"give" | Colorado Pols

Gun Control is not necessarily the answer

Posted on January 15, 2013January 19, 2013 by dwyer

There are four categories of violence in which guns are the weapon. Each category presents its own problems. Gun control is only a minor, in my opinion, solution. Hear me out. Here are the categories.

Massacre in public places by a shooter who gives every indication of being insane and whose victims are not personally known to the shooter

The problem here is identifying insanity before the violence occurs. The dilemma is that confidentiality is a critical component of any treatment and mental health professionals are reluctant to “out” a patient unless there is a clear indication of danger to himself or others, according to strict legal definition.

People with mental health problems may not seek help because of the fear of public disclosure with its implication for employment, etc. There are constitutional issues around the right to privacy and due process.

There is a subcategory of concern and that is the use of psychotropic drugs, that may have the opposite effect. The Colorado shooters – John Hickley, Eric Harris, the man who killed students at a Mission school in Arvada and then went to Colorado Spring church and killed two more, and Holmes – all were involved with the mental health system. I think that all may have been on medication.

The facial expressions on the pix of the Arizona shooter, the Aurora Theater shooter and the Newtown killer are all frighteningly similar. That needs to be investigated.

It is not clear how any of existing or proposed gun laws would have prevented these crimes. Nor is it clear that expanding mental health funding would have helped prevent any of these crimes or future crimes. The dilemma is that these are the crimes that is being used to justify more gun laws and more mental health.

Political violence by terrorists with a specific political target

Abortion murders and attacks on churches would fit into this category.

But, the most horrific crimes were not committed with guns but with bombs

And airplanes.

Gun laws, particularly if they included putting suspected terrorists on a Do Not Sale list, might be helpful. But constant vigilance is the real prevention.

Criminal Activity

Organized crime, gangs, drug cartels as well as property crimes do involve guns.

Stricter gun laws may be preventive. Certainly big city mayors think so. However, illegal gun traffic is a source of income to criminals.

Domestic violence perpetrated by one family member or friend on another family member or friend.

There are already laws preventing the sale of guns to individuals with a record of domestic violence. But early and effective intervention in domestic conflict is the real prevention.

Gun laws requiring universal background checks for all gun purchases might be helpful.

Suthers Has Gessler’s Back, Perfect Timing Edition

Posted on January 14, 2013January 21, 2013 by Colorado Pols

As the Colorado Independent’s John Tomasic reported Friday evening:

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers’ office this week made what’s sure to be a controversial decision to officially support Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s effort to establish a legal defense fund. The fund would host contributions from private donors willing to cover costs tied to a Denver District Attorney criminal investigation into reimbursements Gessler charged to his office for alleged unofficial expenses…

“In the Attorney General’s view,” Grove wrote, “the propriety of a legal defense fund is governed by conflict of interest principles… The Attorney General submits that an arrangement that: (1) places appropriate limits on the public official’s solicitation of contributions, and (2) either ensures transparency or establishes a blind trust would be consistent with [constitutional] concerns…”

Suthers and Gessler are both high-profile Republican figures in the state, and the letter, which Attorney General Spokesperson Carolyn Tyler told the Independent was approved by Suthers, is sure to fuel complaints about backscratching among top state Republican officials. It will also likely renew questions about the power of the state’s understaffed Ethics Commission, which is tasked with investigating official misconduct but hobbled by a tiny budget and no staff attorneys to turn to for advice on legal questions. Indeed, the Grove letter underlines the way the story of Gessler’s alleged misuse of a relative small amount of public money seems to grow into a larger story about government ethical standards and oversight each month as new chapters pile onto the narrative.

Basically, Attorney General John Suthers’ office argues that Secretary of State Scott Gessler would not violate Amendment 41, the Colorado law barring “private gain” by state employees that could in turn influence an official action, by setting up a legal defense fund. The AG’s office says that if appropriate safeguards restricting Gessler’s ability to solicit contributions are defined, and the arrangement “either ensures transparency or establishes a blind trust,” it would be permissible under Amendment 41. Read the very brief memo here.

The thing is, whether or not that opinion is correct, the role of the Attorney General’s office as both counsel for state employees and the Independent Ethics Commission investigating Gessler is turning into a conflict all by itself. Tomasic of the Independent continues:

Ethics Commission Director Jane Feldman believes the Commission’s consideration of the matter has been complicated by the Attorney General’s official position in support of the fund. She told the Independent that Grove’s letter raises conflict-of-interest concerns because the Attorney General is tasked by the state constitution with providing counsel to the Ethics Commission in its deliberations.

“It’s disappointing that the AG’s office weighed in on this without discussing it with us,” Feldman said. “Now we effectively lose the services of the attorney general’s office in considering the legality of the fund. If we need advice, we’ll have to hire outside counsel.”

…Ethics Watch Director Luis Toro told the Independent he thought the attorney general’s office had crossed a line in taking a position in favor of the Gessler defense fund and that the move bolsters an argument his organization has been making for years that the state’s Ethics Commission should have its own counsel on staff, independent from any of the government agencies or offices it might have to investigate.

“The AG’s office said it wouldn’t be involved in Gessler’s criminal defense, yet here it’s involved, isn’t it?” Toro said. “In fact the AG went out of its way, tripping over itself, to get involved. Whose hat is the AG wearing? Is it counsel for the Ethics Commission or for Scott Gessler? Now they’ve handicapped the Commission by leaving the members without its usual counsel.”

Given the obvious partisan political relationship between Republican Attorney General Suthers and Secretary of State Gessler, this situation reveals the folly of using the AG’s office as counsel for the ethics commission at all–since the AG’s role as counsel for state employees arguably makes the conflict the IEC is complaining about in this case inevitable.

Says Colorado Ethics Watch, this problem would be best solved by properly funding the IEC, which would allow it to retain its own legal counsel. For that to happen, of course, lawmakers in Colorado would need to start treating the IEC, and for that matter Amendment 41 as a whole, as something more than a bastard stepchild they would really prefer just go away.

As it stands now, our GOP Attorney General has demonstrated a clever way to subvert it.

Mesa Valley District 51 had a SURPLUS in 2010-2011 of $2.124 Million!

Posted on January 12, 2013January 21, 2013 by oncart

Contrary to popular news flashes and propaganda released by the Mesa Valley School District 51 and their Union TABOR buster handouts, they actually show a Surplus in the recent 2010-2011 Colorado Department of Education (CDE) Total Expenditures and Revenues. This is after the hotly contested Mill Levy Override requested last year by the District Administration for 3B in which Mesa County homeowners and businesses rejected! The businesses and homeowners were asked to give up a Starbucks coffee and a movie in return for an increased property TAX and the District pleaded that if the Levy override wasn’t passed schools would close immediately. To date NO Mesa Valley Schools have been closed and at the January 8th, 2013 school board business round table discussion it was mentioned by a Board member that the District had extra funds available this year as well.

BUT what is interesting as you dig into the PAST you discover A SPENDING Problem during some of our best financial years!!! Also notice the per pupil funding as it differs often from the low $6,100 you always hear.

Here are the 2010-2011 Totals based on 21,025.2

Total Revenues (Incoming Taxes) $212,037,042.00 or $10,085 per pupil

Total Expenditures (Outgoing Cost) $209,912,512.00 or $9984 per pupil

Surplus (What’s left over after all Cost) $2,124,530.00 or $101 per pupil

Just to completely verify the above numbers as accurate, VetTheGov contacted CDE finance office staff via email. Here is the Exchange:

Hello Theresa,

Questions on Total Revenues vs Expenditures at the District Level.

Do the totals in Table IIB rows J & K for 2010-2011 represent every dime from that District??? Is there any other Expenditures or Revenues not shown here and if not where else would they be???

Do reimbursements for transportation or special needs appear in these calculations???

Mr./Mrs. _____,

It reflects all reported expenditures reported by the districts. If you asking about state categorical funding for transportation and special education? If so, yes the revenue and associated expenditures are reported.

Theresa Christensen | Sr. Consultant Public School Finance | Colorado Department of Education

Since we have been hearing about the dire straight budget constraints over the past few years of recession lets look back a couple of budget cycles.

Here are the 2009-2010 Totals based on 20,996.2 pupils

Total Revenues (Incoming Taxes) $202,371,247.00 or $9638 per pupil

Total Expenditures (Outgoing Cost) $201,300,376.00 or $9587 per pupil

Surplus (What’s left over after all Cost) $1,070,871.00 or $51 per pupil

Here are the 2008-2009 Totals based on 21,041.8 pupils

Total Revenues (Incoming Taxes) $195,144,726.00 or $9274 per pupil

Total Expenditures (Outgoing Cost) $199,263,059.00 or $9470 per pupil

Deficit (Overspent Revenues) $-4,118,333.00 or $-196 per pupil

Here are the 2007-2008 Totals based on 20,241 pupils

Total Revenues (Incoming Taxes) $188,562,683.00 or $9316 per pupil

Total Expenditures (Outgoing Cost) $194,187,598.00 or $9594 per pupil

Deficit (Overspent Revenues) $-5,624,915.00 or $-278 per pupil

Here are the 2006-2007 Totals based on 20,206 pupils

Total Revenues (Incoming Taxes) $179,871,623.00 or $8902 per pupil

Total Expenditures (Outgoing Cost) $194,976,795.00 or $9649 per pupil

Deficit (Overspent Revenues) $-15,105,142.00 or $-747 per pupil

Interesting to Note that in 2010-2011 the CDE administration’s budget was $38.5 Million for 110 Full Time Equivalents (FTE) and has been raised during this recession to just over $80 Million for 150 FTE’s! So CDE how can you justify 40 new administrators during a recession for twice the previous allocations??? Taxpayers these are the questions you need to ask your elected officials, otherwise the Smoke & mirrors campaign pushes forward!

