Northern Colorado Peoples Press Collective

I want to send a thank you card to State Rep John Kefalas (D-Fort Collins).

In a press release bragging about the House Health and Human Services Committee passing his “Transparency Trojan Horse” bill, a.k.a. HB 1330 The Health Care Cost Transparency Act, Kefalas said, “You can’t manage what you can’t measure.”  In other words, Kefalas needs to measure the quality of my health care so that he can manage it for me and my family.  Thank Goodness!  I’ve been waiting for someone to take care of me and my children.  What a relief!

HB 1330, the All-Payer Database,  is dangerous because it creates a database with all your personal health care transactions.  It grants unlimited power to the state’s Executive Director of Health Care Policy and Financing to mandate the collection of any health care data, to conduct audits, to give the data to third parties without seeking permission and to impose unlimited fines for refusing to provide data to the database.

Just think…all your personal health care information forced to be made available to the state so it can “manage” it for you!

Independence Institute Health Care Policy Center Director Linda Gorman warns the state may have access to individual information on physical functioning, medical treatment, supposed mental stability, marital problems, family structure, sexual habits, addictions, adherence to government health recommendations, and individual financial arrangements.

Remember it’s for your own good.  How else can the state “manage” your health care for you?

Also troubling, transparency means citizens get to see inside government, and NOT the other way around.  Funny, some Democrat lawmakers were so worried about privacy issues when Rep BJ Nikkel presented her Colorado Taxpayer Transparency Act that required the state to provide detailed spending information.  No such concern from them with HB 1330.

Check out Linda Gorman’s excellent analysis of the “Trojan Horse Transparency.”  Also call John Kefalas and thank him for being willing to “manage” your health care.

Good news!  There is a new organization Save Our States with the sole mission of promoting the Electoral College throughout the country and defending it in states where it is threatened. Save Our States is the result of a group of concerned individuals from across the United States that came together to pool knowledge and resources to protect and promote the Electoral College.  I’m proud to one of them.

Regular readers know that I spent a good deal of time last spring in a fierce battle to save the Electoral College in Colorado.  Supporters of National Popular Vote, a.k.a. the Koza Scheme, including Senator Chris Romer and Representative Andy Kerr, almost got legislation through the General Assembly that would have rendered Colorado political impotent in presidential elections. Coloradans got wind of the disastrous plan and swamped lawmakers with phone calls and emails urging them to vote no on HB 09-1299.  Fortunately, good triumphed over paid lobbyists and the Electoral College survived.

So far in 2010, Save Our States has helped defeat National Popular Vote in Maine. Also our experts have visited Wisconsin and plan to testify in Alaska.  We have not seen NPV legislation thus far in Colorado but that doesn’t mean we won’t. Last year, it received late bill status meaning it was introduced after the regular deadline.  Please take time to educate yourself by visiting Save Our States.  Under the “STATES” tab, click on Colorado.  There you will some of my contributions.  This year we will be prepared — with Electoral College warriors.

We received a number of email complaints at LovelandPolitics about your editorial yesterday entitled “Partisanship has no place in our local government.” I must confess, however, that I agreed with most of what you wrote. I also prefer the days when Loveland candidates ran on only Loveland issues and would applaud any effort to return to pools, parks and potholes as the issues being discussed.

The irony is the candidate you endorsed, Donna Rice, is the one who introduced partisan politics into the Ward 1 city council race and is accusing her opponent, John Case, of being some sort of Manchurian candidate supported by mysterious outside interests.

Rice is running a campaign using partisan associations to catapult herself into local office through irresponsible fear mongering about an outsider “green conspiracy” taking over Loveland.

As a lifelong Republican, I know from many friends who were contacted early by Rice that she introduced herself as THE Republican Party candidate for Ward 1. That being said, I am also aware of some local Democrats supporting John Case but unlike Rice he truly is a local guy who I have only heard talk about local issues. What I know is the Rice supporters favored a 1% regional sales tax (RTA), lodging tax and now want an internet sales tax for Loveland. They are not your father’s fiscal conservatives nor is Rice who defends the $113 million of public debt created, in-part, for McWhinney’s now foreclosed shopping center.

Of the two candidates, a majority of Rice’s campaign funds come from sources outside Loveland while Case has only 12.5% of contributions from outside the community. Rice has maintained a residence in Wyoming and walks too close to the ethics line (when implying her work experience is in Colorado when it was not.)

