October 2009

"Sean Paige, he's really a Doug Bruce clone," Councilwoman Jan Martin told the Colorado Springs Independent this week. "The difference is he's younger, he's better-looking and he's more articulate. All of which make him more dangerous."

Nice sound bite. But my supposed mentor doesn't seem to think I'm much of a clone, judging from an interview he gave CSAction.org, which has been posted on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsSWnha25UE.

I agree with Bruce on some matters, disagree with him on others. But I think and act independently.

Unlike Martin and other knee-jerk Bruce-bashers, I make an effort to be rational in my reactions to Bruce, by not allowing his charming personality to cloud my judgment about his proposals, ideas and actions. When I ran the opinion pages at The Gazette, we advised a "no" vote on the last four local ballot measures Bruce backed, if I'm recalling correctly. We grudgingly backed Ref. C, much to Bruce's displeasure (and to my regret, in retrospect, given its false promises). I am open to discussing tailored reforms or refinements to our city TABOR, where and when genuine problems are identified -- as Jan well knows, since she was party to related discussions only a few months ago. I oppose Bruce's latest ballot offering, 300.

Many of these positions haven't pleased Bruce. That's immaterial to me. When I think he's right -- and he is right on many issues and occasions -- I'll say so. When I think he's wrong about something, or barking up the wrong tree, I'll say so. Knee-jerk reactions by members of City Council cast the city in a reactionary, defensive and childish light. Reflexively rising to his bait invites unnecessary conflict and lays the predicate for costly lawsuits. Simplistic efforts to divide the city into pro- or anti-Bruce camps sow divisions that don't need to be there.

Maybe I can help bridge some of these divisions, or reduce the friction, since I respect both Bruce and my colleagues on City Council. But comments like Jan's -- and Doug's in the YouTube video -- make me wonder whether those tensions can ever be minimized.

I'm a little disillusioned with this whole City Council thing, to be honest. And it's not just from having my name dragged through the mud. During a getting-to-know-you session with Police Chief Richard Myers on Wednesday, I learned more about just how meager my powers as a member of council are.

Myers politely but firmly informed me that the police don't run license plate numbers at the request of City Council, don't fix tickets or excuse traffic violations for City Council and won't reveal confidential information about ongoing criminal investigations to members of City Council. Police resources are stretched a little thin at the moment, he explained, so the cops can't immediately swing into action, and send out an APB, each time a councilperson calls up, demanding that something be done about the teenagers playing loud music two doors down. Myers presented me with an official police patch in a packet of informational materials -- the first knick-knack for my still-barren City Hall office -- but he also made it clear that I, as a member of City Council, don't receive special treatment and can't deploy police manpower for personal errands.

What a let down! With so little pay, I at least thought I'd have the power to fix a traffic ticket or two from time to time. But I'm learning that there aren't as many perks to this gig as I imagined.

Actually, seriously, I was a little surprised that Myers had to say such things. None of these possibilities crossed my mind before he brought them up. But such requests must have been made, sometime in the past by somebody, if he felt compelled to do so.

It was a very informative meeting in other ways too. The conversations, with Myers and 3 of his top people, were candid and enlightening. I hope to go back for the cook's tour, and maybe ride-along with a patrolman or woman, once I get through (if I get through) this initial frenzy of activity.

Check the box beside another politician's rite of passage: being the target of a hit piece by the city’s “alternative” weekly (meaning it’s the “alternative” one turns to for shoddy and substandard journalism, I guess).

I’ve been attacked numerous times by the Indy since moving to Colorado Springs. The only time I’ve ever been mentioned is in a negative context. And I fully expected that this would continue after I became the accidental city councilman. Some of this “goes with the territory” of becoming a public figure. I understand that. But even I’m surprised at the depths to which the weekly stooped in its latest piece.

This is Google journalism at its worst. A wide and indiscriminating net is cast and assorted scraps of questionable reliability are hauled in, from which a distorted mosaic is maliciously assembled. It’s not even close to an accurate or honest account of who I am or what I’ve done in my life. Attempting to correct the record, point by point, would only lend credibility to something that has none.

The writers at any time in the past 3 weeks could have called or e-mailed me, asking for clarifications, past professional contacts or the facts. Instead, they saved up all the disconnected scraps of Google fodder they’d collected for one Inquisition-like interrogation, where they could fire a barrage of odd and insulting questions my way, expecting me to have 20/20 memory of events that took place years ago. Writer Pam Zubeck demanded that I not blog about that so-called interview (I’ve never before had a reporter issue me a gag order at the beginning of a discussion), and I understood why half-way through, given the unprofessional, off-point, insulting nature of the questioning.

For all the “investigating” the Indy did, and the Googling, facts that were right in front of their faces somehow escaped them. Anyone wanting to verify my internship at the NJC, for instance, could do so my looking at my SourceWatch entry: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sean_Paige. It’s only about the fifth or sixth thing that pops up. I’m still friends with people I met there, who would have been happy to talk with the Indy had the Indy been interested in talking with them. Zubeck never asked me for a name, or asked me about my internship. Better to leave the impression that it never happened.

Similarly, anyone seeking evidence of my writing work at Insight Magazine need only Google my name – dozens of articles will pop up. So what if a current Washington Times managing editor doesn’t remember me? I don’t remember him, if he even worked there at the time, and the magazine and news divisions worked separately. I stay in touch with many former colleagues, from the Times and other Washington jobs, and would have been more than happy to put the Indy’s reporters in touch with them. Yet they never asked me for any of this, preferring, instead, to leave the impression that there are mysterious gaps and discrepancies in my career.

I slapped together a resume, from memory, a few minutes before submitting paperwork for the council appointment. If I didn't get everything exactly right, that doesn't make me dishonest -- just a little disorganized (a fault which I readily concede).

Is some secretary currently answering the phones for John Sununu really going to recall who was a go-fer for the governor back in 1989? How ridiculous. But I could easily have gotten Zubeck in touch with someone who could have, or provided her with documentation, had she asked for this. She didn’t ask. And if Zubeck had bothered to ask me what work I did at the White House – she didn’t – I would happily have told her that it wasn’t as glamorous as it sounds. I put it on my resume because it happened. But that was a tiny sliver of the time I spent in Washington, relatively early in my tenure, and it isn’t something I make a big deal about, as anyone who knows me knows. There are things I did in Washington that had more impact, and of which I am much prouder. But the Indy reporters aren’t interested in any of that.

All they had to do was ask me a few questions and all the mysterious discrepancies would evaporate. But they didn’t ask, because their story is predicated on creating the impression there are mysterious gaps or fabricated falsehoods in my background. That’s called a smear, not journalism.

My lack of a voting record was also made an issue of. Here's a little context.

I voted before moving to Washington – though, again, the intrepid investigators at the Indy couldn’t confirm this, so it didn’t apparently happen -- but got out of the habit while there, mainly because I rented in places (D.C., Maryland, Northern Virginia) where good choices are lacking for any self-respecting conservative, and because I wasn’t initially sure how long I would stay. I became disillusioned with partisan politics, and a rudderless Republican Party, in the mid-to-late 1990s. Ronald Reagan is the last president I voted for because he’s the last one who met the standard. I was post-partisan before it was fashionable.

As a working journalist, and later, as an editorial writer, I felt like I wanted to stay above the partisan fray. No one can say I’m apathetic about the issues or the good of the country – the common criticism of people who don’t vote. I’ve been voting for the ideas and issues I care about for over 20 years, every day that I went to work. Is someone who musters the energy to vote once every two or four years doing more than the person who's made championing ideas and causes (and the country) his work? American are free – free -- to vote or not to vote, for whatever reason. It doesn’t make them any less a citizen or patriot. I’m currently registered as unaffiliated and will resume voting. In fact, I did so today.

Mine is a potentially interesting and entertaining life story, for anyone interested in telling it honestly and completely. I suppose that will have to wait for a later date, and better journalists. This was a muckraking exercise disguised as a “profile,” which seeks to discredit and degrade through innuendo and the cherry-picking of facts.

I’m proud of what I’ve accomplished in my professional life. Nothing was handed to me; it came through perseverance, hard work and a determination to do work that made a difference. That I was the school kid that no one labeled “the most likely to succeed,” but who managed to carve out a respectable career for himself, is something I’m proud of. People who know me, and know my work, respect and like me – that’s affirmation enough. That malicious strangers would go out of their way to distort, denigrate and discredit that is frustrating and hurtful.

My own brand of journalism can be pointed and hard-hitting. But I never went in for character assassination, snide insinuation, personal vilification or the sort of maliciousness one sees in this piece. But I’ve learned never to expect anything else -- or better -- from this particular publication.

I took a little ribbing today from colleagues over some mild critiques I made of the Gazette's coverage of Monday's City Council meeting, at which the police chief and DA briefed us on the medical marijuana situation in Colorado Springs. They were seeking some guidance from City Council on how to proceed. A few colleagues took delight in seeing the tables turned -- in having a journalist-turned-city councilman complaining about the media coverage. "See," a few said, "now you know what we used to call complain to you about."

But please take note: I didn't impugn anyone's motives or attribute it to some dark plot. That's because I know, first-hand, how such disconnects can occur in a collaborative, deadline-driven business like newspapers. I know how an ill-chosen headline -- "City aims to outlaw pot growers" -- can lead to hasty conclusions and an overreaction on the part of some readers. And I can understand in this case why the reporter came away confused. He or she wasn't alone. Almost everyone who sat through Monday's session could be excused for being a bit befuddled, given the legal, moral and regulatory ambiguities the situation presents.

Does federal law apply? Or should we follow what's in the Colorado Constitution? Are marijuana grows and dispensaries permitted under existing land use rules and codes, or will new rules have to be written? What should we do in the meantime? Where does state responsibility end and local authority begin? No clear answers to such questions were going to emerge from a single City Council meeting.

We're wandering new territory, where the new rules haven't been written yet. So I'll cut the reporter some slack if the story didn't quite jibe with my perceptions of what took place. I think many of us walked away a little unsure of where everything stood.

I had a brief conversation with Police Chief Richard Myers before yesterday's council meeting. He wasn't happy with my calling him a "hard-liner" in my last blog post, insisting that he was fine with whatever council decided on, including the "do nothing" option. I regret mis-characterizing his position. I just had trouble differentiating his position from the DAs, in terms of what was presented. They seemed to agree that this was creating a significant law enforcement challenge, which called for some city response. But maybe I missed the nuances. I apologize for that.

Readers who still have questions about exactly what occurred, and have time to re-watch the meeting, can do so at Springsgov.com: Here's the link. You might take a look at Tuesday's meeting too, since it came up for discussion again and efforts were made to clarify the city's position, given the misperceptions that are out there. Here, to save some re-writing, is a note I posted in response to the Gazette story and accompanying editorial:

"No disrespect to the authors of this piece, but I think it slightly misrepresents what went on at yesterday's meeting, in which I was a participant. This has led to some of the knee-jerk, half-informed comments of some people on this thread. Let me attempt to clear the air.

The story leaves the impression that I and others on council took a hard line on this burgeoning industry, but that's not the case. There was general agreement (though no actual voting) among most on council that dispensaries or grow operations that are in violation of city codes or land use laws should be brought into compliance, if complaints are made. Nobody could responsibly take the position that these operations should be permitted to operate outside existing law. That doesn't mean the city will be sending out people to shut down these operations -- just that it will respond as normal when and if complaints are made.

The police chief and DA came in advocating what seemed to me like a hard line, but city council took a much more measured approach, in my view, merely taking the position that medical marijuana operations that aren't operating according to city codes or land use regs be made to conform. That hardly constitutes a war on the industry. There were no firm decisions beyond that about how to proceed, due to ambiguities in state, local and federal laws on this matter. The door remains open to working with the industry to make this work in Colorado Springs.

Tom Gallagher and I agreed to begin meeting with representatives of the industry, in an effort to encourage self-regulation and make them partners in any solutions that emerge. I believe most city officials (and most of my colleagues on City Council) remain open to the possibility that we can find constructive and creative ways to make this work in Colorado Springs. We're going through a period of discomfort and disorientation at the moment, because we're in new and uncharted territory. But I didn't come away from yesterday's meeting feeling that the city is on some crusade against medical marijuana; we're just trying to maintain some modicum of order in what appears to be a chaotic situation, until new protocols, procedures and guidelines can be mapped out. That's my perception, for what it's worth.

