Mountain Mail Letter to the editor 3-22-22
Submitted to Salida School Board 4/6/22
To: Salida School Board 4/6/22
From: Vince Phillips
April 11, the Salida School Board will discuss the renewal of Superintendent David Blackburn’s contract, with a potential $30,000/year pay increase. The childish actions of Superintendent Blackburn during the September 23 lockdown should be sufficient reason to deny renewal. Add inability to prevent his hand-picked High School Principal Talmage Trujillo from repeatedly breaking the law, along with a hostile stance toward law enforcement(and hence student safety) on campuses, and you have a toxic brew.
But I want to instead review the facts surrounding Supt Blackburn’s involvement in another situation: CMC Annexation. In November, 2019 the public voted whether the Salida School District should be annexed into Colorado Mountain College(CMC). I objected at that time to the ballot language, which violated TABOR by not mentioning the property tax to be levied, and wrote three letters on this topic to the Mountain Mail(Attached).
I concluded:
“Is this the example you wish to set for children: It is acceptable to obscure, cheat, lie and dodge questions – as long as you get your way?”
Superintendent Blackburn reached out for clarification. My response about the latest outrage:
" It was never disclosed before the election that the CMC tax would be levied for the entirety of 2019, not just the two months of 2019 from the 11/5/19 election date."
“This retroactive tax was then not disclosed between the election and when the tax bills arrived. It was instead an unpleasant surprise.”
" There has been no official response defining how this retroactive tax is justified. Chaffee County Assessor Brenda Mosby says she was told the “Ballot Language” allowed the retroactive tax to occur, but she did not understand how this was. Since the tax is not mentioned in the ballot language, I do not understand it either. My cynicism tells me that since it is completely undefined in the tax language, CMC felt empowered to implement this tax any way they wanted."
Superintendent Blackburn response:
“Thank you for clarifying. I of course also read your letter to the editor. Where I return for where this exact topic is discussed is the published Feasibility Study that was publicly accepted by both elected boards. I know I was disappointed when few people showed up at the Salida presentation of the Feasibility Study before it was voted on. I have attached the weblink to find that study. The information on the tax is in multiple places, but I go to page 9 where it shows 2019 year 0 tax revenue. The tax was applied in the most standard way. The tax was not applied in any unusual way.”
I read this report in 2019, but the link is now nonfunctional. Let me summarize the response: The School held an obscure, poorly attended meeting mostly populated by those favoring CMC annexation. If you had seen this presentation, and had understood that " 2019 year 0 tax revenue" meant the tax was retroactive, then you would be informed. No one ever intended to publicly emphasize this retroactive tax, which may have dissuaded voters. This action was the equivalent of hiding behind the “fine print”.
This response shows the contempt Superintendent Blackburn has for Salidans. The truth is that the machinery of the Salida School district was hijacked and used to brainwash the voter into approval, which was in violation of CRS:
1-45-117. State and political subdivisions - limitations on contributions. (1) (a) (I) No agency, department, board, division, bureau, commission, or council of the state or any political subdivision of the state shall make any contribution in campaigns involving the nomination, retention, or election of any person to any public office, nor shall any such entity make any donation to any other person for the purpose of making an independent expenditure, nor shall any such entity expend any moneys from any source, or make any contributions, to urge electors to vote in favor of or against any:
(B) Local ballot issue that has been submitted for the purpose of having a title fixed pursuant to section 31-11-111 or that has had a title fixed pursuant to that section;
What I witnessed during the campaign was outsized advocacy from Supt Blackburn, The Salida school board, and many Salida employees. I observed School employees mindlessly shilling for passing CMC Annexation during work hours. In my 12/18/19 letter to the School Board(attached), I asked a series of questions about this legally troubling activity. These questions were neither addressed nor answered.
I believe an independent review of Supt Blackburn’s deceitful and potentially unlawful actions orchestrating CMC Annexation provide sufficient justification for declining contract renewal.
I also believe that the Salida School Board should evaluate the actions of their predecessors (including holdovers from that Board), and never allow such an outrage to repeat.
