From the Styx by Peggy Tibbetts

As I mentioned last week, the Recall Committee has been investigating some complaints we have received. All of the complainants have asked that their names be withheld.

A Silt business owner has reported to us that last summer (2006) Mayor Moore built a fence without a permit and the fence might be on the Siltwood property adjacent to Center Townhomes.

Mayor Moore built this fence in 2006 without a permit.

We put in a CORA request for a “copy of the fence permit for the new fence installed in the northeast corner of the Center Townhomes development next to the town alley running east and west”.

We learned that “no permit was issued for the fence in question”.

However Silt Municipal Code requires permits for new fences.

15.06.020 Permit required for fences, retaining walls and screening devices.
A. A permit is required for all new fences, retaining walls and screening devices;

Mayor Moore built the fence without a permit, which is a violation of Silt Municipal Code.

Because there was no permit, no survey was done so there’s no way to determine whether the fence is on Moore’s property or the neighbor’s property.

On August 23, Chief Burris told Tod Tibbetts that the Mayor is going to tear the fence down.

As of today, the fence is still standing.

I haven’t been able to find anyone else in Silt besides Dave Moore who dared to build a fence without a permit. So I’m not sure what happens if someone builds a fence without a permit.  Two years ago Ema and Tim Kwiatkowski built a fence. A police officer stopped by and asked to see their permit because he couldn’t see it in the place where it was posted. So at least we know that permits are checked. Evidently Mayor Moore’s permit was never checked when he was observed building that fence because if it had been checked, it would have been determined that he did not actually have a permit. 

I don’t know whether Mayor Moore received preferential treatment about the fence. The point is, he built a fence without a permit. As far as I know he has not received a citation. Building a fence without a permit is not a “procedural mistake”. It’s a violation of Silt Municipal Code. Even if the fence is torn down, it’s still a violation.

Street Closure

On August 17, a real estate agent, a contractor, and a citizen reported to us that a section of the street was closed off on Domelby Court in Center Townhomes. 

Domelby Court street closure on August 18, 2007

We put in a CORA request for a “copy of the street closure permit issued for the street closure … on Domelby Court”.

We learned “no closure permit was issued”.

Silt Municipal Code prohibits such activity without written permission from the town. 

12.08.010 Permission required–Restoration by town.

A. No person shall: (1) Make any excavation, drain or ditch in, or (2) lay, construct or place any culvert, pipe, rock, gravel, fill dirt, or other thing or item in, or (3) injure, encroach upon, obstruct, tear up, or affect in any other manner, any pavement, sidewalk, ditch, drainage way, street, alley, or other public way or any easement or right-of-way dedicated to the use of the public or designated for public use, without first, in each and every instance, having obtained written permission from the town and having complied with all other applicable ordinances of the town pertaining thereto.

B. Upon the town’s determination that a person is violating, or attempting to violate, the provisions of subsection A of this section, the town has the right to remove or cause to be removed forthwith from, and to restore or cause to be restored to its prior condition, any pavement, sidewalk, ditch, drainage way, street, alley or other public way or any easement or right-of-way dedicated to the use of the public or designated for public use, any culvert, pipe, rock, gravel, fill dirt, or other thing or item laid, constructed or placed in, or obstructing, encroaching upon, or affecting in any manner, any of such areas. Prior to such removal and restoration, the town shall attempt to notify by the most expedient means possible, the person causing or responsible for such condition existing in contravention of this section, in order that such person may expeditiously and without delay carry out such removal and restoration. Failure to actually notify such person shall not prevent the town from effecting such removal and restoration. The person or persons so causing or responsible for such condition existing in contravention of this section shall pay upon demand of the town all costs incurred by the town, including legal expenses and attorney’ s fees, in effecting such removal and restoration and in enforcing the provisions hereof. (Ord. 5, Series of 1983 § 1)

Mayor Moore’s closure of Domelby Court without written permission is a violation of Silt Municipal Code. Not a “procedural mistake.” 

Today this “Road Closed” sign is still posted. The huge dirt pile is gone but the street has not been restored.

A local contractor told us that he wouldn’t be caught dead dumping dirt on a city street anywhere in this valley without a permit. He added that when his company does disturb a city street with a permit, rarely is it blocked for more than 72 hours and is restored within a week.

A Silt developer told us that when his contractor does any work on existing streets in Silt, his company has to provide a detailed plan and post a bond before they can do anything.

Let’s play guess the quote.

Who said: “Any violation by the Mayor or Trustee should receive the same penalty as anyone else who would violate any ordinance. And I am sure that the trustees and mayor agree with the aforementioned, that ordinances are meant to be followed.”

Did you guess Mayor Moore?

Yup, that’s right.

Last year, prior to the 2006 Town of Silt elections, when Dave Moore was running for mayor, he sent an email about the placement of election signs.

From: Dave Moore
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 11:48 AM
To: Janet Aluise
Cc: Rick Aluise
Subject: Election
March 09, 2006

Dear Janet,

Thanks for up dating me on the proper procedure in placing election signage. I believe that the ordinances are to be followed, and that ignorance is again no excuse.

Just a word of brief explanation. As I was placing these signs I was wondering what the ordinance was relative to my sign placement. So I drove right over to City Hall and asked Sheila, however she referred me to you. You were in a meeting so I left you a message to contact me tomorrow. We did touch base this morning and I have been made clear of what the ordinance says.

I will immediately remove any signs (2-4) which may be in public right a way. I do have plenty of permission for placement of these signs on private property. These signs will have only been place less than 12 hours and the balk of that time was night. And had you not been in meeting I would have removed them immediately. And again I want to thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Being in perfect agreement that if any one should follow the ordinances per jot and tittle, it should be the Trustees and Mayor. And I also believe that any violation by the Mayor or Trustee should receive the same penalty as anyone else who would violate any ordinance. And I am sure that the trustees and mayor agree with the aforementioned, that ordinances are meant to be followed.

Dave 

Then Trustee Dave Moore said the trustees and mayor show follow the ordinances “per jot and tittle”. And furthermore they should be treated like “anyone else who would violate any ordinance”.

Interesting.

I was intrigued by the term “jot and tittle”. I assumed it’s biblical but couldn’t find it in my King James Version. So I looked it up at Wikipedia instead.

The only place a modern reader is apt to confront this word is during the introduction to the Antithesis of the Law in the Gospel of Matthew (5:18): “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled” (NKJV). The quotation uses them as an example of extremely minor details. The phrase “jot and tittle” indicates that every small detail has received attention.

So what Moore meant by “per jot and tittle” is that ordinances should be followed in every small detail.

