I have an ally in my crusade for transparency and accountability.  Fort Collins City Councilman Diggs Brown always has been a champion for taxpayers.   And now, thanks to Diggs, Fort Collins taxpayers have another reason to  thank him.   He takes seriously our motto: No taxation without information! Councilman Brown just sent a letter to the rest of the City Council proposing full transparency for Fort Collins.   Brown has titled his proposal NoCOST — Northern Colorado Spending Transparency.   Below is the full text of his letter.

Northern Colorado Spending Transparency (NoCOST)

City Manager, Mayor, and Council, and Fellow Taxpayers:

I am a firm believer in greater transparency and accountability within government, especially as it relates to the taxpayers.   The citizens’ desire for heightened public scrutiny should compel us to open our records regarding spending so we can bridge the gap between taxpayers and the city organization as a whole.

I am going to propose that the City of Fort Collins adopt measures to increas our transparency by posting city spending information online in a user-friendly format.   The end state should be transparency, accountability, and encouragement of greater civic participation and awareness. This will undoubtedly be complimentary with our very open Budgeting for Outcomes process.   Furthermore, one could state that vendors could become more competitive, and this would free up staff time spent on requests for the same information.

By implementing a vehicle for the taxpayers to view expenditures, we will be facilitating an ongoing assessment of the city government’s pursuits.   Regularly posted expenditures will provide for public assessment on a continuous basis.   Finally, transparency will produce increased fiscal responsibility.

To commit to this transparency in spending initiative is not as expensive as it might seem.   If our IT department doesn’t have the ability to create the webpage or site, then there is softward already available.   In Milwaukee Countym, CGR Network was able to build the website for the county — and they are offering the software to anyone interested in pursuing this.   They spent $9,300 to develop it.   Chris Kliesmet, who heads up the effort, said they are offering their software to interested parties.   Here is Chris Kliesmet’s email: ckliesmet@wi.rr.com

The site they created is http://milwaukeecounty.headquarters.com/search_mke.aspx and another example is http://www.texasbudgetsource.com.

I am not implying that the City of Fort Collins is fraudulent in spending or hiding any expenses, but we owe it to the public to be accountable on all levels  and in all departments.   Fort Collins taxpayers are busy earning a living and nurturing their families.   Who, if not they, should rest assured that their tax dollars are being used judiciously by the City of Fort Collins? This is already public record; let’s make it easier for the citizens to access.

Financial transparency is essential to preserving representative government.   I hope you will join me in moving this initiative forward.

Enjoy your Labor Day weekend.

Sincerely,

Diggs Brown

District 3 Councilman

Contact Councilman Diggs Brown at dbrown@fcgov.com  and thank him for supporting transparency and accountability.   This is not a partisan issue; it’s an issue of good governance and accountability to taxpayers.

No taxation without information!

While private property owners watch their rights eroding throughout the state, pproperty owners in  Greeley can  come out of the closet.   For  now your private property rights are safe!   The Greeley  City Council voted 5 to 1  to deny a  blanket historic designation  for the Cranford neighborhood that would have altered the property rights for hundreds of property owners.    Mayor Ed Clark along with  Council members Maria Secrest, Don Feldhaus, Carol Martin and Charles Archebuque voted against the designation.   Only Councilwoman Pam Shaddock voted in  favor.

I actually watched much of council meeting on TV (more compelling than all-DNC-all-the-time coverage).   Attorney  for historic designation opponents Curtis Sears was brilliant.   He raised the point that the boundaries for the historic district designation were arbitrary and illogical.   My gut feeling is that boundaries were decided  by  some supporters/residents who don’t like living near UNC  student rental property and figure the way to change that is to use the heavy hammer of government regulations.  

Full disclosure:   I live in Glenmere just to the west of the Cranford neighborhood.   I love historic districts.   If all property owners were on board, I would support a historic designation wholeheartedly!   But they weren’t and one group of property owners wants to tell another how to manage and maintain their investments.   It’s wrong.  

According to Brad Swift, a resident of Cranford and opponent of the historic designation, the issue has created a divided neighborhood.   So not only did supporters not get the desired designation but they also caused a rift in the neighborhood.  

Two years ago when I first discussed this issue on my show, I made a suggestion.   Rather than marginalize private property rights, supporters of historic designaiton should create a non-profit, buy properties as they come up for sale, fix them up, get the individual historic designation, then sell the property to owners who want to live in a historic district and are happy to abide by any stipulations from Greeley’s historic preservation commission.   But no…that’s too much work when we’ve got government mandates to force property owners to abide by our wishes!   Well, thanks to five members of the Greeley City Council that won’t happen.

