I guess I should thank Longmont City Councilman Sean McCoy for directing all of you to my various websites. Since you’re probably here based on his tirade of September 1, 2009, here is the video and a transcript:
“I want to throw my sincere support towards Richard Judays civility movement. I’m concerned with the actions of radical, negative bloggers that write on YourHub and call in to the TC Line, fringe groups like LIFT and websites like Wrongmont, and Longmont Advocate, and the Longmont Report. My concerns are that we’ll never know how these groups and individuals have hurt businesses and financial opportunities for Longmont and her citizens. We’ll never know the millions of dollars in commercial real estate rentals that must have been lost. We’ll never know the job growth for Longmont citizens and the home sales that could have happened if these people hadn’t been so negative in their actions. I urge all of you out there to be productive and civil in this next election cycle and to ignore these radical fringe elements that run down the city council and the city. Thank you.”
Last year, this same city councilman wondered about the “threshold” to take legal action against a city official, in that case former Firestone Mayor Mike Simone.
You know, contrary to what some may think, I get along with just about anybody. Even those I vehemently disagree with, poke fun at, or campaign vigorously against it’s nothing personal, until they make it personal. Case in point: this week was three busy days of being out and about at various activities here in Longmont. We (we being my wife and I) met a lot of people, shook a lot of hands, saw some old friends, made some new ones, and met people who knew me but not vice versa. Inevitably one is bound to bump into those you have disagreed with, poked fun at, etc – which did happen.
At the unveiling of art at the airport and the reception that followed, we had a nice chat with Councilmember Sean McCoy – no, Hell didn’t freeze over. Unlike some others I’ve seen who go out of their way to make people uncomfortable in public, it’s just not how I operate – even if it involves someone I have lots of reasons to be unhappy with (no need to rehash), many of them personal. While my schedule hasn’t allow me to attend the Airport Advisory Board meetings since Mr. McCoy became the council liaison, I do appreciate the pro-airport/aviation comments he makes at City Council. I failed to mention it at the time, so I am now. We also agreed Longmont is a great place to live.
Another person who had a bone to pick with me following last years Special Election was Richard Juday. Much of his displeasure was over the infamous mailer that had my Wrongmont site name on, but that I had nothing to do with, nor did I want my site name on. The second I saw it I knew it was going to be a hassle I didn’t want and didn’t ask for. But I listened courteously for a couple of hours, found out many things we had in common, but made it clear (and I’ll make it clear as well) that I make no apologies for fighting for what I believe, and if anyone is expecting any apologies, they probably shouldn’t.
It also needs to be pointed out (and for you that read me regularly, you already know this) that most of what occurred during that election season was quotes and stances just being repeated. When someone, especially someone running for elected office, has their positions and talking points (or voting record) out there for the world to see, they are open to scrutiny on those positions. That’s mostly how I operate and always have, and I knew all I (or others) had to do was just repeat what this particular candidate said, did, or stood for and the election process would follow its natural course. And it did. Again, no apologies, and I sure don’t apologize for success. But again, it’s not personal.
That long introduction leads us to something I do take personally, infringing on my freedom of speech. Mr. Juday is partially responsible for the Elections Task Force (he demanded it after the last election) and the Fair Campaign Practices Act that it spawned. That alone was bad enough in how it created an atmosphere of convoluted rules, fines, and stifling of free expression. But it must not have gone far enough as now Mr. Juday wants a Civil Campaigns Committee. There is so much to say on this subject, including examples of fairly uncivil behavior by supporters of Mr. Juday (“What’s In It For Longmont” members, including Kaye Fissinger for starters) that the hypocrisy and double standards are breathtaking. This, and the supposedly Fair Campaign Practices Act are such an affront to the First Amendment it will take more than one blog entry to cover in detail. So stay tuned…
The comments in the TC poll and every story on this subject show a strong dissatisfaction of how council is handling this situation, and the Executive Sessions involved, including a lawsuit from the Times-Call itself.
