Aspen's New Capital Managment With Little Affordable Housing To Manage
November 4th, 2008 at 05:19pm Post Staff 43
[Editor's Note: This news coverage has been underwritten by Factual Aspen Investigative Reporting (FAIR). FAIR has been formed and organized in Aspen, Colorado, as a nonprofit corporation to conduct investigative journalism in the public interest, and to provide accurate, meaningful, and non-biased news coverage based on correct factual information.]
ASPEN, COLORADO (Post Time News)—In response to critics of the affordable housing program—and the recommendations of consultants—a new City of Aspen department, largely consisting of existing municipal employees, remains the most significant change in the management of the program since major discrepancies were discovered in an informational brochure concerning Burlingame Ranch sent in error to voters.
“I don’t think this new position or department will help at all,” Don Davidson of the Citizens Budget Task Force told Post Time News. “The personnel in City Hall does not have the experience or know how to handle affordable housing projects. They just don’t have the skill. We need to hire a whole team of people with the experience.”
The new Capital Asset Management (CAM) department is also coming at a time when new affordable housing has all but ground to a halt in the face of voter resistance and a moribund housing market. The new CAM department will ultimately replace the Capital Asset Construction department cited as the cause of many of the problems emanating from the Burlingame affordable housing project now at a standstill after the completion of Phase I.
Existing City staff will move over to CAM but new hires will include managers with expertise in running such large-scale municipal projects and others that require asset management skills—at a time when largescale affordable housing projects are nowhere to be seen in Aspen.
“We are still in the process of hiring the Administrator,” City Manager Steve Barwick told Post Time News. “But once he or she is hired they will have the responsibility of handling all affordable housing projects and other capital projects.”
With new affordable housing on hold, what remains unclear is whether a new CAM administrator—hired at a minimum cost to taxpayers of $89,000 and as much as $123,000—will have anything meaningful to manage in the affordable housing program. Advertisements have already been placed for one new hire and Barwick said the City would hire a second manager in the department if needed. All the other members of the Capital Asset Management team who work on capital projects would
report to a new Capital Asset Administrator.
CAM critics see it as a needless expansion of government but can’t agree whether it’s too much, too soon—or too little, too late.
Plans to upgrade the affordable housing are also in the works, but there have been few specifics yet as to how much they are going to spend and when they will be set in motion. Aspen City planning documents have used both the $200 million and $222 million figure as the total cost of new affordable housing projects in the near-term, but Council Members ultimately shied away from putting the $49 million bond on the November 2008 ballot.
“During these tough economic times it is a shame that we need to spend money to hire a new Administrator,” Aspen City Council Member Dwayne Romero told Post Time News. “I thought that the best idea would have been to use someone from inside of City Hall rather than go outside and spend money to hire someone new. Overall though, I am for the position and I think that it will help make sure that we don’t make anymore mistakes with our affordable housing projects and other capital projects that we
undertake.”
In the audit done by Alvarez & Marsal in the wake of the Burlingame imbroglio, the consultants recommended the City develop a standalone department to deal with all capital projects, including affordable housing. Alvarez & Marsal also recommended the City re-deploy existing City Managers to help with capital projects, and that the City leverage third-party providers, such as construction program managers, to augment existing staff and facilitate real estate development.
“I think that it’s fine to hire a Capital Asset Administrator before we have a solid plan on affordable housing,” one Council Member told Post Time News. “The person we hire can help us develop that plan and make sure that things go smoothly. Affordable housing is a big issue and the more help we could get the better.”
Alvarez & Marsal also suggested Aspen implement a comprehensive communication plan and set standardized policies—and called for the strategic use of more technology to implement the plans. Finally, the consultants called for construction teams to handle the appropriate projects, and said the City had to do a better job of informing the voters about ballot issues that are important to the City.
City Manager Barwick said the City Council right now is reevaluating its position on affordable housing and is unsure what the future holds or how much the City is going to spend moving forward.
"I am no longer close enough to the City's work to be a good source of information on their operations, but to the extent that the City is implementing the recommendations in the Performance Audit, it is probably a positive improvement for which the City deserves credit.",” former Aspen City Finance Director Paul Menter told Post Time News.
