in America, yet greens are driving the regulatory agenda through agitation, litigation and indoctrination. Loud and angry protest has been one important way the left exerts influence. But red flags go up when the protest comes from the right.

It’s equally odd to see those who elected a former community organizer president trying to discredit the ObamaCare backlash as the work of “conservative organizers.” Many recent news stories seem to go out of their way to make such connections. Yet I rarely see such labeling when liberal groups are involved.

America’s long and proud history of dissent wouldn’t have been possible without behind-the-scenes organizers. This never before delegitimized these events as bellwethers of public opinion. The anti-war protests of the 1960’s weren’t just spontaneous eruptions. Freedom marches in the South were planned and organized (thanks to “ringleaders” and “agitators” like the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.). The American Revolution got a helping hand from organizer Sam Adams. Abolitionists and prohibitionists also had organizers.

Today, it seems, protests are only legitimate expressions of public sentiment when they’re organized by the left. Protesters become an angry “mob” when they oppose left-wing policy prescriptions. It’s a sign of how far the former “counterculture” has come, in terms of becoming the new “establishment,” that it can’t recognize the weird irony in this line of attack.

This is a big week for City Council. It will be making decisions today and tomorrow (at the informal and formal sessions) which will impact the city for years to come – on the second USOC deal, for instance -- and help determine the look of the ballot voters will see this fall. Here are some unsolicited thoughts on one of the issues you’ll tackle at the informal today, for what they're worth.

Detoothing TABOR

I know the Taxpayer’s Bill of Right is a source of endless frustration for those who hate to see government growth constrained, and who view high taxes and unrestrained spending as a measure of a city’s virtue. I know TABOR serves as an all-purpose whipping boy for everything that’s supposedly wrong with Colorado Springs. But council members are at least savvy enough to understand that TABOR is not the source of current budget crunch, which stems from a heavy reliance on sales tax revenues, which are down due to a slumping economy. They should also realize that TABOR is still popular with voters -- and that any attempt to take the teeth out of our city TABOR will be overwhelmingly rejected in November.

Not every resident understands the technical aspects of our city TABOR, but most understand that it does more than just put tax increases to a vote – which is the only element remaining in the “reform” backed by Independent publisher John Weiss. TABOR also has mechanisms that allow government to grow at a modest rate, forcing tax refunds when collections exceed those reasonable limits, and which lower the city’s baseline budget in times of economic slowdown (the so-called ratchet effect). Weiss thinks voters are only interested in retaining the voting provision, and are ready to jettison the rest. I think he badly misreads the public mood.

What Weiss seeks isn’t the “reform” of TABOR; it’s the repeal of TABOR, one piece at a time. Savvy voters will see that. Weiss is the wrong person to bring this forward, since he’s not viewed as a friend to TABOR, but as a TABOR foe. His publication may have a following among a certain demographic, but it is seen as hostile to Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, evangelicals. It’s doubtful that these groups will reward the ridicule they endure in the Indy by voting for a measure championed by the weekly’s left-leaning publisher. Why would they – or members of City Council – want to put a feather in his cap?

A formidable coalition already has formed to vigorously defend TABOR, if necessary. Weiss’s measure will go down to overwhelming defeat. It’s important for council to consider what else on the ballot could get dragged down in the process, if this election season becomes a firefight over TABOR.

The sort of folks who will turn out to defend TABOR are also the sort of folks who will vote against any tax increases City Council wants approved. Put a modest and targeted tax increase on the ballot without a TABOR measure and you’ve got an uphill (but not insurmountable) climb. Put a tax increase or tax increases on the ballot alongside an attack on the city TABOR and you’re pushing a granite block up Pikes Peak.

By going for the whole enchilada, City Council may find itself, come November, with an empty plate. And that won’t do City Council or the city much good.

I urge council to take a pass on tackling TABOR for now and focus on things that will avoid unnecessary battles and do the city some short-term good. “Tweaking” our city TABOR won’t be possible, politically-speaking, without genuine buy-in from those who have its best interests in mind. It can’t come from known enemies of TABOR posing as “reformers.”

