September 26, 2012 03:07 AM UTC

No on 3B Campaign Very Angry About Lots of Things

• 0 Comments
• by: Colorado Pols

We received a rather odd press release today from Earleen Brown, ostensibly the spokesperson for the No on 3B campaign organized in opposition to the Denver Public Schools proposed bond and tax override measures. In it, Brown, a known education gadfly associated with anti-reform group DeFENSE Denver, complains about the “ways in which opposition to the 466 million dollar bond has been stifled.” Brown’s objections aren’t necessarily without merit, but they’re presented in such a way that frames the No on 3B group as, well, a little amateurish.

From Brown:

1 – As of today, September 25, 2012, the only way to clarify which initiative is associated with the mill levy and which initiative is associated with the bond is through a direct phone call to the Denver Elections Division, or by visiting the No on 3B Denver website.  The distinction is not published on the Denver Elections Division website, on the Denver Public Schools website, or on the Yes on 3A/3B website.  The lack of access to information makes it nearly impossible for voters to properly educate themselves about the separate initiatives.

2 – A call to the Denver Public Schools communication office, to clarify the initiatives, was met with a suggestion to visit the Yes on 3A/3B website – once again, that website makes no distinction between the two initiatives. DPS, as a publically-funded entity, should not be directing voters to a CAMPAIGN website rather than providing that information, itself, or referring voters to the Denver Elections Division.

3 – After the ballot language for 3A and 3B was submitted to the Denver Elections Division for final approval, attorneys for Denver Public Schools called the Elections Division to reverse the order of the initiatives on the ballot – this was verified by the Elections Division.

4 – The last minute shuffling of the initiatives, and withholding of documentation clarifying which initiative is associated with the mill levy and which is associated with the bond delayed the formation of our group which is opposing the bond.

5 – Upon confirmation that the bond initiative is 3B, an issue committee was formed and the registered agent reached out to the League of Women Voters to take part in the forum last night.  Our request to participate was denied for the stated reason that our issue committee was not formed in time.

6 – The opponent, who was selected by the League of Women Voters to present the “con” position, is from Lakewood and has a relationship to Denver only as a renter. She publicly stated, during the debate, that she assumed she was being asked to speak about Jefferson County’s 3A and 3B initiatives. Being as it was, no legitimate oppositional voice was made or heard during the debate last night.

Our position is NOT about whether or not we agree with a tax increase, it is NOT about whether or not we believe that taxpayers should provide money for education, it IS about the voters of Denver having a clear understanding of the issues on the ballot, and having the opportunity to hear both sides of the debate.

This release leaves out a ton of details, but here’s what we were able to piece together:

1) Last night, the League of Women Voters hosted a forum on 2012 ballot initiatives.

2) The No on 3B campaign was unable to participate in that forum because their issue committee was formed too late to meet the LWV’s deadline.

3) The No on 3B committee would’ve been formed earlier had DPS not reversed the order of initiatives on the ballot.

4) DPS is actively campaigning for 3A and 3B.

5) The woman selected to enunciate the opposition argument at last night’s forum was pretty confused about what was going on.

6) The No on 3B campaign is very, very mad.

Brown and her group are on safe ground with most of their grievances. DPS probably shouldn’t be directing inquiries about the bond and mill measures to a campaign website, though there’s no question that the district supports the effort to pour more money into their coffers. Similarly, the League of Women voters should’ve allowed representatives from the Denver opposition campaign to speak at a nonpartisan forum instead of assigning their spot to a woman who clearly showed up to the wrong event.

At issue, then, is the fact that this is the first interaction the No on 3B camp has had with the media. This “press release” was sent to nearly every political journalist in the greater Denver area. If the opposition group had instead sent out a standard release with information about their effort and a few quotes from sympathetic community leaders, they probably would’ve gotten some attention in the local market. At the very least, they would’ve set the stage for future coverage.

Instead, 50 Denver reporters received a strange and verbose e-mail filled with complaints from a campaign effort they’ve never heard of. That makes the 3B opponents seem like amateurs at best and an irate and ill-organized group of pseudo-activists at worst.

Neither outcome is desirable, and both could’ve been avoided had Earleen thought a little more deeply about how she wanted to introduce her effort to the press.