• Kin Scott
• El Paso County GOP Chair Eli Bremer

The El Paso County Republican Party is at the center of a brewing controversy that could, perhaps have statewide implications for the GOP.

Surprise.

What the controversy makes clear is that there are still active, vocal members of the local party who are very unhappy with their chairman, Eli Bremer, and his occasionally in-absentia leadership.

Tres Melton, a local Republican activist, has the scoop.

Writing at the website Green Dragon Tavern, Melton describes events from this past Saturday's state Republican GOP assembly.

At contention was the treatment of the alternates for El Paso County. According to a formal complaint written by local Republican activist and precinct chair Amy Mitchell, a number of delegates didn't show up in time to be credentialed by the 9:30 a.m. deadline. That cost these absent delegates their spots — as well it should have, Mitchell argues — and alternates were called up to take the absent delegates' votes.

This is what alternates are for, after all.

However, by the time 11 o'clock had rolled around, a number of the tardy delegates had shown up, gotten credentialed, and taken their spots and ballots back from the alternates.

From Mitchell's complaint:

Per the Rules of the Colorado Republican State Assembly and Convention April 14, 2012:
“2. Credentials
2.4 Credentialing Required by 9:30 A.M./Voting by Alternates.
(a) Delegates and Alternates are required to be credentialed by 9:30 a.m. on April 14, 2012.
(b) Any delegate who is not credentialed by 9:30 a.m. may have his ballot given to the first alternate of that county and continuing numerically thereafter, except in any county where an alternate to the Assembly and Convention was elected to represent a designated district or precinct. In such case, the designated district or precinct alternate shall be entitled to vote in the absence of the delegate in accordance with the rules of the County Republican Party or the ruling of the County Chairman.
(c) The decisions and rulings of the County Chairman regarding the promotion of alternates shall be final.”

While the treatment of the alternates has Mitchell riled, it's that last bit about the county chair that is the crux of her complaint because Bremer, the county party chair, wasn't in attendance. He was out of town on work. So, Bill Roy, the party's unelected COO and general manager, stepped up and assumed the responsibilities of the chair.

And while this sounds like a fine solution to the chair's absence, the problem, at least according to Mitchell and others, is that there is nothing in the party's bylaws that explicitly allows for the chairman to delegate his role at the assembly to an unelected employee of the party. There is, however, a clear description of just who is supposed to step up to assume the role of the chair when the chair is out-of-town for work. And that would fall on the vice-chairman, a position currently held by David Williams

As are readers are aware, it is far from a secret that he and Bremer have a contentious relationship.

Mitchell sent an e-mail to Williams, questioning Roy's role at the assembly:

Was the EL PASO COUNTY GOP Chairman Eli Bremer present at the State GOP Convention Saturday, April 14, 2012? If he was not present, were you aware of his absence and the reasons for his absence (we did not see or hear from him)? Mr. Williams, what is the protocol, or is there a protocol for addressing the inability or absence of the El Paso County GOP Chairman to perform his duties?

Here was Williams' response to Mitchell:

It is to my understanding that Chairman Eli Bremer was not present at the 2012 Colorado State GOP Assembly held on April 14, 2012. I did not receive notification of his absence prior to the assembly, and I was not made aware of his absence until the assembly’s proceedings were nearly finished. Consequently, I cannot speak to the reasons for his absence.

Concerning your questions regarding protocol, I can only cite our county party bylaws. I believe they happen to be the only authoritative document that addresses your concerns. According to Article VI, Section 6.02, Letter B:1 (page 10), “The Vice-Chairman shall exercise the functions of the Chairman during the temporary absence from El Paso County, or the temporary inability of the Chairman.”

The Chairman does have the ability to delegate certain responsibilities to our volunteers or staff, but I cannot cite any authoritative bylaw or rule that grants the ability of another person (who is not the Vice-Chair, or in some rare instances, the Secretary) to perform the functions of a Chairman who is temporarily absent from the county, or temporarily unable to perform his/her duties.

