Politics

Slow news day

Nobel Peace committee tilts left, maverick politician switches parties, miracle team wins again. Please, tell me something unexpected. Gore winning the prize, Stafford becoming a Democrat, and the Rockies beating Arizona don't qualify. (Just kidding about the Rox; I would never take our wonder boys for granted, things just sound better in threes.) As for Rep. Debbie Stafford (D-Aurora, gotta get used to typing that), my onetime GOP legislative colleague, there are no hard feelings here. Her buoyant spirit and active faith always made it a pleasure to work together. Like Sinatra, she does things her way, endearingly if sometimes maddeningly.

I see Butch Montoya is already mass-mailing the Democratic caucus with gripes about them welcoming Debbie, what with her not embracing illegal aliens as he feels an orthodox Dem should. But they will find, as Republicans found in welcoming Ben Campbell years ago, that there's simply nothing orthodox about this kind of person, so get used to it. Rep. Stafford's religious fervor and conservativish views on some issues may do her new party good.

It concerns me that she is the second Colorado Republican this week, following Congressman Tom Tancredo on the 9th, to contract what I called in a Wednesday post, Dobson's disease -- "disagree with me on (fill in the blank) and I'm out of here." Multiply that impulse far enough and we'll end up with no political parties at all.

But on balance, I'm inclined to say to my friend Debbie what Winfield Scott urged Lincoln (who fortunately disagreed) to tell the seceding Southern states: "Wayward sister(s), depart in peace.

[Cross-posted from PoliticsWest.com]

Tancredo contracts Dobson's disease

It's a stock question when primaries get heated: If defeated, will you support the winner? Not necessarily, said Tom Tancredo in Tuesday's Republican presidential debate. Reading between the lines, this appears to mean the Colorado congressman could walk if John McCain or Rudy Giuliani gets the GOP nomination; among his rivals, they are the ones whose immigration policies most differ from his. The Rocky Mountain News paraphrased his comments this way: "Tancredo said he was tired of voting for the 'lesser of two evils' in presidential contests, and that if the Republicans nominate someone he does not consider to be a principled candidate, he will not support the person."

It was just a week ago that Focus on the Family leader James Dobson issued a similar warning (albeit for different reasons) on the New York Times oped page, confirming his rumored participation in a secret meeting of Republican dissidents in Utah: "If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate."

Tancredo is my old friend and political comrade in arms. He represents me in Congress and does it well. He is the only presidential candidate I've given money to this year. As for Dr. Dobson, I admire him greatly, and I believe our country (and my party) owe him a debt of gratitude for defending our Judeo-Christian moral and spiritual heritage so ably in the public arena.

But on this party-bolting toot of theirs, this guaranteed formula for a Hillary Clinton presidency, I can only say: "Gentlemen, please, come off it. Get a grip."

Conservatism: The Making of Good Men

Two major premises to start: (1) Human corruption tends to reverse the natural poles of good and evil in the mind, clouding the moral judgment, and producing either weak and timid behavior on behalf of the good or behavior that is downright corrupt. (2) The pursuit of power magnifies this natural human tendency by orders of magnitude. [So began my talk to the Falcon Republican Club near Colorado Springs on September 22. It continued as follows:]

My suggestion to you tonight is that in the year 2007, we are living amidst the decay and corruption of American political structures due to the pervasive influence of human vice.

On the political left, this reversal of the poles of good and evil in the mind has reached its most hardened political expression in the institutions of the Democratic Party.

On the political right, embodied particularly by the Republican Party, the pursuit of power has done the following:

a) attracted those who are led by mere self-interest or social history, or who see in the Party an avenue for personal promotion; and

b) it has turned men and women who previously were innocently passionate and courageous on behalf of the public good – this is why they got involved in the Party in the first place – into men and women who now are passionate about their own political security and promotion, and who, though they may still believe in the conservative platform, are using the platform more to enable personal security, promotion, and prestige than to courageously contend for what is right, and who in many cases are now involved in slandering and marginalizing the very type of people whom they themselves used to be.

In many cases, this has turned friend against friend, colleague against colleague, Christian sibling against Christian sibling, and even spouse against spouse, in most cases never to be reconciled. And what is so sinister about this is that the more a politico becomes guilty of this kind of behavior, the more he deceives himself as to his own innocence.

What I’m saying is that the pursuit of power in the Republican Party has destroyed integrity and character, it has destroyed families, and it has destroyed in large measure the post-war conservative movement.

Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, in his much-awaited book called The Age of Turbulence just released, gets this point exactly right. The book is self-aggrandizing and silly in many places, including some condescension toward Ronald Reagan, but Greenspan gets this point exactly right. He says he advised Bush to veto some spending bills the Republican congress was sending him, but instead Bush and the Republicans swapped principle for power, ending up with neither. This is exactly what Bush and the Republicans did, and yet Bush was taken totally by surprise when the GOP got drubbed in the 2006 elections.

Bush should be given due credit for his firmness on the war, his appointment so far of good Supreme Court justices, and his strength on behalf of lower taxes and in opposition to any tax increase. But No Child Left Behind, McCain-Feingold, excessive spending and regulation, giving the Democrats Don Rumsfeld’s scalp after the 2006 losses, and his equivocation in diplomacy toward Israel and advocacy of a Palestinian state have all been disasters.

The Republican collapse in Colorado began long before it materialized nationally. It began with the election of Gov. Bill Owens in 1998 and showed perhaps its most ugly manifestation in 2004 with the political betrayal of Bob Schaffer. Mr. Schaffer, like Congressman Doug Lamborn, is one of the great and good figures currently on the Colorado political landscape, and bad faith toward men like this says more about the Party than it does about the men themselves.

A few minutes ago I mentioned passion for the public good as what motivates so many Republicans to become activists and many to eventually run for office. The next natural question is, what is good?

Let’s start with a reminder of what isn’t good. There are seven classical vices, sometimes called the seven deadly sins, and I want to suggest to you that they extensively characterize not only American politics today, but American cultural life in general.

1. Lust. Sen. Larry Craig. Rep. Mark Foley. Rev. Ted Haggard. Rep. Bob Livingston, who was next in line for House Speaker but whose extramarital affair came to light at the same time Bill Clinton’s affair and perjury did. Pedophilia by priests in the Roman Catholic Church. Millions of pornographic web sites, with homosexuality making its way further and further even into social conservative ranks. This is lust.

2. Gluttony. It doesn’t simply refer to overeating. Refers to over-indulgence in any pleasure beyond what is normal and healthy. According to the New York Post of Feb 14, chairman and CEO of one of the world’s largest private equity groups held a party to celebrate his 60th birthday and his recent consummation of the largest private equity buyout in history. There was a private concert by Rod Stewart, for which Stewart was paid $1 million, and food, beverage, and décor that brought the total bill to over $3 million. This is gluttony. To be clear, being wealthy is no crime, throwing an expensive party is no crime, living at a high level is no crime. But there does reach a point where the ostentatious display and expenditure of wealth strikes any healthy person as excessive. In politics, legislative spending at any level is gluttonous, plain and simple. There is not a single public legislative body anywhere in the U.S., including in heavily Republican areas like El Paso County, that is anywhere close to the kind of fiscal sanity that normal people and businesses have to live by just to survive. Public spending is gluttonous and is reminiscent of the late Roman Empire.

3. Sloth. Laziness. Interestingly, the sin of sloth was originally called the sin of sadness. Why? Because work and joy go together. Hard work makes people joyful and content with life. Sloth and sadness go together. Welfare programs beginning with FDR, but growing rapidly under Lyndon Johnson in the 1960’s, devalued the importance of work and taught entire generations of modern people that the government owes them health care, a school loan below market rates and with generous payback terms, and an unemployment check while between jobs. This led to such institutionalized laziness, primarily on the part of men in the inner city, that by the 1990’s a Republican-controlled Congress sent President Clinton a good welfare reform bill three times before he signed it. The bill placed limits on how long someone could live on the public dole. Opponents said welfare reform would force many into begging or crime. People had a right to be on the dole, they essentially said. Actually, the bill has reduced the number of welfare recipients by 57% since it was passed in 1996, and places like big-city-dominated Illinois have seen reductions as high as 86%. Why? Because sloth is a vice, and it is the purpose of law to restrain vice, not encourage and fund it.

4. Greed. Contra Gordon Gecko, greed is not good. Greed is the inordinate desire for material things beyond what is wise and healthy, and which leads one to do things that are not wise, honest, or healthy. I want to refer here to the cases of people like Joseph Nacchio, Bernie Ebbers, Charles Keating, Martha Stewart, and similar high-profile white-collar crime cases, but not in the way you are used to hearing about them. The greed in these cases was not on the part of these giants of business, who not only raised everyone’s standard of living through their heroic innovation and management talent, but made thousands of others wealthy in addition to themselves. Not only this, but they used their wealth philanthropically. Keating donated millions to Mother Teresa. Ebbers was a church-going Southern Baptist who doubtless gave a load to his church and church-related activities. Nacchio was the son of a Brooklyn longshoreman who doubled as a bartender at night – in other words, he was from the lower classes. He pulled himself up by his own bootstraps. Martha Stewart, the woman who decorated America’s homes, is an evil criminal?