“Mistakes were made,” City Councilman Steve Skadron told Post Time News. “But now we are taking the steps to fix the problems. This position is a solid position and one that will help the City. You have to understand that it’s not like we are just filling up a dump truck with money and hoping that will solve our problems. We have a plan and are going to make all the corrections.”
City of Aspen Community Relations Officer Sally Spaulding said the existing Capital Asset Construction Department has
been in existence for over a decade and has been active with projects like the Aspen Recreation Center (ARC); the retrofit of the Red Brick Arts Center; the remodeling of City Hall; the Ice Garden; numerous parks; and housing projects like Annie Mitchell, Truscott, Snyder, Stillwater; not to mention Burlingame Ranch.
Entry Filed under: Aspen, Post Time News
29 Comments Add your own
1. Post Staff | November 6th, 2008 at 8:14 am
[Note: The following comment is from Paul Menter. Menter believes he was misquoted by Post Time News and we are running the correction.]
To the Editor,
I have the unfortunate responsibility of correcting the record on FAIR's misrepresentation of my comments in its most recent article on page 35 of this newspaper on Wednesday, November 05, 2008.
In reference to the City's plan to hire a new Capital Asset Manager, FAIR represents me as saying that it is "unfortunate that the taxpayers or Aspen have to pay for this new position due to mistakes the City Council made."
I never said this, or anything like this. I don't recall even thinking
this.
FAIR's quotations attributed to me in this story are also inaccurate. What I said precisely:
"I am no longer close enough to the City's work to be a good source of information on their operations, but to the extent that the City is implementing the recommendations in the Performance Audit, it is probably a positive improvement for which the City deserves credit."
I never opined on the City's plans to develop more housing, or that I thought their hiring of this position would "help tremendously".
I will not allow my willingness to speak on the record with the media about important community issues to fabricate conflict or criticize others unfairly, and I will not be speaking to FAIR again.
Sincerely,
Paul W. Menter
2. Mitch Mulhall | November 6th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Post Staff quoted:
["I am no longer close enough to the City's work to be a good source of information on their operations, but to the extent that the City is implementing the recommendations in the Performance Audit, it is probably a positive improvement for which the City deserves credit."]
Paul Menter corrected:
["I am no longer close enough to the City's work to be a good source of information on their operations, but to the extent that the City is implementing the recommendations in the Performance Audit, it is probably a positive improvement for which the City deserves credit."]
You can suggest Post Staff made unwarranted inferences about what you meant by this, but you cannot say you were misquoted. These quotes are identical, word-for-word. My analysis follows:
First file name: sample2.txt
Second file name: sample1.txt
Report type:
```````````````````
All (Matching and Differences)
Summary:
```````````````````
Summary for 1 <--> 2:
```````````````````
The files are identical
1 Line(s) match 0 Block(s) diff 0 : 0 Line(s) diff
Summary for 2 <--> 3:
```````````````````
Nothing to compare
Cheers,
3. Marilyn Marks | November 6th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Mitch,
Oh yes, Paul certinaly CAN say he was misquoted. And painfully so. In ways that create undeserved hard feelings with City Hall. That seems to be part of FAIR's style now.
The "analysis" you reference is bogus. You are comparing an improperly "edited and corrected " version of the article to the corrections that Paul clarified. They misquoted him in the original print version. Badly. Go back to the Daily News archives and read the print version. Page 35. It uses different quotes than the online version above. The original version is where he is badly misquoted. The above version was edited only AFTER he called their attention to the errors.
When Paul noted the misquote, FAIR changed their online copy without stating what they had done, making his correction look off base. Again typical FAIR tactics. They obviously should have noted what they did, and taken responsibility for their error.
There are two serious misquotes in the orginal story. Paul appropriately noted them. FAIR was inappropriate in trying to sweep them under the rug and make Paul look off base in the way they "corrected" the story. See, it even fooled a sophisticated and frequent reader such as yourself.
By the way, Don Davidson was also misquoted, changing the meaning of his statement. It is likely that Romero was misquoted as well. FAIR tried to attribute to me one of the statements in the article which I never made. Luckily, they checked and I warned them NOT to misquote me. They did not.
Note that STAFF, not Paul , posted his letter to the Eidtor of ASPEN DAILY NEWS above. A quick glance might lead one to believe that it was written to the editor of the Aspen Post, likely causing the same confusion you experienced.