Rice is certainly throwing stones from a glass house as Case raised his family in Loveland where he has resided continuously for the past 18 years. Case’s only political activity I am aware of was in local races while Rice has a long history of activism in statewide political party organizations. Rice, a longtime proponent of gay marriage and abortion within the Republican Party, has been fighting against anyone dubbed a “conservative” from holding a leadership position. I don’t know what abortion or gay marriage has to do with pools, parks or potholes but you appear to find her credentials as a squishy Republican important to serving on city council.

Now Rice wants us terrible and “wacky” conservatives to vote for her simply because she is a Republican. She doesn’t favor issues important to Ward 1 voters like Mahaffey Park which she said should be postponed indefinitely. So the partisan appeal by a divisive partisan Republican insider seems to be the antithesis of what you said you want for Loveland politics in yesterday’s editorial.

Rice’s apparently false accusations about Case having ties to a particular environmental group go unaddressed by your paper which I find troubling. This leaves Loveland voters without the benefit of the unofficial fourth branch of government (an independent press) willing to objectively investigate and report facts regarding outrageous claims made by candidates during political campaigns.

The hypocrisy I find intolerable is when influential people in town who support Rice pretend to want a diverse field of qualified candidates. Then they go privately about the dirty business of intimidating, coercing and discrediting those same candidates in hopes that they will drop-out of the race. Where is your reporting on those despicable activities on behalf of Donna Rice?

I believe Loveland has three better choices for council in Ward 1 than in previous elections despite Rice’s introduction of partisan rancor.

The tireless efforts of some groups in town you favor to manipulate the voters’ choices were successful in the past thus leaving many seats uncontested by design. Council elections are nonpartisan and should be open to any qualified citizen who wants to test their views on local issues through the public process.

Unfortunately, your coverage appears to many as limited by the “who” you know approach thus denying fair coverage for people like Rob Molloy who has unparalleled qualifications to serve on city council given his impressive history as a planning commissioner and zoning board adjuster. Adam Koniecki, who has made an admirable effort at being elected in the last race, addressed more local issue in the last candidate forum than did Rice.

I just wish you would use your position as the Editor of Loveland’s daily newspaper to encourage the end you say you want most in your editorial.

If you really want vigorous debate on local issues and less partisanship in local raises than you have to show the courage of an independent local press. Report the backroom deals the Loveland Chamber of Commerce and McWhinney try to create to limit our choices in qualified candidates for city council. Don’t be afraid to endorse candidates from either party based on their stand on local issues they will be able to affect in office; pools, parks and potholes.

Sincerely

L. Weston

At the end of last year Congresswoman Betsy Markey (CO 4) joined the Blue Dog Coalition, a self described group of 54 conservative and moderate Democrats that focus on fiscal issues including a balanced budget and the national debt.   A review of Markey’s voting record leaves one to wonder if her support for fiscal reform is all bark and no bite.

Markey is a freshman democrat lawmaker from a conservative district (voter registration favors republicans by nearly10 percent) that voted for John McCain in 2008.  She is the first democrat to represent the 4th CD since Wayne Aspinall in 1973.  The Cook Political Report calls the 4th CD a “toss up” for 2010, which is why Markey has tried so hard recently to appear as a fiscal conservative.

Early in 2009 she voted for or supported unpopular legislation such as the stimulus package, card check, and cap and trade.  My friend and fellow blogger Randy Ketner did an excellent job of highlighting Markey’s short legislative tenure.  His lengthy “Colorado Political Analysis 2010” appeared on Red State.

It seems that Markey is reading the tea leaves, which are telling her to move to the right or at least look like she is moving to the right.  Recently Markey has voted “against” her party on both health care and raising the debt limit, but in reality she voted with party leadership on all procedural and amendment votes only voting against leadership on the final vote.  That way she can position herself as independent of the democrat leadership without upsetting them.

Take health care for instance. Markey says she voted against H.R. 3962 Affordable Health Care for America Act because she claimed it did not do enough to “cut health care costs that crushing our businesses and families.”  She claims to support health care reform just not this specific piece of legislation. 

