Thursday, July 7, 2011
Elections / County Gov / Politics Term limits on 2012 ballot, giving Clark and Hisey a break
Posted by John Hazlehurst on Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 5:02 PM
In a drawn-out and contentious meeting Thursday, the El Paso County commissioners voted to revisit term limits for county elected officials in the 2012 general election. The ballot language includes a controversial "grandfather clause" that permits incumbent commissioners Sallie Clark and Dennis Hisey to run and serve for a third term beyond 2012, even if more restrictive limits are adopted by the voters.
County voters will be asked whether to limit elected officials to two terms, or to retain the three-term limits, which were approved last November.
The 4-1 vote came after political activists of both right and left complained that the November vote was tainted because ballot language led voters to believe that a "yes" vote would institute term limits, not loosen them.
Before voting on the issue, the commissioners rejected both an amendment that would have accelerated the vote to November 2011 and an amendment that would have removed the grandfather clause.
Kyle Fisk, a conservative political consultant who managed Brian Bahr’s mayoral campaign this spring, spoke in support of removing the clause.
“There’s only one distinction between the (proposed issues),” he said, “and that’s whether or not Commissioners (Sallie) Clark and (Dennis) Hisey should serve another term. It’s very stark — and best practices at every level of government have clearly been that elected officials make those decisions for those who come after them. That’s the right, fair, and ethical approach.”
Speaking as representative of Americans for Prosperity, former City Council member Sean Paige issued a not-so-thinly-veiled warning.
“We will let our members know about this,” he said. “That’s not a threat ... it’s just what we do.”
Clark accused AFP of being motivated not by principle, but by ancient political grudges.
“Is AFP calling me out because I didn’t support (current AFP Colorado Director) Jeff Crank for Congress?” she asked.
Newly elected Commissioners Darryl Glenn and Peggy Littleton supported an immediate revote in 2011, as well as removal of the grandfather clause, while Commissioners Amy Lathen, Hisey and Clark supported waiting until 2012.
Opposing an immediate re-vote, Sheriff Terry Maketa tartly observed that “every ballot issue is confusing” and suggested that the commissioners wait a few years before re-submitting the question.
His comments led to a puzzling Q&A session with Glenn, who tried to trip up Maketa and catch him with a self-contradictory statement. Glenn was no match for the wily Maketa, who easily deflected all of Glenn’s rhetorical traps.
Before the vote, Clark spoke on her own behalf.
“I feel like I’m watching a tennis match,” she said, “and a couple of commissioners are the ball. It’s hard because I’m talking about myself here.”
Recapitulating her long career in local politics, Clark spoke of saving Fire Station 3, of her work preserving open space, and of her tireless work on behalf of her constituents.
“It takes a long time to get things done,” she continued. “I’m always at the table — I attend an average of 800 meetings a year. If ... I decide to seek re-election, let my constituents decide.”
After nearly six hours of testimony, parliamentary maneuvers, and testy exchanges between individual commissioners and members of the public, the final vote was 4-1, with Darryl Glenn the lone dissenter.
This decision won’t be the last word, according to some opponents.
“There are state issues, constitutional issues,” said Lee Milner. “It’s a long way from being over.”
Comments (6)
Showing 1-6 of 6
This matter began, innocently enough last November, just a few days after the election, when people realize they voted contrary to their intent. There was no talk about this being underhanded, clever, devious or deceitful. It was only the: WORDING.
Once the commissioners began receiving public contact from constituents and the press questioned the wording, Commissioner Clark (‘the first responder’) went right into her 'high defense' mode ie: "How do you dare question me!" This generally raises red flags.
If you have a defensible position, you respond with the facts. If you do not, you tend to lean toward more irrational statements and begin to attack those with legitimate questions. In the past, it has been accepted practice that those in elected office would respond to legitimate concerns from constituents. Mrs. Lathen referring to this practice, when applied to her - - refers to this as: “Bullying”. An interesting position to take.
Once Americans for Prosperity and SpringsUnigroup began looking into the matter, which intensified press scrutiny, the commissioners jumped into full body armor over people simply asking: “We did not fully understand the wording, can we vote on this again?” Is that accusatory? Or people just asking a legitimate question?
Mrs. Lathen joined in with her sense of moral outrage, lashing out at the public when in fact there was nothing to be defensive about. Just the wording was questionable, not the motives. The main question is why does one become defensive when there is nothing to hide? Did their own behavior develop reasons to look further into: MOTIVE?
