CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

50%↑

15%

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 10, 2010 03:51 AM UTC

CO-Sen Michael Bennet bank swap cover up by Tom Boasberg

  • 35 Comments
  • by: wade norris

The bank swap investigation story just took an interesting turn for Michael Bennet and his protege Tom Boasberg. School Board members have repeatedly asked for an audit of the Bank Swap between Denver Public Schools and JP Morgan.

Tom Boasberg and the Bennet campaign have attack these board members as asking for an audit due to political motivations caused by the Primary.

Thanks to an email record provided by a School Board member,
this can be proven to be factually wrong.

The evidence points to a concerted effort to cover up details about the swap that was reported in  last Friday’s New York Times investigation .

The New York Times discovered that
Denver Public Schools has lost 25 million dollars from Michael Bennet’s investment swap and will have to pay 81 million in termination fees to get out of the swap.


You can listen to an interview about this on Mario Solis-Marich’ show.

School board members had been asking for a transparent accounting of the DPS banking derivative for years. Despite these requests, the Superintendent has delayed or declined the request.

However, when 3 members started calling publicly for an audit, Superintendent Boasberg attacked them and School Board President Theresa Pena (and Bennet campaign Treasurer) silenced them in meetings through procedural motions. Boasberg and the Bennet campaign stated that these board members’ requests were not about finances, but were politically motivated to hurt Senator Bennet’s chance in the primary.

From March 10, 2010:

“This attack is a regrettable action by a few disgruntled board members who are seeking to create a political controversy where no controversy exists,” said Superintendent Tom Boasberg.

One of these school board members, Jeanne Kaplan, provided me her emails proving that this is not true – since she was asking questions about the bank swap and reports of financial losses long before there was a primary – even before Senator Bennet was in the Senate.

Ms. Kaplan began asking questions about the finances in June of 2008 which can be proven
by this list of emails.

That date is important because Michael Bennet was not appointed Senator until January 2009 – in fact, at that time, no one could have known he would be – since Barack Obama had not yet been elected and Ken Salazar had not been chosen for Secretary of the Interior.

As the emails show,

Ms. Kaplan tried repeatedly to get Tom Boasberg to explain the transaction to her and the board and explain if it was true that they were losing money only to be rebuffed and dismissed.

In the chain of Emails, examine #5 and #6 out of a total 9 emails.


#5


From: (Jeannie Kaplan)

Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 11:11 AM

To: Boasberg, Tom; Pena, Theresa’s External;

Cc: Bennet, Michael

Subject: Re: DPSRS-PERA merger memo

Tom – I can’t open the attachment, but is it still relevant?  What is happening=2 0with the merger, since the papers indicates it is off?  Also, can we get an update on our bond situation, please?  Have we lost a lot of money?  If so, how much?  Are there ways to stop the bleeding?  When will programs/salaries/ etc. be affected?

Thanks.

Jeannie

#6 (response)

—–Original Message—–

From: Boasberg, Tom

To: Jeannie Kaplan-

Cc: Pena, Theresa’s  Bennet, Michael

Sent: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:04 pm

Subject: RE: DPSRS-PERA merger memo

Thanks. think the attachment is of limited relevance at this point. I think that we are going to try to spend some time at our board meeting this month talking about all these topics so we will have a chance to discuss in some detail .

Thanks.

Best,

Tom

Recently, the requests made by Kaplan and the other 2 board members were met with emails like this one.

I’m extremely disappointed that our Board has not been discussing relevant issues…. I will become much more public with my displeasure if you keep this up.

Theresa

The first thing is that this shows Ms. Kaplan is becoming alarmed at the reports of staggering losses incurred by DPS’s Bank Swap investment long before Bennet has a primary.

Secondly, notice the date of the email – December 3, 2008.  Ken Salazar is still the Senator, and he was not picked by the Obama administration until Dec. 17, 2008.

Third, and perhaps most importantly to those outside of Colorado Politics, no one, absolutely no one, imagined at that time that the Governor would pick Michael Bennet, an unelected and mostly unknown DPS Superintendent for Senate. See here  “What the Hell!?!”

These emails prove that it is not the 3 board members who are politically motivated, but that it is Michael Bennet, DPS school board President Theresa Pena, and current Superintendent Tom Boasberg –  they are the ones who have political  motivations to prevent an audit.
There may not be anything illegal about the Bank Swap, but as everyone knows in politics, a cover up of information always gives the appearance that something is wrong or unethical.

