Andy Stones Aspen Times Reporting

November 19th, 2009 at 06:41pm Post Staff 43

Aspen Times columnist Andy Stone, a former editor of the paper, takes his successors to task, albeit mildly, for not reporting on the Marilyn Marks/Elizabeth Milias Election Commission brouhaha:

These days the editors of The Aspen Times — two talented, dedicated, honest, hard-working men — are deeply restricted by savage cuts in the paper's editorial staff, the sad result of the ongoing national recession.

The paper has not been able to assign a reporter to get that job done. That reporter would have to read all the e-mails and read the court filings and sit down and interview Jack Johnson, Marilyn Marks (and Elizabeth Milias and City Clerk Kathryn Koch and election commissioner Chris Bryan and ... you get the idea). And maybe talk to some of them twice. And cross-check what they said. And challenge questionable statements. And then pull it all together in a solid, comprehensible story that explained what was going on, specified provable facts and demolished half-truths and evasions.

Stories like that are hard to write. Reporters who can write them are hard to find (although the Times has several). Budgets that can afford all of that are hard to justify.

But still, in a mess like this, it's what we all need.

I'm still hoping that, one of these days, we get it.

And then, when the hard work's been done, I'll cheerfully shoot my mouth off.

Entry Filed under: Media, Aspen, Colorado

2 Comments Add your own

1. Michael Conniff | November 22nd, 2009 at 5:54 pm

With all due respect to Mr. Stone, a pioneer of the local press, is it not fair to ask what is keeping an Aspen Times columnist from doing a little reporting? I understand the allure of quasi-retirement, but to take your editors to task--those who hold your old job, no less--seems disingenuous at best and solipsistic at worst.. And to toss this rather telling passage thrown in at the butt end of a column almost comes across as a former editor sneaking in a veiled criticism of those who ultimately replaced him.

Perhaps this is a glimpse of the Aspen I've never really understood, where the powers that be are frequently given a pass simply because they are the powers that be. This is perhaps the kindler, gentler, more stoned Aspen of days long ago. I don't know, but I do think a person of Andy Stone's stature hereabout owes it to his fans and readers to get dead serious about something for once. This one is not just another meeting of Pitkin County Commissioners that you can sleep through.

Best, Michael!
2. harvie_branscomb | November 23rd, 2009 at 7:02 pm

Allegations and Facts about the Election Commission Controversy
By Marilyn Marks (11.20.09)

(note that because this blog does not allow me to use links, the links have been translated- when you see [dot] simply replace that with a period.)

Why are we still talking about the May, 2009 Aspen Colorado municipal election? Two reasons that I can see. One reason is mine, the other belongs to the opposition. My reason is to encourage reforms before the 2011 election and beyond. My critics are focused on my focus on those reforms. They are working relentlessly to discredit my efforts. A quick review of facts is in order.

The facts, stripped to their most basic, with the critics’ claims:

Allegation #1: Marilyn is trying to overturn the May election.

Fact: Despite the many election abnormalities and clear violations of state and local law, including the state constitution, I have made no effort to contest or overturn, or void the outcome of the election.

IMPORTANT: If a voter takes legal action to void the May election and is successful, I will not be on the ballot as a candidate. I will not be a candidate until 2011, if then. I have no personal interest in seeing the election voided or overturned. I will not be a candidate in such an event.

Allegation #2: Marilyn has sued the City to contest the election.

Fact: After 5 months of failed negotiations to acquire the ballot images for a process review, I sued the city to stop their destruction, and release them as public records. These images have already been shown to members of the public present on Election night. The litigation is solely about the release of those public documents, and does not impact the election outcome. (see details at bit [dot] ly/courtasked.

Allegation #3: Marilyn has manipulated the Election Commission behind the scenes to make decisions which benefit her alone.

Fact: I have aggressively advocated for an awakening of the Election Commission to hear citizens’ concerns about the election without citizens having to go to court. The Commission granted my one formal request, which was to prevent the destruction of certain election records. This decision serves the public interest as well. Mr. Johnson was at this public meeting and did not speak to object to this decision to preserve a box of election records.

Fact: In addition to agreeing to preserve records, the Commission decided unanimously to seek funding for independent legal counsel to help assess their roles and responsibilities. This need was initiated by Commissioner Bryan, an attorney. I was not involved in the decision process or evaluation of potential candidates for consideration. When asked, I offered one recommendation, which, to my knowledge, was not considered.

Allegation #4; Marilyn is trying to get the City to pay her hand-picked auditors for an election audit.