Members of the industry who want to be part of the task force that's forming should phone or e-mail me: spaige@springsgov.com or 385-5470. Please join me in being part of the solution."

E-mails and phone calls have been coming in since the ad-hoc "task force" was formed on Monday. I hope to respond to most of them today. But Tom Gallagher and I will be hosting an initial meeting of the group at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, Nov. 5, in the Pikes Peak Conference Room at City Hall. All interested parties should attend.

Police Chief Richard Myers will come before City Council later today, seeking guidance on how to deal with the bumper crop of largely-unregulated medical marijuana dispensaries and grow sites sprouting up across the city. Last week's decision by the U.S. Justice Department to throttle back on the enforcement of federal anti-pot laws in states that have partially-legalized set local police and politicians adrift in uncharted seas, without navigation points. Lacking guidance from on high, we must now find our own way. That's an unfamiliar and uncomfortable situation for almost everyone involved -- including for me, City Council's small-L libertarian, who must now deal with legalization as something more than an abstraction. But it's also a rare and exciting opportunity -- to do things our own way.

The New York Times has a good write-up today on the issue from the 30,000-foot view. The Fort Collins Coloradoan offers a more local focus, pointing out that some medical marijuana dispensaries are eager for some sort of state or local regulation. This will have to move to the top of the legislature's agenda next session. In the meantime, the issue lands squarely in the lap of local officials. That presents challenges -- but also an opportunity for local governments to show that they can deal with the issue creatively and constructively. That's the approach I hope Colorado Springs will take.

Chief Myers points out in his PowerPoint that the city is facing a regulatory Catch-22: "How do you legally regulate activity," he asks, "that is in violation of federal law?" It's a challenging question for which there is no easy answer. Myers will present a number of options for responding:

Do nothing

Regulate land uses

Strengthen building codes

Require business licenses

Enforce sales tax

I'm not sure which of these responses I'll support, if any. But I'm not an anarcho-libertarian: I don't think doing nothing is an option. Most pro-legalization folks support some level of regulation, as well as taxation -- in fact, that's frequently used as a major selling point for legalization. And there may be other, even better options, which the city could adopt in consultation with responsible representatives of this emerging industry.

This is an opportunity to not become knee-jerk reactionaries, but to respond with restraint, reason and common sense -- to show that we in Colorado Springs can deal with the situation constructively and creatively, making us a model that other cities, facing similar circumstances, can emulate.

I'll be doing what I can to make that happen.

Josh Penry has a lot going for him as a gubernatorial candidate. He's smart, articulate, youthful, attractive and conservative enough to appeal to common sense Coloradans. He's running against an incumbent, Bill Ritter, who is uninspiring, unimaginative and has a lackluster record, mostly more rhetorical than real, which leaves him vulnerable to attack on several fronts.

But Penry's major flaw, at least from my perspective -- a major reason why El Paso County Republicans may be a little wary of him -- is that he stoops to pandering on the Pinon Canyon issue. Penry has gone beyond just supporting measures in the state legislature that were designed to scuttle Fort Carson expansion -- votes that could reasonably be construed as pro-private property rights, but in some cases just amounted to piling on the Army. He's taken to pandering to the paranoia of southern Colorado's activist-ranchers by impugning the Army's motives.

From today's Chieftain:

"TRINIDAD - Josh Penry found a receptive audience Friday among Southern Coloradans opposed to the Army’s proposed expansion of its Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site.

“The Army needs to come clean with folks out here,” Penry said in meetings at Trinidad State Junior College and later in Walsenburg.

“Until the Army takes eminent domain and condemnation off the table,” the Republican candidate for governor said he will oppose expansion.

Penry, a state senator from Grand Junction, contrasted his stand on Pinon Canyon expansion with that of Scott McInnis, the former 3rd Congressional District representative who also is seeking to unseat Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter. Republican Dan Maes also is in the race.

“McInnis said it was not about private property rights and people who oppose the expansion are anti-military. That is irresponsible and reckless,” Penry said. “Fort Carson is important. So are private property rights.” The Army contends that Colorado Springs-based Fort Carson must be allowed to expand its Pinon"

I don't think Scott McInnis ever said (or even suggested) that the activist-ranchers who oppose Pinon Canyon expansion are anti-military, so that seems like a campaign season distortion. McInnis has kept an open mind on the issue, much to his credit, and he has criticized Ritter for signing Pinon Canyon bills that were short-sighted and seemed designed to take gratuitous slaps at the Army. That doesn't necessarily make McInnis the better choice for El Paso County Republicans. And these observations aren't meant as an endorsement, since I have my own beefs with McInnis, dating back to his unhelpful position on a federal bill that would have expanded Pueblo reservoir (the subject of another blog, perhaps). But his open-mindedness on Pinon Canyon certainly sets McInnis apart from the pack, where bipartisan pandering to rancher paranoia has been the norm.

Penry's demand that the Army "come clean" on its plans is where the pandering becomes evident, since it implies that the service has been less-than-honest about its designs in southern Colorado. The Army unquestionably botched the pr campaign on the Pinon Canyon proposal. It was too slow, as a hidebound bureaucracy, in making its case to the public. Its justifications for expansion were initially too vague and too slow in coming. That allowed the opposition to spin the issue its way, to nurse conspiracy theories, to paint the Army as a villain -- obscuring the fact that all the Army is trying to do is improve military readiness and bolster Fort Carson's capacity as a training area.

Penry also blurs important distinctions on the issue of eminent domain, by insisting that it be permanently removed from the table, even though the expansion of a military training facility -- if justified by a real need -- clearly falls under the traditional definition of a "public good," for which eminent domain might be used. I'm as strong a property rights advocate as there is. In an ideal world, I too would like to see the Army accomplish expansion with the cooperation of "willing sellers" only (and it has on several occasions signaled its interest in doing that). But I think it's important that the anti-Kelo backlash not lead us toward a blanket condemnation of all eminent domain, in all cases. It's in the U.S. Constitution for a reason. And although there's no question that this extraordinary government power is being misused and abused -- mostly at the local level, ironically -- there are times and circumstances when it becomes necessary.

Penry insists that he's not opposed to the expansion, "but rather to the use of eminent domain or condemnation to take private property for the expansion," according to The Chieftain. But his voting record and rhetoric on the stump paint a more strident picture.

Colorado needs a governor who (on this issue and others) can transcend party loyalty or regional differences and do what's right for Colorado as a whole. We need a governor who would be working to bridge the understanding gap between the Army and the rancher-activists of Southern Colorado, not widen it. We need a governor who would be working for a mutually-beneficial resolution, not playing to anti-Army paranoia.

Ritter failed that test of leadership on Pinon Canyon. Penry's pandering on the issue makes me think he would fail it too.

Quietly, methodically and persistently, Superintendent Mike Miles has been bringing much-needed change to the Harrison School District. D-2 may soon be the first school district in the state with a bona fide pay-for-performance plan, reports this morning's Gazette, which ties teacher incentives to improvements in student achievement. And that's only the latest of many reforms Miles has instituted since coming aboard.

Much of the credit for this quiet revolution must go to an open-minded school board and supportive parents, who seem to understand that Miles is motivated by a sincere desire to drag D-2 out of the doldrums it was in before he was hired, as well as a belief that students come first. It's wonderful to see D-2 becoming a leader in school reform, rather than a laggard. And I'm excited to see what innovation comes next.

One of the problems with blogging about being on City Council is that you're too busy being on City Council to blog.

That's my way of apologizing for falling behind in the chronicles of an accidental city councilman.

The normal work load of a city council member is considerable but not unmanageable, from what I can tell. But the demand for briefings and meetings multiplies when you're the new person on council, coming in during budget deliberations, with an ax hanging over so many heads. My popularity will wear off soon enough, as will the novelty. But for now it's meetings, meetings, meetings -- which gives me little time to blog about what actually goes on, or is said, at these meetings.

My first priority (and challenge) is studying the city's budget situation, weighing the various proposals that are on the table (including the City Manager's proposed cuts), considering proposals that aren't on the table but ought to be, and then deciding what I'll fight for and what I'll let go when we get to trade-off time. It feels a bit like you're a Gumby, being pushed and pulled in multiple directions. And your personal preferences and ideas must be balanced against what you judge to be in the best interest of the district you represent.

As an incoming council member, you're presented with a city, and city budget, not of your own making or design -- you have to deal with what is, not what ought to be or should have been if better decisions had been made in the past. There are things the city does that I, as a small-l libertarian, consider superfluous, non-essential or unaffordable. But once citizens get used to receiving those services, or become dependent on them, it's not easy just taking them away. Transit is a perfect example.

The city's transit system (meaning bus system, mainly) underwent a major expansion after the PPRTA was approved a number of years ago, when the city seemed flush with cash. Routes and hours of operation were expanded, beyond what was sustainable if sales tax revenues sharply fell. Now we're faced with having to reduce routes and hours of operation. I now become the "bad guy" for having to institute cutbacks. But maybe the real bad guys were the people who, in their irrational exuberance post-passage of the PPRTA, expanded the system beyond what was prudent, affordable or sustainable. And that's only one of many examples I could offer.

Would like to write more but . . . . you guessed it . . . more meetings beckon. Maybe this weekend I'll find time to share more thoughts on the budget situation. In the meantime, accept no favors from the city that it can't afford to pay for in the long-run.

Private landowners in Wyoming have pulled out of an agreement to host an experimental colony of black-footed ferrets on their properties, according to today's Casper Tribune, for reasons that should send red flags flying here in Colorado Springs. Fort Carson has volunteered to host just such a colony -- inviting significant problems for the base if environmentalists succeed in petitioning the animals onto the endangered species list. And that isn't the remote possibility it once seemed.

Here's the Tribune:

"State wildlife officials have canceled plans to reintroduce the black-footed ferret in southern Albany County because of landowner skittishness over a petition by environmental groups to give the animal more protection as an endangered species.

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department intended to release about 60 black-footed ferrets, among the rarest animals in North America, during the next two months on private land in southern Albany County, said Bob Oakleaf, nongame species coordinator for the agency.

But the two landowners participating in the reintroduction now don't want the ferrets released on their land, Oakleaf said, because they're worried about a petition filed last month by three environmental groups seeking to have the animals living on public lands receive full federal protection as an endangered species.

The landowners, whom Oakleaf declined to name, fear that petition will eventually result in the ferrets on private land -- their land -- also being listed as an endangered species, causing the government to restrict road building and other activities."

Military training is another activity that ESA listings can (and frequently do) impact.

I've blogged before about the risks the Army was taking with this well-meaning but short-sighted project. It may be good PR, but it's also just plain foolish, to invite endangered species onto a military base, given the restrictions this can impose on training. Many American military facilities operate with significant handicaps as a result of having ESA-listing animals on-base. Why Carson would be inviting such headaches is baffling. It should find a polite but firm way to retreat, before the ferret petition gets any further along.

If a few Wyoming landowners can understand the implications enough to back away, why can't the brass at Fort Carson? No one wants to see the ferrets evicted. But the Mountain Post's military mission must take precedence over warm-and-fuzzy PR.

I wrote yesterday about the "disorientation," tension and "gray-area uncertainties" that occur whenever "freedom wins out over order, control and reflexive regimentation." Nothing exemplifies this better than the consternation medical marijuana legalization is causing Colorado Attorney General John Suthers -- an old-school anti-drug crusader, of "Just Say No" vintage, who may have trouble adapting to the new realities. Suther's negative reaction to news that the Obama Justice Department wouldn't automatically be busting medical marijuana dispensaries in states where limited legalization had been approved -- that it wouldn't continue a tactic the Bush administration used to impose one-size-fits-all federal drug rules on states -- shows how difficult the new reality will be for some people to accept.

From this morning's Pueblo Chieftain:

"Federal prosecutors were told Monday that the U.S. Department of Justice did not consider targeting of people who use or supply medical marijuana a good use of their time in the 14 states that have legalized medical marijuana.

The edict was part of a new policy saying federal drug agents will no longer arrest or prosecute people who are legally using, selling or supplying medical marijuana in the states that allow it.

But even in those states, law enforcement officials are not happy with the rules.

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers responded to the latest Justice Department pronouncement with criticism of the way this state's law is worded.