Quiet through most of this is the group of people (“What’s In It For Longmont?“) that did their best to get rid of LifeBridge and their attempts to build outside of Longmont. That might be because one of them is running for City Council (Kaye Fissinger), another one got trounced in the last election (Richard Juday) partially based on his involvement with this anti-LifeBridge drive, and the others who make occasional embarrassing appearances before city council.
This same group went out and got over 6,000 signatures to overturn the Union Annexation, which probably wasn’t easy and is admirable on that basis – about the only thing about this group that is admirable unfortunately. As time has gone on, more people tell me they were misled when told what the petition was about. None of them probably knew of the hidden cameras (under tables, below skirt level) and the flow charts this group followed targeting rank-and-file church members. Around the same time LifeBridge’s sign was repeatedly vandalized. But I’m sure that’s all a coincidence.
Also MIA are their cohorts in Firestone, aka InformFirestone, who claimed to be a watchdog for various issues, not just the Union Annexation. Turns out, like plenty of people figured, they were just a one trick pony and their website doesn’t exist anymore. I wonder what happened to that fictional attorney they used for their (and WIIFL‘s) unethical letter they sent out to Firestone residents. I hear alot of complaining about a mailer that went out in Longmont about Richard Juday, but what about this letter? It looks awfully fishy. Could make for a good campaign question for Kaye Fissinger. And who paid for that mailer (that had WIFFL’s name on it)? I only mention it as these are the same people who pushed for Longmont’s campaign law to be changed, guilty feelings probably, as they knew what people were capable of.
So in summary:
They have divided the community along religious lines.
Their petition didn’t make it to the voters of Longmont.
Their candidate was destroyed in the Special Election.
Firestone voters saw through them and defeated them at the ballot box. Although democracy means nothing to these types of people if they don’t get their way, so the courts are their fallback plan, and that’s where we are today.
The courts have sided in a lopsided manner against Longmont.
Their elected councilmembers have had to resort to a ridiculous amount of secret meetings to carry out their campaign against Firestone and LifeBridge.
This group and their movement have brought nothing but shame to Longmont, and they’ve really accomplished nothing but increased hate and discontent. The candidates and current councilmembers they back have proven with their records in the last 2 years that they have no place in this city’s government.
This is a relevant campaign issue, ask each council candidate where they stand on it. No fence riding allowed.
It’s ironic that this issue came up in the comments section of a recent Times-Call article, I wrote the above before that and almost a week ago. Someone in the TC comments sure sounds like a member of WIIFL, a council candidate, or a current councilmember. This is gonna get good, real good.
As a veteran who defended your right to serve the Citizens of Longmont; and for your children’s generation and for your grandchildren’s generations’ right to live equally in freedom and prosperity I am deeply offended by your bias statement of acrimony against any activists with “an agenda” on the new economic advisory board, like someone from the Longmont Association of Realtors. This means it is official policy of Longmont City Council to forbid any small business person from participating on the new economic advisory board who knows anything about new business development to advise the Government.
Your disgraceful, shameful attitude is not only a disgrace to your own father’s honorable service as a United States Army Veteran, but to the very credibility of the City Council to uphold its duty to honor and protect the right of every citizen to be included in America’s covenant that “All men are endowed by their Creator with Certain inalienable rights”, among which include the right to freedom of speech, and the right to participate in government by the people, of the people and for the people.
Your bigoted opinion of small business people would make the sacrifice of every American Soldier, Sailor, Marine, Coast Guardsman and Airman in vain if it were to preserve as the majority opinion of this Council.
Yours truly, Richard Yale Former USAF & USAR
I’ll add that I thought it was hilarious, and completely hypocritical, for Councilmember McCoy to say anything about appointing certain types of people to an advisory board. He used the word “active” derisively, and “boisterous“, and anyone with a “personal axe to grind“. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. McCoy and his fellow travelers have been stacking every advisory board in town (when there’s unfortunately an opening) with their cronies beyond the point of ridiculous.
