Councilwoman Amanda Sawyer is the Denver City Council representative for District 5. You can follow her on social media at @Denver Council5 and sign up for her newsletters at bit.ly/council5news.
This time last year looked very different in Denver. Run-off election results were just coming in, and the citizens had spoken loudly and clearly. When the dust settled, Mayor Hancock had won a third term, but three challengers had unseated incumbent Councilmembers — something almost unheard-of in our City that left political insiders scratching their heads and with mouths agape. What did it all mean?
As one of the winners who came into office riding that wave of political discontent last June, I believe that when the citizens of Denver chose new City Councilmembers they were saying they wanted to bring checks and balances to local government, more accountability and transparency, and more communication from their leaders.
My first year in office, I have worked hard to live by those values and bring them back to our government in a number of ways. I’ve researched how other cities with strong-mayor forms of government (like Denver’s) function, and what kinds of processes and procedures these cities use to bring balance, transparency and accountability to their communities. In my research I found something very interesting: the majority of Denver’s strong-mayor “sister” cities in the U.S. — those cities we look to when considering similar policies — participate in a process where their City Councilmembers have some form of approval power over the Mayor’s appointees. Denver is the only strong-mayor system in the State of Colorado that does not follow this practice. It’s time we institute it in Denver.
This month, I am introducing an amendment to the Denver Charter that, if referred to the voters by City Council, will require City Council approval of all Mayoral Cabinet appointees, as well as confirmation of the three heads of Denver’s Safety departments. This proposal gives Denver residents a voice through their independently elected City Council representatives. It respects our strong-mayor form of government while bringing a bit more balance to the system. If approved by voters in November 2020, it would mean that in addition to the Chiefs of Police and Fire, and the Denver Sheriff, a majority of City Councilmembers would have to approve the Executive Directors of: Aviation, City Attorney, Community Planning & Development, Dept. of Public Health & Environment, Dept. of Transportation & Infrastructure, Excise & License, Finance, General Services, Human Services, Parks & Recreation, and Safety.
This proposal is not popular with Denver’s current Mayor and his camp. Their concern is that this may overly-politicize the process and deter qualified candidates from applying for these positions. Those are valid concerns, but those risks already exist even without this Charter amendment in place. These are political appointments and public positions. These are jobs with salaries set by ordinance, and whose emails are subject to the Colorado Open Records Act. In short, they are jobs that enjoy a lower expectation of privacy than an ordinary job, and any candidate applying for one of these positions is aware of that.
Furthermore, every executive-level job search has an element of this risk associated with it, no matter whether the position is in government or the private sector. Council approving Mayoral appointments is analogous to a situation in the private sector where corporate boards approve C-suite appointments in a corporation. If a candidate for one of the most powerful positions in Denver cannot garner the support of seven members of a 13-member City Council, they shouldn’t be in the position in the first place. Instituting a process that brings more balance, transparency and accountability to our strong-mayor form of government makes sense. It is good governance. It is a policy that many other strong-mayor cities follow successfully, and it is time to bring it to Denver. This proposal will go before City Council’s Finance & Governance Committee on June 9, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. I urge you to reach out to your local City Councilmember and ask them to refer this initiative to the November 2020 ballot so that the citizens of Denver can vote on it.
Dan Himelspach is running for a seat in Colorado House District 6, and he could have never predicted the circumstances he would be facing when he was one of the first to launch his campaign for the primary set for June 30, 2020. COVID-19 has impacted the plan to reach voters but that is not stopping Himelspach. “What we’ve tried not to do is whine and cry in our beer,” said Himelspach. “How can we still accomplish our goal? Those that do the best can adjust to it and live in the new world we are in.”
Creative Campaigning: Dan Himelspach is running for State House District 6 in Denver and has had to alter the way he gets his message out to voters. He hosted a Zoom Town Hall with officials from Rose Medical Center on April 1, 2020.
One of the things Himelspach did was organize a Town Hall via Zoom with Denver City Councilwoman Amanda Sawyer that invited the community to learn more about Rose Hospital during this pandemic. Joining Himelspach and Sawyer was Ryan Tobin, President & CEO at Rose Medical Center and Andrew Weinfeld, MD, Chief Medical Officer.
“Rose [Hospital] is such an important part of this community and I wanted them to toot their horn,” said Himelspach. “I want them [Rose Hospital] to succeed but I also want everyone in the district and neighborhood to know what they truly have to offer. They’re a phenomenal organization that’s been here for a long time. The community, to a large extent, grew up around them. They are one of the major anchors in this community.”