After following the PAST money trail it appears during the Boom cycles Mesa Valley District 51 Overspent by a large amount and after being over $24 Million in the RED they finally have their hands around how to budget! Kudos to the current administration especially Melissa Devita for stopping the bleeding but it leaves many questions as to why the HUGE deficits when times were best and now when times are poor you are actually in Surplus. Mesa County residents these are the questions to begin asking the school board and school administration! Where have the TARP monies been spent??? Why are you not discussing all Revenues when discussing the budget only State and local funds??? Why do you state that Federal funds are directed to be spent in certain areas when you know that is an untrue statement??? Why did you overspend back in the BOOM cycle??? How much monies from Referendum C did you receive??? Why the ATTACK on TABOR???

Here is the Districts Smoke & Mirror campaign of trying to cover up the past OVERSPENDING issues when State Tax Revenue times were at their pinnacle!!! Enjoy the Video!

Weekend Open Thread

Posted on January 12, 2013January 18, 2013 by Colorado Pols

“Much is forgiven anyone who relieves the desperate boredom of the working press.”

–William Weld

Stokols praises Gardner but fails to point out his extreme positions on women & immigration issues

Posted on January 11, 2013January 18, 2013 by Jason Salzman

In his 5280 Magazine article Jan. 3, taking on the difficult topic of “What’s Wrong with Colorado Republicans?” Fox 31 political reporter Eli Stokols writes:

Stokols: “What the GOP needs to realize is that the immigration issue offers Republicans themselves a sort of political amnesty, a chance to forge a solution that legitimately and thoroughly addresses questions of border security and citizenship without alienating Hispanics.”

And who’s his example of a Colorado Republican who’s leading the charge? Rep. Cory Gardner.

Stokols: “Only clear-headed Republicans such as Gardner are beginning to internalize this new reality.”

Stokols, who’s widely regarded as the leading political journalist on TV in Denver, quotes Gardner:

Gardner: “Republicans have always talked about having a big tent, but it doesn’t do any good if the tent doesn’t have any chairs in it. Bringing Latinos to the forefront, bringing women in is absolutely critical.”

That sounds good, but it’s hard to find anything about Gardner’s record that supports what he told Stokols, and you have to wonder why Stokols failed to point this out.

To reduce spending, Gardner suggests possible elimination of federal Energy Department

Posted on January 10, 2013January 19, 2013 by Jason Salzman

Everyone remembers Gov. Rick Perry’s magnificent “Oops moment,” during the Republican presidential primary, when he suggested cutting three, count ’em, three federal agencies: the 1) Education Department, 2) Commerce Department, and 3) ???????????????.

Who remembers the last one?

It was the Energy Department!

It looks like Rep. Cory Gardner would have been able to get the words “Energy Department” out of his mouth if he’d been in Rick Perry’s shoes, because our Congressman from the 4th Congressional District has the Energy Department on his own list for possible elimination.

On KFKA radio’s Amy Oliver Show Tuesday, Gardner suggested that the federal Energy Department is “something we ought to look at and see whether or not they are actually justified to be there anyway.”

OLIVER: Give me your thoughts on – and I’m sure you’ve heard-you served with him when you were in Legislature and he was the governor of the state of Colorado, the idea that Governor Bill Ritter is on the short list for Energy Secretary.

GARDNER: [chuckles] Governor Ritter is a nice guy. And I’m sure, you know, he is somebody you’d love to have a beer with. I was never invited, I don’t think, [laughing] to have a beer with him, but if you were I’m sure he’d be a nice guy to have a beer with! But I don’t think he’s the right person for the Secretary of Energy. In fact, Energy Department is something we ought to look at and see whether or not they are actually justified to be there anyway. So, let’s have a conversation about what we can do to consolidate and eliminate some of these spending programs, especially programs that aren’t working because of Solyndras and other wasted program spending. And I don’t think Bill Ritter is the right one to lead that conversation.

Full transcript and audio here.

The AARP Failed Colorado PERA Retirees in 2010 . . .

Posted on January 9, 2013 by PolDancer

. . . this past policy mistake should be corrected.

Dear AARP, thank you for the response with your position on this contentious issue. I understand that you are under no obligation to explain your position to me or to other Colorado retirees, so I appreciate the effort.

For the reader, I provide the AARP position on the Colorado General Assembly’s 2010 pension reform legislation (public pension contract breach) here:

“The AARP state office, with input from our volunteer leadership, reached the decision to monitor SB10-001. SB 1 (sponsored by senators Brandon Schaffer and Josh Penry and Representative Andy Kerr) changed the amounts to be contributed by both employers and employees, placed a cap on cost of living adjustments for retirees, modified benefit calculations and eligibility, and created new contributions and guidelines for working retirees. This decision was made after much careful deliberation and discussion with our volunteers – some of whom are PERA members – about the issue and our position. Our AARP volunteers in particular spoke of the shared sacrifice necessary to ensure the long-term solvency of the system. AARP was contacted by members who strongly encouraged us to publicly support this legislation. Some senior organizations, such as the Colorado Senior Lobby, did choose to support the legislation. Other groups, while not fully satisfied with all of the changes, supported the overall reform effort to ensure the financial health of the system. One need only to look at the bipartisan list of co-sponsors and the bipartisan votes for passage in both houses of our legislature to understand that while the issue is complicated many thoughtful people did agree to support SB10-001.

Clearly the PERA issue has been contentious precisely because there is no perfect solution. The AARP advocacy team monitors the solvency of the PERA Retirement Fund. In the 2012 legislative session, AARP actively opposed several of the bills that attacked the PERA and we plan to do the same this year.”

http://states.aarp.org/categor…

My response:

In my opinion, the term “shared sacrifice” was improperly employed in the debate over SB 10-001. This term is being used by groups that are supporting the breach of public pension contracts in a number of other states. Public pension rights are contractual rights; therefore, a decision by one person (or even a majority of interested persons) to relinquish their contractual rights, i.e., “share in the sacrifice,” cannot provide a basis for breaching the public pension contracts of all other members of a public pension. It is not possible for me as an individual to relinquish the contractual rights of another person. Further, the fact that legislation may have “bi-partisan” support lends nothing to its constitutionality. The constitutionality of legislative enactments does not rest on the popularity of the legislation.

The taking of earned, contracted deferred compensation from retirees in SB 10-001 was patently immoral. Apart from the question of the constitutionality of SB 10-001, recognition of its immorality should have given pause to AARP officials and volunteers. When SB 10-001 is struck down by Colorado courts it will be clear that, in 2010, the AARP was on the wrong side of history in our state. However, there is nothing to prevent the AARP from correcting this past policy error.

The long-term solvency of public pension systems is secured through the proper funding of those pension systems, not through the breach of the pension system’s contractual obligations. I’m sure you are aware that the Colorado General Assembly has skipped $4.3 billion in annual required contributions (determined by Colorado PERA’s actuaries) in just the last decade. These skipped payments to the pension system represent Colorado state debt. SB 10-001 attempts to shift this state debt (an obligation of all Colorado taxpayers) onto the backs of a relative few Colorado PERA retirees. Thus, the bill was both immoral and unconstitutional. The “perfect solution” that you mention is obvious . . . the perfect solution is for the State of Colorado and all other PERA-affiliated employers to meet their contractual PERA pension obligations. In fact, ultimately this will be the only choice available under the Contract Clause.

Colorado is the 15th wealthiest state in the nation. We have the lowest state tax burden per capita in the nation. We have pumped $500 million into local government pension obligations that are not the state’s responsibility, while underfunding the state’s contractual PERA pension obligations. The Colorado General Assembly has intentionally slashed its available revenues in the last 15 years. Just yesterday, Senator Morse suggested further cuts to Colorado’s state revenue stream. It is truly tone-deaf that he makes such a proposal while the State of Colorado is in breach of contract. In 2010, the General Assembly’s PERA pension contract breach was a policy choice . . . the General Assembly’s actions in the last 20 years reveal that the contract breach was unnecessary. This policy choice was simply politically convenient. The retirees were weak and unorganized . . . an easy target.

The Colorado PERA public pension debate in 2010 provided an opportunity for the AARP to demonstrate its value to retirees in the United States, and to stand up for the many Colorado PERA retirees who are unable to defend their own contractual rights. (It’s true, for a number of reasons many of these retirees are unable to defend their rights.) This 2010 PERA debate was a missed opportunity for AARP officials to make it clear that you are champions of retiree interests. It breaks my heart that this opportunity was missed, but there is no reason that the AARP cannot step forward and fight for public retiree contractual rights in other states . . . the battle continues.

New video series takes look at drilling impacts on Colo. residents, businesses

Posted on January 8, 2013January 18, 2013 by checks-and-balances

POLS NOTE: Here is the link for those who can’t see the embedded player.

—–

A new video series takes a look at the impacts of drilling on Colorado residents and business owners. According to the Center for Western Priorities release – the group that’s releasing the minidocumentaries:

“Colorado communities struggling to balance their quality of life and local economies with industrial drilling and fracking operations are the focus of a new mini-documentary series by the Center for Western Priorities (CWP).”

New GOP CO Senator Comes Out in Favor of State Dream Act, Path to Citizenship

Posted on January 8, 2013January 18, 2013 by Jason Salzman

The headline of a Dec. 6 Pueblo Chieftain article, titled “Senator-Elect Has New Idea on Pinon Canyon,” should have actually been, “New Lawmaker To Be First GOP Senator to Support State Version of Dream Act.”

The Pueblo Chieftain’s Peter Strescino began his Dec. 6 story with freshman state Sen. Larry Crowder’s idea, which isn’t so new, for the state to purchase property at Pinon Canyon from the Army.

But the real news, given Republican obstinence to lowering tuition for undocumented college students, was Crowder’s promise not only to buck his fellow Republican Senators’ position on lowering tuition rates, but also his advocacy of a path to citizenship for undocumented students:

The Chieftain reported:

Crowder also advocated a version of the so-called Dream Act, which would allow lower college tuition rates to children who were brought to the country illegally, have been in Colorado schools systems a number of years and are college eligible academically. вЂЁвЂЁ”If they agree to choose and participate in a path to naturalization, I say, help them with the tuition.”

A path to naturalization! Plus lower tuition! In that order. Jackpot!

“A path to naturalization.” I wrote it again to help you appreciate that it’s not a phrase that flows from the mouth of a Republican very often, and hence the news value of Crowder uttering it.