Either way, Mr. Boasberg and the Bennet campaign have disparaged the character of 3 of School Board members simply for wanting transparency.

Their decision to support Bennet’s primary challenger, at least for one of those school Board members, is directly in response to Boasberg’s and Bennet’s refusal to open the books on the bank swap.

And this other new detail makes it seem like that is the case:

The second contention made by Boasberg is that a savings of $20 million has been realized by the district on the deal.   David Suppes, DPS’ Chief Operating Officer, provided a spreadsheet to the School Board on April 14 on this year. It is the most thorough accounting of DPS’ costs for the transactions to date. No combination of totals from that spreadsheet can be figured to produce the savings that Boasberg touts. What is known is, in its last, audited annual financial report, DPS states that $24.9 million has been lost on the deal.

(hattip to Guerin Lee Green and Christopher Scott)

Now, Chair of the State Budget committee (Democrat Representative Mark Ferrandino) has now called for a bi-partisan audit by both the Colorado State House and Senate of this investment. (see here)
“CO-SEN: Bennet Faces Bipartisan Probe Over Wall Street Deal From Dem-Led CO Legislature”
Listen here to Progressive Talk show host Mario Solis-Marich’s interview of Rep. Ferrandino about the investigation.

The real question about all this – the Bank Swap, the cover up by Boasberg, the accusations against the 3 School Board members, the email list and timeline, and the conflict of interest between Bennet, Boasberg and Pena – all of these are secondary to one question.

With an audit looming, if Michael Bennet wins the primary – how will he stand a chance in the General?

Comments

35 thoughts on “CO-Sen Michael Bennet bank swap cover up by Tom Boasberg

  1. Morgensen writes in the NYT

    In the end, a deal that JPMorgan said would have an interest rate of around 5 percent spiked to 8.59 percent during its first fiscal year, and has since settled down to an average rate of 7.12 percent today.

    Is that the way you understand it?

    Morgensen wrote

    While it is possible that the annual costs of the Denver deal will come down in the future, they are now roughly in line with what the school system would have paid in a fixed-rate transaction.

    Superintendent Boasberg says overall expense to DPS is  a little less so far than it would have been- approx $20million.   Which is right?

    When I asked Andrea Merida she said she couldn’t make that determination because she did not have adequate information.  How can Ms. Morgensen make that determination? How can you? How can Ms Kaplan?

    Are you alleging that a crime was committed in the DPS transaction?

    Does Ms. Kaplan?

    If so, what did the FBI say when she contacted them?

    Are you alleging any wrong doing at all?

    What fees are DPS  paying?

    How much as been paid to date?

    When asked these questions earlier today, Andrea Merida deflected only saying it was improper and she would have voted no.

    Do you agree?

    Do you believe a simpler fixed rate transaction should have been done?

    Is so, what  is your estimate of what that would have cost?

    The New York Times did not “discover that

    Denver Public Schools has lost 25 million dollars”

    That’s a lie. Standard operating procedure from Wade Norris, the lying liar,  – make it confusing, make it long, link to something reputable and say one or two things that are clearly true and then tell the

    blatant lie.

    What Ms Morgensen wrote was

    “Since it struck the deal, the school system has paid $115 million in interest and other fees, at least $25 million more than it originally anticipated.”

    Yes- the forecast was to spend 90 million through earlier this year. Instead, DPS spent $115million..  So they spent $25million more than expected – get it?

    But the bigger point is that the forecast on the simpler fixed rate transaction that was the alternative was to have spent $135million by the same time, i.e, $20million more than was actually spent.  

     

    This is the version that you, Andrea Merida, Ms Kaplan, cscotttun, Sharon Hanson and Sirota and anyone else trying to make up a scandal where there is none apparently prefer.

    Why would you advocate DPS spending $20 million more than they have?

    1. “The New York Times did not “discover that

      Denver Public Schools has lost 25 million dollars”

      That’s a lie. Standard operating procedure from Wade Norris”

      The second contention made by Boasberg is that a savings of $20 million has been realized by the district on the deal.   David Suppes, DPS’ Chief Operating Officer, provided a spreadsheet to the School Board on April 14 on this year. It is the most thorough accounting of DPS’ costs for the transactions to date. No combination of totals from that spreadsheet can be figured to produce the savings that Boasberg touts. What is known is, in its last, audited annual financial report, DPS states that $24.9 million has been lost on the deal.

      http://www.thecherrycreeknews….

