"If you goal is to attempt to discredit me for things that some Dorsey employees did," writes Post blogger Marilyn Marks in comment #49, "and somehow say that it reflects on my character, ---go ahead. There were as many as 1300 employees in the company and you could have a long list of things that 'should never have happened,' ---as with any organization. Yes, we struggled with cases of sexual harrassment., racial bias, gender bias, embezzlment, kickbacks, environmental violations---all those issues that big organizations experience no matter what values and rules the leaders attempt to set. Leaders are indeed responsible for the tone at the top, ---although it is not always carried throughout the organization. It is indeed unacceptable that these things happen. I'm not making excuses--, ---just pointing out that if that is your goal, to make me personally responsible for all the inappropriate actions of former Dorsey employees, when they were breaking company policy, you have a rich gold mine of opportunity."
"The ability of Pitkin County voters to advance a ballot question regarding taxation is stated in some of the plainest language to be found in Colorado’s constitution," writes Jeffrey Evans, "and everyone knows that a county charter can’t supersede that document. This is not a winnable argument for the county, or one for which there is any apparent point in making.... On April 14, we filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief with the court, requesting a declaration of our rights 'pertaining to the validity under the Constitution and laws of the State of Colorado of such provisions of the Pitkin County Home Rule Charter.' In other words, we are asking the court to explain to county officials that they need to let us proceed with our petition.
"The first step in the county initiative process is to have the form and content of the petition reviewed by the county clerk," writes Post blogger Jeffrey Evans about the entrance to Aspen. "Despite three separate attempts, the Pitkin County clerk has refused to approve the content of a local tax initiative, citing a provision of the Pitkin County Home Rule Charter that prohibits petitions on the 'levy of taxes.' County clerks take an oath of office that they will uphold the state and federal constitutions, and yet we have a letter from Pitkin County clerk Janice Vos Caudill in which she says that 'as an elected official, one is sworn to uphold the Home Rule Charter…!' A county charter cannot override a state constitutional right, just as a state law cannot violate our rights secured under either the state or federal constitution."
Posts filed under 'Transportation'
Last year, as one part of the mission of Common Sense Alliance, I prepared a report to the Colorado Transportation Legislation Review Committee, a group made up of state legislators charged with overseeing state transportation projects. The general perspective of the report was that the state needed to take action to protect its citizens from the complete collapse of federal oversight of transportation funding. Despite that rather gloomy assessment the report also noted that "efforts to secure remediation of this problem at the federal level will continue", and we are now back to work on that approach.
Problems with the way the Department of Transportation (DOT) is doing its job can be reported to their Office of Inspector General (OIG). Beyond that, the federal government has now set up an Integrity Committee, to whom complaints can be addressed regarding problems with the way the OIG is doing its job.
Last week, I sent the letter below to the Integrity Committee, along with a complaint* regarding both the DOT and the OIG.
Any federal elected official or candidate might find the link below to be especially interesting, as it recounts the practical and real world methods used by federal employees to avoid taking responsibility to fix problems brought to their attention. I have not attempted to contact any elected officials or candidates, as I do not have any particular connection to any of them that might cause them to take notice. If you do have the ear of a federal elected official or candidate, please feel free to pass this email along.
* http://www.entrancesolution.com/Integrity%20Complaint.htm
Dear Integrity Committee,
The enclosed complaint is being sent to you at the suggestion of Valerie T. Blyther, Investigative Research Analyst for FraudNET at the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
A central aspect of the problem being reported is the manner in which it was handled by staff of the Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General, and that appears to be your specific area of responsibility.
However, the full authority of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity & Efficiency would be better suited to respond to the broad scope of deficiencies in the oversight of federal transportation funding which is detailed in this complaint. The mission and purpose of the Council to “address integrity, economy, and effectiveness issues that transcend individual Government agencies”, and “continually identify, review, and discuss areas of weakness and vulnerability in Federal programs and operations with respect to fraud, waste, and abuse” could have been written in reaction to the situation I am reporting.
The inevitable buck passing that occurs as a result of the bureaucratic compartmentalization of responsibility and authority has been a major problem that formation of the Council is clearly intended to overcome. The more pernicious failure of accountability that I encountered has been the consistent practice by nearly every federal official contacted to avoid acknowledging or discussing any of the information with which they are presented – apparently in order to evade any responsibility to act on that information.
If the intent of the architects of your agency was to make the Integrity Committee the enforcer of personal accountability by federal employees, the power to do so will need to be extended far beyond the various IG offices.
It is somewhat surprising that your intake method does not start with the Council, who then makes a determination regarding whether to pass the information on to the Integrity Committee. Regardless, I trust the Integrity Committee is perfectly capable of forwarding this request to the full Council for action that will “transcend individual Government agencies”.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Jeffrey Evans
June 29th, 2010
The Pitkin County clerk recently blocked distribution of a citizen’s initiative petition mandated under the state constitution - on the grounds that a petition which affects the levy of taxes violates the Pitkin County home rule charter. This is one of the more peculiar political decisions in recent memory.