You hear murmurs of support from GOP state lawmakers for lowering tuition rates, proposed as part of ASSET legislation last year, but when was the last time you heard a Republican at the State Capitol stand up for giving any current undocumented immigrants, even children, the same citizenship opportunities our country gave Italian immigrants, for example, who came to America illegally in the past.

Reporters should find out if Crowder plans to work with President Obama, who supports a path to citizenship, and if Crowder will get on the horn to his fellow Colorado Republicans in the House of Representatives, because they’re the ones who will be working on legislation that deals with the citizenship issue, since that’s obviously decided at the federal level.

And none of them supports any path to citizenship for the country’s 11 million illegal immigrants.

Sen. Brophy Makes Lemonade – Plans Odd Bills

Posted on January 8, 2013January 18, 2013 by IndyNinja

Sen. Greg Brophy has been in the Senate minority for a while, but now that Colorado’s lower chamber is back in the hands of the Democrats, he won’t be seeing the kind of GOP issues come across his desk this year that he did last year.

But instead of holding his breath til he turns blue or sponsoring some far-right legislation for Democratic target practice, he is making the most of his time in the minority by sponsoring legislation that is sure to keep him in the headlines throughout the session, and just might pass to boot.

While Sen. Brophy hasn’t announced all of his bills yet, the first three he has been talking about are all a lot of fun to debate.

Automated Cars

In several states, legislatures have passed rules concerning “driverless cars” as a response to Google’s ongoing project to develop and market the software that powers them. Brophy says his legislation is modeled after these other states and will provide restricted allowance for automated vehicles.

Teens in Bars

This bill is similar to laws in Texas and elsewhere that allows parents to give permission for their children to consume alcohol in an establishment that normally serves alcohol, such as bars or restaurants. In Colorado, it is already legal for a person of just about any age to consume alcohol so long as they are in the presence of their parents, have their permission, and they are on private property. This bill would extend that provision for people 18 years old and up to drink at the bars as well… with mom.

Daylight Savings

The biennial fight over the existence and practice of daylight savings time. This time around, Brophy plans to draft the bill as a referred measure and leave the matter to the voters. As usual, the breakdown will be whether MST or MDT is the new standard.

Hickenlooper, Colorado House Announce High-Tech Grant Legislation

Posted on January 7, 2013January 18, 2013 by Colorado Pols

More focus on economic development announced today from the incoming Democratic-controlled Colorado House, Gov. John Hickenlooper, and even some cooperative Republicans. As FOX 31’s Eli Stokols reports this afternoon after a press conference:

The legislation, introduced at the Capitol Monday by Gov. John Hickenlooper and a bipartisan group of lawmakers, supports the state’s advanced industries, which include bioscience, aerospace, electronics and information technology with grants ranging from $150,000 for research and development to $500,000 for infrastructure funding.

The governor’s Office of Economic Development and International Trade would manage the grant program.

Incoming Democratic House Speaker Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver, called the proposal, dubbed the Advanced Industries Accelerator Act, a “strategic investment in economic development.”

Supporters of the bill say they want to take advantage of the research institutions and federal labs in Colorado to spur collaboration with private-sector funders.

Stokols reports the Democratic sponsor will be Rep. Dave Young, and Republican Rep. Cheri Gerou will co-sponsor. With this bill, both the incoming Democratic-led House and Senate have announced clean “jobs and economy” legislation as their lead-off agenda items.

Given the inevitably high profile of civil unions, and other bills whose passage was made a certainty by the GOP’s loss of the House, making jobs the first big push is a smart idea.

2013: Ground Zero for Fracking

Posted on January 6, 2013January 18, 2013 by wade norris

(Crossposted at Huffington Post)

This November, against all odds, the town of Longmont, Colorado, passed the first Fracking ban in Colorado. This ballot initiative was necessary because when the city council passed a ban in the summer, ‘Democratic’ Governor Hickenlooper threatened to sue the city to overturn it. Hickenlooper has sided with the Oil and Gas industry on every occasion, even cutting a commercial for the Industry which stated there were ‘no instances of contamination’ from Fracking.

Then, the Governor signed an Executive Order creating an Industry friendly task force that takes away the rights of local communities to regulate fracking.

Undeterred, the people of Longmont turned to the Ballot Box and put the question to the Longmont voters. Against enormous political pressure, the people of Longmont won, and now the industry-funded Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) is suing the city over the voter-approved ban.

This is ground zero because this fight pits establishment politicians, even Democrats, aligned with the Oil and Gas industry, against the people who live in the communities who are endangered by fracking. If the Colorado Oil and Gas Industry wins their lawsuit it will most like be appealed to Federal court or even to the Supreme Court. How will our President side on this issue?

In support of the citizens of Longmont and to inform and encourage other communities in Colorado, the grassroots group Be the Change held a rally and performance

event in Boulder on December 2nd. Environmental Activists rallied in Colorado in solidarity with the City of Longmont.

Present was Bill McKibben of 350.org, Josh Fox of ‘Gasland’, Wes Wilson – Wes Wilson, former environmental engineer with the EPA, Phil Doe of Be the Change (CO), and

Michael Belmont of the Longmont activists who helped pass the ballot measure.

There were activist groups like Mothers for Sustainability and the Sierra Club.

Musical performances included Josh Fox, Laura Goldhammer, Earth Guardians, Elephant Revival, Pressure Point and Kunundrum.

Listen to the speakers and the bands lead the charge for support for the citizens of Longmont, and everyone opposed to fracking in this video here, with quotes from the speakers below.

Josh Fox of Gasland

“The Rights Secured by Justice Are Not Subject to Political Bargaining . . .

Posted on January 5, 2013January 5, 2013 by PolDancer

or to the Calculus of Social Interests.”

In 2010, a majority of Colorado Legislators ignored their oaths to uphold the Colorado and U.S. Constitutions, breached the state’s Colorado PERA pension contractual obligations, and placed our state on a low moral plane.

I recently came across an excellent post from the blog of Illinois writer Glen Brown. The post brings an important moral perspective to the Colorado General Assembly’s pension contract breach in the legislation SB 10-001. Glen Brown is following and writing about the ongoing Illinois pension reform debate. Below, I have provided some of his work and my reactions.

Glen Brown’s thoughts:

“All citizens have rights that must be protected. When legislators swear an oath to uphold the state and federal constitutions, then citizens of Illinois and the United States have also acquired the right to expect that they will uphold that pledge. This is also a matter of important moral concern for all citizens of a state, for all legal claims will be validated by a moral framework since the concept of justice is grounded in ethics. If citizens’ legal rights are abused, then their dignity and humanity will also be violated.”

(In 2010, a majority of Colorado state legislators and the Colorado PERA Board of Trustees acted with immorality. These legislators and pension officials decided to attempt the theft of contracted Colorado PERA pension benefits from a small group of Coloradans in order to further reduce Colorado taxpayer obligations. Accordingly, the Colorado legislators violated their oaths to uphold the Colorado and U.S. constitutions.)

Links:

http://teacherpoetmusicianglen…

http://www.blogger.com/profile…

In 2010, the Colorado General Assembly Placed Our State on a Low Moral Plane . . . Diminishing Our State.

“What is at stake right now is not a potential adjudication of conflicting claims that public employees will have against policymakers who want changes to public employees’ earned compensation and rights, but to respect the public employees’ contractual and constitutional promises because they are legitimate rights and moral concerns not only for public employees, but for every citizen in Illinois: for any unwarranted acts of cheating a person’s guaranteed rights and earned compensation will violate interests in morality and ethics and the basic principles of both the State and United States Constitutions that protect every one of us.”

“For that reason, it is imperative that policymakers and stakeholders examine their own ethical and moral principles and their conduct in view of the fact that they will have to justify their decisions to the citizens of Illinois. Certainly, moral responsibility and legal obligation to fund the public pension systems should not be ignored.”

Members of the Colorado Legislature Have Taken an Oath to Defend the Colorado and U.S. Constitutions. In 2010, the Colorado Legislature Decided to Force this Responsibility Onto Colorado PERA Retirees.

“It is a moral concern and legal duty to address the state’s revenue and pension debt problems through restructuring and to tax the wealthy among us more fairly, so the state can provide services for its citizens and fund the public pension systems of Illinois instead of incriminating public employees and forcing them to defend the State and United States Constitutions. It is the State of Illinois that has the ‘primary responsibility for financing the system of public education’ (Article X, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution). The public employees’ pension is an integral part of ‘the system of public education’ in Illinois.”

Calling Colorado’s 2010 Breach of Contract “Pension Reform” is a Misnomer.

“Like all other citizens, public employees’ legal rights are derived from past political constitutions, legislative enactments, and case law. All citizens of Illinois have a fundamental right to oppose a General Assembly that imposes a violation of their constitutional rights and earned benefits… ‘Any statute which [is] imposed upon [public employees]… in order to redistribute resources and thus benefit some persons at the expense of others [extends] beyond the implicit boundaries of legislative authority. Such laws…violate natural rights of property and contract, rights lying at the very core of the private domain’ (Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law). Current pension reform is without legal and moral justification; furthermore, to call it ‘pension reform’ when it is ‘breaking a contract’ (Diane Ravitch) is a fabrication.”

The Colorado General Assembly’s Theft of Earned Pension Benefits is Intolerable in a Country Where Freedom Prevails.

“Public employees are promised certain retirement compensation. It is earned; it is not a gratuity. They expect and plan their lives based upon these promises. ‘The very idea that [the state can] hold [public employees’ lives], or the means of [their] living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another ‘has been thought’ intolerable in any country where freedom prevails” (John Locke, Two Treatises of Government).

“As citizens, we are advocates of a unification of the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution, which protects all of us from any violations of human rights and contracts, as much as we would wish others to be motivated by a way of life that is also governed by a complete moral system of thinking. There are no good reasons for legislators’ attack on public employees’ rights and earned compensation and their attempt to equate their lives to an exchange rate in dollar amounts. The General Assembly cannot justify pension reform in accordance with fundamental, constitutional principles of reason and morality.”

