About Me
I chose Colorado as the place to finish my Air Force career, and retired at 20 years in 2008. I moved to Woodmen Hills in February of that year, after renting in town for two years; I didn’t want to buy a house until I had done my research, and found a neighborhood that I wanted to raise my family in. I chose Woodmen Hills, and in particular Filing 11.
Once settled, I began to seek ways to get involved with the community. I applied to be on Filing 11′s Design Review board, and I started learning all I could about municipal government and how our district is run. I began to ask questions, and in November of 2008 I began attending district board meetings. Over time, however, I began to feel that out district was moving in directions I felt were wrong. You’ll probably see a trend in my postings, so it shouldn’t be too hard to determine those areas where I disagree with the current board. 
However, everybody wants concrete positions, so I’ll tell you a little bit about what I believe. Do my beliefs match yours? Do we disagree? I would gladly debate positions; just leave a comment.
Limited Government. I view government as a necessary evil, to be kept as non-intrusive as possible. Do what you are supposed to do; don’t do what you are not supposed to do. If you want to expand that category of “what you are supposed to do”, there are ways to do it—most require the approval of the electorate. If we’re going to pay for it, and be saddled with it, shouldn’t we at least have a say in it? You don’t have to please everyone, you never will. But letting us see what the decision process is, and being as open as possible, keeps people from wondering what’s going on, and while it may stir up more discussion (and hence take more time), is that truly such a bad thing? Maybe someone has an idea that you don’t?
Example: A resident at a board meeting recently spoke about the vacuum truck, and how much it’s saved the district to date. I have not seen those figures, so I have no idea if they are valid or not. What I have heard, though, is that there were alternate means by which we could get the same capability – a tow-behind trailer, for 1/2 the cost, and without the requisite driver training or vehicle maintenance cost. Would that have sufficed? I don’t know…but in this era of shrinking budgets, we HAVE to think outside the box. My review of the district board meeting transcripts leads me to believe alternatives were not even mentioned. I have since been told that the trailer would not have been as advantageous as the truck, and that the truck has been “loaned” to other districts, who paid us for the use–so it seems the truck was a good investment. I’ve never said otherwise…just that I saw no alternatives being presented.
Indeed, it appears from my perspective that few if any alternatives are explored in any board meetings – a proposal is made, approved, done deal. I’m not suggesting the decisions were bad (some were, some weren’t)…rather that it seems no alternatives at all are considered. If I’m wrong, if alternatives are explored, why isn’t that discussion and decision tree visible to the residents?
This leads to my next position:
Open Government. Someone said to me that governments don’t have the time to give that kind of information, they need to get on with the business at hand. I would argue that for anything below state government, the issues considered and the timing of most decisions would almost demand that level of transparency. It’s a small board, with a (relatively) small budget, and a small electorate. I may be incredibly naive…but I don’t see why we can’t do that.
Ditto with the executive sessions. If the board is discussing personnel decisions, or privacy act stuff, ok, I get that. I could even see negotiation discussions, if letting those discussions be public might give the other side an unfair advantage. But other than that? VERY few things are “protected” in my opinion…and if the district is doing everything by the book and aboveboard, we wouldn’t HAVE to keep things in the ‘Secret Squirrel’ file. Check the district’s track record on this — they have had an executive session at every board meeting, indeed have called impromptu board meetings for the sole purpose of having an executive session. 99% of the time, they file these under “attorney-client privilege”, meaning they have stated that their entire executive session was protected, and thus is not subject to being recorded…which seems a gross abuse of this privilege…or hiding behind The Lawyer.
Again, I may be showing my naiveté here…but that’s what I believe.
As I’ve said many times, both at board meetings and here, this “open records” thing should be the default, not an exception. Why wouldn’t we want all information on the district publicly available? Technology makes it easy.
How much time does this take? Some days, 20 minutes; other days (like today), an hour or two. The most time I’ve spent on a post is 4 hours, and that’s where I had a lot of research to do.
The stated fact that the district paid $10,000 in a month for Open Records Act requests in the first month of 2009 should highlight how ludicrous the process is. How many websites would that $10,000 buy? (you do the math).
Resident-focused government. In business, it is said, the customer is always right. Who are the customers of this district? You. Me. Ron Pace. Jan Pizzi. The district has a function to perform – water/wastewater, parks/rec. Do it with input from the residents, do it for the residents; don’t attack the residents. I have to believe there are better ways to deal with problems other than restraining orders or suing our residents.
Governments don’t produce anything, they consume. Again, they are a necessary evil…but should be responsible to the people they serve. I expect our district board to look out for our interests over those of other districts, over those of companies/developers/builders, over those of bondholders. We pay the district’s bills.
Trustworthy government. When I was younger, I was a Boy Scout. I can still remember the oaths:
“On my honor, I promise to do my best, to do my duty, to God and my country, to obey the Scout Law, to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight”
And
“I will be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.”
The ACLU can debate the “God” and “reverent” points in there, but don’t you think that’s how our government should be?
We’d probably have a lot fewer problems.
Hmm…maybe I should have had some patriotic music playing with that last section. It was a little over the top, wasn’t it? Still, it’s what I believe.
Please don’t think I am saying our current board is not this way. You can judge that for yourself.
I am saying I am this way.
I’ve been called an idealist…so be it. Better idealism than passivity…or worse, apathy.
Recent Comments