President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
50%
50%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 04, 2011 03:14 AM UTC
32 Comments
Loading ...
no matter what you think of Defense Denver or me or anyone else, you can’t deny that the current Denver Public School Board 4-3 majority has been blocking the audit request by the minority members since the fall of 2008.
The investment of DPS into a derivative swap was a question also raised by Rep. Mark Ferrandino of Joint Budget Committee as a ‘risky investment’ that needed accounting oversight.
There are many reasons to question the motives of DD or the minority members or even me, but one thing must be answered first, why the nearly 3 year resistance to a simple accounting audit of what the former and current superintendents invested the DPS budget into with JP Morgan in the Spring of 2008.
It’s not political, its math.
but since when isn’t the majority allowed to exercise its perogative on occasion? (This isn’t the GD Senate after all.)
And, is it the majority or minority of folks on this site that would like an answer to the question of the motives of DD (and why do you get to decide what “must be answered first”)?
I guess it’s not math, it’s political . . ..
true, the electorate gets what they vote for, and in this case the majority has used its power to block investigation of swap.
How long has this gone on?
That would be on every occasion since the spring of 2008, continuing through 2009 and then, to add insult to injury, accusing those minority members who did ask questions of being solely politically motivated on behalf of Bennet’s primary opponent, and continuing on through after Bennet’s successful re-election in 2010 and until now in 2011.
Preventing the release of information for 3 years – with different reasons for not answering the question will only boost demands for more information and disclosure.
I am not saying it is not within the right of the majority, but it is plausible that some here and in the public at large would start to ask questions and demand answers.
Thus the resulting grassroots group we have now.
I get it now.
This is score-settling isn’t it?
Pissing away School District money to hold a recall to settle a political score. Score settling matters more than kids? Good message.
one might say it’s indirectly about Bennet somewhat, in that Easley’s gross misfeasance in office stems partially from his duplicitous attempt to cover the butts of his cronies/bosses who are responsible for gambling away large sums of public money, and those cronies happen to include Michael Bennet. So yeah, good point there, Ralphie.
Not a good one, but rare. I agree with you but somehow think it’s more important to poke a virtual stick in your eye. Calling yourself ass is the most honest thing you’ve done here.
I agree that Boasberg needs to release his records, and should have months ago. I’ve complained about it quite a bit. Here, in public forums, even at the DeFENSE meeting I went to. But until you see those numbers you can’t make an assumption like that. You can say “might”, but saying it outright is really close to defamation.
This is why reporting and accountability are so important. How ironic.
with the constituents who are seeking to replace Easley with a public servant who upholds those principles you just extolled.
by using the blunt tool of a recall when the election process is the correct remedy.
Recalls aren’t trials.
I also have a problem with replacing Bush Sr. with Bush Jr. Whatever issues Easley has, DeFENSE and its hidden supporters are worse. And not as bright.
Certainly nothing like you brathlessly characterize gambling away large sums of public money.
I’m not going to look it up now, but once upon a time in primary season when other foolish a-hole-men were tryin to make hay out of a NYT article, I quoted the article saying the DPS had spent approx 80,000 less than they would have if they had not done the swap.
All the hoo ha was stoopid.
It was like the homeowner who claimed he got killed on his mortgage when he refinanced because he paid off $150,000 original mortgage with a $200,000 new loan… using the $50k to pay off all his student loans. Lower rate, higher balance and typical transaction expense.
DPS paid less then they would have if they had done a more traditional (simpler to understand) loan.
we still don’t know.
If that’s changed, please correct me. His summary and his assurances are not the same as the hard data.
I’m not suggesting he’s lying, merely suggesting that when the numbers were requested, he should have released them.
Accountability works all ways.
Unless they did what I have always said anyone could do – reverse engineer the deal back to when was closed, establish the market rates for the more typical transaction, and compare the two.
Not that I really care what the NYT tells me. I only care that when a public servant is asked to hand over public documents, he does so.
I was bummed.
The actual debt transaction is a public record.
Part of it was to refinance an exisiting obligation. Part of it was new debt (to fund the pension so it could be merged with PERA).
The NYT article was very clear that the transaction, while complicated, and predicted to save better than it did, it resulted in DPS spending less than they would have “otherwise.” (approx $80k)
The only way to make that claim is to net out the new debt (which the largest critics never did) and compare the expense of the prior debt as if a) DPS did nothing or b) DPS did a more typical debt transaction.
Since DPS had to add debt and interest rates were down from the other debt, a) made no sense. So DPS got to choose between b) and the debt transaction they did- which resulted in less expense.
http://www.coloradopols.com/sh…
http://www.coloradopols.com/sh…
http://www.coloradopols.com/sh…
The district doesn’t pay for this. I think you missed when we told you before.
Should enough petitions be gathered, it will simply appear on the May ballot with all the council and mayor candidates.
There are no added expenditures to anyone’s budget except the recall committee, who of course has to file above a certain dollar amount.
also then applies to the process for selecting a replacement right?
Just like the district didn’t “pay” to select Easley.
Does the state legislature have to pay for anything to get a replacement appointed?
See the connection?
just like the students, aren’t the one’s that really count in the minds of this DaFenceIve crew.
I can see why they miss the connection.
It’s totally political, and it’s totally payback. Just stop.
Bennet never did anything as cheesy or shady as the DD folks are doing right now.
I think an audit is a good idea, but that request and all the other arguments are what you get on a closely divided board. That’s not a reason to have a recall.
like the ‘citizens united’ case makes sense to the rest of us who watch
a ‘closely divided’ court.
If my homies, the Republicans, couldn’t make anything stick to Bennet during a general Senatorial election, what makes you think that Merida and her merry band of militant faux populist clowns are going to come up with something that’s going to possibly negatively impact him?
Besides, I’d prefer that the DPS board concentrate on TEACHING SOME CHILDREN instead of carrying out a pointless vendetta or worrying about their union power base.
This recall and the cheesy cat-and-mouse surrounding it make me sick. Not because I think Nate Easley is teh awesome, but because everyone involved should be embarrassed by the fact that every day that goes by, another brown or black kid is shot out into the world with no education and no chance.
Also, it would be one thing if DPS was facing a disastrous budget forecast. They’re not, and I’m pretty sure they’re the only metro district adding classroom teachers:
http://www.denverpost.com/sear…
DeFense may dislike Boasberg/Bennet reform politics, but you can’t deny they’re both smart businessmen who’ve put the district on a more sound financial footing.
Education school graduate can certainly be in charge of designing our school’s curricular pedagogy. But when it comes to managing balance sheets, I want a savvy businessmen steering the ship (certainly not school board member who doesn’t understand bonds or derivative swaps).
DPS has internal auditors who review the District financials annually.
I think they have to have an outside audit every other year.
Either way, the Board of Education Finance and Audit Committee could call for, and pay for, a special audit anytime they choose.
The Mayor’s race approaches.
I’m pretty sure he actually praised the district for being on sound financial footing, thanks in part to the transaction (which you STILL seem to know nothing about). So you should probably stop mis-characterizing his position, liar.
Go back into your cave. No one missed you, or your shitty videos. You have no friends.
Let me guess . . .
1. DD
2. Wade
3. a dyslexic yeknod
. . . not necessarily in that order?
At least we know they don’t have sockpuppets. Or maybe they just can’t make them agree with themselves.
(Crap! If I just gave an idea, I am so sorry.)
n/t
it’s no recall.