Liberal and Loving It

BMA - Only the acceptable need apply

The Boulder Mountainbike Alliance (slogan "They're not hikers, they're speed-bumps) has their endorsements out.

• Adam Massey
• Ken Wilson
• Crystal Gray
• Susan Osborne
• Lisa Morzel
• Macon Cowles
• Angelique Espinoza

Their press release is below. Clearly they pre-selected who they would even consider. This is the same crap that was used first to keep the Irish and Italians out of government, and then to keep women and African-Americans out. "Those others, they're just not the right kind of people for office." This quiet discrimination has no place in our community and I hope most in Boulder will ignore endorsements from these bigoted groups. (Note: I do not think any of the candidates on the BMA's list had anything to do with this prejudice - do not blame them for BMA's intolerance.)

BMA's selection criteria are as follows:

• Effective City Council persons.... We need people who can accomplish good things for the community and for bicycling.  Having served on Boards or in other capacities in city government was a plus.
• Will give recreation access to public lands a fair shake at a minimum, and be our ally at a maximum.
• Be 'good' for Boulder.  It would be irresponsible to be a single-issue group at the cost of making other important issues suffer.

We contacted each candidate on our short list [emphasis added] explaining what we wanted from a City Councilperson.  Those issues included:

1. Appoint reasonable, intelligent, and unbiased people to the Open Space Board of Trustees.
2. Support the hiring of staff in both the Parks and Recreation Department and OSMP who understand recreation and bicycling in particular;
3. Support implementation of the Visitor Master Plan by making every effort possible to fully fund the financial needs of the Open Space and Mountain Parks Department;
4. Support an integrated recreational cycling infrastructure that interfaces with the city's existing commuting infrastructure:
   1. Support the creation or opening of singletrack trails on OSMP lands that allow mountain bikers to enjoy a recreational experience from town without the use of a car;
   2. Support purpose-built cycling facilities at Valmont Park.

Boulder Outdoor Coalition Endorsements

Ok, the Boulder Outdoor Coalition has made its endorsements and they are (drum-roll please):

• Angelique Espinoza
• Adam Massey
• Susan Osborne
• Ken Wilson

Ok, kudos to the BOC. Big time congratulations to the BOC - this is really impressive. Lets take a look at this.

First, they have a total of 4 endorsements for 7 openings. Unlike some interests groups who shall remain nameless (but who's initials are PLAN Boulder), they are not asking for it all. They are asking for a seat at the table. Actually 4 seats but that is a reasonable goal for an interest group to shoot for. They clearly understand the value of having multiple views on the council.

Second, they show some breadth in their choices. Angelique and Adam clearly use Open Space. And Ken Wilson also has the most balanced view of Open Space in the gang of 7. (I have no idea where Susan stands on this as she did not answer the Camera's question on Open Space and has no website to list her position.) So Susan is a disappointment although I am guessing that they know more about her than she is telling the general public. But the other 3 - a quality selection.

Third, they managed to find a non-white candidate to endorse (and she's the best of the 4 in my opinion). It's amazing what you can do if you look past the usual suspects.

Fourth, they clearly did evaluate the candidates. Their selection process was not a sham but was a clear effort to look at every candidate and select the ones they liked best from that process. I'm sure some other candidates felt they should have been selected too, but at least all were given an actual chance.

Update: Ok, it turns out the only requested info from the candidates they pre-selected. Not good. But they owned up to it, apologized, will post answers from everyone on their website, and next time will seriously consider all candidates. Extremely commendable. So overall, very impressive

And fifth, they proved me totally wrong in my guess as to what was going to happen. I apologize for my assumption that they would do a lousy job. Kudos to B.O.C. I won't necessarily vote for all 4 above but I very much respect their endorsements.

"Precautionary Principle" - the George Bush approach to Open Space

Lets step in to the time machine and go back, go way back (actually just a little) to 2002. Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Everyone knew it was just a matter of time. Even Bill Clinton and Al Gore stated that he clearly was close based on what they knew.

So the "Precautionary Principle" required that we needed to invade Iraq because better a conventional war today than a nuclear war tomorrow. Very sensible logical idea except... It turned out there were no WMDs and that we are incapable of winning in Iraq.

Ok, lets hop into the time machine again and go back to 1972 to the Club of Rome study - which remains the best selling environmental book in history. Where they predicted that we would shortly run out of 10 critical raw materials which would devastate economic growth. Once again the "Precautionary Principle" requires government to step in and address this except... 9 of the items are now cheaper and more plentiful today than then (the 10th is oil). Governmental intervention would have turned a non-problem into a problem.

Yes sometimes early intervention would cut a problem off early. Global warming is a clear case where action 10 years ago would have been a lot easier. But hindsight is always 20/20. We don't know today which of the potential problems we face will become a real problem tomorrow.

Which brings us to Open Space in Boulder. Yes overuse of land causes degradation. As do an excessive deer population, prairie dog invasion, global warming, pollution, rain, sunlight, and life in general. The goal cannot be to return the land to it's original state as that would require all of us leaving North America - not going to happen.

