It is interesting to note that the “scientists” who have predicted doom and gloom for the past forty years have been consistently wrong, yet the major media continues to listen to them, and repeat verbatim their dire predictions. Posted by denver-admin at 04:32 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Bill to fix Super Slab legislation

By Robert T. Hoban, Esq., Evergreen

Throughout the previous three legislative sessions in Colorado, there has been a tremendous debate regarding the merits of the proposed Front Range Toll Road project (now known as the Prairie Falcon Parkway Express, or the PFPE).

This Speakout has not been edited

By Robert T. Hoban, Esq., Evergreen

Throughout the previous three legislative sessions in Colorado, there has been a tremendous debate regarding the merits of the proposed Front Range Toll Road project (now known as the Prairie Falcon Parkway Express, or the PFPE). Despite strong-willed stakeholders on both sides of the private toll road issue, this debate had led to compromise and, ultimately, the passage of HB 06-1003. HB06-1003 is a tremendous accomplishment, as it modernized some of the 19th Century framework governing private toll roads by requiring comprehensive environmental and regulatory processes. However many problems remain.

In particular, HB 1003 allows private toll road companies to place a claim over property that does not belong to them without first going through any sort of public process. This claim has resulted in unforeseen and dire consequences for the citizens located within the proposed toll road corridor. A comprehensive market study has revealed that approximately 1.3 billion dollars in real estate is located in the current three-mile corridor. The study further indicates that the adverse impact on property values directly attributable to the PFPE project is anywhere from 4-6%.

Currently, there is no requirement to move this project forward.

Essentially, the PFPE can hold a claim over these properties for an unlimited period of time; driving down property values along the way. This only aggravates the problems that corridor residents face. HB 07-1068 addresses this issue by: (1) preventing private property from being placed in a proposed toll road corridor until local, regional, and state processes have been conducted; (2) requiring a private toll road company to provide financial feasibility and long/short-term viability analyses; (3) providing residents potentially affected by a toll road right-of-way with heightened notice requirements; and, (4) requiring that a private toll road company acquire at least 80% of the private property necessary for the project before CDOT may exercise the power of eminent domain.

Representative Marsha Looper of Calhan has carefully crafted an amended version of HB 07-1068 that will specifically address these issues as stated above. And she hopes to work with other legislators to help relieve the pressure on the on the citizens located within the corridor.

This is an issue that cannot wait another year, as the decline in property values will only continue. The effects of this loss in property values will certainly be felt by State and local governments that will stand to lose substantial revenue as a consequence of this impact. But, more importantly, the citizens of the corridor are entitled to the protection and preservation of their property values; the General Assembly is in a position to provide this protection Support HB 07-1068, as amended. Posted by denver-admin at 04:27 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

The misuse of intelligence information

By John F. Head, Esq., Denver

I am a Republican who voted for the first time in 1964 for Barry Goldwater. I am extremely angry at what the Bush Administration and its amen chorus in the Congress have done to this country and to the Republican Party. The GOP ain’t what it used to be.

This Speakout has not been edited

By John F. Head, Esq., Denver

I am a Republican who voted for the first time in 1964 for Barry Goldwater. I am extremely angry at what the Bush Administration and its amen chorus in the Congress have done to this country and to the Republican Party. The GOP ain’t what it used to be.

After voting for Goldwater and later enlisting in the Army, LBJ signed orders sending me to Viet Nam. There, I served in the Mekong Delta from August 1967 through January 1969 as an order of battle adviser to the G-2 of the 7th ARVN Infantry Division and, as operations came up, as an infantry adviser to the several reconnaissance companies which were part of the 7th Division. Not only did I gain experience as a combat intelligence officer, I was able, first hand, to compare the intelligence we had with what I observed on the ground as an infantry officer.

I know what raw intelligence – which includes agent’s reports – looks like. As an intelligence officer, I could find an agent’s report that would say just about anything. As I was trained to do as an order of battle officer, I sorted out the good from the bad in integrating the information obtained from agents with information obtained from other sources.

It is elementary that raw intelligence reports, without the application of analysis and judgment, are not much more than unconfirmed gossip. But when the commander demands information from the intelligence agencies which supports one idea or another, raw intelligence, stripped of analysis, is what the commander gets. And when the commander has a preconceived set of ideas but no judgment, the decisions made are likely to be flawed.

Iraq is a good example of this. As we now know, the Bush Administration selectively used raw intelligence to fit its preconceived ideas to justify invading Iraq. Now that the chickens have come home to roost, Bush and members of his Administration blame their own lack of judgment on the “bad intelligence” that they got. They didn’t get “bad intelligence;” rather, they got what they asked for: raw intelligence which supported their preconceived ideas. Is it any surprise that the decisions made are regrettable? And why should the Bush Administration be allowed to get away with blaming the intelligence agencies who handed up the raw intelligence that was used?

Not only was raw intelligence selectively used, there was no exercise of judgment at the highest levels. It is now well known that anyone who disagreed with them was fired, their opinions dismissed or otherwise pushed aside.

Prior to Bush starting the war by invading Iraq, it was apparent to me that the Bush Administration’s claim of an Al-Qaeda connection was flimsy indeed when considering that the evidence was a single meeting in Prague between a member of Al-Qaeda and a member of the Iraqi government. And the claim of WMD was bogus because, if it was gas, there is no threat to the US because it takes a delivery vehicle – such as planes, rockets, or some other kind of hardware – which Iraq did not have. And if it was nuclear, intentions will not kill me unless it is coupled with capability. As there was no evidence that Iraq had any nuclear capability whatsoever, Condi Rice’s threat of a mushroom cloud was sheer nonsense.

Now that it is known that the rationale proclaimed as the reason for the invasion is a confirmed lie, the dwindling band of Bush supporters argue that we have to stick which the current plan (if it can be called that) because to criticize (including the adoption of non-binding resolutions) would damage morale of the troops. Sure it is damaging. But, the question is, whose fault is it? And is that any argument to abandon the very foundation of our democracy by sticking with Bush and the foolish ideas to which he clings?

As one of the troops whose morale was damaged some 40 years ago, I learned something about the subject when the wheels came off this country’s prosecution of the Viet Nam war. It was extremely demoralizing to my fellow officers and me, as well as the enlisted personnel for whom we had responsibility, when the anti-war movement tore this country apart. But the consensus among my fellow officers was that it was an unfortunate price that we had to pay for living in a democracy. (At the time, it was expressed in terms that were not so polite.) In other words, when the President takes this country to war on a lie, it is inevitable that the support of the American people will evaporate when the lie is exposed. And when the American people no longer support a war brought on false premises, the troops are always left holding the bag. Sure, they are demoralized by the loss of support but is it the fault of the liar or is it the fault of the American public when they learn the truth?

Difficult as this issue is, I would not have it any other way. It is important that we uphold the right to free and open debate, even if it does damage troop morale. Just like Viet Nam, the military is now caught in the middle of a public discussion that was postponed because of the outright deceit of the Bush Administration, the sloth and mendacity of the Republicans in Congress, the cowardice of the Democrats, and the deceit, sloth, mendacity and cowardice, as the case may be, by members of the press.

The sooner we face the fact that there is no good outcome to this war, the sooner we can stop the loss of the lives and limbs of those in the military service. Bush has no idea what he is doing but, since he is the commander in chief, there is no alternative for the time being but for Congress to work with him in liquidating this mess. Congress has a duty to do so and, now that some members are displaying a little backbone, that may actually happen. Posted by denver-admin at 04:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Juan Diego project in Highland

By Monique Elwell, Denver

Two of the cited reasons were due to the specific proposed location. The first, because of its specific location within the Scottish Village National Register Historic District of the Highland neighborhood, Juan Diego had to design a structure that would be compatible with the historic district. Those concessions cost money.

This Speakout has not been edited

By Monique Elwell, Denver

I was the President of the Highland United Neighbors, Inc. [HUNI], the neighborhood association for the Highland neighborhood (Federal to 38th Ave. to I-25 to Speer) in Denver from April 2005 to January 2007. I recently stepped down as President, but remain on the board. I attended Jan. 22nd’s council meeting and admit I was dismayed by the closing comments of most of the Council. The following is my personal opinion and has not been vetted with the HUNI board.

At the end of the meeting, Councilwoman Faatz’ comments show that the Council really wasn’t listening to many of the neighbors at all. She stated that one of the reasons the project was so expensive was because the neighborhood wanted the lower density and parking facilities. That was true, but she missed the reason why many neighbors asked for those concessions and she missed the alternative that was proposed.

In the beginning of the night, Jacky Morales Ferrand stood up and articulated the reasons that this project will cost tax payers between $250,000 and $300,000 per apartment unit. Two of the cited reasons were due to the specific proposed location. The first, because of its specific location within the Scottish Village National Register Historic District of the Highland neighborhood, Juan Diego had to design a structure that would be compatible with the historic district. Those concessions cost money.

Second, the Scottish Village is a very dense set of four streets that are narrow and while this section of the neighborhood is zoned R3, it can not support that high density without serious problems.

Juan Diego houses a population that was formerly homeless and has HIV. The proposed location is adjacent to the Ashland recreation center, which has grown beyond its size and will continue to grow, and across from three schools. Several neighbors, asked City Council for a compromise. Move Juan Diego to a location nearby so that more persons who need this housing could receive it, it would *waste less money*, the Scottish Village has more time to resolve its R-3 overzoning that allows structures much larger than existing neighborhood housing, the concerns of parents in the neighborhood are assuaged and the council people are using our tax money wisely. The other locations that Highland neighbors proposed did not have the historic designation and therefore did not have that additional cost. They also did not have the density issues Scottish Village had and therefore, Del Norte could increase the number of units, therefore, having a more effective project and one that lowers the cost per unit.

As a result of a strong neighborhood voice, Judy Montero engaged the neighbors in discussion through a series of meetings starting in November and the neighborhood’s concerns were expressed in those meetings and last night at the council meeting. But, after listening to the comments of the City Council people, the neighborhood concerns fell on mostly deaf ears.