This matter was brought to Bremer's attention by Mitchell and Williams, and he replied to both:

I was unable to attend due to work obligations. An uninformed understanding of the bylaws would indicate that the Vice Chairman would effectively become the Chairman the second the Chairman's foot leaves the county. However, by definition, the County Party Chairman is probably going to be out of the county
during the State Assembly (unless the State Assembly is in El Paso County). So clearly this was not the intent of the bylaws or they would have stated that the Vice-Chairman shall run the party at all events and functions that take place outside the county physical boundaries. So we look at the intent of the bylaws which is clearly that the Vice-Chairman can execute the mission set forth by the Chairman for the benefit of the Party when the Chairman is not able to fulfill the duties. This was not included for the benefit of the Vice-Chairman or for an
unneeded change of leadership structure, it was there to ensure continuity of leadership at the Party and a completion of the mission and vision set out by the Chairman should he be unable to accomplish his job.

The basic issue was that I prematurely decided to move up ALL alternates who had credentialed into the Assembly. Here’s why: At 10:15 AM I received the preliminary credential report, which revealed that we could move up all 146 of the alternates who had checked in. That number even left us with slots for an additional 163 alternates (based on 333 out of a possible 642 delegates who had checked in). My decision to move up all alternates seemed like a good decision since I was told by two Credential Team members that the State GOP halted credentialing at approximately 9:15 AM.

Indeed, they did stop credentialing at that time, but only so that they could collect and report their numbers for the initial credential report. I did not know they would continue to credential delegates and alternates until 11:00 AM. In that ensuing period, El Paso County added another 150 delegates (for a total of 483 delegates) and another 66 alternates (for a total of 212 alternates). That meant we could only promote a total of 159 alternates to the status of a voting alternate.

Thus, 53 of our 212 alternates who were present could not be moved up (212 – 159 = 53), and that group of 53 alternates included you and the other alternates ranked at #345 and above. I received the final credential report at about 12:30 PM, and then attempted to formulate a plan to distribute the ballots in light of the adjusted delegate and alternate numbers. By about 1:30 PM we began to hand out ballots to delegates and alternates ranked #344 or lower.

Mitchell's full complaint:

• Rick Santorum: Colorado's surprise winner

As Tuesday night wore on without conclusive results from Colorado's Republican caucus, CNN and other outside media seemed certain that surely, at some point, Mitt Romney would pull out the victory over upstart Rick Santorum and preserve the equilibrium of this GOP presidential race.

Shortly after 10 p.m. our time, midnight on the East Coast, Romney actually did take the lead for the first time. Even Ari Fleischer, President George W. Bush's first press secretary, was insisting on CNN that his sources were assuring him Romney would prevail.

But it didn't happen.

Instead, late returns including the numbers from Colorado Springs gave Santorum the stunning victory, completing the trifecta that began hours earlier with the former Pennsylvania senator's easy wins in Minnesota and Missouri.

El Paso County's totals: Santorum 5,061, Romney 3,325, Newt Gingrich 1,290, Ron Paul 1,054.

That adds up to 10,730 ... a nice round number, but perhaps disappointing, since county GOP leaders had been saying they expected a 15,000 turnout.

Something else worth mentioning: CNN's main reporters, Wolf Blitzer and John King, definitely did their best to further some outside assumptions about Colorado Springs. They repeatedly mentioned the fact that Focus on the Family is headquartered here, that we have a strong evangelical presence and that longtime Focus leader Dr. James Dobson had endorsed Santorum.

The state numbers, early this morning on the Denver Post's website:

Santorum.....26,580 40.2 percent
Romney.......23,097 34.9 percent
Gingrich........8,457 12.7 percent
Paul...............7,792 11.7 percent

We'll have more coverage today at csindy.com, and in Thursday's issue of the Independent.

• Douglas Bruce, cause of many an election problem.

Included are Colorado's top five "ethics failures" over the last year. Colorado Springs, perhaps unsurprisingly, made the cut. In fact, given the long list of goof-ups made by the city clerk and city attorney in 2011, Ethics Watch was unable to choose just one to highlight.

But the story of Douglas Bruce's Reform Team, which dodged reporting requirements during the City Council elections, stood out. Ethics Watch specifically pointed to an aspect of that scandal as the pinnacle of the Springs' election woes.