Accidental death and murder-through-malpractice occur in every American hospital, much to the delight of the ambulance-chasers. It's just a sad fact of life -- or fact of death -- that every reasonable person understands, because to err is human and because hospitals, on balance, do far more good than harm.

But the sorts of accidents that go unnoticed or barely-noticed at most hospitals can threaten to shut down a doctor-owned hospital, as this story in today's Denver Post explains. This double standard isn't because such "specialty hospitals" deliver substandard care, as compared to their non-doctor-owned counterparts; it's because they are upstarts, which bring competition into a system in which true competition is absent, threatening the profit margins of other hospitals. It's because they make easy scapegoats for politicians looking for someone "greedy" to blame for a system that politicians and regulators screwed-up. And it's because some interest groups hope to use the health care overhaul being contemplated by Congress to get rid of these rival institutions.

The Post, to its credit, lays out the interest group politics lurking behind the attack on doctor-owned hospitals:

"The debate over doctor-owned hospitals, ongoing since they began to flourish a decade ago, has pitted politician against politician — and doctors and their trade groups, including the American Medical Association, against hospitals and their trade groups — in a battle of wills and dueling studies on the hospitals' impact.

A proposed provision in the health care reform package Congress is debating could effectively end the debate — and kill future doctor-owned hospitals.

The provision would prevent doctor-owned hospitals from collecting Medicare reimbursements, which can be a hospital's lifeblood" . . .

". . . .No sooner did these hospitals start popping up than traditional hospitals started crying foul.

Those cries struck consistent themes: The specialized hospitals cherry-pick healthy, insured patients, leaving the really sick, the poor, the uninsured to pile up in generalized hospitals. The advent of doctor-owned hospitals, generalized hospitals say, threatens their very survival."

And their profits, of course. "The American Hospital Association reported that hospitals made a record $43 billion profit in 2007, the largest single-year profit jump in 15 years," reports The Post. And non-specialty hospitals aren't interested in cutting specialty hospitals in on that action.

Conflicts of interest and self-referrals can be a potential problem at doctor-owned hospitals. But they are a problem at conventional hospitals, too. I've only had a few major surgeries in my life, fortunately, but I've never enjoyed my choice of hospitals for having the procedures done. Once I picked my surgeon, my choice of hospital was also decided for me. I didn't ask "why?" I didn't investigate potential conflicts of interest. I didn't wring my hands over whether the surgeon's fee was reasonable or obscene (assuming a layperson has the knowledge to make such a determination). The system isn't set up to do comparison-shopping -- which is part of what's wrong with it. I just showed up at the appointed date and went under the knife, turning my fate over to a system I don't really understand and can't really control.

With doctor-owned hospitals, "we have individuals who will personally gain from having the control of what happens, of who goes in, who's admitted, what tests are done," a spokesman for the Colorado Hospital Association told the Post. But isn't that an apt description of how most non-doctor-owned hospitals operate?

The problem isn't specialty hospitals; the problem is an impossibly convoluted and covert system in which market forces don't work -- a system which conspires against a patient's ability to act as a true consumer. The problem isn't malpractice at certain doctor-owned hospitals; but malpractice in the broader, systemic sense, driven not so much by the "greed" of doctors but my the incessant meddling of politicians and government regulators. And now, based on a misdiagnosis of the ailment, Congress wants to do major surgery on a system that Congress made ill.

The unveiling of the second USOC deal was a somber affair, as the Indy’s Adrian Stanley points out in this piece. Gone was the giddiness and glad-handing that ushered in the first one. That’s as it should be.

The timing couldn’t be worse. City officials complain about a cash crunch, yet somehow have millions of dollars to spare for the USOC. Rumors of tax hikes and attacks on TABOR swirl. The economy has taken a dive since March 2008, when the first deal was approved. Confidence in city leadership seems low; resentment of government high. The second “deal” will cost taxpayers significantly more than USOC 1, and the risks will be greater (including the possibility of losing the police station if there’s some default on the Certificates of Participation that will have to be issued). The implosion of the first deal has left a sour taste in many mouths.

The only thing most members of Council have working in their favor is term limits. A number of them can’t run for reelection, so won’t have to face the wrath of voters unhappy with the situation. That frees them to do as they damn well please. A couple on Council may want the mayor’s job (despite the frequently-heard complaint that it pays such a pittance). But they’ll have to run with an albatross (or two) hanging around their necks.