“State ‘governments must respect vested rights in property and contract…’ (Tribe). We should be able to assume most legislators in Illinois understand this concept of justice and that lawfulness demands that people keep their ‘covenants’ with one another. Regarding current pension reform, no justice is accomplished when subordinating or diminishing public employees’ rights and earned benefits because of past legislators’ negligence, irresponsibility, and corruption.”

“The keeping of promises is the General Assembly’s legal duty. It is something the United States Constitution requires them to do whether they want to or not. Unfortunately, many legislators are willing to act without moral or ethical principles, even though ‘claims of rights [are] prima facie or presumptively valid-standing claims’ (Beauchamp).”

“‘Any law which changes the intention and legal effect of the original parties, giving to one a greater and to the other a less interest or benefit in the contract, impairs its obligation’ (115 A. 484, 486). State statutes which do so are prohibited by Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution.”

“Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override… It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by the many. Therefore, in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests” (John Rawls, A Theory of Justice).

“There is no justice in granting financial benefits for the wealthy among us and attempting to place the burden of financing public pensions upon schools and taxpayers by Illinois policymakers; there is no equality in granting tax breaks for wealthy corporations and, at the same time, legislating cuts to public employees’ constitutionally-promised compensation. It is ethically wrong to perpetuate unfair distributions of debts in Illinois, especially when Illinois legislators give ‘undeserved weight to highly-organized wealthy interest groups, [those groups] tending to ‘drain politics of its moral and intellectual content'” (Tribe).

In 2010, a Majority of Colorado Legislators Demonstrated That They Have No Respect for Individual Rights or the Rule of Law in Colorado.

“It can be inferred that if policymakers do not take individual rights and contracts seriously, but prefer to challenge them in a court of law, then we can assume legislators of the Illinois General Assembly will not take any of their other laws seriously either. To ‘let the courts decide’ (Speaker of the House Michael Madigan) is a travesty of justice, a costly effrontery and negligence of a legislator’s oath of office.”

Link:

http://teacherpoetmusicianglen…

Gardner, Coffman Promise More, Bigger Showdowns With Obama

Posted on January 3, 2013January 18, 2013 by Colorado Pols

You know, because they have so much leverage and all. FOX 31’s Eli Stokols reports:

“People think this was a big fight over the fiscal cliff,” Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Aurora, told FOX31 Denver Wednesday. “It wasn’t. The big fight is coming up.”

Coffman, like a majority of his House GOP colleagues, voted against the Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 on Tuesday night.

“I don’t think going over the fiscal cliff would have been a huge deal,” he continued. “Temporarily, the markets would have been aggravated until the next Congress could have passed new tax cuts and ironed things out.

“But the real big deal is what’s upon us and going past the debt limit. I have to see a way out of this, real spending cuts, before I vote to raise the debt limit.”

Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, and most House Republicans, are in the same boat, promising not to raise the $16.4 trillion debt ceiling until they can force Obama to agree to deep spending cuts for entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security.

It’s easy to see, given the intransigence from Republicans over even the reduced scale two-month deal passed this week, why President Barack Obama wanted to get a much larger “grand bargain” for the purpose of getting past this agonizing and mostly unproductive debate. Now, the country faces another manufactured fiscal crisis in only two month’s time–and although the administration was able to stave off Medicare and Social Security cuts this time, there’s potentially less negotiating leverage now to do that again.

The upshot in this for Democrats, of course, is the continuing and overwhelming public opposition to making cuts to Social Security and Medicare. After all the drama of the last few weeks, it’s going to come as a rude shock to many Americans two months from now when they discover that Republicans are once again trying to cut these popular institutions. As we’ve said repeatedly, the zeal to do so, and the unvarnished way the demands for cuts to Medicare and Social Security are made by today’s GOP, make very little political sense to us.

Likewise, we’re hearing more grumbling from the left about Sen. Michael Bennet’s very splashy vote against the “fiscal cliff” compromise, one of only eight Senators (and three Democrats) to do so. It’s worth noting, as we did, that liberal Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa also voted against the bill, but for objections he very clearly articulated regarding the higher limit on income remaining covered by the Bush tax cuts. Nobody disputes that Harkin voted “no” because he thought this was a bad deal for the middle class. And nobody’s really dwelling on Harkin’s vote.

Not so for Bennet, whose “no” vote has received a great deal of press attention. Part of that is because of his status as incoming head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, but in Bennet’s statement and subsequent interviews, he has given no indication why he opposed the deal other than it “does not put in place a real process to reduce the debt.”

As a number of local press stories have pointed out today, that’s what the GOP says too.

The lack of nuance, or even some lip service to the idea of preserving popular institutions in the context of “reducing the debt,” probably do call for a fuller explanation of where Bennet stands. Knowing what we know about Bennet, we think he can explain this vote in a way that assuages liberal Democrats, and reaffirms the party’s message on the recent battle. In the absence of that, however, Bennet arguably muddies an otherwise clear distinction, and gives the GOP a bit of at least rhetorical comfort. The head of the DSCC can and should make his point better.

The Constitution doesn’t grant your rights — it protects them

Posted on January 3, 2013January 19, 2013 by Voyageur

A relatively new Polster, ElliotFladen, has distinguished himself among our starboard stalwarts by posting reasoned arguments to support his views, rather than cutting and pasting boilerplate from some right-wing websites. But while I respect him, I profoundly disagree with some statements he made in a recent exchange, in which I defended the right to martial privacy doctrine established in Griswold vs. Connecticut.

Griswold, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) for those of you who like to look up such things, established a a right of privacy in the process of striking down a Connecticut law that banned the use of birth control by even married couples.

House GOP Pulls a Tancredo on Hurricane Sandy Relief

Posted on January 2, 2013January 18, 2013 by Colorado Pols

UPDATE #2: Under fire, Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor release a statement promising a quick vote on Hurricane Sandy relief…later:

“Getting critical aid to the victims of Hurricane Sandy should be the first priority in the new Congress, and that was reaffirmed today with members of the New York and New Jersey delegations. The House will vote Friday to direct needed resources to the National Flood Insurance Program. And on January 15th, the first full legislative day of the 113th Congress, the House will consider the remaining supplemental request for the victims of Hurricane Sandy.”

—–

UPDATE: A blistering joint statement hammering House Republicans from Govs. Andrew Cuomo (D) of New York and Chris Christie (R) of New Jersey:

“With all that New York and New Jersey and our millions of residents and small businesses have suffered and endured, this continued inaction and indifference by the House of Representatives is inexcusable,” the governors said. “It has now been 66 days since Hurricane Sandy hit and 27 days since President Obama put forth a responsible aid proposal that passed with a bipartisan vote in the Senate while the House has failed to even bring it to the floor. This failure to come to the aid of Americans following a severe and devastating natural disaster is unprecedented.”

“The fact that days continue to go by while people suffer, families are out of their homes, and men and women remain jobless and struggling during these harsh winter months is a dereliction of duty. When American citizens are in need we come to their aid. That tradition was abandoned in the House last night.”

—–

USA TODAY, as we’ll explain:

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio indicated late Tuesday the 112th Congress would end its term without voting on federal emergency aid for victims of Superstorm Sandy.

“The speaker is committed to getting this bill passed this month,” Boehner’s spokesman, Brendan Buck, said in an email…

“I think it’s unprecedented for the United States Congress to walk away from a natural disaster,” [GOP Rep. Peter] King said, adding that he was not given a reason for the postponement. “This to me is just walking away from responsibility.”

King and Republican Rep. Michael Grimm of Staten Island, who represents some of the hardest-hit neighborhoods, joined Democrats at an impromptu news conference to publicly plead for Boehner to reconsider.

Grimm described himself as “somewhat in disbelief and almost ashamed,” adding that he’s “not proud” of the decision his party has made.

Back in 2005, then-Rep. Tom Tancredo became the only member of the Colorado delegation, and one of only 11 representatives in the House to vote against the bill funding assistance for Hurricane Katrina victims. It’s a pattern we observed last year, when House Republicans led by Rep. Eric Cantor demanded cuts to offset emergency funding in the wake of Hurricane Irene. Here at home, we’ve got Rep. Doug Lamborn, who eagerly badmouths President Barack Obama’s “politicized” disaster declarations…until he needs one himself.

Each time this happens, we marvel at the political cluelessness on display–perhaps a popular move with a small percentage of, you know, heartless people, it’s a terrible attitude with which to win over soccer moms. In this case, Speaker John Boehner says he wants the bill to come to a vote, while conservative House members decry its “pork,” thinly concealing what appears to be a temper tantrum over the totally unrelated “fiscal cliff” compromise passed last night.

So ends the 112th Republican Congress.

Update on COGCC Water Testing and Setbacks Hearings.

Posted on January 1, 2013 by Duke Cox

Here is the announcement from the COGCC regarding next weeks’ hearing schedule. The setback hearings have been moved to the end of the docket. We expect those hearings to start late on Tuesday or Wednesday morning…As always, things can change. Even though I will be traveling, I will update again with any news…

Location of January 2013 Rulemaking Hearing.

The hearing on January 7, 2013 will convene following the conclusion of

proceedings under Docket No. 1211-RM-03 and abbreviated general Commission

business (consent agenda only), in the Governor’s Square 15 meeting room on the

lower level of the Sheraton Denver Downtown Hotel.

The Sheraton Denver Downtown Hotel

1550 Court Place – Lower Level

Governor’s Square 15 Meeting Room

Denver, CO 80202

(303) 893-3333

Information about the testimony expected is below the fold…The first day of hearings (all start at 9:00AM.) will concentrate on water testing rules…setback hearings follow the conclusion of that hearing. As you can see…the environmental community gets to go last.

Was Colorado’s Pension Contract Breach “Actuarially Necessary”?

Posted on December 23, 2012 by PolDancer

Colorado PERA officials on “Actuarial Necessity.”

Colorado PERA General Counsel: “We understand that some of these (PERA pension reform options) may not be legal.”

Defendant Colorado PERA Blames Co-defendant State of Colorado for underfunding the pension in the last decade.