The longer Mrs. Clark and Mrs. Lathen were in 'high agitation mode', the more the public seemed to become alarmed that perhaps INTENT was indeed the issue needing to be examined. It would not seem normal that two women, if qualified to serve in public office, would turn hostile toward those they supposedly serve when asked simple questions about a matter being confusing or not?
When the level of anger on the part of the commissioners rose, even to the point of a commissioner shouting at a reporter, in public – after the commissioner has been hostile and aggressive all meeting long - - the arena begin to fill with serious doubts as to the commissioners willingness to even address the issue. This not only raised red flags, it set off warning sirens, increasing the numbers among the public who really believed the matter had now moved from innocence to ‘manipulation’.
At this point, entirely of their own doing, the Commissioners Clark and Lathen set the stage for questions to be asked whose ‘best interests’ were they serving?
Today, having the opportunity do deal with this in a manner to satisfy critics, they also had the opportunity do handle this in a manner to start rebuilding the loss of trust they themselves actually brought upon themselves by their own actions.
It is indeed frightening that we have people with this low level of sophistication making decisions having far-reaching impact on our behalf. Some measure of examination, public scrutiny and control over these ladies needs to be inserted between them, the public and the final decision process. Particularly rendering financial decisions which, if I am not mistaken, neither have any education, background or experience to be dealing with. This is something needing to be reviewed by a citizens panel with financial expertise.
It is in defense of the above statement that I note Mr. Biondi, the normal independent auditor who performs the state required audit - stated all the accounting he had been shown met standard accounting practices. There is nothing to audit the decisions on fiscal and tax policies made by the commissioners will no real expertise.
What we saw today indicates we need to ensure we see much more!
like
dislike
Posted by
Staci6
on July 7, 2011 at 7:00 PM
Staci6 is the reason we need to let the elected govern. If the wording or intent was in fact totally nefarious, let the actions of their term show in the vote to re-elect. A good representative of the constituents should not be limited at all. If Staci6 and any others that were confused as to the wording and intent of the measure, they should revisit their 3rd grade primer and stop whining, lest we give intelligence tests before voting. What a novel idea.
Posted by
Aode
on July 8, 2011 at 3:48 AM
Aode:
' - - - letting the elected govern'
Good concept. But, are the local 'electeds' getting the job done and for the past 12 years, have they developed fiscal and economic policies that ensure we have a stable economy when the national economy is down?
Are the local Sallies and Amys working well with the public to see that funding is available to maintain the current infrastructure, and to promote the region to attract companies who can provide jobs for the 22,000 unemployed?
Would we be better served by a 'Management Class' than by a 'Political Class'?
If the local Republican Party cannot achieve harmony within their own ranks can we expect any better in the manner in which they handle policy formation?
Have we seen any evidence?
Posted by
fortworthrick
on July 8, 2011 at 5:44 AM
Ft. Worth Rick,
Well put. Perhaps we will see a better "Management Class" with the strong mayor in city government, but for now, our county commissioners are the way we've chosen to select the decision makers. It was formed at a time when it first became necessary for the residents to select persons to be a governing body. Full time involvement was not required. We as electors have failed to change with the times as full time government became the norm. I vote to move to system where we elect commissioners to hire full time qualified management personnel. I believe change is in the wind.
Posted by
Aode
on July 8, 2011 at 8:59 AM
Aode:
You have hit the nail on the head. Those of us who are not very smart need to be sure we hire people smarter than us to get the job done!
Posted by
fortworthrick
on July 8, 2011 at 9:01 AM
Staci6, your comments are very good. My emphasis is different though in some very important ways. I don't really see our very own SpringsUniGroup as accomplishing much here more than reporting from the sidelines, cheering on Jeff Crank, Peggy Littleton, and Darryl Glenn, who are the ones in the trenches. They're willingness to take on the Republican establishment is to be commended. Would we be willing ourselves to take on our own in similar circumstances? Some of us are willing to do the right thing, no matter which party we belong to, but our motives are suspect when we take on the opposing party. For purity of motives, taking on your own party elders when they're out of line, your own elected officials when they're abusing the integrity of our electoral system, takes courage that few have. These 3 Republicans have it. Do we ourselves? All of them will pay some price for doing the right thing. They'll also own something that Hisey, Clark, and Lathen won't be able to buy--peaceful sleep; have something that Hisey, Clark, and Lathen won't--a good reputation. I would take my hat off to Crank, Littleton, and Glenn if I saw them. I would hold my nose with one hand, and my wallet with the other, if I saw Hisey, Clark, and Lathen.
Posted by
Uncle Milton
on July 8, 2011 at 3:50 PM