None of the charges against these people had any merit, friends, and in most cases the charges on which they were convicted were not even part of the original charges levied against them. Martha Stewart, for example, was first charged with insider trading, then those charges against her were dropped and new ones instituted for lying to regulators about the original charges. A similar strategy was followed by current leading Republican presidential nominee, Rudy Guiliani, who began his political career by prosecuting the famous 1980’s junk bond cases against Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken. Neither did anything wrong except help new businesses get started by developing the market for high-risk bonds. Yet Guiliani, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, charged Milken with 98 counts of racketeering and fraud before settling a plea deal with Milken on 6 – six! – lesser charges. He intimidated Milken with the 98 charges into accepting a plea deal on 6 different charges. Milken was sentenced to 10 years and was out in less than two. Since then he has donated millions to philanthropic medical research and a new private Jewish high school in Bel-Air, California.

The convictions of these successful people represent not the triumph of justice against greed, as has been played in the media and political circles, but the triumph of greed against justice, and the triumph of central financial decision-making against those who make possible the greatest poverty-destroying machine in world history: American-style moral capitalism. Those guilty of greed in each of these cases were attorneys and government regulators who saw deep pockets and a friendly political environment in which to pillage those deep pockets and promote themselves in government. The only difference between them and Michael Nifong, the DA in the absurd Duke rape case who has now been rightly disgraced for the absurd politicized charges he pursued against innocent people, is that Nifong got caught.

5. Anger. Wrath. Any society overcome with vice in general is going to be overcome with anger. Why? Because confrontation of the guilty by the truth or by the law almost always produces the additional vice of wrath. Guilty people do not like to admit they are guilty or have been wrong, and get angry when confronted. It is what led William F. Buckley to state famously in his 1953 book *God and Man at Yale*, which helped launch the post-war conservative movement: “It is always interesting to watch the reaction of people to the telling of the truth.” President Clinton’s wrath was manifest when he was questioned on video by independent counsel. When Sen. Larry Craig was asked by a reporter what he was going to do after resigning from office, Craig said, “We’ll fight this like hell.” Apparently Craig is angry about the evil frame job that had been perpetrated against him by an airport policeman who doesn’t know what he’s doing. Murder is commonplace on the front pages of the news, often even by one spouse against another, because the vice of wrath is now an epidemic in our political and general culture, and we cover our sins of wrath by presenting them as righteous indignation.

6. The last two of the seven deadly sins you know: envy and pride. Envy is jealousy. Wanting what someone else has. Pride, or arrogance, in turn, is the root of all human vice. It says, I determine what is right and what I will do, and nobody will hold me to a standard higher than myself. C.S. Lewis once wrote that pride is how the Devil became the Devil. I will be like the Most High.

Friends, there is no characteristic more prominent in our politics and in our common life today than pride: black, corrosive, friendship and family ruining, integrity and virtue killing, party, state, and nation destroying pride. We will be like the Most High. We will be a law unto ourselves.

One additional word on pride. If you are proud, you are a fool. There are 7 billion people currently on earth, and you are one of them. And that doesn’t even count those who lived before you and who will live after you. Congressman Lamborn is a pretty important man, a congressman. But he is one of 435. He represents exactly 2.2 tenths of one percent of the current House of Representatives, and that doesn’t count those who went before and will go after. The President of the United States is the most powerful man in the world. President Bush is one of 43 American presidents, meaning he represents about 2.3% of the historic American presidency. And that doesn’t count those who will go after him. The American presidency, in turn, is only 230 years old, so even if we assume the youngest possible date for the age of the earth of about 6,000 years, Mr. Bush’s 2.3% share of the historic presidency represents 9 one-hundredths of one percent of the history of international power. Friends, in the big scheme of things, even the president is nobody. If you are proud, you are a fool.

If we understand how truly small we are, we understand how easy it has been for Christian people to sing across the ages songs like this one by George Beverly Shea, long-time friend of Billy Graham:

I’d rather have Jesus than silver or gold, I’d rather be His than have riches untold, I’d rather have Jesus than houses or lands, I’d rather be led by His nail-pierced hand.