The opinions of Colorado PERA officials on the subject of the constitutionality of reducing fully-vested PERA retiree pension benefits have shifted over the last decade. Colorado PERA’s positions on this subject have shifted from pronouncements that such an act on the part of the General Assembly would be illegal, to pronouncements that such acts “seem” to be illegal, to statements (after the beginning of the PERA campaign to breach retiree contracts) that, yes, these rights are contractual, however; the General Assembly can break its contracts if they can find some “actuarial necessity.” PERA officials add, however; that this “finding of actuarial necessity” has only happened once as far as they can see. PERA officials also note that the Colorado General Assembly has not reserved the right to make such retroactive changes in pension contracts, and that the courts have set a “high burden” for permitting such breaches of contract.

In 2010, it was simply more politically viable for the State of Colorado to breach its pension contracts than to meet its contractual obligations. Why are we having a discussion about breaching public employee contracts rather than having a discussion about breaching Colorado’s corporate contracts? Well . . . corporations have money, power and lawyers. Certainly Colorado corporations have more of these assets than do Colorado PERA retirees who are elderly, (oftentimes in ill health), and rightly focused on enjoying their remaining years after serving Colorado governments for decades.

Now, to “actuarial necessity”:

In recent years, the Colorado Legislature has asked Colorado PERA administrators for their thoughts on the subject of “actuarial emergencies.”

http://www.denverpost.com/news…

JANUARY 5, 2009 PERA JBC DOCUMENT – WHAT IS ACTUARIAL NECESSITY?

For example, the Colorado General Assembly’s Joint Budget Committee met on the afternoon on Monday, January 5, 2009, and they put this question regarding “actuarial emergencies” to Colorado PERA administrators.

A JBC document (link below) provides the specific language of the question put to Colorado PERA administrators (question #54):

“54. Has PERA discussed what constitutes an actuarial emergency? At what funding level would this occur? Is declaring an actuarial emergency the only way the Association can support increasing the employee contribution to help address the unfunded liability? Is declaring an actuarial emergency more feasible now given the financial crisis and the drop in PERA’s market valuation?

Question #58 on this document is also interesting: “Using the ARC methodology, what is the total percentage contribution, employer and employee, that PERA needs to fully fund its obligations?”

See Questions #54 and #58 on this Joint Budget Committee document:

http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir…

Sadly, I cannot find the document in which Colorado PERA provides written responses to these January 5, 2009 JBC questions on either the website of the Joint Budget Committee or Colorado PERA’s website. (Colorado PERA invariably provides written responses to questions posed by the JBC, so the document surely exists.) Nor is the recording of the PERA officials’ verbal responses to these questions available on the web. I suppose that one must go to the trouble of seeking out the recording of this hearing at the Colorado State Archives in order to “discover” the opinions of Colorado PERA officials relating to “actuarial necessity” in January of 2009. Alternatively, one could simply request the document from the “transparent” organization itself, Colorado PERA. Until we can hear Colorado PERA’s responses to this direct question on “actuarial necessity” put at the January 5, 2009 JBC meeting we’ll have to content ourselves with our existing collection of statements on this subject by PERA officials and other interested parties during the last eight years.

DECEMBER 22, 2008 PERA JBC DOCUMENT – LEGISLATURE CANNOT REDUCE FULLY-VESTED RETIREE PENSION BENEFITS.

Colorado PERA officials have touched on this subject of actuarial necessity in other written responses provided to the Joint Budget Committee. Some of these documents are available on the internet . . . here’s one:

This December 22, 2008 Colorado Joint Budget Committee document (page 21) provides Colorado PERA officials’ understanding of the 2004 Colorado Attorney General’s opinion relating to Colorado contractual public pension rights:

http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir…

According to Colorado PERA officials, “The AG further concluded that, once a PERA member fulfills all the statutory requirements for a pension benefit, retires and begins receiving a pension, the member’s fully vested pension right cannot be reduced by the General Assembly.”

The words of these PERA administrators (“cannot be reduced”) seem to cover many bases, including any consideration of “actuarial emergencies” as a means to break public pension contracts.

Here is the complete excerpt of the December 22, 2008 response of Colorado PERA officials:

“In addition to the need for detailed actuarial studies before making any significant adjustments, PERA referenced an Attorney General opinion from November 18, 2004, related to potential limitations that exist upon the Legislature’s ability to reduce the capacity of current employees to earn additional retirement benefits or to increase the percentage of current employees’ wages contributed to PERA. The AG opinion concludes that the rate and amount of retirement benefits may qualify as a partially vested pension right protected by the contract clause of the constitution. According to the AG, an adverse change to a partially vested pension right is lawful only if it is balanced by a corresponding change of a beneficial nature, a change that is actuarially necessary, or a change that strengthens or improves the pension plan. The AG further concluded that, once a PERA member fulfills all the statutory requirements for a pension benefit, retires and begins receiving a pension, the member’s fully vested pension right cannot be reduced by the General Assembly. Finally, the AG stated that the percentage of wages that employees contribute to PERA may qualify as a contractual right protected by the constitution, but that this legal conclusion is not certain.”

Further, Greg Smith, Colorado PERA’s General Counsel told us in a Denver Post article from November 30, 2008: “The attorney general’s opinion seems clear that fully vested employees – those retired or with enough years of service to retire – cannot see any benefits reduced, including cost-of-living adjustments.”

(Link: http://www.denverpost.com/news…

It is only after commencing their campaign to breach PERA retiree pension contracts that Colorado PERA officials began singing a different tune – arguing that they could breach fully-vested PERA retiree pension contracts if they had “actuarial necessity.”

A PERA document provided to the JBC on December 16, 2009 states that the PERA COLA benefit IS a contractual obligation of PERA, “The General Assembly cannot decrease the COLA (absent actuarial necessity) because it is part of the contractual obligations that accrue under a pension plan protected under the Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 11 and the United States Constitution Article 1, Section 10 for vested contractual rights.”

Link:

http://www.kentlambert.com/Fil…

(In light of these PERA statements over the last few years, their behavior is very strange. Since Colorado PERA administrators and trustees agree that the PERA COLA IS a Colorado PERA and PERA-employer contractual obligation, and the Colorado Court of Appeals has recently ruled just that . . . that the PERA COLA is indeed such a contractual obligation, why did Colorado PERA bother appealing this Court of Appeals ruling to the Colorado Supreme Court?)

MARCH 11, 2009 PERA JOINT FINANCE COMMITTEES DOCUMENT – LEGISLATURE HAS NOT PAID ITS ACTUARIALLY REQUIRED CONTRIBUTIONS.

On March 11, 2009, Colorado PERA officials assured members of the General Assembly’s Joint Finance Committees that: “The formal Attorney General (opinion) dated November 14, 2004 seems to suggest that employers have a contractual obligation to provide the promised benefits.” (See link to the kentlambert.com document provided below.)

This PERA material submitted to the Joint Finance Committees is quite interesting. In it, Colorado PERA officials warn of coming inflation on page 7: “The recent government stimulus and spending commitments have the potential to be inflationary in the future.”

(So, PERA officials expect to see inflation in the coming years? That explains the decision of the PERA Board of Trustees to recommend cutting the contracted inflation protection of PERA retirees. Does the PERA Board hope to simply inflate away the value of fully-vested PERA public pension contracts?)

Defendant Colorado PERA Blames Co-defendant Colorado General Assembly for Pension Underfunding.

On page 8 of the March 11, 2009 Joint Finance Committees document we find a stunning PERA statement. In spite of the PERA Board’s past policy to underfund the PERA pension by ten percent (maintain a 90 percent funding cap, as we have seen) Colorado PERA officials place blame on the Colorado General Assembly for its failure to properly fund the pension. On page 8, Colorado PERA officials deny culpability for the underfunding, they write: “PERA has continually informed the General Assembly about contribution deficiencies based upon the actuarially required contribution rate using a 30-year amortization period on unfunded liabilities.”

On page 3 of the document, PERA officials place more blame on the General Assembly: “Other notable factors (for the downturn in PERA’s fiscal position) include employers not contributing the actuarially determined contribution rates, the sale of purchased service credit at rates below actuarial costs, and the raising of benefits in the late 1990’s coupled with decreasing employer contributions.” (The General Assembly enacted all of these changes to the PERA statutes.)

Five months later, on August 11, 2009, at the Denver meeting of the Colorado PERA “Listening Tour” Colorado PERA’s General Counsel Greg Smith reinforced PERA’s position blaming the Colorado General Assembly for PERA’s fiscal downturn: “We have not been paid what’s called the actuarially required contribution.” “We’ve not been receiving that full contribution in any of our divisions for many years . . . seven years to be specific.”

Link:

http://www.copera.org/pera/abo…

I also found this PERA statement on page 6 of Joint Finance Committees document of interest: “PERA has increased its level of cash during the financial crises.” So, our PERA investment professionals sold securities at the bottom? What did this decision ultimately cost the PERA trust funds in the following years?

Here’s the link to the Joint Finance Committees document:

http://www.kentlambert.com/Fil…

AUGUST 11, 2009 COLORADO PERA TRUSTEE CASEBOLT COMMENTS – PERA IN “NO IMMEDIATE DANGER.”

Further insights into the opinion of Colorado PERA officials on “actuarial necessity” may be gleaned from the comments of Colorado PERA Board Trustee Casebolt. Trustee Casebolt assured PERA retirees present at the August 11, 2009 Colorado PERA Denver “Listening Tour” meeting that: “PERA faces no immediate danger of being unable to pay benefits, in fact, PERA can pay benefits for many years to come, based on our current funding and our benefit structure coupled with over $30 billion in assets, at present market value.”

(Colorado PERA Trustee Casebolt told us of his belief that PERA “faces no immediate danger.” How is it possible that an organization facing “no immediate danger” might be in an “actuarial emergency?” For that matter, how is it possible that the 15th wealthiest state in the nation, with one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation, experiencing one of the fastest post-recession recoveries among the states might be in an “actuarial emergency”?)

Link:

http://www.copera.org/pera/abo…

AUGUST 11, 2009 COLORADO PERA GENERAL COUNSEL COMMENTS – SOME OF OUR PENSION REFORM PROPOSALS “MAY NOT BE LEGAL.”

Colorado PERA’s General Counsel Greg Smith also expounded on “actuarial necessity” during the August 11, 2009 Colorado PERA Denver “Listening Tour” meeting.

