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.
The state legislature put two proposals
before the voters this year. The first is Proposition CC which would
permanently end all Colorado Taxpayer Bill of Rights (“TABOR”) refunds and was
strongly backed by Democratic lawmakers. The other, Proposition DD, would
legalize and tax sports betting by telephone to casinos in Colorado if passed.
It has strong support among Republican legislators. It is clear that people at
the State Capitol don’t believe either proposal has sufficient merit on its own
to garner statewide support so they hope to trick you into voting for them by
misleading language and sleight of hand.
Back in 2005 under Proposition C (which
provided for a pause in TABOR refunds for a five-year period) the legislature
promised to use the money for higher education and got gullible people, like
the then University of Colorado President Hank Brown (a former Republican U.S.
Senator), to support the proposition. When it passed they, in fact, used the
money for higher education, but then they cut even more funds for higher
education from the General Fund resulting in less money overall. As Brown
bluntly stated: “They lied to me.”
Now the legislature plans to pull the same
con hoping the voting public will forget what they did last time. This time the
ballot language says it will be used to “better fund public schools, higher
education, and roads, bridges and transit with an annual independent audit to
show how the retained revenues are spent.” The annual audit will, in fact, show
that the funds will be spent for the stated purposes. The fly in the ointment
is that the legislature will then cut the General Fund for those purposes in
excess of the amount raised and spend the money any way they please. This is
exactly what they with did Proposition C almost a decade and a half ago.
The ballot language for Proposition CC also
starts out declaring: “Without raising taxes . . . .” But it does, in fact,
raise taxes but simply not tax rates. We the taxpayers pay more taxes because
you will never again get a TABOR tax refund.
Brown and former Governor Bill Owens, both
of whom supported Proposition C, have come out against Proposition CC because
they at least remembered how they were lied to 14 years ago by the legislature.
The CC Proposition has drawn opposition
editorially across the political spectrum. The Denver Post argued, inter alia,
that the proposition was incredibly unfair in that it allocates any money for
K-12 education be done on a per pupil basis which rewards the richest school
districts, like those in the Cherry Creek School District, while harming the
poorest schools in inner city Denver and Western Slope rural schools.
The more conservative Colorado Springs
Gazette based their opposition on the fact that TABOR has been a bulwark
against overspending since 1992 and is an important element on why Colorado’s
economy is ranked number 1 in the country for the last several years. If the
additional billion dollars the legislature received this year under TABOR is
not enough, the $1.7 billion it would receive over three years under
Proposition CC will also not be enough and the spending spree will just be
starting.
Regarding, Proposition DD it is beyond a
little strange that Republicans in the State House are so enthusiastic about
opening Colorado to taxed sports betting and the inevitable increase in the
state bureaucracy. If you have been watching the advertisements on television,
they are all about state water projects that will be enhanced and the fact that
the casinos will be paying the 10% tax on winnings. What a joke. The casinos
will pass the cost on to sports bettors along with at least another 10%
vigorish to cover their costs and profits. No one in their right mind would
place a bet with the government approved casinos as the amount to be taken out
of winnings will be enormous and, of course, reported right back to your
friendly IRS, but as PT Barnum said: “There is a sucker born every minute.”
The amount going to so-called “water
projects” is incredibly small and for fiscal year 2020-21 it is as follows:
Estimated
Distribution Fiscal Year
2020-21 Percentage
The ads with the clinically obese cattleman
show the support for Proposition DD by various water related entities expected
to get some of the chicken feed doled out under the proposition, but none of
them paid a penny for the ads. The ads were funded solely by in-state casinos
and out-of-state betting consortiums who are the real beneficiaries of the
proposition.
Proposition DD is opposed on the right by
the Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University which wonders why we
see the need for the state government to take and run an ever-increasing number
of human vices. On the left, Coloradans for Climate Justice noted how little is
being raised for so-called water projects and it noted the phrase “water
projects” is so vague as to be virtually meaningless.
So why are the Colorado House Republicans
supporting a proposal which appears to violate many of its purported
principles. The answer is obvious. The Republican Party in Colorado is
virtually bankrupt. The support by Republicans was undoubtably in return for a
promise of funding future Republican endeavors in Colorado by Colorado casinos
and the out-of-state betting consortiums.
We guess just about everyone is for sale at
some price down at the Capitol. There is no reason we should support such
egregious conduct by voting for either Proposition CC or Proposition DD.
The Denver City Council’s agent of change and de facto
leader Candi CdeBaca is planning to have the City Council pass a bill to change
the City Charter to allow Denver voters to elect the city’s Sheriff as is the
case almost everywhere else in Colorado. Given the disaster the Sheriff’s
Department has become, the voters could not do worse than Hancock’s picks over
the last nine years. Even the union representing the Sheriff deputies believes
that such a reform is long past due.
It is difficult to catalog all of the scandals that have
befallen the office over the last few years, starting with the death of
mentally ill Michael Lee Marshall while in custody. The lawsuits alone have
cost the taxpayers a staggering amount of money, including the most recent $1.55 million
settlement paid to 15 female Sheriff deputies for “severe and unwelcome sexual
harassment by male inmates . . . fostered by the failure of the Sheriff’s Department
to take reasonable steps to prevent it.” The next big hit to the taxpayers will
be from the female inmate forced to give birth to a child alone in a Denver
jail cell.