My feelings on the USOC deal are mixed. Naturally, I would like to see it stay in Colorado Springs. But I have reservations about paying taxpayer bribes (some people call them “incentives’) to private entities (a private entity, in this case, which is not hurting financially and which pays its upper-echelon employees lavishly), and worry about the precedent this sets. I wonder whether the city could have negotiated a better deal (in which USOC would at least split the costs of the buildings it will eventually own); about whether the costs outweigh the claimed benefits; about whether this is a lopsided “partnership” (when the city has to shell out $54 million so we can put the USOC logo on city letterhead and signage).

I wonder what the rush is, and have doubts about whether all those other cities that are said to be out there, ready to steal USOC away, are as big a threat as the backers of this deal make them out to be. And it irks me that the USOC board had approved the details of the new package before most citizens in Colorado Springs were even aware one existed – much less what the fine-print might mean to them.

Now the city is over a barrel -- correction: now the city has put itself over a barrel -- and must approve the deal by August 11. This part of the process is butt-backward, in my opinion. It’s not just disrespectful to Colorado Springs taxpayers, but it’s not conducive to sound decision-making. The details of the new deal should have been made public first, debated and decided-upon by council second (after extensive public debate). Only then – after the people of Colorado Springs have decided what sort of financial support they will back, if any – should an offer have been made to the USOC, which the organization could the take or leave.

But the USOC, rather than the city, was in the driver’s seat in this process. So eager are city insiders to do a new deal now (probably in order to save face after the last one blew up on them), that what the citizens want or think seems to have become an afterthought.

Negotiate in secret. Rush it over to the USOC for approval. Write a tight deadline for approval into the agreement. Ram it through, even though there is no real rush to do so. This might be a good step-by-step guide to getting something done in a hurry. But I doubt it’s conducive to getting it done right.

None of us likes a road hog. But an even bigger frustration in the near future could come from road clogs. I'm talking about those environmentally correct but not-ready-for-prime time vehicles -- those glorified golf carts --that the better-living-through-smaller-cars crowd wants to force us all to drive.

The scourge of the road clog will become even greater than the danger of road hogs in the years to come, as special lanes are established, and new rules of the road are written, that will force those of us who still use evil old gasoline, and choose to drive a bigger-than-federally-approved vehicle, and are willing and able to go the speed limit, to accommodate the slower, under-performing, less reliable death traps that many alternative cars are.

We're seeing the first glimmer of this in Colorado, where a law is just kicking in that will force normal motorists to share already-overcrowded roads with glorified golf carts.

"One of 151 laws going into effect Wednesday, the 90th day after the end of the legislative session, it will allow smaller and slower electric car brands on more state roads. It aims to reduce gasoline consumption and pollution.

The law allows electric cars on state highways with speed limits of 35 mph or less and to cross state highways with higher speed limits. Currently, the vehicles are banned from all state highways and from crossing them because they're too slow."

It's a seemingly minor change of law today; something we can shake our heads at and chuckle. But from such tiny acorns mighty oak trees can grow.

We'll find it less humorous when this attempt to integrate the roadways fails and segregation of the roadways occurs, as conventionally-powered, full-performance vehicles are forced to accommodate (and possibly even give preference to?) politically correct alternatives. We see this already, of course, in the creation of HOV lanes to reward car pooling -- and in the new push to allow solo drivers of certain social engineer-approved hybrid vehicles to also use those special lanes. But that's just a precursor. Try to imagine how unmanageable, and potentially dangerous, the roadways will become when we're forced to accommodate significant numbers of undersized and under-performing vehicles. The road will be an even bigger mess than they are now.

Also becoming law today, not coincidently, is one bill that requires motorists to give bicyclists at least three feet of clearance when passing -- rules that will probably create conflict, rather than curb it -- and another bill that allows motor scooters on more public rights of way. Any one else see a pattern emerging?