If that is true, then why did she vote no on a motion to recommit the bill?  According to GovTrack, Markey voted no on House Vote #866 which was “a final opportunity to revise” it before passage.  A motion to recommit sends legislation back to committee with instructions on how to fix the bill.  It can be used constructively or can be used to kill a “bill before it moves to a final up-or-down vote in the House.”  If Markey is serious about health care reform but not this bill, why vote to move it along instead of fixing it in such a way that she can support it?

Another example of Markey voting with democrat party leadership on rules and procedures for unpopular legislation then voting against them on the final tally is H.J. Res. 45 to increase the statutory limit on public debt.  This one is interesting because 38 Democrats voted not to raise the debt limit, 22 are freshman lawmakers facing competitive races in the fall, 17 are Blue Dogs.  Of the 17 Blue Dogs, only four enabled party leadership with procedural votes that allowed the debt limit resolution to go to the floor of the House.  Markey was one of those four. 

Markey voted yes on Roll Call Vote #45, which ordered the question: “Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 45) increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.”  She then voted no on Roll Call Vote #46 on “agreeing” to an increase. 

Markey played the same game with H.R. 1106: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, which allows bankruptcy courts to modify mortgage contracts.  She enabled democrat leadership when she voted no to recommit and yes to proceed.  On the final vote she said no. 

These aren’t the only examples.  I’ll highlight more as we get closer to the November vote.

The 4th CD is the heart of Ag country in Colorado.  Weld County is the 8th largest Ag producing county in the United States.  While Congresswoman Markey can claim to be a fiscal conservative, our sensitive olfactory receptors can detect a load of manure when we smell it.

In March of 2008 the Loveland City Council approved a cash subsidy for Bill Beierwaltes’ privately owned limited liability company (LLC) called vNET in Loveland.

The agreement Beierwaltes signed with the City of Loveland in exchange for the nearly $1 million of “business incentive” was to increase the number of employees working at his company in Loveland from 90 to 250 by December of 2012. The Loveland Reporter-Herald skewed then Councilman Gutierrez and Councilman Kent Solt in an editorial after the meeting in 2008 for questioning the agreement that was certain to bring jobs to Loveland.

Instead, the agreement serves as an example of why local city officials should not be trying to play venture capitalist with other people’s money. Within 8 months after receiving the subsidy, Beierwaltes laid-off about 1/3 of his 90 employees and eventually closed the business by September of 2009. Two months later he sold the business but has kept the Limited Liability Company actively registered with the Colorado Secretary of State. see story on LovlendPolitics

The problem is the city’s agreement is with the LLC Beierwaltes and his wife own that has no assets. Instead, the new company vNet Corp. is enjoying the benefits of the city paid improvements but has no legal obligation to pay any money to the city because it is a separate legal entity.

The good news is that Beiewaltes did provide a personal guarantee to the city at the insistence of those “anti-jobs” councilmen Gutierrez and Solt that the Reporter Herald vilified for trying to be responsible with taxpayer funds. Despite public statements to repay what he owes the city, Beierwaltes hasn’t returned even one thin dime. This by a man whose reported net worth is in order of magnitude greater than the paltry $500,000 the agreement requires he pay back if he couldn’t bring the 250 jobs to Loveland.

Perhaps vNet will be like the decision on the Mayor Pro Tem – on hold until the 9th councilor is elected. Donna Rice stated at the recent candidate forum that she wants to continue the city’s successful model of providing business incentives to bring jobs to this community.

Really?

Loveland City employee Tim Hedgespeth offered an endorsement by Donna Rice for her rival candidate for Loveland City Council should he step aside and run in 4 years when her term expires if elected.
Read the LovelandPolitics story and the emails

“Should you choose to withdraw and throw your support behind Donna, you could really display maturity, civic concern and wisdom. Not to mention the support of Rice backers in the future. She has already said she would back you in the next election if you would [not] run. I do not mean to offend you and I know your heart is in the right place…”

Hedgespeth is now the third Rice supporter who has approached a rival of Rice to encourage them to throw their support behind Rice and back-out of the race – appearing to speak for Rice. What makes this offer different, and possibly illegal, is that Hedgespeth is attempting to persuade the candidate to abandon his race in exchange for a reward in the future; Rice stepping down in 4 years and endorsing Koniecki.