Continue Reading April 15th, 2010
The Colorado state constitution provides “we the people” with the power of the initiative petition so that private citizens can propose legislation to be placed on the ballot. This power extends to the state as a whole, municipalities, and “home rule” counties such as Pitkin, and tax issues are legislative questions which are subject to the initiative process.
So, in Pitkin County, the circulation of a petition on a question of taxation is a state constitutional right.
The first step in the county initiative process is to have the form and content of the petition reviewed by the county clerk. Despite three separate attempts, the Pitkin County clerk has refused to approve the content of a local tax initiative, citing a provision of the Pitkin County Home Rule Charter that prohibits petitions on the “levy of taxes”.
County clerks take an oath of office that they will uphold the state and federal constitutions, and yet we have a letter from Pitkin County clerk Janice Vos Caudill in which she says that “as an elected official, one is sworn to uphold the Home Rule Charter…”!
Continue Reading March 16th, 2010
This just in from Aspen activist Jeffrey Evans on the entrance to Aspen.....
Continue Reading December 19th, 2009
It was in 1970 that an Aspen city council first asked the State of Colorado to hold off on the expansion of Highway 82 to four lanes so that they could study mass transit as an alternative to highway construction. Forty years later there will still be a traffic jam at the entrance to town - despite tens of millions of dollars in annual transit spending.
In 1984 a group called the “Traffic Committee”, organized by the City of Aspen, recommended a new four lane entrance to town which was later approved by Aspen voters in 1990. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project was nearing completion, and Scott McInnis had secured a special appropriation from the state to begin construction.
What happened next, the history of why the new entrance was not completed either then or over the next 19 years up to today, is a microcosmic example of just about everything that currently doesn’t work in the governing process of the United States.
Understanding this one example of the total breakdown of our system serves as a primer for why so much cynicism exists regarding the point or purpose of participation, and provides a crystal clear example of why our country is bankrupt.
Beginning with their refusal to honor the clear outcome of that perfectly reasonable 1990 electoral decision, and continuing through the corruption of federal oversight processes designed to protect the public from waste and mismanagement, transportation planning throughout the Roaring Fork Valley is totally compromised by the original sin of the Aspen city council in 1991.
Anyone interested in the failure to reach a solution for the Entrance to Aspen, the current condition of state transportation planning - or why the United States is bankrupt - may not be surprised to learn that these subjects are closely related.
The letter below was recently sent to members of the Colorado Transportation Legislation Review Committee (TLRC). The TLRC is made up of members of the Colorado legislature, and they have the responsibility to provide, “guidance and direction” over all phases of the operation and planning of state transportation projects.
The report mentioned in the letter is available online at: http://www.entrancesolution.com/History.htm
Dear [TLRB Member],
The enclosed report is directed to your attention as a member of the Transportation Legislation Review Committee.
Though the context of the report is an analysis of the planning and funding process for one section of a Colorado state highway, the findings are significant for transportation projects throughout the state.
As you know, most major state highway and transit projects rely on federal funding, and as a consequence are subject to federal oversight and review. That oversight and review is intended to provide protections to taxpayers in all jurisdictions from waste, fraud, and mismanagement in the application of public funds.
Based on the example of the various federal processes which have failed to protect the public in the Roaring Fork Valley, and the near certainty that these failings are far more widespread, the State of Colorado needs to take action.
It is not sufficient to say that federal oversight of transportation spending has been lacking; federal oversight has collapsed to the degree that there is none.
The recommendations for your committee contained in the report are modest in relation to the magnitude of the problem. However, any increase in the awareness of the void left by federal malfeasance, and the need to fill that void with greater local and state diligence, will provide immediate benefits to the citizens of Colorado.
The TLRC can be contacted through:
Kurtis T. Morrison
Colorado Legislative Council Staff
Room 029, State Capitol
Denver, CO 80203
(303) 866-3140
kurt.morrison@state.co.us
September 14th, 2009
It was in 1970 that an Aspen city council first asked the State of Colorado to hold off on the expansion of Highway 82 to four lanes so that they could study mass transit as an alternative to highway construction. Forty years later there will still be a traffic jam at the entrance to town - despite tens of millions of dollars in annual transit spending...
Continue Reading September 13th, 2009
In recent years much ado has been directed towards "earmarks", expenditures which members of Congress insert into spending bills without going through the normal review and evaluation process.
The premise seems to be that spending proposals that do go through the normal review and evaluation process are proven to be a good and sensible use of our money.
It turns out that you need look no further than Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley to find an example of the complete collapse of the oversight which should be provided by the established federal appropriations system.
The following letter takes a new approach to the problem. Since you can't get anyone to take responsibility as part of their professional duty, this is an experiment to see if this federal bureaucrat has a conscience.
Continue Reading May 8th, 2009
I suffer from an illness of which there is no known cure. I can’t say for sure that there is even a treatment for this disease. You may not be familiar with it, so I would like to bring this to the public’s awareness, in hopes that dozens of sufferers like myself might find some relief and hope for our future. I have grandchildren who I would hate to see grow up with this same problem. It’s called AAADD – or Adult Automotive Attention Deficit Disorder.