“Colorado has seen a rapid proliferation of medical marijuana dispensaries and patients since the Justice Department earlier this year announced it would not actively prosecute medical marijuana businesses - despite the fact that marijuana remains an illegal drug under federal law. “The U.S. Attorney General’s new medical marijuana policy, released today, while a clearer statement on the Justice Department’s policy, relies on the faulty assumption that Colorado has clearly defined laws on medical marijuana. In fact, it does not.

“Amendment 20, written by marijuana-legalization proponents, is very vague and contains no meaningful regulatory scheme. Dispensaries and grow operations, for example, are not mentioned in either Colorado’s Constitution or its statutes. This vacuum has given rise to problems I and other law enforcement leaders have highlighted over the past few months. This legal vacuum also has left Colorado’s towns and cities to grapple with the state’s burgeoning marijuana trade.

“For the U.S. Attorney General’s new policy to have any significance for Colorado, our state lawmakers must give clarification to Amendment 20 and create a regulatory scheme for the growing medical marijuana industry.”

Life was easier for Suthers in the black-and-white world of strict prohibition. The line between the "good guys" and "bad guys" was clear, making law enforcement decisions relatively clear-cut. States were relieved from having to draw-up more nuanced enforcement rules, as long as Washington imposed its will on states that strayed from the norm. But change has come and he should put his energy into creative adaptation, not rigid resistance.

The AG is right on one thing: the governor and legislature will have to carve out time in the 2010 session to draw up some (hopefully broad) ground rules for the management and oversight of medical marijuana growers and dispensaries in Colorado. In the meantime, that responsibility is falling to local governments. How much control the state should impose, and how much latitude should be granted to local authorities, is an open (and interesting) question. A regulatory vacuum now exists, creating a lot of discomfort for those who prefer control and regimentation. But that doesn't mean government has to rush in to fill -- and then over-fill -- the vacuum, as it usually does.

We're entering uncharted waters, so the new charts will have to be drawn up as we go. But that's kind of exciting and intriguing, in my view, not anxiety-inducing.

Voters in a number of states have approved medical marijuana laws in recent years, only to find federal drug enforcers effectively nullifying those measures by busting people who tried to prescribe, cultivate or distribute medical marijuana. It was a classic states' rights conflict, in which federal drug laws were being used by Washington to override modest legalization steps taken by states. Voters in many states (including Colorado) seem open to relaxing certain drug prohibitions, if it could do suffering people some good. But the Bush Justice Department held firm to its "zero tolerance" stance, using DEA raids to effectively force federal drug laws on everyone else.

But that (thankfully) is changing under the Obama administration, which is calling-off the DEA raiders (at least for now) as long as the medical marijuana dispensaries adhere to state law. Here's a write-up on the issue in today's Los Angeles Times.

It doesn't mean the DEA isn't monitoring developments in the nascent medical marijuana industry, or that it won't raid operations it thinks are fronts for the non-medical distribution of pot. But the new deference the Justice Department is showing states -- the new reasonableness and respect -- is in my view a positive development, reducing some of the frictions (and injustices) its formerly-hardline stance were creating.

Will this experiment in partial legalization be abused and exploited by bad actors? It would be naive to ignore the possibility. But that's a matter better dealt with at the state and local level than by the U.S. Justice Department. States that have medical marijuana laws are dealing with an analogous issue, as state and local law enforcers, and state and local officials, begin to work through the sometimes-prickly issues and dilemmas this legalization experiment presents. We'll have to wrestle with these issues in Colorado Springs as well.

These difficulties aren't an argument against the experiment -- major changes in longstanding policy always create tensions and gray-area uncertainties. They're just the normal (but temporary) disorientation that occurs when freedom wins out over order, control and reflexive regimentation. I'm just glad that the Obama administration -- for now, at least -- will be giving states the opportunity -- the liberty -- to deal with this themselves.

I'm pleased almost any time a "Page by Paige" blog entry generates a response. But especially interesting was one I received yesterday from former Colorado Springs Utilities CEO Phil Tollefson, reacting to a post I did ("My Achilles hair") about a Rich Tosches column in Thursday’s Indy.

Most of Tollefson’s note (posted below) details events that took place years ago – events of little relevance to most readers but which still loom large to Tosches, given the play he gave them in Thursday's column. But some readers might find Mr. Tollefson’s observations interesting, for the light they shine on Rich’s efforts to resurrect the controversy.

Wrote Phil Tollefson:

"For the record Sean, I don't believe I ever said anything to Rich Tosches about the Broadmoor "ordering" any editorials. Also, I firmly agree with your conclusion that Rich often appeals to the worst sides of human nature through sheer demagoguery in the guise of humor.

A few facts Rich has consistently chosen not to share about this situation over the years: 1. CSU purchased the Broadmoor water system in 1973. 2. The purchase contract required CSU to continue supplying water to the Broadmoor. 3. For decades, this obligation had been fulfilled by operating the system as it had always been operated-discharging from a finished water storage tank into a pond that supplied the golf course and charging a nonpotable rate. This arrangement, although obviously somewhat inefficient due to the use of treated water, was considered less expensive than the cost of repiping the system to furnish untreated water. 4. Further, the arrangement was not at all unusual in that Prospect Lake had always been kept full by discharging treated water, often well over 1 million gallons per day for years at a time. That may well still be the case today; I haven't kept up with any changes that may have been made. 5. When the drought impact hit, the idea of restricting the Broadmoor's use arose, but there was confusion as to whether and how the purchase contract would allow curtailment. Broadmoor legal counsel maintained CSU would be liable for any damage caused to the golf courses due to any illegal curtailment (potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars). We did decide the prudent course of action would be to continue serving the golf course for a few days until the lawyers could determine whether there was any liability. 6. A disgruntled employee chose to call Rich instead of asking utilities' management why we were continuing to furnish the supply. 7. Upon completing the legal review, appropriate changes were made to charge the Broadmoor and minimize deliveries. 8. Rich chose to ignore our explanations and castigate what we felt were prudent actions given the potential liabilities involved.

All this was publicly explained to, and accepted by, the City Council. Your editorials were accurate and fair in their treatment of the facts. With respect to the business of not including the Broadmoor on a list of requested top water users, again Rich seems to twist things to imply secret deals. CSU has routinely identified the largest water users by name in bond disclosures, etc forever. What we cannot do is disclose the actual amount of usage because of customer privacy requirements under State law. While it may not make much difference with a hotel situation, certain commercial customers regard such information as proprietary data about their operations that could give competitors unfair advantage. A utility can't choose which customers' data it will release and which it will not. Rich's reaction to this explanation was to tell his readers we were holding secrets at the Broadmoor's direction. Again, a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. We once offered to give Rich a guided tour of the wastewater plant, complete with a set of diving goggles and swim fins. He declined to accept any education in that circumstance as well. Congratulations on your successful candidacy. I will be interested to see how you continue to manage people like Rich."

The Indy’s Rich Tosches really knows how to hurt a guy. Like all polished muckrakers, he has a panther’s instinct for a target’s vulnerabilities. In my case, that's my hair.

Guilty as charged, Rich; I use too much hair product. But I was emotionally scarred as a kid (back in the pre-gel, pre-mousse, pre- pomade era) by a great uncle who ribbed me about the “coonskin cap” I was always wearing.

Former Chamber President Will Temby may have had stiffer fair, and Terry Storm’s is almost as perfect. But we would have to conduct dueling wind tunnel tests to be sure.

I’m still searching for a stylist I can trust with a makeover. But for now, and probably always, there’s only one man in town I trust to mess with mein coif. That’s Johnny, who mans the chair closest the door at a barber shop on S. Tejon (the owner insists on calling it a “salon” but the men who go there know it’s a barber shop). If he disagrees with my politics, he’s mum about it. We talk about fishing, and he tells me very funny stories I can’t repeat here. And besides: cutting my hair requires maximum concentration, keeping chit-chat to a minimum. My barber sometimes has to use a chisel and jigsaw to shape it just right. But he’s also a master woodworker, so I’m the perfect client.

I desperately want to shed this stuffy old personae, believe me. But I just can’t get myself to try the bed-head cockatoo look so popular with the hip young set (and isn’t gluing hair straight up more work than gluing it straight down?). But my new constituents should be assured: I have all the federal, state and local permits required to mix potentially volatile hair products. I make sure my family is off to school or work, and well away from the house, before I add the final coat.

When Rich called earlier this week, I was quick to see the angle he was working. It was a dark conspiracy about how the big, bad Broadmoor ordered me to do an editorial page hit job on him, back when we both worked at The Gazette, in retaliation for some inflammatory columns he had written about the hotel. Not long after that, Rich left the paper. He seems to think the two events are linked. But I told him it just didn’t happen that way.

The rebuttals I wrote to Rich’s anti-Broadmoor broadsides – something that created a lot of hard feelings in the newsroom -- were written completely un-prompted. I had only been in town a few weeks: all I knew about the Broadmoor was that it was a nice part of town with a hotel attached. No one encouraged me: I just thought Rich’s pieces smacked of envy-mongering and class-baiting (something I told him when we talked Tuesday). He was a columnist, which gives him license to do this sort of thing. But when I did a little research, I thought his pieces lacked context. I didn’t mean for my rebuttals to read like personal rebukes, but they probably did (me being me). I think Rich is a talented journalist, when he applies himself. We never talked much before or after that event.

I had absolutely nothing to do with him leaving the paper; nor do I know why it happened. So when I threw a monkey-wrench into his carefully concocted conspiracy theory, he had to fall back on his usual material – making fun of my hair. A number of people think I got off easy, at least for now. It’s not the end of the world being compared to Wayne Newton.

Danke schoen, Rich. Danke shoen. I’ll try to loosen up.

It’s rare that I would ever hold up Boulder as a model to follow; in most cases, on the contrary, it illustrates the slippery slope that beckons when you embrace the command-and-control model of city government. But this story in today’s Daily Camera has me thinking.

Some Boulder city leaders want to start charging non-residents to use Boulder’s popular parks and open spaces. And while I happen to think one aspect of the proposal is extreme, exclusionist and unfriendly, it did get me thinking about the possibility of placing inconspicuous contribution boxes at popular city parks and open spaces, for the collection of voluntary contributions. Boulder’s impulse, typically, is to slap people with fees and tell them to pay or go elsewhere. The Colorado Springs approach would be non-coercive and strictly voluntary, counting on people who use these amenities (residents or non-residents) to put what they can in a collection box, to help fund an amenity they enjoy.

How much money could the city collect? I don’t have a clue? But every dollar counts in these tight times. And it might be something worth trying.

A cool head and a hammer got me through the first crisis of my City Council tenure -- a locked bedroom door standing between me and my sport coats. After that, it was relatively smooth sailing.

The swearing-in went off without a hitch, thanks to City Clerk Kathryn Young, who briefed me on the protocols in advance, led me through the vows, pinned on my little City Council badge (while resisting the temptation to plunge the pointy part into my heart) and even reminded me to kiss my wife. I actually got some applause. It wasn't an elaborate hoax, after all -- something I secretly suspected, right up to the moment I took my seat. And we were off on my first City Council marathon, in a meeting that ran more than six hours.

Mayor Lionel Rivera shuffled the seating order, placing me on his far right (appropriately), next to fellow bad-boy Tom Gallagher. Maybe the idea is to segregate the known trouble-makers by placing them on the literal and figurative fringe. But Darryl Glenn sits across the way, two seats to the mayor's left, so there's potential for a pincer move if battles break out. I suspected that Bernie Herpin sought the seating change -- which moved him from the far right to the far left side of the dais (facing the public) -- because the camera angles were better. But he corrected me when I ribbed him about it. It put him closer to the bathroom, he said -- an inconspicuous exit if he needs one. If I want to escape, it's a long and obvious walk to the exits.

They call this an "informal session," because no actual votes are taken, but it was serious business. We received budget briefings on Memorial Health System and the PPRTA, heard about the Police Department's homeless task force (an interest of my predecessor's I plan to continue) and talked over the city's legislative agenda. My colleagues asked probing and intelligent questions. A few sparks flew when Tom grilled some presenters on the city's transit challenges -- and what he sees as a lack of creativity in dealing with them. I chipped in what I could. I learned a lot. It was interesting and educational -- really.