There was no room for compromise. In fact, I was shocked at how blatantly the council made it clear that they considered any objection that Highland neighbors had: parking, traffic, wasteful spending of tax money or concern for our children, to be all smokescreens for the neighbors’ supposedly real reason—our alleged desire not to have homeless people with HIV living in our neighborhood. We only asked for the project to be moved several blocks away as a compromise!

I realize that it is the role of our representatives at times to consider minorities and those without a voice and at times that might go against public sentiment. However, in this case, a compromise was available and should have been considered. Instead, the City Council President designated everyone who spoke in opposition to the project a NIMBY and, we, one of the neighborhoods that bears a higher share of special needs facilities, got a speech about how we should be more compassionate! Posted by denver-admin at 04:17 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

More competition in health care is needed

By Craig Davis MD, Secretary, Colorado Ambulatory Surgery Center Association

Now that the 2007 legislative session has begun in earnest it’s time for our newly elected officials to begin giving serious consideration to the real problems facing Coloradans today and the current state of our health care system certainly ranks among the most pressing challenges.

This Speakout has not been edited

By Craig Davis MD, Secretary, Colorado Ambulatory Surgery Center Association

Now that the 2007 legislative session has begun in earnest it’s time for our newly elected officials to begin giving serious consideration to the real problems facing Coloradans today and the current state of our health care system certainly ranks among the most pressing challenges. The creation of a blue ribbon commission to study the health care crisis and develop new proposals was a good first step, but the excessive timeline needed to complete its work means that comprehensive health care reform based on the commission’s recommendations is at least a year away. Many of the problems require much more immediate solutions and we strongly encourage Governor Ritter and our new legislators to begin work on several areas during this session.

The news that HealthOne and UnitedHealthcare resolved their differences was cause for celebration among the hundreds of thousands of Coloradans who were caught in the crossfire and forced to find last minute alternatives for their health care needs. But the resolution of their impasse does little to address the underlying issues behind the dispute and the fundamental problems that still exist in Colorado’s health care system. Insurance companies continue to wield incredible power in determining where care is received, what facilities are covered, and what medical procedures can be utilized by patients. The vast majority of these access decisions are based solely on price points with little regard for the patients’ medical needs.

The failure to immediately address this issue will no doubt lead to a future crisis similar to the HealthOne/ UnitedHealthcare dispute and will once again leave Coloradans desperately seeking last minute health care alternatives.

The HealthOne/ UnitedHealthcare confrontation also underscores the need for legislation that protects healthy competition in the health care industry.

We have heard from scores of patients that insurance companies continue their drive to maintain record profits by putting profits ahead of people.

Patient choice is becoming illusory.

In addition, consolidation among health insurers is creating near monopolies in virtually all reaches of the United States. At the same time that insurance companies are becoming more monopolistic, insurance rates for consumers have skyrocketed. Studies by the Kaiser Family Foundation show double-digit premium hikes from 2001 to 2004, rates that are well above inflation and wage increases. These steep increases will no doubt continue until elected officials and regulators do something to stem the enormous power insurance companies wield.

Colorado needs more competition and more patient choice. Ambulatory Surgery Centers continue to be locked out of insurance contracts making it more difficult for consumers to make responsible health care choices.

Representatives Morgan Carroll and Debbie Stafford have responded by calling for state investigations into these monopolistic practices. A number of providers also feel that the Division of Insurance needs new jurisdiction and enforcement powers to address the business practices of the insurance industry. CASCA hopes that more legislators will join them in seeking to expose these troubling practices and that the Ritter administration will make addressing these very serious issues a high priority. Posted by denver-admin at 04:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

How to proceed in Iraq

By Colin C. Case, Highlands Ranch

In all of my reading I have not seen a clearer set of proposals on how to proceed in Iraq then Newt Gingrich made in his recent congressional testimony.

Here they are for all of your readers to consider:

This Speakout has not been edited

By Colin C. Case, Highlands Ranch

In all of my reading I have not seen a clearer set of proposals on how to proceed in Iraq then Newt Gingrich made in his recent congressional testimony.

Here they are for all of your readers to consider:

1. Place General Petraeus in charge of the Iraq campaign and establish that the Ambassador is operating in support of the military commander.

2. Since General Petraeus will now have responsibility for victory in Iraq all elements of achieving victory are within his purview and he should report daily to the White House on anything significant which is not working or is needed.

3. Create a deputy chief of staff to the President and appoint a retired four star general or admiral to manage Iraq implementation for the Commander in Chief on a daily basis.

4. Establish that the second briefing (after the daily intelligence brief) the President will get every day is from his deputy chief of staff for Iraq implementation.

5. Establish a War Cabinet which will meet once a week to review metrics of implementation and resolve failures and enforce decisions. The President should chair the War Cabinet personally and his deputy chief of staff for Iraq implementation should prepare the agenda for the weekly review and meeting.

6. Establish three plans: one for achieving victory with the help of the Iraqi government, one for achieving victory with the passive acquiescence of the Iraqi government, one for achieving victory even if the current Iraqi government is unhappy. The third plan may involve very significant shifts in troops and resources away from Baghdad and a process of allowing the Iraqi central government to fend for itself if it refuses to cooperate.

7. Communicate clearly to Syria and Iran that the United States is determined to win in Iraq and that any further interference (such as the recent reports of sophisticated Iranian explosives being sent to Iraq to target Americans) will lead to direct and aggressive countermeasures.

8. Pour as many intelligence assets into the fight as needed to develop an overwhelming advantage in intelligence preparation of the battlefield.

9. Develop a commander’s capacity to spend money on local activities sufficient to enable every local American commander to have substantial leverage in dealing with local communities.

10. Establish a jobs corps or civil conservation corps of sufficient scale to bring unemployment for males under 30 below 10% (see the attached op-ed by Mayor Giuliani and myself on this topic).

11. Expand dramatically the integration of American purchasing power in buying from Iraqi firms pioneered by Assistant Secretary Paul Brinkley to maximize the rate of recovery of the Iraqi economy.

12. Expand the American Army and Marine Corps as much as needed to sustain the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan while also being prepared for other contingencies and maintaining a sustainable rhythm for the families and the force.

13. Demand a war budget for recapitalization of the military to continue modernization while defeating our enemies. The current national security budget is lower as a percentage of the economy than at any time from Pearl Harbor through the end of the Cold War. It is less than half the level Truman sustained before the Korean War.

14. The State Department is too small, too undercapitalized and too untrained for the demands of the 21st century. There should be a 50% increase in the State Department budget and a profound rethinking of the culture and systems of the State Department so it can be an operationally effective system.

15. The Agency for International Development is hopelessly unsuited to the new requirements of economic assistance and development and should be rethought from the ground up. The Marshall Plan and Point Four were as important as NATO in containing the Soviet Empire. We do not have that capability today.

16. The President should issue executive orders where possible to reform the implementation system so it works with the speed and effectiveness required by the 21st century.

17. Where legislation is needed the President should collaborate with Congress in honestly reviewing the systems that are failing and developing new metrics, new structures and new strategies.

18. Under our Constitution it is impossible to have this scale of rethinking and reform without deep support from the legislative branch. Without Republican Senator Arthur Vandenburg, Democratic President Harry Truman could never have developed the containment policies that saved freedom and ultimately defeated the Soviet Empire. The President should ask the bipartisan leaders of Congress to cooperate in establishing a joint Legislative-Executive working group on winning the war and should openly brief the legislative branch on the problems which are weakening the American system abroad. Only by educating and informing the Congress can we achieve the level of mutual understanding and mutual commitment that this long hard task will require. Posted by denver-admin at 04:04 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

The shortcomings of school bureaucrats

By Daniel W. Brickley, Littleton

But “educators” - administrators and bureaucrats of various ranks and titles, who never educated anyone and who are, in fact, the public schools’ nobility or upper class - have never mastered clear communication.

This Speakout has not been edited

By Daniel W. Brickley, Littleton

For the “Speakout” column The subtitle of Leslie Dahlkemper’s Speakout column, “Selling the school,” February 3, was “Changing landscape means educators must be better communicators.” That seems to be the only message in her essay. Yet, teachers, the people in classrooms with students, know the “landscape” is changing. Their landscape began changing two decades ago. But “educators” - administrators and bureaucrats of various ranks and titles, who never educated anyone and who are, in fact, the public schools’ nobility or upper class - have never mastered clear communication. For decades they’ve produced poorly written, jargon-jammed, platitudinous books, articles and newsletters about more or less impossible “ednotions” and, in this case, the obvious.

Why, even in sixteen paragraphs Dahlkemper says little more than that schools must market themselves. Only near the end does she say that “communication and marketing alone will not be enough” and that “schools must have something to market.”

Well, duh! And there is the problem, the aged, doddering problem that no one cares or dares to talk about in legislatures and that no one may report in newspapers. For it is forbidden here to claim that public schools – particularly high schools – are forbidden to have something to market – unless it’s a sports team.

Public high schools may not, for example, redesign themselves so as to compete with the anti-learning force many parents struggle with: the Totalitarian Instant Gratification Entertainment and Material Possessions (TIGEMP) culture, which freely and ruthlessly conditions many young minds to be restless, wandering and a bit arrogant without being inquisitive, focused, thoughtful, mature or tolerant.

Those schools may not escape the beloved financially enforced falsehood that class sizes don’t matter.

They may not require that students learn more than temporarily for grades and GPAs; for retention isn’t encouraged in Colorado’s Imposed System of Factory Highs (CISOFH).

They may not escape the semi-religious charades of CSAPpery, with its desperate conviction that standardized testing should not only ruin a school week or year, but also become the sole measurement of every school’s academic progress.

How can an eager high school faculty market its school when it is mired in political and bureaucratic B.S. that makes politicians look good and gives newspapers easy copy? How can a high school community redesign its school, so that it can compete in our anti-learning culture, when legislators and the public – and, especially, the Administrative/Edschool Complex - don’t want teachers, students and parents to get involved in capital “E” Education – that is, to leave their allotted lower levels in the hierarchy?

How can a high school restructure requirements and standards and build accountability into its system when there is no opportunity for a teacher or parent to urge such a course in the media or legislature? So, back to Dahlkemper: Communicate what? Market what? Why, still more of (Boom!) “We’re better than the-ey are because (Boom!) we’re better than the-ey are, and so Rah! Rah! Rah! (Boom, boom!) - we said: Rah! Rah! Rah!”