Himelspach is one of those community members who has been around a long time. He is a Denver-based Colorado business leader and practicing attorney with over 30 years of experience specializing in mediation and negotiation. Living in House District 6 for over 40 years, Himelspach has formed several successful businesses including a family-owned business that sells high tech products to brain researchers all over the world. Not a professional politician hoping to climb the political ladder, Himelspach is running for office in the spirit of servant leadership with a hope to bring his unique mixture of negotiation and business skills to Colorado’s legislature.
Himelspach hopes to be one of the elected leaders to help Denver get through the pandemic. “Leadership is going to make a difference,” said Himelspach. “Strong leadership will go a long way.” Dan also has respect for people and this country. “People really by and large want to do the right thing,” said Himelspach. “This country is a strong country and we have a lot of resources compared to other countries around the world. We’re going to be fine and the individual spirit is strong here but it’s going to be a struggle for two or three years I think.”
It appears that some segments of American society are unaware that various flus sweep through this country, starting late fall each year, killing 30,000 to 70,000 people. Even though flu shots are provided free every year, approximately half the population does not even get vaccinated. True, the flu vaccines are only approximately 46% effective, but to cut your risk of getting the flu in half would appear to be an extremely good idea.
Now comes the coronavirus (for which there is no vaccine yet), as well as, an assortment of other flu viruses. The coronavirus appears to be highly contagious but not particularly deadly for anyone other than seniors with weakened immunological systems.
At least some of the persons who have died from complications of the coronavirus would also be at high risk if they contracted any of the other flu viruses going around this year. Many also had relatively short longevity expectations.
What has been unique about the coronavirus is the governmental response to it, both here in the United States and abroad. Here in Colorado, Governor Polis ordered all ski resorts closed for at least 30 days, all dine-in services at bars and restaurants, as well as closing gyms, casinos, theaters, coffeehouses, cigar bars, brewpubs and distillery pubs. All schools have been closed until at least April 17, 2020. None of the seven states contiguous to Colorado have adopted all of these draconian measures.
In 2009/2010 the swine flu, that originated from Mexico, infected 60.8 million Americans and killed 12,429. However, in Colorado, no such drastic measures were undertaken. Why? Some millennials point out that the swine flu overwhelmingly affected and killed the young while the coronavirus devastates those in the boomer generation and older. Millennials also note that the brunt of the economic hardships in Colorado that result in inevitable recession as a result of the economic stoppage will be borne by younger adults who are just starting new businesses or just entering the workforce. Conversely, they note among most of the politicians’ leadership positions in Washington, both parties are septuagenarians.
Governor Polis declared at his press conference announcing the mandated shutdowns that “Colorado is open for business.” Really? Is he talking about internet businesses where he made his tens of millions or perhaps the business of building high density apartment complexes throughout the Front Range? For the most part other portions of the economy are going to be very much challenged. The oil and gas industry, already reeling from ever-increasing restrictions imposed, is going to be further decimated by record low prices across the world. Tourism in Colorado is all but shut down for an indeterminate period of time, along with it the hotel and resort industry in Colorado, and, of course, the sports sector of the state economy.
Trump at the national level can just simply print another billion dollars in stimulus money while adding more billions of dollars to the national debt. But Polis on the other hand, cannot deficit spend at the state level. He will find that by a stroke of a pen, he can close businesses throughout the state, but he has little or no power to revive an economy spiraling into a recession.
While the number of coronavirus cases are increasing at a rapid rate in Colorado, they are far eclipsed by the all-time record-breaking rate of those attempting to claim unemployment in the state in response to the Governor’s proclamation. “We’re seeing one-day or likely one-week and two-week spikes like we never saw in the Great Recession,” Jeff Fitzgerald, the state’s unemployment insurance director notes. Rest assured the ripple effect from the governor’s proclamations are just beginning.
Is the economic devastation of the State of Colorado necessary? On the one hand it is difficult to blame politicians like Polis for fearing political retribution if they don’t get ahead of the curve on the spreading worldwide pandemic. Politicians started forbidding gatherings of more than 500, then 250 and now no more than 10. Countries like Italy have quarantined the entire population, while others like South Korea did not shut down the economy but mandated the wearing of face masks. Despite what some in the media are telling you, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) respirator masks, made to the specification of N95 or greater, can be effective in limiting the spread of the coronavirus. To date, South Korea has been more effective in controlling the spread of the virus than Italy, with all of its quarantines.