The wound created by this episode is still festering. People are struggling to pay their property tax bills, and are angry the school district used their tax money to advocate for CMC annexation resulting in additional taxation. They are doubly vexed because their school-bound tax money pays for educational policies they do not trust. If you want to mend these fences, promise honesty and openness going forward. Acknowledge past mistakes, hire new leadership, and request you be granted a clean slate. If you continue on your current path, resistance to your actions will increase exponentially. Please give me a reason to support you.
Vince Phillips
Salida, CO
Supporting Letters to 4/6/22 letter submission:
Letters to Mountain Mail:
School board should vacate election
Oct 28, 2019
Dear Editor:
The Salida school board made a conscious choice not to mention the property tax in the 5A Colorado Mountain College annexation ballot language. Then the ballots arrived with no blue book information for 5A. The justification for both? Not legally required.
Ironic that people who claim to be pro-education seem singularly uninterested in educating the public to make an informed voting decision
In an Oct. 18 editorial, MJB mentioned the problem with the ballot language, before concluding we must vote yes on 5A. He concluded only a “handful” of people voting would be unaware of the tax.
But exactly where are voters supposed to learn about it? Flyers from Friends of Salida Schools? The Salida School Stories website? Ubiquitous yard signs that demand you vote “Yes”? Not everyone reads The Mountain Mail. 5A applies not only to Salidans, but thousands more in rural Chaffee and Fremont counties.
It seemed that while CMC had initiated this “TABOR does not apply to 5A” strategy, the school board must have reviewed it. I requested documents from the school board election representative on Oct. 18. My request was denied with: “The School District consulted with Dee Wisor, an attorney who is a TABOR expert, and he advised the district that this is not a TABOR matter. Any written communications about this are privileged.”
Great logic. They use a lawyer opinion “that this is not a TABOR matter” to justify they have no need to prove “this is not a TABOR matter.”
After this evasive response, I sought an outside opinion from Douglas Bruce, the original author of TABOR legislation. Surely he would know what he intended when he wrote it. I supplied him with the Sept. 6 article in The Mountain Mail in which the CMC CEO “explained that because Salida voters will be voting on whether to become part of the CMC team, for which the tax already exists, TABOR rules do not apply, and the amount of the tax does not need to be part of the question.”
Mr. Bruce’s response? “The school district’s actions are illegal. TABOR 3(c) and 4(a) say any new tax requires voter approval in advance. This will be a new property tax on your property. … They say TABOR allows it; they are liars.”
I appreciate those who volunteer their time to the school board, but this sacrifice does not give them the right to mislead the public with a property tax surprise this new year.
To boil this down, 5A would result in $580 in additional property taxes on a commercial building worth $500,000 and $140 in additional property taxes on a residence worth $500,000. This will lead to higher rents and larger carrying costs for families in Salida.
The school board should vacate the 5A election or the election result and come back next time with an honest and ethical proposal. They won’t, so send the board a message: Vote no on 5A.
Vince Phillips,
Salida
Condemns school board actions
Dec 4, 2019
Dear Editor:
Addressing the illegitimate vote approving 5A, annexation into the Colorado Mountain College district:
In a Nov. 7 Mountain Mail ad, the “Friends of Salida Schools” (fronting the Salida school board) offered a “Thank you, Salida, for those who supported.” They extended this thanks to “those who asked questions.”
Fine – except no one answered “those who asked questions.” The school board declared the 5A election exempt from the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, which required the ballot language to start with “SHALL TAXES BE INCREASED … ?” in capital letters.
I requested the school district provide a legal opinion supporting why the CMC ballot exemption from TABOR. They refused. I consulted Douglas Bruce, author of TABOR, and quoted him saying the actions of the Salida school board were “illegal.” Still no reply. Instead there was ballot language not mentioning the tax, and no blue book defining what we were voting on. A disinformation campaign, characterized by almost complete lack of information.
The one attempted explanation appeared in a Oct. 15 Mountain Mail letter signed “Margaret Dean for Friends of Salida Schools”: “Regrettably, the ballot language does obscure the tax increase required of us to join the CMC district. That language was employed to avoid confusion among those voters who will not realize property tax increases.” Where was the effort to avoid confusion among those voters who would “realize property tax increases”?
This letter acknowledges the philosophy driving pro-5A: Elections are a formality. Voters, not smart enough to think for themselves, must be manipulated into voting for the proper outcome. Who defines this proper outcome? Why, CMC, Salida school board, Friends of Salida Schools, and Salida City Council, of course!