The legislator who gave the green light to golf carts hails from Snowmass, Colorado, not surprisingly, an elite enclave near Aspen that's about as far removed from the real world as it is physically removed from the congested Front Range cities of Denver, Colorado, Fort Collins and Pueblo (where this law also applies). The legislator noted that "citizens in Snowmass Village use the vehicles to run errands and take children to school. She hopes more households will buy the cars, which start at $9,000, instead of a traditional second car," according to one news story.

It's a pretty little picture, like all the pretty pictures painted by social engineers. But there are realities and practicalities to consider. People in Snowmass Village might be able to afford a $9,000 electric cart, for running kids to school or stopping by Whole Foods for a celery and sprout smoothie. But how and whether this law will work in the rest of Colorado -- in the real world -- remains to be seen.

I've written before about the inconsistent, erratic and downright weird way this city deals with ethics issues (some of which made it into Sunday's Gazette as this guest column). But today's Gazette just underscores the Alice in Wonderland aspect of the way things are.

The "independent" ethics commission won't be making its findings public, according to The Gazette, but will report them confidentially to City Council, which then has the discretion to disclose or not disclose, judge or not judge, punish or not punish. This suggests that the commission is not truly "independent" (a suspicion stoked by the Jan Doran episode), but sees itself as working for (as an appendage of) City Council. And that raises a problem, since members of this City Council seem completely uninterested in getting to the bottom of the Lionel Rivera affair, and no investigation would be occurring at all had a citizen not come forward to formalize allegations that were floating around the city's rumor mill for a year.

The whole point of having an "independent" ethics board is to take the politics and personalities out of the process, so the citizens can get an objective assessment of whether allegations have validity. Bouncing secret findings back to the politicos at the end of the process effectively undermines that, raising the specter (especially in this situation) of a whitewash. I'm not saying that's gone on here. I'm just pointing out one obvious flaw with how the city's new ethics regime is working (or not working).

At a time when trust in City Hall is not exactly at an all time high -- when secrecy surrounds so much of what goes on in the city, from this ethics inquiry to the latest USOC negotiations -- this isn't likely to put minds at rest. I know the commissioners are just following the procedures, as they interpret them. But some of the procedures obviously are flawed, and should be re-written -- especially the one year statute of limitations on ethics violations, on which so much of this case could hinge.

[Councilman Jerry Heimlicher today told The Gazette that he will make the panel's report and recommendations public, excluding only the information that might compromise the mayor's professional career. That's a welcome step toward more transparency -- thank you, Jerry -- but it doesn't correct the fundamental problem, which is that the commission isn't operating independently, on behalf of the public, but ultimately answers to City Council.]

Also raising questions is the timing of all this. The commission has been nothing if not methodical (some would say lethargic) in going about its task. Weeks were wasted as the two-member panel, instead of tackling the allegations, found reasons to dither. Indeed, it sometimes seemed (in Alice in Wonderland fashion) that the citizen-whistle blower was the target of the panel's investigation, rather than the mayor -- as the commissioners demanded more documentary evidence supporting the allegations, as well as a list of people who might have information on the case. The citizen-whistle blower had to retain the services of a respected local attorney, and former judge, to act as a cattle prod.

(All of which can't help but be a deterrent to citizens who may be considering making an allegation in the future.)

But now, suddenly, only days after a second USOC deal is announced, and days before council will vote on it, the commission reveals that it's wrapped up its work. This may stem from Councilman Darryl Glenn's insistence that he wouldn't vote on any second USOC deal until ethics questions involving the first deal were put to rest. It may stem from a realization on council's part that a second deal will be a little harder to sell the people, as long as doubts linger about what went on in the first go-around. And perhaps the timing is just a coincidence. I, too, would like to see the ethics questions resolved before the city moves forward on USOC 2. But it appears that politics and PR factored into the timing of this.

The Alice in Wonderland quality to the whole undertaking is underscored by the fact that the panel is planning to hold a public meeting (possibly tomorrow, but there seems to be a question about that) at which nothing will be made public. Reports the Gazette:

"The two members of the three-member Independent Ethics Commission who have been investigating the conflict-of-interest allegations against Rivera plan to hold a public meeting this week, possibly Wednesday, Commissioner Mal Wakin said Monday.