In addition to accepting the 34,100 flu deaths last year Americans also accept the fact that 38,800 die on our roads every year without an afterthought because we do not want to go back to the horse and buggy days. At some point rather than simply forcing the closing of business after business and forcing a recession on what was once a vibrant economy, those who make the decisions in Colorado, need to study what works and what does not. Politicians need to start making the hard decisions and not simply taking the easy out. The coronavirus deaths in Colorado as well as the much more numerous flu deaths will begin to recede as spring turns to summer while the self-induced economic recession will not.
We are now well into the first year of
Mayor Michael Hancock’s final and desultory third term. Ugly high-density and
poorly constructed apartment buildings are still going up everywhere, while
parks and open space are destroyed and predatory bike lanes arise that severely
impede the flow of traffic in the city, making some neighborhoods far less
enjoyable and livable than just five years ago. The mayor continues to spend
much of his time in Atlanta, where he can engage in his favorite pastime,
chasing skirts, far from the scrutiny of the citizens he rules.
What is different in his Honor’s third term
is the 13-member City Council that acts like an actual city council and not
simply a rubber stamp Politburo for a tin pot dictator. Incredibly in the
entire time in office as mayor he has not vetoed a single piece of legislation
aside from his recent veto of a form of a pit bull ban, approved by the City
Council by a 7 to 4 margin. It will take nine votes to overcome the veto. Even
Governor Polis is opposed to the legislation. He shared a picture of him and
his pit bull on social media.
We don’t particularly like City Council
feeling the need to legislate various aspects of many people’s lives either,
but that is not the point. In his first two terms, the city council members
would not dare to pass anything that he did not approve of for fear of
retribution. Perhaps the sudden signs of political courage are a result of Mr.
Hancock being a lame duck mayor who can’t run for another term, unless, of
course, he pulls a “Bloomberg” at the last minute.
But we think it is more of the makeup of
the members of the present council. In 2015 the citizens of Denver elected four
potential rebel new council members — Wayne New, Rafael Espinoza, Kevin Flynn
and Paul Kashmann — who defeated the choices of the mayor and the high-density
developers. The citizens hoped and expected the new members to fight the good
fight but, in fact, nothing changed. Rafael Espinoza behind-the-scenes urged
and virtually begged his fellow council members to once, just once, stand up to
the mayor, but they simply would not.
The election last spring also brought in
four new potential rebel council members — Chris Hines, Candi CDeBaca, Amanda
Sandoval, and Amanda Sawyer — who most council observers expected to be
co-opted just like the 2015 class. But they greatly underestimated Ms. CdeBaca.
She had upset Albus Brooks who was not only the close friend and political ally
of the mayor’s, but the favorite to be the next mayor of Denver. A radical, she
wasted no time in informing the mayor that there was a new sheriff in town and
she was not going to be one more poodle council member.
Amanda Sawyer crushed another close ally of
the mayor, Mary Beth Susman, in District 5 in the 2019 election. She was viewed
by some as not having the grit of Ms. CdeBaca and perhaps far too dependent on
her political sisters from Emerge, a program that trains Democrat women for
local political office, and which helped her get elected in 2019.
But by and large Sawyer has demonstrated
that she is made of the right stuff. One of the problems with the prior
councils is they let the mayor’s staff and appointees push them around. The
mayor’s men and women had little or no respect for what they viewed as weak and
cowardly elected officials on the City Council.
Employees from Denver’s Department of
Transportation and Infrastructure (DOTI) were regularly showing up late for
meetings, leaving early and failing to provide information about projects.
After nine months of this type of conduct Councilwoman Sawyer had enough of it.
She went to Human Resources and the Mayor’s Office to complain that this
conduct was putting her constituents in danger. When they laughed her off, she
further indicated that she would vote against any and all DOTI projects until
the situation was remedied.
The mayor was shocked. He was simply
treating City Council members in the same manner he always had. He quickly went
to sycophantic Denver media to trash her, which they did. The DOTI Executive
Director Eulois Cleckley told the press that the whole matter “really boils
down to a personality conflict.” That is to say that Ms. Sawyer is very
difficult to work with, which would surprise anyone who knows her. Cleckley
went on to declare, “I was a little disappointed. Having tactics like this that
potentially can delay our services or projects. It actually hurts our ability
to do what’s right for the city and county of Denver.”