I beileve that the founders of FAIR intended the highest of journalist standards in attempting to cover little covered, but important aspects of Aspen City government. I applaud them for their efforts, goals and mission. Unfortunately it is not being well executed.
FAIR has a huge problem right now with misquoting and misrepesenting people, using unauthorized copy from others, and not holding to basic standards of journalism.
There are a growing number of people who, like Paul, and myself will not talk with FAIR again, becuase of the continuing misquotes and errors and other more serious isues with FAIR.
Let's hope that careful readers like yourself will encourage them to be more mindful of their professional standards.
Hopefully, your example will demonstrate to them that in making these errors, they confuse even their avid readers, and damage people's credibility, including their own.
Please encourage them to live up to the standards on which they were founded.
Marilyn Marks
Aspen, CO
4. Marilyn Marks | November 6th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Paul Menter asked me to post this on his behalf as he is not a registered blogger at Aspen Post:
Marilyn,
Here is the email exchange between Michael Conniff and me where Michael acknowledges the misquote and asks Jonathan Lekstutis correct the quote in the on line version of the story on Aspen Post. The corrected version is now what is in the Aspen Post story, which I believe was the responsible thing for Michael to do. It’s kind of an IQ test for bloggers and I guess a few have failed the test! : )
To see the original quote please see the Aspen Daily News from November 5th 2008, page 35.
Thanks for posting this comment on my behalf.
Paul
Paul W. Menter
________________________________________
From: Michael Conniff [mailto:michaelconniff@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 6:08 AM
To: Paul Menter
Subject: Re: Letter to the editor
Fair enough. Best, Michael!
________________________________________
From: Paul Menter
To: Michael Conniff ; Jonathan Lekstutis
Cc: Tim Semrau ; Bill Dinsmoor ; Roger Marolt ; Mick Ireland ; Jack Johnson ; Jackie Kasabach ; Dwayne Romero ; Steve Skadron ; Paul Menter
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2008 10:50:46 PM
Subject: RE: Letter to the editor
Paul WAS taking notes because the Wheeler story was not exactly accurate either. Let it go in an effort to not make a big deal out of it. It was a complicated story about a complex issue. Copied Gram on email I provided as backup for that story. I am not sure there is such a big disagreement between me and Gram on the historic facts as represented in the story. Did not look like Jonathan used written info I provided. Perhaps he did not get it?
thx
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Conniff
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:22 PM
To: Jonathan Lekstutis
Cc: Tim Semrau ; Michael Conniff ; Bill Dinsmoor ; Roger Marolt ; Mick Ireland ; Jack Johnson ; Jackie Kasabach ; Dwayne Romero ; Steve Skadron ; Paul Menter
Subject: Fw: Letter to the editor
Jonathan:
Make the changes in the story on Aspen Post to reflect the quote as he has it below.
Then post Paul's letter on Aspen Post under the story Paul makes reference to.
Unless Paul was taking notes, I'm more than amazed than he can reproduce his own quote so "precisely" but we will take his word for it.
You might recall Paul's comments about the Wheeler Opera House. Gram Slaton and Paul have a complete disagreement about whether a meeting occured or not, or whether Paul had a conversation with Paul that Gram denies and Paul recalls vividly.
In another story we've written, another City official who will go unnamed totally disputed Paul's version of events.
Personally, I trust Paul's word absolutely, but people will have to draw their own conclusions.
Thanks, Michael!
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Paul Menter
To: Tim Semrau ; Michael Conniff ; Bill Dinsmoor ; Roger Marolt
Cc: Mick Ireland ; Jack Johnson ; Jackie Kasabach ; Dwayne Romero ; Steve Skadron
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2008 8:43:29 PM
Subject: Letter to the editor
All,
Attached please find a letter that I sent to the Editor of the Aspen Daily News today regarding the quotes and statemetns attributed to me in FAIR's most recent article.
Paul
____________________________________________
>
> From: Paul Menter
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:55 PM
> To: 'letters@aspendailynews.com';
> > Subject: Letter to the editor
>
> To the Editor,
>
> I have the unfortunate responsibility of correcting the record on FAIR's misrepresentation of my comments in its most recent article on page 35 of this newspaper on Wednesday, November 05, 2008.
>
> In reference to the City's plan to hire a new Capital Asset Manager, FAIR represents me as saying that it is "unfortunate that the taxpayers or Aspen have to pay for this new position due to mistakes the City Council made."