We went into executive session -- a practice I think is abused sometimes. But I understand the need for it in the cases we discussed (if you want more details, you'll have to pry them out of me with a pair or white-hot pliers). As an advocate for less secrecy and more transparency, I'll become a stickler for keeping as many meetings open as possible. But I wasn't prepared to make a fuss about this my first day on the job, and I do believe there are times when such sessions are necessary.

Today we actually begin voting. I have a one-on-one meeting with the City Manager, to discuss budget issues. I also have coffee with scoundrel/journalist/raconteur John Hazlehurst this morning. Should make for an interesting day, all in all. Stay tuned for further developments.

Another rite of passage for any “public figure” is having to take one’s lumps courtesy of the media. And that will go double for a recovering journalist like myself, who also has been known to critique the city.

I know most of the people who will be covering me, some better than others. But does that mean they’ll cut me any slack? Far from it. They may even go harder on me, lest readers come to suspect that they’re extending some professional courtesy. And they’ll have plenty of people willing (even eager) to say negative things, given the many toes I’ve stepped on, and egos I’ve bruised, as an editorial writer and blogger. So I fully expect some rough treatment.

How to deal with this becomes the question. Should I call up and carp about what seems like an imbalanced story? Should I try to set the record straight, or fire off a letter to the editor, each time a distortion of fact is presented, or a quote is taken out of context? As someone who has worked on both sides of the demilitarized zone -- as a press secretary and also a working member of the press; as someone who has played defense and offense; as someone who has been an “insider” and an “outsider” -- I have a sincere appreciation for both roles. I understand that not every imbalanced story is the result of malicious intent (though some are). And as someone who has encountered some pretty thin-skinned politicos over the years (especially in this town), I hope I can develop a tougher hide.

Whether I can uphold that vow remains to be seen. It will depend on what gets thrown at me. As in politics, I guess I’ll have to pick and choose my battles. But unlike the average politico, I have a blog with which to counter unfair criticism – with which to correct the record and provide important context when necessary. I don’t have to depend on the media to correct the media. I can go straight to the people. I can fight fire with fire, if necessary. And that’s just one of many interesting dynamics this situation sets in motion.

The coverage so far has been just what I expected – skeptical. One of two Gazette news reports was a hatchet job. But the editorial page, as might be expected, was more than fair (even though I only a few weeks ago took it to task for its position on 2-C). Barry Noreen’s column yesterday was slightly snide but generally perceptive and interesting – even though he didn’t accurately feed back what I told him about city enterprises. I’m sitting down with Hazlehurst later today, after my first official City Council meeting, to talk at length. Rich Tosches will have his fun with this, as will Ralph Routon. They should pace themselves, though, lest they bore readers with an overdose of Sean Paige-bashing.

I know former Gazette colleague Pam Zubeck is working up something – not because she told me, or asked for references, but because I’ve been getting calls from former Washington colleagues, and even some old neighborhood chums (I hope they don’t tell her about the time I soaped Matt Harbor’s windows, or the hell I raised on the bus ride to school), telling me they were being contacted by some reporter from Colorado Springs. I’ve made myself available to all local media outlets for meetings. I’m interested in an honest, constructive and open dialogue about this experiment – and about what I plan to accomplish as the accidental City Councilman.

It all goes with the territory, as they say. I’ll be the news for a while, at least until the novelty wears off and the media discovers that I’m not going to blow-up the city or send colleagues into apoplectic fits – at least not right out of the box. I’m a newbie, after all, and if I want to serve as a constructive force for change I first have to learn a lot more about the job and the city. I’ve learned one thing already – the city is a complex entity. I’m sure I’ll make good press from time to time – what fun would this be for the local media if I didn’t? But making bold headlines isn’t my goal.

I’ll also be using this blog as a journal, a forum, a point of rebuttal – as a soap box when I need one. I hope it will give readers a sometimes-lighthearted, sometimes-serious look at what it’s like going from a notorious outsider to a notorious insider – and shed more light on the inner-workings of their city.

The first crisis of my City Council tenure erupted this morning, even before I had been sworn in.

I've been locked out of the bedroom where most of my sport coats and suits are stored, and the key (if we even took possession of one when we bought the house) is (of course) nowhere to be found. My wife Pam and I have employed alternative means of entry -- frantically jiggling a screwdriver in the tiny hole next to the knob, while angrily yanking the door back and forth, cursing under our breath. Pam already snapped the tip off one screwdriver (made in China, I think, and purchased at the Swap Meet) and the windows are all buttoned-up, due to the early onset of winter, so climbing in isn't an option. Time is short and our options are running out.

But the real test of leadership is keeping one's cool in the crisis, I tell myself. So keep your wits about you. Don't bust down the door -- at least not yet. Maybe there's a third way, that doesn't involve splintering the wood and wrecking the door. There's a time for force, and a time for finesse. Try finesse first.

So if I look a little under-dressed for the honors being bestowed on me later today, I hope my constituents won't take it personally. My house is conspiring against me.

Keys to the City

Every citizen secretly imagines he or she will one day be presented with the key to the city, in recognition of the universal esteem in which they are held. I highly doubt that will ever happen to me. But on Thursday I was given the keys to City Hall, one of many shocks since my surprise appointment to City Council on Wednesday.

They were presented to me, along with a half-inch stack of paperwork, by Dean Beukema, the pleasant and very efficient administrative assistant that all City Council members share in common. She ran me through a mini-orientation Thursday morning, in preparation for my Monday’s swearing in. This, like almost everything that’s happened since Wednesday, had a very surreal feel to it. “You mean they really let me in this place,” I thought, as we tried to figure out which keys went to which doors, and walked through the arming and unarming of the alarm system with Bill, who handles security. “They let me in this place alone, after hours. How did this come to pass”?

The very first face I saw when the final votes were tallied was John Hazlehurst’s, who was sitting nearby. We stared at each other, wide-eyed. I probably had the look of a deer in the headlights; John looked like the 18-wheeler bearing down on me. His congratulations seemed sincere enough, but there was also this slightly-malicious twinkle in John’s eyes – that twinkle a journalist gets when he sees “good copy” coming down the street.

Then came a deluge of well-wishers (or so I thought). Two very lovely ladies approached me, smiling with hands extended. Excited constituents, I wondered? No. It was Dean Beukema and Marti Sletta, the mayor’s assistant, asking me to come by the office before leaving because there were things I needed to attend to. So much for the “honeymoon.” So much for delusions of grandeur.

This was the first of many pleasant but somewhat awkward introductions with city employees, who wear the slightly strained smiles of the china shop owner when a bull walks in. They look me over warily, wondering why there aren’t horns poking out of my head. So this is the Sean Paige, they’re thinking – scourge of Colorado Springs; burr under the saddle; destroyer of cities; “Doug Bruce with clothes that fit,” as one clever critic wrote in response to a Gazette story. And I go rifling through the archive of past editorials and blog posts, wondering whether this is someone I had raked over the coals.

Now, suddenly, through some weird twist of fate, the ultimate outsider had become an insider of sorts – one of the people he threw cherry bombs at from the safe sidelines. How strange, how interesting, how tense this will be -- at least at first, until some mutual de-mystification occurs. Everyone has been as professional and pleasant as can be. And I’ve been trying to be as “human” as possible, just in case they have any serious doubts about that.

Secrets of the Temple

The actual work of being a councilperson began the next morning, when I went in to fill out paperwork and get to know my way around City Hall a little better. I actually get an office: this came as one of many revelations. And they didn’t put mine in some musty corner of a city parking garage. It’s actually in City Hall, just down the hall from the mayor’s office. It’s not the best office – they’re assigned based on seniority and I’m at the bottom of the pecking order. But it’s an office; the kind with four permanent walls; a door; a window; a little privacy for sitting and sweating, wondering how the hell I got myself into this situation.

Anyone who’s ever spent any time working in an open newsroom, like the Gazette’s, will understand the fetish I have developed for real offices. So drop by and see it sometime; we’ll sit, chat, luxuriate in the fresh paint smell. The walls might be bare for a while; as a brand new “politician” – this is one label that really hurts -- I haven’t accumulated many trophy photos or power nick-knacks. But I’ll be working on that.

Dean and I worked our way through the paperwork. One of the first documents one signs is a confidentially pledge, indicating that you won’t publicly divulge all the perks and special priviliges bestowed on members of the city’s ruling elite – that you won’t squeal to the press about all the wonderful snacks piled up in the center of the conference room table. I dutifully signed the pledge, hungrily eyeing the snacks -- so I am now sworn to silence on such matters. But let’s put it this way – now I know that it’s more than just the good pay that draws people to this job.

(Important notice: I’m trying here to give readers a lighter, anecdotal, hopefully-entertaining look at my transition from average citizen to City Council member, so please don’t take everything I write literally. There are snacks on the conference table, but there is no confidentiality pledge. The “perks,” at least as far as I can tell, don’t go much beyond that.)

Dean walked me through some procedural things: where to park, where to get mail, how to use the phone and log on to the computer. We also went over how to deal with death threats, how to summon security, the proper protocols to follow when an envelope smeared with dog feces arrives. Just the normal stuff that any member of City Council must deal with.

Encounters with Colleagues

As I was filling out forms, someone from the city’s pothole-response team sauntered in, dressed in grungy work clothes, a frayed ball cap, and one of those fluorescent orange vests hunters wear. Then I realized that this was no city pothole-filler; it was my future colleague, Tom Gallagher, dressed for work. Gallagher is the most working-class member of council, and I say that in a good way – more of a “regular guy” than a polished politico. He grew up in the 3^rd district, my district, and knows it well. Tom’s is a “rags to slightly better rags story,” as he quipped Wednesday.

I’ve asked him to go for a drive with me in the next few weeks, to show me what he sees when he drives around the district. I like Tom, maybe because he’s sometimes been odd-man out on council. Maybe he was supportive of my appointment because now we’ll be odd-men out. And as a formed blue collar worker myself – I spent two years on Detroit assembly lines in my college years and had many “real world” jobs before gravitating to the unreal world of Washington, D.C. – I can relate to him. He can always be counted on to say something colorful and unscripted. I think he’s the only City Council person I ever heard use the word “testicles” during a public meeting. What I admire most, though, is the sincere effort that Tom makes to get an in-depth understanding of issues. I plan to do the same.

I’ve lived in the district for seven years, and I think I know it pretty thoroughly, but you look at the place with new eyes when you suddenly have the responsibility of representing it. You realize how much you don’t know when that responsibility lands on your shoulders. Tom Gallagher’s Driving Tour is only one of many ways I’ll be getting out and getting intimately familiar with my constituents. I’ve been working the phones, trying to set up meetings with as many people and groups as possible. Some are on the calendar; many more will be before long.

I even asked State Rep. Michael Merrifield – who reamed me a new one in Friday’s Gazette, in another rite of passage -- to take me around the neighborhoods he knows well, pointing out the things he thinks are important. That should be an interesting field trip.

I’m what they call a “quick study,” but I won’t get around to everyone, or learn everything, overnight. It’s a very large and diverse district. There is a lot of ground to cover and people to meet. The main thing now is to let people know that I’m interested in learning more, and in hearing what they have to say. They need to get to know me better, so I’m not so easy for critics to caricature. And if they’re not comfortable with me when my term expires, I’ll be gone. All I ask now it that they have a little patience for the “new guy,” have an open mind about what I really am all about, and give me a chance to prove myself.

Constituents Calling

Just as I was leaving City Hall, I checked my messages and listened to my first constituent call. Some cranky-sounding codger in the Broadmoor was complaining about the gravel that washes out into the middle of his street when it rains. He also wanted something done about the urban wildlife – the bear, fox, deer – that were trashing his yard and garden. He demanded to know what would be done about this. He wanted results, pronto.

It was actually a friend, playing a prank, so I phoned him back and told him what any good member of council would. If you don’t like gravel in your street, get out a shovel and clear it off yourself. The city’s road crews have other priorities. You should have thought of this before you bought on a mountainside. Caveat emptor, as they say. I told him I would drop by his place later, with a shotgun, and deal personally with the wildlife issue, but that I wasn’t his personal safari guide. What do you think this is, I asked -- a nanny state? These are issues he should deal with himself. Take personal initiative. The city has other priorities.

Maybe I’ll have to work on my constituent-service skills.

Baptisms of Fire

A foot-thick bundle of papers appeared on my doorstep yesterday – the city budget – which members of council will begin plowing through next week. I feel like I’m being tossed into the maelstrom, without a life preserver. But what better way to begin than with a baptism of fire?