Public schooling has only been seriously broken for twenty-five years. Perhaps, with more ignoring of facts and with the pursuing of perennially pleasing platitudes from perennially political promisers we can make it thirty-five years.

Or forty-five. Posted by denver-admin at 03:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The need for the Electoral College

By David C. Andrews, Thornton

The Electoral College was designed to give the voters of smaller population centers just as much meaning as those in larger population centers.

This Speakout has not been edited

By David C. Andrews, Thornton

In his letter in response to a Rocky mountain News editorial on Jan 22, Mr. Kearney says that SB 46 is all about promoting democracy, and he is right. However, what Mr. Kearney is saying just shows that he and like minded people either do not understand what forum of government we live under or worse, know exactly what that forum is and find it problematic for their desired out come in regards to presidential elections. So to help Mr. Kearney become a better citizen I shall explain a few things. In the pledge of allegiants it says “ I pledge allegiants to the flag of United states of America and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands...... We do Not live in a democracy. We live in a Democratic Republic. The founding fathers understood that any system of government that elected its president under a system of “direct vote of the people” as Mr. Kearney advocates, would result in the tyranny of what ever political party could control the voting habits of the largest population centers of the country. Under present conditions that would mean that there would never be an other Republican elected as president, which is just what democrats who are pushing this nonsense want.

The Electoral College was designed to give the voters of smaller population centers just as much meaning as those in larger population centers. Mr. Kearney says “Don’t render meaningless all the votes cast for a losing candidate in any state. To do so is true disenfranchisement.” Under the Electoral College the votes for the losing candidate are never meaningless. There just is not enough of them to win the electoral vote in that state. We do not have a ‘National Election” for the presidency buy the way. We have 50 separate presidential elections. Who ever wins the most “popular” votes in each state wins the electoral votes in that state. In turn who ever wins the most Electoral votes nation wide wins the presidency. To do away with the Electoral College would mean the disenfranchisement of the votes of people in the so called Fly Over States. That sounds unconstitutional to me!

Mr. Kearney says of the Electoral College “Abolish it! Then, we can talk democracy.” This would change the fundamental system of government in America from a Democratic Republic to a pour Democracy. To any one who understands the brilliance of our founding fathers such a change would be as unacceptable as the Intolerable Acts of the British Parliament were to those great and wise men. So to Mr. Kearney I would say of the Electoral college, “Abolish it! And we can talk of civil war in America.”

Any one who understands the how and why of our democratic republic forum of government would never want to live under Mr. Kearney’s idea of democracy. Just as the founding fathers were willing to take up arms against the Intolerable Acts of the British Parliament we would take up arms to preserve our Democratic Republic to which we daily pledge our undying allegiants. Posted by denver-admin at 03:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks

Senate Bill 56, the new Colorado paternity fraud bill, addresses the dilemma faced by men who discover that the children they are paying child support for are not biologically theirs. The bill would allow “duped dads” to terminate their support obligations by utilizing DNA evidence.

By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks

Senate Bill 56, the new Colorado paternity fraud bill, addresses the dilemma faced by men who discover that the children they are paying child support for are not biologically theirs. The bill would allow “duped dads” to terminate their support obligations by utilizing DNA evidence.

In a recent Rocky Mountain News column, editorial pages editor Vincent Carroll labels these men “the picky type whose parental love depends on a genetic link” and says they seek to throw their nonbiological children “overboard with a minimum of fuss.” (“Suffer the children,” On Point, Jan. 31.)

Carroll does have a point — SB 56 allows the duped dad to sever financial ties between the children and the only father they have ever known. Carroll, and the women’s advocates who oppose SB 56, are concerned that the bill will destroy close father-child bonds.

In many cases, however, paternity fraud claims arise after the duped dad has been pushed to the margins of the children’s lives during a divorce or separation. Sometimes the mother even attempts to use the fact that the man is not the biological father as a way to get the family court to limit or deny him visitation time, while still demanding that he pay child support. Perhaps a Gandhi or a St. Joseph might be content to pay their exes a large portion of their income in such situations, but they may be the only ones.

Carroll, and practically every other person who has ever written about paternity fraud, misses an important point: Many duped dads still want to parent their nonbiological children, provided they are allowed a meaningful role in their lives. Some duped dads even wage long, expensive legal battles to remain in the lives of the children with whom they have bonded. Paternity fraud receives substantial media coverage, but these committed men rarely make the news stories.

For these men, SB 56 is not a way out of fatherhood but a way back in. It would give duped dads the bargaining power they often need to preserve their relationships with the children. Under SB 56, a duped dad could say to his ex-wife, “Yes, I’m willing to help support the children financially, but you first need to allow me to have a relationship with them.”

Carroll and others seem to equate child support with fatherhood. There is nothing in SB 56 that prevents a father from continuing his relationship with the children, or from financially supporting them, as long as the mother allows it.

If the bill’s opponents want to effectively preserve the bonds between these duped dads and their nonbiological children, their focus should not be on child support but instead on creating a presumption of shared parenting after a divorce or separation. Under this presumption, as long as both parents (including nonbiological fathers) are fit, they will each have the right to substantially equal physical time with their children. Such legislation would greatly reduce the number of men seeking to disestablish paternity.

Even for those duped dads who do want out, opponents of SB 56 should be more understanding. Some of these men are heartbroken that their wives lied to them and the children over such an important and intimate matter. Many feel a burning sense of humiliation. Some have been manhandled by the bungling, often abusive child-support system, and have no desire to remain under its heel for another 10 or 15 years.

It is true that these men sometimes don’t handle the situation as well or as nobly as we would like. Nonetheless, they deserve better than to be harshly denounced as they grapple with the terrible problem their ex-wives created for them.

Mike McCormick is the executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children (www.acfc.org). Glenn Sacks’ columns on men’s and fathers’ issues have appeared in dozens of the largest newspapers in the United States. His Web site is www.GlennSacks.com Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (15) | TrackBack

By James J. Tenant Lt. Commander, U.S. Navy, Retired, Centennial

There is a national void with regards to black political leadership. Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier, is the only black politician at any of level of government, that I’ve seen take on very serious issues, that affect all of our citizens.

This Speakout has not been edited

By James J. Tenant Lt. Commander, U.S. Navy, Retired, Centennial

I read Bill Johnson’s Jan. 24 News’ column, “Advice to Aurora police chief: Stop strong-arming", and it sounded like something out of the 1960’s, in Bombingham, AL, during Bull Connor’s racist regime. Where are the Front Range’s so-called black political and social leaders, on these basic human-rights abuses? The NAACP and our local black power brokers, have cut and run on these issues. Cops killing innocent blacks and Latinos has seemed to be a blood-sport, for the 17 years I’ve lived in this area. I voted for Gov. Ritter, simply because he wasn’t a Vietnam War draft-dodger. His DA record for prosecuting reckless and renegade Denver cops, who exterminated black and Latino citizens, is non-existent. All of Colorado, across all racial lines, gave Ritter a free-ride regarding his failure to prosecute Denver’s racist cops.

There is a national void with regards to black political leadership. Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier, is the only black politician at any of level of government, that I’ve seen take on very serious issues, that affect all of our citizens. Frazier is very sensible in his push for a regional approach to emergency management and overall disaster preparedness planning. The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) could learn a few lessons from Frazier. This corps of “suits and dresses", has stood moot, while blacks in NOLA were water-boarded, cops murdering NOLA’s blacks, and criminal illegal Mexicans and their gang members, adding to blacks already staggering historical misery-index (lower wages and benefits, resegregating of our neighborhoods, Non-English speaking students retarding black student achievements, re-introduction of communicable diseases that we’ve already cured, GOP union-busting, corruption of black gains made in the Voting Rights Act of 1965, etc.).

It is simply breath-taking, U.S. Rep. Benny Thompson, born and raised in the shadows of massive Mississippi Delta plantations, is endorsing amnesty for criminal illegal Mexicans. U.S. Sen. Obama, the CBC’s leader-of-the-pack, is also skirting blacks’ tough issues with illegal aliens and their organized crimes, police brutality, Bank of Katrina construction contracts and jobs being given to"illegals’ and corrupt contractors, and black disabled combat veterans being denied their employment, disability, and contracting benefits within all federal, state, and local government agencies.

Obama is too pre-occupied with Bodybagdad, Iraq-NAM. Yes, this is a war based on religious persecution, racism, oil-grab, and further entrenching the Middle East, into an even worst plantation. Yes, for the third time in 50 years, we have black soldiers fighting to give foreigners democracy desserts, that they don’t enjoy here at home. However, blacks have their own domestic Iraq-NAM, in the form of losing jobs, economic and social negative impact of criminal illegal Mexicans, and nullification of our votes caused by illegals. Hey! Obama, we have enough beautiful minds. Posted by denver-admin at 11:43 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

My cousin died in Kabul

By Cristi A. Smith, Evergreen

I found out I lost my cousin tonight. He was in Kabul to help with building infrastructure. He wrote a letter to my relatives before Christmas and I got this message by word of mouth. Brian said that their group was to build a water system (this was only one example I heard of) for the community in Iraq.

This Speakout has not been edited

By Cristi A. Smith, Evergreen

I found out I lost my cousin tonight. He was in Kabul to help with building infrastructure. He wrote a letter to my relatives before Christmas and I got this message by word of mouth. Brian said that their group was to build a water system (this was only one example I heard of) for the community in Iraq. The Iraqi politicians vetoed the water system and opted for the Americans to pave the roads only in front of their personal homes. No help to the community - just a benefit to those counsel members. Brian died yesterday morning in a meeting. You can read it in today’s paper. I know I didn’t because it makes me sick and overwhelmed with the inability to be able to do not a damn thing about it and I didn’t even know it was Brian at the time. He was in a meeting in Kabul (again there to help build the infrastructure to HELP the Iraqi people) when “insurgents” broke through the roof and killed he and others. I don’t normally voice my opinions however I’m sick, angry, bothered and uncomfortable. My feelings about war started when I was a child and I was sick with worry about my brother who might have to go to Vietnam to fight. I was in third grade. I saw the pictures every night on TV. I was terrified. I knew my brother might go (his draft number was chosen) and if he didn’t die, he would come back maimed in his head if not in his body. I was so young, but I knew it in my heart. My brother went to college. I felt relief. I loved him sooo much. I saw day after day the new tragedies. I hated it.

