Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: stories: Columns: Editorial

Re: “Mayor Bach: Just admit rookie mistake

All of you need to read the minutes of the meeting from 9/2/11 on the following website.… It is interesting that NONE of the questions asked by citizens who attended the meeting or the answers provided by the committee were included in the minutes. It seems because of the high level of concern about how the Mayor and the RLF having free reign to have secretive meetings and backroom deals without the requirements of transparency under the Open Meetings act and the Sunshine law the board didn’t choose to make that part of the official record. Sure looks like records tampering to me. They didn’t even record the Mayors childish statement that he would remove himself from the committee if he had to obey the law.

Posted by eyes_on_gov on 09/11/2011 at 12:56 PM

Re: “Mayor Bach: Just admit rookie mistake

So let me get this right….The Mayor, an elected official inserted himself into the process and then says if he has to be held accountable for what he says he is out of the deal. Isn’t he an elected official 24 hours and day and is accountable to the citizens of this city in everything he does and says? What happened to his own promise to be open and transparent? Oh sorry….I forgot…that was only campaign promise. MR Mayor…. YOU LIED!

Posted by eyes_on_gov on 09/11/2011 at 12:54 PM

Re: “Mayor Bach: Just admit rookie mistake

Here are my other 2 cents:

Memorial Hospital (MH) has been working very hard on transparency within and without the organization, so it was a shock to hear our elected city officials want to side step transparency involving one of Colorado Springs greatest assets. The Mayor was visibly absent from todays important meeting, as he was attending to another "important" meeting, he did send someone to be there on his behalf. He appears to be incommunicato with the citizens who are supporting MH. He blatently indicated at the last meeting that he was going to do and talk with who he wants. Whenperson in his role , has not held this kind of office before, he should have advisors helping him to understand appropriate tact, rules & regulations of his office.

In-action often appears as opposition. When he does not refute accusations, or answer public inquiries, he leaves the public open to assumptions. If he wants them to think differently then he needs to speak to ALL parties involved, not just those that will support his mission of financial gain for the city at the expense of MH.

Many individuals have asked him if he really understands how for-profits work with regard to Pediatrics. Pediatrics care is not a huge profit source, and are not often supported in a for-profit institutions. Google and research this information yourselves. Get educated on this subject, it is so important.

I'm not sure the public truly understands its ONLY Childrens Hospital access in Southern Colorado has the potential to go away, with a transtion to a for-profit. That means your children/babies wont be able to be cared for here. Individuals will have to drive to Denver be taken care of. When your child/infant is in a crisis or trauma, time will be lost in life-flighting them to Denver (this is NOT a slight to Memorial Star or Life Flight, who are absolutely vital to MH), not to mention that time wasted (over an hour)for the families to travel there to be with their children, also leaving their support systems behind. Its just NOT an option to be without a Childens Hospital.

I know personally of individuals that have emailed and called the Mayor to discuss the possibilities either way, profit or non-profit, with no return call or email. Mayor Bach, if you dont know something, just admit it, but please don't leave people hanging. Give them feedback so they can seek to be better informed.

Memorial has not and will not stand for being a cash cow for immediate gratification in solving a city debt issue. Memorial has a strong purpose here and a vision that stretches far into the future working to protect the healthcare of our families and children, locally. As a non-profit, Memorial will be able to grow and expand to fill the needs of Southerm Colorado, with decisions that can be made HERE, not in a "corporate" headquarters in some other state that knows nothing about Colorado or the uniqueness of Colorado Springs. Poudre Valley is hugely successful in their bid to remain a non-profit, and are waiting, with the University of Colorado Hospital, to partner with Memorial and help it grow.(Again, Google and do your own research regarding Poudre Valley, become informed about the fantastic programs and care being done there).

These are the kinds of conversations (about the future and unlimited potential for growth) that the Mayor should be having with his citizens, who elected him. Right now the preception is HCA/Health One (for profit) has him in their pockets, and speaking money solutions with him. When chosing two individuals with much real estate experience, and a former corporation administrator as your "collaborators", and indicating he wants to speak when and how he wants with them, but wont answer the publics questons and concerns, what other conclusions is the public left to draw???? He appears to be only in support of leading MH to the bidder than can bring him the most cash. Not the case? Then he needs to voice it.