Greg Smith’s words:

“Also important is that there are constitutional limitations . . . on what the General Assembly can do with regard to benefits.”

“There’s always a big question in everybody’s mind . . . Well, what is actuarial necessity? I wish I could answer that question for you, it’s not that I haven’t tried, not that we haven’t researched it.”

“In fact, Colorado has one of the only cases in the union that actually found a cut in benefits was acceptable due to actuarial necessity.” “And, in that case, what the court found was, well, since the system was completely out of money, had no money, it was paying its benefits out of current contributions with no reserves, out of current operating capital.”

“So, we have to look at what component parts can we address and adjust to meet this gap, and to fill this gap.” “We have several slides and they essentially track the lines on the feedback form that each of you have in front of you . . . and remember that we understand that some of these may not be legal, some of them may not be politically viable, but everything is on the table at this point in time, everything is being considered by the PERA Board in order to come up with a comprehensive plan to fill the gap.”

(My comment: Why did the Colorado PERA Board of Trustees put pension reform options on the table when they questioned the constitutionality of these pension reform options? After hearing of the doubts that Colorado PERA officials had regarding the constitutionality of their pension reform proposals why did the nine members of the Colorado General Assembly who were present at this August 11, 2009 meeting and heard these doubts expressed fail to seek an interrogatory to the Colorado Supreme Court for clarity prior to enacting SB 10-001?)

JANUARY 10, 2010 SB 10-001 CO-PRIME SPONSOR COMMENTS: PERA COLA PENSION RIGHTS ARE CONTRACTUAL, WE MUST TRY TO USE THE RECENT MARKET VOLATILITY TO BREACH PERA PENSION CONTRACTS.

Senator Josh Penry (who was the co-prime sponsor of SB 10-001) had his own thoughts on the subject of “actuarial necessity.”

Link:

http://www.9news.com/rss/story…

On January 10, 2010, Senator Penry (who was Senate Minority Leader at the time) was a guest on the 9 News “Your Show” program with Adam Schrager. About 9 minutes into this show a caller (Julian Graham) asks: “How can this occur when there is an AG opinion currently in effect that states PERA rules and regulations are considered to be a contract?”

Adam Schrager then asks Senator Penry: “Can you do this legally?”

Senator Penry responded: “We can. What the courts have said, what the case law and the opinions have said is you can’t. It is a contract, unless there is actuarial necessity.” “What the courts have said from a legal standpoint, as long as there is actuarial necessity, as long as there’s a bona fide emergency it’s OK.” “We’re talking about a 2 percent increase year to year. I don’t know anyone in the private sector who has seen their 401K increase by 2 percent.”

(My comment: Senator Penry made these remarks ten days into the year 2010. During 2009, the S&P 500 total return was approximately 26 percent. 401K accounts that were at all invested in equities in 2009 had a pretty impressive return. See this link:

http://performance.morningstar…

Local Unions, Progressives Step Up Pressure on Both Parties

Posted on December 21, 2012January 18, 2013 by Colorado Pols

The above Christmas-themed political ad (savor the whole idea of that for a moment), going after Rep. Mike Coffman on the “fiscal cliff” negotiations, is brought to you by the combined forces of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the National Education Association (NEA). From their release this week:

“Boehnerville” is a six figure television buy asking Americans to call their member of Congress and urge them to reject any proposal by Speaker Boehner that calls for devastating cuts to vital services like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and education.

“Speaker Boehner continues to demand huge sacrifices from the middle class by blocking their tax cut and demanding cuts to vital services like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security,” said Chuck Loveless, AFSCME Federal Government Affairs Director. “Much like the fictional, Mr. Potter, Speaker Boehner wants to hold hard working men and women hostage, cut their benefits and give more tax breaks to his wealthy contributors. Speaker Boehner needs to get his priorities straight by protecting the middle class and maintaining vital services that so many middle class Americans depend upon.”

Meanwhile, CBS4’s Shaun Boyd reports on “Fiscal Cliff Carolers” who visited the offices of both Colorado Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall yesterday:

John Boehner’s “Plan B” Crashes and Burns

Posted on December 21, 2012December 21, 2012 by Colorado Pols

UPDATE: FOX 31’s Eli Stokols answers one question:

Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, and Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colorado Springs, both planned to vote against Boehner’s “Plan B”, which was pulled from the floor Thursday night after Boehner failed to whip enough members of his divided GOP caucus in line…

According to talking points Lamborn gave his staff to pass on to constituents who bombarded the office with phone calls Thursday, the congressman “cannot support Plan B because it fails to give tax relief for one class of Americans.

“President Obama campaigned on a pledge to raise taxes, and Congressman Lamborn does not wish to assist him in raising taxes on any Americans,” the talking points continued. “Congressman Lamborn would like to see the Bush tax rates extended permanently for all Americans.”

Gardner, who is viewed as a rising star within the House GOP caucus but is closer to Majority Leader Eric Cantor than Boehner himself, “was not going to vote for it because it didn’t address spending at all,” according to spokeswoman Rachel George.

—–

Updating the fiscal cliff battle, Politico reports on yesterday’s dramatic failure in the House as Speaker John Boehner tried unsuccessfully to get the votes for his “Plan B” tax bill.

Things were so bad for Speaker John Boehner Thursday night, support for his Plan B tax bill so diminished, the limits of his power with his own party laid bare, that he stood in front of the House Republican Conference and recited the Serenity Prayer.

“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”

…It was supposed to be a moment of strength, a way to drag Obama and the Democrats toward them in the high-stakes fiscal cliff negotiations that have Washington teetering on the brink. Instead, it showed the world that either Boehner couldn’t bring 217 of his own members to his side, or they were unwilling to be led by him in this fight.

Yesterday’s failure by Speaker Boehner to pass his alternative measure significantly weakens his negotiating position. We haven’t heard whether any Colorado GOP representatives were part of the revolt; we expect that will come out soon enough. The House is reportedly on notice to be ready to head back to Washington, but this story indicates they may not reconvene before 2013–after the “fiscal cliff’s” mandatory spending cuts and tax increases have kicked in.

Rep. Mike Coffman had this to say to The Hill as the dust settled:

[A]fter a day and a half of intense lobbying on the part of the GOP leaders, rank-and-file members were stunned to learn that Boehner’s team was giving up the fight.

“I’ve never seen anything like it where leadership just completely backed down. I guess they made an assessment that the people who were no votes were entrenched no votes, because otherwise I think they would have just pulled it and they would have worked it longer,” Colorado Rep. Mike Coffman (R) told The Hill.

Coffman called the meeting “awful.” “It’s the first time I’ve ever seen leadership retreat. It was a real shock – the Speaker looked shocked,” he said.

It’s difficult to predict what’s going to happen next, but Boehner can only effectively negotiate as the leader of the House of Representatives if he has the power to lead. Otherwise it’s honestly not clear on whose behalf he is “negotiating.” Either way, Boehner’s leverage to continue demanding entitlement cuts opposed by the voting public in exchange for bringing his caucus along on a deal may have just evaporated. How many moderate Republicans would need to defect to a Democratic solution? It’s not that many, folks.

And Rep. Coffman’s remarks on yesterday’s failure to pass Boehner’s plan oblige us to consider whether speculation about Boehner’s speakership imploding is coming true.

Reporters should dig into Brophy claim that Dems are using Newtown to “permanently injure” the GOP

Posted on December 19, 2012January 18, 2013 by Jason Salzman

Reporters covering the local fallout of the Newtown tragedy should dig into statements percolating through the media, and exmplified by comments like state Sen. Greg Brophy’s below, that Democrats are using the tragedy simply to bring down Republicans.

“And there’s a lot of–and this is going to sound terrible, but it’s the truth–there’s a lot of politicians and leftist activists who see this as an opportunity to permanently injure the Republican Party and make it more likely that Democrats will win elections,” Brophy told KFTM radio’s John Waters this morning. “And I think there’s a lot of people pushing it, especially their media allies that are pushing this notion from that perspective.”

It’s not the kind of comment that should be thrown in the pile of political-discourse-as-usual. What would Brophy have Democrats do? Be mute? Blame the media, as he does? Talk about mental health issues, as if guns had no role? Why does mentioning the word “guns” equal an attack on the GOP?

Brophy thinks the focus should be on the mentally ill, with no discussion of guns:

“And I’ve got to tell you, if the leftist activists and their allies in the media concentrate only on beating up Republicans over our principled stand on the Second Amendment, then we may not have the discussion that we need to have over all of these other issues [like treatment for mental illnesses],” he told Waters.

Brophy’s unsubstantiated accusation of Democratic politicking contrasts with another strand of thinking by local politicians, like Colorado Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman quoted below, who argue that politicians can do nothing at all.

“The real bottom line here, is there is 300 million people in this country. Someone, somewhere is planning to do harm to somebody at any given day, and all the laws in the world aren’t going to stop it,” Cadman said at a Denver-Press-Club forum, as reported by Rocky Mountain Community Radio’s Bente Berkeland. “Criminals will still do criminal acts.”

So, if he really thinks nothing can be done, does Cadman also think the Dems are all about politics too, like Brophy does?

Colorado PERA “Listens” to PERA Retirees Label PERA Employers “Deadbeats.”

Posted on December 18, 2012January 18, 2013 by PolDancer

On August 11, 2009, Colorado PERA trustees and administrators conducted the first of several meetings around the state at which PERA administrators presented a prepared list of PERA pension reform options. This list of reform options (almost exclusively) placed the burden of the Colorado General Assembly’s historical underfunding of the pension onto the backs of PERA members and retirees. Members and retirees present at the hearing were given an opportunity to comment on the prepared list of PERA-identified pension reform options. Video of PERA’s Denver hearing is available on PERA’s website. The video recording of the meeting includes testimony from PERA member David Holme in which Mr. Holme powerfully asserts his contractual PERA pension rights before the PERA Board of Trustees (he is the third speaker . . . a few minutes into this videotape):

http://www.copera.org/Flash/De…

This first meeting of the Colorado PERA “Listening Tour,” held in Denver, was chaired by PERA Board Trustee James Casebolt. Five videotaped segments, as well as slides presented at the hearing, are available at this link:

http://www.copera.org/pera/abo…

Eight members of the Colorado General Assembly were present at the meeting and heard PERA members and retirees inform the PERA Board that a number of their proposals would breach the contracts that the State of Colorado and other PERA-affiliated employers have entered with PERA members and retirees. Legislators present included: Representative Peniston, Senator Sandoval, Senator Steadman, Representative Ferrandino (now Speaker of the Colorado House), Senator Hudak, Representative Todd, Representative Lois Court, Senator Betty Boyd, and finally, Representative Joel Judd, (who told us the following year, as he chaired the House Finance Committee hearing on SB 10-001 (near the end of the hearing) that SB 10-001 must be supported “because that’s where the money is.”