Fact: I have promoted the concept of a bi-partisan privately funded citizen review of the election using two widely recognized election integrity experts. The work is well underway, although the fundraising has not begun. It is not a city funded effort. It needs to be independent of elected officials or of any single candidate. The private funds will be sought from a diverse bi-partisan group of donors. Harvie Branscomb, a well know Eagle county based election integrity advocate initiated the idea of this review, just after the election, both to Ireland and to me. Ireland has not been supportive of robust citizen oversight and post election reviews. While Branscomb was a long time supporter of Ireland, his interest is in the election improvement process, not the outcome of the May election.

Private funding of this review through a 501c3 charitable organization was considered since inception. Branscomb and I met with Bryan, the Vice-Chair of the Pitkin Democratic Party to promote the idea of private funding. (documented at bit [dot] ly/CB7509 and bit [dot] ly/elecrevsum )

Allegation #5: Marilyn had friendship and business relationship to Commissioner Milias, and this created a conflict of interest.

Fact: The Charter is clear that any voter other than a candidate or nominee or City employee may serve as a Commissioner. The positions are intended to be partisan positions, balanced in number, where each Commissioner is presumed to have a political bias, offset by the other. The major parties by tradition nominate the appointees, who are appointed by Council. This is intended as a check and balance to have some independence from elected officials. Chairman Koch had stated in April that there was no conflict between Milias’ Commissioner role and her role in my campaign, based on the Charter.

The Election Commission should be nominated by parties who are not elected officials. Political bias (but fairness and reasonableness) should be expected in Commissioners. It would be virtually impossible to find commissioners who had no interest in any ballot questions or no preferences as to candidates. Hence the design of a balance of opposing interests.

Allegation #6: There has been misuse of public funds at the Election Commission involving Marilyn’s request.

Fact: The Commission has not spent any money whatsoever and has no budget. It has requested that Council allocate funds for independent legal advice, but this decision is pending. I have made no requests of the Election Commission which would necessitate financial outlays.

Allegation #7: The non-anonymous ballot issue was a fabrication by Marilyn

Fact: Millard Zimet documented this easily understood but serious problem. This problem was confirmed by City Attorneys in a July work session and in published interviewed in August. See bit [dot] ly/mzimet for documented details. Zimet has demonstrated that many voters ballot data can be ascertained by officials and the public, violating our rights to an anonymous ballot.
This is a serious issue the Council does not seem to want to deal with. A non-anonymous ballot election is unconstitutional and remains at risk that someone will litigate.

Allegation #8: The Election Commission was making decisions in Marks’ favor.
Fact: The Election Commission has only considered and made two significant decisions. See #3 above.

Allegation #9: Marilyn tried to get legal indemnification for Commissioners since she was going to sue the City and wanted to protect the Commissioners.

Fact: My lawsuit could legally only be brought against Koch, the custodian of records. Other Commissioners could have had no exposure. Therefore there would be no reason to indemnify. Indemnification was suggested to Commissioners after I learned of threatened Minnesota group litigation. I had previously informed Council of the threatened allegation, which I am not involved in.

Allegation #10: The Election Commission should be free of influence by a defeated candidate

Fact: The role of the Election Commission is to deal with election related questions and problems. They should be the local alternative to the courts for matters that can be resolved administratively. Losing candidates by nature will have the most knowledge, information and interest in problem resolution, and creating improvements for future elections. Strong advocacy from candidates is anticipated and healthy. The bi-partisan nature of the Commission creates the checks and balances.

Discouraging and demonizing candidates who advocate for improvements as my critics have done virtually assures that the defects in the system remain uncorrected, and actually grow.

Allegation #11: Marilyn met in private with Commissions Bryan and Milias, a quorum of the Commission.

Fact: I have never met with Bryan and Milias outside of a public meeting which included Koch. However, I have had at least 3 meetings with Koch, which included Milias but not Bryan. These were informal meetings in Koch’s office, and no significant decisions were made or formal notes taken.

Allegation #12: Marilyn was attempting to get the Commission to litigate to contest or void the election.

Fact: No such plan was ever contemplated or proposed. In any attempt to overturn an election, the challenger would logically want timely action with maximum time to conduct a new election. The Election Commission had no funds, no independent counsel, uncertain authority and little knowledge of the facts. There would be no reason to request such aggressive action from an impotent Election Commission. If I had wanted to overturn the election, I would have gone to court on a timely basis to do so.

Allegation #13: Marilyn plans to use the results of the audit underway to litigate against the City over the May election.

Fact: The bi-partisan review is progressing at a patient pace and is comprehensive in scope with a focus on improvements for 2011 elections and beyond. No review or audit would be required for any litigation contemplated by me. The only litigation contemplated is the current litigation seeking public records so that the audit can be a thorough end to end audit. Summer 2010 is an expected completion date.