At the next Task Force meeting the Task Force will review a document submitted today from Memorial employees and citizens signed with over 1800 plus (still growing I understand) signatures calling for itegrity and transparency from the Mayor, City Council and Task Force members in this process. This is about an assest that belongs to the citizens of Colorado Springs and Memorial stands behind their right to know and understand what is happening in each step of the process.

I am an employee of MH, have been and will be a patient of MH, and am a citizen of Colorado Springs.

Posted by Jchance98 on 09/09/2011 at 6:05 PM

Re: “Mayor Bach: Just admit rookie mistake

Anyone who doubts Memorials HUGE potential if Memorial was free of city rule to partner with Poudre Valley (PV) and the University of Colorado Hospital (UCH) read and research this article Poudre Valley, and UCH

Posted by Jchance98 on 09/09/2011 at 6:04 PM

Re: “Mayor Bach: Just admit rookie mistake

Outstanding article!

Posted by Yer Mom on 09/09/2011 at 5:52 PM

Re: “Yes on 2C, No on 300

I just cast my vote in favor of 2C and against 300.

Posted by Bradley on 10/25/2010 at 1:53 PM

Re: “Yes on 2C, No on 300

Why should I vote yes when the State of Colorado already takes my tax money and use it for whatever they deem necessary. We make the money they take the money. Stormwater Enterprise is another sore topic of mine. Stormwater Enterprise is another form of TAXES created by small minded politicians in the city counsel who were afraid to say the words "MORE TAXES" in public. Smaller Government (State and/or City) is better, get back to basics and live within your budget. You do have a budget , don't you? If people must lose their jobs please let it be yours.

Posted by jjrjon on 10/18/2010 at 7:34 PM

Re: “Yes on 2C, No on 300

This is a great day for Colorado Springs. Thank God the liberal cry of "tax, spend, tax spend" was answered with a resounding "No!" I am impressed that people didn't fall for the scare tactics about saftey and parks. There are many areas that can be cut besides those. Besides, seeing how they mishandled 43 million dollars, why would I give them 45 million more?

Posted by jeremy on 11/04/2009 at 1:57 PM

Re: “Yes on 2C, No on 300

Looks bad for 2C and 300 looks like it's going to pass. While I am not happy with either, I was also a little torn. Raising the property tax to cover an immediate budget shortfall with not end date in sight for the increase was the issue. As for the stormwater enterprise, while I see the need to improve our infrastructure, the creation of the enterprise essentially resulted in a tax that did not go to the public for approval. With that said, I'm saddened that too many in this city complain but are unwilling to pony up and contribute to solutions (which also means paying for them). We need to seriously think about how we expect to improve our roads, public safety, schools and other essential services. At some point, we are going to have to pay for these services. Privatizing isn't always the answer (often that just shifts costs).

Posted by 10yrresident on 11/03/2009 at 8:13 PM

Re: “Yes on 2C, No on 300

Again, I say: When the city counsel starts being responsible with the money they have, then maybe they can have more. But, when the voters increase sales tax for Roads & Bridges (which was desperately needed) and the city counsel takes 3 million from that budget for other things....then NO, they can't have any more money. They need to cut back their spending and take pay cuts like everyone else.

Posted by edward on 11/03/2009 at 7:43 PM

Re: “Yes on 2C, No on 300

How do I donate money to pass 300 and defeat 2C?

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by notoillegaltaxes on 10/29/2009 at 7:47 PM

Re: “Yes on 2C, No on 300

I was born in Detroit, and after 22 years I left. Detroit is in the situation it is in from too much goverment spending and outragous taxes. The high taxation caused many to move out to the suburbs, leaving only the poor and no one to pay the taxes. Many business have left the city, because of the taxes. In addition, the poor schools have left many with substandard education, not qualified to even work the few menial jobs that are available.

