Jump to content
erm, public servant, not public citizen...
Yup, exactly what the Chamber said about me after I lost a contract to a 16-yr-old (as in, a minor who can't legally be held to a signed contract), leading to no access to the Chamber website (unless your Internet access was through that company) for several weeks, leading me (as a member, at the time) to complain...
Which was then dismissed as "sour grapes" by those who didn't want to face up to the appearance of impropriety posed by the Chamber signing a services contract with a minor. I was just trying to help, not whining about not getting a contract, which wouldn't have been a problem had it at least gone to an adult who wasn't hosting white-supremacist websites. Nothing to see here, either, I'm sure...
Still pales in comparison to Ashcroft getting sworn in as Bush's Attorney General on a stack of bibles, after losing a Congressional election to a dead guy.
The point being, absurdities occurring at the federal or state level, don't mean we have to accept this as the status quo, at the local level. I'm biased because my Brother accepted a non-teaching position with Jeffco this year due to absurdities there -- after 22 years teaching Math and Computer Science in that district. It's always a bad thing when the public (parents, teachers, students, property owners) doesn't trust their local school board, for whatever reasons.
"Fourth, Rich Lowe's article shifts from a legal standard of conflicts of interest to general perceptions of conflicts of interest."
Which is exactly why public servants are supposed to avoid any appearance of impropriety; I can't hardly fault Mr. Lowe for his resulting "general perceptions" when confronted with it. Failure to disclose is on the candidate/elected representative alone.
"First, it appears to be a novel legal theory that a board member's potential conflict of interests invalidate the actions of the board."
By your warped legal reasonings, sure, Scott. But if a decision was made where quorom was obtained only by the presence of one or more folks with undisclosed conflicts of interest, then surely chaos would rein if those decisions were still held to be binding, once those improprieties came to light.
Given your predilection to take exactly this position in the past, where any public citizen is concerned, I have to assume someone Richard's calling out here must be a friend of yours. Because you've seemed to know better in the past, even if I've thought you've taken it too far. In this case, nowhere near far enough. There's nothing wrong with conflicts of interest per se, the issue is a failure to disclose -- this isn't some obscure, secret tenet of law that no candidate for the School Board could reasonably be expected to know about.
When I complain about the current politics of Steamboat driving me further and further away from a town I once loved, it's exactly this sort of thing I'm talking about. Some folks just don't understand that the law applies to them as well. Can't wait to be an official Yampa resident in a few weeks.
The candidates themselves, should be aware of the whole "avoid the appearance of impropriety" thing when it comes to public service. Not like this is some big secret.
As a former Steamboat resident moving yet another 20 miles south to avoid the malign influence of Steamboat politics / power-players, all I can say, is to reiterate my position: this doesn't mean hiding, or covering up, those improprieties when they occur. It's supposed to be a proactive thing, eh?
If you're running for public office, on any level, it is incumbent upon you to read the damn regulations about conflict of interest -- not leave it to other members of the community to have to rat you out.
Y'all know how I hate to agree with Scott. But, yeah, first thought I had reading this was, does the County need new facilities? No? Just Steamboat? But I have to pay? Maybe that property I bought shoulda been a few more miles to the south so I wouldn't need to worry myself about the absurdities resulting from how, after I just decided to move yet another 20 miles further away from Steamboat Springs, I'm still expected to pay for a new police station, there.
F(orget) that. Especially if y'all are serious that Steamboat still needs to be designated as "blighted" even after its recent inclusion in the Economic Zone thing. If I could move closer to Vail without being trapped in the orbit of those people, I would -- except nowadays Steamboat people scare me just as bad, for being in favor of this sort of lunacy.
I was all in favor of a shared facility, before it came about that I was expected to pay for it, despite it not being needed by RCSO.
Srsly, no offense intended. I'm one of those 911 "truthers" myself, but have long wished Alex Jones would just shutup, as he discredits any issue he purports to believe in.
BY DESIGN! Adnan Khashoggi's design. Why do you think infowars is so insistent on the Israelis were behind 911, when 19 of the hijackers were Saudis, just like -- OMG, REALLY? -- Khashoggi. With all the right royal and CIA ties to our government to be the first on the list of people not to believe.
This also applies to their lackies like Alex Jones. Beware agreeing with him on anything -- he only says what he does to discredit you. That's his JOB, man!
Meh, only folks who find Alex Jones a reliable source of information, believe your statistic. Far too few of U.S. mass murders have been perpetrated by anyone formerly believed to have mental issues, let alone were on SSRIs.
As with any statistic, there's all the room in the world for the unscrupulous to twist it to fit their preconceived agenda. Which, seriously dude, is what the infowars website is all about.
I respect you enough, not for having the same name but for other comments you've made here in the past, to suspect you'll get over your current infatuation with Alex Jones.
"The most visible of these registration/ confiscation lessons in history was Adolph Hitler's Germany which made possible the Holocaust as there could be no armed resistance from the Jews or anyone else not in the Natzi party. The second amendment was drafted in order to insure that an armed populace could never be subjugated by it's own government."
No, no, no, no, NO!!!
You may be more brushed up on the details of gun registration/ownership than I am, but I find your other positions to be inherently un-Constitutional, to be polite about it.
Our Founders devised a government of, by, and for the People in which no extremist Fascist faction could ever rise to power, and they were certain enough of that to not need any sort of "second amendment remedies" to prevent it. THAT'S THE POINT OF CITIZENS HAVING THE VOTE.
And the first amendment, as far as being Jewish (and hopefully Muslim, except apparently in Texas) goes. The Constitution, in and of itself, insures that the population cannot be legally subjugated. The second amendment is about oppressing the slaves who made this country great, not empowering the citizens who wanted that (i.e. the ones who wrote the Constitution, like slave-owning Jefferson who voted, along with Madison, to ban guns from the University of Virginia campus) to go on and overthrow the government if they didn't like having their "property" stolen from them.
The reality you espouse, only exists in some parallel universe where the Confederacy prevailed. In my reality, in this universe, the Union victory decisively ended any notion that the second amendment means what you think it means.
Last login: Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.