I’d rather have Jesus than men’s applause; I’d rather be faithful to His dear cause; I’d rather have Jesus than world-wide fame, I’d rather be true to His holy name.

Than to be the king of a vast domain, Or be held in sin’s dread sway, I’d rather have Jesus than anything This world affords today.

Which leads me to the good news after all this bad news. There are virtues that oppose these vices in which we are mired. The opposite of lust is chastity. Not no sex at all, but sex disciplined by marriage – monogamous heterosexual marriage – or no sex at all. The opposite of gluttony is self-restraint. The opposite of sloth is diligence. The opposite of greed is generosity. The opposite of anger is honesty, peace, and, where necessary, forgiveness. The opposite of envy is kindness or admiration. And the opposite of pride is humility. Think of what politics would look like, and what a nation would look like, which elevates and honors these characteristics in our leaders, and which honors men like Congressman Doug Lamborn who have displayed these virtues for decades in public life, rather than attacking, opposing, and belittling them.

Now three points in closing:

First: Ronald Reagan’s name and legacy are invoked way too often by people who don’t understand that legacy, but what was it about him that inspired the entire post-war conservative movement? I suggest it was the humble strength with which he carried himself: no pride, no envy, no wrath, no lust, no greed, no sloth, no gluttony. In a word, he was the kind of genuinely good man who genuinely understands the conservative idea and who is created by the work of the conservative idea in the soul. His kind of man is the only kind who is worthy to rule.

Second: Ladies, you’ll understand me here, I trust. What we need in the conservative movement in every generation is what the Marine Corps needs in every generation: a few good men. It doesn’t take many, and indeed we recognize there will never be many. But we need a few. Everyone knows this truth; it is the enduring power of a slogan like the Marine Corps’, or like the words placed over a prominent overpass at the Air Force Academy until the feminists got them a few years ago: "Bring Me Men." What do these slogans mean? They obviously don’t mean that women are incapable of the virtue to which we refer. They simply are an appeal to the ancient kind of rare courage – courage to fight for what is true – that we all naturally associate with virtuous and heroic masculinity. These are the kind of men every nation and every conservative party needs, and these are the kind of men we need in the Republican Party today.

Finally: The political hope of our nation, indeed, the political hope of the world, lies in exactly the place you have been told so often and so vociferously is the last place you should look for that hope – the conservative wing of American politics. The conservative wing of the American political spectrum represents the last vestige of the historic western political tradition, and the ideas for which it stands, the truths it holds dear, the sanctities it defends, the political potential it still holds to implement those ideas on the world stage, and the good political men it creates, are the last, best political hope for mankind on earth.

Ten reasons why judicial term limits don't go far enough

Author: The Watcher John Andrews says he will try again with judicial term limits, which this writer called a 5% solution last year. In reply, let me lay out the reasons that the system is ripe for real legal ethics reform, not just term limits.

1. The Supreme Court is the supervisory authority for both legal ethics and judicial ethics. No one supervises the Supreme Court. Because of this, the Supreme Court has come to believe that it is above the law. Andrews mentions recent examples, but he doesn't mention that the state court administrator [in the Manzanares case, see below] completely avoided an obstruction of justice investigation that might have reached the Chief Justice. He also forgets that the Court has routinely ignored the plain language of TABOR.

2. The Supreme Court has failed to standardize the court system. Other states require judges to undergo annual training. Ours does not.

3. The State Constitution has entrusted the Supreme Court with the power to discipline judges in secret, except that it must announce the final outcome. The Court's attitude toward this responsibility is best illustrated by the Larry Manzanares case. Manzanares was a former judge accused of stealing a court laptop, which he later used for pornography. The state court administrator attempted to derail the criminal prosecution into a process where the maximum penalty the former judge could get was a secret reprimand and no criminal record, not the several years in jail he might have gotten [had the disgraced man not taken his own life]. It is likely he wouldn't even have been disbarred.

Word has gotten down to district court judges that they won't be considered for serious punishment when they ignore their own ethics rules. A judge is clearly required to report lawyer misconduct by both court rules and ethics rules. Imagine a situation where after years of obvious misconduct a judge makes a comment about it in a ruling. Imagine also that the lawyer is eventually replaced and his replacement writes in his first court document that the lawyer he replaced had committed the worst misconduct imaginable. You would think that the judge would feel compelled to forward the issue to Attorney Regulation. You would be wrong.