      Furthermore:


      you, Andrea Merida, Ms Kaplan, cscotttun, Sharon Hanson and Sirota…

      Don’t forget the the Rolling Stone, New York Times, CNN, CSPAN…

      After reading the Dec. 2008 email to Tom Boasberg – before Senator Bennet was a Senator – do you still think this request for an audit was politically motivated?

      1. You make a false claim about the NYT.

        I challenge you on it and quote the NYT.

        And you respond with Guerrin Green and Chistopher Scott cited fromth e Cherry Creek News?

        You were mistaken or you lied – which?  (16)

        You apparently attempted to quote me- but added Rolling Stone, NTY, CNN, CPAN….  

        I never said all this talk of and call for an audit is or was politically motivated by Bennet’s appointment. To imply otherwise is dishonest.

        I have said if Board members didn’t understand the transaction but still voted for it when they could have recused or deferred, they should be censured.

        I have asked you- and Andrea Merida (and SH) a bunch of questions that none of you apparently want to address before the polls close tomorrow.

        You lied.

        You did it again to reply to me calling you out.

        You are a liar.

        As for the CC News,  Green calls Christopher Scott’s analysis of one spread sheet “the most thorough accounting of DPS’ costs for the transactions to date.”

        Bull shit.

        If I want an accounting analysis, I go to an accountant.  If I want a forensic accounting analysis, I’d go to a forensic accountant.  When I need an audit, an auditor.

        In no  case do I go to  an an IT guy turned consultant.

        Especially one who already has issues with Senator Bennet.

        http://www.denverpost.com/opin

        Can you address anything I’ve written or asked? (Without lying, of course.)

        I asked you fifteen substantive, relevant questions in my prior post.  Ms Merida’s answer was crickets

        Yours?

        Now 16.

        1. You make a false claim about the NYT.

          Why doesn’t everyone scroll through this diary,  

          and tell MADCO where I make any claim about the New York Times story.

          This is the only statement I made about the New York Times

          The New York Times discovered that

          Denver Public Schools has lost 25 million dollars from Michael Bennet’s investment swap and will have to pay 81 million in termination fees to get out of the swap.

          which was from this:

          Since it struck the deal, the school system has paid $115 million in interest and other fees, at least $25 million more than it originally anticipated.



          To avoid mounting expenses, the Denver schools are looking to renegotiate the deal. But to unwind it all, the schools would have to pay the banks $81 million in termination fees, or about 19 percent of its $420 million payroll.

          But I am sure someone has convinced MADCO this is not the case.

          Well, MADCO – how about the main point of the story – the emails – that show clearly, that Jeanne Kaplan was asking about details about this bank swap in 2008 – before Bennet was a Senato –  and not because of some ‘political’ motivation.

          As Tom Boasberg said?

          “This attack is a regrettable action by a few disgruntled board members who are seeking to create a political controversy where no controversy exists,” said Superintendent Tom Boasberg.

          Where is your defense of Boasberg’s lies?  

          1. Why didn’t she go public with her concerns. She waits until the week of the primary to make her concerns. She stood by two years being confused and concerned?

          2. I believe he works for them – if they are not pleased with his performance, they should fire him.

            The emails appear to demonstrate

            As for the NYT  and your lie:

            You

            The New York Times discovered that

            Denver Public Schools has lost 25 million dollars from Michael Bennet’s investment swap and will have to pay 81 million in termination fees to get out of the swap.

            NYT

            Since it struck the deal, the school system has paid $115 million in interest and other fees, at least $25 million more than it originally anticipated.

            The NYT also says

            While it is possible that the annual costs of the Denver deal will come down in the future, they are now roughly in line with what the school system would have paid in a fixed-rate transaction.

            You say that DPS “lost $25 million.”

            The NYT says DPS paid “$25million more than anticipated.:” NYT does not say DPS lost $25mm – that was your lie.

            See, they forecast they would pay 90. They paid 115. But the alternative financing would have cost 135.  They didn’t “lose 25” they saved 20.  (And in the audit that’s got C. Scott all worked up, the auditors had to reference what was paid compared to what was forecast  – not any alternative financing that was not originated. It’s an audit rule.)