Evidently, now that he is mayor, Dave doesn’t see it that way anymore, since he hasn’t felt obligated like any other person to obtain permits to build a fence and close a street.  

But hey, so what? Silt’s a small town. We’re all just friends and neighbors. We don’t need no stinkin permits, right?

And not only that, Moore is fond of saying these are all just “trivial, minor infractions”. (Be sure to click through to The Daily Sentinel article, it’s about me and my blog and how The Mayor and the reporter don’t actually read it.)

Go ahead. Put up a fence. Don’t bother with a permit or a survey. It doesn’t matter if part of it’s on the neighbor’s property. Who cares?

Now go dump a truckload of dirt in the street in front of your house. Close the street so the public and emergency vehicles don’t have the right of way. Maybe you can even coerce Public Works into loaning you a nifty sign like Mayor Moore did.

Hey, Mayor Moore does it and gets away with it. So far he hasn’t been cited.

Does this mean if we live in Silt we get to make up our own damn rules?

Click here to add From the Styx to your RSS reader.

In his guest column, Mayor Moore said about Detective Taylor’s investigation: “This ‘investigation’ was incomplete because conclusions were reached and recommendations made without the testimony of Trustee Williams, and I was never informed that I was under investigation.”

Moore claimed the investigation was incomplete. Fair enough. So we followed Detective Taylor’s lead and investigated a little further.

Going back to the minutes of the May 14, 2007, Board meeting, the Board members went into Executive Session. Afterward they voted:

Trustee Tibbetts made a motion to authorize the Town Administrator to expend up to $15,000 to appropriately deal with one personnel matter. Trustee Williams seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

Trustee Tibbetts made a motion to authorize the Town Administrator to expend up to $13,500 to appropriately deal with a second personnel matter. Trustee Williams seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

The Board did not authorize Mayor Moore to do anything.

Three days later Moore sent this email:

From: Dave Moore
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 8 31 AM
To: Cindy Tester; Rick Aluise; Sheila Mclntire
Subject: reaching some settlement with Kyra, please review for accuracy.

5/18/2007
A computation of my thoughts and a log of events concerning Kyra’s employment.

On Thursday May 17, 2007 I contacted Kyra and relayed the approval of $13,500 which equals 3 months severance pay as approved by the BOT, on Mon night May 15, 2007. Kyra refused the offer and countered with a 10 month severance package. I told her that I would relay this back to the Town and would let her know the results. Shelia and Rick calculated that 10 months or actually the balance of her appointment which would actually equal 10 ½ months calculates out to $44,992.32.

I presented this to 2 board members, one approved and the other disapproved the figure. It was also suggested that Kyra attend the May 29th BOT meeting to discuss this. Short of getting total unity in this straw vote I also feel that the next step is the executive session on the 29th.  I was hoping it wouldn’t go this far, but it seems that Kyra wants to present her case with an attorney present.

Her arguments are precise and calculated, and I agreed that she most definitely has a right to be represented and a right to present her case.

The reasons I gave her for accepting our offer are as follows.
1. $13,500
2. A clean résumé versus the possibility of a blemished résumé if the BOT should not honor her request.
3. She would leave by her own free will, by resignation, versus the possibility of some negative action by the BOT.
4. And she could leave with pride for a job well done.
5. I also told her that I would advise my own daughter the same as I advised her.
6. I made it clear that I had no idea which way the BOT would vote, but I will have recuse to myself from the voting.

My fears are as follows:
1. The possibility of this escalating into a full blown law suite if some lawyer should take her case. As of this moment, it’s my understanding that she has not hired a lawyer.
2. That the amount she is requesting could change drastically into larger demands.
3. And the embarrassment and humiliation that might be brought to the Town of Silt.
4. Few cases reach the court system in favor of just one party. As the old saying goes, there are two sides to every story.

And for the record, I recused myself from the voting and decision making of Kyra’s case when I consented to make her the offer by the BOT.

My opinions are as follows.
1. Her argument has some merit.
2. I would love to settle for $13,500 but I think it might go considerably larger, and her 10 month request could be small by comparison to a full blown law suite.
3. Is it worth all the hassle, down time for staff, and expense to hire our lawyer?
4. She is asking for $35,500 more than our offer of $13,500.
5. Much of that $35,500 will be eaten up in our attorney fees even if we prevail.
6. It has already cost the Town of Silt many valuable hours of staff time, and will cost more if this is to go full circle.
7. There is always the element of surprise. Law suites bring out the best and the worst, and many times evidence that totally takes the prosecutor and or the defense by surprise.
8. Even $45,000 is small compared to many of the settlements made by employees.
I have given it my best shot. Perhaps after Kyra has had time to think about it, she will change her mind. That remains to be seen.

She did ask me about her right to return to work. I told her that because of the threat of litigation and the phone vote taken by Cindy, the BOT will extend the administrative leave until the 29th of May.
Dave

Yikes!

First of all, did Moore in fact recuse himself from Kyra Markiecki’s hearing at the May 29, 2007, Board meeting? Not.

Violation: Conflict of interest due to ex parte communication

Tod Tibbetts was one of the Board members Moore contacted after his meeting with Markiecki. Tod told The Mayor he was acting outside his authority and he should cease immediately. Then Tod reported his conversation with Moore to the Town Attorney and the Town Administrator.

The Board clearly authorized the Town Administrator – NOT THE MAYOR – to deal with the personnel matters. But Mayor Moore took it upon himself to broker another deal altogether which was contrary to Silt Municipal Code and the Employee Handbook, and a Board directive.

Violations: Silt Municipal Code, Employee Handbook

The email is an exhibition of the violations outlined in Detective Taylor’s report. It is an example of Moore’s disregard for procedures in personnel matters and his disrespect for the Board and the Town Administrator. Not only did he have no authority to offer Markiecki even $13,500, he had no authority to discuss her employment situation with her.

Some burning questions beg to be asked:

Why was Mayor Moore so eager to spend $45,000 in town funds so that Kyra Markiecki would resign and avoid “the embarrassment and humiliation that might be brought to the Town of Silt”?

What “embarrassment and humiliation?”

Does Mayor Moore have something to hide?

Ultimately Kyra Markiecki was terminated without any severance. Not $13,500. Not $45,000. The details of her termination are included in the May 29, 2007, Board meeting minutes.

So did Moore save the town a whole bunch of money?

Hardly. He wanted to pay her off.

Did Kyra Markiecki receive a fair hearing?

You decide.

Have you signed the petition yet?

Join the rest of the Silt voters who have had enough of Mayor Moore!

Click here to add From the Styx to your RSS reader.