Today, I see a president who at times has poor proper English and who never went to war. I see he was fortunate by not going to active combat. I’ve seen all the other politicians who claim they have been in war, or they have a better idea, but yet I don’t see any plan to make a better withdrawal, or assistance - make your choice. I don’t have any good answers at this point. I see the party on the other side of the isle complain that we need out - its wrong - blah blah blah - no firm plan on how to retract without hurting innocents trapped in that area (oh by the way, those are the ones who had NO say so on the water system they failed to get because the local Iraqi politicians had a personal agenda). I see all the stories in the newspapers and media that turn each night into a power play between Democrats and Republicans. Our politics are pathetic. Each and every issue becomes a stepping stone, or maybe just a stone to throw, so the next politician can get a step up into the position they want. You can’t tell me I am the only one that is tired of this bad behavior and the nightly stars that combat each petty statement that never get to a real point. Thank God that there is something to keep Ann Coulter busy.

Am I giving too much credit by saying and believing there are some pretty intelligent folks out their to focus their energy into tolerance, solutions, compromise instead of useless bickering to gain political advantage?

I personally think that anyone who had anything to do with 9/11 and the planning of that horrific attack after proper court proceeding should be killed - immediately and without mercy, without drama, without flamboyance. Not that this kind of violence solves anything, but it does say, DON’T SCREW AROUND WITH US - THERE ARE LIMITS TO YOUR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN VIOLENCE. (By the way, congratulations for keeping Muslim women in repression with their nice burkas and mandatory face covering because that culture appears to be pretty up tight to me. Nice to know people who visit the middle eastern country of Saudi must keep a closer eye on their young boys - not the young women. I heard that from a personal experience from folks stationed in Saudi. Nice to know the wealthy of Saudi (or Iran, Iraq, etc.) are not doing anything apparent to help the situation in Iraq - just watchin their money grow and sending their wealthy children to the US to benefit from our education system). Now that doesn’t solve the mindset of the sick folk who think killing Americans, or anyone else that draws a comic or disagrees with their political or religious views, is the thing to do. By the way, my personal opinion is to drop kick Ward Churchill right in the middle of the insurgents personal tent campground and let him explain how much percentage of American Indian that he has in his blood lines and see what good his stories (chicken pox in blankets- which are lies) will do. By the way, Ward ought to get together with some of the delusional in Iran who think that the death camps of Auschwitz and the like never happened. OOH, do you think this chick is angry - damn straight I am. I am also speaking my mind, which probably won’t be printed but is much more mainstream than anyone would like to admit.

We as Americans live in one of the best cultures in the world. There are others as well, and I don’t think ANY of us want it blown to bits. It has its problems, it has its delusional folk who are racists, die hard Democrats, Republicans, crazy manic one sided, small minded Christians, Muslims, Jews, (you may insert gay, straight or whatever). Isn’t that wonderful, that the agreement was we all had a place we speak our minds within reason of not harming another? And what of these angry hostile folks who think because the Christian culture has caused terrible wars, repression and misery. I would say they are historically correct. Wars have been cause by all kinds of people who have claimed their brand of believing in God is the correct one, the only one, the right one. It seems to me that there are so many people that do not learn from the lessons of history, or perhaps don’t pay attention to it. If more folks of all cultures would just stick with what the original message of acceptance, kindness and tolerance is and not insist their brand of religion is so much more correct and rightous than (fill in the blank), this little world would be in a much better place, and we wouldn’t necessarily all have to eat tofu together if we didn’t want to. TOLERANCE. Read it again. What does it mean. Do we EVER learn ANYTHING? So lets say if you are a radical Muslim (you may replace this word with Christian, or what every you like) and you believe so many wrongs have been done by people of the “other” belief, that give you a “God given right” to take vengeance on people you NEVER met, people who may not believe in harming another belief, or maybe they do, just because? That is a justification? I don’t think so.

Does ANY of this ring true with ANYONE else? I wasn’t raised with Brian, but I heard many updates and information from my Aunt and Uncle in another state. He was a great person with a wife and two beautiful little kids. Tonight I cried and cried and cried. Not just for Brian.

Cristi Smith Evergreen, Colorado and glad to be here, thankful all of the good things I have in my life Posted by denver-admin at 11:38 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Republicans in Jefferson County

By Ron Rizzo, Littleton

Until 2004 Jefferson County Republicans have been immune from historical Democratic waves since 1952. In the 2006 election, Jefferson County lost one Congressman, a Commissioner, and several traditionally Republican Statehouse seats.

This Speakout has not been edited

By Ron Rizzo, Littleton

Until 2004 Jefferson County Republicans have been immune from historical Democratic waves since 1952. In the 2006 election, Jefferson County lost one Congressman, a Commissioner, and several traditionally Republican Statehouse seats. It’s the worst loss since the 1930s, when ex-prize fighter, Democrat Eddie Bohn was elected president of the State Senate. Ironically, Eddie Bohn and Joan Fitz-Gerald have in common only one thing, the “D” next to their names.

The 2006 result is perverse given the GOP-delivered economy. Higher taxes, union coercion and speech intolerance are on the short horizon.

There are many excuses for the losses, no valid reasons, least of all the sudden influx of new Democrats stacked in new apartments in South Jeffco, where Republicans oddly won. Democratic voting exceeded Republican by a few thousand as reflected in the county-wide Commissioner race. A Berkeley-style, 1960s liberal beat a level headed engineer. Republicans are now the minority party in Jefferson County not for the first time in history, but for the first time in anyone’s memory.

The Party’s success in the face of contrary national trends stems from two decades of a tireless outreach, the 1950s and 1960s. The County Republican Party could have been renamed the Participation Party under historic Republican State Sen. Ruth Stockton, whose mantra was “get involved.” County Republicans withstood the Goldwater massacre of 1964. Hard work and fearless persuading, a willingness to sell anyone, kept Republicans in power in Jeffco for 54 years.

Some registered Republicans have never been contacted by their committee person, but have been contacted by Democratic candidates, swaying too many, making a difference in a close race. Who paid but an affable, logical, problem-solver, a Commissioner selected by his peers, who was replaced by a nervous, leftist firebrand? Never has this county and an elected official been so miss-matched.

There’s a simple axiom in politics, a lack of desire to work, produces compromise in proportion to the level of difficulty perceived.

In response, rather than compromising to liberalism, the Central Committee is rolling up its sleeves, evoking the courage of Ruth Stockton. In the 1950s and 1960s, Stockton would knock on every door in her district offering her services at the Statehouse. In her captivating calm tone, her message was simple: lower taxes, smaller government, expanded opportunity, peace through strength and preserving Constitutional freedoms for all Americans. That message has never changed. It was also a message Eddie Bohn would have appreciated.

Republicans state-wide need to study inch by inch Mike Kopp’s three victories to win one seat, with intelligent care not to improperly analyze the feat. Republicans win when they run as Republicans and work harder than the opposition. It’s a simple formula that works.

(Who votes for a tax and spend Republican?) The opportunity for Gen X’ers, such as Mike Kopp, a generation brought up by Ronald Reagan, is unprecedented, as will be the work required of committeemen and women. And it begins now for 2008. Posted by denver-admin at 11:23 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Parenting advice for Carmelo

By Michael P. Mazenko, Greenwood Village

“Mr. Mazenko, how do you know …?”

My answer is always the same. I read.

This Speakout has not been edited

By Michael P. Mazenko, Greenwood Village

“Mr. Mazenko, how do you know …?”

That question is regularly asked by my students as I rant about any number of concerns I have ranging from teenagers’ reading skills to their unbridled consumption of fast food and high fructose corn syrup. Inevitably, I will cite statistics and historical examples to back up my argument. They wonder, I’m sure, how anyone could have so much information packed into his head.

My answer is always the same. I read. For several years now, I’ve been on a “reading revolution,” trying to expose my students to as many titles as possible. My recommendations run the gamut, from the fantasy of the Harry Potter novels to the financial planning advice found in David Bach’s “The Automatic Millionaire.” Early in the year I urge my students to read Rush Limbaugh’s “The Way Things Ought to Be.” The next day I’ll recommend Al Franken’s “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot – and Other Observations.” I’ll recommend Limbaugh’s second book “See I Told You So,” and I’ll follow that with James Carville’s “We’re Right: They’re Wrong,” which is intended to refute most if not all of Limbaugh’s beliefs.

The point is none of these men, or their ideologies, is completely right or wrong, and it’s narrow-minded and pretentious to think so. I simply hope to expose my students to as much information and as many ideas as possible. If I am doing my job as a teacher correctly, then my students will become discerning individuals who can think critically and won’t be manipulated simply by language. It is their responsibility to investigate both sides of an issue and come to a conclusion.

This is why I was so disheartened by Carmelo Anthony’s recent answer when asked how he spent his fifteen-game suspension. While many Nuggets fans are undoubtedly thrilled that Carmelo Anthony is returning to the team this week, I was disappointed by his response regarding his time off. When asked whether he spent any of his time preparing for the birth of his child by reading any parenting manuals, he simply said no, “no parenting books.” Apparently, he was too busy playing video games, sleeping, and watching the thirty movies he bought at Best Buy. When a twenty-one year old expectant father says he spends his free time that way, it makes me wonder who’s the child.

The NBA has worked hard to promote literacy among the nation’s youth with programs such as “Reading is Fundamental.” I have seen countless commercials and posters featuring young stars with their favorite books. In fact, Carmelo is ironically, if not hypocritically, featured on the RIF website as a “reading superstar.” How sad that given a fifteen-game suspension and at least thirty uninterrupted days which Carmelo could have spent intellectually and psychologically preparing for a wonderful change in his life, he chose to act like a child, rather than prepare to parent one.