Allegation #14: Important communications between Marks and Milias are being withheld, which should be public records.

Fact: While Milias had not been requested to retain all Blackberry generated emails, her emails to and from both Bryan and Koch have all been produced by those recipients. I have voluntarily supplied copies of emails between Milias and myself on Commission business. All emails of any significance are in the public record.

Taken together with the proposed agendas, actions, and decisions of the Commission, there is a full and complete record of all substantive considerations and communications of the Commission. That record also shows no consideration of any improper or questionable actions by the Election Commission.

Allegation #15: It is a waste of public funds to engage independent counsel when the City has two attorneys. Marilyn wanted the Commission to get different legal advice.

Fact: I agree that the Commission needed independent legal advice on the issue of their Charter defined responsibilities and authority. However, attorney and Commissioner Bryan initiated this discussion and request, which was unanimously passed at the commission meeting. The City Council chose to have an inquiry made to the Colorado Bar Ethics Committee for their determination as to whether there is a conflict of interest by the city attorney. Those documents filed by Commissioner Bryan and by City Attorney Worcester presenting each side of the argument may be viewed at: bit [dot] ly/CBAreqletter, bit [dot] ly/CBAwhy, bit [dot] ly/CBAWorcester

The central issue is that the City attorneys helped design, advise, write procedures for, and certify the May election. There is an inherent conflict in their advising an Election Commission looking into problems in that election. No human being can both create work and have an objective review of their own work. Nor would they likely choose to advise the Commission to use their full authority for such a review.

Allegation #16: Marilyn has attempted to use public funds to void the election

Fact: I’ve made no effort to attempt to void the election, nor considered spending any private or public funds on such a cause.

Summary
In summary, there is no substance to the contrived and inflammatory allegations made by Mr. Johnson and some of the members of the press and columnists. A small percentage (if any) of the documents produced were reviewed by those who have criticized my efforts and the actions of the Commission. Johnson took fragments of emails and stitched them together to create a defamatory and completely false picture of the workings of the Commission and my advocacy of certain reform and review issues. Johnson knows that his claims are contrived and falsified. The question is why is he engaging in this unproductive exercise?

Mayor Ireland has joined in as well with written accusations of wrong doing and has lead Council to order investigations of communications and actions of individuals’ on the Election Commission and presumably mine as well.

Roger Marolt’s column is factually inaccurate and terribly misleading, as he has stitched together unrelated fragments. His column would be clearly libelous but for his clever protection of saying, “am I crazy to think ……?”

Michael Conniff’s obsessive and vicious blogs and radio rants are virtually fact-free and his opinions based on hate and revenge, not fact. In fact he has created extremely irresponsible malicious libelous and slanderous statements about me and the election work I’m involved with.

Reaction by My Critics
I have made 3 formal requests to Mayor Ireland and the City to inquire as to the allegations against me which are being investigated. And how, when and where I should submit materials to defend myself. The Mayor and City Officials refuse to answer this basic due process question, apparently conducting an investigation in private without my having an opportunity to defend myself.

I have requested numerous appointments with Mayor Ireland to discuss these matters. He refuses to give me an appointment.

Harvie Branscomb has invited Michael Conniff to have a conversation with the two of us so that Michael could hear the facts. He refused.

Andrew Kole has offered to host an hour long debate/dialogue between Jack Johnson and myself. I have accepted. Jack has ignored the invitation.

Jack Johnson claims that the public would accept his allegations if only they read the emails. I offered to post on the internet the 15 or so most important emails he chooses. However he refused the offer.

Roger Marolt did not do any fact checking with me before publishing. I have shown him why his statements are incorrect, but he has refused to make corrections. He now claims the problem was not the actions or commission decisions but my “tone” in the emails.

It appears that the accusers would prefer to deliver their unfounded and vitriolic attacks without having the responsibility of dealing with the facts.

My Quandary
I am left wondering why there has been a massive reaction to my litigation to have ballot images released and such great interest in the limited work of the Election Commission. Is this merely political mud-slinging to discredit a critic of the local government? Or is this a concerted effort to detract from the real issues at hand----the much needed election reform?

If you have thoughts or questions you may reach me at MarilynRMarks [ampersand] gmail.com. I welcome your comments.

Considerable additional detail may be found at Harvie Branscomb’s Aspen Election Review blog. bit [dot] ly/AspenElection. He is also happy to answer your questions. 970 963 1369 or harvie [ampersand] media [dot] mit [dot] edu

Postings on www [dot] TheRedAnt [dot] com also contain many additional details about IRV and the May elections.