When they don’t find someone to their liking, they refuse the applicants, ask for a new bid on the position, make all of their little calls behind the scenes, and voila, like magic people of their ilk show up as applicants. Sometimes even after the bid is closed, but those rules aren’t for them.
In the above example, Mr. McCoy specifically goes after those evil realtors (I bet everyone reading this knows a realtor, be it a friend or relative) at the Longmont Association of Realtors. More payback for the contribution they made to Gabe Santos, a completely legal one at that. Have I mentioned lately that Mr. Santos’ competition in that race (Richard Juday) said he would’ve taken that contribution if they offered it to him? Little things like that don’t matter to obsessively vindictive types like Mr. McCoy and his cohorts on and off of council.
It’s always amusing for me to take a national topic and apply it to things right here in Longmont. Today I’m going to do the opposite.
Of course we all know by now some members of Longmont City Council have a real problem with open government and transparency. For those with short memories, there was a block of candidates back in 2007 who made no attempt to hide they were indeed a, well, block of candidates. They got funding from the same sources, they shared ad space, they appeared together at party (Democratic of course) functions (and still do), and they shared in their victory as a, well, block. The title they attained went from “block of candidates” to ‘Bloc of 4‘. Say that around them now and they either try to deny it or get visibly irritated. Hey, embrace what you are.
(In case there’s any mystery to who this refers to, it’s Karen Benker, Sean McCoy, Sarah Levison, and Brian Hansen. Richard Juday attempted to join this, ahem, elite crowd, but got trounced in the special election by Gabe Santos.)
But back to this transparency thing: these former candidates (and their loyal mouthpieces) sure went to great lengths to say how closed off and non “open” our previous council was. This was their rallying cry. That, and how they would do things differently. Well, they have. Worse. They now hold the honor of the most secretive and closed city council in recent memory/history.
And like the national example I’m about to show you, they (and their loyal mouthpieces) sure don’t like to be called on it. They even have the nerve to go after and call names of those that put into daylight their questionable, and possibly (no, probably) illegal ways.
Thanks to the miracle (and a new found one to some city councilmembers) of Open Records, here’s what goes on behind the scenes. This is just what we know about, I’m sure there’s more and worse.
—– Forwarded Message —-
From: Douglas Wray <email@example.com>
To: Kaye Fissinger <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Duane Leise <email@example.com>
Cc: Sean_P_McCoy <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Sarah Levison <email@example.com>; Karen Benker<firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 9:29:14 AM
<firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com>Subject: Time to kick Chris’ ass again
M. Douglas Wray
<firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com>——————————————————- <firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com>Well that subject and text sound like a threat, wouldn’t be the first.
The picture you see below and to the right of current councilmember Karen Benker and candidate Kaye Fissinger, there’s an interesting story behind that: Pratt to Fissinger: Analyze this!
And then there’s this:
—– Forwarded by Open Records City Council/Longmont on 06/18/2009 12:15 PM —–
From: “Karen Benker” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: “Douglas Wray”
Date: 04/08/2009 07:20 PM
Subject: Re: Please go vote.
<email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com>—– Original Message —–
From: “Douglas Wray” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: “Kaye Fissinger” <email@example.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 6:22 PM
Subject: Please go vote.
Yet another noise poll.
I wonder who’s paying the Rodriguezes?
This was referencing a poll we didn’t post, someone else did. But it brings up an interesting point: We don’t get paid by anyone to do anything. But the fact these types of people would think it<firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org> gives you an insight to what they probably do. I always wondered why they threw around “paid hacks and shills” or “agents”. I guess since it’s normal for them to engage in such behavior, the simpletons must have figured everyone else does it, too! Sorry to disappoint.