The Friends of Salida Schools ad signs off with “Time to move forward.” They want us to forget about their dishonesty. Assuming no legal action blocks this election outcome for violating TABOR, what would a “move forward” actually look like?
Pro-5A forces promised 5A money would be reserved five years for Salida. This appeared in Friends of Salida Schools mailers and The Mountain Mail, and swayed some “yes” votes.
Yet none of the self-congratulatory interviews after the election mention this promise. I failed to find an official document to support this claim. Is this because the only official document is the ballot language itself? Is there a written contract with terms for handling the almost $6 million to be collected in Salida over the next five years, or an escrow account whose contents can be tracked by concerned citizens?
Is it instead possible our money will be diverted to CMC’s unfunded pension liabilities? Unfunded liabilities listed in CMC financial statements, now partially owed by us, but never disclosed by our school board?
I condemn the actions of the Salida school board for doing their best imitation of our Salida City Council. Is this the example you wish to set for children: It is acceptable to obscure, cheat, lie and dodge questions – as long as you get your way?
Vince Phillips, Salida
‘Stop playing fast and loose’
Feb 3, 2020
Dear Editor:
Colorado Mountain College, without prior notification, has billed our property taxes retroactively for all of 2019, even though Initiative 5A passed on Nov. 5? Nifty way to get an extra $906,828.
Just their latest outrage
The Salida School District sponsored 5A, asking to join CMC Taxing District. No mention of mill levy tax on ballot. The reason given? A Dee Wisor legal opinion: This is not a new tax – they were merely extending an existing tax into a new district. TABOR supposedly did not apply.
The school district initially refused to give me this legal opinion, citing privilege.
5A passed 60-40 percent.
I sent the school board a letter before its Dec. 9 meeting, which was placed into the school board member packet, but mysteriously not the public packet. I detailed my investigation. I again requested the withheld Dee Wisor legal opinion. I also asked questions:
• How much did 5A lobbying cost Salida School District taxpayers?
• Was this budgeted?
• If board members/employees were against 5A, was school-sponsored money/time made available to “No on 5A” lobbying?
• Was passing 5A a performance objective for any Salida School District employees?
No answers to these questions, but Dec. 16 I received a copy of a legal opinion. Dated Dec. 10, it is not the original pre-election opinion.
It cites three legal precedents:
-
Bruce v. Colorado Springs. Irrelevant.
-
A case involving RTD, in which a specific statute within RTD resulted in the finding. We do not have this statute. Irrelevant.
-
A Legislative Legal Services Memo discussing a vote to move an area from one school district to another school district. Irrelevant.
To summarize, their touted legal argument for avoiding TABOR was somewhere between flimsy and nonexistent. No wonder they hid it.
The final paragraph contains the big finish. Wisor says it’s too late: A challenge must be filed within five days of election. Never mind that withholding the legal opinion until well after the election prevented a timely challenge.
(Note: As a TABOR violation, it is not clear the normal five-day limit applies.)
A dirty little secret: Local elected officials have figured out they can do almost anything – as long as their lawyer backs their play. The magic words are “Our lawyer says it’s OK.”
Their only obstacle is formal legal challenge, where the opinion is provided by an impartial judge, not their prepaid partisan lawyer. This challenge requires someone either spend $10,000s of their own money or find pro-bono representation. Our elected officials have deep pockets (our tax money), staff lawyers and no personal skin in the game. Not a fair fight.
So how much did our school district spend advocating for CMC? If they hadn’t spent this money, would they need to monumentally raise facility user fees on citizens, causing the uproar described in the Jan. 15 Mountain Mail?
I urge our local elected officials to stop playing fast and loose with the truth. “We the People” are sick of it.
Vince Phillips,
Salida
To: Salida School Board 12/8/19
Salida Schools Superintendent
c/o Brandy Coscarella
From: Vince Phillips
Re: CMC Annexation
People have expressed concerns over the two letters I wrote re: 5A CMC annexation that appeared in the Mountain Mail recently. I am writing you to clarify my position, and how I arrived at it.