Patrick Firman
Denver Sheriff Patrick Firman resigned effective October 14
after years of mistrust from deputies and community activists, who said that
was the price of filling the position with a man who was never the right person
for the job. “Nice guy, just wasn’t suited to be Sheriff,” said Lisa Calderón,
chief of staff for Councilwoman Candi CdeBaca.
If he were so ill suited for the job, why in the world was
he appointed by Mayor Hancock in 2015 after a long search process? Because it
was a workie, workie like everything else the Mayor does. If you think anything
is going to change as long as the Mayor gets to appoint the Sheriff, you would
be mistaken. For the interim Sheriff, Hancock has appointed a woman, Fran
Gomez, who is even more unqualified than Firman. She was briefly with the
Sheriff’s Department in the 1980s and then after years doing police work in
Aurora and Commerce City she retired. In August of last year she apparently
unretired and got the “no work” job in the Sheriff’s Department as the
“Director of Professional Standards.”
What caused the sudden hiring and incredible rise through
the ranks to the top in a little over a year? According to the Deputy Sheriff’s
union it is due to the fact she is the wife of one of Hancock’s security
detail. Hancock apparently counted on that fact being obscured by the fact she
is the “first” female Denver Sheriff of any sort and has a Hispanic last name.
Almost everyone expects that under Ms. Gomez things will go from bad to even
worse at the jail. This will be followed by the appointment of another gross
incompetent as the permanent Denver Sheriff.
Denver’s citizens really do not have to put up with this
pathetic hiring carousel for the Sheriff position. We should choose the best
candidate for Sheriff ourselves. Voters are not perfect of course, as evidenced
by the fact we have elected Michael Hancock three times. But candidates for the
office will have to at least try to convince us why they would be well-suited
for the job. We can’t do a whole lot worse than choosing as interim Sheriff a
person whose only qualification is that she is the wife of a man on the Mayor’s
security detail.
Fran Gomez
The positions directly below the Sheriff are also presently
political patronage jobs chosen by the Mayor for all of the wrong reasons. An
elected Sheriff could at least pick individuals he/she believes are best suited
to help do what is a very hard job, rather than simply to people whom a Mayor
owes a favor.
Having an elected Sheriff is only the beginning of the
process to provide some checks and balances in the City Charter over present
and future corrupt and out-of-control Mayors.
Lord Acton famously stated: “Power tends to corrupt, and
absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
It is time in Denver for a little less absolute power and a
lot less public corruption.
For the last eight-plus years the Denver City Council served
no earthly purpose whatsoever. Thirteen individual council members drew six
figure salaries, had gold plated health insurance and pension plans, along with
expensive office space and assistants, but did absolutely nothing in return
other than rubber stamp everything that a figure head Mayor and the high
density developers who controlled him, put before them.
Councilmember Candi CdeBaca: New Sheriff In Town
Citizens by the scores appeared before the City Council to
beg them for relief from the depravations of the merciless business cartels
such as the CEO driven and Orwellian named “Colorado Concern” and the rapacious
“Downtown Denver Partnership” but to no avail. The City Council even decided,
with the Mayor’s support, to essentially legalize (subject to state approval)
heroin sales to all, including children, under the rubric of caring “safe
injection sites.”
On the night of the second City Council meeting since the
2019 Spring municipal election there was nothing on the agenda which would
cause the Mayor and his staff to expect anything but the normal supine behavior
from the City Council that they had so long enjoyed. But on that night,
however, newly-elected City Councilwoman Candi CdeBaca arose to object to
utterly mundane contracts to two outside contractors who run halfway houses for
approximately 500 convicts in the city. The money for the contracts was not
even from Denver, but rather the State. CdeBaca objected to the contracts on
the grounds that the contracts were with companies whose parent entities
provided detention facilities for ICE, and the fact that she did not like
for-profit companies making money off doing services which are normally
performed by government.
She stated she did not expect support from a single other
councilperson. To the shock of one and all, a majority of the Council supported
her, and the contracts were canceled. The cancellations shook the political
insider world of Denver. If a run-of-the-mill, non-controversial contract could
be cancelled at the whim of a single councilperson, how safe are the literally
hundreds of workie-workie contracts of the Mayor’s friends and city lobbyists?
Is anybody’s piece of the municipal corporate gravy train safe?
After that meeting came the equally shocking proposal by
Council President Jolon Clark of a $43 million carbon tax on businesses to
fund, inter alia, a city climate change office. Clark and his six Council
co-sponsors are a majority on the 13-person Council. The Mayor and his lackies
at the bought-off Denver Post, howled. How dare Clark act as if the City
Council was a democratically elected legislative body. Notwithstanding the
protestations, the Finance and Governance Committee approved passing on the
proposals to the full Council by a 4 to 3 margin with CdeBaca, Hines, Gilmore
and Clark voting in favor and holdovers, Ortega, Kniech and Black voting
against.
As a practical matter we don’t support either the
cancellations of the halfway house contracts or the carbon tax on businesses,
the latter of which has to be approved by the voters even if passed at the
Council level. But far more important to us than the actual merits of these
actions is the fact that a majority of the City Council are no longer willing
to act as a doormat for a corrupt Mayor and his backers. We are hoping that the
new majority will also oppose the rape of Park Hill Golf Course by Westside
Investments, LLC., and the destruction of the Elyria and Swansea neighborhoods
by the ill-conceived and unbelievably corrupt I-70 expansion, along with
hundreds of other projects designed to destroy what was once a truly beautiful
city and its neighborhoods.
Is it possible that representative democracy is returning to
the Mile-High City at long last? We certainly hope so.