4. The Attorney Regulation system designed and administered by the Supreme Court is a pure fraud on the public. It is designed so that no one has jurisdiction. More than 60% of its complaints are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has given exclusive jurisdiction to the district court judges like the one above. In order to make a complaint, a citizen must pay a lawyer a few thousand dollars to write it with no guarantee that it will be forwarded by the judge. In fact, the odds are that it will not be forwarded.

Not long ago, two Supreme Court Justices and the Chief Justice's lawyer wrote an article for "The Colorado Lawyer" in which they assured Colorado Attorneys that they had little to fear from Attorney Regulation. You would think that a document written on government time by government officials would be available to the public. It is not. In fact, it is copyrighted, so we can't reproduce it here. The Supreme Court sees the Colorado Bar Association as its constituency, and in 2006, the CBA spent $1.3 million to defeat Amendment 40-term limits.

5. One of the mechanisms that might protect the public from unethical judges is the Judicial Performance Commission in each of the 22 districts and one for statewide commission for appellate judges. Each commission has ten members, four of whom are lawyers. They are supposed to examine the performance of judges who are up for retention elections and make recommendations to the public. The Supreme Court is careful not to give these commissions written instructions which leaves its lawyer members firmly in charge. With the lawyers in charge, lawyer interests are protected above those of the public.

Recall the judge described in paragraph 3 above who can't bring himself to report attorney misconduct? It turns out that he was up for election in 2006 and 200 pages of court documents illustrating the situation were provided to the performance commission. The commission voted 8-0 not to inform the public of his multiple ethical misconducts including his failure to rule on a motion for two years, effectively stopping progress for that period. Upon inquiry, the chairwoman, Kit Roupe, wrote:

Clearly with Judge [ Larry ] Schwartz the Commission does believe he is an excellent judge that does contribute much to our community even in light of the material...submitted.

By 2007, Kit Roupe was unwilling to provide the identity of her fellow 2006 commission members. When directly asked she replied:

Regrettably, I currently do not have an accurate list of my commission members because of changes - resignations and expired terms.

Care to bet that one of the reasons the four attorneys on this commission think so highly of Judge Schwartz is that he adamantly refuses to forward the misconduct case to Attorney Regulation? Would they think so highly of him if he actually followed court rules and his own ethics rules?

Members of the Colorado Supreme Court are up for retention votes this year. In 2007, a bill went before the legislature that would have reduced the number of members who are either regulated or who are directly appointed by the Chief Justice from six to four. Nine citizens testified for the bill and one against. The lone ranger was the CBA lobbyist. Guess who carried the day? Not the nine citizens. Is it any wonder that the Supreme Court would consider the CBA as its main constituency?

6. One of the ways that the CBA gets a direct payback is through another fraud. Suppose there were a car insurer in the state which provided comprehensive insurance for $20 a year. Imagine that this is a powerful insurer, able to twist the outcome of court cases, indeed able to keep them from ever being heard. This insurer keeps its costs down by refusing to cover accidents unless they occur on Feb 29th under a full moon with the driver driving northeast. When it does pay out, it writes a letter explaining that it is doing so out of the goodness of its heart and the payee should take or leave the settlement.

That is the exact situation that the Supreme Court has set up in Colorado for lawyers. In lieu of requiring lawyers to carry a responsible amount of errors and omissions insurance as all other professions are required to do, it charges them $20/year as a contribution to a fund. The fund pays limited amounts to a very select class of victims of attorney misconduct.

7. For at least 15 years, the Supreme Court has completely prohibited lawsuits against attorneys who violate their ethics code. They put that prohibition directly in the code, itself. This year, they plan to make a change. They will give district court judges the "discretion" to allow lawsuits against attorneys who violate the code. They also loosened the rules to make lawsuits, if they are permitted, more difficult to prove.

While they want to provide the cynical illusion that they are making it easier for damaged citizens to sue lawyers, they are not. Think about the Judge Larry Schwartz's who can't screw up the courage to report attorney misconduct out of fear of what the lawyers on the judicial performance commission might say. How would you like to spend a few tens of thousands of dollars preparing for a lawsuit only to be assigned to him or one of his ilk who would dismiss the case on his discretion? It would be like making money evaporate.

8. Our favorite office in Colorado government is the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel. It receives no public funding, so it is not accountable to the legislature. It's funds come from the Bar Association, so it sees itself as accountable to it. It is the only "paperless office" in all of government. It has its own definition of that term. It almost never sends letters or emails and would prefer not to receive them. When it responds to complaints, an attorney schedules a phone call, ensuring that there is no hard record of what they did or even what the complaint was. Any investigation of that operation would require endless man hours to listen to and transcribe these taped conversations.