Here's what happened: About a month before the April election, the Independent wrote about Bruce's antics. Following that article, Ethics Watch called on the city to fix the situation. Instead, the city embarked on a long (and somewhat comical) legal fight in a thus-far vain attempt to make the state enforce the city's own election laws. It was this prolonged battle that earned special recognition from Ethics Watch.

The Independent was the first to report on the scandal, and the only local news source to cover it consistently. It continues to drag through the courts.

Read on for more on the year's troubling election law violations:

Colorado Ethics Watch Releases 4th Annual Ethics Roundup
Report Highlights 2011’s “Top Ethical Failures” in State Ethics

DENVER — Colorado Ethics Watch, a nonpartisan, nonprofit legal watchdog group, today released Ethics Roundup: Top Ethical Failures of 2011, the organization’s fourth annual report highlighting Colorado’s public officials, agencies and municipalities who have either committed ethics violations or shown significant lack of judgment that places their behavior in the top tier of ethical failures in the state in the past year.

“Only by paying attention to the actions of our government agencies and officials, identifying ethical lapses, and shining a light on them will we be assured to have what Colorado voters have demanded — transparent and accountable public leaders,” said Luis Toro, director of Colorado Ethics Watch.

In its annual effort to round up the year in ethics in Colorado, Ethics Watch honed in on the largest controversies and qualified them as the Top Ethical Failures of 2011. The most egregious of ethical failures took place in Adams County, in the Secretary of State’s Office, and in Colorado Springs, where multiple examples demonstrate a consistent lack of regard for ethics rules, laws and values. The other two ethical failures — by former Jefferson County Commissioner Kevin McCasky and by an organization now called WAIT Training — shine a light on the kind of corruption and undue influence that take place in government every day.

• Adams County Meltdown: From the Quality Paving scandal, to a corrupt county assessor and abuse of power in the sheriff’s office, Adams County was the unquestioned epicenter of ethics problems in Colorado during 2011. These ethical failures caused voters to demand reform.

• Gessler in the Tank: Secretary of State Scott Gessler reduced a campaign finance fine for the Larimer County Republican Party in spite of its clear negligence in failing to file disclosure reports, then compounded the ethical failure by offering to personally help the group raise money to pay off the fine.

• Colorado Springs Sues to Avoid Enforcing Its Own Laws: Colorado Springs’ first municipal election under its new “strong mayor” system revealed a city incapable of enforcing, or sometimes even understanding, its own election laws. In fact, Colorado Springs government actively fought against transparency when it refused to enforce its own newly adopted rules.

• Golden Parachute: After submitting his resume for a highly paid position at the Jefferson Economic Council, Jefferson County Commissioner Kevin McCasky voted to approve a $400,000 grant, an increase of $20,000 over the previous year, from Jefferson County to that organization.

• WAIT Not Worth It: An August Westword story by Andy Kopsa raised serious questions about how an abstinence-only sex education group was able to work with members of the State Board of Education to circumvent state laws against such programs, and later received federal dollars through the state despite scoring the lowest of all applicants on Colorado’s grant evaluation rubric.


Ethics Watch compiled the report by reviewing news reports, campaign finance records, state audits and documents, emails, and other disclosure forms. Ethics Watch’s legal experts analyzed this information for violations of state laws, regulations or ethics rules.

Designed to bring public attention to the matter of government accountability, this is the only report of its kind in Colorado. The full report, including Ethics Watch actions and litigation on these issues, is available on the Colorado Ethics Watch website at www.coloradoforethics.org.

# # #

The early trends held to the end Tuesday night in El Paso County returns for the 2011 election, with a smattering of unpredictable outcomes but nothing that registered on the Richter scale.

In all, there were 115,120 votes cast, or 48.3 percent of the 238,355 active voters who received ballots across the county.

City Issue 2B, paving the way toward an outside entity perhaps leasing Memorial Health System from Colorado Springs without the city being committed to cover a shortfall, passed with slightly more than 60 percent of the vote. The final totals were 47,571 for and 28,669 against.

State Proposition 103, who would have increased funding for public education, was defeated handily by nearly a 2-1 margin statewide, and worse than that locally.

