Thank you to Theresa Myers of the Greeley Tribune for her honesty about why she edited out a  key line about Bob Stack  in my Sunday guest column opposing Greeley District 6’s attempt to mismanage more taxpayer dollars.   All I wanted to know is why the newspaper chose to edit out the fact that Stack testified against transparency at the state capitol. 

It’s pretty much what I suspected.   She believes that stating a fact about elected school board member Bob Stack is an attack on him personally.  In an email to me, Myers explained:

As an editor, I felt the line about Bob was a bit of a personal attack, and
strayed away from the topic of the mill levy, the subject you were asked to
write about.

What’s funny is that Myers goes on to attack me personally while claiming the Tribune takes the “high road.”  I’m pretty sure that Mayor Ed Clark and Marilyn Musgrave wouldn’t accuse the Tribune of taking the “high road.”

On my show tomorrow I’ll share Myers’ entire email.  But if you want to read it before my show,  I’ve copied it below.  I’ll share my response to Myers as well.

Amy:
I feel the need to reply to a couple of points in your e-mail to Randy,
since I was the person editing your column.
First, the column was submitted over the length of our requirement under our
policy. Because of that, I edited several lines, not just the one you are
referring to about Bob Stack.
As an editor, I felt the line about Bob was a bit of a personal attack, and
strayed away from the topic of the mill levy, the subject you were asked to
write about. We are trying to keep discussions of this emotional topic on
the high road. Obviously that is not a tactic you use on your radio program.
As I tell all our writers, ALL submissions are subject to editing. If
writers have a problem with that, then they should think about whether they
really want to submit letters or columns. That said, we are extremely
careful not to change the meaning or intent of any submission. Your intent
of your column is more than intact, despite your dispute with the line in
question.
Also, I would like to point our, your column was about 100 words longer than
the pro column we ran. So in effect, your side still got more ink.
I'm sure you will continue to debate this on your radio show. But please,
this time at least, make sure you have some facts in that discussion.
Thanks. Call me anytime.

Theresa

Randy Bangert, editor of the Greeley Tribune, asked me to write a guest editorial because he “heard from a reader” that I am opposed to 3A, Greeley-Evans District 6’s attempt to mismanage more taxpayer money.  The request made me laugh because I’m guessing the Tribune editorial board would rather see Marilyn Musgrave’s words in print before granting me precious column inches on the Sunday editorial page.   But I’m probably the only person they could think of who is cold-hearted enough to vote against “the children.”  To their credit, the newspaper published the requested column today.  You can read the Tribune’s version here. 

However, the edited version left out a key sentence about transparency and district 6.  Supporters of the massive tax increase say the district will be more accountable because it is creating yet another citizens’ panel to tell us how responsible the school district is with our money.  Color me skeptical since school board member Bob Stack testified against transparency at the state capitol. 

Below is the complete text of my op-ed.  The crucial line that the Tribune chose to exclude from both the print and online version is emphasized in bold.

District 6 needs to focus on how not how much it spends

By Amy Oliver Cooke

 

Below state average is the best District 6 can do unless it gets more cash from taxpayers. Don’t buy it. It’s time District 6 focus on how it spends taxpayer dollars, not how much.

 

The business-as-usual suspects: school board, teachers union, Chamber of Commerce, Greeley Tribune, and a citizens’ panel want voters to approve a mill levy increase that will add nearly $200 per year to the property tax bill for a $150,000 home.

 

Supporters claim the district needs the additional funding because it ranks 147^th out of 178 Colorado school districts in terms of per-pupil funding. Without the funding, popular programs such as International Baccalaureate, Advanced Placement courses and magnet programs could go away.

 

Essentially, the school district is placing a fiscal gun to the head of taxpayers: “Give us the money or the programs get it.”

 

Also, the district claims it doesn’t have enough money for textbooks, buses and security. It does leave one to wonder how the district prioritizes its budget.

 

Before succumbing to fear, voters should demand answers to two questions. First, how has the district managed the money it currently spends? Second, will increased spending result in a higher quality of education?

 

Based on information from the Colorado Department of Education, District 6 spent $9,049 per pupil in fiscal year 2007-2008. For $9,049 District 6 taxpayers get below-average scores on state standardized tests, below-average graduation rates, above regional average for teacher salaries, and 557 central administration employees, roughly one for every 33 students.