A nationwide poll featured on Dr. Phil indicated that if parents knew then what they know now, forty percent said they would never have had children.

This is shocking and sad, but it’s also indicative of how difficult many people find the act of parenting. It also spotlights the need to think more critically about the decision to become a parent. Reading about parenting is one way to do that. For example, a poll mentioned in the book “Einstein Never Used Flashcards” revealed that fifty percent of parents believe a fifteen-month old child should be able to share. However, this belief defies all the research about the cognitive and emotional development of children. Perhaps there would be less angst, and fewer shouting matches at playgrounds and at home, if parents simply had a better understanding of their children. We’re not all child psychologists, but we can certainly take some advice from them once in a while.

At a time when parental angst is at such a high level, we need more honest personal research and introspection into the act of parenting. Years ago, as my wife and I watched an episode of “Oprah” about parenting, a father who was having a particularly difficult and un-enjoyable time raising his kids, lamented that he had made some mistakes, but to his credit, he asserted, “there’s no manual on parenting.” I sat dumbfounded as Oprah actually agreed with this man. The queen of the book club was saying that there were no books on parenting. Granted, while babies don’t come home from the store with a users’ manual in the box, there are thousands of titles on the shelves at Borders and Barnes and Noble. Amazon has more than I could read in a lifetime.

As an English teacher who recommends a book a day to my students, I would love to offer some titles to Carmelo. Excellent parenting manuals include “Proactive Parenting,” “Touchpoints,” and “Einstein Never Used Flashcards.” At the very least, Carmelo could skim the “What to Expect When You’re Expecting” books. I’ve never known an expectant couple who hasn’t received those manuals as gifts.

I’m sure that Carmelo, like many parents, will argue that he doesn’t need to read any parenting manuals because he will just follow his instincts.

However, for a young man who can’t seem to avoid immature “mistakes” such as fighting during a game and hanging out with drug dealers, those instincts will not serve him or his new child very well. Posted by denver-admin at 11:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Chaput wrong on immigrants

By Doug V. Mahoney, Littleton

As a cradle catholic and with all due respect, I have a couple of issues with Archbishop Chaput’s position on illegal immigration.

This Speakout has not been edited

By Doug V. Mahoney, Littleton

This letter is in reference to an article that appeared in the Dec 20, 2006 Denver Catholic Register: “Archbishop Chaput’s statement on the arrests of unauthorized workers (page 3). As a cradle catholic and with all due respect, I have a couple of issues with Archbishop Chaput’s position on illegal immigration. He states up-front, “the church supports the law…and \[it’s\] right to secure our borders...”. My first issue comes with his next point, “…these raids have disrupted hundreds of families in the immigrant community and frightened many thousands more”. He doesn’t have a problem with respecting the law, he has a problem when it’s enforced. Is law enforcement to blame or the parents of the families? There’s not an illegal out there that doesn’t know they’re illegal (except the children).To take a shot at law enforcement or anybody except the illegal is displaced. The parents, knowingly illegal, are placing their children in harms way -that is a form of child abuse. The parents know there is a possibility of getting caught and they know the consequences, but they stay anyway. Where is the accountability of the adults that came here and put their family in that position? Instead, it’s law enforcement’s fault because they enforce the law? “It’s not my fault I broke the law – it’s the police’s fault because they caught me”. That’s ridiculous! Even more absurd is, we should continue to let people break the law because it’s Christmas.

In the article, I quote, “As we enter the last few days before Christmas, we urgently pray that God will grant our law enforcement authorities prudence, justice and restraint in carrying out their duties…” I hope that our law enforcement - and medical personnel continue to carry out their duty – whatever it may be. Who are we to ask our law enforcement to NOT do their job. In fact what does the bible say about tax collectors and guards alike? I think the hang up is that the Catholic church doesn’t see illegal immigration as a crime, because if they did, then it should be enforced –right? Just because you don’t agree with it, doesn’t mean it’s not illegal. Imagine a society were people followed only the rules they agreed with. I’m sure the Archbishop has heard the term “cafeteria catholic” – one who picks and chooses what they want to believe or adhere to. But isn’t that what the Archbishop is doing with our laws? He is picking not to adhere to our current immigration laws – (we know they’re illegal, but let them be). Aiding and abetting a criminal is against the law – and by encouraging it, the Archbishop is somewhat culpable for people that get caught doing it, however, I doubt the church is going to pay their legal cost. No one is saying that we shouldn’t help the poor. If an illegal immigrant comes to your church, by all means feed them, cloth them, and give them shelter – and then call the police; just as you would anyone else who is breaking the law. Would you aid a burglar or a thief (outside the sanctity of confession)? Make no mistake about it, the thief and the illegal are both victimizing society- just in different ways.

Certainly a man with the education and experience of the Archbishop, can see the economic burden illegal immigration is costing this country. To acknowledge that fact and say “yes but” – is not acknowledging it, but minimizing its impact. The Roman Catholic Church has an estimated asset value in the hundreds of billions of dollars worldwide. Perhaps they wouldn’t mind footing the bill for the unpaid medical, education, social services, legal costs, loss of taxes not being paid (by illegals), and other expenses that illegal immigration costs us (the taxpayers), and not the non-profit entities like religious organizations (not tax paying).

As a church leader the Archbishop is doing exactly the opposite of what I as a catholic expect of him. I expect him to empower and lead, not take on public policy and encourage people to break the law. He’s setting the wrong example of how to help people help themselves. There is an immigration process in place – whether he likes it or not, it is in place and should be followed until it gets changed. I would like to see our politicians fix the immigration policies (that’s their job) and our religious leaders worry more about saving souls, keeping us focused on God, teaching us external/internal morality, and taking on the larger atrocities being committed to innocent people around the world – like Africa. Would the Archbishop feel the same and go to the extent that he has if the “undocumented” workers were 10-12 million Muslim workers? Because if he would, there are hundreds of thousands of dead Africans that could’ve used his help and hundreds of thousands more in dire need still.

There are more pressing issues in our country besides immigration for the Archbishop to hang his hat on. There’s pornography, abortion, morality, sermons that actually make sense, drug/alcohol abuse, homosexuality, church attendance, catholic education of Catholics, the ten commandments, and many more. Stick to serious issues –like educating the billion plus Catholics about the billion plus Muslims; can you say Holy War - someday?! Posted by denver-admin at 11:09 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Proud to be a Teamster

By Brian Kelly, Denver

According to Dan Pilcher, repealing the Labor Peace Act will harm Colorado.

I do not believe this is so.

This Speakout has not been edited

By Brian Kelly, Denver

According to Dan Pilcher, repealing the Labor Peace Act will harm Colorado.

I do not believe this is so. Unions here are at a disadvantage because of the traditional western individualistic conservatism that is a part of our historical fabric and because we are not a highly industrialized state. Couple this with the fact that existing laws regarding union elections are routinely ignored, much to the detriment of unions. There are many instances of workers being threatened and intimidated priot and during elections even though there are specific laws making an action like this a violation of the law.

The company that I work for is the only unionized company in Denver in our industry. The are nearly a dozen non union companies we compete with. Our medical benefit and retirement package is superior to that of our competition because we are union. In some cases other companies hourly pay is a little higher, but at the cost of an inferior benefit package. Workers who do not wish to be union members are free to choose to work for a non union company. There are many more choices that are non union than union, regardless of the industry.

Since I moved to Colorado from the Chicago area 31 years ago, I have seen a steady decline in union membership here, the breaking of many unions - especially during the Reagan years, a decline in the relative spending power of working people, and a decline in the rights of workers other than what has been mandated by law.

Antilabor forces couch all their anti labor and Right to Work rhetoric in terms of workers individual freedom and terms like that. What a Trojan Horse that is, because all these ideas mainly favor employers. Wage and benefits have been driven nationally by union comanies for 60 years. The wages and benefits people enjoy - especially non union folks - are there because unions have fought for them and the effects have trickled down through entire industries.

The fear that we are in danger of becoming as paralyzed by overly strong unions as places like New York City, for instance, and the fear that unions could force UAW like retirement packages on Colorado are big fat juicy red herrings. Nothing could be further from the truth. These fears are routinely thrown out by anti labor people from atop their bully pulpit.

What unions seek out here are to protect benefits and wages in place, to increase workers wage and benefit packages, to achieve a parity of income and lifestyle comensurate with other parts of the country, to protect employees against unfair and capricious action by management, and to ensure a secure and comfortable retirement for thir membership.

Repealing the Labor Peace Act is only the start of improving the lot of Colorado’s workers. Real progress will come when workers are free to choose whether or not to be union without being theatened and intimidated by management.

And another thing that needs to be changed is companies selling themselves off and reopening under another name when threatened with a union election, as has happened in the trash hauling industry a few times. Posted by denver-admin at 11:04 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Labor Peace Act Amendment a good thing

By Virginia Gillispie, Centennial

I'm disappointed that the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News have not better analyzed or researched the Labor Peace Act Amendment (HB 1072). It’s been splattered all over the paper, but the journalists don't even pose the most basic questions.

This Speakout has not been edited

By Virginia Gillispie, Centennial

I'm disappointed that the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News have not better analyzed or researched the Labor Peace Act Amendment (HB 1072). It’s been splattered all over the paper, but the journalists don't even pose the most basic questions, like "Exactly why is a 75% majority vote required, in order for employees to even be allowed to negotiate for an ‘all union shop’ in their contract?” Writer James Hansen said it well, when he pointed out that HB 1072 “gives unions the same rights….that a politician exercises when he runs for an election. It takes the government out of private sector negotiations, which should appeal to Conservatives if they truly are conservative” (Denver Post Speakout, 1/27/07).

And why is a squeaky wheel business group (the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry - CACI) getting all the attention? Readers should wonder why they are whining so loudly over something that is a pretty reasonable amendment for the average worker. Readers should also wonder why these ‘business interests’ favor less government when it suits them, but then meddle with private sector employee-employer contract negotiations? An “all union shop” simply means that all employees under union contract have to pay their dues. After all, they work in the organization and benefit from the contract that the union negotiated on their behalf .Why should they be allowed to ‘opt out’ of paying their fair share, thus getting all the benefits for free? (Unions, on the other hand, aren’t given the option of only representing those who pay their dues- the union has to represent all employees -- how one-sided is that?). Why does the CACI think it can bully the Governor to veto HB 1072, even though it will be passed by a Congress elected by the people, for the people?