            As for the termination fee – yes, if DPS terminates they would pay the termination fee.  You said DPS ” will have to pay,” the NYT said “would have to pay.”  The NYT correctly indicates payment is conditional. You indicate it is mandatory.

            Wade you suck at this.

            You are careless with facts.

            You dodge and weave and spin like a freakin top.

            After tomorrow you may be hoping for some respite – but don’t count on it.  If you continue to lie and spin, I’ll call you on it.

    2. MADCO boldly asserts:

      “But the bigger point is that the forecast on the simpler fixed rate transaction that was the alternative was to have spent $135million by the same time, i.e, $20million more than was actually spent.

      Where are you getting your numbers.  According the the NYT article, the current cost of the fancy financing is approximately the same as fixed-rate financing would have been.

      Had Denver issued a standard, fixed-rate bond in 2008, it would not be facing termination fees now. While it is possible that the annual costs of the Denver deal will come down in the future, they are now roughly in line with what the school system would have paid in a fixed-rate transaction.

      None of this addresses the future – 30 years of future.  Even Boasbery is talking about getting out of the deal:

      To some issuers, termination fees feel easier to swallow if they pay for it by issuing yet another round of debt, like a consumer using one credit card to pay the penalty charges on another. But even though no upfront cash is paid out, yet another layer of debt is incurred, adding to the cost of getting out of the deals.

      Denver is considering paying its termination fees in this fashion, Mr. Boasberg said. It was unclear what the interest rate would be on the new debt, but he maintained that the school system would unwind the transactions only if it were economical and the interest rate on the debt were low enough to offset the termination fees.

      I don’t want to hurt your feeling but I must say that I have more confidence in a prize winning NYT journalist who put her name on her work, than someone with no apparent credentials who hides behind a screen name.

      1. As for the rest of the NYT piece- Morgensen did a good job.

        I’m curious whether a simpler fixed rate debt issue would have also had significant termination fees.  I’m sure someone in  muni finance could address whether that would be typical.  Morgensen did not address it – by leaving it out the implication is that the term fees are 81 compared to 0.  I think that’s unlikely- but I don’t know.

        Thanks jadodd

        I’ve been called all kinds of names and most didn”t hurt my feeling. Your gentle and reasoned skepticism does not hurt. In fact it feels like a compliment.

        1. I believe that termination fees were addressed.  The standard financing does not have a termination fee.  In fact, local governments often replace existing certificates when the interest rates go down without paying any termination fees.

          Like a homeowner, Denver essentially started out with the equivalent of a standard, fixed-rate mortgage that allowed it to refinance if interest rates fell. But the 2008 deal gave that up for the equivalent of a 30-year loan with a lower rate but significant penalties and costs if investor interest in the debt declined, as it did once the credit crisis kicked in.

          By the way, you say that DPS saved $20 million.  Did thay actually save the money or only defer the cost.  It appears that the current fancy financing is “interest only.”  DPS will not make any payments on the principal ($750 million – since they rolled an existing $350 million into the deal) for ten years.  Knowing the Banksters, I a sure they will get their money.  You can pay me now or you can pay me later.

          This is the problem when you bring private sector financiers into the public sector.  They get even more risky in their behavior because they are not dealing with their own money.

          Based on the hard evidence I have seen to date, this was a serious mistake and reflects poorly upon Mr. Bennet’s judgment.

          1. Saved.

            Forecast pre financing for expense through 1Q 2010

            – simple fixed rate $135mm

            – swap as done $90 mm

            Actual expense $115mm, 25mm more than forecast, 20mm less than the alternative. “saved”

            And DPS could pay the principal any time they want -except they don’t want to.

            Which leads to the bigger question of why DPS has so much debt to begin with.  Had it before, have it now.

            1. Again, where are you getting your numbers.  I have not seen them published anywhere.  Since the simple fixed rate includes payment on principle, the cost of the financing would appear to be even lower than the fancy financing where DPS is paying interest only.  Moreover, since interest rates have dropped, DPS could have replaced the initial certificates with ones with lower interest rates.  This would have saved them more now or in the future.

              Furthermore, I am afraid that you are trying to dice this up in pieces.  Any financing arrangement can look good for one year.  The question is what will it cost over its lifetime.

              If I may digress, this reminds me of the time my son was buying a house.  He came to me trying to explain the fancy financing arrangement that the mortgage broker has laid out to him.  He couldn’t.  I told him if you can’t explain it don’t do it.