When I started hearing about CMC Annexation, I did my homework. I read all available documents. I went online and studied CMC Budgets and audited financial documents. I learned about the unique model CMC uses for self-financing-which passes on 2/3 of the cost of the education from the student to the local property owner. It was an eye-opener.
My State Income taxes already pay for 18% of the Colorado State budget going to higher learning. I felt 5A was an additional burden on top of what I was already paying. I consider it a “Rural Tax”. If you want a college in Salida, you have to first pay for colleges elsewhere with your state income tax, and then pay again for CMC in your own town with this Special District tax. I also did not like the multiple lawsuits CMC had engaged in, and did not trust how Buena Vista was treated. I planned to vote no on 5A for these and other reasons, but had no plan to go public with my thoughts on 5A.
Then it was announced that the 5A ballot language would not mention the tax. This bugged me. The explanation provided by the CMC CEO that this was a result of TABOR not applying to these situation sounded suspicious. However, I thought there would be a published blue book explanation of the 5A Ballot Issue. While this would not have replaced Ballot Language mentioning the tax, it would have been sufficient to alleviate my major concerns. I was shocked when I received no blue book with my ballot.
I contacted Chaffee County Clerk Lori Mitchell to ask about the Blue book for 5A, and received the following replies 10/17/19:
“The School District deemed the ballot measure not to be a TABOR issue so they did not prepare a Blue Book. You may contact the district for more information.”
“Contact at school district is Brandy Coscarella. She is designated election official of school district.”
I emailed Brandy Coscarella 10/18/19. I was very explicit about what I wanted and why:
" I wrote Chaffee County Clerk and Recorder Lori Mitchell to ask why there was no blue book or other information about 5A accompanying my ballot. She explained that one was not created because TABOR did not require it. I had heard that same TABOR argument as the justification for not describing the tax increase in the ballot language. I have attached a Mountain Mail article below for your reference. Lori then referred me to you as the School Board Representative for the election.
I assume that this TABOR-based explanation is not just an opinion by CMC Senior Administrative Staff, but must be the subject of some sort of legal analysis and report. I further assume that prior to going out on a limb and supporting this opinion, members of the Salida School Board must have reviewed any legal opinions validating this strategy.
I wish to independently review these documents.
I therefore request that you disclose to me via email any files that use TABOR as the legal basis for not including the tax on the ballot, and further allowed you to not provide a blue book or any other accompanying documentation to detail the costs of 5A, not just the benefits.
Time is short-the ballots have already been received by voters. I anticipate a rapid response to this simple request."
I received a prompt email from Brandy 10/18/19 stating that she was offsite, and since it was Friday school was not in session. She would get back to me Monday. True to her word, on 10/21/19 I received the following reply:
“Hi Vince-
The School District consulted with Dee Wisor, an attorney who is a TABOR expert, and he advised the District that this is not a TABOR matter. Any written communications about this are privileged. The Resolution the School Board passed in August that complies with our legal counsel’s direction follows.”
My interpretation: We do not have to tell you why 5A is not a TABOR matter, because 5A is not a TABOR matter. Stonewall.
I contacted Douglas Bruce, the author of TABOR legislation. His 10/21/19 reply in full:
"The school district’s actions are ILLEGAL. TABOR 3 (c) and 4 (a) say any new tax requires voter approval in advance. This will be a new property tax on your property.
It’s too late to stop the vote. Do you have a sympathetic attorney in your area who will file a suit (filing within five days is NOT required by TABOR–he or she may call me)?
He or she can be awarded attorney fees if successful, under TABOR (1).
File on your own if you must. Be clear you are not asking for personal exclusion from the tax, but judicial invalidation of the election results, which involve extension of the tax to property not currently in the district.
You should organize a group to recall ALL members of the school board who put this on the ballot. They say TABOR allows it; they are LIARS. Find citizens to run who will replace
them. Recalls have high signature requirements. Do you have school board elections next month? If you can’t meet 150% of the target signature requirement, get people to run NOW for school board seats in the next two elections."
If my primary goal was to stir up maximum controversy, I would have publicly quoted his entire response. After this exchange, I discussed my options with an Attorney. I then submitted the following letter to the MM on 10/24/19, which appeared on 10/28/19:
"The Salida School Board made a conscious choice not to mention the property tax in the 5A CMC Annexation ballot language. Then the ballots arrived with no blue book information for 5A. The justification for both? Not legally required.