But now on to the national example of this, and never forget that Councilmembers Benker and McCoy drooled on endlessly about their national leader Barack Obama – but not as much anymore, wonder why? (Lets also never forget these two councilmembers are card carrying and trained members of Progressive Majority, a hard left organization that has no place in local non-partisan elections and elected offices). Seems this administration is also having something of an issue of secrets, badmouthing and gathering information on their opponents, and missing a little part of the law <email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com>that is similar to our Open Records laws around here. Watch this video for an explanation of what I mean:
Catch that? This cute little firstname.lastname@example.org (the email address to report people saying bad things about Obama’s health care plan today, who knows whattomorrow) by accepting a single email and not keeping it breaks the law! Personally, I don’t see how anyone – liberal/conservative/libertarian/anything – wouldn’t have a huge problem with this. Right, they’re not going to keep or collect information based on these emails. Then why ask for them?
In closing, just like I said in my earlier “Amateurism from the top down<email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com>” piece, you have to<firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org> take these people collectively as a group (and they love that collectivism stuff). If you like <email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com>secrets, information gathering on political enemies by elected officials, closed government, and<firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org> basically just stupid and ignorant behavior – well, then you’ve probably already stopped reading by this point and most of us could care less what you think. The rest of you need to vote these kinds of people out of office ASAP and not allow their fellow travelers anywhere near elected office.
On July 21, at the Longmont City Council meeting, during Public Invited to be Heard, Doug Wray tried to launch in to a tirade condemning Councilman Santos for an email that was somehow accessed by Wray. The email, while coming from Gabe’s personal account that was later made accessible to public due to the Open Records laws, was at the time NOT accessible as he was not yet on the council and the fact that Wray had a copy is a clear violation of Gabe’s privacy. The email was a response to a Kaye Fissinger story posted on YourHub.com, that was in essence announcing that the attacks from the Left had begun – NOT a call TO attack as Wray implied before council. “Let the attacks begin” – simply another way to recognize that he knew it was coming and indeed, the Progressives, true to form, were the first to go on the offensive (and offensive they were!) But Wray tried to spin the email to say that Gabe was calling for his followers to attack Juday. In fact, Gabe never played dirty. There WERE questionable marketing pieces sent that attacked Juday but Gabe had no part in their creation or distribution. Gabe doesn’t work that way.
A candidate has no control over what a supporter chooses to do of their own free will – both in promoting a candidate or exposing the negative aspects of the opposition. In trying to smear Gabe, Wray gets the award for being the first in this 2009 political season to turn to dirty politics – to which Gabe could again send an email tomorrow pointing to the video of the Wray speaking and again announce, “let the attacks begin.”
Game on Doug. You have opened the door my friend, and you and your candidates (if there are any? For some reason the Progressives haven’t announced their intentions yet…are they all waiting to announce together so the left will know which bloc to vote for?) will surely feel the wrath. This town is tired of the tirades of Kaye, Nita, Duane, Strider, Ruby and a handful of others – you all had nearly 2 years of majority rule and in that short time have managed to bring this town to it’s knees. It’s time to give back power to those who act on behalf of the people of Longmont. Who consider what’s best for the city as a whole, not those who act on behalf of a progressive agenda that favors a minority that shouts the loudest. Gone are the days of equal rights for prairie dogs and chickens. Gone are the days of choosing studies over action.
For his actions that night, I give kudos to Roger for saying enough is enough and to Mary for standing up for her fellow councilmember by saying character assassination is NOT OK in front of this council. What Doug did was a typical mean spirited, Progressive-left-wing tactic and it has no place in Longmont. The DeLay references are a feeble attempt to try and discredit the work Gabe has done so far for this town. It didn’t work when he brought it up during the Juday campaign and it won’t work now. Let the attacks begin….again….
Anyone catch the “talking out of both sides of his mouth” example given by Sean McCoy at the 1/29/08 Longmont City Council Meeting? On one hand he said “we have to be very careful as council members here not to say things that smack about our sister city of Boulder“. Hmm, okay, fair enough, setting some ground rules for council members. But of course that’s not what he was really saying, follow along.
He went on to say he’s “kinda get a little tired of that“, of what? Council members talking smack about Boulder? Who does he mean? In the next breath he says exactly what he really means: ” the lunatic fringe has kinda taken it upon themselves to use that as a divisive and in a way of separating out the community“. He then went on to describe the “symbionic” relationship between the two cities. So the message is we must bow to the altar that is Boulder and we need to “give that respect to them“. If not, you’re part of the “lunatic fringe“. Count me in!