Silt’s main attractions downtown are three gas stations – Tim’s Tools, Gofer, and Kum & Go. Gas is usually 3-10 cents/gal cheaper than in Rifle. So most of the business activity in town is people buying gas. When Kum & Go opened last year they put up a gi-normous sign visible from the freeway.

Poke Stiers of Tim’s Tools has been doing business in Silt for over 30 years. Stacy West, Office Manager for Tim’s Tools, appeared before the Board on August 28, 2006, to request a new sign to help them deal with the competition from Gofer and Kum & Go.

The matter was sent back to the Planning & Zoning Commission for further review. Then at the September 25, 2006, Board meeting the matter was referred to the downtown planning committee. The day after that committee meeting, Mayor Moore sent out this email:

From: Dave Moore
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 9:06 AM
To: Bobby Hays; Doug Williams; Jim Vooheis; Meredith Roberson; Ron Morgan; Tod Tibbetts; Cindy Tester; Janet Aluise; Rick Aluise; Sheila Mclntire
Subject: Tim’s sign, what else?

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Honorable Trustees, and Steadfast Staff,

My hats off to your great work last night at the planning meeting. It was an astrophysical effort to say the least. The cool way that Mrs. Tim’s was convinced to back off her opinions was fabulous.

I see it so clearly now, and if I had any reservations, they have now dissipated. And once I get convicted on an issue, then my battle is over.

Here’s the way I see it now.
1. Kum-n-Go sign has no relevance or justification for Tim’s to have a sign that violates code, or doesn’t compliment the vision for down town restoration.
2. Kum-n-Go sign not only attracts traffic off the inter state, but it also enhances business for Tim’s now.
3. Tim’s Tools isn’t set in the pre-rno-donna location and because of that they will have to expect the consequences, of not getting all the traffic.
4. The forecasted and forthcoming traffic, due to down town improvements, of which there is going to be much, will more than fairly off set their lesser desired location.
5. The down town improvements will gamer business for Tim’s Tools.
6. Their dreams of opening up the upstairs and being successful will not experience full expectations if interrupted by a large ungodly looking gas sign. To advertise the upstairs, and down stairs, effectively will not result in an over bearing sign. Their business is more than gas. That building could be divided to be an attraction not only to the locals, but to the tourist also. I have always commented on the wasted space in that building.
7. No one has the right to interfere with the down town planning scheme. Meaning that just because they have been good to the town, gives them no right to clutter up a carefully planned down town, with some outstanding, abortion of a sign.
8. And when the down town is buzzing, rock-n-rolling, kicking butt, and taking no prisoners, then and only then will we realize that by sticking to our guns now resulted in the ultimate success of our dream come true. Then the people will come to Silt to visit, to buy, and just look.
9. I am against the large sign as suggested by Tim’s.
10. I am against any thing that will take away from our vision of restoration of the historic down town area.
10. We will be the talk of the valley some day, just wait and see.

So as soon as you reach a fair and just conclusion to this sign issue, then and only then will we have set the stage for easier sign reviews, sign codes and sign enforcement. Tim’s is one of the last problems that deserve special attention. Now Tim’s can take a crappie stand and fight the town or they can co-operate. Personally I have made up my mind about the large signage. Now the next phase will be resolving what kind of a sign the town will accept, but it has to compliment the down town development goals.

Sincerely,
Dave

The Board didn’t take a final vote on the Tim’s Tools sign issue until the October 10, 2006, Board meeting. But – as shown in his email – Mayor Moore had already made up his mind about the large signage. And he appeared to be urging other Board members to agree with him.

The email is an example of Mayor Moore’s violation of the Colorado Open Meetings Law (Sunshine Law) because he discussed a pending issue before the Board (Tim’s Tools sign exception) without the applicant’s (Poke Stiers) knowledge or opportunity to respond.

The email also shows Mayor Moore’s disregard for the applicant’s (Poke Stiers) right to due process. And he said some pretty derogatory things while he was at it.

Taking into consideration Moore’s email was sent on September 27, what chance in hell did Poke Stiers ever have of receiving a fair hearing on October 10?

None.

I’ve been told that a violation of the Sunshine Law is one of those offenses that are not prosecutable. When Board members violate the Sunshine Law, the only recourse an applicant has is to sue. But an applicant usually WANTS to do business with the town. So even if an applicant gets wind of a scurrilous email in violation of the Sunshine Law, there’s a slim chance he’ll sue.

And Moore knows this. That’s why he has persisted in violating the Sunshine Law. It’s not prosecutable. The risk is that the town will be sued. Not The Mayor. Nor can he be charged with anything.

So what’s the harm in Mayor Moore violating the Sunshine Law?

In this case Poke Stiers didn’t get a fair hearing on October 10. The deck was stacked against him. Poke didn’t get approval for large signage in keeping with the other 2 gas stations. He had to settle for a street level monument sign on the corner. Poke was railroaded, but he took it like the decent human being that he is.

As the monument sign was built and now that it’s finished and is contrasted with the other 2 stations’ signs, the downtown picture looks skewed.

Every applicant has the right to a fair hearing. Not ESPECIALLY Poke Stiers who has been a Silt businessman for 30 years, but INCLUDING Poke Stiers – and you.

Click here to add From the Styx to your RSS reader.

A lot is happening right now on the recall front. So much so, I haven’t had as much time to blog as I would like. If you live around here, you’ve probably seen me, Tod, and Bev Thompson at the 4 corners in the late afternoons gathering signatures. Thanks so much for all the support. All those smiles, shout-outs, waves, thumbs up, horn honks, raised fists, and V for victory signs really make our day. So keep it up. We love it. It’s really energizing. And loads of fun!

I want to take the time to answer the 2 questions we get asked most often.

How many signatures do you have so far?

It’s not in the Recall Committee’s best interest to advertise how many signatures we have. For one thing, there are 4 petitions circulating so the number is constantly changing. However when people sign the petition we do tell them the approximate number of signatures we have at that point. So if you really, really want to know how many signatures we have, then sign the petition.

Will you get enough signatures to go forward with the recall?

To quote the incorrigible Donald Rumsfeld: “As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”

Despite the knowns and unknowns, we are reasonably certain we will have enough signatures to move the recall forward.

Spurred on by Dave’s repeated insistence that “no codes were broken” in his guest column in The Paper last week, we did some more digging. We put in a Colorado Opens Records Act (CORA) request for all the emails from Dave Moore to the Town Administrator and Community Development Director for the past year. The response amounted to a huge document dump. Dave has sent HUNDREDS of emails to them, probably more than all other mayors combined. So we had about 400 pages to wade through over the weekend.