“In terms of (Chairman Stephen Hook) and me doing our job, we’re through with our investigation,” he said. “It’s just a matter of having the meeting and making a few announcements and then we’ll probably go into (executive session) to actually write the report for the City Council.”

The situation just gets "curiouser and curiouser," in the words of young Alice. And public confidence, rather than being restored, is undermined as a result.

There's another effort afoot to "reform" our city Taxpayer's Bill of Rights -- by removing every provision but the right to vote on tax increases. But it's going to be hard to sell such a plan to the voters this fall using the redundancy argument -- we don't need the additional protections of a city TABOR, so the argument goes, because the state TABOR will suffice -- as long as the state TABOR remains a target for elimination.

Courts and politicos have been chipping away at the state TABOR for years, like a bunch of beavers gnawing at the base of a sequoia tree. The governor in his last State of the State address made his desire to do away with TABOR explicit. Now a liberal Denver lawyer says he will challenge TABOR in federal court -- Denver Post story -- arguing that it's unconstitutional.

Having failed in their efforts to completely topple the state TABOR, the beavers are employing new tactics. But as long as the state TABOR remains under assault, keeping our city's TABOR in tact (as imperfect as it is) acts as a sort of insurance policy against the dangers of runaway government at the local level. The timing of this lawsuit couldn't be worse for folks in Colorado Springs who are asking City Council to put an overhaul of our city TABOR on the November ballot -- a decision that could come within weeks. It undermines the redundancy argument, removing one of the already-shaky pillars on which this proposal rests.

While many Springs residents weren't paying attention, a new governmental entity -- one with real taxing and regulatory powers, and a potential to grow into something significant -- has been established along the Fountain Creek watershed between here and Pueblo. The Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District is only a month old, though it was a couple of years in the planning. It was created in the belief that better stewardship of the Fountain would help quell the water wars between Colorado Springs and Pueblo. If both cities and those living in between can find common ground in making the Fountain an amenity, in which both cities can take pride, much of the friction created by the long fight over the Southern Delivery System will be eliminated.

At least that's the reasoning behind it.

But whether the district will really serve that noble-sounding purpose, or become a catalyst for even more conflict, remains to be seen. And I worry that those in Colorado Springs who helped in the creation of the FCWD will in time come to wonder whether they helped spawn a monster. A series of recent news stories in the Pueblo Chieftain (you can learn a lot about issues of importance to Colorado Springs by reading that paper, by the way), which document the new entity's efforts to get up and off the ground -- to staff-up and get a better handle on its taxing and regulatory clout along the Fountain -- are what's giving me cause for pause.

A story today, for instance, indicates that the FCWD is already complaining about a "funding gap," inhibiting its ability to hire staff. The story indicates that the ratepayers of Colorado Springs Utilities might chip in some funds to help see FCWD through a rocky start.

"Colorado Springs and the Lower Ark [Valley Water Conservancy District] would each provide $150,000 for the next two years, for a total of $300,000. Of that, they would make $100,000 available to the Fountain Creek district to hire a manager and pay office costs. The other $200,000 would continue to fund consultants working on the corridor master plan. “We’d like to not have the district on the sidelines and see it become a partner,” Jay Winner, general manager of the Lower Ark district, told the Fountain Creek board Friday."

But whether the district will operate as a "partner," or become just another player in Southern Colorado water wars, is the salient question, it seems to me. Maybe it's better left on the sidelines, if it's only intent on flexing its muscles and adding complexity to an already complicated situation.

The $150,000 that may come from CSU ratepayers is only a down payment, as other excerpts from the story indicate:

"Colorado Springs has committed to paying $50 million to the district under the conditions, but the district won’t see most of that money for a long time.

The first $300,000 of the payments will come in the next three years, but can’t be used for administrative costs, only for study of flood-control measures, including a dam on Fountain Creek, said Pueblo County Attorney Dan Kogovsek.

The remaining payments will come in sums of $9.7 million the first year and $10 million each year for four years after SDS is completed."

But the district doesn't intend to live on handouts alone. Reports indicate that it plans to impose property taxes on individuals and entities within its boundaries.

"Our ultimate stream of money is a mill levy, but to get voters to approve it you need a demonstration project,” said Pueblo County Commissioner Jeff Chostner.

