Tom Peterson, Chair of the Elbert County Republicans, is a real peach. I can tell you, if he wants to espouse his views on any topic under the sun, he is going to do it. He may even do it while in attendance at the regularly scheduled meetings of the Elbert County BOCC!
Now those of you who are reading this may be surprised to learn that, if you are a member of the audience at one of these meetings, you actually are allowed to make only one comment; it cannot exceed three minutes and it cannot be political in nature. Of course the real purpose of this arcane procedure is to stifle the public from interfering with the BOCC's agenda. If you want to ask a question about something the BOCC is discussing...write it down because they do not want you to interrupt them. If the public comment portion comes before your topic is up on the agenda then you will just have to wait. It is annoying and stifles input into the governing process, but you can't have a prying audience get at the details of a subject, now can you? No, of course not.
But if you are Tom Peterson, set your mouth on automatic, turn back the dial on the whole, "no political talk rules" and let 'er rip. That is how Tom Peterson approached the delivery of his “anti-resistance movement and their anti-American obstructionist tendencies” diatribe at the last BOCC meeting. The room was filled with county employees who were on the clock. The choreographers of this dog and pony show were aware of this fact and made sure the Republican chairman got a very warm round of applause. Funny the way that works, but that is the topic for another day. If he were a rule-abiding man, that should have been the last we should have heard from Mr. Peterson, but apparently he received bonus points with the commissioners during his earlier speech. Soon it became clear to everyone in attendance that it was just the beginning for the outspoken Republican because he gave a running commentary for the remainder of the festivities with no objections registered from the elected officials in charge of the meeting.
Suffice it to say, Tom made a couple of bold statements in the meeting. Well, maybe the word bold would be the correct word if the county was intentionally trying to set some kind of record for unforced errors that resulted in litigation against the county, so let me change that word to idiotic. I really do not believe that the commissioners are interested in another flurry of lawsuits, but under the guidance of Republican Chair Tom Peterson; County Manager Ed Ehmann and County Attorney Wade Gately, they are likely not through with their string of unfortunate lawsuits. With this troika providing expert guidance, the BOCC is wired for more of the same difficulties. They just cannot seem to grasp the difference between written laws and Wade Gately's wish list to Santa Claus.
Let me explain. Tom Peterson blurted out a very telling statement, “There are a handful of people who make multiple requests [open records] and it is burdensome on the county.” Now think about that for just a moment: It is the word "burdensome" that is the key to how Peterson views the world. You see, it is the law that we govern openly in this country, and unless there is information that must be kept secret for reasons of public or national security, it is our lawful right to know. We cannot expect that this is a service that does not come with a price tag, to be precise, a monetary fee. However, let me assure you that any secretarial assistance, copying costs, or Kleenex necessary to wipe away the commissioners tears or assuage their hurt feelings at the notion of not being trusted are a bargain in comparison to yet another burdensome lawsuit for not following the rules.
Grant Thayer gave Peterson a verbal green light for the posting but it was obvious that this approval was not thought out very well. This list of people would be put on public display for all the good folks of Elbert County to see. Still, anyone with room temperature IQ knows the purpose of this list would be to shame people for exercising their statutory rights under Colorado and U.S. laws. Sure, it is okay to submit your own CORA/FOIA requests, Mr. Peterson and then do with that information as you please. That is your right. But notably absent from the recorded discussion on this topic was his offer to pay for it. Or, was this a predetermined decision to have this conversation read into the record for purposes of intimidation? I hope Mr. Thayer is not suggesting that the county employees generate and update a list of requests and the people who made them a part of their regular duties, as I can assure you this is what infuriates taxpayers. This is why we end up paying huge legal fees for unwanted and unnecessary litigation. Of course, a competent lawyer would advise you against this kind of shallow thinking, and I am certain Mr. Gately will tell you the same thing...er, maybe?
In addition to the proposed folly by Mr. Peterson, there was supposed to be an item agenda introduced that most certainly would have steered the county into the rocks of yet another lawsuit. (I would be remiss if I did not point out that reason prevailed and the sitting commissioners must have taken the advice of several of the citizens who told them they would be making a huge mistake if they went forward with a proposed rule regarding appointments.) Its initial wording stated, "No person who is a current or former plaintiff claimant in any lawsuit involving the county will be considered for appointment or reappointment." Clearly, that is punishment for anybody who exercised a statutory right to complain about the way government behaves. I have no way of confirming this, but I would bet good money that clinker would have gone directly to the ACLU and or the CFOIC.
As long as we are just being honest here, no one who the commissioners, the county manager, etc. does not want appointed will ever be appointed. I have never filed a lawsuit or complaint in my life, and I can tell you that because I am a well known Democrat, I will never be appointed to anything in this county. I know that. You know that. They know that. Writing the rule would have been the equivalent of just spiking the football and so it was unnecessary. Kudos to whomever pulled it off the agenda. Lest we forget, President Trump has sued the U.S. Government a total of 190 times in his lifetime, and he gets appointed to fun things all of the time. Or did our Republican BOCC wish to suggest that only the people they dislike should be subjected to disqualification by being a plaintiff against the country he leads?
https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/trump-lawsuits/
No comments:
Post a Comment