In Colorado Springs School District 11, board incumbents Janet Tanner and Bob Null led the voting for four at-large positions, with Elaine Naleski and Nora Brown capturing the other two vacant seats.

But in Fountain, being a City Council incumbent meant nothing, as Lois Landgraf and Harold Thompson lost their at-large seats to challengers Patricia St. Louis and James Coke.

For a full accounting of the El Paso County vote, go here. And for more election coverage, check this week's issue of the Independent on Thursday.

Proposition 103, the statewide ballot issue to provide more funding for public education, is headed for a lopsided defeat in early results.

With 49 percent of the state vote counted, Prop 103 is losing by 65 to 35 percent. The raw total is 334,101 no votes, to 181,107 yes.

El Paso County is contributing to that margin with a 45,000 spread: 75,459 no to 30,152 yes. That's more than 70 percent disapproval.

• Theresa Thompson

We in Colorado do love being exceptional.

However, being singled out for our restrictions on people's right to vote may seem less than complimentary. If you've been reading the Indy over the last year, than you know we've been critical of state and local laws and policies that prevent mail ballots from being sent to voters who are considered "inactive." That would be anyone who did not participate in the November 2010 election and hasn't voted since.

Being inactive isn't the same as being unregistered. In fact, across Colorado registered voters are failing to receive ballots in their mail, sometimes in mail-ballot-only elections. If they want to vote, they have to go through a process to become "active" again.

This isn't just absurd. It's exceptional. The Huffington Post has begun researching "inactive" voter laws. So far, it looks like Colorado is one of the most restrictive states, if not the most restrictive. Read more here.

• Wayne Williams

Secretary of State Scott Gessler just lost a battle, if not yet a war.

Gessler, you'll remember, has been trying to keep cities from sending mail ballots to inactive voters. He says it's against the law. He says it disturbs uniformity in the state's elections. And he says his actions aren't in any way meant to discourage Democratic minority voters from casting ballots — despite evidence that inactive voters are disproportionately black and Hispanic.

Inactive voters are registered voters who didn't vote in the November 2010 election and have not voted since. In all-mail ballot elections, some Colorado counties have traditionally mailed to inactive voters, while others haven't.

Gessler ended up in court over the matter because the Denver Clerk and Recorder Debra Johnson wanted to send to inactive voters, while Gessler wanted to prevent her from doing so. However, a court Friday refused to issue a preliminary injunction stopping inactive ballots from being sent out.

They'll be sent in Denver and Pueblo counties. But not here in El Paso County.

County Clerk and Recorder Wayne Williams says there's no room in the budget to send to inactive voters, and that doing so would be too expensive.

“As I’ve explained in the past, for budget reasons we get about a one in a thousand response rate, so we spend about $1,000 for each vote we get back,” he said of mailing to inactive voters.

Williams noted that two notices have been sent to inactive voters informing them how to update their status, and a third notice was e-mailed to inactive military voters, who often don't check snail mail while overseas.

Inactive voters can update their status online until seven days before the election, and can vote by going in person to one of four election service centers starting on Tuesday and continuing through 7 p.m. on election day.

Here's more information from our Noted section this week:

Ballots go out Tuesday

Ballots for the all-mail Nov. 1 coordinated election will go out Tuesday, Oct. 11, to all active registered voters in El Paso County. Registered voters who are inactive (because they didn't vote in the November 2010 election), or who do not receive a mail ballot may go to any of the county clerk and recorder's four offices starting Wednesday, Oct. 12, to reactivate their status (if needed) and pick up a ballot.

Ballots may be returned by mail or dropped off during office hours at those same clerk offices: Centennial Hall, 200 S. Cascade Ave.; Citizens Service Center, 1675 W. Garden of the Gods Road, #2202; Union Town Center, 8830 N. Union Blvd.; Powers Branch, 5650 Industrial Place.

All of El Paso County will take part in the election because of a statewide ballot issue, a sales tax increase to help fund public education. Many area school districts, special districts and smaller municipalities also will participate. — RR

• Bruce

Hard to believe, but the city is still dealing with the April election and the conflicts it caused.