These are questions that need to be asked. In the run up to the 2006 election, I don't think the Governor's support for collective bargaining (unionizing) was a secret. Furthermore, businesses CAN exist side-by-side with an empowered, unionized workforce. What some corporate interests fear is having to deal with employees as equals. They don’t want employees to realize their collective power.

For years the Republican majority in this state tried to pass laws to make Colorado a "Right to Work" state. "Right to Work" is great euphemism for "right to work for less." It's basically an anti-collective bargaining law. Citizens from 'right to work' states routinely seek employment outside their home state, where the pay is better! No surprise there. A union contract does more for you than simply getting you better pay and good benefits. You may never have learned, for example, that Colorado is an 'at will' state. This means an employer can fire you at will, at any time, for any reason at all, and you have no recourse. Most union contracts include some reasonable protections to counter this, such as, an employer must have 'just cause' to discipline or fire an employee.

Maybe we can return to the good old days, before evil unions promoted the passage of modern day labor laws and protections. These are protections that I am sure most employed persons enjoy, without a thought as to who fought to get them (like the 40 hour work week and overtime pay rates). In the future, maybe the U.S. will more like China and other places that provide cheap labor. We might get to know what it's like in the places where the jobs went, enjoying poor pay, less-than-full time or 60+ hour 'work weeks,' maybe no days off. If we're lucky, maybe we'll even get to work in sweat shops.

I am a Registered Nurse and a union steward. Posted by denver-admin at 10:59 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Don't give up on North

By Paul Crossland, Arvada

In the time I have spent at North High School I had never met the former English teacher Mr. Herrick. I guess his early exit from the school probably means that I never will.

This Speakout has not been edited

By Paul Crossland, Arvada

In the time I have spent at North High School I had never met the former English teacher Mr. Herrick. I guess his early exit from the school probably means that I never will. All I have to gauge Mr. Herrick by are his words (North High teachers take fall for inert students, bureaucratic bog, W.L. Herrick January 13th, 2007), and his actions.

His words were his means to rail against the students at North High School for “a culture of complete indifference” while providing no clear solution to the many challenges they face. His actions were to leave his students in the middle of the school year, undoing any difference he had made to these kids, and reinforcing what they may already believe; that it is alright to give up when things don’t go your way. And more importantly; that it is alright for people to give up on them.

I have met plenty of Mr. Herrick’s former students. All of whom are your typical everyday high school kids. Mr. Herrick’s letter was brought to my attention by the students in the ninth grade A.V.I.D. class (a class designed to get borderline kids on track to go to college). We spent the entire class period discussing the letters meaning and intent. The kids were anything but “indifferent” when it came to Mr. Herrick as a teacher, and as a writer.

These kids are facing many challenges. The most glaring is the lack of the basic materials that they need to be successful. There are several kids in the class that I tutor who do not have a book in at least one subject. Keep in mind that it’s not that the class they are taking doesn’t have a book. It’s that the class they are taking only has enough books for the kids in the classroom. This means that if a student needs to catch up in a subject he has no way to study at home. To help you understand what this might be like think about doing this the next time you buy a product that has assembly instructions: Step #1 Ask the salesman how to put it together Step #2 Throw away the instructions before you leave the store Step #3 Go home, take that information and try to assemble it I suppose that all I can be judged on are my words and my actions. And I sincerely hope that these words carry some weight in spreading the news that kids care at North. They don’t want to have to go to school somewhere else. They are proud of who, and where, they are.

I hold even greater hope however, that my actions help these kids in more ways than my words ever could. I tutor at North twice a week and I won’t quit on these kids. Posted by denver-admin at 10:54 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Immigration's elephants

By Edward A. Corcoran, Lakewood

There is an elephant in the middle of the immigration discussions — a huge presence that is ignored by all. Another inconvenient truth that is carefully not addressed.

America needs an underclass.

This Speakout has not been edited

By Edward A. Corcoran, Lakewood

There is an elephant in the middle of the immigration discussions — a huge presence that is ignored by all. Another inconvenient truth that is carefully not addressed.

America needs an underclass.

Since its earliest days, the American economy has depended on an underclass of cheap labor.

Initially this was largely slaves in the south and indentured servants in the north. By the mid-nineteenth century it came to include large numbers of Chinese involved in railway construction, then freed blacks — still oppressed in the South and underpaid in the North. Dangerous jobs in mining and manufacturing also depended on underpaid workers; many still do. Throughout the nation’s history immigrants provided a large pool of cheap labor. In the Land of Opportunity they were able to work themselves up into the middle class, the jobs they left behind filled by a continuing flow of new immigrants.

This river of prosperity has now stagnated, a problem exacerbated by globalization which is re-distributing jobs worldwide. As the growth of good American jobs has stagnated, so have the prospects for the American underclass, an underclass which includes large numbers of migrant laborers and illegal immigrants, initially in agriculture but now also widespread in construction and service industries. The economy cannot function without them, but with its increasingly lopsided distribution of wealth, it cannot pay them adequately either.

Such exploitation of man by man is not new. It was a driving force behind Communism, which degenerated into a brutal totalitarian ideology. “Exploitation” became a dirty word, a word used to justify this system of ruthless inhumanity, a discredited word used by demagogic totalitarians and dupes. Americans could recognize that some people were being paid low wages but it was taboo to refer to them as being “exploited.” Now the outrageously inflated salaries of many executives and the massive profits of some major corporations are supported by money systematically skimmed from everyday workers. And the everyday workers can maintain a reasonable standard of living thanks to the underclass which is even worse off; an underclass which grinds away at hard labor for woefully inadequate wages with no health or retirement benefits, living in miserable conditions. This includes the millions of illegal immigrants who underpin our economy, not to mention more millions abroad whose cheap labor provides Americans with cheap everyday goods. Exploitation is indeed embedded in the American economy.

It is regularly acknowledged that illegal immigrants take jobs that Americans do not want. But what is usually glossed over is that Americans do not want these jobs because they are grossly underpaid.

So the immigration question is directly tied to the minimum wage question, although the new minimum wage still falls far below a real living wage. So long as the economy depends on large number of jobs which do not provide a living wage — jobs that Americans do not want to take — then there can be no solution to the immigration problem. It is one thing for entry level jobs to provide lower wages, but when large numbers of essential jobs fail to provide a living wage there remains an unavoidable requirement for an exploited underclass. Now, as good jobs become harder to find, more Americans are willing to take the lower paid jobs they formerly avoided; immigrants find themselves blamed for taking essential jobs which support the whole economic superstructure.

So it is not just a question of a minimum wages, but more broadly of wages which provide a comfortable life in exchange for hard work. This ties the wage debate directly to the problem of a lopsided distribution of income and wealth. The economy is not a zero sum game – the pie can be made larger, but the distribution needs to be made more equitable. The economy needs to be re-structured so that necessary jobs provide the necessary recompense – living wages as well as reasonable benefits.

Immigration is not a problem, it is a symptom, a symptom of a misaligned economy. This is the real elephant in all our economic debates, including health care, social security, and education. Our economy has grown over the years into something that is over-regulated, but under-performing. The robber barons and sweatshops of our economic history taught us that under-regulated markets became predatory; our current situation is teaching us that over-regulated markets have the same problem.

We need a new elephant. Posted by denver-admin at 10:44 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Release Columbine information

By Randy Brown, Littleton

An open letter to Justice Babcock, Justice Babcock, I sat in your court today, Jan. 26, 2007, and listened to your review of the case regarding the destruction of the Columbine documents that are still sealed under your court order.

This Speakout has not been edited

By Randy Brown, Littleton

An open letter to Justice Babcock, Justice Babcock, I sat in your court today, Jan. 26, 2007, and listened to your review of the case regarding the destruction of the Columbine documents that are still sealed under your court order. I have been a part of that argument, not only through my involvement with the ColumbineTragedy and my wife’s deposition, which is one of the items in discussion, but also as a Member of the Attorney General’s Columbine Records Task Force. Do you remember that Task Force? It is the one that, through A.G. Salazar’s courage and conviction, revealed the cover up and proved the corruption of Jefferson County with regard to the Columbine Tragedy and their secret meetings. You reviewed, with a long dissertation, your rulings on the Columbine Case. It is so long and convoluted that you, even with the written notes in front of you, left out one of your rulings from 2006. This was ,rather comically, pointed out by one of the attorneys in front of you. He had no notes. This is a long and complicated case,made so mostly by your lack of decision making ability, and your obvious goal of destroying these documents. It has been difficult to find legal reasons to justify the destruction of all of these documents, so your decisions and your ruminations are often so illogical that they defy explanation.

As an example: In court today you used, as a valuable resource, the fact that the current Sheriff of Jefferson County had decided, with his great wisdom, to not make public the “basement tapes". Let’s ignore for a moment the absurdity of placing such an important decision in the hands of a local sheriff with no legal training, and look at the big picture. This Sheriff is the Sheriff for Jefferson County. His attorney Frank Hutfless and many of its high ranking officials were involved in the coverup of the evidence of Columbine from the beginning, a fact proven by our then Attorney General Ken Salazar. You must be aware of this as one of the residing judges involved in the Columbine Tragedy. Nevertheless, you discount completely any possible underlying motivation by this county, that, it has been proven, acted criminally and outside of any possible interpretation of the law by concealing these records and others from the families of the murdered children at Columbine. You have ignored the motivation of the county in keeping these documents secret. Their attorney sits in court, agreeing with the attorneys for the killers parents, and you put the decision for the destruction of this sensitive material in the hands of the sheriff, an official of that county. This decision should have been yours,or someone without a vested interest in keeping it secret. If you could not do that you should have recused yourself and let a judge make this decision in a way that would protect the innocent and the truth, not protect the corruption of Jefferson County and the guilt of the parents of murderers.

You would not let me speak at this hearing. You would not let an informed member of the task force give you informaiton. I can only determine from that lack of interest that you have, in this case, no interest in justice being carried out.