By my count, this is at least the second time Councilmember McCoy has directly insulted a large chunk of Longmont residents. The first was insulting supporters of Lifebridge and his ridiculous theory of how 600% of Longmont was against the annexation. Alright, then how does he explain the paltry 31% who voted for Richard Juday, one of the anti-Lifebridge annexation leaders? Only off by 569% there. And those 6,000 signatures he spoke of, odd how only 4,338 voted for Juday, isn’t it? I thought we had a strong message by the petition? I always thought that was a sham, and the election partially proved it.
It’s not hard to jump to the conclusion that had the Lifebridge annexation remained on the ballot it would’ve been very close. I believe some members of council and the general public got an incorrect reading of the overall public’s mood towards “change” and the Lifebridge issue based on November’s election. I also believe Lifebridge read a little too much into it and based their decision to pull out of the process based on it. But that’s just my guess. Juday’s supporters can’t tell me they weren’t surprised that he didn’t get more of the anti-annexation petition signer’s votes, or the Levison vote from November.
How does this relate to Councilmember McCoy and his repeated insulting behavior? While he was one of the few that actually got a majority in the November election, and maybe thinks he has some political capital to spend (by attacking opponents), he needs to take a harder look at what just happened in the special election. He appears to not be very observant or see warning signs when in that very same council meeting two people got up in Public Invited To Be Heard and tore into Councilmember Benker for basically doing the same thing in a previous meeting. Yet he did it anyway.
The main problem I see is the poor example he’s leading, especially to his often abrasive supporters. If it’s alright for him to behave that way, what’s to say his less, hmm how to put this, diplomatic followers won’t be emboldened to really cross the line?
It’s too bad you can’t gamble in this country on politics. What, are people worried it might make politicians cheat? HAHAHAHA. That was a good one, sorry.
So we’re on the eve of a special election here in Longmont. One thing I’m glad to see is way more people jumping in than usual, whether it’s in the Open Forum of the Times-Call or websites and blogs. Lots going on, lots being said, how will it impact the final result? Again, I don’t mind if I’m wrong on a prediction, and since I already sort of made one earlier about this election, I’ll follow up on it.
I said that Gabe Santos would lose the November election, but win the special election. This was before anyone officially entered this latest race. Now let’s go through what’s different about this race, events that may have shifted things, etc.
Turnout: This is the great unknown and any prediction is tough not knowing how this will go. In November’s election 15,086 people voted for the at-large seat. Special elections tend to not bring out as many voters, at first I figured 80% of November’s turnout. But this cycle has been different, the Times-Call did a large story about this, and maybe the turnout will be about the same after all.
Candidates: In November’s election Santos received 6,319 votes, or 41.9% of the vote. Paul Tiger received 1,758 votes and is not running this time. I can’t see why someone who voted for Santos in November would change it now. Tiger endorsed Richard Juday, not sure how many people caught that, not sure if it matters to Libertarian voters, and not sure if it helps! (Sorry Paul, people like us don’t always help with our endorsements). So I gave 60% of Tigers votes to Juday. To give 100% of Sarah Levison’s votes to Juday though is a stretch and pretty presumptuous.
The DeLay Factor: Zip, nada, zero. The people that hate Tom DeLay probably weren’t going to vote for Santos anyway. The people who already voted for Santo’s or have no problem with DeLay may have been offended by this stretch of “guilt by association”. Even if you spot a couple hundred votes for this, which is a couple hundred too many, doesn’t affect the outcome.
“Attack” Ad: Apparently, some voters (supposedly just Republicans) got a mailer that wasn’t too friendly towards Juday. I seriously thought it was a hoax or someone trying to “punk” Juday and his supporters. But apparently it really went out. Oddly enough a quote supposedly from my website was on it. I can’t remember where I saw that, but I sure didn’t write that quote and it wasn’t ever on my site. Anyway, who does this ad help/hurt? Those that were going to vote for Juday anyway – this only reinforces their feelings, and they probably didn’t receive it anyway, only heard about it. Those that would lean against Juday – this would reinforce them also, and they probably did receive it if it only went out to one party. So, stalemate? I don’t think so.