 

Those are general numbers. The school district doesn’t provide detailed spending information. State legislation that would have required more financial transparency from Colorado school districts was defeated this year. District 6 Board member Bob Stack testified against the Public School Financial Transparency Act despite overwhelming public support.

 

The second question the district must answer is how increased funding leads to increased student achievement and higher graduation rates. The argument that District 6 needs additional funding because it ranks 147^th out of 178 is silly. If money were the only factor necessary to ensure a quality K-12 education, Washington, D.C., and New Jersey would be graduating Nobel Prize winners, while Utah, with the lowest per-pupil spending, would be lucky to graduate anyone.

 

Studies prove it. According to a Heritage Foundation report “Does Spending More on Education Improve Academic Achievement?” despite more than doubling education spending since 1971, academic achievement has not increased significantly and graduation rates have remained flat.

 

Heritage concluded that there is no consistent proof to show that simply increasing school funding results in higher academic achievement and increased graduation rates.

The Independence Institute came to the same conclusion.  “Counting Cash,” a 2006 “comprehensive analysis of relevant research, overwhelmingly showed no link between education spending and student performance, with several studies showing a negative relationship.”

How much is far less important than how school districts spend taxpayer resources. One area of how the district should address is teacher compensation. Studies have shown that automatic pay raises for teachers who advance their own education have no significant effect on student achievement. With our dismal achievement scores and graduation rates, it’s time the district embrace teacher compensation reform. Not all teachers are equal. As a community we must reward good teachers for their performance and not just for their time. Conversely, bad teachers must go.

 

If simply raising per-student spending led to increased achievement scores and higher graduation rates, the tax increase probably would pass even in this economy. But it’s not that easy. How the district allocates taxpayer resources is at issue. Until District 6 proves it is willing to focus on the how and not how much, I’ll vote no – despite having two kids in the system.

 

Amy Oliver Cooke is Director of Colorado Transparency Project for the Independence Institute and host of the Amy Oliver Show on 1310 KFKA. She can be reached at amy@i2i.org.

In the spirit of my friends over at Colorado Spending Transparency (COST), here’s a message to district 6: No taxation without information!

Let me get this straight.  Government is using my money to patronize me…

I am so sick of patronizing elitist from “institutions of higher learning” who think that women need their help to succeed.  I’ll cut to the quick; I don’t want your money, your pity or your help.  And my daughters don’t want it either.  (And since I’m their mother I can say that) They will succeed or fail on their own merits.

The Denver Business Journal  just reported that the University of Northern Colorado (UNC), my alma mater for my graduate degree,  will get nearly $1.2 million in taxpayer money  “to lead a nationwide program to improve promotion and retention of female college faculty members in science, technology, engineering and math.”

UNC said in a prepared statement:

infuse gender equity content into its existing professional development programs with the goal of cultivating academic leaders who are more knowledgeable about STEM gender equity issues, more able and motivated to address those issues, and thus better positioned to effect positive and transformational change in their own colleges and departments.

I don’t even know what ”STEM gender equity issues” mean.  Since when did science, technology, engineering and math become issues of estrogen and testosterone– other than in biology? But I’m sure that somewhere is an affirmative action grant to set me straight. 

Does it occur to anyone that women make their own choices? Women who want to go into science, technology, engineering and math will do so.  Those who don’t, won’t. 

If we are in search of “gender equity,” why not have affirmative action for men who want to be runway models? 

Memo to elitist: Stop trying to enable me and my daughters simply because of our double X chromosome.  And stop discriminating against my son simply because he was born without it.

According the Pew Hispanic Center 15 percent of the nation’s 47 million uninsured are illegal immigrants as reported in USA Today.  That means over 7 million uninsured are illegal immigrants.  That’s no news flash. The Left loves to toss around the number of uninsured in United States as a reason for health care “reform,” but with that number comes a lot of illegal immigrants.

Congresswoman Betsy Markey wants health care for EVERYONE, which by definition must include illegal aliens.  In a letter asking for physician support during her 2008 campaign against incumbent Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, Markey wrote:

The United States spends approximately 15% of our GDP on healthcare, and yet 45 million Americans are uninsured and many more underinsured.  The current system of coverage is expensive, unsustainable and highly inefficient. We must address how to provide healthcare to everyone in the most efficient and equitable way.