Below is the Colorado State law that unambiguously prohibits inducements to candidates for public office to withdraw from a race in exchange for something of value.

1-45-115. Encouraging withdrawal from campaign prohibited. No person shall offer or give any candidate or candidate committee any money or any other thing of value for the purpose of encouraging the withdrawal of the candidate’s candidacy, nor shall any candidate offer to withdraw a candidacy in return for money or any other thing of value.

Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should…

I get it.  Democrats are in charge in Colorado and therefore they can pass or defeat pretty much whatever legislation they want.  They do not need Republicans at all.  But just because they can doesn’t mean they should.

Tonight the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs defeated SB 51 along a party line vote.  This bill, sponsored by Senator Scott Renfroe and Representative Jerry Sonnenberg, would have eliminated the Governor’s authority to suspend or limit the sale, distribution and/or transportation of firearms during a time of state disaster emergency.  

This bill was designed to prevent the gun confiscation that occured in New Orleans right after Katrina.  So at a time when Coloradans will be most vulnerable, government can limit our ability to protect ourselves.  You can thank Democrat Senators Rollie Heath, Bob Bacon and Betty Boyd.

Not to be left out, House Democrats killed Representative Glenn Vaad’s excellent bill on priority based budgeting.  HB 1126 would have created a biennial priority-based budgeting process.  One way to kill a bill is to weigh it down with an unrealistic fiscal note.  That’s exactly what happened with Vaad’s bill.  According to legislative council, it would cost taxpayers roughly $350,000 over the next two years for the state to prioritize its budget.  The real question is how much does not prioritizing the budget cost Colorado taxpayers every year?

During the Long Term Fiscal Stability Commission meetings I learned that Colorado state statuted requires a zero-based budgeting process.  I was told by Democrat Representative Mark Ferrandino, a member of the Joint Budget Committee, that the process has been abandoned because it is “too hard.”

Of course, Ferrandino’s bill, HB 1119, which would require performance-based budgeting and strategic planning, has a fiscal note of a mere $25,000.  It passed out of committee just before Vaad’s was defeated.

Also killed, HB 1087 Republican Representative Spencer Swalm’s bill to change employer state income tax withholding from mandatory to voluntary. It was tagged with the most absurb fiscal note of nearly $19 million and over 60 FTEs over three years.  Although that may be cheaper and create more jobs than some stimulus projects. The fiscal note was so bad, Swalm said even some Republicans wouldn’t support his bill.

Barring a miraculous, last minute stay of execution, Representative Amy Stephen’s bill concerning transparency in gifts, grants and donations will be dead tomorrow.   It has NO cost to the state and would allow taxpayers to see what organizations are funding legislation and interim committees.  It is simply a good governance piece of legislation.  And chances are it won’t pass because Stephens is a Republican.

Democrats would be wise to remember that power is cyclical.

Imagine knowing who or what organizations are giving gifts in the form or grants or donations to the state of Colorado?  Taxpayers may want to send a thank you card.  As of right now, taxpayers don’t have access to that information unless they do some serious research. 

State Representative Amy Stephens  is trying to fix that. Her legislation, HB 1178 Transparency in the Use of Grant Moneys, is a simple fix that would require all gifts, grants and donations to be disclosed.  In other words if an organization wants to pay for a state program or an interim committee, taxpayers have a right to know.  It’s just good government.  According to Rep Stephens, the bill has been amended so there is NO cost to the state to provide the information.

Sadly, but predictably the State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee wants to kill the bill.  It’s been laid over until Thursday. If you want to call members and give them you want to know who and what are giving gifts, grants and donations to Colorado, I’ve provided member’s contact information below.   Also, below is a quick summary of Rep Stephen’s bill.

HB 1178

This bill directs any state agency that receives gifts, grants, and donations to make an annual report to the General Assembly. Beginning in 2011, the report will list each gift, grant, or donation received; its source and use; and its impact on the sustainability of certain programs.

Upon receipt of a gift, grant, or donation from a non-governmental entity, a state agency is to request a letter from the donor that specifies the amount, duration, purpose, and bill number, if applicable.