In today’s Times-Call they talked about voters by party affiliation. Increased Republican turnout (those receiving these ads) is a bad thing for Juday. These may be people that didn’t vote in November, and also probably people that were not happy with Lifebridge’s treatment, courtesy of Juday and his supporters. Many of these people probably don’t want to be Boulder Jr. either. Like this ad or hate it, I don’t remember ever seeing anything quite like it for a Longmont election, and its impact could be huge.
Final Days: Also in today’s paper were some political ads and op-eds by Santos and Juday. Juday’s ad said “Please, before responding to attack material”…visit his website for solid information. His editorial was titled ” Longmont deserves better“, not sure if he titled it or the Times-Call. I know the point was to say elections shouldn’t be so dirty, but the title implies what Longmont has now (in council or anywhere else) sucks. Yeah, voters like hearing that, being blamed for any and all ills. Juday spent much of his piece being on the defensive, not where a candidate wants to be in the final stretch. Add to that voluntarily not accepting donations and returning checks a week before the election? While it may be noble, I guess, signs and advertisements take money. If there’s a perception a candidate is throwing in the towel (not saying he is), most voters want to vote for a winner, not someone who wraps up his campaign before Election Day.
Santo’s editorial was titled ” Longmont‘s community cares” and the contrast between these two messages and these two editorials are worth some votes. Perhaps a lot of votes. I’m sure some detractor can find something to pick apart in Santo’s editorial, but it was fairly positive from start to finish. Let’s just see their last paragraphs, remember, these are sort of the closing arguments, they matter: Juday: “On my website you may see some corrections to distributed misinformation”. Santos: “I’m inspired by what I see, and I wish to give it back. I believe I am the right choice for City Council. I respectfully ask for your vote. If you have already voted for me, please accept my most sincere thank you.” Hey, it was longer, take out a sentence or two to make it even. End result is the same.
Conclusion: Based on the previous election, possible turnout, candidates actions, advertising (good and bad), signage, money, and intangibles, let me throw out this prediction: Santos 7,333 (48.6%) / Juday 6,144 (40.7%) / Baxter 1,509 (10%) / Write-in 100 (0.7%). Knowing that prediction alone could drive a few people to get their voting butts in gear, and knowing I could be all wet on those numbers and outcomes, there it is. Yep, another plurality, not a majority. And if 595 votes swap, different outcome.
I’d like to see some thoughtful prognostication(s?) (in other words, spare the wishful thinking). No one’s prediction should be held against them, unless they turn out to be clairvoyant geniuses! Can’t gamble, but can have bragging rights – until the next election.
A couple of weeks ago I was going to write a piece about the lack of candidate signs around town. Since then I’ve seen some sprouting up. Anyone else notice these signs in places you don’t normally see these placed? Like in railroad track right-of-ways, landscaped areas not in front of homes, or greenways in front of businesses. In other words, places you wouldn’t or couldn’t ask the property owners permission. You can read the ordinance yourself at http://www.ci.longmont.co.us/code_enf/ord/political_signs.htm. Longmont’s Code Enforcement Division is supposed to enforce this. It appears either they are choosing not to, or they are making a half-hearted attempt to remove some signs, only to have other improperly placed signs replace them.
I can only report what I see with my own eyes, and all of these signs so far are Richard Juday signs. Knowing this statement will elicit cries from his supporters of ” attack” or ” partisanship” (in a non-partisan election), let me educate some of them with a little flash from the past.