One thing I’ve learned already: there’s more to this job than meets the eye. Maybe I’ll have to re-think my position on council pay. Kidding. Sort of.

Stay tuned for the further adventures -- and misadventures -- of the accidental city councilman.

Corporate welfare, on the small and large scale, has been one focus of this blog since at least as far back as the 1-A debate, maybe further. Business interests have learned to pick the taxpayers' pockets in all sorts of creative ways, by convincing the gullible that the only way to "create" or "save" jobs is through government action and intervention. All this subsidy-chasing and "rent-seeking" gives honest business a bad name. But especially galling are the millions (maybe billions) of dollars in taxpayer "incentives" filmmakers are raking-in, all across the land, as states compete to cast themselves as the "Hollywood of the South" (that's Louisiana), the "Hollywood of the Midwest" (that's Michigan), the "Hollywood of the East" (Rhode Island), the Hollywood of . . . well, you get the picture.

Colorado legislators briefly flirted with trying to make this the "Hollywood of the Rockies" last session, by rolling out our own film-fare program, before backing off. But when it comes up for consideration next year (if it does), they ought to take a good look around at how the programs are faring in other states.

The Hollywood of the Cornbelt (that's Iowa, in case you didn't know) is learning first-hand the corrupting influence such handouts can have, since the main emphasis of such programs is shoveling dollars out the door, and crowing about the usually-ephemeral economic benefits, not in ensuring that these dollars are wisely or appropriately spent. Iowa was once a big filmfare enthusiastic. But now the program has been suspended and a criminal probe has been launched, sparked by allegations that a pair of flim-flam filmmakers used taxpayer money to buy a $61,000 Range Rover and $68,000 Mercedes-Benz.

The DesMoines Register has been on top of the unfolding scandal. Here's the latest dispatch.

Die-hard filmfare supporters in Iowa say you can't let a few "bad actors" discredit an entire program. Others wisely want to bring the curtain down on the initiative, given the hard fiscal times the state is experiencing. The smart course of action for Colorado is to go no deeper into the "incentives game" -- because it's a game the taxpayers almost always lose.

That long pause between posts you might have noticed is stunned silence – a rarity for me.

I was appointed to the Colorado Springs City Council yesterday, despite what I (and everyone else in the city) considered long odds. It wasn’t an outcome I imagined when I launched my “faux candidacy” several weeks back, after Councilman Jerry Heimlicher said he would resign. But it’s a responsibility I take very seriously now.

That faux candidacy became slightly more serious as I went through the process of drawing up a platform – a compilation of some of the ideas I’ve been storing-up over 7 years of watching city government from the outside, frequently as a critic. I thought the platform would probably lessen my chances, because some of the proposals are edgy, but my chances were really beside the point.

My intent was to put some ideas and issues out on the table, in the hope of stirring debate and laying the predicate for a lively, substantive, vision-oriented City Council election and mayor’s race in 2011. I had no intention of running in that race, but thought it might be helpful to put some proposals together that other people could run on, or run against. But something strange and completely unexpected happened; I won the appointment after a close vote, against some outstanding citizens and well-qualified candidates.

My head is still spinning. But I intend to screw it back down and get to work right away. I’m grateful for the opportunity, obviously, and take it seriously. I also want to applaud the many excellent people who put their hats in the ring alongside mine. It’s people like this who make the city of Colorado Springs such a great place to live. I hope to see this same caliber of talent step forward next city election season. This is a pivotal time for the city and we need bold people and thinking in leadership positions. And if I make a mess of things, this seat will be there for the taking.

It’s a credit to the courage and character of my future colleagues that a majority could see past our differences -- and were willing to court potential controversy -- by making the unconventional choice and bringing an outsider into the fold. Plenty of safer alternatives were available. I honesty believe, as I think they came to believe, that a greater diversity of views will result in better outcomes for Colorado Springs. And that’s what we all want, no matter the political or ideological labels we wear.

Jerry Heimlicher served the district very well and I have great personal respect for him, despite whatever differences we may have had over the years. I imagine he’s not delighted with the choice. But perhaps, over time, I can allay whatever doubts and criticisms he has. I hope to emulate his passion and energy for the job. And I of course wish him the very best in his new life in Tennessee.

Being appointed to a seat is far different than being elected to one. I don’t have the psychological or rhetorical advantage of having won a single vote, so my legitimacy will always be questioned. I understand that. But an appointment doesn’t mean that I don’t take my responsibility to the district less seriously. On the contrary, it makes me all the more determined to represent my constituents to the best of my ability.

Even an elected official must feel at first as if he or she is on probation. But I’m on “double secret probation,” to borrow a line from Animal House. It will take time and work on my part to reassure doubting constituents that I’m the right choice. Some, no doubt, will never come around to seeing it that way. But all I ask is that they set aside preconceptions, ignore the caricatures they may have of me, and give this a chance. What my resume says about me, and what my reputation is in some circles, is only part of the picture. And if folks of the district come to conclude that I’m wrong for the job, they won’t have to tolerate me for long. As this situation showed, there are many qualified people waiting in the wings.

I have strong opinions and a strong personality, but I think they’ll find me open to discussion, interested in what they have to say, intent on finding innovative solutions, interested in creative ideas. I don’t pretend to know everything about the city, or my district. I’ll at first be listening more than I’ll be talking (which isn’t easy for me, as people who know me will attest). I don’t have all the answers or solutions. But I will work diligently to justify the trust that’s been placed in me.

Having a blogger on council is also a novel situation, through which we’ll have to feel our way. I intend to continue providing my personal analysis, observations and opinions on this blog, unless it becomes a problem, or a barrier to my council responsibilities. The tone might be slightly modulated from what it was in the past, and I’ll respect certain boundaries when it comes to sharing legitimately confidential city information. But I intend to keep using this website as a means of fighting for freedom at the local level – that’s my day job. I’m a writer, not a politician. Whether these two very different roles will be compatible, only time and experimentation will tell. But it might even be interesting, entertaining, and helpful to people if I use this forum to reflect on my foray into practical politics.

This is all uncharted territory for me, and for City Council, so we’ll just have to see how it goes. But at least it won’t be boring.

Hybrid owners used to be a privileged class in this new, environmentally-correct America. They were the darlings of the social engineers. For choosing an efficient car, they got rebates, subsidies, special parking privileges, the right to use High Occupancy Vehicle lanes, even if they were driving solo.

But social engineers are a restless, fickle, endlessly-tinkering class of people, always looking for the next cool trend that government can get behind. And hybrids (and hybrid owners) are suddenly becoming ho-hum, which threatens their special status. The Denver Post reports today that hybrid owners in Colorado, who not long ago won the right to drive solo in HOV lanes, may be losing their HOV privileges before too long, depending on a number of developments in Social Engineering Central, Washington, D.C.:

"Owners of hybrid vehicles in Colorado who got permission to use high-occupancy vehicle lanes as solo drivers are retaining the privilege on a month-to-month basis as Congress considers a number of new transportation measures.

About 15 months ago, the Colorado Department of Transportation began issuing permits to hybrid owners for driving solo in HOV lanes after the federal Environmental Protection Agency published a list of hybrid vehicles that were eligible.

Federal transportation law allowed for the hybrid-in-HOV option, but that law expired Sept. 30. After Congress passed a one-month extension of the law, CDOT notified hybrid owners that permission to use HOV lanes as solo drivers had been extended through the end of this month.

After this month, "Congress will need to act again on another extension or new bill," CDOT said in an e-mail to hybrid-permit owners."

Congress will probably renew the HOV waiver, for now, for fear of losing the "hybrid owners vote." But as hybrids proliferate, the novelty is wearing off. All the excited chatter about pug-ins and electric vehicles has the social engineers looking beyond old-hat hybrids, wondering what kind of government support and special privileges they can extend to users of the next niche transportation technology. If inefficient old hybrids are clogging-up the HOV lanes, there won't be enough room for the plug-ins. After plug-ins become passé, they'll have to make way for the wind- and gerbil wheel-powered cars of the future.

California's hybrid drivers are also about to get pushed off their pedestal, according to the L.A. Times. And some are bumming, big time.

"The days may be numbered for hybrid car owners who have enjoyed traveling solo in California's carpool lanes.

The stickers granting that privilege to 85,000 hybrid owners are set to expire Jan. 1, 2011. There are proposals in Sacramento to extend the deadline, but they would exclude most of the vehicles that originally qualified for the program, such as the Toyota Pris, the Honda Civic hybrid and the original Honda Insight.

"We're bummed," said Cathy Marilin, president of the 250-member Orange County Prius Club. "I drive from Newport Beach to Torrance to teach four times a week, and it saves me an hour every day on the 405."

For hybrid owners, losing their stickers would be more than an inconvenience. The carpool lane exemption added $1,000 to $2,000 to the value of a used hybrid. Some used-car dealers say they are already seeing that premium shrink as the deadline gets closer . .

. . . . Now, lawmakers want to up the ante. A bill by Assemblyman Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) that the Assembly passed this year would extend the carpool lane exemption to 2016 but limit it to drivers of vehicles powered by electricity, natural gas or some other alternative fuel.

A competing Senate bill included hybrids but only those that achieve city-highway fuel economy of 65 mpg or better -- well beyond the official ratings of the current crop of hybrids.

"What we're saying is that the hybrid isn't good enough anymore," said Adam Keigwin, chief of staff for Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), sponsor of the Senate bill.

He said the Senate also wants to examine the whole issue of carpool lane exemptions before deciding to grant another reprieve to sticker holders.

Many of the state's carpool lanes have become so clogged that California risks losing federal highway funding. Forcing thousands of driver-only hybrids back into the regular freeway lanes is seen as one way to reduce the congestion.

Even some hybrid owners acknowledge that the original intent of the law has clearly been achieved.

"I live in Santa Monica and you can't swing a dead cat here without hitting a Prius, so the bill served its purpose," said Will Kepper, who has a sticker on his 2001 Prius.

Since California is a trend-setter in all things regulatory, it won't be long before other cities and states are re-examining, and rescinding, the special perks hybrid owners enjoy. Then they'll become second class citizens again, just like the rest of us; sitting in rush hour traffic, listening to NPR in their hopelessly-passé Prius, while the next great gizmo-car swoops past in the HOV lane. Once they were the toast of the town; now they've been jilted, as the social engineers move on to the next regulatory fad.

Social engineering is a lot like the fashion industry, as described by "Project Runway" host Heidi Klum. "One day you're in," she chirps, "the next day you're out." And Hybrid owners are going out of fashion.

A report in the print version of Monday's Gazette (I couldn't find it on the on-line version) says Colorado Springs Utilities will be paying $17,750 to The Sierra Club, to cover legal bills the green group ran up suing Colorado Springs for alleged Clean Water Act violations in Fountain Creek. This highlights one of many major problems with our so-called justice system: that you can bring a frivolous lawsuit, effectively lose the lawsuit, and still have someone else (the winner of the case) help cover your legal bills. (See my earlier post for more on this case).

A federal judge rejected the main thrust of the suit, which the Sierra Club brought in tandem with Pueblo DA Bill Thiebaut, ruling that this city was taking adequately aggressive action to address water quality issues in the Fountain. But he did slap CSU on the wrist for a few minor past wastewater spills, imposing $35,000 in fines. This consolation prize for the plaintiffs allowed them to claim "victory," even though the main elements of their complaint, and the huge fines they want imposed on the Springs, were rejected by the judge. So now, in what can only be called a travesty of justice, we, the winners, are being forced to pay the loser's legal bills.

And then some people wonder why extreme green groups like The Sierra Club are constantly running to court, at the drop of a hat, and have made saturation litigation their modus operandi.

The $52,000 in fines and legal reimbursements CSU is out as a result of the case is just the tip of the iceberg, however, since defending itself against these largely unfounded allegations cost CSU more than $1 million, as I reported in August. CSU retains the right to seek reimbursement of legal costs from Pueblo DA Bill Thiebaut, reports the Gazette, and that would be the correct course of action, since Thiebaut launched the lawsuit for purely political reasons, then had to withdraw after the judge ruled that enforcing federal water rules isn't his jurisdiction. The Sierra Club, which jumped aboard after Thiebaut brought suit, soldiered on to the bitter end, probably guessing that it would get some legal costs reimbursed, no matter the outcome. And that gamble paid off.