>
> I never said this, or anything like this. I don't recall even thinking
this.
>
> FAIR's quotations attributed to me in this story are also inaccurate. What I said precisely:
> >
> "I am no longer close enough to the City's work to be a good source of information on their operations, but to the extent that the City is implementing the recommendations in the Performance Audit, it is probably a positive improvement for which the City deserves credit."
>
> I never opined on the City's plans to develop more housing, or that I thought their hiring of this position would "help tremendously".
>
> I will not allow my willingness to speak on the record with the media about important community issues to fabricate conflict or criticize others unfairly, and I will not be speaking to FAIR again.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Paul W. Menter
>Aspen, Colorado
5. Wharf Rat | November 10th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Cup of Coffee: $2.39
Lost Billable Hours: $100.00
Watching Train Wreck Otherwise Known as F.A.I.R.: priceless
Seriously, people, what did you expect? How 'bout "Fictional Aspen Individual Rhetoric". I mean, really, is anyone surprised here? If F.A.I.R. wants to develop any community credibility, they need to immediately dissociate themselves with Post Time News...errrr...the Con Man and his trusty minion who is still trying to work his way through the crosswalks of Aspen.
I had high hopes for FAIR when they hired the Con Man to engage in "factual" and "unbiased" "journalism" because he has such a great track record in that regard. After getting fired from the Daily News (undoubtedly for being over-competent), he embarks upon a scorched earth campaign against the local sheriff, city council, the mayor, and local papers and individual journalists who write for them. However, when the opportunity arises to engage in "non-biased news coverage based on correct factual information", the Con Man determines he can magically put on his white hat and become the voice of truth in the City of Aspen.
Do you remember the Con Man ripping T. Boone Pickens for failing to disclose that he would derive financial gain from the Pickens Plan? Well I believe that attack was made on the same day he announced that "Post Time News" ...errrr... the Con Man was to be hired by F.A.I.R. as their investigative journalist. Gee, I don't recall the Con Man telling donors to F.A.I.R. "hey, you should donate to F.A.I.R. because that money will eventually go to me!!"
Nor should anyone be surprised at the tip-top journalistic standards exemplified by Post Time News. Get a quote right? Hah! That actually requires listening to someone! We all know from a certain radio show that never happens.... Print a retraction for an incorrect quote? Pshaw!! Just rework the text on your "unedited, unfiltered" blog--it works well enough to confuse your own staff! And when someone named Marilyn puts up a couple posts on your blog, call her a "blogger" and then rip off content from her own blog without attribution. If she confronts you on it, that's a call for investigative journalism!!! Start investigating her--that's the kind of unbiased investigative journalism we've all been waiting for.
The Con Man is a much bigger hoax than I ever gave him credit for. If I didn't feel sorry for all the poor saps that have donated money to F.A.I.R., I'd laugh even harder than I am right now. Tim, Roger, Bill--I hope you manage to see the light before it's too late.
My name is Greg Hall and I approve this message.
6. Mitch Mulhall | November 10th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Marilyn,
I could prove the veracity of these accusations in short order, but that would require the kinds of ethical choices described above. I will instead hold out for honesty.
To be clear, I am a defender of Aspen Post as a forum for open expression... and to be clear, such lofty ideals are all too easily compromised.
I am not satisfied Michael and Jonathan have crossed this line because you quote an email exchange and Wharf Rat got lathered.
Know that I am already trying to secure WordPress post revision logs that would shed more light on this alleged misquote.
That said, if someone would like to send me this email exchange with complete header information, Michael himself may come to understand what "self-policing" actually means. In other words, if anyone, including me, can prove that Michael directed Jonathan to modify the text I analyzed above, I will gladly stand with those who would throw FAIR under the bus.
Cheers,
7. Wharf Rat | November 10th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Mitch,
Just look at Aspen Daily News online, Nov. 5, 2008, p. A35. Aspen Post version replaced fourth to last paragraph and deleted third to last paragraph. Look above and you'll see an extra comma and quotation mark in the replacement quote, third to last paragraph.
I'm not lathered. Hope you are well.
Peace.
8. Mitch Mulhall | November 10th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
C'mon Rat, get with the times. Send me a link. I realize it's lazy of me, but despite the way it may seem, I don't spend all my focus on Aspen Post. Link me the article and I'll analyze it.