I was sitting next to my wife. She has had her depositoin seized by your Special Master,even before it was transcribed. All of these depostions were seized, along with all information the court reporter had, many years ago. This is an unprecedeted step, and, in my opinion shows a collusion between this court and the Jefferson County cover up. All we heard from the attorneys involved was how unusual this was, how they had never heard of this being done before. What is it your are trying to hide? What is it you have agreed to hide?

I was sitting in front of Brian Rorbough. You may know, and maybe you do not know, that his son was killed at Columbine. He has been lied to by the Jefferson County Sheriffs office and the Jefferson County Attorneys. He has been denied information that could have helped him discover the truth about his son’s death at the hands of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. He has been denied basic civil rights, in that he was not given by the opposing counsel in his lawsuit all of the available information. That information was denied him by the Jefferson County Attorneys, and now it is being denied him by you. Now it will be destroyed by your court order. Yet you choose to ignore this serious problem, and continue to dwell on the reasons for not allowing the rest of the facts about this case to be made public.

Let’s discuss for a moment the “basement videos". These have been seen by the press and many members of the public. They have been roughly transcibed and are available to anyone who wants to review them. I have seen them. They are not a blueprint for a Columbine Tragedy. They are not threatening . They show these two stupid boys talking and drinking and playing with guns. Tapes with a true violent content have already been released by the Sheriffs Dept., including the Rampart Range videos which show them firing weapons and talking about “bullets in someone’s brain", yet you agree wth the Sheriff that this tape should be kept secret. Judge Babcock, go rent the movie “Natural Born Killers” and stay up past your normal bedtime and see what is truly dangerous. You are making decisions based on absurd and incorrect assumptions. Some of those assumptions are: 1) You can trust Jefferson County. 2) Jefferson County has the best interests of children and other people and the law as their foremost thought. 3) The parents of Columbine who lost children do not deserve to know the truth. 4) The documents being withheld are dangerous.

They are not. They tell the truth. They tell the truth about Columbine and bullying and about the failures of Jefferson County. Why is a judge afraid of the truth? That is not a rhetorical question. Why is a judge afraid of the truth? Are you trying to protect Jefferson County? Why would you do that? You can only be trying to protect the name of law enforcement and be trying to retain some confidence in law enforcement in general, which, you have been informed, the release of these documents will damage further. These documents must, in some way, reveal more about the failures of Jefferson County and law enforcement personnel that you are deciding will be harmful to the general public by further eroding confidence in our police and society. You honor, this is not possible. The reputation of these people is now beyond salvage. The corruption of this County is legendary. It is not possible for a new release to damage it any further. All that remains is that they take your reputation down the road of corruption and coverup with them. By controlling this information and destroying it, you will be involved as a particiapant in the destruction of incredibly important historical documents. You will become a co-conspirator with Dave Thomas and the other members of Jefferson County who lied to the families of murdered children. I will reiterate so that you will remember: They lied to the families of murdered children.

One last note: As you remember this court case in the years to come, you will see the absurdity of the positioning of the attorneys. On one side you have the attorneys for the National Archives, the families of the murdered children, the Attorney General of Colorado, and the shadows of the attorneys for our local newspapers who fought the fight to get the truth released. On the other side you have the attorneys for the parents of two mass murderers and the attorney for the Jefferson County Sheriff. That is the division. Allies for the truth and allies for cover-up. In addition you have many people who know the truth, who have seen the “basement tapes and other concealed documents, who care about the truth. You will not even listen to them. Remember that line-up of participants. Now realize that you were sitting, by the decisions you made, on the side of the killers parents and the corrupt Jefferson County Government. I hope that is your legacy.

I went to this court to see the final chapter of the Columbine Tragedy. I hoped to see some truth, some justice. What I heard and what I saw were different. It was a great discussion on law and court cases and what decision was made and when it was made.

Lots of legal decisions, and no wisdom.

Shame on you, Judge Babcock, for allowing this tragedy to end with corruption and a concealment of the truth. The murdered children, their parents, the public and my family deserved more. You failed all of us. Posted by denver-admin at 10:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Lack of compensation for nuclear workers

By Terrie Barrie, Craig

The Alliance of Nuclear Worker Advocacy Groups (ANWAG) wishes to thank Ann Imse and your paper for its continued coverage on the lack of compensation provided to the majority of claimants under the Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA).

This Speakout has not been edited

By Terrie Barrie, Craig

The Alliance of Nuclear Worker Advocacy Groups (ANWAG) wishes to thank Ann Imse and your paper for its continued coverage on the lack of compensation provided to the majority of claimants under the Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA).

ANWAG is a national organization of groups representing Department of Energy contract workers and their families, which has monitored the implementation of EEOICPA. ANWAG has often voiced its concerns to the responsible federal agencies as well as to Congress and the media.

Sadly, Mr. Charlie Wolf problems with the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health’s (NIOSH) dose reconstruction program and the Department of Labor’s (DOL) Part E program is not an isolated issue. We hear from claimants from across the country with similar complaints of inaccurate or missing information from their personal employment files. ANWAG is also aware of a claim where DOL paid $9,900.00 to a District Medical Consultant to deny one claim.

Rocky Flats is not the only facility where the site profile is flawed. It appears NIOSH only performed a cursory investigation into the sites. It is up to the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health to discover the truth. ANWAG finds it inexcusable, that after six years, these types of problems still exist. And, unfortunately, the claimants cannot find remedy through the claims appeal process. The incorrect methods developed by NIOSH cannot be challenged on appeal - only the application of the flawed method to an individual case.

Part E of EEOICPA, which is to compensate workers for wage loss and impairment, further add insult to the injuries already suffered by these workers and their families. The Department of Labor has ignored the majority of the public comments submitted by members of Congress, labor unions, advocacy groups and individuals on the final interim rules. The Final Rules places an enormous and impossible burden of proof on the claimant to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the disease(s) they suffer from are the result of their workplace exposures. If workers or their survivors had access to all the documents, there would be no need for a federal compensation program.

ANWAG calls on Congress, once again, to step up to the plate and stop this injustice to the workers and their survivors and stop the gross waste of taxpayer dollars. The Cold War Veterans or their survivors desperately need a comprehensive reform bill passed this year to correct this tragedy of national proportions, which has gone on for too long. Posted by denver-admin at 10:32 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

For House Bill 1072 on unions

By Timothy Allport

Your recent editorial, “All union bill a blow to liberty", echoes the typical boardroom argument that unions are bad and business is good. I got lost in a song with your seemingly patriotic defense of worker freedom.

This Speakout has not been edited

By Timothy Allport, Littleton

Your recent editorial, “All union bill a blow to liberty", echoes the typical boardroom argument that unions are bad and business is good. I got lost in a song with your seemingly patriotic defense of worker freedom. What your argument really amounts to is business as usual with no progress. The common contention that unions hurt business is the same old fear mongering that subordinates social justice to the ivory towers. Democratic unions are one of the best paths to empowerment for common people. Due process in the American workplace is taking a nose dive as the labor movement loses ground; and that is no accident. Busting unions and targeting activists is the first step to preventing democratic workplaces. This country defines itself on the concept of liberty and a government of checks and balances, but trial by fire labor laws often make it impossible to form unions. This state is good example of such.

Democratic elections are normally a one time majority rule vote. The current laws as your editorial described are designed to prevent unions from forming. Most employees readily join unions when they know their jobs are safe.

Those same employees trend very lightly against an employer bucking a union.

House bill 1072 is about providing basic fairness for employees and the people who represent them. Unions generally have no problem with “open shop” laws giving employees the option of joining as long those non-members are not covered by our contracts. Think about it. How come people have to pay homeowners association dues when they never use the pool and often disagree with the elected homeowners board? How come we have to pay fees when we go to our local health club? Simply, because if we are choosing to accept the benefits of the organization, then we should have to pay for them. Unions should not have to represent non-members.

Labor unions provide employees lawful input into their lives at work. Such democratic principles should be a common goal of a just society. Employees in most European countries have many more rights than American workers. The American workplace, in contrast, more closely resembles a giant Wal-mart where the discretion of the nice manager rules “at will". Passing House Bill 1072 is the right thing to do. It will help bring the principles of democracy we live by to a‘place where it is needed now more than ever - the workplace.

Timothy D. Allport is North Central Regional Legislative Coordinator Vice President American Federation of Government Employees, Local 709 Federal Correctional Institution Englewood Posted by denver-admin at 10:25 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

By Tom Clark

Rhetoric continues to swirl over House Bill 1072, a change to Colorado’s long-standing Labor Peace Act. News articles and editorials have focused on workers’ rights and the ability of unions to force so-called “closed shops"-and the business community’s reaction to the impact on our economic bottomline.

This Speakout has not been edited

By Tom Clark

Rhetoric continues to swirl over House Bill 1072, a change to Colorado’s long-standing Labor Peace Act. News articles and editorials have focused on workers’ rights and the ability of unions to force so-called “closed shops"-and the business community’s reaction to the impact on our economic bottomline.

Yet, the debate has flown past a critical issue, one that economic developers face each day-Colorado’s regional and national competitive standing. Colorado right now is a highly attractive place to do business. We boast one of the healthiest and most highly trained workforces in the nation. We have invested in our communities and infrastructure through Referendum C, FasTracks, SCFD, Denver International Airport and T-Rex.

And, for the most part, we work together for economic improvement. In the Denver metro region, for example, economic developers do not step on each other’s toes to attract employers. We cooperate to provide the best community possible to an interested company. It’s a model unlike any other in the nation. It works. And employers across the United States, and abroad, have taken notice.

That same cooperative model includes organized labor-for now. That’s due in large measure to the Labor Peace Act. Colorado is unique among the 50 states in its relationship between business and labor. Under the Labor Peace Act, businesses can have union and non-union members. Both types of employees work together and with management.

And because of this unique relationship, labor has been a part of our most important economic development efforts, including DIA, the sports stadiums and FasTracks. That cooperation most likely will fade upon implementation of House Bill 1072.