Excerpts from the October 2004 edition of The Yellow Scene (used with permission) “…Longmont’s city council are bending rules of their own to sway votes on November’s municipal ballot issue…we agree with Chris Rodriguez, webmaster of www.wrongmont.com who noted that Pirnack’s letter in the September (2004) issue of CityLine crosses the line… CityLine is the city’s monthly newsletter included with residents’ utility bills…However, Mayor Pirnack used it to urge citizens to vote for FastTracks and against Ballot Question 2A, the proposed police and fire collective bargaining agreement. Rodriguez claims this letter breaks the Fair Campaign Practices Act which is part of our state constitution. That law states: No…council of the state or any political subdivision thereof shall…expend any public moneys from any source, or make any contributions, to urge electors to vote in favor of or against any: (A) State-wide ballot issue.. (B) Local ballot issue…The point is that if city council wants to campaign, they can do so on their own time and money. For public officials, spending taxpayer dollars to advocate a political position is against the law – even if they think it shouldn’t be.”
Pretty strong charges against our then Mayor and council, you know, the ones Mr. Juday’s supporters demanded had to go? So allow me to be ” equal opportunity” in calling bullflop on questionable campaign practices: Whoever is placing these Juday signs are knowingly or unknowingly placing them against city ordinance. I’m going with the former, as some are so blatantly displayed in places anyone used to seeing these signs can figure out they’re placed questionably.
Many have been up for over a week, and more keep getting erected. Are we to believe Mr. Juday or his supporters haven’t seen these (we’re talking major streets here) or aren’t aware of them? They are either aware of them, don’t live in Longmont, or are not very observant people. Let this get your attention: Each one is a separate violation for each day it stands. And the results of the election, win or lose, don’t change that.
Others have pointed out questionable financial disclosures in Mr. Juday’s filed campaign reports (not responded to), and his broken pledge not to accept monetary contributions (not responded to). Add these signs to the list. If someone can’t win honestly, not only do they deserve to lose, they don’t deserve to run.
Now for the lighter side of recent and upcoming events: As a former councilmember recently put it, there’s this ” new generation” of Longmonters. They really aren’t that new, or fresh (another word used by said writer), and some are downright frightening. Some aren’t even from or in Longmont – as pointed out by Councilmember Mary Blue in a recent meeting.
After getting the last council meeting of 2007 on DVD from the library, I have a better nickname for them: The Bobbleheads! Why, you may ask? Quite simple really, and pretty funny, too. On accident I had the disc running at fast speed, it was a riot!
You see, there’s this self-appointed group of complainers who feel empowered as they think they got a mandate on the last election. Nevermind, as previously proven, that their candidates actually did not get a majority of the vote, not even 47%. But that’s not a valid point, I guess. Anyway, they were out in force at a recent council meeting and figured they’d sit in front, that means being on camera. When one of them would say something, they’d all nod in agreement, and then look around to their new friends on council for validation. The cumulative result was something I rarely see at council meetings: COMEDY!
Of course, what was actually coming out of their mouths was anything but nice or respectful – unless of course they were addressing their new friends on council. The topper was at the end, four and half hours into the meeting, when one of them had the gall to rip into Mayor Lange for volunteering to be on some committee, basically saying that he couldn’t be trusted. Sometimes you just have to point out the obvious to some people, and he did, that no one else would volunteer for it! And that includes these clowns’ four friends on council. They were asked repeatedly, none would step up. So you get what you get.
I suspect that first meeting was the high point (or low point depending on your point of view) of their attendance, and since they didn’t get their way on leaving the Lifebridge Annexation on the ballot, the slow feeding-on-their-own frenzy I spoke of before should begin soon. Here’s a bonus: one of their own is running for council, Richard Juday. Just thought you’d like to know, that is if you planned on voting.
So if you Bobbleheads are thinking of utilizing this nickname, and I bet you wish you came up with it yourself, remember where you got it. Maybe if you spent less time running from action to action being ” over-reactionaries” (go ahead and use that, too), you could escape the groupthink and dream up something original. Yeah, I know, not likely. Enjoy.
Welcome to LightningRod Blog. We feature posts about regional and national politics, aviation, and life in general.
If you're looking for Longmont, CO related posts, go to www.longmontpolitics.com