              So, he asked me (an attorney by the way) to go with him to talk to the mortgage broker.  It turned out that the broker was offering a variable rate (2.8% starting rate) interest only loan (first 3 years).  Like you, she talked about how much my son would save – in monthly payments the first 3 years.  I then insisted (she was reluctant to do it) that she calculate the total cost of the during its 30 life.  The fancy loan that was going to “save” my son money actually cost $147,000 more than the 30 fixed rate mortgage with the higher initial monthly payments.

              My financial conservatism saved my son thousands of dollars and perhaps his home.

              Again, thinking in the long term do you think DPS has “saved” money or just “deferred” the cost to a later date?

            2. The reason I ask where you get your numbers is I have heard something different.  According to Mr. Boasberg (While I a forced to cite him, I do not give him much credibility.), the $135 million figure is not the cost of the simple fixed rate instruments, but the cost of the pension to DPS if it had not merged with PERA.  Until this is cleared up, I will rely on the NYT article which said the cost of a simple fixed rate instrument and the fancy financing turned out to the the same.  No savings to date from the fancy, risky deal.

              1. DPS – I did a CORA request once upon a time.  You could too, as could the other’s who have been complaining about it here.  Others who have been complaining don’t even need a CORA request- A.Merida J. Kaplan.

                A simpler fixed rate could have included principal, or could have been interest only. And municipal financing often comes with yield maintenance or termination fees, even when it’s fixed rate.

                I’m not the one trying to dice this up in pieces and say this year or that year was good or bad.   That’s the exact strategy of Christopher Scott and Geurrin Green and others who want to complain about the structure.

                You have no idea what your son saved or would have spent over the 30 years because the variable rate mortgage loan only had a fixed rate for the first 36 months.

                The broker should have been happy to discuss the structure of the loan- and federal law (and state in most states including CO) requires it.

                But at month 37 what would the rate have adjusted to?   Month 74? Month 348?  You don’t know – and neither does the broker.  So she is required to do a “worst case” calculation and show the highest possible payment and the soonest it could adjust to the rate.  But, as you point out, rates have gone down.  So most variable rate mortgage loans originated in the past few years that have adjusted, adjusted down.

                Further, to  really attempt an analysis would require way more details (which I am not asking for) like what fixed rate was offered?  Was the difference in payment affordable for him? What were his plans for the loan? What if he took the lower rate and made the higher payment with the plan to refi into a a fixed rate with 5 years?   And so on.

                Your analysis may have been exactly the right thing for him.

                But the point is, you can’t tell what really would have happened, so you   make the most logical comparison available – the worst case of the variable rate and the fixed rate available at that time.

                For DPS that comaprison is hinted at in the NYT article

                The Denver certificates contained debt issues that had variable rates and were to be resold to investors in weekly auctions; the arrangement carried an annual interest rate of around 5 percent, not counting fees and costs associated with that type of debt. Fixed-rate debt would have cost 7.2 percent.

                …a deal that JPMorgan said would have an interest rate of around 5 percent spiked to 8.59 percent during its first fiscal year, and has since settled down to an average rate of 7.12 percent today.


                While it is possible that the annual costs of the Denver deal will come down in the future, they are now roughly in line with what the school system would have paid in a fixed-rate transaction.

                And here we get to a point of near agreement-

                cost of a simpler fixed rate issue and the actual transaction  have turned out so far to be similar .  Morgensen says “roughly in line”, you wrote  “they turned out the same.”   I’d be ok with that assessment if that’s where the critics stopped- but they go one further step and get it wrong.

                Also from the NYT

                Since it struck the deal, the school system has paid $115 million in interest and other fees, at least $25 million more than it originally anticipated.

                So- DPS forecast expenses for some period at $90 million. Actual expenses were $115. The annual audit has to show this a $25 million hit – but it’s not an actual “loss”: just because the actual expense was more than the forecast.  Meanwhile, the actual expense is still lower than what it would have been if they had done the fixed rate,

                if DPS had  funded the PERA obligation in the alternative and done a simpler fixed rate issue at 7.2%.  