I know you're not lathered... Hope you're well, too.
Cheers,
9. Mitch Mulhall | November 10th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Nevermind... I've got it...
Cheers,
10. Wharf Rat | November 10th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Sorry, Mitch--can't link to the "online edition" format.
11. Mitch Mulhall | November 10th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Aspen Daily News, p. A35, 11/05/2008, quoting Paul Menter:
["When you take a look at what's going on," former Aspen City Finance Director Paul Menter told Post Time News, "it looks like they are ramping up for more affordable housing, I do think though that this position is a step in the right direction. It was recommended by Alvarez & Marsal and they want to get this thing on track. So from that standpoint I think they are doing something right. I think this will help tremendously."]
This post, as quoted above:
["I am no longer close enough to the City's work to be a good source of information on their operations, but to the extent that the City is implementing the recommendations in the Performance Audit, it is probably a positive improvement for which the City deserves credit.",” [sic] former Aspen City Finance Director Paul Menter told Post Time News."]
You could call this a "misquote," but that would be to overlook "a shameless manipulation of reality" as a more applicable phrase.
I'd love to know how this happened.
Cheers,
12. Mitch Mulhall | November 10th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
[Sorry, Mitch--can't link to the "online edition" format.]
Yes, you can. One of these days I'll show you how, if you're still interested...
Cheers,
13. Marilyn Marks | November 10th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Mitch,
Paul will likely be happy to send you the original emails-- write him at 'pmenter98388@yahoo.com'. Maybe you no longer need to them compare the very different wording in the on line ADN version vs the above version.
As for the misquote, I don't want to speak for Paul, but the real problem comes in the purported statement :
'In reference to the City's plan to hire a new Capital Asset Manager, FAIR represents me as saying that it is "unfortunate that the taxpayers or Aspen have to pay for this new position due to mistakes the City Council made."
> I never said this, or anything like this. I don't recall even thinking
this.'--(Paul, quoted above)
He values his relationships with City officials, and FAIR was fabricating a destructive spin. This has become part of the FAIR style---fabricating adversarial stances to try to create a story. Cheap journalism.
BUT, the REALLY interesting emails haven't been posted, although Michael made them part of the public recod by copying all of city council and taking on the mayor, when the mayor also expressed concern about how FAIR had misquoted him. You mght ask Paul about those. Or ask the City Clerk. They will make for interesting reading!
And stay tuned for the worst breach of journalistic ethics I have ever seen, over yet a different story FAIR has written about me, I have not posted Conniff's unbelievably unprofessional emails either here or on The Red Ant, for one reason---to keep from embarrassing the founders of FAIR, who have the best of intentions for a great community service. I admire them and what they do for all of us. I don't want to bring dishonor to them by exposing Coniff's poor judgment.
Marilyn
14. Mitch Mulhall | November 10th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Marilyn,
The text of the original emails is important, but not more than the email header information.
I don't know Paul. In fact, my down-valley residence arguably removes me from any say in this up-valley argument. That said, I have pushed my shoulder into making Aspen Post and PTM a going concern. It is no small unhappiness that this, if true, is how PTM wields its internet presence. My loyalty maybe cheap, but it's not worthless. I'm hugely disappointed by what I've seen so far.
My next conversation is with Michael.
Cheers,
15. Michael Conniff | November 11th, 2008 at 9:45 am
There is much, much more to this story than meets the eye, one that has everthing to do with what someone says to a reporter, versus what they think they said.
I'll go into exhaustive detail about Paul if you'd like, but the most interesting point is Marilyn Marks and Elizabeth Milias were embracing our reporter and telling him--a direct quote--"We're so glad you're on OUR team."
That was before we turned our attention to them. Now we're the enemy.
Anyone who believes a word Marilyn says has themselves to blame.
Best, Michael!
16. Marilyn Marks | November 11th, 2008 at 10:44 am
I assure all that I never made such a comment about the reporter and a team!!! I would not want the referenced reporter on "my team" ---if I had a team.
I do not recall Elizabeth saying that in my presence, but she can speak for herself.
Say what you want. In the end we will see who has the facts to back up their work, and who does not.
Marilyn
17. Marilyn Marks | November 11th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Mitch,
Hey, in cyberspace, geography is not much of a concept---so why exclude yourself based on "valley" location? I'm writing from the SE U.S. at the moment.