Watch out for another group — Committe for Positive Weld County Partnerships.   This is a group of various municipal elected leaders who would like to control growth in unincorporated Weld County.   Greeley City Councilwoman Pam Shaddock is an active member.   Apparently this group has voluntary “dues,” which run through the city of Greeley.   Also, check out page 18 of this Longmont City Council communication.   In the middle of the page readers will find a question:   How do we get past property rights and developers desires to develop at will? Hmmm…a group of elected officials with no authority over unincorpated Weld County using taxpayer dollars to “get past property rights.”   I have a big problem with that.

This just follows the already established  trend of  marginalizing private property in Colorado, below is a quick lesson:

Just this summer, the Colorado Supreme Court  ruled that  the 2004 statute known as the Telluride Amendment is unconstitutional.   Now, local governments can take private property outside their own city limits through condemnation.  With the blessings of the state Supreme Court, city planners now can  seize private property just because it’s pretty.    For more information on how  extraterritorial condemnation is becoming increasingly popular, see Jessica  Corry’s  paper, Tower Tussle: The Colorado Battle Over Extraterritorial Condemnation.

Another disturbing trend symbolizing private property abuse is RTD’s rampant use of eminent domain for the beleaguered FasTracks project. RTD continues to gobble up private property that may be used for private development paying less than fair market value to owners.  

Forget the preeble mouse.   Colorado private property owners should be on the endangered species list.

Thanks to the Colorado Union of Taxpayers, Colorado residents can see whether their legislators are friends or foes of hard working voters.   Each year, CUT releases its grades for the state legislature.   Just in time for the campaign season, the 2008 ratings are here.     No shock; our never-saw-a-tax-increase-or-fee-increase-it-didn’t-love legislature got a whopping 27 percent rating.   That is a big fat F! Unless of course  we are talking about  District Six’s CSAP score for 8th grade math profiency.   Right now it’s 18 percent.   I’m sure Greeley/Evans residents would love to see 27 percent. (Sorry I got way off track)

Congrats to Republican state Senator Scott Renfroe for having the highest score among No CO senators and Republican state Representative Kevin Lundberg for having the highest rating in the house for No CO reps.

Remember my motto:   No taxation without information!   Here’s an example of unacceptable information “Colorado ranks 48th in state funding for colleges and universities.”   We here that line all the  time.   This time it came from CU president Bruce Benson when  he spoke last week at an invitation only reception at the Greeley Country Club.    Attendees  included donors, alumni and elected officials.  

According to the Greeley Tribune Benson claimed  Colorado’s ranking was “not acceptable.”  Translation: Higher Ed needs more taxpayer funding.  

Several  points to keep in mind:

First,  Benson referred to  a percentage of personal income ranking.    For example, a toyota and a  lexus are both cars — very similar cars —  but  the lexus costs a lot more and therefore comes with more bells and whistles. However, the fiscally prudent driver realizes he can get the same thing accomplished with the toyota.   Just because he can afford the lexus doesn’t mean he needs to buy the lexus.

Second, Colorado taxpayers were told that 1/3 of the Ref. C money (now more than $6 billion) would go to higher ed.   It didn’t.

Third, Colorado taxpayers were told that if Ref. C didn’t pass, then Colorado’s institutions of higher education would either privatize or raise tuition.   Ref C passed and they still raised tuition.   According to the Capital Research Center,   a gallon of milk would cost $15 had  it enjoyed the same rate of inflation as college tuition.

Fourth, why should taxpayers give more cash to institutions of higher education when their endowments are larger than the GDP of some countries and more than the record profits of “big oil”?   According to the Capital Research Center, “with a $34.9 billion endowment, Harvard sits on the largest fortune amassed by any institution in the history of our nation. It took just eight days last year for Harvard’s endowment to earn enough money to cover its entire undergraduate aid budget.”   I know that CU is not Harvard but CU’s endowment is nearly $1 billion and last year CU raised over $160 million.   Endowments all across the country are ballooning and so are college tuitions.

Fifth, college as an individual investment is great but not so for states.  States that invest more  per in higher education actually see less economic growth.   According to an article in Forbes from Economics Professor Richard Vedder,  ”using data for all 50 states from 1977 and 2002… [comparing]10 states with the highest state funding for universities against the 10 states with the lowest. The result: The low-spending states had far better growth in real income per capita…”

Furthermore, Vedder points out that “colleges have devoted relatively little new funding over the past generation to the core mission of instruction (spending only 21 cents of each new inflation-adjusted dollar per student on it), preferring instead to assist research, hire more nonacademic staff, give generous pay increases, support athletics and build luxurious facilities.”   All of these things are nice but certainly not necessary.

Sixth, in a paper appropriately titled A Color Scheme, Jessica Corry  of the Independence Institute documented that CU can’t even account for the money it spends on diversity programs.   Why should taxpayers give CU another dime?

So the next time a university president claim  the state needs to spend more money on hirer education, I hope someone has the nerve first to ask why? Then ask, where did all the other money go?   Remember: No taxation without information!

File this under…another expression I wish I had thought of but didn’t.   According to the Sunshine Review, “No taxation without information” actually is a campaign coming soon from the Sam Adams Alliance, which also is the creator of Ballotpedia.   I’m going to make this motto my own. Basically it means, government should be open and transparent, and that taxpayers have a right to know where their money is going.  What a crazy idea!  

Going forward, it will be my mission to get my city — Greeley; my school district — Greeley Evans District Six, which has a “Comprehensive Accountability System” that doesn’t include budget transparency; my county — Weld County; and my state — Colorado to put their check registries on-line, in a searchable database.    I want to know where all the money goes and not just from some annual report that breaks down a budget by category.   Taxpayers and I have a right to know where and how every single dime of our money is being spent.   Also, an on-line registry would be helpful for citizens to provide feedback on whether or not they think goverment is  using money appropriately.

This is not secret information.   In fact, check registries and copies of checks are a matter of public record, but why should a taxpayer have to go to the herculanean task of submitting a Colorado Open Record Act (CORA) request, which may or may not be honored, and then be subjected to fees of anywhere from a few to a few thousand dollars just to get information on how his or her  tax dollars are being spent?

Colorado Treasurer Cary Kennedy ran on a platform of budget transparency.   Kennedy has yet to make good on her promise.   Although, she does provide Colorado taxpayers with a very pretty State Taxpayers Accountability Report (STAR) complete with graphs, charts, lots of color and fabulous pictures of Colorado.   If you want more information, Treaurer Kennedy suggests the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, which despite its 195 pages, doesn’t tell me who got paid and how much.

In 2007,  Northern Colorado State Representative Don Marostica (R-Loveland) introduced HB 1164 Taxpayer Transparency Act that would have created a searchable website for state contracts and grants and the posting of moneys that exceeded $300 expended within five days of the treasurer receiving the information.    It was killed in committee along a party line vote.    

The million dollar plus price tag  is cited as one of the reasons for killing the legislation, but what could be more important to taxpayers than accountability from their government especially considering it’s taxpayers’ money?   Examples from other states prove that  cost issues ring hollow.   In an article appropriately titled “Texas-Sized Transparency”  by Talmadge Heflin director of the Center for Fiscal Policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation:

Texas Comptroller Susan Combs has converted the state 's massive budget into a user-friendly package with the introduction of "Where the Money Goes. "  The site is a comprehensive look at state spending over the last several fiscal years. As one of the first of its kind in the country, the website has received enormous attention and praise "“ from both critics and admirers.

Efforts to replicate the website in other states have met with protests regarding the potential cost of such a program. Such critics fail to acknowledge that "Where the Money Goes "  actually saved the state millions of dollars in just its first year. The application only cost the state $310,000 to develop, but by consolidating various state contracts in Texas government, Combs has already saved $2.3 million in her agency alone.

Also in Texas, over 150 of the school districts post their check registries on-line.   Seems to me that Colorado school districts should do the same.

According to Americans for Tax Reform, other states that have passed some sort of transparency legislation either via their state legislatures or executive order include Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Washington, Utah, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Florida, South Carolina, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania and Kentucky.   This list proves that transparency is not a partisan issue but rather an issue of good government versus unaccountable government.

Fortunately for Colorado taxpayers, we have an ally that buys ink by the  barrel. The  Colorado Press Association has taken up the cause of transparency and accountability.   Under a project called Open Government 2008,  a number of editors from Colorado’s major daily papers have penned editorials regarding the importance of open, transparent and accountable government at all levels.  

Bottom line is: NO TAXATION WITHOUT INFORMATION!   Let’s say it together and lobby our governments to provide us with all necessary information to be the most informed voters we possibly can.      

Question:   When is Weld County more  tolerant than Denver?   Answer:   When it comes to  tolerating the use of  feces as a form of free speech.

The Rocky Mountain News reported that the Denver City Council passed a law making it illegal to carry feces and urine  if the person carrying  the “noxious substances”  intends to use them for “nefarious purposes.”   Apparently the law is designed to protect  law  enforcement and other  first responders along with  DNC attendees from protestors who intend to use the excrement in a “disruptive way.”

Of course the burden of proof will be on law enforcement to prove “that people carrying such items intend to use them to block public access or emergency equipment or to thwart crowd control measures.”

Safety Manager Al LaCabe said, “Our intent for this bill is not about suppressing or chilling First Amendment rights.”

Perhaps the protestors who want to utilize feces and urine as a form of free speech should come to Weld County.   Remember when democrat activist and retired UNC professor Kathy Ensz selected a fresh piece of dog poop from her yard, drove it over to republican Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave’s Greeley office and shoved it in the mail box? She claimed it was a form of free speech.    Weld County DA Ken Buck didn’t buy it and charged Ensz with criminal use of a noxious substance.

A Denver Post article  explained her defense.    Attorney Patricia Bangert  compared Ensz to  Thomas Jefferson saying that her political protest equated to Jefferson’s “railing against the King of England.”   I guess  Bangert thinks  that the Declaration of Independence is just a load of crap!

Bangert also employed the South Park defense bringing Mr. Hankey, the talking piece of Christmas poop,  as part of her argument that “feces is often used as an angry expression shielded by the Constitution.”   In fact  Bangert asserted, “…it is commonplace in today’s society to equate a distasteful or disliked person, situation or thing to feces.”    

A Weld County jury agreed and acquitted her in spring 2007.

A couple of questions come to mind: Will Patricia Bangert agressively defend the DNC protestors’ use of feces as she did Ensz’s?   Will democrat activist Ensz encourage the use of feces as a form of free expression during the DNC?

Bottom line is that I guess conservative Weld County is more tolerate (and more protective) of free speech than liberal Denver.

If you need a common sense, cliff notes version of all the ballot initiatves you will be deciding on this fall, visit Ballotpedia the Wiki page for ballot measures.   This website rocks!   Every voter should visit it BEFORE entering the voting booth this November.   The Colorado page will tell you everything you need to know about each ballot issue including background, supporters, opponents and links for more information.   I’ll be referencing this site on my show regularly this fall.  

In November 2007 Colorado’s hypocritical green guv Bill Ritter said, “Climate change is our generation’s greatest environmental challenge.   It threatens our economy, our Western way of life and our future.   It will change every facet of our existence, and unless we address it, the results will be catastrophic for generations to come.” Sadly, I agree with the gov.   Make no mistake, the cult of climate change is totalitarianism hidden behind the friendly mask of environmentalism. For those of us on freedom’s frontlines, this is our generation’s greatest challenge.

If you want to know more about global warming alarmism, the rhetoric, the motivation behind the movement and what we can do about it, join Americans for Prosperity at a townhall meeting in Fort Collins this Thursday, August  7 at 6:30 pm at the Fort Collins Elks Club.   Northern Colorado state legislators Kevin Lundberg and Scott Renfroe will be on hand along with other invited guests.   The event is free but rsvp to info@afpcolorado.org. The townhall meeting in Colorado Springs was packed so make your reservations now!   For more information visit www.afpcolorado.org.

Since the Greeley Tribune finally published its endorsements, I figure it’s time for me to do the same.   Actually I wanted to wait until after the debate between republican Weld County at-large commissioner candidates Sean Conway and Mike Freeman, which I hosted today on my show.   If you missed it, visit KFKA’s audio-on-demand.  

I sent in my absentee ballot so below is how I actually voted.  

First, for Weld County Commissioner at-large.   While Mike Freeman would make a good county commissioner; Sean Conway would make a GREAT county commissioner.   So I voted for Sean.

Anyone who has listened to my show for any length of time knows that Sean is a friend of mine, but he is also the most qualified.     He has a firm grasp of all issues facing Weld County.   His knowledge of everything from transportation, to water, to economic development, to oil and gas, to private property rights is impressive.   Listen to the debate if you need any further convincing.    Also Weld County residents will be the beneficiary of Sean’s work in Washington D.C.   He has contacts through out the state that will serve him (and ultimately Weld County) well when Weld County Commissioners must work with other elected officials and state agencies to get some of the multi-jurisdictional projects completed — especially water and transportation projects!   What a great resource for Weld County to have!

Both candidates agreed on most issues but there was disagreement on fiscal policy.   I asked the following question:   Are taxes too high, too low or just right?   Mike answered “just right,” and Sean answered “too high.”   My view is the same as Sean’s.   TAXES ARE TOO HIGH!  Furthermore, Mike supported the largest tax increase in Colorado history Referenda C and D.   According to the July 27 2005 Highland School Board minutes  when Mike Freeman was president of the school board, he  spoke and voted in favor of  a school board resolution to support Referenda C and D.   C and D got hammered in Weld County with C getting about 44 percent of the vote and D getting barely 40 percent.   Supporting the massive tax increase was not reflective of local values nor mine.

The other endorsement I’m making in this post is for Weld County Commissioner District 3.   I voted for the incumbent republican Rob Masden.   Rob is an expert at balancing oil and gas revenue with agriculture, the environment and private property.   No other commissioner worked as hard at lobbying the state, Governor Ritter and the recently altered Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to recognize that Weld County should  be a role  model for the rest of the state and not forced  to  adhere to draconian regulations that would kill  one of the most important industries for Weld County, making up 40 percent of the county’s property tax revenue.   That doesn’t include the energy impact grants and plethora of high paying jobs that oil and gas provide for Weld County residents.   I cannot overstate the importance of this industry to our county.   That’s why it’s important to keep Rob Masden and his expertise on the Weld County Board of Commissioners.

That being said, my second choice is Clair Orr.   Clair is a principled conservative and I would support him if not for Rob running for a third and final term.

Former Weld County commissioner and head of DOLA (Department of Local Affairs) Barbara Kirkmeyer also seeks the republican nomination for District 3.   She is the Tribune’s first choice.   Here’s what the paper said about her, “Kirkmeyer stood above her opponents in her commitment to all areas of concern for the county, and her enthusiasm for public service. She is our choice to represent her party in the November election.”   I have no idea what that means exactly, but cheerleaders are best left on the sidelines.    They are enthusiastic, but I wouldn’t put them in the position of quarterback or  even on  the team.

My problem with Barbara Kirkmeyer is her tenure at DOLA, which I consider to be an 800 pound fiscal gorilla in Kirkmeyer’s living room that the Tribune has conviently ignored.   According to a November 2005 Colorado Springs Gazette article, “an audit revealed that DOLA improperly used federal homeland security grants to build a $5.9 million emergency response center.”    There  was more.   The same article also said,  ”the audit also turned up $2 million in other questionable expenditures, highlighted poor accounting controls and found that the state did not have procedures to evaluate how homeland security grants were being spent.”

Here’s how the Rocky Mountain News recently  explained homeland security grant spending during the Kirkmeyer era:

Colorado’s record in spending federal homeland security grants has hardly been exemplary. A 2005 report by the state auditor found state officials parceled out millions of federal dollars to local governments without a careful appraisal of risk. After a 2006 federal audit, Washington ordered the state to repay $1.5 million in misspent federal grants. And a review of state homeland security procedures by Gov. Bill Ritter led to a full revamping of Colorado’s security operations.

Worst of all,  she didn’t seem to think it was problem and defended what the Rocky Mountain News called  a “Byzantine funding route.”  I have a problem with that type of fiscal mismanagement and so should every other  District 3 voter.  

Furthermore, would Kirkmeyer  even be running had Bill Ritter not renewed her contract?  Apparently she  wanted another state job and even consulted with an attorney because she wasn’t offered one.   Color me skeptical about her enthusiasm for public service to Weld County.  

To recap:   County Commissioner At-Large — Sean Conway; County Commissioner for District 3 — Rob Masden.

Feel free to comment on my endorsements but make sure your voice is heard on August 12, otherwise no whining!

The Greeley Tribune finally is reporting what everyone already knows — that former Greeley mayor Tom Selders is not a republican!   Selders claims that republicans drove him from the party and into the loving arms of the democrats.   I told you about the Selders switcheroo after the July 4th parade where I saw him walking with the dems sporting a Udall shirt.

According to the article, “Many accused Selders of being a “closet” liberal when he went to Washington to advocate for immigration reform.” Actually, Selders was known to be a “closet liberal” long before he went to Washington.   Selders advocated for big government and massive tax increases.   According to my sources, while on city council Selders would constantly threaten to switch parties.   There’s another non-news story,  while city council races are  supposed to be non-partisan, they aren’t.