Will CSU go after Thiebaut? Probably not. As tempting as it might be to try and punish Thiebaut for this costly bit of grandstanding, this would also mean running-up even more legal bills and creating fresh controversy down in Pueblo, something CSU probably has no stomach for. So CSU got screwed, to put it bluntly, even though it largely won the case.

But hey -- that's the American "justice system" at work.

Kudos are due the folks at the Independence Institute (especially Todd Shepherd of the news site Complete Colorado) for pointing out how few of Gov. Bill Ritter's top lieutenants filed financial disclosure forms, as required by law. That revelation led the governor on Monday to issue a new executive order, which basically reiterates rules laid down in the 1999 executive order he was violating. The Denver Post reports on the situation today. A Ritter spokesman calls this a mere "oversight," but it's a pretty glaring oversight, given that such disclosures are now standard operating procedure for most senior government officials.

While it's nice that Ritter issued the new order, it really wasn't necessary. All he needed to do was comply with the executive order already in place.

I have no idea what most folks on City Council think of my platform ideas, but Councilman Scott Hente at least took the time to offer some responses, which turned into a dialog of sorts. I’m publishing it below, with Scott’s permission, because I think readers might find it interesting. I appreciate him taking the time to have the exchange.

Clearly there are areas of disagreement; but also places where we agree or almost agree, which indicates (to me) that the agenda I’m setting forth isn’t as radical as some might assume. One member of City Council can’t get much done as a lone wolf, I know (though there’s a time and place for that, too). But I suspect that some of my platform ideas might generate enough interest and support on council to move them toward fruition, were I selected to replace Jerry Heimlicher. Sometimes, all that’s required is a willingness to step out, make a proposal and take the lead in selling it to colleagues and the general public. Others will join in if an idea has merit. Many of these proposals aren’t so much “limited government ideas” as “good government ideas,” which should have appeal to people across the ideological spectrum just because they make sense, could save money and will improve the performance of city government. I believe they at least deserve serious debate.

“H:” indicates a Hente comment; “P:” a Paige comment.

Highlights, Paige's Platform for City Council

Rightsizing and Reform

I support moving more council meetings to evening hours, which would allow more working people to attend.

H: I don't necessarily disagree, but are you willing to have Council meetings go until 3:00 AM?

P: Some may go past your bedtime, Scott (just joshing). But maybe that will move the process along. The process should serve the public's needs and convenience, not City Council's. We should at least give it a try and see how it works.

H: I don’t mind trying it, but when we’ve had town hall meetings at various locations around town, in the evening, they have been poorly attended. My late night comment says that I am not sure we are doing our constituents a favor by making them wait until after midnight to speak. I’m all for moving the process along but when you have a lot of people who want to speak on a certain issue, it takes time.

· I support putting all future enterprises, and all significant "fee" increases, to a vote of the people.

H: I support representative government

P: TABOR was voted in by the public, and is the law of the city, until you and others can get it repealed. By end-running TABOR you are flouting the wishes of voters who approved it. The petition and referendum are a part of representative government, too, Scott. I know that you and other on council don't trust voters to make the right choices, which explains shortcuts like the stormwater enterprise. That in my view is responsible for a lot of the distrust there is with city government. I believe people will make the right choice when presented with the facts. Most decisions are still made by council; but on some issues, the voters in this town want a say. I think that's reasonable, and not an abdication of representative government.

H. Don’t misunderstand, I take my oath of office very seriously and I understand what is in the City Charter and the State Constitution. But my personal point of view is that our public expects their elected representatives to act in their best interests (at least that’s what they tell me). And TABOR significantly impacts our ability as an elected body to do that.

· I support the city's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, but remain open to discussing tailored modifications and improvements to TABOR when a need is demonstrated.

H: 99.999999% of the the other communities in the Nation don't have it, why do we?

P: Because local voters approved it. Many of those "other communities" have runaway tax rates, overbearing local governments and are much worse off than Colorado Springs, by every measure. Maybe they should be following our model, not the other way around. The "other towns are doing it" argument doesn't hold much water with me. I think Colorado Springs must do things its own way.

· I support making the city auditor an elected position, which answers to the taxpayers, not City Council. I would like to see the auditor's office exercise more independent and aggressive oversight not just over city government, but over city enterprising, operating much as Inspector Generals do at federal agencies.

H: I'm very familiar with Federal Inspector Generals and they aren't elected.

P: You missed the point. They aren't elected but they are supposed to act autonomously, and exercise independent oversight, which isn't likely when the city auditor answers to City Council. Denver has an elected city auditor -- shouldn't we have one, too, since you seem to think every other town is doing things better than Colorado Springs is? If members of city council were performing a watchdog role, instead of serving as cheerleaders for the city, and apologists for all that goes on there, a more independent auditor might not be needed. But some independent oversight is required, somewhere in the system. I think this might help.

H: I don’t agree that we are not performing a “watchdog role”. Just because the media isn’t reporting it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. I will admit that with a part time Council it is almost impossible to do everything that we should be doing (with having to hold down another job) but I personally think, given the significant time limitations, that we’re not doing all that bad. And I think it’s okay to be a cheerleader for the City. I also think we give the auditor full discretion and authority to look at anything he thinks is appropriate. I have never known him to play politics with his audits or his reports to us and the public.

· I believe council should be reduced in size from 9 to 5 members.

H: And the County Commission should be reduced to three. And while we're at it, let's change the State Constitution to say that County voters, not the legislature, set County Commissioner salaries.

P: Some counties function perfectly well with 3, and some cities function with 5. Show me evidence that the number of city council members correlates with better governance. There is no correlation. You're just a captive of status quo thinking, Scott, which is why the council needs more diversity of views. Maybe if we had fewer members on council, we could justify paying them more.

H: I’m not necessarily in disagreement with you here. I think I’m just trying top point out the enormous discrepancies between us and the County Commission who have far less people and budgets to oversee and much less responsibilities.

· I will fight for an opt-out clause in existing or future historic preservation districts. Inclusion in such districts should be voluntary, not coerced. I won't support any new historic preservation districts that don't allow homeowners to opt-out.

H: Okay.

P: Does that mean you agree, or just don't think it's important? Dr. Steve Marsh and a few others in the north end opposed the imposition of a historic district and want the right to opt-out. He has approached many on council (including you, I believe), seeking support for an opt-out clause. But he's been ignored. Too intimidated by a few noisy north-enders to do what's right, Scott, and restore property rights in the district? I'm not.

H: I’m very familiar with the whole issue surrounding the Old North End. But if I am not mistaken, they are also listed as a National historic area, which carries it’s own unique set of requirements.

Trust, Accountability, Ethics

· I would work to restore public trust by insisting on more transparency and accountability in city government.

H: Okay - but be more specific.

P: This is a summary; I have more details on the blog.

· I would urge the city to undertake a review of its recently-altered policy on storefront petitioning.

H: Okay

· I believe the city's current ethics procedures, although only a few years old, are in need of review and improvement.

H: We're actually already doing this

P: Bravo. Then we're on the same wavelength. My idea of a fix and yours might be different, though. Buy why, if you guys are so sharp, are we having to go back and fix a process that you approved only a few years ago?

H: Because, this is the first time we have used the procedure and I think anytime you do something for the very first time you’re going to find areas that need improving.

· I oppose any public funding (meaning general funds or enterprise funds) for organizations that advocate on ballot measures or engage in politicking.

H: I agree but you obviously have some organization specifically in mind

P: The EDC is the most obvious example of a private organization that receives public money and engages in lobbying and advocacy activities, but there may be others. I just don't think public funds should go for political activities aimed at generating more public funds. I state elsewhere that I believe EDC should be self-supporting. Its political activities are only one reason why. I'm glad we agree once again.

H: We’re going to disagree on the EDC.

· I support strict controls on the use of city resources and personnel for anything that might be perceived as political advocacy. Springs TV and the city's website should be advocacy-free zones.

H: Advocacy free or fact free?

P: The city's PR operation should stick to facts, but there's a history of it straying into what many in the city see as advocacy. It became obvious under Lorne and has continued under the current city manager. It's been tolerated by you and others on council because it usually suits your agenda. But bending rules leads to breaking rules, if it's tolerated. It's a misuse of public resources that needs to be reined-in, in my opinion.

· I support an ethics inquiry into whether the city attorney used city resources and staff to engage in advocacy work related to city ballot issues, as alleged.

H: She did what Council asked her to do. If you have an issue, come after Council.

P: As the top legal advisor to the city, she has an obligation to object if she's asked to so something ethically questionable. A failure to do so makes her complicit in that unethical conduct. If she fails to see it as questionable, she has a blind spot (see my comment above about breaking the rules). But you make a good point, and I amend my position accordingly: The mayor and any others on council who made the request should also be investigated for ethical lapses. The problem is, we've got a dysfunctional ethics policing system in place, as you admit. Should we have the investigation now, or wait until your fixes are complete?

Innovation and Efficiency

· I would like to see the city explore the use of outcome-based budgeting.

H: I don't disagree but I think you'd find that the City's budget process is so constrained by TABOR rules and stove-piping that this becomes very hard to do.

P: Outcome-based budgeting is tailored to help cities set budget priorities in a revenue-constrained environment, Scott -- so it's perfect for a city that operates under TABOR. I brought the foremost authority on the subject to Colorado Springs in April, David Osborne, as part of Limited Government Week. No one from the city bothered to come and listen to what he had to say. They probably don't even know who David Osborne is.

· I would like to see the city commission a study on outsourcing opportunities in city government.

H: As long as it's fair and balanced - modeled somewhat on the Federal Governments A-76 studies.

P: I'm all for fair and balanced, but it's hard to get government officials to crunch the numbers honestly, because they see their jobs on the line. And then there's this perspective: maybe there are just some functions government shouldn't perform. Or is it your assumption that government should do everything, until the private sector can prove that it can do it better or more affordably?

H: We seemed to crunch them okay in the Federal government, I don’t see why we couldn’t at the local level.

· I support a bottom to top review of city codes and zoning rules, with an eye toward removing antiquated provisions, eliminating unnecessary hassles, reducing permit approval times and streamlining and simplifying everything.

H: I'm so far ahead of you on this one it isn't even funny. But you'd be surprised at how much resistance you'll get from neighborhood groups

P: If you're so far ahead, where are the results? And overcoming resistance to doing what's right for the city at large is all a part of leadership, Scott. "Neighborhood groups" should get a respectful hearing. But they won't set my agenda or prevent me from doing what I think is right for the city.

H: The problem is, it is not “your agenda or my agenda”, it’s the will of the majority of Council. I have too many actual issues with city codes and zoning and part of the problem is I am perceived as biased and in conflict when I discuss them.

· I support the outsourcing of many more city services and operations, including road repair, snow removal and park maintenance.

H: See my comment above on A-76 studies.

· I think an independent study of the city's pension obligations should be undertaken.

H: As long as it incorporates State Law into its study

P: Not sure what you mean, exactly, but I think we might agree on this. Many cities around the country are struggling with pension problems, Scott. If this one is, the sooner we can recognize it, the sooner we can address it. Hopefully it's not a problem. But I think it's something to study.

H: My point here is that even if all of Council agrees on a course of action, State Law pretty much dictates what we can and cannot do.

· I would encourage the city manager to institute an "Innovation Awards" program for city employees, which pays cash bonuses to city staff who offer ideas that markedly improve city services or save the city money.

H. Are you sure? Haven't you criticized us in the past when we did this with Utility employees?

P: I've never criticized CSU for that, as an editorial writer or blogger. If you can point to examples of that, I'll eat those words. This isn't to be confused with handing out pay raises disguised as performance bonuses, based on some malleable and vague definition of "performance," but a bonus rewarding an idea that actually delivers proven efficiencies or savings.

H: My apologies if I called you out mistakenly on this. As you know, we have been criticized on this when it comes to Colorado Springs Utilities and I was probably lumping you in with our other critics.

· The city should compile and publish an inventory of surplus properties, which should then be auctioned off.

H: Okay

P: I think that means you agree.

City Enterprises

· The city should begin seriously studying the monetizing of assets, and consider getting out of the energy, parking and hospital businesses.

H: Energy - I'm not ready to pay Excel's rates
Parking - You bet. Find us a buyer.
Hospital - No. Too many obligations with our military and veterans and their reliance on TRICARE

P: Energy - It's a scare tactic and empty supposition to say that rates would go up if a private entity took over. The claim that city ownership guarantees lower rates is ringing hollow for many people. The rates charged by private companies are regulated by the PUC.

