Letters

To the editor:

I had the opportunity to participate in the caucuses April 13,
and I have to tell you, I was confused. My precinct’s designated
caucus location, Singing Hills Elementary, is a familiar spot,
since my kids have roamed its halls and my wife is a teacher
there.

This was my first caucus, so I was a bit timid, naturally. When
I arrived at the designated site a gentleman greeted me with
glasses resting on the tip of his rather large nose. The greeter
was wearing a T-shirt and jeans, quite the relaxed look, I thought,
for such an official affair. The gentleman asked me to sign in,
take a packet and have some coffee and cookies.

So far, so good, no surprises, just familiarity in a somewhat
relaxed environment. Doing as instructed, I signed in, picked up my
packet, got my cup of coffee, and headed toward the rows of chairs
neatly organized in the room.

Before I could get to the chair that I was eyeing while at the
coffeepot, because of its strategic location, another gentleman
approached me. This man was older than the other gentleman. This
man looked as though he had been to a few caucuses, if you know
what I mean. He was the organizer of the whole affair, and was very
knowledgeable about what could be expected. He was willing to tell
me just that: what could be expected. His depth of knowledge and
abundance of information confirmed my first thought.

So there I was: coffee and packet in hand, enlightened as to
what to expect, occupying a strategic location in the room, I was
now ready to do my civic duty and participate in my political
party’s caucus.

While seated, I opened my packet and began to read its contents.
There was an agenda; a calendar listing dates, times and
descriptions of upcoming events; and a sheet with budget
information about the county and the sheriff’s budget, for the last
three years. I think someone wanted to make the sheriff look
bad.

There was a hideously hand-written letter, wrought with poor
spelling and syntax, outlining support for the incumbent county
commissioner candidates. If I were one of the candidates that the
author of this letter was supporting, I think I would ask this
person to not write letters on my behalf.

In my packet there was a flier for a candidate running for
district attorney. There were these colored fliers; one gray and
one orange, with a cartoon of a donkey roping and pulling an
elephant, which described how the party was being divided; by whom
I wondered. There were fliers for incumbent candidates, running for
county commissioner positions and, wham – there they were, the
objects of my confusion.

There was a handout outlining the party platform, and
questioning the loyalty of three of the five county commissioner
candidates. Then there were three handouts questioning commissioner
candidates about their actions and positions on certain issues and
the like. One of the handouts even questioned one of the
candidate’s job history and another candidate’s party
affiliation.

Now this was my first caucus and I guess confusion was to be
expected. But when I read the handouts that were bashing my party’s
candidates, and fliers that described a party in turmoil, I
thought, man, I am at the wrong caucus. The guy at the door,
wearing a T-shirt and jeans, with glasses hanging from the tip of
his nose, did look a little funny. The really knowledgeable
gentleman, whom had been to a few caucuses, telling me what to
expect, wasn’t so nice after all, I thought. He didn’t really want
me to participate in the process; he wanted me to capitulate to the
process.

I’ve not only ended up at the wrong caucus; I’ve ended up at the
wrong party’s caucus. I mean, what else could explain the nasty
fliers and the candidate bashing? Who would do such a dastardly
deed, except the enemy. It’s normal, and even expected, for
opposing parties to say and write negative information about the
other party. It’s American politics at it’s best.

My dilemma of confusion begins to morph itself into an
opportunity of spying. I’m in the enemy’s camp, and they haven’t
ousted me, yet. I’ll do the kind of information reconnaissance that
Sir Richard Francis Burton would be proud of. You know, Arabian
Knights and discovering Mecca, kind of stuff. Then, just before
beginning my most important spying mission, I saw someone, someone
that I knew. Two spies in the enemy’s camp, even better. I
approached my friend and inquired as to why he was at this
caucus.

“This caucus is the caucus for our precinct and our party,” he
said.

Like the donkey dragging the elephant, I was being dragged back
to a state of confusion. After several minutes of discussion with
my friend, I learned that I was in the right place, which was a
good thing, and I learned that my party was creating enemies from
within it’s ranks, which is a bad thing.