In briefs submitted to the Colorado courts, Colorado PERA has claimed “vast” retiree support for the breach of PERA employer contractual pension COLA obligations.

Note Colorado PERA’s assertion on page 33 of its May 6, 2011, PERA Defendant’s Reply in Support of Summary Judgment:

“Though Plaintiffs choose to ignore the economic realities after the 2008 crisis, the vast majority of retirees and all union and retiree organizations vocally supported Senate Bill 10-001, including the COLA change.”

Link to PERA Brief:

http://saveperacola.files.word…

However; after listening to the comments made by PERA retirees at this Denver meeting of the PERA “Listening Tour” I’m beginning to suspect that this claim of “vast” retiree support for the breach of retiree pension contracts is yet another Colorado PERA fabrication.

Of course, even in the event that 99 percent of Colorado PERA retirees supported the breach of their pension contracts, that support would render the COLA-theft provisions of SB 10-001 no less unconstitutional. The constitutionality of legislative acts in the United States does not rest on the popularity of the acts.

Listen to the testimony of PERA retirees at this Denver hearing and see if you do not also question PERA’s claims of “vast” retiree support. In my view, the most forceful testimony received by the PERA Board of Trustees at this hearing was testimony pointing out that the Colorado General Assembly had failed to make its “actuarially required” public pension contributions over the last nine years, and that PERA members and retirees were well aware of their vested public pension contractual rights.

In listening to the recording of this meeting, I heard condemnation of the Colorado PERA Board of Trustees for limiting their consideration of pension reform options to (primarily) options that place the burden of pension reforms on PERA members and retirees, rather than PERA employers.

I heard PERA retirees state that their contracted PERA benefits were an inducement to them to enter the employment exchange transaction with PERA-affiliated employers, that PERA members relied on this expectation of earned PERA retirement benefits throughout their careers with PERA-affiliated employers, and that PERA members rejected more lucrative employment offers during their careers based on this reliance on their statutory PERA pension contracts.

I heard commentary emphasizing the fact that PERA retirees are not eligible for Social Security benefits, and are accordingly . . . entirely dependent on their contracted PERA benefits. Finally, I heard testimony that PERA retirees rely on their contractual PERA COLA benefit to meet rising health care costs.

Below, I provide a few examples of the testimony presented to the Colorado PERA Board of Trustees and members of the Colorado General Assembly during the initial public policy discussions that resulted in SB 10-001:

David Holme:

“My decision to join the state was based on the PERA program.”

“Any sort of a reduction in benefits today would be a violation of that contract, and bait and switch advertising . . . and so fraud.”

“State employees have never failed to provide their contributions . . . and in fact we’ve paid more into the system than the employers have over the total of the years, according to PERA reports.”

“The employers, starting in 2002, the last year of 100 percent funding, began providing less than the annual contribution requirement, setting contribution rates for the state of less than required.”

“Today, the State of Colorado PERA employer is past due to the tune of $6.5 billion into the trust fund contributions, not counting any interest – if you do it at the three percent PERA interest, it would be another $1.1 billion past due over the last 9 years.”

“PERA’s overall funds at the end of last year were about $30 billion, this bad debt constitutes about 25 percent of the PERA assets. If they were paid with interest to the PERA investment fund it would be at 94 percent funded on the actuarial basis or 76 percent on the market basis. Most experts believe that a fund at 80 percent is a healthy fund. We’d be above that.”

“The survey today, that we just talked about, is a good example of this. If you look at that, 28 of the options on there cost the employees money, and only two cost the employers money.”

“As a state employee, I’m ready to sit down and work on whatever fixes are needed once the deadbeat employer has made arrangements to fully fund its share.”

Mike Morris:

“I just want you to know that our COLA benefit is the only thing that’s been between us and the increased cost of health care and numerous other issues during the last six or eight years.”

Alan Chapman:

“We shouldn’t be weighing things out on the future costs on the backs of those people who have already gone through the program, funded what was required of them, and now they’re in a position that they can’t recover.”

Sue Ellen Quam:

“I was a legislative liaison for many, many years. I sat in the Joint Budget Committee for many, many years, and I remember legislators saying ‘You know, you don’t get very good salary increases and your benefits really stink, but you’re gonna get a really good retirement and so just hang in there.”

“So, I find it to be discouraging that the Legislature may be considering saying, ‘We got you on your salary, we got you on your benefits, and now we’re going to get you on your retirement.”

“I’ve heard rumors that the 3.5 percent increase may be reduced or eliminated and that it’s OK with PERA members. It’s not OK with this PERA member.”

Is it possible that any “reasonable” person in the United States might endorse such mismanagement of a public retirement system, breach of contractual pension obligations, and outright, unabashed theft of public pension benefits?

More on the conservative talk-radio echo chamber and the damage done

Posted on December 16, 2012December 17, 2012 by Jason Salzman

In a post Thursday, I discussed a conversation between two local talk-radio hosts and Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial Page Editor, Wayne Laugesen.

Unfortunately, the good folks at KLZ’s Grassroots Radio Colorado thought I unfairly presented their show as attacking every garden-variety environmentalist under the sun, not just the radical fringe.

I disagree, but I’ve posted more of the exchange between Laugesen and the KLZ hosts below, including more insight into Laugesen’s thinking on whom he’s referring to when he talks about “radical” environmentalists. Warning: he’s pretty vague, as some suspected on ColoradoPols and elsewhere.

I’d love to meet the soccer-mom environmentalist from Jefferson County who feels good about the Republican Party after hearing this conversation on conservative talk radio.

If the KLZ radio hosts, and Laugesen for that matter, really cared about the toxic effect of talk radio on the Republican Party, here’s a suggestion on how they could begin to do something about it.

Have an actual debate! Bring a mainstream environmentalist on the show, for example, when you talk about radical environmentalists or environmentalism as religion. Refuse to be a guest unless more than shades of conservative gray are present. I’m not saying this never happens, but do it more often, please.

Chances are, when the echo chamber starts echoing on talk radio, it’s turning off most of the electorate. That’s when you need to bring in an opposing view.

Hickenlooper: Let’s Talk (Modest) Gun Control Reforms Next Year

Posted on December 14, 2012January 18, 2013 by Colorado Pols

UPDATE #4: From President Barack Obama’s emotional statement today:

The majority of those who died today were children — beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old. They had their entire lives ahead of them — birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own. Among the fallen were also teachers — men and women who devoted their lives to helping our children fulfill their dreams.

So our hearts are broken today — for the parents and grandparents, sisters and brothers of these little children, and for the families of the adults who were lost. Our hearts are broken for the parents of the survivors as well, for as blessed as they are to have their children home tonight, they know that their children’s innocence has been torn away from them too early, and there are no words that will ease their pain.

As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it’s an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago — these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children. And we’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.

—–

UPDATE #3: The first Colorado Republican to opine on the “is it too soon to talk about gun control?” question, quite predictably, is Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman.

—–

UPDATE #2: A statement now available on the Connecticut shootings from Gov. Hickenlooper:

“The shooting in Connecticut is absolutely horrific and heartbreaking. We know too well what impact this kind of violence has on a community and our nation. Our thoughts and prayers are immediately with the families of those killed. We can offer comfort, but we all know the pain will stay forever.”

And from Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado:

“This tragic and senseless shooting is deeply troubling and saddening. My thoughts and prayers go out to all of the victims and their families affected by this terrible tragedy. We in Colorado experienced a similar tragedy earlier this year. Just as we came together then to grieve and support one another, Colorado and our nation will again pull together to support our friends in Connecticut.”

Also Sen. Michael Bennet, a Wesleyan graduate:

“The terrible news out of Connecticut is staggering. Like all Colorado families, my family is grieving and our hearts are with the victims, their families, and all of the students and employees at the school. This is a parent’s worst nightmare. As Coloradans, we know how this type of tragedy can shake a community to its core. We are here for Connecticut as they work together to heal in the days ahead.”

—–

UPDATE: Tragically apropos, CNN is reporting on yet another horrific mass shooting today, this time at a Connecticut elementary school.

—–

As reported by the AP via Politico yesterday:

In an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday, Hickenlooper said that the legislative session in January would be an appropriate time to take up a debate on gun control in his state.

“I wanted to have at least a couple of months off after the shooting in Aurora to let people process and grieve and get a little space, but it is, I think, now is the time is right,” Hickenlooper said.

The comments also come after a mass shooting at an Oregon mall and a murder-suicide involving a professional football player this month touched off a national debate over gun laws…

“When you look at what happened in Aurora, a great deal of that damage was from the large magazine on the AR-15 (rifle). I think we need to have that discussion and say, ‘Where is this appropriate?'”

In the immediate aftermath of the shootings at an Aurora movie theater last summer, Gov. John Hickenlooper expressed skepticism about whether regulations on firearms might have stopped the killer from obtaining his arsenal of weapons, saying on CNN just as one example:

“This person, if there were no assault weapons available, if there were no this or no that, this guy’s going to find something. Right? He’s going to know how to create a bomb,” [Hickenlooper] said.

In Colorado, the slightest move to regulate guns is sure to be met with a furious reaction from our local and very vocal pro-gun lobby. Hickenlooper’s comments last summer were seized upon by pro-gun conservatives as evidence that not even an horrific act of violence could shake the public’s support for easy access to guns, and helped feed a narrative in the press that nothing was going to change after Aurora. Polling on the issue tends to rely on how the question is phrased, with some polls showing persistent support (for years now) for reforms such as universal background checks, but conservative pollsters like Rasmussen showing the opposite.