H: Don’t believe me, compare our utility rates with those charged by private or investor owned utilities.

P: Parking - Call Joseph who owns the Blue Star. He's told me many times that he would buy parking garages. I may call your bluff on this one day, Scott.

H: How come he hasn’t contacted us?

P: Hospital -- Are you saying that only city-owned hospitals take care of TRICARE patients? Ridiculous. A privately-owned hospital operating in this market would almost have to take TRICARE patients in order to survive. The rationales I hear for keeping the hospital are more and more strained all the time. Even Jerry acknowledges that Memorial may be on the verge of turning from an asset into a liability. What happens then? Will you be advocating that Memorial begin tapping into general fund revenues, all for the benefit of TRICAR recipients? Obamacare (which will eventually pass in some form) could make it even harder for Memorial to keep its head above water. Once it becomes a liability, it could become a black hole that the city can't even give away.

H: I do not worry, in the least, that Memorial will have to tap into general fund revenues. And the whole issue of TRICARE (full disclosure: I am a TRICARE beneficiary) is probably a subject for a much longer conversation. But I do think that in Colorado Springs it is a huge issue and being to serve that growing need is a critical function.


· I would urge the regular publication of a Citizens Shareholder Report on City Enterprises, a propaganda-free document that includes staffing levels, budget breakdowns, pension obligations, property inventories, debt obligations and other data that the citizen-shareholders will find useful.

H: Who would ensure that "propaganda-free" thing?

P: It's like that famous Supreme Court justice's definition of pornography, I guess. I know it when I see it. The point of the report would be giving the supposed owners of these enterprises some hard facts about what they own, good, bad and ugly. Perhaps the report's release will periodically lead to informed public discussion about the enterprises: whether we want to keep them, not keep them, make them smaller, make them bigger. You already have your mind made up about that, Scott. But I think it's worth having a city-wide debate on, from time to time.


· City Council should step away from its role as Utilities Board, and hand over those responsibilities to a more independent governing board, which answers to council but is staffed with people with real expertise in the field.

H: Please name me a corporate board in the Nation (Microsoft, GM, IBM, Excel, etc.) that "is staffed with people with real expertise in the field".

P: Most boards of private businesses are stocked with people with business experience and acumen on them, Scott, even if they don't know everything about making widgets. What utilities experience, and energy business acumen do you bring to the table? All you know about CSU, you were spoon-fed by CSU. And if there are rubber-stamp boards out there in the corporate world, why is that a model we should follow, or emulate, here? It's interesting you would evoke GM - some model that is to follow. The charter review committee suggested having a more independent board. The sustainable funding committee echoed that recommendation. The city's utility advisory board made the same recommendation, as did former CSU CEO Phil Tollefson. Almost everyone else can see that the situation is dysfunctional, but you and a few others who sit on Council. I guess it's an ego trip pretending like you run a $1 billion a year company. But I won't let ego get in the way of doing what's right for the city.

H: Several points:

1) The former CEO wanted a Board that he could control. What a shame that we tried to represent the ratepayer.

2) I think our board is also “stocked with people with business experience and acumen”. I agree, we are not there to “know everything about making widgets” we’re there, like any other board, to provide oversight and represent the owners.

3) There’s no ego trip involved. As you know we get paid absolutely nothing to serve as the utilities board. Part of me says let’s get others to do that job and free up 20 to 30 hours a month for me. But my bosses have told me otherwise.

I would also like to explore the possibility of directing a percentage of enterprise proceeds back to the city's general fund.

H: I 100% agree with you. As you know we do this with Utilities but 300 would kill even that.

P: We agree again. Good. I oppose 300.

· I would like to see the city airport participate in the FAA's airport privatization demonstration program.

H: I 100% agree with you and have stated so publicly. But good luck getting anybody else to agree with us.

P: Wow, we're really in sync now. I heard from people on the sustainable funding committee that there was some receptivity to this idea out at the airport. It's a "demonstration project," not an outright sell-off of the airport. I think more people could be brought around if someone showed leadership on it. Did you show leadership on it, Scott, or did you sit there, passively supporting it?

H: When I brought up this idea, you would have thought I was talking about selling Pikes Peak. Let’s not argue, we’re in agreement on this one.

Business Climate

· I support ending the business personal property tax and a rapid phase-out of the use tax - irrespective of what happens with the tax hike now on the ballot.

H: Okay
P: Okay

· I propose phasing-out general fund and enterprise support for the Economic Development Corporation, believing that it should be a private, self-supporting entity.

H: Disagree.

P: Not surprised.

· I oppose paying cash "incentives" to private companies. In extraordinary cases, such as the USOC headquarters deal (see below), in which a majority on City Council approves significant public funds as "incentives," voter approval should be sought.

H: I have to admit, it would be interesting to have you on Council just so you could see what it's like to talk to various organizations thinking of re-locating here.

P: I'm well aware that a lot of companies are out there, expecting taxpayer handouts, but I think we should draw the line on cash handouts, while doing everything else possible to create a business climate in Colorado Springs that makes us attractive to the businesses that aren't looking to shake down cities, but just want an excellent place to set up shop. That's why business climate will be one of my top priorities. Let's be sure we're getting all the basics right before we get sucked into the incentives game. That's what I would be working on. If invited into those business recruitment meetings, I would turn on all my intrinsic charm and tell them the following: "We are doing everything in our power in Colorado Springs to provide the best business climate in the country, but I'm sorry, we don't pay bribes, by picking the pockets of taxpayers or established businesses. But that means when the next company comes calling, asking that your company subsidize his move here, we'll tell him the same thing."

· I strongly support the USOC staying in town, but object to the first and second USOC deals for various reasons, including the secrecy, unnecessary haste and overly-generous and unbalanced terms of the agreement. I believe any funding outlay this significant, and the assumption of this much debt, requires a vote of the people.

H: I strongly support the USOC staying in town and I also support representative government.

P: We've come full circle. I think getting voter approval on certain decisions is a legitimate part of "representative government." Or do you only oppose referendums and initiatives when you're afraid of the likely result? You've supported putting many items on the ballot over the years, Scott, and seem especially enthusiastic about this when they are tax increases (1-A, 2-C), and I've never heard you say that these ballot items were a bastardizing of representative government. So I conclude that your position on the issue is selective and situational, depending on what suits the moment.

City officials somehow convinced the new publisher of the Gazette to endorse 2C (enough has been said on that topic already, right?), but the paper's editorial page isn't prepared to become a complete lapdog for the powers that be, judging from today's smackdown of city leaders who, according to the piece, are so Machiavellian they actually make Douglas Bruce look "heroic."

Whether "Bruce is back" remains to be seen, in my view. But there's no question he's been making the city look bad lately; most recently, by catching the city clerk misrepresenting budget trends in a mailer to voters. Mailing out corrected notices will cost the city $20,000 -- which may not sit well with voters who are being asked to raise their property taxes because the city is broke.

Was this an honest mistake? Let's hope so. Will the public ever know for sure? No.

That's because there's no independent oversight of anything the city does. There's too little transparency and virtually no accountability. Will the City Clerk admit to fudging the facts in order to make city budget trends look more dire? Of course not. Will the city manager hold the city clerk accountable for the $20,000 "mistake"? No. Will anyone on this City Council ferret out the facts for the public, or demand that the situation be investigated? No again. Does anyone in city "leadership" feel the public is owed an explanation for how something this smelly could have occurred? Evidently not.

That would change if I were selected to replace Jerry Heimlicher on City Council (which is precisely why I probably won't be selected to replace Heimlicher on council). There would then be at least one member of council who would request that the situation be reviewed, request that the public be informed of the findings, insist that someone is held accountable if it was something other than a mistake. At present, all the public gets is lame explanations and radio silence.

Some city leaders are so obsessed with battling Bruce, and beating Bruce, that their judgments are impaired. If the city clerk or someone else on city staff misrepresents the facts in a mailer; if the City Attorney is accused by a former employee of using city staff for political purposes (aimed at foiling an earlier Bruce initiative), no big deal: It's ignored as long as the "mistake" serves the interests of city leadership. An attitude creeps in, sanctioned by silence at the top, that it's permissible to bend the rules and fudge the facts in service of the city's agenda.

Public trust in City Hall won't be restored until someone in city leadership actually shows leadership on transparency, ethics and accountability. That would be among my top priorities.

In addition to providing news and information, a city's newspaper ought also to perform a watchdog function, by calling-out the high and mighty when they cross the line or lead the city astray. It's heartening to see that this "kinder, gentler" Gazette -- the Gazette that warmly endorses tax hikes without qualification or caveat -- hasn't lost its ability to growl and snap when a good watchdog is needed.

Just how extreme are the environmentalists who rallied in Denver yesterday for a restoration of the Clinton era-"roadless rule," and who reject a Colorado-tailored alternative that made some sensible modifications to the original? They're this extreme"

The Denver Post (italics added):

"Groups at a rally in downtown Denver on Thursday called for strong protection of Colorado's roadless areas. Critics argue the state proposal would leave the areas the least protected nationwide, because it would allow temporary roads for wildfire prevention, expansion of existing coal-mining and some utility infrastructure.

Some ski-area terrain would be permanently removed from the inventory of roadless areas."

These people don't even want temporary roads built in order to prevent wildfires.

They want to permanently put millions of acres of public land -- our land -- off limits to pipelines, transmission lines, etc. -- the infrastructure a growing West will need in order to thrive.

They want to close roads running to existing, operating, perfectly-legal mining operations -- which is a roundabout way of shutting these operations down.

They won't even make accommodation for the future expansion of ski resorts -- major job generators and economic engines for the state, which have long been accepted as a legitimate use of national forests.

And they want to impose these ironclad prohibitions and access limits on 4.4 million acres of federal forest in Colorado -- federal forests that are dying from beetle blight and prone to catastrophic wildfire. These are forests that need active management, aggressive management, not more benign neglect. This argues for more public access, not less.

But the roadless radicals are so far around the bend, and so blinkered by their fervor for access restrictions on our national forests, that they no longer can the forest for the trees.

They say news travels at the speed of light in the blogosphere, but I'm not so sure.

Local Liberty Online was ranked in the "Top 100 Libertarian Blogs or Websites" by The Humble Libertarian back in March, but I only learned of the honor recently. This site is number 87 on the list, just one ranking below a well-known blog, The Volokh Conspiracy, and a number of spots higher than the Ron Paul Blog -- not too shabby for a website that's not very old and still has some kinks to work out.

Thank you, Humble Libertarian, for taking note of this project, which breaks new ground by reducing some of the emphasis on Washington, and on state capitals, and focusing more on the fight for freedom going on at the local level. Glad somebody outside Colorado is noticing.

The ranking was done in March, so who knows? Maybe by now we've moved up to the 79th spot. Watch out, Cato Institute and Reason Hit and Run: Here we come!

Sometimes you have to read the Pueblo Chieftain to find out what's really going on in Colorado Springs.

The paper is usually 3 or 4 steps (and stories) ahead of The Gazette on water-related issues, and on Pinon Canyon, even those these issues are as important to the Springs as they are to steel city. For instance, readers of today's Gazette wouldn't have a clue that Pueblo County Commissioners last night approved the expenditure of $200,000 to begin staffing-up the Fountain Creek Watershed District, an entity Colorado Springs and El Paso County had a hand in creating but will come to rue. "The district has direct land use authority in the Fountain Creek floodplain from Fountain to Pueblo, but will make recommendations on pertinent land use matters throughout the watershed," as the Chieftain explains.

What's the relevance for Colorado Springs? The money Pueblo County commissioners agreed to spend isn't Pueblo County's money -- half of it is Colorado Springs' money. And it's just the down payment on $50 million that this city and its utility pledged to spend in order to win permit approval for the Southern Delivery System pipeline project. It's the bribe we paid Pueblo County to clear away hurdles. And that's only one of numerous shakedowns we've bowed to along the way.

Here are key excerpts from today's Chieftain:

"An administrator for a newly formed district on Fountain Creek could be hired by the end of the year.

Pueblo County commissioners Tuesday approved applying Colorado Springs funds from the Fountain Creek Corridor Master Plan effort toward its conditions on a 1041 permit for the Southern Delivery System.