I believe I contracted it when I was sixteen or seventeen. My first car was a hand-me-down. It was a white ’55 Chevy Belair my dad gave to my brother. Back in those surf days of the mid-60’s in Southern California it was very cool to have a “surf blue” ’55 Chevy. This was achieved with an Earl “I’ll paint any car for $19.95” Scheib paint job, which my brother eagerly paid for as soon as the car became his.
Continue Reading January 13th, 2009
Colorado motorists are paying an average of $1.81 per gallon, a full $2.28 lower than the year’s peak of $4.09 on July 16 and the lowest prices Colorado has seen since February of 2005. The statistics reported by the American Automobile Association’s (AAA) Weekly Fuel Gauge Report indicated that the average price per gallon of regular unleaded dropped 25 cents in one week.
We’ve been given no satisfactory explanation for this phenomenon. What’s your theory? Here’s your chance to weigh in and tell us what you think is going on.
Quick questionnaire:
1. Why were gas prices so high last summer?
2. Did your driving habits change due to the higher prices?
3. Why are gas prices so low now?
4. Did your driving habits change due to lower prices?
5. Where do you think gas prices are headed?
November 28th, 2008
Now that the voters have approved the $180 million capital expansion of RFTA, and the associated doubling of annual expenses to $40 million, public officials are obliged to honor this mandate and move forward with the creation of the full Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system. The opportunity for the public to influence the priorities by which additional sales tax collections are spent, beginning with a projected $6 million in new revenues next year, has come and gone.
Then again, there is reality.
Responsibility for RFTA is diluted amongst 8 different jurisdictions administered by 43 elected officials. Each board and council sends one representative to serve on the RFTA board, but the RFTA board does not ask any tough questions of their management team. The Executive Director of RFTA is a perfectly nice guy with a missionary zeal which makes him incapable of professional detachment. The public is bombarded by the local print media with a pro transit mantra, and we dutifully approve new funding requests almost automatically.
If RFTA is about to drive off a fiscal cliff, nobody will notice until we hear the crash.
Memo to all 43 elected officials in the RFTA service area:
Wake up and start paying attention!
However politically expedient it may be, or whatever your personal bias, the abandonment of your fiduciary responsibility while you ride on the transit bandwagon is a luxury we can no longer afford. Except for the freshly elected, all of you share responsibility for a $650,000 BRT planning effort which left out the basic information needed to determine if BRT should ever have been proposed. You didn’t bother to find out what the average occupancy is on valley bus routes, the actual number of bus runs currently at capacity, or whether recent service improvements have already addressed whatever overcrowding exists. You didn’t ask for ridership projections on the routes affected by the plan, or whether BRT will leave the existing local bus route along Highway 82 running virtually empty. The entire process was a massive malfeasance of oversight and due diligence.
Although the perception exists that a tough economy will increase bus ridership as individuals seek ways to save money, the one example we have for guidance does not support that view. In 2002, after the economic downturn caused by 9/11, ridership on RFTA’s fare producing routes declined by 11 percent.
From the $6 million sales tax increase voters just approved, $2.76 million per year could go to paying off bonds if RFTA issues the full amount authorized. That will leave another $3.24 million in new sales tax revenue for other expenses. Using 2007 costs and proposed 2014 service increases, we find that the additional $3.24 million income projected for next year will need to grow to $10.65 million in five years to cover the 2014 expenses. However unlikely that income growth seems, try the same exercise with an assumption for a recessionary 10 percent drop in fare and sales tax revenues, and RFTA is broke at whatever point they put their new bus service on the road.
The way forward is abundantly clear for any group of government officials concerned with honoring the public trust, making sound fiscal decisions, and working from solid information rather than ideological faith.
Take heed of the note in RFTA’s 2007 audit that, “The Authority's long-term plan has indicated a need to build reserves,” and do so.
Do not bond for any money beyond the $10 million expansion of maintenance facilities which RFTA claims they need regardless of the BRT plan. Consider bonding in the second year for an automated ticketing system and some bus stop improvements if tax income isn’t sufficient for outright cash purchase. Automated ticketing is one of the most obvious efficiency improvements, and could also be designed to provide the precise Boarding and Alighting ridership data needed to determine what other upgrades are warranted.
Delay any bus acquisition for the purpose of implementing the BRT system until you have gathered the ridership data you need to assess the value of the proposal. It is simply incredible that any public agency could propose hundreds of millions of dollars in expenditures based on the quality of the information currently available – and not be challenged by elected officials.
All of the above pales to insignificance compared to the need to look at transportation planning as a whole. BRT is a wildly extravagant luxury at a time of national economic crisis and critical local need. Even after the construction of a new maintenance facility, the remainder of the RFTA bonding authority is nearly enough to construct a new Entrance to Aspen. That such a basic infrastructure need could go unfunded in favor of a lavish transit plan intended to benefit a small fragment of the traveling public – a fragment that may not even exist – is very nearly criminal.
November 12th, 2008
Previous Posts