Posted by nomadicallens on 10/29/2009 at 12:45 PM

Re: “Yes on 2C, No on 300

There is no question that the city needs to manage money better. There are many things that the city can and should outsource and doesn't. However, we need to pass 2C, reform TABOR and defeat 300. If you want this city to stay great then it needs to stay safe, parks need to be maintained, and it takes more revenue than we are spending right now. This is not a lot of money. Even the G which typically has a Libertarian slant is for 2C. Your property values will fall if there is a run down park in your neighborhood. Your property values will fall if the crime rates go up. Your insurance costs will go up if the crime rates climb. And so on.... You will pay one way or the other. At least a vote for 2C will save our quality of life.

Posted by TrevorDierdorff on 10/26/2009 at 7:49 PM

Re: “Yes on 2C, No on 300

What happens to 2C if, in practice, $46,600,000 is raised or only $45,500,000 is raised. Will legislation be nulled?

Posted by indy1pat on 10/19/2009 at 5:13 PM

Re: “Yes on 2C, No on 300

As a long-time resident of Colorado Springs, I have seen this city run by retirees, developers and others wanting various initiatives passed during "in-between" years just to hedge their bet on a small voter turn-out. Doug Bruce is infamous for his initiatives during these periods and his initiative 300 is another illustration of one that is worded, "Enterprise...," in a way that may confuse the voters not understanding the consequences of a yes vote. Only the well-informed will truly understand and question the long-term consequences. As for 2C, I agree with making sure our safety, fire and health services are first and foremost administered to, but the context brevity leaves numerous questions as to how it will be used. I suggest both of these initiatives be voted down and re-worded to depict what it means to the taxpayer for next year's general election when (hopefully) more voters will vote and we can get a true depiction of what the silent majority really want for Colorado Springs.

Posted by PeterG on 10/18/2009 at 9:27 AM

Re: “Yes on 2C, No on 300

You have to vote YES on 2C and NO on 300. Do you want Colorado Springs to end up like Detroit?!?!?! That's exactly what will happen. We won't have any playgrounds in our parks, we won't have any flowers in our medians, we won't have any swimming pools to go to. Do you really want that?!?!?! Come on people. Save our City!

Doug Bruce is an idoit!!!! He is trying to wreck our city. How can anyone follow him?! He's a slum lord that is only looking out for himself. Give up Bruce! The last 2 years your initiatives have failed. Isn't that telling you something? Get out of Colorado Springs. We DO NOT want you here anymore.

Posted by GetBruceOutOfColoSpgs on 10/15/2009 at 5:48 PM

Re: “Yes on 2C, No on 300

Why is it that so few on the Left seem to be capable of discussing an issue based on the merits or lack of merits of an issue at hand and instead so frequently stoop to insults or slurs?

Calling Doug Bruce a "moron" is completely and entirely irrelevant to whether or not ballot issues 2C or 300 are "good" or "bad".

If a person cannot or will not make an argument based on the merits of the proposal and instead resorts to name-calling, then this is generally evidence that their argument is weak.

Posted by aninterestedobserver on 10/14/2009 at 2:27 PM

Re: “Yes on 2C, No on 300

Vote NO on both measures.

Posted by Doug on 10/13/2009 at 12:03 PM

Re: “Yes on 2C, No on 300

Love for the city is not measured by voting for a tax increase.
Voting against 2C does not infer that you are a member of Mr. Bruce's fan club.
The city will not be overcome by evil forces if 2C fails.

Actually, the failure of 2C will force the city to become fiscally responsible. Sure, the city needs more money, but why can’t it request a mill levy increase for a couple years while a plan is established to save money by outsourcing? For starters, the city could save millions by outsourcing construction and maintenance projects.

The city council needs to explore other alternatives, not the same tax, spend and scare schemes.

Posted by ranjo1 on 10/12/2009 at 8:05 PM

Re: “Voters ready to tweak TABOR

Dear Boomer49,

As a fellow greedy TABORITE and Bruce Acolyte, please take your money grabbing hand out of my pocket.

Thank you

Posted by scottp on 10/08/2009 at 1:18 PM

All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent   |   Website powered by Foundation