Ironic that people who claim to be pro-education seem singularly uninterested in educating the public to make an informed voting decision.
In a 10/18/19 editorial, MJB mentioned the problem with the ballot language, before concluding we must vote yes on 5A. He concluded only a “handful” of people voting would be unaware of the tax. But exactly where are voters supposed to learn about it? Flyers from the Friends of Salida Schools? The Salida School Stories website? Ubiquitous yard signs that demand you vote “Yes”? Not everyone reads the Mountain Mail. 5A applies not only to Salidans, but thousands more in rural Chaffee and Fremont Counties.
It seemed that while CMC had initiated this “TABOR does not apply to 5A” strategy, the School Board must have reviewed it. I requested documents from the School Board Election Representative on 10/18/19. My request was denied with: “The School District consulted with Dee Wisor, an attorney who is a TABOR expert, and he advised the District that this is not a TABOR matter. Any written communications about this are privileged.” Great logic! They use a lawyer opinion “that this is not a TABOR matter” to justify they have no need to prove “this is not a TABOR matter”.
After this evasive response, I sought an outside opinion from Douglas Bruce, the original author of TABOR legislation. Surely he would know what he intended when he wrote it. I supplied him with the 9/6/19 article in the Mountain Mail in which the CEO of CMC “explained that because Salida voters will be voting on whether to become part of the CMC team, for which the tax already exists, TABOR rules do not apply, and the amount of the tax does not need to be part of the question.”
Mr. Bruce’s response? " The school district’s actions are ILLEGAL. TABOR 3 (c) and 4 (a) say any
new tax requires voter approval in advance. This will be a new property tax on your property. . . .They say TABOR allows it; they are LIARS. "
I appreciate those who volunteer their time to the school board, but this sacrifice does not give them the right to mislead the public with a property tax surprise this new year.
To boil this down, 5A would result in $580 dollars in additional property taxes on a commercial building worth $500,000 and $140 dollars in additional property taxes on a residence worth $500,000. This will lead to higher rents and larger carrying costs for families in Salida.
The School Board should vacate the 5A election or the election result and come back next time with an honest and ethical proposal. They won’t, so send the board a message: Vote NO on 5A.
Vince Phillips, Salida"
I expected some sort of public response from the letter. If the Salida School Board felt I was speaking out of turn, this was an opportunity to clear the record. Nada.
Eight days later, the election occurred on 11/5/19. Obviously 5A passed. I was not happy with the result. I felt, then and now, that many voters would not know that that there was a tax associated with 5A. (Since the second letter was published, I have been approached by several people who regretted voting “Yes on 5A” because they did not know it would cost anything.)
Anyway, I was planning to let this matter go. I left for a 2+ week trip after the election. While I was on the road, I read the Mountain Mail online, and saw the ad taken out by the “Friends of Salida Schools”. It was the tone-deaf nature of this ad which elicited my second letter, which appeared in the MM 12/4/19:
"Addressing the illegitimate vote approving 5A–annexation into the Colorado Mountain College(CMC) District:
In an 11/7/19 Mountain Mail ad, the “Friends of Salida Schools” (fronting the Salida School Board) offered a “Thank you Salida!.. for those who supported”. They extended this thanks to “those who asked questions”. Fine-except no one answered “those who asked questions”. The School Board declared the 5A election exempt from the Tax Payer Bill of Rights (TABOR), which required the ballot language to start with “SHALL TAXES BE INCREASED…?” in capital letters. I requested the School District provide a legal opinion supporting why the CMC ballot exemption from TABOR. They refused. I consulted Douglas Bruce, the author of TABOR, and quoted him saying the actions of the Salida School Board were “illegal”. Still no reply. Instead there was ballot language not mentioning the tax, and no blue book defining what we were voting on. A disinformation campaign, characterized by an almost complete lack of information!
The one attempted explanation appeared in a 10/15/19 Mountain Mail letter signed “Margaret Dean for Friends of Salida Schools”: “Regrettably, the ballot language does obscure the tax increase required of us to join the CMC district. That language was employed to avoid confusion among those voters who will not realize property tax increases. " Where was the effort to avoid confusion among those voters who WOULD “realize property tax increases”?
This letter acknowledges the philosophy driving pro-5A: elections are a formality. Voters, not smart enough to think for themselves must be manipulated into voting for the proper outcome. Who defines this proper outcome? Why… CMC, Salida School Board, Friends of Salida Schools, and Salida City Council-of course!
The Friends of Salida Schools ad signs off with “Time to move forward.” They want us to forget about their dishonesty. Assuming no legal action blocks this election outcome for violating TABOR, what would a “move forward” actually look like?
Pro-5A forces promised 5A money would be reserved 5 years for Salida. This appeared in Friends of Salida Schools mailers and the Mountain Mail, and swayed some “yes” votes. Yet none of the self-congratulatory interviews after the election mention this promise. I failed to find an official document to support this claim. Is this because the only official document is the ballot language itself? Is there a written contract with terms for handling the almost $6 Million to be collected in Salida over the next 5 years, or an escrow account whose contents can be tracked by concerned citizens? Is it instead possible that our money will be diverted to CMC’s unfunded pension liabilities? Unfunded liabilities listed in CMC Financial Statements, now partially owed by us, but never disclosed by our School Board?
I condemn the actions of the Salida School Board for doing their very best imitation of our Salida City Council. Is this the example you all wish to set for the children: it is acceptable to obscure, cheat, lie and dodge questions-as long as you get your way?
Vince Phillips, Salida”
If someone in authority from the School District wishes to refute anything I state as facts, I would love to hear it. If you wish to challenge my conclusions without questioning my facts, that would be great also. I would just like to leave you with some thoughts:
- If I had been provided with the legal opinion when I asked for it, this entire situation would have been different. Government entities generally do not hide things unless they have something TO hide. The lack of transparency elicited the harsh response.
- If I had received the legal opinion, my attention would have been turned away from the School Board, and toward an evaluation of the legal opinion and its author.
- Even if there was a legal opinion that did not require a mention of tax in the ballot language, I find it impossible to believe that it also says you should not produce a blue book with voter information. If you had produced a fair blue book, you never would have heard from me.
- In November 2017, CMC Ballot Issue 4B failed. It was an attempt to remove CMC from complying with the Gallagher Amendment. A great deal of money was at stake. One year later, in November 2018, CMC submitted a Ballot Issue with the same intent, but different ballot language. It passed with over 70% support. I believe that the take home lesson for CMC was that favorable Ballot Language and messaging is the key to winning these elections. I wonder if CMC orchestrated everything: The 5A Ballot Language not including the tax, and the absence of a blue book explanation, even the undisclosed legal opinion saying TABOR did not apply, and the preemptive, strong, but exceptionally vague defense of this legal opinion. The Salida School Board’s role was to accept these items as truth, vote to place 5A on the ballot, and push locals to vote for it. If this is true, the biggest mistake by the Salida School Board was blindly accepting the story told by CMC, only to be left holding the bag when the narrative was questioned.
- Underpinning everything I wrote is the belief that involvement of the School Board and School District Employees in lobbying “Yes on 5A” exceeded any reasonable level. There was a great deal of School District Money Spent trying to pass 5A. Some was spent directly: on flyers, the survey, etc. Other was indirect, such as employee time. This leads to several questions:
A. Is there a full accounting of what the 5A initiative cost the Salida School District Taxpayer? Was this a budgeted line item? If not, how was it paid for?
B. A thought experiment: what if there were School Board Members and Employees who were against 5A? Suppose they had asked the School Board to allocate funds and employee work time to lobby for their point of view. What would have happened? If School Board money and Employee time would not have been made available to “NO on 5A” lobbying, why was it OK that it was made available for “YES on 5A”?
C. Was work on passing 5A made a written performance objective for any Salida School District Employees? An unwritten performance objective? If so, is it fair to link merit pay to an enterprise that is only peripherally related to the charter of our School District? Would a person have been allowed to opt out if they personally disagreed with the goal? 40% of the public voted against 5A. It is reasonable to assume some of those were School District Employees. Was dissension allowed?
D. Salida School Board Members as well as school employees were actively involved as members of the “Friends of Salida Schools”. Was membership in this blatant advocacy organization a conflict of interest? Does this involvement mean that Board members/Employees are responsible for misinformation/mistakes by FOSS?
The best spin I can muster: You all believed in what you were doing, and that passing 5A was in the best interests of the community. You a formed a team and worked hard to accomplish your goal. All fine things. Your goal was passage of 5A. This is where we diverge. I believe the goal should have been to put out all the information, pro and con, and allow the voter to make an informed decision for their community. No hyperactive lobbying by Board or Staff.
You made thousands of small decisions during the course of this project. Only a few of these decisions were hugely problematic in my view, such as not releasing the legal opinion on TABOR, and not publishing a blue book. However, the overall sum of many biased decisions meant that you used taxpayer money and the power afforded you by the people to obtain your desired outcome, instead of even-handedly determining the will of the people. Hence my second letter.
So why do I think there is a problem with the legal opinion? Please study the following website:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SKhQREK-vxn6KPIM8fpGhb2rYepIdR46/view
This is the Official State of Colorado Department of Local Affairs website governing “Special District Administration & Elections”.
I call your attention to portions of this document:
pg 25 " How are ballot questions and issues identified on the ballot?
District Board members refer questions and issues to the voters. A ballot question does not involve financial matters, whereas a ballot issue does involve financial matters and must follow TABOR requirements."
pg 46 “What are the causes for contest of an election to determine a ballot issue or ballot question?”
In addition, the result of any election to determine a ballot issue that includes approval of the creation of any debt or other financial obligation may be contested if the notice (to create a financial obligation) required by C.R.S. § 1-7-908 is not provided in accordance with that section or contains any material misstatement of the information required to be set forth in the notice."
I do not see any TABOR exemptions for annexations into existing districts, but I do see cause for contesting the election. The rules in these documents apply to “Special District Ballot Issues”. 5A was a “Special District Ballot Issue”. This is unequivocal. You are expecting the unseen, unexamined Dee Wisor legal opinion(think about the meaning of that word…“opinion”) to override the official written word of the State of Colorado, and the opinion of the author of TABOR legislation. I am not that trusting, and if the situation was reversed, you would not be that trusting either.
The Salida School Board’s reliance on the Wisor legal opinion to defend its actions - e.g. in the 10/21/19 response from B. Coscarella, already amounts to a waiver of privilege if I decide to litigate this dispute. There is no reason to force me to pursue a formal claim just to gain a better understanding of the Board’s rationale on the ballot issue wording. The Board should simply produce the Wisor opinion if they have confidence in it.
Sent to the Salida School board on 4/6/22.
Kim,
The review of Superintendent Blackburn’s contract coming before the Salida School Board on April 12 poses several questions. Does the use of the Oak Street property as a school, implemented under the watch of Supt. Blackburn, fall within the law? Salida follows State law regarding the proximity of retail marijuana dispensaries to schools. The Salida ordinance:
Salida Colorado ordinance: sec 16-4-190.k.1.c
No medical marijuana center or retail marijuana store shall be located within one thousand (1,000) feet of a school as defined at Section 16-1-80 of this Code. Distance shall be calculated using the standard established in the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code.
The measured distance from Horizons and Crest Academy on Oak Street to the Tenderfoot Health Collective (THC) marijuana dispensary is only 830 feet. Was installing the schools that close to the dispensary legal?
Federal prosecutors have directed marijuana dispensaries closer than 1000 feet to a school to close. The US Attorney’s office has told marijuana dispensaries that they have 45 days from being notified to close, or face criminal prosecution and asset forfeiture.
Has the Tenderfoot Health Collective been asked to close?
Is the use of the Oak Street property as a school, done under the watch of Superintendent Blackburn legal? Did the City of Salida or the School District take any formal action to ensure the legality of this installation? Is it possible the School District just purchased the property and ignored its proximity to the THC? Do Salida parents really want marijuana dispensaries close to their children’s schools?
I urge the Salida School Board to consider these questions when you weigh and evaluate the retention of Superintendent Blackburn. I urge you to consider these questions when weighing the welfare of our children under his supervision.
If for some reason, the Salida School Board does decide to retain Superintendent Blackburn, we cannot imagine that his recent action and behavior justify the proposed $30,000 annual raise. The very thought of a raise (actually a reward), in light of his actions during the September 2021 lock-down at the high school, seems irrational and unwarranted.