The question of how much regulatory authority the new entity will have, and how it will interact with other regulating entities along the creek, is also unsettled (and potentially unsettling). Here's a story in the Chieftain delving into that matter. It's not an academic question, since at least one business that operates in the watershed -- a gravel operation near the speedway -- is stuck in limbo, waiting for the district to get its act together.

La Farge Aggregates & Concrete wants to put a gravel pit operation on Fountain Creek south of Fountain, near Pikes Peak International Raceway. It started working with an interim board in May, and needs to move quickly. However, the uncertainty that has come with the start-up of the district has slowed the planning pace, said Steve Brown, regional land coordinator for La Farge.

“I beg you to find a staff,” Brown told the committee.

Having a nine-member board and two advisory committees of 15-16 members creates a complicated system for compliance, he said.

“You’re looking at 35-40 people who have needs to be met. You need someone to herd the cats,” Brown said.

It seems that the new district has so many "stakeholders" in its governing structure that it may prove ungovernable. And that could be a problem not just for those who have interests along the banks of the Fountain, but for those (like the city of Colorado Springs) who discharge significant amounts of water into the creek. How much power the district might exercise over water quality issues is unknown. But CSU ratepayers could be bankrolling the creation of an organization that will make CSU's life miserable in the years to come.

The Chieftain on July 15 reported on the regulatory "jumble" created by the district.

"Meshing the rules various agencies would like to see on Fountain Creek could create a complex set of hoops for developers to jump through.

The ringmasters of that particular circus likely will be the technical advisory committee of the Fountain Creek Flood Control and Greenway District, which had its first meeting Tuesday.

“The district was created faster than any of us anticipated, so we are experiencing growing pains,” said Cole Emmons, assistant El Paso County attorney. “This group plays a role, particularly when it comes to land use, very akin to a planning commission.”

That brought immediate questions from members of the committee, most of whom have met for years in a similar role as part of efforts to improve Fountain Creek, about what its basis for making decisions should be.

“Do we need a public hearing process to adopt land-use regulations?” asked Kim Headley, Pueblo County planning director. “The board adopted the Fountain Creek Vision Task Force strategic plan and the Army Corps of Engineers plan. Are they the foundation for our decisions?” asked Dennis Maroney, Pueblo stormwater director.

“We need to clarify what the true limits of our jurisdiction are in reality, or the two cities could meet at the county
line and this district could go away,” said Duane Greenwood, Fountain planning director. “That’s not the intent of the state law.”

Maybe the new district will actually succeed in creating common ground for cooperation between Colorado Springs and Pueblo, and work to the satisfaction of all the "stakeholders" in between. Or maybe it will become part of the problem rather than the solution -- a problem subsidized by CSU ratepayers.

The early signs point to the latter rather than the former, unfortunately. I think we've had a hand in inadvertently creating a Frankenstein along the Fountain, which will come back to haunt us in the future.

It appears that his City Council colleagues have agreed to Vice Mayor Larry Small's proposal to hold a town hall meeting on the new USOC deal. It will at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday at City Hall, according to The Gazette. That gives people with serious interest in this issue only a few days to dive into the details right away.

I applaud Small for pushing the idea, since I believe the public process was inadequate the first time around, as regular readers know. But I have one niggling concern.

Having a well-publicized evening meeting would certainly mark an improvement over the last time around. But how the meeting is structured is also important. My personal preference is for an open and freewheeling affair, at which the people speak and council mostly listens; at which people ask the questions and city officials answer them. What we don't need is a heavily controlled dog-and-pony show, at which city officials sell the public on the deal, then filibuster their way through a brief question and answer period.

All topics related to the second and first USOC deals should be on the table for discussion. Direct (though respectful, of course) questioning of the mayor, members of City Council and key city staff should be allowed. I think representatives of the USOC should attend as well, to hear questions or comments from the audience. As long as decorum is followed, and no one tries to stray far from the topic, or cause a disruption, it should be a genuine exchange of views between city leaders and average citizens.

That's my idea of a true town hall meeting, for what it's worth. A little air-clearing, even if it makes some people uncomfortable, will be good for everyone involved. And City Council will have a much better feel for what the public really thinks about the issue as a result.