So why does Colorado’s current system really matter? House Bill 1072 is not a simple technical change, as its proponents contend. House Bill 1072 tilts the scales too far to one side. If House Bill 1072 becomes law, potential employers will rightly cast a wary eye toward Colorado. Colorado’s neighbors-Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Nevada, Nebraska and Texas-are all “right to work” states, with the exception of New Mexico. “Right to work” laws ban unions from forcing membership as a condition of employment. Obviously, that type of law is fairly attractive to an employer-large or small.

Everyday, Colorado vigorously competes with these neighboring states, specifically Arizona and Texas, for jobs. Our inherent and hard-earned competitive advantages such as geography, quality of life and workforce strength far outweigh our competitors’ “right to work” status.

However, Colorado economic developers still have to address the “right to work” issue for nearly every potential employer. The response for now has been relatively simple: the Labor Peace Act. Colorado is unique. We coexist. We have since 1943, when this was put into law. And it takes that issue off the table.

If House Bill 1072 becomes law, economic developers will have to address the “closed shop” issue. And for our audience, corporate leaders, the response will be considerably more difficult and costly. That’s if we even get the chance before Colorado is passed over in favor of Arizona or Texas.

House Bill 1072 is a solution in search of a problem. Coloradans will much better understand the “problem” when potential employers bypass the Centennial State for our “right to work” neighbors. When this happens, this “solution” will have forced Colorado into an unnecessary and unwarranted competitive disadvantage.

Tom Clark is executive vice president of the Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation and the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce. Posted by denver-admin at 11:26 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

By Barb Adams

Many animal advocates — including me — are sickened by the news that Wyoming, Montana and Idaho are going to open up a trophy hunting season on wolves, a highly intelligent animal many people such as myself greatly admire and wish to protect.

By Barb Adams

Many animal advocates — including me — are sickened by the news that Wyoming, Montana and Idaho are going to open up a trophy hunting season on wolves, a highly intelligent animal many people such as myself greatly admire and wish to protect (“Feds propose lifting wolves’ protection,” Jan. 30).

This is wrong and bad policy.

Wolves have been terribly and unfairly persecuted throughout their history — poisoned, hunted, used as scapegoats for livestock losses — out of fear and ignorance.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, domestic dogs, weather, diseases, birthing problems and other reasons play the largest roles in livestock losses, not wolves or other predators. Some in the cattle industry especially like to perpetuate this myth, which is why I will not eat beef.

Why are our state agencies protecting special interests over the interest of the public? It is a conflict of interest for a state wildlife agency that receives most of its revenue from hunters to be making major policy decisions that support its donors! If it were taken to a vote, there would probably be a ban on hunting wolves — period. No one eats wolf meat.

Some hunters and ranchers have an ingrained disdain for wolves and other predators and they cannot wait to go out there and shoot them out of pure hatred.

Why isn’t the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protecting our magnificent native predators — not special interests? These highly intelligent and sensitive animals belong to all of us — and deserve protection.

That said, some cattle ranchers use nonlethal ways to deal with predators, which is to be commended — see Predator Conservation Alliance, Range Riders program, out of Bozeman, Mont., and Defenders of Wildlife, which pays ranchers for losses due to predators. Also read Michael Robinson’s Predatory Bureaucracy, which chronicles the extermination of wolves by the U.S. government.

Barb Adams is a resident of Parker. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

By Lesley Dahlkemper

In today’s competitive education environment, it’s more important than ever that every public school tell its story well and market itself aggressively. Gone are the days of children walking a few blocks to their local neighborhood school.

By Lesley Dahlkemper

In today’s competitive education environment, it’s more important than ever that every public school tell its story well and market itself aggressively.

Gone are the days of children walking a few blocks to their local neighborhood school. Now, parents don’t think twice about driving their children across town to their school of choice.

In Colorado, students may attend public schools outside their own neighborhood or in a different school district entirely. The federal law, No Child Left Behind, has also upped the ante. It requires public reporting of data and gives parents the option to send their children elsewhere after three years of repeatedly poor school performance.

Parents have more choices and are savvier about how they select a school for their children, placing even more pressure on principals and teachers to communicate why their school stands apart and how it will meet each child’s needs.

Many public school principals — short on resources, time and know-how — are struggling to keep up. Their plates are overflowing, and marketing was never part of their job description. But times have changed. Today’s school leaders must not only be instructional leaders — they also must be effective communicators and marketers.

The stakes are high. Increased enrollment brings more dollars in the door and keeps schools open. Denver Public Schools begins its school-of-choice enrollment period this month, and the traditionally monthlong period has been extended this year through the end of February.

Clear, consistent communication to customers — prospective parents and students — will determine, in part, schools’ success in attracting new students.

School Web sites must be easy to navigate and offer the information parents want. Open houses must be well thought-out and focused on student learning. Informational materials should highlight teacher qualifications, academic programs and special programs that enrich a child’s learning.

Successful schools are using these strategies and others to promote themselves. They understand their customer base and know how to tell their story well.

Consider one Denver public school. Lincoln Elementary’s enrollment had declined dramatically, and the school could have faced closure. Principal Daphne Hunter ramped up her efforts to communicate with parents, market the school to prospective parents, and build a chorus of community supporters. She aggressively promoted the school’s dual program offerings — traditional and Montessori academic programs. The results have been good. The school’s enrollment has grown from 136 in 2003 to 231 this school year.

While I work with schools and districts regularly to tell their stories, I am also a potential customer. As the parent of a soon-to-be kindergartner, I’ve spent late nights researching public and private schools online. My husband and I have toured more than a dozen schools, and I’ve returned to observe classroom teaching up close. Choosing a school for our daughter is one of the most important decisions we will make.

Private schools largely present themselves well. They are on message, focused and know their audience. The savvier public schools do the same. Both successful private and public schools also have vibrant word-of-mouth networks.

If we want local communities to support public schools, we need to be proactive about letting them know what our public schools are doing, both the successes and the challenges. Jettison spin and education jargon in favor of more timely and substantive information that is relevant to parents and the community.

Schools that do a good job communicating don’t shy away from talking about the tough issues, but instead explain what staff is doing to address them — whether it’s strengthening achievement, attracting qualified teachers or engaging more parents.

Of course, communications and marketing alone will not be enough. Every school must strive to provide a high-quality education to every child. Schools must have something to market. Still, open, honest and timely information is a critical part of the mix if today’s public schools are to turn around declining enrollment, boost public confidence, and build public understanding and support for schools.

Lesley Dahlkemper is the founder and president of Schoolhouse Communications (www.schoolhousecom.com), a firm specializing in helping schools, districts and organizations communicate about education issues, policies and programs. She is a former education reporter with Colorado Public Radio. Posted by denver-admin at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

By Glenn Morris

Colorado state Sen. Suzanne Williams has proposed the repeal of Columbus Day as a state holiday in Colorado. One of her proposals is to replace Columbus Day with a floating or flex holiday for state employees. Another proposal is to designate All Nations Day — to honor the contribution of all peoples and nations in the construction of America. Neither suggestion carries any negative fiscal impact for the state.

By Glenn Morris

Colorado state Sen. Suzanne Williams has proposed the repeal of Columbus Day as a state holiday in Colorado. One of her proposals is to replace Columbus Day with a floating or flex holiday for state employees. Another proposal is to designate All Nations Day — to honor the contribution of all peoples and nations in the construction of America. Neither suggestion carries any negative fiscal impact for the state.

Williams is to be applauded for her moral leadership, and for her forthright stance; she should be supported by her colleagues in the state Senate and House, and by Gov. Bill Ritter. State-sanctioned holidays that portray Christopher Columbus as an honorable man who “discovered” America are untruthful.

Prior to his arrival in the Caribbean, Columbus engaged in the African slave trade for the Portuguese. That alone should disqualify him for state or national hero status. While he was governor of the Caribbean, Columbus began and administered a system of forced labor camps known as encomiendas or repartimientos. Under this system, hundreds of thousands of indigenous people were literally worked to death.

Even historian Samuel Eliot Morrison, a Columbus fan, was forced to conclude that “the policy and acts of Columbus for which he alone was responsible began the depopulation of the terrestrial paradise that was Hispaniola in 1492.” According to Morrison, one-third of the Indian population was killed in less than four years. Surely, we no longer want a state holiday to a man who began and advanced genocide.

Some suggest that Columbus was simply a man of his times, and that whatever his crimes, well, “everyone was doing it.” This assertion reflects a profound ignorance of the courageous voices of Columbus’ contemporaries who condemned the atrocities of Columbus and his subordinates in their own era. Scholars and theologians like Antonio de Montesinos, Bartolome de Las Casas, Matias de Paz, and Franciscus de Victoria — considered by many to be the father of modern international law — opposed the destruction that was begun and advanced by Columbus. Today, we should do no less. Even if the apologists were correct, however, and Columbus simply went along with the prevailing practices of his own society, engaging in invasion, murder, rape and plunder, we should not now reward that example with a state holiday.

Most people do not know that Columbus Day began as a state and national holiday in Colorado 100 years ago this year. On April 1, 1907, Gov. Henry Buchtel made Colorado the first state to designate an official holiday to Christopher Columbus. The obvious question is: Why?

Why would landlocked Colorado, more than 2,000 miles removed from any area ever visited by Columbus, honor this lost sailor with a state holiday?

The notion that Colorado was honoring Italians with the holiday is absurd in light of the lynchings and the rampant discrimination that were being visited on Italians in Colorado and across the United States.

Columbus’ story was manipulated in the 19th and early 20th centuries by U.S. political leaders who cared nothing about Italians or American Indians, but who needed a poster boy to support their policies of expansionism and militarism. Columbus Day, which has only become more tattered and divisive over time, has outlived whatever shallow, pseudo-patriotic usefulness it might have once served.

We have a chance in Colorado, the birthplace of Columbus Day, to set an example for our children, for our schools, for the country. We can set an example for future generations that says that advancing mutual respect and understanding is more important than jealously guarding the well-worn but indefensible, hurtful fallacies of the past. We can support Williams’ initiative, and finally repeal Columbus Day in Colorado.

Glenn Morris is a member of the Leadership Council of the American Indian Movement of Colorado. Posted by denver-admin at 01:00 AM | Comments (26) | TrackBack