“All three commissioners were in support of the proposal,” said Commissioner Jeff Chostner.

The move clears the way for hiring an administrator by the end of this year, according to a timeline presented at earlier meetings of the newly created district. Chostner is the vice-chairman of the Fountain Creek Watershed Flood Control and Greenway District, formed earlier this year by the Legislature to improve Fountain Creek. The new district, Colorado Springs and the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District reached an intergovernmental agreement to provide $100,000 for each of the next two years to hire an administrator and fund office expenses.

The money would be part of $600,000 committed jointly by Colorado Springs and the Lower Ark to complete the Corridor Master Plan.

Colorado Springs’ $300,000 for that effort will be credited toward the $50 million the city would pay over five years once SDS is completed. Colorado Springs will pay another $300,000 over the next three years for a study of a dam or other means of flood control on Fountain Creek . . .

. . . Chostner cautioned against expectations of having Colorado Springs pay more money forward, recognizing the current decision sets a precedent.

“There are already too many people trying to get a piece of that,” Chostner said.

The "that" that everyone wants a "piece" of is the money Colorado Springs has been spreading around in order to buy political support and permits -- dollars that don't get counted as part of SDS cost estimates, as far as I know, but should be, in my opinion. This is why I included the following in my City Council platform:

"I would push for a more accurate and “holistic” accounting of SDS costs, which includes not just the cost of constructing the project, but additional obligations incurred in the effort to build political support for the pipeline."

Here's another interesting item from the Chieftain story: Chostner -- who sits the Pueblo County Commission but is also vice-chairman of the Fountain Creek District -- "also wants the district’s offices in Pueblo County," reports the Chieftain. “I’ve made it clear to everybody that I want the office in Pueblo County, and I think they’re agreeable to that,” Chostner said. “We do have space in the Pueblo County Courthouse.”

This suggests, at least symbolically, that the Fountain Creek District is already becoming the captive of Pueblo, even though the bills will be paid in large part by Colorado Springs. And if the district does become Pueblo's plaything -- another tool it can use to take jabs at Colorado Springs, erect obstacles to SDS and maneuver this city into constructing an unneeded damn on the Fountain -- what began as an effort to bring the two cities together could tear them further apart. And the ironic thing is, we in Colorado Springs will help foot the bill.

I've dubbed the district "Frankenstein on the Fountain" for a reason. It's only now stirring to life. But when fully grown, it may come back to menace its co-creators in Colorado Springs.

The Durango Herald reports that Colorado DNR Director Harris Sherman "coasted through a U.S. Senate confirmation hearing (today) on his way to overseeing the U.S. Forest Service," even though he drew a blank on a subject that any candidate for the job should either know something about or bone-up on before such a hearing.

Sherman's Senate interrogators were more than happy to settle for vague platitudes, apparently, and reportedly didn't raise an eyebrow when the nominee said that he'd never heard of the Secure Rural Schools Act -- which is in the process of pumping out $3.3 billion dollars in payments to counties all across the West. These funds used to be called "timber payments," because they came from federal timber sale proceeds. They were meant to help compensate counties with a high percentage of federal land for the tax bind this can create. But that pot of money dried-up years ago, after anti-logging extremists and spotted owl-worshipers effectively killed off most federal timber harvests. Now those payments (which will end in 2011 unless the law is renewed) come directly from the U.S. Treasury. (The equally-clueless Herald writer reports that the program "dedicates money from logging to local governments.")

"Colorado counties got more than $17 million from the act in 2008, according to the Forest Service, including $354,000 in La Plata, $368,000 in Montezuma and $608,000 in Dolores counties," reports the Herald. Yet Sherman never heard of it. He promised one senator that he would "become familiar" with the issue "if I am confirmed." "I will look into it actively," he said, "and get back to you on that."

Nothing like learning on the job, I guess. What else will Sherman be getting up to speed on after he's confirmed?

If I know something about the Secure Rural Schools Act -- about what it does, how much it spends, why it's become such a relentless drain in the Treasury -- why doesn't the man who's been nominated to run the U.S. Forest Service? And why wasn't his inability to answer a basic question a cause for concern among committee members?

Sherman wrung his hands about the forest health crisis ravaging Colorado and other Western states -- I'm glad he's aware of that -- yet also waxed eloquent about the need to create "roadless" areas (de-facto wilderness areas) on millions of acres of federal land. But how does one battle beetle blight and the wildfire threat by closing off or restricting the forest access that roads provide? Sherman didn't have to address that question because none of his questioners see the paradox. The forest health crisis means that we need greater access to the backcountry, not less. But green extremists have made a fetish of so-called roadless areas. And Sherman (like Ken Salazar and Mark Udall and Bill Ritter) are squarely in that camp.

I guess being chums with Ken Salazar is the only qualification one needs to get a top spot in the Obama administration and coast to senate confirmation. But as a Coloradan, I'm embarrassed.

As much as it loves to take shots at The Gazette, the city's alternative weekly wouldn't be worth reading if it weren't for the former Gazette people it has on staff. This not only demonstrates how proficient the Indy has been at poaching talent, but also how deficient it's been at developing talent of its own. It also raises a question: If the Gazette is so reprehensible in the Indy's eyes, why does it rely so heavily on former Gazetteers to produce the substantive parts of the paper?

It's become Gazette Lite, essentially, with a few more soft core porn ads thrown in. Yet it insists on posing as the edgy, iconoclastic, "alternative voice" in town.

Ralph Routon, Rich Tosches, J. Adrian Stanley, Deb Accord, Pam Zubeck (sorry if I left anyone out): all have roots at the Gazette. These are the people who help elevate the Indy above the standard weekly rag. Tosches' shtick is as stale as ever, even if some Indy readers lap it up like demented cats. Ralph Routon's contributions are helpful -- because they serve as a good barometer of the conventional "wisdom" that prevails inside city booster groups. But it's the reporting that's improved with the infusion of Gazette people.

Today's edition, for instance, has some very good pieces -- here and here -- by Stanley and Zubeck. Stanley, who mostly wrote lighter fare at the G, has developed into a solid hard news reporter. And the recent addition of "pitbull Pam" is already paying off for the weekly, with stories like the one produced today.

I think this cross-pollination challenges common misconceptions about both publications. Not only does it show that the Indy isn't as radical and "out there" as it pretends to be (and that it's predominantly left-leaning audience want it to be), but it shows that the news side of the Gazette (from which all this talent comes) is far removed, ideologically, from the paper's libertarian editorial page.

Many outsiders imagine that the Gazette ownership's strong libertarian leanings, as reflected in the editorial pages, also bleed over into the news coverage. But take it from me, that's just not the case. If there are conservatives or libertarians in the paper's news department, they travel incognito. Many on the news side are openly hostile to the editorial traditions -- I still remember the collective groan that went up, five or so years ago, when it was announced that an equity partnership would keep the paper in family hands, and that it wouldn't be sold off. And I'm sure the news department will be leading the charge to change the editorial voice, now that the company will be owned by banks that don't give a damn about editorial tradition or what fits well with the community.

Gazette critics often carp about an alleged lack of "diverse views" in the paper. But there's actually plenty of diversity and "balance" in the paper -- more than you'll find in many American papers. From the news side, readers generally get the world from a left-of-center perspective, while the editorial page swims upstream in the "mainstream media" by providing a right-of-center view. Doing away with that yin and yang, and making the Gazette monolithically left-leaning, would actually lead to less "diversity" of views in the paper, alienating those readers who turn to it for a respite from "the liberal media."

That's not a knock on the reporters and editors there. They're professionals who strive for balance, but who inevitably, consciously or unconsciously, see events through a certain lense. It's human nature to some degree. And maybe the paper's strongly conservatarian editorial voice, and the strong reactions it evokes in certain quarters, brings out something reactionary in the news staff, pushing them in the other direction in an effort to compensate.

I think what the Gazette offers now strikes a weird sort of balance, for reasons just explained. And there's no question that the Indy benefits from bringing former Gazette folks on board, since they are professionals, first and foremost, and understand that even an "alternative weekly" needs to bring some semblance of balance to its work if it wants to be credible and broaden its readership. Bottom line: both publications benefit from the competitive juices this situation produces -- and that's good for local news users of all political stripes.

Colorado Springs is a business-friendly, easy-going, hassle-free place to be an entrepreneur, right? We have a lot of pro-business Republicans in office, right? Government here is on a short leash, right? The city makes economic development a priority, right?

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Put all those misconceptions on a shelf. Colorado Springs is far from being as business-friendly as it might be -- as business-friendly as many residents imagine it to be. But that's a dirty little secret only a subset of residents know, because they own or start a business. I'm talking about people like Rick Johnson, the subject of this story in Tuesday's Gazette. He now knows the terrible truth.

"By the end of the day Wednesday, Rick Johnson’s sweet little dream of putting teens to work dishing out ice cream to workers in an industrial area in central Colorado Springs may have melted into a sticky goo.

“Poor little Sprinkles …,” said Johnson, a tall, gregarious guy and owner of Johnson Heating and Plumbing.
Sprinkles is the name of the ice cream/hot dog/donut shop Johnson opened in mid-June in a 10-foot by 10- foot metal building at the corner of his business lot at Tia Juana and East St. Vrain streets.

The little shop, painted with bright polka dots, has added a dash of color to a gritty industrial area south of Platte Avenue near Circle Drive and dominated by car repair and welding shops and contractor operations such as Johnson’s.

Wednesday, though, Johnson faces a deadline: He must either seek a conditional use permit from the city of Colorado Springs to continue to operate the ice cream shop in an industrial area — which he reckons would cost about $4,000 — or latch the shop’s metal doors. Johnson is reluctantly leaning toward the latter, after unsuccessfully pleading his case with top zoning officials."

(Please read the rest of the story: it's a solid piece of journalism.)

Did you get that? Johnson had to "plead his case" with "top zoning officials" just to open an ice cream shed (it's not even a real shop!) in an industrial park! That shouldn't occur in a city that walks the walk on job creation, rather than just talks the talk, as this city does. Small businesses face a daunting array of obstacles when getting off the ground (which don't all go away when they become medium or large businesses). Asinine zoning rules, and the petty potentates who enforce them, shouldn't be one of them.

This is precisely why a big part of my City Council platform focuses on business climate issues. This story not only underscores the need for the changes I propose, but it shows how negligent the current City Council has been in addressing basic issues.

Here's a quote from my cover letter to City Council:

"I’ll be advancing a pro-business climate, pro-government reform agenda, since I believe the two are interconnected. Colorado Springs has been complacent about tending to the nuts and bolts of building a vibrant local economy, in my view. Some in leadership have been looking for short cuts and gimmicks (1-A, for instance), instead of getting back to the business climate basics -- which begins with a top-down review of the city’s tax and regulatory policies. A strong local economy is the key to almost everything else, given the city’s reliance on sales tax revenues. The city should be clearing away hurdles to enterprise and entrepreneurship, not erecting them. That should be City Council’s highest priority, aside from balancing the books. It will be among my top priorities."

Here's one item from the business climate part of my platform:

The cities of Colorado Springs and Pueblo have had their differences, lord knows. But most politicos is both cities have at least one thing in common: they see Douglas Bruce as a threat to their plans to raise taxes and grow government: Chieftain story. I'm not sure it's enough to mend the rift, since there frequently seems to be a disconnect between how politicos view Bruce and how the people do? But it's a start.

Denver Public Schools Superintendent Tom Boasberg had some inspiring to say at Tuesday's State of the Schools address (even if there were only about 75 people on hand to hear) them. "We are not meeting the civil-rights challenge of our generation and that is to give every one of our students, regardless of race, ethnicity or family background and income, a strong and equal chance to graduate from high school prepared for college," Boasberg said. "The question is, what are the key changes we need to make?"

One theme of his speech was the need to raise the performance of teachers, not just students. Sounds interesting. Sound inspiring. Makes perfect sense. So what's the difficulty?

The difficulty -- the elephant in the room which Boasberg and the Denver Post reporter who covered the story neatly danced around -- is teacher unions. Yes, tenure rules that keep lousy teachers teaching are engraved in state law, and that's a problem. DPS would have to get a waiver to get around the tenure problem. But the biggest single obstacle to teacher performance reform remains the teacher unions. Until they get on board, or get pushed out of the way, making inspiring speeches about saving public schools is just empty rhetoric.