Ms. Sawyer said she felt she was being
attacked essentially for being a whistleblower. She declared “that this has
turned into a campaign to smear me so that this changes the conversation, and
that’s not fair.” She is of course right. Sawyer backed down about the voting
part, but she had placed a marker about how she expected to be treated on
behalf of her constituents.
Next time she needs to bring along a few of
her fellow council members who need to let the mayor’s personnel know that
Council members are the elected officials and not them. We await that day which
we hope will occur in the very near future.
The firing of Independence Institute’s Jon Caldera as a weekly columnist by The Denver Post is the latest of increasing number of voices stilled in Colorado and across the country for a real or imagined sin. Caldera’s crime was apparently talking about transgenderism without the sufficed sensitivity and in particular noted his belief that there are two human sexes. Caldera’s use of the word “transgender” rather than some other unspecified politically correct term which was, in and of itself, apparently a fire-able offense.
The firing made national news to which the
principal Editor of the Post Lee Ann Colacioppo responded with an Editor’s
Note. In it she denied the assertion of some that the Post did “not want to run
conservative columns about issues surrounding sex and gender.” She declared
conservatives could offer opinions on those subjects provided they used the
correct “respectful language.” She noted that the Post reserved the right to
edit any column and demanded that any columnist must work with them in a
“collaborative and professional manner” to strive to the goal of “respective
language,” implying that Caldera did none of the above. Caldera’s last column
is online and contained only four short paragraphs on the sensitive subject. It
is difficult to find exactly where in the column the disrespectful and
insensitive words were located.
Even in its diminutive state we believe
having a statewide paper like the Denver Post serves an important public
service and we are generally hesitant to pile on the ever-increasing criticism
of it, but this is too much even for this Editorial Board.
Caldera’s columns in the Post over the last
four years have been at times humorously provocative, but never meanspirited or
incendiary. Caldera heaped praise on the Post and Editorial Page Editor Megan
Schrader who fired him. Anyone who has ever interacted with Caldera would find
it difficult to take seriously the implication that he is not “collaborative”
or “professional.”
The real reason for the firing in our minds
is located elsewhere in the Editor’s Note where Colacioppo admits that some of
the Post’s readers find “offensive” opinion columns that do not comport with
the paper’s progressive bent. The Post works closely with the Washington Post
reprinting their articles and even editorials. It is clear that the Post would
like to emulate the Washington Post’s idea of a conservative in its “Turn
Right” columnist Jennifer Rubin who is now more rabidly left wing than its
“Turn Left” columnist. That apparently is the Post view these days of what
Colacioppo described in her Note as exploring “a variety of subjects and
feature[ing] a variety of voices.”
Jon Caldera
We understand the temptation. Every month
we receive no small number of calls and emails demanding that we cancel Peter
Boyles’ column. Boyles was once iconoclastic on the left and these days is more
often iconoclastic on the right. Similarly, every time we run a guest editorial
by Dr. Jack Van Ens, who is on the left side of the aisle and very much
anti-Trump we get calls and emails demanding he be removed from our editorial
page. Perhaps we are old fashioned, but why would anyone want to read just the
same viewpoint over and over. Of course, one could refuse to read the columns
one doesn’t agree with, but today’s cancel culture demands that voices one does
not agree with must be silenced, permanently if possible. We think the Post
greatly underestimates the intelligence of its readers and pays way too much
attention to the twitter mob.
Our publisher certainly understands the new
“cancel culture.” After 10 years being on radio, he was fired from 710 KNUS for
making a one-line dark humor joke, which he genuinely regrets, about how boring
the impeachment hearings were. The station was inundated with calls that he be
fired, not by listeners who were very supportive of him generally, but
professional “astro turfers” on the left. His firing by Salem Corporation was,
of course, not sufficient for the professional astro turfers as he, his wife,
and their 8-year-old son were then subjected to a barrage of the crudest,
obscene death threats imaginable, almost all from people who never listened to
the radio show or even previously knew it existed. They went after the
associations he had long been part of, and many individuals he was friends
with.
They, of course, also threatened this
paper’s advertisers. Luckily, we at the Chronicle are used to it. On January 7,
2015, Islamic terrorists massacred 12 employees of Charlie Hedbo magazine in
Paris, for cartoons they found “insensitive” and not sufficiently “respectful.”
While many news publications including the Chronicle declared “Je suis
Charlie,” the Chronicle took the extra step and printed on its editorial pages
every offending cartoon. The employees of the Chronicle and our advertisers
were threatened with every type of violence and death threat possible.