One issue in particular has yet to be resolved: Who should go after former City Council candidate Douglas Bruce and his ill-fated Reform Team for campaign finance violations?

The city says the state should do it, despite the fact the Bruce and Co. violated a city ordinance. An administrative law judge long ago threw out the city's complaint, saying the state had no jurisdiction to enforce the election laws of a home rule city.

But wait, the city appealed that decision, asking that an administrative law judge take a second look. The thing waded its way through the judicial system once again.

Recently, Ethics Watch, which originally brought violations to the city's attention, filed a brief in support of making the city enforce its own laws. So did Bruce and the secretary of state's office. Luis Toro, head of Ethics Watch, said he was amused to be on the same side as some of his most notable adversaries.

"It really speaks to how 'out there' the city's position is, because they enacted an ordinance that's a city ordinance, and they're trying to pawn the enforcement off on the state," he said.

Toro says he expects that in a few months, the appeals court will affirm the administrative law judge's decision and throw the ball squarely in the city's court. While it's likely a little late to pursue a case against Bruce — who, after all, lost the election by a wide margin — the ruling will help determine how the city runs elections in the future.

• openDemocracy

Can you believe that the next election is less than four months away? I know, it just fills you with patriotism and dread, doesn't it? All those commercials and pamphlets and articles and petitioners. Douglas Bruce all flustered about (fill in the blank). Arguments among county commissioners. Political-party chest-pounding.

Ugh. On second thought, forget the patriotism. I'm really just feeling dread.

But listen, you and I both know that it's our responsibility as American citizens to pay attention to these things and make informed decisions by voting. Speaking of which, if you've been lax in your responsibilities as of late, you will soon be asked to step up to the plate via a little mailer that asks you to update your voter registration.

Word to the wise: Do it NOW. Seriously. If you put it off and it gets buried in your mail, and then, before you know it, it's a few days before the election, and the kids are sick with snotty noses, and the dog ripped up the couch, and your stupid boss wants you to take over someone else's project, and your in-laws are in town, and now, now, you have to jump through like a gagillion hoops to register ... well, you'll remember this little message. And you'll think, "Why didn't I just do it then?"

You know I'm right.

VOTER INFORMATION CARDS MAILED SOON

July 18, 2011 — Colorado Springs, CO — Did you vote in the 2010 General Election? If you answered “no” and you haven’t updated your voter status, the Clerk & Recorder’s Office will be sending you a Voter Information Card (VIC) within the next few days. This card will give voters an additional opportunity to update and reactivate their voter record in order to receive a ballot for the 2011 Coordinated Election.

Any registered voter who failed to vote in last year’s General Election was changed from “active” to “inactive” status. While the individual remains registered to vote but, the voter is no longer considered active. Notice was sent to all affected individuals in February and the mailing later this week will provide a second opportunity to activate. A registered voter who is “inactive” will not receive a Ballot for November’s Coordinated Election by mail. Inactive voters must update their information on or before October 3, 2011, in order to have a Mail Ballot delivered to their home. Voters have three methods of updating in order to reactivate their status:
Go online to www.GoVoteColorado.com (requires a valid Colorado Driver’s License or ID).
Return the completed VIC to the Clerk & Recorder’s Office by mail, fax or email.
Come into one of the three Clerk & Recorder’s Office locations.

“Our office wants to ensure that every eligible elector is provided the opportunity to cast a ballot in this year’s mail ballot election while being prudent and cost effective with the taxpayers’ dollars. It is less expensive to mail every inactive voter a Voter Information Card than to mail them a ballot. Also, if we mailed all of them a ballot we would run the risk of mailing ballots to voters who are no longer at the address listed on our voter rolls,” said Clerk Wayne Williams.

The Voter Information Card has been improved, as it now provides voters additional information for contacting their elected officials. Previously, only the district numbers were provided. “We wanted the Voter Information Card to be just what it is stated to be — informational. Now, the cards will provide the voter with the names of their elected officials and how to contact them,” stated Wayne Williams.

For additional information, contact Alissa Vander Veen at AlissaVanderVeen@elpasoco.com or 719-351-9626. More election information is available at http://car.elpasoco.com/Election/Pages/default.aspx.
###