The applications have been Graded as an "I". For inaccurate, incomplete and inconclusive. The RTA funds are not to be used for 'seed money' projects but built on community support. Which, is lacking in this case. Also, the independent auditor did not reconcile the loss of the SKY SOX not using the stadium. This application is not for prime time and should not be allowed to move forward. Regardless of all the 'free money' being offered./
We now have another definition to contend with: People who go to the clinic for sports medicine advice are no longer called patients but now called "tourists". There is a commitment letter sent in with the application talks about a professional soccer league team that would like to use the stadium. Unfortunately the president of the United Soccer League- PRO Colorado Springs forgot to incorporate until 12 Nov 2013. A full seven days after signing the letter of commitment. USL-PRO has not disclosed their relationship with Ragain Sports LLC. Much less his commitment to use our stadium. However, several new themes and comments have emerged from this briefing:
"Having Fun doubling down with the City's Bonds" author Steve Bach (no this is not a tax right now.....:+}
"WHO's in your wallet" a take off from the Capital One commercial.
"Due Diligence is for Suckers" a take off from the C4C pro forma statement
"WHAT?-Me Worry" Mad magazine's take off of Doug Price's Media Circus
"The Emperor doesn't need any Clothes" commentary from the DeBachAL communicators guide to civic understanding
"What the City Council doesn't know can't hurt them" from the guide to strategic market timing- Doug Price (author)
"My term limit cannot be extended again so I will support C4C and run for mayor" Ms Amy Lathem (after all its only a application and not really a commitment)
"We can sell more popcorn and hot dogs in the stadium if they allow rec pot" Young professionals looking for jobs in Colorado Springs...line forms at city hall....
Sadly, Clyde, this letter indicates that you may indeed be correct.
The Code of Ethics states that “[p]roviding that a gift could not be considered a bribe or a means of improper influence on a direct official action, no violation of this Code of Ethics shall be found to apply…[a] campaign contribution as defined by law.” Manipulating the verbage simply allows the perception of campaign funding abuse to continue.
I asked for an inquiry into this situation on the basis of how these contributions would be defined as "influence peddling," not bribery. The question asked was why three newly elected city council members had accepted $1000 each from COMCAST cable, a company engaged in contracted services with the city. Two members (Dougan and Snider) later voted to stop a CenturyLink franchise (a COMCAST competitor) from coming into the city. How can these two actions NOT be seen as connected?
The current Code of Ethics suggests that I must prove a direct official action as a result of these payments, and not a condition of 'retainer' as these payments have implied. It does not absolve Ms Dougan of this perception. The majority of voters in District 2 clearly saw throught this manipulation of ethics, as well as her poor judgement in funding, and voted accordingly.
Even though it resembles a case of "locking the barn door after the horse has escaped," if the Ethics Commission actually does reform their definition of ethical campaign contributions, then this effort will have accomplished a good end.
One additional anomaly:
"Dougan opposed CenturyLink's proposal, because it didn't go far enough to serve the southeast portion of the city, she says."
This statement is odd because District 2 (her District) is in the Northeast quadrant of the city.
To be clear- It is not the time she filed the disclosure that is being addressed; it is the fact that she took the money in the first place. There is a difference in accepting monies while running for office (Nov-April) or accepting monies while a sworn officer of the city. Ms Dougan took the money in July 2011, as a sworn officer of this city, three months "AFTER" taking office, from a firm doing business with the city. That is simply unethical.
Note: Regarding timing of this complaint, there is a statute of limitations on filing this form of complaint. It is 12 months from the occurance. Since Ms Dougan did not file until April 2011, I had until April 2013 to file my complaint.
According to all information accessible by public record, Merv Bennett and Val Snider did not list any contributions from COMCAST on their April financial disclosures.
The point being made by the complaint is that during Ms Dougan's tenure as a Council member she should have known better than to take any form of contribution from a firm doing business with the city.
The evidence speaks for itself.
The Magellan team is a deep and experienced group of individuals with career backgrounds working for the Republican National Committee, political campaigns, state parties, survey research firms, government affairs firms, and conservative grassroots organizations. Our principals have managed some of the most challenging data and technology projects for the Republican Party and conservative movement in the past 18 years. In today’s business and political environment, successful organizations understand how to use data and technology to make better decisions and be more effective in everything they do. Our vision is to provide our clients with the best data technology and information available so they can achieve their goals and objectives.
All Comments »
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation