Yes or No on Centennial charter?

Nine weeks ahead of Centennial's home-rule election, opponents have begun to organize. Bold red "NOCC" flyers circulated at the Arapahoe Republican breakfast on April 9, and a rudimentary No on Centennial Charter website is up at www.nocc2008.com. Ron Phelps, a city council candidate last year, is one of the organizers. He was quoted in the Centennial Citizen last week as warning: "The more government grows, the more government seems to want to impose itself on all of us. A home-rule city would have the authority to reach into all our lives. That's not my paradigm of government."

To the contrary, said incumbent councilman Ron Weidmann in the same story: "The charter actually has more limits than leaving things as is." Well, let's see how the facts shake out in coming weeks. Which view is right? That's why they have election.

Interesting, though, Weidmann also asserted this: "It is important to understand those that opposed the city originally are those opposing the charter - no matter what it says."

That's not true in my own case. As a new state senator in January 1999, the first legislation I helped pass was a bill facilitating Centennial's petition and referendum for incorporation as a new city. I supported that successful vote the following September, and campaigned accordingly in my own reelection that November.

So shooting the messenger, which the councilman is clumsily attempting to do, won't work with this early pro-city guy. And I doubt it will work with many of those who are now expressing concerns similar to mine -- concerns not about having a city at all, but about whether the city's political maturity and leadership cadre are as yet ready for the additional powers that Phelps pointed to.

Slurs upon the motives of charter opponents, ala Weidmann, or inside power plays to marginalize the clerk and treasurer prior to declaring them unnecessary, as Linda Gawlik describes in the foregoing post, would seem to suggest they are not ready.

But the campaign leading up to election day, June 10, is just beginning. Let's hope the Yes or No debate can be conducted on the merits, not with such juvenile tactics as these.

Centennial needs checks & balances

The Mayor, the Treasurer and the City Clerk are the only officials elected city wide, to protect the interests of everyone. Do we really want to eliminate two out of three? Editor: So writes Linda Gawlik, the elected clerk of Centennial, and potentially the last person who will ever hold that post, if voters approve the city's proposed home rule charter in a June 10 election. She was replying to a story in the Centennial Citizen, March 27, entitled "The Case of the Missing Clerk and Treasurer." Here is her letter in full:

In your article, I found two quotes by Cathy Noon, chair of the Centennial charter commission that I would like to address. One quote stated, “The city clerk doesn’t run elections. The county clerk does that.”

I would like to clarify that the June 10, 2008 special election to vote on the proposed city charter is being handled by the Deputy City Clerk of Centennial, Brenda Castle, an employee of the city. Mayor Randy Pye named Castle the “Designated Election Official” in the fall of 2007. As I was not sworn in as City Clerk until January of this year, I do not know what precipitated that appointment. I do know that Arapahoe County Clerk Nancy Doty has had no input in the preparations for the city election. Doty was unable to handle a third election this year because her office is fully engaged with the August primaries and the November elections. I am sure Mayor Pye or City Attorney Robert Widner could clarify why Centennial’s proposed charter election could not be included in the August or November elections.

I would liked to have been more involved in the city’s upcoming election, but Castle told me it is a “one person” job right now, but she would be willing to name me as one of the three Election Judges she will be appointing. After giving this more thought, I believe I must recuse myself from the city’s election process because the proposed charter eliminates both the elected Treasurer and City Clerk positions. I believe these positions should be elected and therefore I have a vested interest in the outcome of the election, as does Castle.

The second quote from Noon was in reference to both the City Clerk and Treasurer positions. She stated, “No particular training is required for either job—…” I believe Noon has missed the point of having elected officials who report to the voters, not the Mayor, City Council or the City Manager.

I would like to point out that no elected official is required to submit a resume to run for political office. However, voters find out about all of their candidates through campaign literature, campaign speeches, the media, gatherings to “meet the candidates,” and word of mouth. The voters decide the person that they want to represent them for every office. The fact that the Mayor and previous members of the City council saw fit to eliminate any “real power” from these positions, as Noon pointed out, should highlight to the citizens of Centennial the need to continue to have elected officials who can remain independent of city control.

All elected officials represent the voters and should be respected and valued because they represent their constituents. The Mayor, the Treasurer and the City Clerk are the only officials elected city wide and they are expected to protect the interests of everyone in the city by being the eyes and ears of the voters. Do we really want to eliminate two out of three? Transparency is essential to good government if we want to regain the trust of the voters.

Cult of violence headed our way

"We need three things: one, guns; two, guns, and three, again and again, guns! Do you think we can defeat the Czar with bare hands? Never." In these words Joseph Stalin as a youthful radical once incited a crowd, according to Michael Weiss's review of the new biography, Young Stalin. (Weekly Standard, March 10, subscription required.)

Uncle Joe, as Franklin Roosevelt flippantly called the tyrant, apparently had a real-estate man's (location, location, location) instinct for emphasis through repetition. When he was Soviet dictator, his instructions for KGB interrogation of suspected traitors used the same triple rhythm: "Beat, beat, and once again, beat!"

If all this seems long ago and far away, consider how the glorification of violence and "direct action" lives on in the hoodlum swagger of Denver's own Re-create '68 group, the movement to disrupt this summer's Democratic National Convention.

Although a recent Rocky profile of their leader, Glenn Spagnuolo, has him claiming that any trouble will start with the police, not with his followers, that's hardly the import of his threat about "a very dangerous situation" ensuing from the group's failure to draw their desired protest site in a city-run lottery. Why evoke the Chicago riots of 1968, except with the cynical intent of provoking official backlash -- creating a powder keg and then blaming others when it ignites?

Michael Weiss likens the young Stalin to Zarqawi, the late Al Qaeda terrorist leader in Iraq. Not to say that Spagnuolo and his ilk are devoted to a global caliphate or to the imposition of Leninism by any means necessary -- but all were or are infected in varying degrees by the same bacillus of fanatical self-righteousness, cold hate, and political judo wherewith to use the regime's humane scruples against itself.

Our American system of free government, in Spagnuolo's words, "needs to be completely eliminated and replaced," and he believes (in the words of that Rocky profile) that "revolutionary politics are the best way" to accomplish that. Be careful, Glenn -- you are playing with fire.

And be careful, Denver -- it is but a short distance from those lofty generalities of Re-create '68 to the practical conclusions voiced by Uncle Joe: "Guns, guns, guns. Beat, beat, beat."

Hope springs eternal for GOP in 2010

(Denver Post, Apr. 6) Sports mementos line the Denver Athletic Club, old photos recalling bygone glories. It was a good setting for the Republican gathering of eagles on March 27, when presidential nominee John McCain swept into town with former rival Mitt Romney at his side. Many of us at the fundraiser had bygone glories on our mind. We were gauging not only the prospects for a White House victory in 2008, but also the personnel for a Colorado comeback by the GOP in 2010 after years in the wilderness. What I saw was a roomful of intriguing possibilities. At a press conference earlier, US Sen. Wayne Allard and the candidate running to succeed him, former Rep. Bob Schaffer, stood flanking McCain. Hopes for electing both are buoyed by Schaffer’s resilience in the polls against Democrat Mark Udall and by the Obama-Clinton bloodbath to McCain’s benefit.

Such a double win could build Republican momentum for 2010, when all state offices are up. Should my party lose one or both races, on the other hand, dominance by Democrats in the state and in Washington might whet voters’ appetite for divided government next time. Either way, we’ll have a shot at denying reelection to Gov. Bill Ritter and US Sen. Ken Salazar.

But who, the athletic club crowd wondered, might be our starting team for these contests? Take the governor’s race first. Ritter has shown weak leadership, accomplished little, and alienated business with his labor moves. He can be had. Allard, former Sen. Hank Brown, former Rep. Scott McInnis, former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, businessman Pete Coors, or state Senate stars like Mark Hillman and Josh Penry could all run.

Challenging Salazar may be tougher, but his chameleon voting record spells vulnerability. Former Gov. Bill Owens, his 65% popularity intact and marital troubles behind him, might grab the brass ring this time after passing in 2004. Done with Congress, battle-tested from the presidential primaries, Tom Tancredo admits a Senate run in ’10 appeals to him. Former Rep. Bob Beauprez may have the itch as well.

For wild cards in either race, think about Attorney General John Suthers, assistant Senate leader Nancy Spence, radio host Dan Caplis, Colorado Springs kingmaker Steve Schuck, Bruce Benson after a couple of years running CU, education reformers Alex Cranberg and Ed McVaney, or restaurateur John Elway. (Yes, No. 7 does fantasize about recreating the Drive with voters.)

Now consider the GOP depth chart for down-ballot contests. Democratic Reps. John Salazar out west and Ed Perlmutter in the suburbs aren’t endangered this year but could be in 2010. Likewise Lt. Gov. Barbara O’Brien, State Treasurer Cary Kennedy, and Ritter’s potential appointee at Secretary of State – if Mike Coffman succeeds Tancredo. Who might take them on?

For Congress, think Penry or state Rep. Ellen Roberts against Salazar, district attorney Carol Chambers (if she’d move a few miles north) or state Rep. Rob Witwer against Perlmutter. Statewide candidates might include the House minority leader, bulldog Mike May, and some of his fellow legislators such as Reps. Cory Gardner, David Balmer, and Amy Stephens, or Sens. Shawn Mitchell and Mike Kopp.