After a few days of introspection about my first caucus
experience, I have concluded that in politics, confusion is normal.
Confusion is the result of someone’s efforts to wedge candidates
and issues. It’s the old divide and conquer rule of battle. There
are some people in my party who support one set of issues and there
are others who support another set of issues. It is these issues
that are used to create confusion among residents and voters,
thereby allowing them to be easily persuaded to act in a manner
that might not be in accordance with their beliefs or values. I
don’t think that it’s in my party’s best interest to “divide and
conquer” the residents of Elbert County. I think that my party will
best serve Elbert County by supporting the core values and beliefs
of our party: rights – individual and property, freedom to live
through those rights and compassion for everyone, even those we
might not agree with. I believe that these are also the core values
of most, if not all, of the residents of Elbert County.

I have a message to those who are not in my party, and that is:
There is plenty of room under our tent, and you are welcome. To
those in my party I also have a message, especially to those who
want to confuse and divide, by bashing others through nasty fliers
and letters: There is plenty of room under our tent, even for you,
and you are welcome. Come on in, the coffee is fresh, and we will
not confuse you.

J.E. Yates

Elizabeth

To the editor:

This is in response to the letter by Ms. Bernardini.

You’ve raised a number of issues in the manner of throwing
spitballs against a wall to see which ones stick. I don’t think any
have, and here are the reasons why.

The Thunder/Vista local improvement district was put forward by
a group of homeowners in two sub developments. The county clerk
handled the district election and the voters in the two sub
developments voted it down. To now blame all of this on the board
of county commissioners really misses the target in terms of
responsible parties.

The “Road to Nowhere” was put in at the behest of a landowner
who lives at the end of it who needed to bring a home in. The road
could provide emergency fire access to the Chaparral Valley sub-
development. And it earns the county state road subsidy, which
covers the cost of maintaining it. The work was performed within
budget under the authority of road and bridge. The riprap,
boulders, was purchased by road and bridge for the purpose of
building up temporary bridges dating to the 1965 flood and for
erosion control. There was a change in road and bridge management,
and new management decided to have the rock crushed instead. These
are decisions made in the road and bridge department. Decisions
that do not involve a budget re-appropriation do not require BOCC
review. If you have an issue with road and bridge you should take
it up with that department.

As for “government leaders blaming ex-employees,” you’ll need to
be more specific if you want someone to address this
grievance.

On the dog control issue, Elbert County has a commissioner
resolution on the books for dangerous dogs. However, even under the
new state law where dogs lose their “one free bite” privilege, Ms.
Brooks would not have been saved. She was gone for two hours before
anyone called 911. We live in a rural area where, for example,
mountain lions live. People need to be prepared when they go out
alone for the eventuality that they might run into a dangerous
animal. Had Ms. Brooks had a cell phone in her pocket, or perhaps
some means of defending herself, things would probably have turned
out better.

On the question of lawsuits against the county in general, you
should follow up with the district court if you have questions. As
I understand it, the county has only had one adverse decision and
it is being appealed. In addition, your point here makes a good
case to keep experienced commissioners, who know county operations
and who know the zoning regulations, on the job.

Your complaint about the BOCC approval of Spring Valley is also
misplaced. The Spring Valley developer performed all that he was
required to perform under county zoning regulations. The BOCC is a
quasi-judicial authority on zoning matters and if a property owner
abides by the zoning regulations, the BOCC cannot insert their own
personal discretion to approve or deny a land use application. It
must rule according to the regulations. In contrast, the BOCC can
exercise discretion on master plan questions since the master plan
is, and should remain, advisory. However, zoning is regulatory and
here you have a good case in point for what happens in a regulatory
scheme. If you object to a zoning regulation you need to take your
objection to the planning department, take it to the planning
commission, run it through a public hearing and try to get the
zoning regulation changed. To blame the BOCC for enforcing a zoning
regulation that they are required to enforce makes no
sense.

As for the commissioners having no knowledge of the number of
people living in the county, that claim is implausible on its
face.

On the question of roads and taxes, the road and bridge
department gets about $5 million a year from property taxes and
state funds. It has complete discretion within its budget to use
the money to build and maintain roads. If the department wants to
raise the road and bridge mill levy, it will have to go before the
voters and get the increase approved.