As of January 1, 2011, all bills that rely on gifts, grants, or donations for funding are to include a notice of funding provision. This provision directs a state agency to report to the Legislative Council when sufficient funding is received. Relevant portions of the bill may be repealed if funding is not received within 18 months. The Legislative Council is required to:

• keep a record of all bills passed during each legislative session that rely on gifts, grants,

• or donations;

• track gifts, grants, and donations received for any interim committee dependent on such

• funds to ensure sufficient funds are available; and

• track information from state agencies and make a report as of January 2013 on all bills

• that have not received adequate funding from gifts, grants, or donations, as required

• under the bill

State, Veterans and Military Affairs

Beth McCann, 303-866-2959, beth.mccann,house@state.co.us
Joe Miklosi, 303-866-2910, joe@joemiklosi.com
Carole Murray, 303-866-2948, murrayhouse45@gmail.com
BJ Nikkel, 303-866-2907, rep.nikkel@gmail.com
Mark Waller, 303-866-5525, mark.waller.house@state.co.us
Nancy Todd, 303-866-2919, nancy.todd.house@state.co.us
Jeanne Labuda, 303-866-2966, jeanne.labuda.house@state.co.us
Ed Casso, 303-866-2964, ed.casso.house@state.co.us
Lois Court, 303-866-2967, lois.court.house@state.co.us
Brian DelGrosso, 303-866-2947, brian@briandelgrosso.com
Dickey Lee Hullinghorst, 303-866-2915, dl.hullinghorst.house@state.co.us
Joe Miklosi, 303-866-2910, joe@joemiklosi.com
Carole Murray, 303-866-2948, murrayhouse45@gmail.com
BJ Nikkel, 303-866-2907, rep.nikkel@gmail.com
Mark Waller, 303-866-5525, mark.waller.house@state.co.us

Ward 1 candidate Donna Rice has repeatedly told voters along with LovelandPolitics and the Loveland Reporter-Herald that she was motivated to run for Loveland City Council after noticing some contributions from Ft. Collins Councilmembers during Loveland’s municipal election last November. see our story

It is odd than to see she is herself running some kind of city record after reporting today total contributions of $3,899 mostly from outside sources. Rice’s campaign reported raising $2,225 outside Loveland and only $1,624 from contributors inside Loveland. 24 contributions come from cities outside Loveland while only 21 come from sources inside Loveland. One contribution of $250 from a Windsor resident was reported as returned.

For the record, Loveland voters have a good selection of candidates for City Council this time in Ward 1. Donna Rice is articulate, seemingly sincere and certainly no hay seed like the other “old guard” candidates normally propped-up by McWhinney. The other candidates (Rob Molloy, John Case & Adam Koniecki) all have long histories in Loveland and don’t appear to be supported by any organized effort outside Loveland.

Rice also took money from former Ft. Collins Councilman and congressional candidate Diggs Brown. This would also appear contradictory since she has continuously denounced a member of Loveland’s council (not anyone running in this race) for taking a contribution from a member of the Ft. Collins City Council.

Any thoughts to the candidates and their chances or winning?

Who will you be supporting?

Despite the high water tables, expansive soils, lack of local utilities and lack of surrounding transportation infrastructure, KB Homes tried to build a project in south Loveland named Aspen Knolls.

Loveland’s City Council even approved the use of eminent domain back in 2004 and forced nearby property owners to give-up land so those road improvements could be made to accommodate the development. The owners, facing eminent domain, instead agreed to terms with KB Homes in 2004.

In 2006, as KB Homes was defending a lawsuit in Loveland on another development and preparing to leave the state, McWhinney bought Aspen Knolls at a bargain $3 million — along with the commitments to improve the roads etc…

McWhinney tried to “down” zone the property and get the water shares that go with the property back from the city (they went into the city’s “water bank” when the development was approved) valued at $4 million. One nearby property owner, Hein Family Trust, tired of the broken promises over the road improvements and sued McWhinney to enforce thair agreement signed with KB Homes back in 2004. You will need to read the story here for all the details.

We apologize for the long story but please take the time to read it if you can. It is interesting that McWhinney was trying to strip the land of the water shares and leave it underdeveloped in south-west Loveland. Hardly the image they try to promote with their public relations.

Taking some 300 to 400 approved new units of housing in Loveland out of the local economy is hardly the action of a “pro-growth” bunch looking to improve the community through new projects.

Look carefully and you will see it is really just about the money. They look for the quickest way to profit and move-on. That isn’t always in the long-term interest of our community.