4 BBW

BBW, again, you amaze me. Thank you SO MUCH. I tried for a couple hours last night to get this kind of info from the internet with no success. Joan gave me some great leads as well !!! Thanks to you BOTH !!!

In your last paragraph you talk about statements we have made requarding position appointments and how we may not even understand what we are saying. This is at the heart of my concerns - I want to REALLY understand the overall meaning and affects of these issues. Fighting for the wrong thing is worse than complacency.

Thanks again, BBW.

By WW

BBW - 96 Ballot ?

BBW, Correct me on the details here- BFCC intended that the "yes" answer to the 96 ballot question mean:

BFCC contract a feasability study, evaluate the feasability study, and take action as warranted by that evaluation. (where take action, in this case ended up being, at the VERY least, to develop the 98 ballot wording and present/promote it to legislature for consideration as a referendum)

And some people believe that it meant:

BFCC contract a feasability study and present that study to the public for their evaluation. And then, through council meetings with public input, determine whether or not to proceed to try to get the question on the State Ballot.

Joan, Br Anon, BRF2, etc.: Help me out here with the wording in this last paragraph - is this what you thought "yes" meant?

And just to clarify a detail,
BBW, Olvier, etc: Do you consider Stoval and Berens speaking to the Legislature as presentation/promotion by BFCC or by CBLG. (To me, Cooper can clearly be considered CBLG. But if you see that differently please say so.)

By WW

To WW

As you can see from my last post; it was presented as a question; to be considered by the council. Under the August 27, 1996 council minutes where the decision was made to put this on the ballot; it is clearly stated by George DiCero and Roy Howard that the council; with this wording, would be under no obligation to react to the vote. Factually, the wording of the ballot was changed from "seek to place" to "consider"; the Question 2A: An ADVISORY question was added, and the words "of Broomfield" were deleted after "city and county" to clarify to the public that this was, indeed a question; not an obligation. As BBW noted before (when we were conversing with the orginal BBW); the council, in their eagerness to form a county (was the impetus the one million from Interlocken to pursue private funding for Interlocken--the timing is incredible on this--almost to the week); ASSUMED that the question was enough of a positive vote to present it as a "yes" vote to Legislative Council. There was and never has been a vote for a county; either by the public or by the council. There is no record of a resolution in the council minutes or of a resolution on the council agenda to accept this vote as a vote for the county.

Additionally, IF this were truly, without question, a citizen agenda; WHY did the city HIRE THREE LOBBYISTS to work the state representatives and senators? Why not take all of the citizens who were "begging" for a county to legislature and let them present their case.

CBLG, Citizens for Better Local Government was registered with the Secretary of State; March 31. IT was April 1, when City Manager DiCero and Mayor Berens, along with Council member Larry Cooper and Police Chief Tom Deland went to the state; with the question of annexation powers and boundaries answered. This was the question which caused them not to present the issue on March 12. Officially, the discussions started with the state April 14.

Why not citizens? May I suggest it is due to the fact that CBLG was formed and led by all the ten council members, the mayor, and City Manager DiCero. Perhaps, they did not want to discuss the fact that the citizens group was formed by the city leaders. BBW, do you have an answer to the hired lobbyists; and were they paid for with city taxes?

By Br Anonymous

Thx, BrAnon

Br Anon, I've been missing you ... I hope all is well.

And thank you for your response. I hadn't heard about the 3 lobbyists before. And assuming they WERE paid by the city, they can be added to my list of things funded by the city to promote this issue.

I still think the crux of this question is what the BFCC was authorized to do following the issuance of the Feasability Study. BBW seems to think that they were authorized to move forward and pursue the 98 ballot question - that this authorization was implicit in the 96 ballot question. Others here (including yourself) feel they were not authorized to do that. This is an example of why I'd like to see the question of repeal on the ballot. Let the voters tell us EXACTLY what they think.

I need to go back and re-read your earlier posts about the 1M$ from Interlocken. I didn't fully understand what you were saying then, and I'm still confused about that. Give me a little time and I will surely have questions for you on that topic.

It's good to hear from you again Br Anon !!!

By WW