Doctors who endorsed Markey did so because “Markey believes that the most efficient and equitable solution to health-care reform is basic health-care benefits for everyone…”

From my experience, health care coverage for illegal aliens is not a popular position in the 4th CD.  Markey responded to a constituent who challenged her about coverage for illegals.  According to the Greeley Tribune Markey said “the current [health care] proposals don’t include federal funding for illegal immigrants…”  Then she expressed her “hope” that everyone would “take a look at the bill for themselves.”

However, H.R. 3200, the health care legislation currently available for everyone to read on Markey’s Web site, does not exclude coverage for illegal aliens, despite her statement to the contrary.

To be fair, a quick document search reveals that on page 143, section 246, line 3, H.R. 3200 says “NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.”  The language immediately following then clarifies, “Nothing in this subtitle shall all Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

That’s just affordability credits.  Other parts of the bill can be interpreted either way.  On page 50, section 152, line 21, “PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE,” the bill states:

Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.

The public has little reason to trust Congresswoman Markey’s interpretation of the legislation given the pressure put on Congress by special interest groups.  Just before the August recess, the House Ways and Means Committee rejected an amendment to require verification of immigration status in order to enroll in a public plan. 

La Raza and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) have urged that illegal aliens be included in the legislation.  One member of the CHC, recognizing the politics of bill drafting, said:

the organization’s leaders are not asking Speaker Pelosi to “specifically spell something out” in the bill, but instead to seek to ensure that the bill does not actually prohibit illegal aliens from receiving benefits. “We’re pushing to include everyone in the health care bill. Everyone,” the CHC member who asked not to be identified said. “Sometimes if you don’t say something, something happens.”

In other words, make the language vague enough that it can be interpreted either way.  Maybe that’s how Markey wants it since she believes we must fund health care for all.

The Joint Budget Committee, which is responsible for drafting the infamous “long bill” or appropriations bill, has a new member.  The Denver Post reports that staunch TABOR supporter and principled fiscal conservative Kent Lambert, representative from Colorado Springs, replaces TABOR critic Don Marostica.  

The Colorado Union of Taxpayers awarded Lambert a 100 percent rating for the 2009 legislative session, making him the highest rated Colorado House member and a great friend to taxpayers.  In comparison, Marostica consistently has been one of the lowest scoring Republicans in the House.

Two things about House Minority Leader Mike May’s pick:  First, Northern Colorado will no longer have an elected official on the JBC for the first time in a long time.  Both Senator Steve Johnson and Representative Dale Hall  preceeded Marostica on the JBC.  Second, the JBC’s long standing tradition of consensus on the long bill is in jeopardy.  My guess is that Representative Lambert won’t tow the JBC line just because it’s tradition to do so.

The JBC may be fun to watch this year!

The person selected to replace Don Marostica in HD 51 says he will defend the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.  Marostica has been  openly hostile to TABOR, the popular constitutional limit on the growth of government.

With Marostica serving as Governor Ritter’s new economic development director, the vacancy committee selected political newcomer and Domino’s Pizza chain owner Brian DelGrosso to replace him.

According the Loveland Reporter Herald, the 37-year-old DelGrosso beat four other candidates including Tom Buchanan, Kevan McNaught, Kari Koppes, and Jeanni Barnthouse.  He ran on a platform of defending TABOR and the “elimination of fees on businesses.”  DelGrosso intends to run for re-election in 2010.

I’ve never met him, but his support of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights indicates the district will be better served.

Congresswoman Betsy Markey released her Congress on Your Corner schedule.  According to a press release on her Web site, Markey will hold the following events to discuss health reform:

08/18     Congress on Your Corner      Ft Collins         9am – 12pm      
08/19     Congress on Your Corner      Greeley           11am – 1pm      
08/20     Congress on Your Corner      Longmont        3pm – 5pm      
08/21     Seniors Day Event                 Greeley            1pm – 3pm
08/22     Congress on Your Corner      Ft Lupton        10:00am – 12:00pm     
08/24     Tele-Town Hall Meeting         District-wide     7:30pm – 8:30pm
08/26     Congress on Your Corner      Ft Collins         10:30am – 12pm      
08/28     Congress on Your Corner      Ft Morgan        9am – 10:30am      
09/01     Congress on Your Corner      Johnstown        8:30am – 10am      
09/02     Congress on Your Corner      Windsor           1pm – 3pm      
09/03     Congress on Your Corner      Estes Park        3:30pm – 5pm

Note on Congress on Your Corner listening session format:
In order for as many 4th District residents as possible to speak directly with Rep. Markey, residents will join groups of 15 -20 people for public listening sessions. 4th District residents are asked to arrive no more than 30 minutes in advance of the meeting, to accommodate residents’ work and family schedules and so that everybody who would like to ask a question has an opportunity to do so.