Some people might say that hundreds of emails to the staff in the past year shows that Dave takes the mayor’s job seriously. He even said, “I have worked hard and done my very best. I’ve dedicated hundreds and hundreds of hours to the town.” It’s pretty clear from all those emails that he spent “hundreds and hundreds of hours” writing hundreds and hundreds of emails. But is that the job of the mayor?

Not according to the Silt Home Rule Charter, which Dave Moore helped write. These are the duties of the mayor:

Section 2-4. Duties of the Mayor. The Mayor shall preside at all regular and special meetings of the Board of Trustees and shall be required to vote on matters being considered by the Board of Trustees, except as otherwise provided herein. The Mayor shall act as the ceremonial head of government of the Town. The Mayor shall execute and authenticate with his original signature legal instruments, contracts, and documents requiring a signature on behalf of the Town, unless the Board of Trustees authorizes another manner of authenticating documents by ordinance or resolution. The Board of Trustees may, for specific and limited purposes, delegate certain non-legislative duties of the Mayor to the Town Administrator or other employees of the Town.

Hundreds of emails by The Mayor to the staff are an excessive amount. The existence of these emails serves as further evidence of his harassment of the employees.

In the next few days I will be posting the emails that provide more evidence of the violations we have already documented.

As we’ve been circulating the petition and sitting out at the 4 corners, people have registered complaints about more violations by Dave Moore. We have been investigating those complaints also, and put in some more CORA requests, which has resulted in another avalanche of information. I will post the results of our investigation as soon as it’s completed.

You may remember a couple weeks ago we had a complaint that Trustee Meredith Robinson has been suppressing the petition by telling members of the Congregational Church not to sign the petition because it will affect the annexation of the church property into the town. That investigation has been turned over to the town attorney.

We are continuing to investigate the Mayor’s conflict of interest regarding the Siltwood project. I will be posting more news about that in the near future as well.

In other news …

The Paper printed a very positive article today about the new staff members. Click through and read about Betsy Suerth the new town administrator, Gale Carmoney the new community development director, Connie Stevens the new town treasurer, and our new police Chief Levy Burris.

Silt making progress restaffing
By Heidi Rice

SILT — It’s taken some time, but it seems the town of Silt is slowly restoring its staff, which has seen a big turnover in the past six months.

Since February, the town has lost its police chief, town treasurer, town administrator and community development director as well as the resignation of a town trustee. Even the mayor is facing a potential recall election. The latest turmoil is with trustee Bobby Hays, who is facing felony stalking and harassment charges.

But as of the Aug. 13 regular Town Board meeting, a job offer has been made for the town administrator’s position, and a new town treasurer and community development director have already been hired. The police chief’s position was filled in June when Levy Burris took the job.

There’s hope for a brighter future after all!

Click here to add From the Styx to your RSS reader.

Breaking news!

Silt trustee hit with felony
Police arrest Hays on charges of harassment, stalking
By Heidi Rice

SILT - As if the Silt Town Board did not have enough on its plate, a town trustee has been charged with felony harassment and stalking after allegedly following a woman home from a softball field outside of Glenwood Springs.

Bobby Joel Hays, 49, was arrested at 10:26 p.m. on Aug. 9, for following the woman home from a softball game and allegedly blocking the entrance to her home on Ponderosa Drive, according to the Garfield County Sheriff’s Office

“She called 911 and we located his vehicle down the street and contacted him,” said Sheriff Lou Vallario. “He was asked what he was doing there and he said he was just driving around.”

Hays has been a town trustee in Silt since April 2006.

Vallario said the report indicated that the woman said Hays has been stalking her since 2000.

“She’s afraid for her life and she has made previous reports (to police) in 2002,” Vallario said. “She’s scared of him.”

Vallario also said an eyewitness said he’d heard the woman pleading with Hays to stop following her.

“Apparently, she’s tried to get a restraining order against him before and was denied,” Vallario said. “But she has documentation of him following her.”

There are no indications in the report as to what relationship, if any, there is between Hays and the woman.

Hays did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.

The incident comes just shortly after numerous troubles in Silt town government, including the loss of its police chief, town administrator, town treasurer and community development director, along with the resignation of a town trustee and a current recall effort aimed at the town’s mayor.

The town staff positions recently have been filled. A vacancy still remains on the town board and a recall petition for Mayor Dave Moore has yet to be turned in.

Hays was arrested and lodged in the Garfield County Jail and posted a $5,000 bond and was released the next day. He is scheduled to return to district court at 1:30 p.m. on Aug. 29.

Hays was present the last town meeting on Monday, Aug. 13.

Moore said that Hays’ status as trustee would not be immediately impacted by the arrest, saying there’s a presumption of innocence that must be followed. His trustee rights will be dictated by the town charter, Moore added.

Click through and check out the mug shot. Totally creepy.

My daughter Ema and I have been victims of stalkers. So this has a huge ICK FACTOR for me.

BTW, this is news to me. This is news to Tod. And this is news to the Recall Committee. We had no clue.

I don’t know how the Board will handle this. When I know something more, I’ll post it here.
 
That giant sucking sound you hear could be the Silt town government slowly imploding.

Click here to add From the Styx to your RSS reader.

Those of you who know me – or any of the other Recall Committee members for that matter – and have been reading this blog, know by now that I’m not about to let Dave Moore’s guest column in The Paper (August 15) go unanswered.

Recall has no merit
Dave Moore
Silt Mayor

I first want to thank everyone who has offered their support. The question most often asked about this recall is, “I still don’t understand what you did that rises to the level demanding recall?” I have not received a list of errors, or a letter of explanation, just the accusation that I have violated codes and statutes as read in the papers. I will attempt to answer these accusations.

Not true. Dave was present at the Recall Committee meeting on July 26, when Tod explained each of The Mayor’s violations.

Tibbetts in a letter to the editor addressed an investigation that involved Trustee Doug Williams and me. Former Chief stated: “I was directed by the (former administrator) to conduct an investigation into alleged improper conduct … by Town Board members.” This “investigation” was conducted without board approval, or board knowledge. This “investigation” was incomplete because “conclusions were reached and recommendations made without the testimony of Trustee Williams, and I was never informed that I was under investigation. The town attorney said, “I can find no wrong doing.” Former Chief recommended that all the board take a two-day class by the CIRSA attorneys. The Board of Trustees agreed to put this issue behind us. No codes were broken.

I wrote the letter to the editor. Not Tod. We are actually 2 different people.

Board approval was not required to conduct the investigation. As Tod Tibbetts stated previously: “The allegations surrounding the departures of three key employees had to do with violations of state statutes and town ordinances, therefore the Town Administrator had no choice but to order an investigation. He was just following town ordinances.”