Last year, just before the election, Attorney Regulation scheduled a three-day ethics hearing for Republican District Attorney Carol Chambers. It was nothing more than a political show trial intended to impact the election. The results were released on the day after Christmas and no real penalties were assessed because of the weak evidence. It did cost the people of Arapahoe county $100,000 and it probably did impact the election. At the very least, the timing was poor judgment. We think it was a gross abuse of the system, again by the Supreme Court.

Other than this kind of political prosecution, John Gleason, head of Attorney Regulation is happy to parrot his masters on the Supreme Court, telling attorneys that they have little to fear from his office.

9. Our favorite term is "judicial independence." That, according to attorneys, judges, and their apologists is the gold standard. If anyone suggests that the public would be better off if these people actually were accountable, the Colorado Bar Association screams those magic words in the hope that everyone will back off. The public pays a heavy price for unaccountable judges, and the CBA intends to keep it that way, if they can.

10. While the CBA is unwilling to allow its members to be disciplined or sued, it is quite happy to go to the legislature and ask that it be easier to sue home builders and doctors. Bill Ritter didn't much mind signing those bills. He and John Suthers will be the first two politicians to speak up for that old canard, judicial independence. Just Watch.

We could go on and on with this. How about the man who attempted to get the attention of Attorney Regulation for seven years? How about the lawyer husband of a judge who was awarded $350 an hour attorneys fees by another judge when his normal fee was $250 an hour? We wouldn't want to forget the man who made a complaint to Judicial Discipline about a judge failing to make a ruling for years and was told they had no jurisdiction. How about the man who was the victim of easily documentable perjury and sued only to be told by an appeals court in a non public ruling that he couldn't force the DA to press charges?

We don't think John Andrews will mind if we observe that term limits is mild medicine for a profession as determined to mess with the public as our Colorado legal system is. Too mild!

Let county commissioners entrench?

Should voters allow the five well-paid individuals who govern one of Colorado's biggest counties, Arapahoe, to settle in for 12-year stretches instead of the current 8-year maximum provided by law? That's the question on county ballots that my family and our half-million neighbors will soon receive in the mail. Commissioner Rod Bockenfeld says no to the idea, as do I. Here is Bockenfeld's argument: Recently the Arapahoe County Board of County Commissioners approved an initiative to be placed on this year’s election ballot which will be mailed by mid October. The initiative will be requesting voters to expand terms limit for County Commissioners from two four-year terms to three four-year terms. The Board was split on this vote. Commissioner Pat Noonan of Aurora and I were opposed to the initiative. A couple of Commissioners had the desire to place this initiative on the ballot - it was not the taxpayers demanding change. The cost to the taxpayers of Arapahoe County to place this initiative on the ballot will be anywhere from $90,000 to $130,000. Is this a good use of taxpayer dollars?

Several years ago, the voters of Arapahoe County did approve expanded terms for the other county elected officials such as the Sheriff, Coroner, Clerk & Recorder, Treasurer and Assessor. Expanded terms for these offices can be justified due to the technical nature of the positions. The Board of County Commissioners at that time did not include the Office of Commissioner because they felt that it would appear to be self serving. Now, a majority on the current Board of County Commissioners feels that because the other offices were given expanded terms they can justify this initiative by asking for equality. I disagree with their logic, it is still self serving.

I don’t believe the Citizens of Arapahoe County want career politicians representing them in Littleton. They want people who are going to take office, make a difference and then go back to their private lives. When I was elected, I knew I had one or two terms to make a difference. Term limits keep elected officials motivated to work hard and to create good government. That is the definition of public service. Career politicians get more and more influenced from special interest groups over time. One only has to pick up the newspaper and read about the goings on in Washington D.C. to understand this concept.

Lastly, the reason this initiative is being run in an off year election is because there is an expectation that there will be a low voter turnout. A low voter turnout on these types of ballot questions increases the odds of success. So, surprise them! When you receive your ballot in the mail, make sure you fill it out immediately and mail it back.

Let’s keep our elected officials as public servants and not career politicians. Let’s keep our elected officials accountable to the people. Let’s keep fresh blood and fresh ideas in the Commissioner’s Office. I’m asking you to please vote “NO” on expanded terms.

By Rod Bockenfeld Arapahoe County Commissioner District # 3 Email: rbockenfeld@co.arapahoe.co.us 303-795-4683