The “back wages” claim is interesting. This was an FLSA-mandated
reimbursement for “off-the-clock wages.” Off-the-clock wages are
for time spent in addition to the regular working hours where the
employee might, for example, be conscientiously coming into work a
few minutes early. This was not time that had been recorded on
employee time sheets that are signed by employees and turned into
the county for payment. The FLSA received a complaint out of the
sheriff’s department. They interviewed some employees, didn’t talk
to supervisors or elected officials, and issued a ruling. The
county not only lost the $600,000, but going forward, the county
has an incentive to prevent people from coming into work early or
staying a little late, even where the employee wants to do so
purely in the interest of doing a thorough job. Here again, it is a
mistake to blame the BOCC.

On the Highway Users Transportation Fund overpayment and
reimbursement question, prior to receipt of the overpayment, the
county had not received any HUTF increase for the previous four or
five years. The county had put an inquiry into the colorado
Department of Transportation as to why there had been no increase
to correspond to population growth in the county. I guess someone
at the county knows about population growth, eh? Subsequently, CDOT
made a mistake and transposed figures between Elbert and El Paso
counties. Elbert County had no reason to suspect an error, and the
county proceeded to budget for the money and spend it on roads. The
incumbent commissioners are working with the Legislature to get
some relief on repayment since it was not the county’s
error.

I hope that “intelligent residents” follow up on your laundry
list of claims to get the full stories. Those that take the time to
do so will see that, in virtually every case, you have mistakenly
blamed the BOCC.

The incumbents are doing a fine job, Ms. Bernardini.

Brooks Imperial

Citizens For Voter Choice

To the editor:

The formation of a new department, the Elbert County Emergency
Communications Dispatch Service, and the proposal to add a new tax
by increasing the mill levy by 3.8 mills to raise approximately
$850,000 per year will do very little to address the problems
horribly brought to light by the tragedy of Nov. 30, 2003, that
resulted in the death of an Elbert County resident.

This is mainly a ploy to enlarge government and to raise
taxes.

The E911 system did not fail. The call was received in a timely
manner and an attempt was made to dispatch a deputy. The problem
was there was no deputy to dispatch and there was no local backup
to call in an emergency. It would not have made any difference if
there had been six dispatchers on duty in a million dollar “Taj
Mahal” with a million dollars worth of equipment. There was no one
to call.

The problem goes much deeper. Either the sheriff is not managing
his million dollar-plus budget professionally or the commissioners
are not giving him enough money to provide adequate law enforcement
in the county or a combination of both. Personally I am fed up with
the juvenile squabbles between the board.

He said – she said arguing does not serve the citizens. This
group should leave their egos at the door and begin to act
professionally for the benefit of the residents or get out of the
way and let others do the job.

Perhaps we have outgrown the dispatch center. Perhaps the
equipment is aging but it appears this can be handled through the
fund we have built up with our $.70 phone tax we all pay on every
phone in the county including cell phones. Which brings up another
point. How much do we pay into the fund every month and how much is
spent? Who is in control of this money? What checks and balances
are in place? When and where are expenditures reported as other
county expenses are?

The incident Nov. 30, 2003 does indicate that the dispatchers do
need additional training and probably a few more individuals are
need. La Riea Thompson reports in the Elbert County News April22
that the present budget contains $200,000 for salaries. Certainly
the board of county commissioners can find an additional $200,000
yearly to double the staff rather than increase taxes by
$850.000.

Ron Young

Democratic candidate for commissioner District 1

To the editor:

Teacher appreciation week at Frontier High School in Elizabeth
was special due to some of our parents, administrators, students,
staff and local business owners. The committee would like to thank
our local business owners and managers for their donations to the
students and staff. We wanted to provide some tokens of our
appreciation for the hard work and caring the school staff gives to
our students.

In addition, a big thank you goes to owners and managers at
A&A Tradin’ Post, Eric’s Take-N-Bake Pizza, Rose’s Creamery,
Elizabeth Radio Shack, Dollar Store and Elizabeth Safeway for their
generous donations and continued support of our youth. Their
contributions enabled us to provide breakfast, lunches, snacks,
gifts and an ice cream social for our staff in addition to some
mementos for our graduating seniors. Several of these
establishments employ a number of our Frontier High School students
and we thank them for the career skills they provide these young
adults.]

We encourage you to shop our local retailers whenever you can to
let them know how much they are appreciated. They are good
neighbors and it is a delight to get to know them.

Frontier High School 2004 PASS Committee

Ann Haugen, Julie Woods, Tammy Landis and

Kathi Bartik