Republican bench strength is great overall. Three of the four vying for 6th congressional – Coffman, Sens. Ted Harvey and Steve Ward, and entrepreneur Wil Armstrong – will figure in future elections somewhere. The 5th congressional insurgents, Jeff Crank and Bentley Rayburn, likely losers against Rep. Doug Lamborn this summer, might resurface later. Even Mark Holtzman and Rick O’Donnell, who left Colorado after their 2006 defeats, could dramatically return like Foote and Forsberg.

Elephant Republicans taking the hustings against donkey Democrats: there’s a timeless beauty to it, like National League meeting American League on the diamond. After 2008 comes the 2009 off-season, then 2010 and a whole new ballgame. Hope springs eternal.

Nottingham impeachment should proceed

"During good behavior" is the constitutional standard for a federal judge to continue serving. Sen. Ken Salazar has wondered publicly whether Judge Edward Nottingham of the US District Court in Denver measures up. It certainly appears he does not, and I hope the senator takes action. We think of the federal judiciary as serving for life, only because a mere 13 judges have ever been impeached, and only seven of those have actually been convicted and removed from office. But the congressional power of removal is right there in Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution.

The allegations against Nottingham, a George H.W. Bush appointee and former law-firm associate of Salazar's, were characterized by the senator in a Denver Post story on Mar. 28 as suggesting the judge has failed to "serve in an exemplary manner, both on and off the court." He is accused of drunken carousing at strip clubs, surfing porn sites in his chambers, patronizing an escort service, and behaving abusively toward a wheelchair-bound woman in a parking dispute.

The case highlights a definitional gap between the Article II language about "impeachment for... treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," and the Article III clause about good behavior. While being a sleaze, a lush, and a boor may not be a firing offense in some jobs, let alone a crime or misdemeanor, it surely violates the behavior expected of federal judges, as Salazar's words indicate. "Bringing disrepute on the federal judiciary and betraying the public's trust" were two of the three offenses for which Judge Harry Claiborne of Nevada was impeached and convicted in 1986, according to the Justice at Stake campaign. Sounds like Judge Nottingham to me.

The Justice at Stake backgrounder linked above quotes the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist as saying that removal of judges by Congress over policy disputes was forever put off limits by the 1806 acquittal of Samuel Chase, the only Supreme Court justice ever impeached. This is no more than one man's opinion, however, since the judicial branch (and the executive) explicitly have no role whatsover in, and no judgment over, the legislative branch's impeachment power. Indeed the institutionally self-serving bias of Rehnquist's opinion could not be more obvious.

Of course he wouldn't want any countervailing authority from Congress against the Supreme Court's potential overreaching and abuse of judicial power. But so what? It remains for Congress to do what its members have the constitutional fidelity and political courage to go ahead and do.

Though I as a Republican seldom agree with Salazar as a Democrat, in this case I salute his fidelity and courage for threatening the ultimate sanction against a seemingly out-of-control Judge Nottingham. The concern here is obviously not policy, but morality, ethics, decorum, and demeanor (NB: the opposite of misdemeanor). Regardless, I argue we need more -- much more -- recourse to impeachment of judges, and as the legislative branch begins finding its nerve on the personal-conduct front, perhaps congressmen and senators will start picking the right fights on the power-abuse front as well.

Justice at Stake, as you will see from their website, is a coalition of the judicial and legal establishment which seems to want just the opposite of what I and other judicial reformers do. They note worriedly that three of the seven successful removals of wayward federal judges have occurred in the past two decades -- that of Claiborne in 1986, followed by those of Judge Alcee Hastings in Florida for perjury and bribery and Judge Walter Nixon in Mississippi for lying to a grand jury, both in 1989. They also note that threats of impeachment to state judges have recently almost doubled, from 27 in the four years before 2001 to 51 in the four years after.

This they attribute to a "growing 'outrage industry' seeking to intimidate and fire judges." That's one view. Another view would be that judicial activism on policy -- and the accompanying God complex leading to personal recklessness such as Colorado has seen in the recent Nottingham, Manzanares, and Biddle episodes -- has pushed citizens and political actors to the breaking point, with consequent willingness to treat the impeachment provisions of our federal and state constitutions as less of a dead letter.

One of the most dramatic moments of my six years in the Colorado Senate (and one of my keenest personal regrets for not having supported it) came in the spring of 2004 when then-state Rep. Greg Brophy and other House Republicans filed House Resolution 1007 as a bill of impeachment against state Judge John Coughlin on two counts of "malfeasance in office for denying the right to freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Section 4 of Article II of the Colorado Constitution" and one count of disregarding the Colorado Revised Statutes, stemming from his ruling in a two-mommies adoption case.

That measure, sadly, died in the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee, with Speaker Lola Spradley offering little encouragement and with Gov. Bill Owens -- along with Senate President John Andrews -- on record against it.

But Brophy was right and I was wrong. If I had it to do again, I would support the Coughlin impeachment. Ken Salazar is right about the Nottingham impeachment today. It should proceed.