I can’t find anywhere in the public record where the town attorney said, “I can find no wrong doing.” So this is news to me. Apparently it’s also news to the town attorney.

The Silt Home Rule Charter (which Dave helped write last year) does not grant the mayor any authority over the town staff, and the Employee Handbook outlines specific guidelines for dealing with employee issues. Nowhere does it say the mayor can interfere with employee matters whether on a day-to-day basis or when someone resigns. The investigation revealed that Mayor Moore had injected himself into employee issues in violation of the Employee Handbook, Code of Ethics, and Home Rule Charter.

Evidently not everyone agreed to put the issue behind them since Tod Tibbetts formed a Recall Committee, we filed a petition and have made as much information public as we possibly can.

In this same letter it states that I refused to recuse myself on a seven-unit condo proposed to be built less than 60 feet from my house. There was a conflict of interest, after the debate I was voted by the board to be recused, thus ending the issue in the Democratic way. No codes were broken.

What Dave still does not seem to comprehend is that, as a noticed property owner, when he refused to recuse himself from the matter, he was in violation of State Statutes. The town attorney even pointed that out to him during the discussion. He also violated the Code of Ethics because he did not give notice to the Board when he became a noticed property owner.

J. Disclosure of Interest in Legislation. Any official or employee with a substantial personal interest in any legislation pending before the board of trustees or the planning and zoning commission shall:
1. Cause to be disclosed the existence of the interest into the record of the next regularly scheduled board of trustees meeting; and
2. Be disqualified with respect to any official act to which the interest relates.
In addition to the foregoing, an appointed official shall also cause to be disclosed the existence of the interest into the record of the next regularly scheduled meeting of the body upon which the appointed official serves.

L. Violations.
1. The board of trustees may remove any official or employee who wilfully violates any provision of this section.

“Stillwater special hearing on metropolitan districts, Moore did not conduct a fair and impartial hearing. … He presented a 30-minute presentation detailing his opposition.” Yes, I was opposed to this district. The 30-minute presentation could at any time have been objected to by any of the board members including Mr. Tibbetts, but wasn’t. We are representatives of the people, elected to fully review all issues that affect the town. Mr. Tibbetts has persistently and relentlessly supported this Metro District. Debate is part of the American process. No codes were broken.

It is the responsibility of the mayor to conduct a fair and impartial hearing. A 30-minute presentation by the mayor in opposition to a matter before the Board is NOT a debate. It’s a filibuster. At the Special Hearing on Stillwater Metropolitan Districts, Board action in the form of a resolution was necessary to reiterate the proper hearing conduct for Mayor Moore, and restore the meeting to order. Whether Dave wants to admit it or not, at that point in the hearing he was in violation of Silt Municipal Code.

2.28.030 Presiding officer–Mayor–Mayor pro tem–Temporary chair.
A. Duties of the Presiding Officer.
3. Recognize members who are entitled to the floor;
5. To the extent possible, preserve order and decorum, prevent persons present from attacking personalities or impugning board members’ motives; and limit members or other persons involved in debate to the questions under discussion;
6. Expedite business in every way compatible with the rights of members;

E-mail sent out by elected officials could result in a violation of open meetings law. This e-mail issue is still being debated by lawyers. However when recommended by the town attorney that the Board of Trustees cease e-mailing on certain subjects, we all took the advice, including myself. I ceased e-mailing immediately; even to the extent that Mr. Tibbetts stated that I had taken him off my mailing list. No codes were broken.

No. Dave took Tod off his email recipient list because Tod pointed out the emails were in violation of the Colorado Open Meetings Law (Sunshine Law). The point is, he did it. He sent out emails soliciting opinions and decisions about matters before the Board. Just because he says he stopped emailing doesn’t cleanse the emails that he sent. And those emails were in violation of the Sunshine Law. I posted some of them on my blog last December. I will post more in the near future.

BTW, lawyers can debate the “email issue” all they want. It’s still against the law to use email to solicit opinions and/or decisions about matters before the Board.

It was reported that I gave 30 minutes instead of three minutes to a person in “citizen comments.” The board agreed to give her this time. No codes were broken.

No, they did not. There is no record in the minutes from November 27, 2006, of any Board action or motion regarding Claudia Plattner’s public comments. Again this goes back to the mayor’s responsibility to conduct the meeting according to the rules.

The above accusations are baseless, and frivolous. I have given 3.5 years to this town. I have labored in getting acquainted with the issues. The people voted me in, and I refuse to let anybody discourage me from the position that I was elected to. A recall is reserved for gross violations such as malfeasance of office, misappropriation of funds, conflicts of interest, sexual misconduct, personal threats or a variety of other serious offenses. Recalls are not designed for procedural mistakes or differences of opinion.

There. He said it himself:

A recall is reserved for gross violations such as … conflicts of interest …

I rest my case.

One mayor told me that if all mayors were recalled for this level of violation, there wouldn’t be one elected mayor in the United States.

Wow. What a condemnation of mayordom! So what’s a little corruption? As long as it’s only by degrees. Or as long as it benefits me or someone I know. A matter of perspective. No big deal.

Well we’ve been talking to a whole bunch of people who don’t agree with that assessment of town government. They demand to see some changes made. Beginning with the recall of Mayor Dave Moore.

I view this as a selfish attempt to gain the mayor-ship without going through an election, at the expense of the citizens. I appeal to Mr. Tibbetts to withdraw the recall, and not bring any more embarrassment and shame to this town. If you want to be mayor then do it the right way.

I already covered the Tod-wants-to-be-the-mayor talking point in response to Trustee Robinson’s comments in The Paper last Saturday. Here it is again: Tod is not running for Mayor. He’s not campaigning to be Mayor. He’s not doing this because he wants to be Mayor. He’s doing this because as Mayor Pro-Tem and the most senior Board Member, it’s his duty. As Tod has asked anyone who will listen, “If I took no action concerning The Mayor’s misconduct wouldn’t I then be complicit?” That he has never run for Mayor in his 10 years of public service in Silt, should tell somebody something about something. He has no burning desire to be Mayor. For Tod – and all the other committee members – this really is about open government and public trust – as corny as that sounds.

Mayor Moore has repeatedly and willfully violated Code of Ethics, Town Ordinances, and State Statutes. They weren’t “procedural mistakes” or sorta violations. They are documented in the public record. They are not a matter of his opinion or anyone else’s opinion. They are violations. Period.

Just because he doesn’t see it that way does not absolve him from responsibility for his misconduct.