It’s into this delicate environment that Gov. Hickenlooper has just bravely stepped, and Democrats should give him some credit for doing so. Hickenlooper’s moderate image, often upsetting to the liberal Democratic base, could lend key legitimacy to a push for modest reforms like universal background checks for firearm sales, or limits on outsize ammunition magazines as he mentioned above. Hickenlooper’s apparent willingness to invest his hoarded political capital on this issue could honestly do a lot to relegate the “U.N. gun grab” and other unserious opposition from the gun lobby–and Republican legislators who regurgitate them–to the fringe.

Colorado Politicians Seek Raises for Colorado Politicians

Posted on December 14, 2012 by PolDancer

First off, I want to say that I support bringing the salaries of Colorado state department heads up to a reasonable level, comparable with their peers in other states. Also, I recognize that the proposed salary hikes for Colorado politicians would not apply to current office holders.

There . . . I’m making a point to be scrupulously honest (as an example to the Colorado PERA Board of Trustees and PERA administrators) even if this complete honesty detracts from my argument. Unlike the Colorado PERA Board of Trustees, I am forgoing the opportunity to misrepresent by omission. More on that later.

Today’s Denver Post is reporting that state politicians are considering legislation to hike salaries and provide cost-of-living increases for . . . state politicians.

Link to Denver Post article:

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_2…

“Democratic state Sen. Pat Steadman plans to carry legislation next session to hike salaries for the executive branch, but he hasn’t yet decided whether to include a pay raise for state legislators, who earn $30,000 annually. ‘I’m still considering how far to go with this, but at the minimum I am looking at raising the pay of the five constitutional officers,’ the Denver lawmaker said.”

“‘Something needs to be done,’ (Colorado Attorney General) Suthers said. ‘We’re not just low anymore. We’re off the radar.'”

“And Steadman said he plans to craft the bill so that office-holders who win re-election in 2014 wouldn’t be eligible for the raise either. Only successful challengers and the new attorney general would get the pay increase.”

“Hickenlooper’s spokesman, Eric Brown, said the governor is ‘generally supportive of salary increases for the next office-holders, particularly the attorney general.'”

“State Sen. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch, said he would support a raise for the executive branch because members are ‘woefully undercompensated,’ but he doesn’t support an increase for legislators.”

(My comment: For the record, Senator Harvey opposed the breach of Colorado PERA pensioner contracts on the Senate floor during the SB 10-001 debate. Senator Harvey’s words: “We have made a commitment. We have a contract with current retirees. That is already in place.” “Reforms should be made for new hires.” “We do not have that commitment to new hires.”)

Back to the Denver Post article:

“But former state Sen. Dave Schultheis said it’s time. The Colorado Springs Republican, known for his conservative fiscal positions, has long advocated that legislative pay be boosted and tied to cost-of-living increases.” ‘These legislators are sacrificing quite a bit as it is, being away from their families,’ he said. ‘Having the pay remain at the 1999 level is not appropriate.'”

(My comment: It means something that former State Senator Dave Schultheis supports salary COLAs for state legislators. Schultheis is the “conservative’s conservative” [I mean that in a good way].

Although this argument to bring public office salary levels up to par may have merit . . . the timing of this proposal is ludicrous. It is completely insensate and rather poor form to propose discretionary increases in the salaries of state politicians WHEN THE STATE IS IN BREACH OF CONTRACT!

It’s like going out to buy that 50-inch flat screen at WalMart, when you’ve just missed your mortgage payment.

Are Colorado legislators unaware that the State of Colorado is in breach of public pension contracts? It seems so. FYI, legislators, as I write this blog post the State of Colorado is in Breach of Contract. Legislators, the Colorado Court of Appeals recently held the following: “We consider McPhail and Bills dispositive (indisputably bringing to a conclusion a legal controversy) of whether plaintiffs here have a contractual right to a particular COLA.” In the cases McPhail and Bills, the Colorado Supreme Court “found a contractual right based on members’ provision of services and contributions to the retirement fund.”

As a member of the General Assembly’s Joint Budget Committee, Senator Steadman should be aware of the state’s contract breach and act accordingly. He seems to have no recognition of the distinction between mandatory expenditures to meet the state’s contractual obligations, and discretionary expenditures by the General Assembly.

While the State of Colorado is in breach of contract, the General Assembly should not continue to make annual $100 million discretionary grants for property tax relief. Over the past two decades the General Assembly should have been adequately funding contractual PERA pension obligations instead of pumping ONE-HALF BILLION DOLLARS into local government pensions that are not the obligation of the State of Colorado, not the state’s responsibility at all. I realize that Colorado voters and the General Assembly have decimated the state’s revenue base over the past two decades, but Colorado voters cannot empower the General Assembly to violate the Colorado and U.S. constitutions. As we shall see shortly, (tomorrow maybe) even Colorado PERA administrators blame their co-defendant General Assembly for the mismanagement of PERA public pension obligations.

Now, back to the “honesty” of the organization, Colorado PERA.

The PERA Board recently submitted an appeal brief to the Colorado Supreme Court in the case Justus v. State. In my opinion, this appeal brief includes a number of attempts to deceive the Colorado Supreme Court. For convenience, I summarize this deceit below – presenting what I consider to be the ugliest of the Colorado PERA attempts to deceive the Colorado Supreme Court (apologies to those of you who are already very familiar with these PERA attempts at deception.)

The Colorado PERA “Market-Based” Pension Statistics Deception:

In their Colorado Supreme Court brief, Colorado PERA fails to identify the funded ratios they cite as “market-based” funded ratios. I believe that Colorado PERA representatives hope to misdirect the Colorado Supreme Court by diverting the court’s attention away from the “actuarial funded ratios” that PERA administrators have used historically and that are employed in SB 10-001, the subject of the current litigation.

See page 3 of this legislative memorandum for some historical perspective on PERA’s funding status:

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Sat…

I believe that it is Colorado PERA’s intent to use “market-based” funded ratios to exaggerate the financial condition of the Colorado PERA trust funds in an attempt to bolster their case for the breach of PERA pensioner contracts. I consider Colorado PERA’s use of “market-based” funded ratios an attempt to mislead the Colorado Supreme Court, hindering its efforts to find the truth.

Note: Colorado PERA representatives should tread carefully here . . . Colorado Supreme Court rules state that “There are circumstances where failure to make a disclosure is the equivalent of an affirmative misrepresentation.”

The Colorado PERA “COLAs as Unchangeable” Red Herring:

A second deception that I believe is present in the Colorado PERA Supreme Court brief is PERA’s continued use of its “COLAs as unchangeable” red herring from its earlier court briefs. PERA administrators and trustees know quite well that Colorado PERA pensioners have never claimed that their COLA benefits are “unchangeable,” rather PERA pensioners have objected to the REDUCTION of their contracted COLA benefits. PERA retirees suffer no harm when their COLA benefits are improved in statute.

This particular Colorado PERA tactic of deception has already been exposed by the Colorado Court of Appeals. In reversing the Denver District Court decision, the Colorado Court of Appeals specifically ordered the lower court to ignore PERA’s attempted deception.

From the Colorado Court of Appeals Decision: “We note, however, that plaintiffs contend that they have a reasonable expectation of an irreducible (not, as defendants assert, an unchangeable) COLA. Therefore, we direct the district court to consider whether there has been a substantial impairment with that in mind.” It is astonishing, but Colorado PERA still will not give up this particular line of deception.

Colorado PERA’s Implication that Current PERA Members Will Work Longer Under SB 10-001:

Representatives of Colorado PERA write in the Colorado PERA Supreme Court Brief: “Current and future employees will pay the highest rates in PERA’s history while working up to a decade longer before retirement.”

In my opinion, this Colorado PERA assertion in its Supreme Court Brief is indisputably designed to mislead the Colorado Supreme Court. Under SB 10-001, age and service requirements for PERA retirement eligibility were NOT altered for current vested employees. Age and service requirements were extended for future hires [notably, those to whom Colorado PERA has no contractual obligations]. Current PERA members will work not one day longer before retirement under the provisions of SB 10-001.

In my opinion, PERA representatives intend, in this sentence, to leave the reader with the impression that current, active, vested PERA members will work longer prior to achieving retirement eligibility under SB 10-001. That is simply untrue.

Search Results for: give

Gun Control is not necessarily the answer

Suthers Has Gessler’s Back, Perfect Timing Edition

Mesa Valley District 51 had a SURPLUS in 2010-2011 of $2.124 Million!

Weekend Open Thread

Stokols praises Gardner but fails to point out his extreme positions on women & immigration issues

To reduce spending, Gardner suggests possible elimination of federal Energy Department

The AARP Failed Colorado PERA Retirees in 2010 . . .

New video series takes look at drilling impacts on Colo. residents, businesses

New GOP CO Senator Comes Out in Favor of State Dream Act, Path to Citizenship

Sen. Brophy Makes Lemonade – Plans Odd Bills

Hickenlooper, Colorado House Announce High-Tech Grant Legislation

2013: Ground Zero for Fracking

“The Rights Secured by Justice Are Not Subject to Political Bargaining . . .

Gardner, Coffman Promise More, Bigger Showdowns With Obama

The Constitution doesn’t grant your rights — it protects them

House GOP Pulls a Tancredo on Hurricane Sandy Relief

Update on COGCC Water Testing and Setbacks Hearings.

Was Colorado’s Pension Contract Breach “Actuarially Necessary”?

Local Unions, Progressives Step Up Pressure on Both Parties

John Boehner’s “Plan B” Crashes and Burns

Reporters should dig into Brophy claim that Dems are using Newtown to “permanently injure” the GOP

Colorado PERA “Listens” to PERA Retirees Label PERA Employers “Deadbeats.”

More on the conservative talk-radio echo chamber and the damage done

Hickenlooper: Let’s Talk (Modest) Gun Control Reforms Next Year

Colorado Politicians Seek Raises for Colorado Politicians

Recent Comments

Posts about

Posts about

Posts about

Posts about

Posts about

Newsletter