Most, but not all, of our advertisers
refused to be intimidated and we were fortunate that many businesses rallied
behind us and were repulsed by the tactics. The paper emerged stronger than
ever. As far as most of us are concerned, as in 2015, it is once again “Je suis
Charlie.”
In Colorado there has been little notice that the storied multi-billion dollar department in charge of the state’s transportation needs, CDOT, has evolved into little more than a massive piggy bank for former employees who have set up consulting firms to perform the jobs that CDOT used to perform itself.
When the State Auditor did a Performance
Audit on CDOT it found that 80 of the 84 consultant contracts it looked at had
serious flaws including “unapproved consultants labor rates, contracts without
proper approvals and contract terms that did not comply with state
requirements.” Yet in 2019 another quarter billion dollars will have been
squandered on consultants by CDOT. A total revamping of how CDOT performs, or
fails to perform, its basic functions needs to be undertaken.
Even more scandalous is the
anti-competitive practices undertaken by CDOT pursuant to a 2013 change in the
law whereby instead of requiring low bid for projects over $50,000 they are awarded
on the so-called “best value” method of Design Build (DB) or Construction
Manager/ General Contractor (CMGC). Since there is no clear public criteria for
determining who wins a contract under this system it has become a cesspool of
potential corruption. Not surprisingly it has led to only two firms controlling
over 80 percent of the market — Kraemer North America (a subsidiary of the
Japanese mega firm Obayashi Corporation) and Kiewit Corporation out of Omaha,
Nebraska. Experts estimate that the CMGC method is costing over 30 percent more
than of what it would cost under low bid competition and in turn costing
Colorado taxpayers billions of dollars every year.
The change in the 2013 law was comically
called the “Keep Jobs In Colorado Act.” Instead the act has resulted in
destroying or badly damaging Colorado firms who previously dominated the
competitive bid process. While the Colorado press has largely ignored the
scandal at CDOT it has not escaped the purview of federal authorities. The
national Engineering News-Record on November 29, 2019, announced that the
United States Department of Justice had “launched a multipronged effort to root
out bid-rigging, price fixing and other forms of collusion in construction and
other sectors on local, state and federal government funded contracts.” There
is now a strike force which is comprised of prosecutors in Washington as well
as 13 U.S. Attorneys offices in addition to FBI investigators and personal from
four inspector general offices.
CDOT Director Shoshana Lew
One of the key U.S. Attorney Offices is
that of Colorado. One of the items that possibly brought Colorado onto the
radar screen was the purported statement by a key member of CDOT. The high
ranked CDOT official allegedly stated that the $20 million contract for repair
of the Highway 36 sinkhole should not be competitively low bid because CDOT
could not guarantee, under such a method, that it be awarded to their friends
at Kraemer.
Federal authorities are apparently aware
that bid rigging has expanded far beyond various contractors illegally getting
together and now may involve state agencies.
In looking at CDOT one of the key areas of
investigation may be “bid suppression” as a form of a collusive bidding scheme.
The “Guide to Combating Corruption & Fraud in Development Projects” notes:
“Corrupt government and procurement
officials can facilitate the bid suppression efforts (e.g. by disqualifying
other legitimate bidders during the bidding process) . . . .”
Many local contracting firms in Colorado
are increasingly upset that they are not allowed to take an actual part in
bidding for CMGC projects. They are falsely urged to apply to make it seem that
the process is legitimate and then excluded by CDOT on criteria that only
applies to massive national or international firms like Kraemer and Kiewit.
According to federal sources one of the red
lights for a corrupt bidding process is lack of transparency. Under the prior
low bid process the exact figures for all parties were available after a
contract was awarded so losing bidders could see where they fell short. When an
in-state contractor asked CDOT for a copy of the winning bid under a recent
CMGC project he was given a document with almost all of the key relevant
information redacted by CDOT as shown at right.
Federal authorities are apparently hoping
to bring a case of bid suppression that would make national news as to ensure
the greatest effect. The indictment of Shoshana Lew or other high CDOT
officials regarding the duopoly that has overtaken state construction projects
would certainly fit the bill. However, there is no present indication of
personal financial benefit by any present CDOT official, which while not
necessary in such cases, is still preferred by some federal authorities.
Regardless of federal efforts to clean up
uncompetitive bidding in Colorado, it is clear that CMGC method of awarding
projects should be suspended in Colorado until a transparent competitive system
that will save Colorado taxpayers billions of dollars is undertaken. That and
tight restrictions on consulting contracts with CDOT are both long overdue and
badly needed.