Dave Moore’s own words provide the perfect example of why we are recalling him. He consistently and repeatedly violates the law, but refuses to admit it or change his behavior. His assessments of the incidents where he violated the law reflect one of two things. He lacks the capacity to understand municipal code and his responsibility as an elected official. Or he doesn’t believe the laws apply to him. Either option makes him unfit to serve as mayor. 

Click here to add From the Styx to your RSS reader.

Disclaimer

The Recall Petition Committee has no interest in the Siltwood project or The Developer other than as an applicant before the Silt town government.

For instance, I don’t even know The Developer’s name so I’ll just refer to him as The Applicant heretofore.

All the facts presented here are a matter of public record.

Background

John Zeller is a Planning & Zoning Commissioner. He is also Mayor Moore’s son-in-law. He also lives in Center Townhomes development.

Rewind

At the July 3 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, Zeller participated in the public hearing and voted against the Siltwood project application, a multi-family dwelling proposed by The Applicant on property adjacent to Center Townhomes. 

At the same meeting Mayor Moore also spoke out against the Siltwood project. Mayor Moore lives in and owns Center Townhomes development.

Fast Forward

To the August 7, P&Z Commission meeting. The Applicant for the Siltwood project returned with a new application, with the modifications suggested by P&Z Commissioners at a previous meeting. The Applicant also questioned Zeller about a potential conflict of interest. At that point, Zeller recused himself from the matter.

At that same August 7 meeting, Mayor Moore was also present. He stated for the record that he had voluntarily recused himself at the July 9 Board of Trustees meeting.

John Zeller’s Code of Ethics Violation

Assuming Zeller’s conflict with the Siltwood project didn’t magically appear between July 3 and August 7, therefore he had a conflict of interest on July 3, when he participated in the public hearing and voted against it.

Excerpted from Silt Code of Ethics

J. Disclosure of Interest in Legislation. Any official or employee with a substantial personal interest in any legislation pending before the board of trustees or the planning and zoning commission shall:
1. Cause to be disclosed the existence of the interest into the record of the next regularly scheduled board of trustees meeting; and
2. Be disqualified with respect to any official act to which the interest relates.
In addition to the foregoing, an appointed official shall also cause to be disclosed the existence of the interest into the record of the next regularly scheduled meeting of the body upon which the appointed official serves.

K. Compliance with Criminal Code.
1. All officials and employees should be aware of the provisions of Section 18-8-308, C.R.S., which requires the disclosure of a conflict of interest if an official or employee exercises any substantial discretionary function in connection with a government contract, purchase, payment or other pecuniary transaction. The official or employee must give seventy-two hours actual advance written notice to the Colorado Secretary of State and to the Board of Trustees of the existence of a known potential conflicting interest of the official or employee and the transaction with reference to which he or she is about to act in his or her official capacity.

L. Violations.
1. The board of trustees may remove any official or employee who wilfully violates any provision of this section.

Mayor Moore’s Ongoing Code of Ethics and State Statutes Violations

The minutes of the July 9 Board of Trustees meeting clearly show that Board action was required to recuse The Mayor from the Siltwood project public hearing.

Excerpted from July 9 minutes:

Conflicts of Interest

Trustee Tibbetts asked Board to rule on the potential conflict of interest, according to Ordinance 15, Series 2007, Section E2 regarding personal interest in an item. Mr. Tibbetts stated that at the July 3, 2007 Planning & Zoning meeting, Mayor Moore spoke out against the Siltwood project that is on tonight’s agenda, and that it indicates that Mr. Moore has a personal interest in the project. Trustee Tibbetts is asking that Mayor Moore recuse himself from the discussions.

Mayor Moore stated that the P&Z meeting was public, and that he came to the meeting as a citizen to express his concerns, adding that he doesn’t feel that he has a conflict of interest. Trustee Tibbetts stated that he doesn’t have a problem with anyone expressing themselves at a public meeting, but that the Board sits in a quasi-judicial capacity, and that his statements made at the meeting indicate a position that he has on the project.

Trustee Tibbetts made a motion to have Mayor Moore recuse himself from item “D’, Resolution, Series 2007 pertaining to the Siltwood project, because of his personal interest that was stated at the P&Z meeting. The motion failed for lack of a second. Trustee Hays made a motion that Mayor Moore join the public in making his comments for the Siltwood project. The motion failed for lack of a second.

Mayor Moore asked Mr. Tibbetts what he feels his conflict of interest is, and what the comments were that he made at the P&Z meeting, and Trustee Tibbetts stated that he was contacted by a citizen who was concerned about the fact that the Mayor spoke against this project, at the P&Z meeting. Trustee Tibbetts added that the Board does not have the luxury of forming opinions on applications in front of them, adding that the Mayor has already stated his opposition to the application, and the ethic code states that a personal interest is a conflict.

Town Attorney Tester stated that upon reviewing the information in the packet regarding the Siltwood project, she did notice that Mayor Moore was listed as an adjacent property owner within two-hundred feet of the project who was noticed by the applicant. According to State Statutes, a person who has a pecuniary interest, and who performs in an official capacity, cannot vote. Ms. Tester added that a person could have a representative speak on their behalf, but that they cannot speak themselves as a citizen.

Trustee Tibbetts made a motion that the Mayor be recused from item “D” dealing with the Siltwood project. Trustee Hays seconded the motion, and the motion carried with Mayor Moore and Trustee Williams voting nay. Mayor Moore stated that he would recuse himself.

Mayor Moore did not voluntarily recuse himself. He was recused by Board action. Therefore at the August 9 P&Z meeting, by insisting that it be entered into the public record that he had voluntarily recused himself from the Siltwood project at the July 9 Board of Trustees meeting, Mayor Moore knowingly falsified the public record, a violation of the Code of Ethics. He had also violated State Statutes when he spoke out against the Siltwood project at the July 3 P&Z meeting.

What’s Really Going On Here?

The Siltwood project lots are situated on the north side of Center Townhomes development. Mayor Moore has purchased vacant land to the southeast of Center Townhomes and has submitted plans for a multi-family dwelling similar to the Siltwood project to the Building Department.

Further issues surrounding Mayor Moore vs the Siltwood project, and John Zeller’s involvement, are currently under investigation by the Recall Petition Committee.

Stay tuned!

In other news …

Two guest columns appeared The Paper today.

Performance is the issue
By Tod Tibbetts

Recall has no merit
By Dave Moore

Click here to add From the Styx to your RSS reader.

An update article about the Recall Petition appeared in The Paper on Saturday. As usual some clarification is called for.

Recall not affecting council business
By Heidi Rice

SILT - Despite an impending petition initiated by Mayor Pro Tem Tod Tibbetts to recall Mayor Dave Moore, both men say they can still work together on the Silt Town Board in the meantime.

Tibbetts sits one vacant seat away from Moore at the table - a vacancy left by former Trustee Doug Williams, who resigned last month, citing “personal reasons.” A recall petition had also been taken out for Williams, but was dismissed after his resignation.

“I don’t see (the recall petition for Moore) affecting the board process at all,” Tibbetts said. “I don’t see where it impacts at the board level or even at the staff level. I don’t think it’s disruptive at all. This is not about Tod Tibbetts versus Dave Moore - this is about the mayor. It’s not against Dave Moore as an individual.”

The reasons cited for seeking the recall have been alleged violations by Moore of town ordinances, state statutes and codes of conduct.

“[A]lleged violations”? This is a problem we keep having with The Paper. The proper term should be documented violations. We’re not alleging anything. All the cited incidents so far are a matter of public record. So it’s disappointing to see Heidi still using the term “alleged”. We have provided The Paper with the information. I guess they just see it differently. But I didn’t think they were supposed to take sides.

Tibbetts said his recall committee has so far collected 50 signatures on the petition, which needs to be turned in by Sept. 14 with a minimum of 111 signatures by registered voters in the town, reflecting 25 percent of the number of votes Moore received in his election as mayor. The town clerk then has 15 days to verify the signatures and, if approved, the board has 60 to 90 days to set a recall election date.

Moore has said he is confident he will prevail should an election be held and he also doesn’t see any problems in working with Tibbetts until the issue is resolved. He says the most he is guilty of may be some procedural infractions, but nothing that would warrant a recall.

The town board will meet on Monday evening for the first time since Moore has been aware a recall petition was filed.

“At the last meeting (July 23), I didn’t know about it,” Moore said. “But number one, I haven’t been recalled as mayor. And I’m comfortable around Tod. My first obligation is to the people of the town of Silt. There may be certain things (Tibbetts and I) vote differently on, but that’s not unusual. And that’s the reason democracy works so well.”

At one time, Moore had thoughts about a possible run for Garfield County Commissioner, but now says the whole recall issue has made him think twice about running in the November 2008 election.

“I realize the negative implications this can bring and it’s giving me second thoughts about running,” he said.

I could say something really snarky here … but I’ll restrain myself. Just hit the Hallelujah Chorus button on my sound effects box and fill in the blank __________

Every campaign has its minor victories.

As far as the rest of the Silt Town Board, trustee Meredith Robinson calls the whole recall situation “unfortunate” for the town of Silt and says she thinks it will make things tougher on the board as well as town staff who have seen several vacancies in the past six months.

“I think it’s unfortunate we have to go through this,” she said. “I think that unless it’s a prosecutable offense [against the mayor], it shouldn’t go forward. If Tod wanted to be mayor, he should’ve run for it when he had a chance. Whether this recall fails or succeeds, it’s going to be more difficult. But it hasn’t been very amicable at this point, anyway. This is going to cost the citizens $1,000 to $2,000, which is not horrible, but it’s just money that doesn’t need to be spent.”

The article goes on from there with repeititons of stuff from previous articles. Click through to read the rest.

So first of all, Meredith Robinson is the “Someone”  who “has been telling members of the Congregational Church that if they sign the Recall Petition, the property where they are building their new church won’t get annexed into the town”, as mentioned in my previous post. I hadn’t intended to out her. Tod sent her a letter notifying her that we were aware of what she was doing, along with a copy of the State Statute she is violating.

“Any person who willfully destroys, defaces, mutilates or suppresses any recall petition or who willfully neglects to file or delays delivery of the recall petition or who conceals or removes any recall petition from the possession of the person authorized by law to have custody thereof, or who aids, counsels, procures, or assists any person in doing said acts commits a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as provided in Section 31-10-1504.”

The Committee assumed that would be the end of it. But since it’s not …

Let’s take a look at what Robinson said. Tod is not running for Mayor. He’s not campaigning to be Mayor. He’s not doing this because he wants to be Mayor. He’s doing this because as Mayor Pro-Tem and the most senior Board Member, it’s his duty. As Tod has asked anyone who will listen, “If I took no action concerning The Mayor’s misconduct wouldn’t I then be complicit?” That he has never run for Mayor in his 10 years of public service in Silt, should tell somebody something about something. He has no burning desire to be Mayor. For Tod – and all the other committee members – this really is about open government and public trust – as corny as that sounds.

Besides, any Silt resident can go through the required steps to put his/her name on the recall ballot for Mayor. Even me!

Robinson said, “I think that unless it’s a prosecutable offense [against the mayor], it shouldn’t go forward.”

I’m baffled. What does she mean by “prosecutable offense”? Isn’t every offense prosecutable? I always thought that when a law is violated it’s violated. It’s not sorta violated.

It’s not like, if nobody sees it then it’s not an actual violation. Or if nobody does anything about it, then it’s not really a violation. Like say, you drive drunk but the officer who stops you doesn’t arrest you. That doesn’t mean you didn’t break the law. And if you keep driving drunk, eventually you will be arrested.

Maybe she thinks we should wait until The Mayor does something more law breaky and prosecutably. Violating Town Ordinances, State Statutes and Code of Ethics in office just doesn’t float her boat.

Even curiouser the Board just spent 4 meetings rewriting their Code of Ethics. Evidently that’s not so important to Robinson, since ethics aren’t “prosecutable” anyway.    

But never mind all that. Who said The Mayor’s violations are not prosecutable offenses? Certainly that was an option. But the Committee chose a Recall Petition because we feel it’s up to the voters to decide. It’s more democratic that way. Makes me wonder what Robinson has against democracy.

As far as costs go, replacing the Town Administrator and Community Development Director is costing tens of thousands of dollars, not to mention the ancillary costs of The Mayor’s misconduct. To date the Recall Petition hasn’t cost the town anything. So let’s get real.

I don’t see how the Recall Petition makes it tougher on the staff. They all seem like they’re made of sturdier stuff than that. I just live a couple blocks from the Town Hall and The Mayor’s truck has been noticeably absent from the parking lot, which means he’s not there looking over their shoulders every day. Seems to me that would be a godsend. But what do I know?

Unless – somebody threatens the staff with their jobs if they sign the petition. And I’m not saying I have any information about anything like that going on. However, IF somebody did that, it would most definitely make it tougher on the staff. I’m just sayin is all.

There are rules in this game. The Committee is most definitely playing by those rules. We have a copy of the State Statutes and are abiding to the letter. We would expect others to do the same.

In other news …

A letter from former Trustee Roxan Jakary appeared in The Paper today. We didn’t solicit her letter. Roxan did send a copy to us. It’s a good letter.  

Resignation the best choice for Silt Mayor Moore

Dear Editor,

Although I respect the opinion of the Post Independent editorial board regarding the issues facing the town of Silt, I believe that you would see things differently if you had been doing business with some of its key representatives during the past several years. I feel your opinions reflect overly simplistic perspectives, which are harmfully idealistic, instead of realistic points of view based on years of personal experiences and well-documented public records.

My life partner, Barry Bovee, and I have been residents of Silt since 2001 and operate several businesses here. We feel our affairs with the town of Silt have been filled with far too many inconsistencies and too much rudeness, which invariably resulted in a great deal of frustration and the loss of a lot of time at a significant cost.

Approximately two years ago, I was appointed to a position on the Silt Board. My hope of bringing more business savvy to Silt diminished in three months of exhaustive efforts, after which time I resigned.

Dave Moore was elected as a Silt trustee around that time, after his earlier removal from the Planning and Zoning Committee for reasons that were reflected in my subsequent personal experiences with him. During the winter of 2005-06, he offered his assistance to me and Barry as a representative of the board in dealing with a problem. We declined, only to learn that he acted against our wishes, leaving us feeling frustrated, manipulated and tired in his personal agendas again. More significant, however, is the fact that everything stated by the Silt Recall Petition Committee supporting Mayor Moore’s recall is documented in the public records from the time I sat on the board, just as from previous and more recent times.

With all due respect, I see an ongoing problem that Dave Moore has not been able to resolve for years. His resignation seems like the wisest choice, although I support his recall. My concern is that Silt will miss the boat carrying the treasures of this time of golden opportunities if it continues without new, creative, efficient, and effective people at its helm, generating the kind of excitement and enthusiasm that electrifies a community when truly good things are happening.

Roxan Jakary
Silt

The Recall Petition Committee has not called for Mayor Moore’s resignation. We believe it’s up to the voters to decide. We have confidence they will do the right thing. We’ve had many calls. People have stopped by our house to sign the petition. In fact we’ve been so busy we took the weekend off and went camping, just to get a break. We feel a sense of responsibility to everyone who supports the Recall, even those who are not eligible to sign the petition. We have every reason to believe our message is getting through.

Click here to add From the Styx to your RSS reader.

Going into this Recall Petition business we’ve always known exactly whom we are dealing with – Dave Moore.

There’s Dave Moore The Mayor who violates the law and runs the town by the seat of his own agenda.

Then there’s Dave Moore The Citizen. We’re learning a lot lately about that side of him from a surprising number of people. People who have told us they are afraid to sign the Petition because they know that Dave will be able to get a copy of it one day. And they’re afraid he will retaliate.

Here are just a few of the stories from folks who support the Recall Petition but feel they can’t sign it:

A woman’s son-in-law works for Dave and she’s afraid he will fire him.

A couple who lives in his Center Townhomes subdivision is afraid he’ll make trouble for them because he’s done it before over other issues.

A contractor says Dave owes him money and he’s afraid he won’t get paid, even if he’s so much as seen with us.

Someone has been telling members of the Congregational Church that if they sign the Recall Petition, the property where they are building their new church won’t get annexed into the town. Of course that’s not even possible since there are 7 Board Members voting. So it’s a flat out lie.

Plenty of folks have warned us that he’ll come after us, too. Although some say that’s what the Trouble at River Park last year over our alleged “nuisance dogs” was all about.

People who feel intimidated by The Mayor should know they are not alone. There is safety in numbers. The more signatures we gather, the bigger his To Do List. If he starts with us, we can keep him busy for a long time.

If Mayor Moore is out there lying and threatening people so they won’t sign the Recall Petition then he is committing a criminal offense. He will be caught eventually.

Everybody knows.

People are paying attention. People are reporting his behavior to Committee Members because they trust us. But we – all of us townspeople – need to unite and stand up to the bully on the playground.

If not now, then when?

If not us, then who?

Click here to add From the Styx to your RSS reader.

I have no clue about the history of Hey Day. Only that ever since I moved here, the first Saturday in August is Hey Day at the Veterans Memorial Park. Hey Day is live music, craft and information booths, food and family fun. And a bunch of folks sayin, “Hey!”

This year Mayor Moore kicked off the festivities with a Letter to the Editor in The Paper:

Heyday should not be a political forum

Dear Editor,

It’s been brought to my attention that Mr. Tibbetts is planning to rent a booth at the Silt Heyday, in order to collect signatures for the recall election.

This has been a traditional family event, filled with fun and entertainment. A day set aside to visit with friends and family.

It was about two years ago that another person was being recalled and the committee used the Heyday event as an opportunity to collect signatures. Many people were upset because of this family event being mixed with political overtures.

It’s my understanding that this committee has been asked to not set up a booth. I, too, am asking Mr. Tibbetts not to exploit this family event. There is plenty of time for you to get your signatures without dragging Silt Heyday into your goal. Please reconsider your booth idea.

I am not challenging your legal rights, just appealing for your consideration not to distract from the 2007 Silt Heyday.

The above opinions are not the voice of the Silt Board of Trustees.

Dave Moore
Mayor of Silt

Yes, before the Big Day there was some tearing of hairs and gnashing of teeth over our Recall Mayor Dave Moore booth. We assured everyone that, hey, we had no intention of makin no trouble no how. And since Hey Day has had a long history of local politics mixed in with the food and fun, we stuck by our civil liberties.

So they put us next to the Silt cops, Burning Mountain Firefighters, and Silt Ambulance booths. Hey, we could not have been in better company!

Our booth was up and ready by 8:00 a.m. The first petition signer of the day stopped by right away. But a member of the Hey Day Committee rushed over to inform us that, hey, we were not allowed to “do business” until 9:00 a.m.

Hey! Tod Tibbetts and Bev Thompson of the Recall Petition Committee awaited the magic hour.

Our booth was not only colorful but full service as well. Along with the petition, we offered information packets, voter registration, and free Silt maps.

Hey! The second petition signer of the day stepped up at precisely 9:00 a.m.

Judging by the popularity of our booth, the regular folks at Hey Day had no problem with us being there. Local politics is just good fun! Everyone agreed that citizen action and good old-fashioned democracy is alive and well in Silt.

Hey! This was a common sight all day long as lots of folks stopped by and talked up the issues.

Experts agree, Hey Day was a huge success!

Exercising democracy is not only exhilarating, it’s also contagious. So hey, all you registered voters in Silt, join your friends and neighbors. Sign the Recall Petition today!

We will bring the petition to you.

Click here to add From the Styx to your RSS reader.