You'll learn more about Paul and begin to understand why he was one of the most respected executives the City ever had. Too bad we lost him to another local organization. I feel sure that he will be happy to respond to you.
If you are trying to figure out whether the emails are genunine, check with the City Clerk. Michael and MIck have made them part of the officia public record by copying in the council members.
Not sure what you are trying to figure out--but there's no doubt about the cred of what we are saying. Just say what you need to look at. Most of us are happy to have scutiny on our work. ---which brings up the point as to why FAIR does not use digital recorders in their interviews, since they have a tough time taking accurate notes.
In my last interview with them, I intended to take a digital recorder because of my problems with FAIR journalists in the past not getting the quotes/facts correct. But I forgot to take it. Instead, I asked a witness to take detailed notes. I wish Jonathan had taken a recorder. Almost everyone I talk with wishes that Jonathan would use a recorder in his interviews. He gets tthe facts so screwed up. But he won't use one, and takes limited notes. That is why many of us will not talk with him again. When the interviewEES are demanding a recorder or witness, and the interviewER is not, nor taking serious notes, that says it all!!
BTW--your words from a previous post:
"To be clear, I am a defender of Aspen Post as a forum for open expression... and to be clear, such lofty ideals are all too easily compromised."
Just want to say that I agree!! such forums for open expression are indeed important. We all just have to remember that the standard journlism controls are not in place on thes blogs. Works for us and against us, I guess.
Mitch, I too am deeply disappointed in FAIR. More than you can imagine. For all sorts of reasons. The small debate you see here is nothing like what has gone on behind the scenes, which I'm not posting in deference to FAIR partners. It is the kind of thing which could impair their funding efforts. We can take that subject off line if you are ever interested.
Marilyn
18. Marilyn Marks | November 11th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Wharf Rat--
AspenPost stuff is all too crazy, and a huge waste of time!!
Going to leave this borkedown palace...
Wharf Rat gets it. --others don't worry about it.
19. Wharf Rat | November 11th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Mitch,
I believe you are forgetting the following statement in the original article: "Menter however did say that it was unfortunate that the taxpayers have to pay for this new position due to the mistakes the City Council made."
That "quote" was deleted in the Aspen Post version and that is precisely the quote Mr. Menter referred to in his e-mail.
Sorry I couldn't link that for you--I'm not the most computer-literate antagonizer.
Take care.
20. Mitch Mulhall | November 11th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Rat,
I've got this cool, propeller-head tool that allows me to compare two different versions of the same file and highlight the differences. Old-schoolers will recognize this as grep...
The point is, when you're representing yourself as a fair, factual, investigative reporting entity, you don't get to change your words once you go to press. Certainly you can try, but that takes you out of the realm of objectivity and places you squarely in the political.
Even I had to admit plagiarism when a mutual friend spiked lyrics from a famous C&R artist. What's different here? No, this is not plagiarism, but it's every bit as pertinent.
My disappointment notwithstanding, I disagree with Marilyn's late-night assessment of Aspen Post. I plan to keep trying to make Aspen Post a worthwhile read, even though I regard this a low point that print journalists will use to support their premise that blogging is intellectual masturbation.
Cheers,
21. Mitch Mulhall | November 11th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
[There is much, much more to this story than meets the eye, one that has everthing to do with what someone says to a reporter, versus what they think they said.]
That reminds me of:
Cheers,
22. Wharf Rat | November 12th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Mitch,
I admire your goal, and you know at one time I shared your enthusiasm for Aspen Post as an activity worthy of considerable investment. As a concept I believe that my enthusiasm still exists; however, the fact that the Con Man is the guiding light serves as a barrier to my commitment. His lack of credibility impedes the success of this particular project.
If you had the opportunity to hear this morning's Con Games, you might conclude (as I do) that the Con Man has very little, if any, ability to objectively describe others' positions. If this thread can be categorized as a maniacal rant by Marilyn Marks against his holiness then I'm a monkey's uncle. Not a single mention on air of the underlying circumstance; namely, that F.A.I.R. misquoted Paul Menter, that Menter protested by a letter to the editor of the local papers, that Post Time News modified the Aspen Post version of the letter without issuing a retraction of the published form, and that Marilyn Marks subsequently criticized the underlying journalism of F.A.I.R.