A lot of details still are missing.  I will post those as soon as I get them.

Who cares if Denver is facing a $120 budget shortfall.  They must have fine art — to the tune of $4 million.  Cut law enforcement.  Cut city services.  But hands off their art!   My colleague at the Independence Institute Todd Shepherd just exposed the real problem with how Denver funds art projects:

Eric Brown, spokesman for Mayor Hickenlooper, says the money slated for art projects can’t be re-routed or postponed because that funding is not discretionary and is not part of the general fund. “The public art program is set by ordinance from capital projects funding and would require City Council action to change the funding,” Brown said in an email. “Even if the art funding was eliminated, that money would remain in the construction budget for capital improvements and would not go back into the general fund.”

Greeley has the same type of requirement.  One percent of taxpayer-funded, capitol construction projects must go toward art — even at the expense of vital services.

COST (Colorado Spending Transparency) just published the following post:

“..we are a board very concerned about transparency and oversight — about letting our constituency know what it is we are doing,” Greeley Evans District 6 school board member Judy Kron said at a meeting last night.

Really?

Perhaps Kron should read COST.  Then she would know that her fellow school board member Bob Stack testified against school spending transparency just a few months ago.

The Greeley school board voted last night to ask taxpayers to shell out an additional $16 million for textbooks, academic programs and buses.  The question will be on the ballot in November.

While the school board won’t provide taxpayers with detailed spending information, the board did approve a resolution to create an “accountability committee” charged with monitoring and reporting how the additional tax dollars are spent.

According to the Greeley Tribune print edition, Kron went on to say:

It would be very nice if we could say ‘trust us,’ and you would do so.  This isn’t an age of elected officials being trusted just because we are elected officials. So we want to do all we can to assure you that we will spend the dollars as you have asked us to.

Point of clarification — the school board is the one doing the asking, not taxpayers.

Perhaps the school board and school district should have been a bit more serious about transparency and accountability BEFORE asking for more money. 

I’ll pass along COST’s advice to District 6 taxpayers:  No taxation without information.

During testimony in front of the Long Term Fiscal Stability Commission on which I sit, one gentleman predicted that July 2009 may mark the end of the “Great Recession“.  A headline in the Denver Post Sunday Business section (print edition) screams: “Optimism taking hold”…

…unless you are in Northern Colorado and have even as much as a dozen degrees of separation between you and New Frontier Bank.   According to the Greeley Tribune:

Iron Mountain is now the second domino to fall after the closure of New Frontier Bank in April, which many say artificially propped up Greeley’s economy with its liberal lending practices.

Iron Mountain, for example, owed about $6.75 million to New Frontier, now being liquidated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

‘What I’m hearing is that we’re not through the full ramifications of the New Frontier closure yet,’ said Larry Burkhardt, president of Upstate Colorado Economic Development. ‘I don’t know what else to anticipate, but I keep hearing that we’re going to see more consequences of that bank failure down the road.’

We are all hearing the same thing.  Last May I posted the following on my blog:

A land developer told me that the impending implosion of the commercial real estate market will make the recent devaluation in the residential market look like a “day at Disneyland.”

What I didn’t report (but maybe should have), is that the same land developer followed up that statement with a prediction that Iron Mountain Autoplex and John Chamberlain would be the first to go.  Even if it is someone else’s opinion, I admit to being a bit leery of naming specific businesses that may be in serious financial trouble without substantial financial data to back up the claim. Maybe it was wishful thinking — hoping it would not happen.

Not a week goes by that I don’t hear from a business owner worried about losing his or her livelihood.  That’s one of the things I hate about the bailouts.  Washington D.C. decides winners and losers, and No CO has been tagged with loser while having to pay for the bailouts of the winners.  No bailouts for small business nor community banks.  Note holders await the sale of their loans and hope the new buyers will work with them.   Some, formerly strung along by the FDIC, are now being strung along by the SBA (Small Business Administration).

Add the ugliness of NFB to Weld County’s unemployment rate of 8.6%, third highest in Colorado and a full percentage point above the state average, and optimism may be a little harder to find around here.

Funny note: In an earlier post, I predicted that the collapse of NFB would be the biggest issue of the 2010 election cycle.  I may be wrong.  I underestimated the passion of opposition to Obama Care.