                The NYT says “roughly in line”, you want to say the same.  DPS forecasts from the time of the issue (and some coverage from the paper that shall not be named) indicate it would have been more like $135million over the same period for the fixed rate- which is why Mr Boasberg describes the actual deal as a $20million savings to date. It’s also why Dave Milstead in Ed News back in April said there is more than one way to look at it and still be correct, including DPS “saving”.

                Meanwhile, we at least agree on one thing: the way the NYT report is written, DPS has no done no worse than break even so far.

                1. As I wrote in my post below, there have been no savings.  But this begs the question.  Both Bennet and Boasberg are not telling the truth when they say that this risky investment “saved $20 million.”  This impacts their credibility and their judgment.

                  Do you think the DPS Board would have gone along with this thing if they knew that there was a substantial risk (foreseen by most economists by April of 2008) that there would be no savings whatsoever and huge termination penalties.

                  Furthermore, when interest rates in the bond market dropped in 2009, DPS could have exchanged the 7.2% instruments for 3.5% instruments without a termination penalty.  This is where the savings could really have been made.

      2. I have finally figured out how Bennet and Boasberg come up with their $20 million figure.  It is a nifty trick.

        You need to go to http://thebennetway.com/files/… to get the data.  This is a spreadsheet prepared by Boasberg for the DPS Board.

        They compare the actual costs of the fancy financing to a hyothetical fixed rate insturment bearing an 8.5% interest rate.  However, this has nothing to do with reality.  According to the NYT, DPS could have gotten a fix rate instrument for 7.2% – a full 1.3% less that the hypothetical interest rate used by Boasberg to calculate the “savings.”  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08… gV9s716QTHR0B1nT/g

        The Denver certificates contained debt issues that had variable rates and were to be resold to investors in weekly auctions; the arrangement carried an annual interest rate of around 5 percent, not counting fees and costs associated with that type of debt. Fixed-rate debt would have cost 7.2 percent.

        My rough calculations indicate that if Boasberg had used the actual 7.2% interest rate, it would show that to date the fancy financing deal’s cost from April 2008 through June 2010 is nearly the same as the interest costs on a fixed rate instrument.

        So, based upon Mr. Boasberg’s own document, when you eliminate the fiction, there has been no savings whatsoever.

  2. I’m hearing that he doesn’t even live in Denver. I didn’t have time to verify today.

    I’ll call clear channel soon. It seems odd tha a man living in California has a “local” raio show

  3. Bennetistas would prefer to see this story wholly in terms of the primary. But it’s not going away. Certainly it will still be here if B is in the general. It certainly will continue to be here in the context of DPS board infighting.

    Some Bennetistas would have it that with interest rates as they are today, the deal was a wash–so far. But 30 years is a long time, and the $81 premature evacuation fees will still be out there if/when rates rise (unimaginable as that may be to some).

    The Rolling Stone take is highly enlightening for those interested in understanding what went/is going on. “Wall Street’s Big Win” is not just about DPS/Bennet, but about a pattern of financial deals cut with local entities. http://www.rollingstone.com/po

    1. I want DPS voters to care about and understand the finances of our district.  

      I want the Board members who don’t understand finance to acknowledge it and defer to those who do.

      I want the legislators and anyone else who wants to audit and investigate to do so with auditors and accountants – and scream about the findings from the capitol steps.

      The DPS deal is only going to get better for DPS if (when)  market rates rise – but I am not going to even start trying to explain that to you here. (Ask Christopher Scott. Or in about 6 to 8 months Rep Farrandino.)

      I liked Rolling Stone when Anie Leibovitz was doing the covers. And when they had naked Jennifer Anniston.  

  4. I continue to be impressed by the performance of the candidate shills on the DPS board.  I can see that the children of Denver have a great future ahead of them with such public minded people as Kaplan, Merida, and Pena (sorry, still not sure how to make an “enyay” on this computer) “serving the public interest” on the Board.

    While all politicians are narcissists (I don’t think anyone else would bother running), Sen. Mikey and wannabe Andy certainly have taken the cake with their scorched-earth campaigns.  I admire them, frankly.  It’s not often you see such tactics executed with such skill and… sorry, threw up in my mouth there.  Now I forgot what I was saying.

    Good job, Democrats.  Good job.  As of this week, I’m an unaffiliated voter after over 20 years of continuous Dem registration.

        1. Alt + 164 = Г±

          There’s a whole bunch of them and Windows 7 let’s me put a sticky note on my desktop with all my shortcuts on it. Genius.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

45 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!