Out of that, the Con Man elects to vilify her on air with a series of scathing personal attacks, while simultaneously professing to sit back and let her "rant" (if you call the aforementioned comments by Marks "ranting"). It just belies common sense.
Whether he knows it or not, he embarassed himself tremendously this morning. I particularly enjoyed the part where he implied that Marks is somehow inferior to the Con Man because she didn't attend the Veteran's Day ceremony. Perhaps if he read his own "best local blog in the country" he would have determined that she was in Florida at the time. Maybe one of these days he'll wake up and realize that you can't be an attack dog commentator and an unbiased journalist at the same time. I doubt it though, because that dude has issues. I think if he replayed the tape of the vitriol he leveled against Marks and then applied the adjectives to the person in the mirror it might be very illuminating.
Mitch, I admire your dedication and loyalty to Aspen Post and consider blogging in general to be a very worthwhile exercise.
Take care.
23. Marilyn Marks | November 12th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Wharf Rat--
send me an email at TheRedAntMM@comcast.net
Thanks!
Marilyn
24. Jerry Bovino | November 14th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Michael and Marilyn - You guys need to stop fighting with each other and look at the bigger picture. The two of you are wasting your emotional capital on the personal issues instead of devoting your energy to making Aspen a more efficient, better-run town.
Has anyone noticed that the world's economy is in the dumper? Our tourist visits this year are likely to "drop quicker than a Bill Clinton intern on a pizza run!" Let's cut out the personal attacks. We need to all work together to make sure our town doesn't go bankrupt.
25. Michael Conniff | November 14th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Jerry:
You know I respect your opinion--that goes without saying--but you need to realize Marilyn is trying to destroy FAIR for the simple reason that it dared to write a story about HER.
I could care less about Marilyn--less than less--just I could give a flying whatever about Mick Ireland.
Marilyn was all for FAIR as long as she perceived (incorrectly as it turned out) that we were anti-Mick. Now that it's obvious we're holding her to the same standard she has completely flipped out, threatening lawsuits and trying to discredit everything we do.
Don't put me in the same sentence with her.
Best, Michael!
26. Mitch Mulhall | November 14th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
I keep reading about this story on Marilyn Marks, yet I've never read a word of it. Someone send it to me, please.
Are you, Michael Conniff, suggesting that a person like Marilyn Marks is capable of quelling free speech?
Liberty and Justice for all, indeed. This stinks. And the odor is coming from underneath several tales.
Cheers,
27. Wharf Rat | November 14th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Hey Mitch,
Use the smell test. What you've seen is the following (I hope you've seen it all):
1. Two people writing letters to the editor of the Aspen Daily News alleging they were misquoted by "Post Time News".
2. F.A.I.R. electing not to run a story written by the Con Job about Marilyn Marks that was scheduled to run last Wednesday.
3. I-Con firing all guns on deck against Marilyn Marks and Curtis Wackerle.
4. I-Con refusing to explain or even acknowledge the errors made by Post Time News.
4. A "cat fight" in which one cat is clawing and the other is cleaning her paws.
You decide wherein lies the truth.
Cheers!
28. Jerry Bovino | November 15th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Michael....
Ok. I get your point. There are plenty of strong personalities at work in this town. Neither you nor Marilyn are shrinking violets, which is exactly why your input is valuable. As we learned from the community forum that you moderated a few months ago, plenty of people in town are afraid to speak up, so I am delighted that the two of you want to be heard.
You know that I respect your capabilities. It's just that if Marilyn used the Red Ant to throw darts at you, and Michael used the Aspen Post or FAIR to throw hand grenades at Marilyn, there might not be sufficient column inches left in either publication to write the Aspen obituary that will result if we spend ourselves into a foxhole.
Geeeeesh....I got home from dinner tonight (the bar at LULU Wison's was packed) to an email from Marilyn implying that I was favoring YOU! How did I get in between you two love birds?
When Marilyn gets back in town, I plan to take the two of you to the woodshed (AKA Zele) and force you to kiss and make up.
29. Michael Conniff | November 16th, 2008 at 5:51 am
Jerry:
Keep this in mind: Marilyn, Wharf Rat, you, and/or anyone else can come on Aspen Post without fear of censorship and have their say.
And what a say it's been.
In the end, despite all the bad, that's a good thing.
All best, Michael!
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed