From the Styx by Peggy Tibbetts

Here’s your comic relief for the week. Click through and read the comments too:

Energy industry: Maybe we’ll leave
By Bobby Magill

Colorado’s oil and gas industry is hopping mad about new energy development regulations being written by the state, so much so that industry members say it could force them to look outside Colorado for business …

Oh. Hey. Energy companies. Listen up. Before you leave, would you mind cleaning up this mess you made?

And this –

This too –

Oops! Don’t forget this one!

At the current level of production the energy companies will be here well past 2020.

Gee. If they start packing up now, maybe they’ll be out of here by 2030. We can always hope …

Wow. What a joke. These energy people think we’re so stupid.

So anyway, as promised, I bring you shiny new PDFs from last week’s (1/1 local Mayors meeting with Governor Ritter.

Governor Ritter’s press release: State, Feds to Continue Roan Plateau Discussions

Colorado Dept of Natural Resources letter to BLM – Re: Comments on Proposed ACEC Provisions in the Roan Plateau Resource Management Plan Amendment

Mountain Mayors letter to Americans for American Energy

It’s like The Rancher said in his comment about the Daily Sentinel article: “A lot of us who have Federal Land Grazing Permits have wondered why the state and federal governments have not subjected the oil&gas industry to the same environmental standards as the ranching community.”

Or any other individual, community, business, organization, or industry …

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

Before I get to the calendar, I want to point you to this article in The Paper:

Ritter visits with Mountain Mayors in Rifle
Colorado Gov. says he’ll continue to discuss the Roan with Feds
By Heidi Rice

RIFLE - The Roan Plateau, oil and gas impacts in western Garfield County and severance tax were some of the issues touched upon in a meeting Friday afternoon with Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter and the Mountain Mayors group …

Mayor Moore was under the weather on Friday so Town Manager Betsy asked Tod to go in his stead. Tod said the meeting was very good, very informative. Later this week I hope to post the full text of the Mountain Mayors letter to the Americans for American Energy Organization – that fun-loving group that calls people eco-terrorists if they question gas and oil production. So stay tuned for more info about that meeting. In the meantime, Heidi wrote a good article.

Now on to the Silt election calendar. I realize this might seem boring, but I promised Town Clerk Sheila that I would help keep voters informed.

Besides, this gives me another opportunity to encourage Silt voters to consider running for office. We have four Trustee positions to fill this year. One goal of the Recall Committee is to get voters more involved in town government. We have definitely succeeded in making voters more AWARE of town government. So now that you are aware, please get involved. When voters are aware and involved in local government, then government becomes more open.

January 2, 2008
First day to apply for absentee ballot with the municipal clerk

January 28, 2008
Last day to receive affidavit of intent to be a write-in candidate

February 11, 2008
First day that nomination petitions (Trustee) may be circulated prior to election

February 15, 2008
Last day to submit petitions to run for recalled position (Mayor)

February 29, 2008
Last day to submit nomination petitions for trustee positions
Last day a person can move into a municipal election precinct and become a resident for purposes of voting

March 3, 2008
Last day to register to vote for the April 1, 2008 election

March 7, 2008
First day that the mail ballots may be mailed
Last day for any person who has accepted a nomination to withdraw

March 17, 2008
Last day for Town Clerk to mail out mail ballots

March 22, 2008
Mail ballots may be counted beginning 10 days prior to election

March 28, 2008
Applications for absentee ballots must be filed with the municipal clerk

April 1, 2008
Ballots will be taken at Town Hall from 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m.
Mail ballots shall be made available at the election official’s office for eligible electors until no later than 7:00 p.m. on Election Day
Statements specifying the reason for requesting any replacement mail ballots shall be submitted to the designated election official by no later than 7:00 p.m. on Election Day
Mail ballots must be received by no later than 7:00 p.m. on Election Day
Judges will immediately upon completion of the ballot count make an abstract of the count of votes and post it in a conspicuous place upon the outside of the polling place

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

Election year is upon us. Trying to sort out the mess that is our national election system is enough to give me a headache.

The first votes in the presidential primaries have been cast on the pinball voting machines in New Hampshire and the system hit full tilt. The exit polls didn’t agree with the machine count (yet they agreed with the paper ballot count) so the MSM tossed out the exit polls and declared New Hampshire voters racist. Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich and Republican candidate Albert Howard have requested a recount with the support of Election Integrity experts from outside the state. They aren’t asking for a partial recount a la 2004. They are demanding a full recount. And they are being charge well over $100,000. Since I’m a count-all-the-votes geek, I think it’s a good idea to investigate the primary results. But it doesn’t bode well for the general election in November. 

Brad Blog is all over this story, so don’t take my word for it.

Last week the Indiana Voter ID case came before the Supreme Court. If you read my blog you know that I despise Voter ID laws. When you register to vote you must show ID. There’s no reason you should have to show ID every time you vote. You should sign a voter verification card, hand it to the election judge, and receive a ballot. Simple as that. Requiring IDs to vote is voter disenfranchisement and is unconstitutional.

However this article says most of the Supremes don’t seem all that concerned about voter disenfranchisement or the Constitution:

Court Seems to Back Indiana Voter ID Law
By Mark Sherman

Washington - The Supreme Court appeared ready Wednesday to uphold the nation’s strictest requirement that voters show photo identification before casting a ballot.

The justices are faced with a partisan dispute that echoes the bitterly divided decision that sealed the 2000 presidential election for George W. Bush. Now, as then, the court seemed divided along ideological lines.

Wednesday’s arguments were over a challenge to an Indiana law, passed in 2005, that is backed by Republicans as a prudent way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups oppose the law as unconstitutional and call it a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor and minority voters - those most likely to lack proper ID and who tend to vote for Democrats.

But Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a key vote on the court, did not sound persuaded that the challengers had made their case …

This NY Times article explores the previous rulings on voter disenfranchisement and reveals a Court that is increasingly hostile to voters:

A Supreme Court Reversal: Abandoning the Rights of Voters
By Adam Cohen

The Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a hugely important case about voter ID laws. Asking for identification at the polls may sound reasonable, but an Indiana law disenfranchises large numbers of people without driver’s licenses, especially poor and minority voters. If the court upholds the law, as appears likely, it will be a sad new chapter in its abandonment of voters, a group whose rights it once defended vigorously.

As long as there have been elections, there have been attempts to keep eligible people from voting. States and localities adopted poll taxes, literacy tests, “white primaries,” “malapportionment” - drawing district lines to give a small number of rural voters the same representation as a large number of urban voters - and restrictions on student voting. In recent decades, the Supreme Court has rejected all of them …

Last but never least, Greg Palast exposes voter fraud for the bogeyman it is:

Space Invaders: Five Million Aliens for Hillary
Will José Crow Voter ID Laws Pick Our President?
by Greg Palast

State Representative Russell Pearce of Mesa Arizona has warned us:

“There is a massive effort under way to register illegal aliens in this country.”

How many? According to the Congressman’s office, there are five million: Democrats, he says, who are not good Americans - they’re Mexicans!

Really?! Holy Cow! The Senator has uncovered a conspiracy to flood the voter rolls with Brown Hordes who’ve swum the Rio Grande just for a chance to vote for Hillary Clinton?!

Thank the Lord for vigilant citizens like Senator Pearce. His efforts, along with the work of other patriotic (Republican) politicians, successfully stopped 300,000 voters from obtaining ballots in 2004 - because these voters had brought the wrong ID to the polls. New ID laws in Arizona and half a dozen states blocked these voters at the polling-house door. Others with “wrong” ID’s were handed what are called ‘provisional’ ballots - which were then not counted.

On Wednesday, the Republican majority on the US Supreme Court indicated it would vote to uphold these new voter ID requirements …

Back home in Colorado we await the Legislature’s decision about how to proceed now that the majority of our voting machines have been decertified. In the meantime, the chair of the Colorado Democratic Party called for Coffman’s resignation. Even though it won’t fix this mess, at least it’s a start.

Dem chair calls on Coffman to resign
By Lynn Bartels  

The chairwoman of the Colorado Democratic Party called on Republican Secretary of State Mike Coffman to resign, saying his office is operating under a “cloud of controversy” over voting systems.

“The public’s confidence in the elections process continues to erode under the watch of this secretary of state,” chairwoman Pat Waak said Monday in a statement.”

“Coffman has failed miserably in his attempts to instill the confidence and trust the voting public deserves in the elections process. He needs to leave” …

If you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention.

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

Mayor Moore was just boiling over with interesting comments in response to Rick Aluise’s announcement last weekend. This article appeared in the The Sentinel last Saturday (1/5):

Ex-administrator wants to be Silt’s mayor
By Mike McKibbin

The former Silt town administrator whose resignation led to a recall effort against the town’s mayor has announced his candidacy for the office in the April town election.

Rick Aluise said Friday he had no intention to run for the office now held by Dave Moore, but numerous residents kept asking him to run.

“I believe that a change is in the town’s best interest at this critical stage of Silt’s development, and I’ve agreed to run,” Aluise said.

Mayor Pro-Tem Tod Tibbetts, who led a recall committee to oust Moore, had planned to run, but he said he will support Aluise instead.

Moore said while Aluise has the right to run for office, he thinks Aluise could have conflicts of interest as mayor, since much of the town’s business crossed his desk as administrator.

“As mayor, I think he’d have to recuse himself from anything he had contact with,” Moore said.

Moore vowed to “win in a big way” in the recall and may run for the Garfield County Commission later this year …

Notice how Dave talks about conflict of interest, winning the recall, and running for county commissioner, all in the same breath. So he wants to be both Mayor and County Commissioner. Makes you wonder where his loyalties lie.

Speaking of loyalties, Dave served up this tantalizing tidbit:

… Another petition for mayor has been given out, but [Town Clerk Sheila McIntyre] said she will not release that person’s identity until it is returned. Moore, however, said the other possible candidate is Doug Williams, a Moore supporter and a former trustee. Williams could not be reached for comment Friday …

Remember Trustee Doug Williams? Doug resigned last July, just days after the Recall Committee filed a recall petition against him. The Recall Committee welcomes Doug’s return to the political arena. Should he run for Mayor, we will have the opportunity to release the irrefutable evidence we gathered for his recall. The voters have a right to know.

In spite of Doug’s questionable record, you have to wonder why he would want to run. Evidently he thinks his good friend Dave will lose the recall.

Mayor Moore made some interesting comments in The Paper on Saturday (1/5). Here’s the article:

Former Silt town manager enters race for mayor
By Heidi Rice

SILT — Former town administrator Rick Aluise has tossed his hat into the ring for the position of mayor of Silt should current Mayor Dave Moore be recalled in the April municipal election …

Here’s Dave comments:

… Moore, who was elected in 2006, said he thinks Aluise as mayor would have conflicts of interest at this time.

“It would add a complication to the administration of town business because as the past administrator, he touched everything that came across his desk and many applicants would feel they were not getting a fair shake,” Moore said. “I think he would be very handicapped because of involvement in projects in the last five to six years and as mayor, he would be required to recuse himself. I think there would be multiple conflicts of interest.”

There he goes again! Dave just cannot seem to grasp what constitutes a conflict of interest.

Ok, let’s go over it once more. This is excerpted from the Silt Home Rule Charter [emphasis added]:

Section 1-17. Conflict of Interest.  Neither the Mayor nor any Trustee shall vote or participate in discussion or deliberation on any question in which he or she has a substantial personal or financial interest, direct or indirect, including an interest held through a spouse or family member, other than the common public interest, or on any question concerning his or her own conduct.  In the event the Mayor or any Trustee has such an interest, he or she shall declare such interest.  Whether or not such a declaration is made, the remaining Trustees may determine by a majority vote whether said interest does in fact constitute a conflict of interest.  When such conflict of interest is established, the Mayor or Trustee affected shall not vote on the matter, and the remaining Trustees shall take any further action they deem to be in the best interests of the Town.  If such conflict of interest was not disclosed and is established with respect to a matter already considered by the Board of Trustees, the remaining members of the Board of Trustees shall take any action they deem to be in the best interests of the Town, including, but not limited to, terminating the unperformed portion of any contract entered into when such a conflict of interest existed. This Section and any ordinance adopted in furtherance thereof shall abrogate and replace any common law doctrine on this subject.

Having served as Town Administrator for 6 years, Rick Aluise has knowledge and experience with issues and projects. Knowledge and experience do not translate into personal or financial gain. His knowledge and experience are not conflicts – they are assets.

Now, when the Mayor purchases a piece of property with an intended use that conflicts with current zoning and then interferes with the approval process – THAT is a conflict of interest, because of his direct financial interest in the project.

Silt is a small town. Any board member – Mayor or Trustee – could have the potential for a conflict of interest. When Dave ran for Mayor in 2006, he was a past Planning & Zoning Commissioner and a then current board member. Therefore he also had prior involvement with projects and applicants. So does he believe he was not qualified to run for Mayor? Doubtful.

However Rick Aluise offers this reminder of Dave’s most recent conflict of interest: “Mayor Moore’s comment that I would have conflicts of interest as Mayor simply because I served as the Town Administrator is rather odd, given the fact that the Board of Trustees forced him by motion to recuse himself at a public hearing last year. The motion came after the Town Attorney had already told him he needed to recuse himself. He argued with her for nearly ten minutes, and he refused to do so voluntarily.” [BOT Minutes – July 9, 2007]

Dave’s own words are a perfect example of his pretzel logic. He thinks everyone else has conflicts of interest except him.

And apparently he doesn’t think former or current town employees have the same rights as other citizens because he doesn’t think they have the right to run for office.

Rick Aluise is Silt’s FORMER Town Administrator. He is no longer employed by the town. He is a private citizen. For Dave to say: “applicants would feel they were not getting a fair shake” is false and misleading. Just what does he mean by this? Is he trying to stir up applicants’ mistrust of town government?

He should be made to answer for these comments. 

Former Silt Town Administrator Rick Aluise announced his candidacy for Mayor in the upcoming April town election in a statement released today:

“Numerous citizens have asked me to run for Mayor in the upcoming election. I believe that a change is in the town’s best interest at this critical stage of Silt’s development and I’ve agreed to run.”

It was anticipated that Mayor Pro-Tem Tod Tibbetts, who led the Recall Committee in a successful petition drive to move forward with an election to recall Mayor Dave Moore, would also be a candidate for Mayor. However Tibbetts threw his support behind Aluise in a statement also released today:

“I am pleased that a candidate of Rick’s caliber has stepped forward to run for Mayor. If I were to run and win, my Trustee seat would be vacated and open for appointment. I strongly believe the voters of Silt should elect their town officials and not appoint them. This is great news for the town of Silt and reclaiming open government. I will work hard to see that Rick Aluise is elected Mayor.”

On behalf of the Recall Committee, we are thrilled at Rick’s announcement. In light of our successful petition drive to put the recall of Mayor Moore on the ballot for the voters to decide, we feel this is the best possible outcome for our efforts. The fact that Mayor Moore interfered heavy-handedly in Rick’s position as Town Administrator was a significant catalyst behind our recall effort. Rick Aluise was an outstanding Town Administrator. His intimate knowledge of Silt and its history, and his expertise on the issues facing our town are sadly lacking and sorely needed. We look forward to the campaign. Rick Aluise will be an outstanding Mayor.

The Silt Town Election will be by mail-in ballot on April 1, 2008.

The Mayoral Recall Election will be part of that election. Those who vote YES to recall Mayor Moore, will be able to vote for a new mayor.

Nomination petitions for the mayor’s seat are now available from Town Clerk Sheila McIntyre at the Silt Town Hall, and must be returned by February 15, 2008.

Four trustee seats will be open:

Bobby Hays
Ron Morgan
Jim Voorheis
Joe Sos

There has been a change in state statutes regarding the nomination petitions for trustee candidates. The petitions can be picked up at the Silt Town Hall beginning February 11, 2008, and must be turned in on or before February 29, 2008.

Seems like a short window of time, but candidates can begin campaigning after they pick up their petitions.

All candidates must be at least 18 years of age, a one-year resident of Silt prior to the election and a registered voter in the town of Silt.

You have another whole month to make your decision to run for office. That’s five seats up for grabs this year. Let’s reclaim open government in Silt. You can help make a difference on the local level.

GET INVOLVED!

RUN FOR OFFICE!