Jump to content
They did bring in a Denver employment lawyer which is admitting they don't entirely believe Lettunich's advice.
Term limits law says "shall serve more than two consecutive terms in office, except that with respect to terms of office which are two years or shorter in duration, no such elected official shall serve more than three consecutive terms in office"
So in 2013, Walter Magill had served a 2 year term and a 4 year term and so could run for another term.
"To me, we've kind of closed the book on a lot of it," Council President Walter Magill said. "We have a new direction with Police Chief Christensen." Magill added he doesn't think anybody gains by digging into old allegations when the former directors of the police department and the city manager are gone.
After a campaign in which every elected candidate stated that "openness" was a high priority then how did we end up with cover-it-up Scott Magill as council president?
It is obvious that the police dept had major issues because of all of the changes that have been publicly stated as being implemented. When a dept acknowledges that it will no longer allow retribution against officers that complain then it is admitting of generally what it did in the past.
So the more than some try to bury it as being the past then the more that many in the community believe that the allegations are all true. And thus that no officer currently in the dept would ever be suitable to lead the dept.
Projects on the first go around have lost 3-2 or 2-1, but never 4-1. So first go around this time got about half of the normal number of votes.
I suppose there are any number of theories why it did so poorly, but none of them suggest that Roger Good should remain as school board president.
And I do hope that not being school board president gives him the freedom to question the apparent operating majority A divided city council has been able to make progress on big issues because they had to answer questions. Meanwhile, an unified school board spent nearly a year working on a bond proposal that was demolished 4-1 by the voters. And it took until the campaign before their plan faced hard questions.
And I think that Roger Good is a decent person.
But losing a bond measure 4-1 is a major political failure. School bonds have failed 2-1 in the past, but never 4-1 so this was an exceptional political failure. He certainly was not in a good position to say he was the right person to lead the board in creating another proposal.
And Scott Ford and Sonja Macys have shown that a minority viewpoint on a board can often win in the end by asking questions and showing the majority viewpoint doesn't have the answers. Starting 2 vs 5 on police station location, downtown URA and city manager competence, they ended up winning every issue because they had asked the questions and some members of the majority could no longer stomach the pitiful answers that were being given.
And unfortunately that is the stated intent of the new plan. They did allow people to opt in to a donation, but now have decided they were not getting enough people to agree. So they decided to automatically make the donation for their customers unless their customers explicitly say no.
It would be as if Safeway's register automatically included a donation and the customer had to tell the cashier to remove it.
"Why do we have newly elected reps taking over leadership?"
Because that is what newly elected boards do and Rush/Huron/Dover wanted Huron to be board president.
And when a Roger Good as school board president can shuttle through a construction proposal that resulted in a $92M bond issue that the voters rejected 4 to 1 then it makes sense to replace him. His political judgment was awful. He didn't question an extremely questionable demographics report. He didn't show leadership in seeking better information. In fact, when I tried in a public meeting to start a conversation on the problems with their demographics report, he and other board members decided to ignore it.
Roger Good has a motto that school board doesn't revisit decision. That greatly hurt the bond proposal because critical decisions were made with minimal public notice with the agenda item not giving a hint that a critical decision was at hand. And so when individuals asked at the next meeting on what facts and input was that decision was made then the answer was not reconsidering decisions. Those individuals became members of the Better Plan campaign to defeat the bond measure. A more politically savvy board president would have seen the harm of creating opponents to the plan. I was at the Better Plan election night party and all of them are very involved in local education efforts. It wasn't a bunch of anti-tax wingnuts, but the sort of people that should have been involved in supporting a school bond measure to deal with enrollment growth. For the process to have made those people into opponents is inexcusable.
I think it is more likely that we will get a better and more cost effective plan to deal with school enrollment with Margaret Huron (or any of the other board members) than Roger Good as board president.
Maybe now he will ask questions and insist upon getting a credible answer so that poorly thought out proposals don't proceed.
And the school district's lawyer doesn't even find enough conflicts of interest to even see a need to do anything over.
Certainly no need for any of the candidates that defeated his wife in the election to resign.
And this paper should consistently enforce their rules on letters to the editor. I've been asked to provide proof of factual claims and yet they allowed Rich Lowe to make several false statements in this letter:
"Yet, Ms. (Michelle) Dover chose to ignore this and failed to resign her position as a teacher before" - has multiple factual errors. She was not working as a teacher. So she couldn't resign from that position. She was not working as a sub teacher, but was on a list to be eligible to be called as a sub teacher. Being on the list is a not a paid situation so she was not a paid employee. And so could it be any clearer that she is allowed to serve?
Whoops, Rich Lowe factual errors.
Next paragraph in his letter is full of misleading statements. He introduces a definition of conflict of interest that is not that of the school district or Colorado law, but creates the impression that his definition has the force of law. He then suggests that Roger Good questioned the 3 new board members on their conflicts as if there was something special about that question. When he, in fact, asked all board members. Rich Lowe then inaccurately describes the answers.
So the paper should have said they won't publish such lies and rejected his letter.
This is an example of lack of video recording of school board meetings hurts the school board. If a link could be posted to the Nov 16 discussion on conflicts of interest then it would show that every board member discussed their potential issues and how they deal with them in practice. And that the issues appeared to be settled to everyone's satisfaction.
But without the recording the Rich Lowe can say "then-sitting President Roger Good asked each of the three newly elected board members if they felt they had a conflict of interest" when, in fact, he asked the entire board. And Rich Lowe can characterize their answers as simple "no" when, in fact, every school board member described potential conflicts of interest that will be avoided. For instance, I learned that Joey Andrew has financial interests in family enterprises from contracting to ranching.
Last login: Saturday, October 10, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.