And people pay taxes for Open Space to make use of it. Yes that includes looking at it. But it also includes using it. Walking, running, taking the dogs out, even the obnoxious high-speed trail bike riders. We need to accept that there will be minor degradation due to use. If nothing else, we will have hiking trails where many people follow the same path.

So how do we know how much use is too much? Well, the only way unfortunately is to allow regular use and then scale it back where it starts to have a severe negative impact on the land. As much as some experts like to pretend otherwise, there is no way to predict this accurately up front.

And with rare exceptions, when the use does have a severe impact, the answer is not to close off all use, it's to appropriately scale back use as necessary. To disallow certain uses that cause the most egregious harm. To find the right balance.

The last thing we need is the "Precautionary Principle" locking our Open Space up in a glass case. What we need is a focus on "Maximum Appropriate Use." It won't get the support of PLAN Boulder but it will get the support of the other 98% of Boulder.

What we don't need is a George Bush, someone is "The Decider" approach where extreme measures are taken to stop something that might happen.

Way to go BHS

With everyone else telling the BHS students what they are doing wrong on the Pledge of Allegiance issues, I thought I would put in my $0.02 worth.

Ladies & Gentlemen - you're doing great. I'm proud of you.

Yes as many have said, there are bigger problems in the world. So what. It is not for others to determine what problems you should apply yourself to. In fact the world would be a very boring and much poorer place if everyone was restricted to only working on one of the officially approved 5 worst problems in the world.

Follow where your heart takes you. Because that is what will unleash your passion and energy. And many times it is a person or group toiling on an "unimportant little issue" that finds either that the issue is not quite so little or that it leads to something much larger.

When I go to the Fairview pops concert and hear students singing a Country & Western song do I complain that C&W is God's way of proving some people have no musical taste? No. I appreciate the effort and talent that went into the production I am seeing.

We need to appreciate the fact that these kids are motivated, involved, and trying to make the world a bit better place. We need to appreciate that every word from a right-wing blow-hard about this issue is one less word they can use to tear down progressive candidates around the country. We need to appreciate that these kids are learning a lot about the way the political process actually works.

With that said, I do have one piece of advice for the students. The BVSD school board is up for election this November. Ask the candidates their stand on this issue. If they get even 10 letters from voters on an issue - they will pay attention.

And one other piece of advice - don't pay any attention to the grown-ups. If you're making them happy you're being too careful.

PLAN Boulder - locked in time

Update: I have re-written a lot of the below post because, while my intent was to pound PLAN Boulder for their selection, a number of the candidates took it as a personal attack not on their platform and policies, but on them individually. It was not intended that way and I apologize.

Rather than show what was written, what was intended, and new wording - which would be a complete mess in this case, I am just re-writing the post. And I will strive for clarity this time.

Why did PLAN Boulder even bother to have their forums? They've come up with their endorsements and clearly this was all decided way in advance. This unimaginative selection by PBC will continue Boulder on its path to be unaffordable for any but the very rich and restricting more and more of our open space to be look but don't touch.

I am not upset with PBC itself. Yes it's a small calcified group working to continue imposing its vision of Boulder on everyone. But that is not just the right, but the duty of special interest groups in a Democracy. I do think it's cruel of them to have "candidate forums" when their minds were made up long before that. Some of the candidates actually thought they would approach this with an open mind (yes I know - foolish them).

And special interest groups almost by definition are short-sighted and over time stay locked in to old approaches that not only don't work, but don't even fit the new circumstances that we now find ourselves facing. So yes, PBC is unimaginative, out of date, and obsolete. But they will not go quietly into the good night as long as they have influence. In fact, the one thing that could get them to wake up, re-assess what Boulder needs, and evolve to become a constructive force once again, would be for their endorsed candidates to lose.

Ok, this election matters! With 7 seats this decides if Boulder will go down the tired failed trail that gave us Crossroads sitting empty for years, a declining sales tax base, limited library hours, more and more open space being closed off, and millions (that is not an exaggeration) spent on prairie dogs while libraries got reduced hours.

We do live in a democracy and it does come down to our votes. That requires that we, the citizens of Boulder, step up and vote for the future we want to see in Boulder. There are good quality candidates in this election. Candidates that do want to see Boulder remain a place where middle class families with children can continue to live here (we priced out the poor long ago). A place where businesses (I'm not talking real estate developers or expensive clothing stores here - the rest of us) can continue to operate here. A place where we can actually walk on the open space we have all paid so much for.

The 7 candidates endorsed by PBC are nice people. They care about Boulder. They're intelligent. But their policies are all very similiar (which is why PBC endorsed them) and those policies (not the candidates - the policies), if they hold a majority on the council, are very bad news for Boulder.

Getting a diverse set of opinions on council is not finding the widest range you can amoung a group of white upper middle class liberals for whom the environment is the key political issue. A diverse council is getting conservatives who value the environment. It's getting people focused on affordable housing or a welcoming business environment who value the environment. It's getting people who bring a true wide range of backgrounds and interests - who also value the environment. After all, it's the City Council, not the Environmental Council.

With their blinders that looked at only people who fit a very narrow range of qualifications, PBC made a mediocre choice. The mediocrity stems not from any individual endorsed, but from the extremly narrow range of philosophies in the total selection. And the real sad thing is, many in Boulder view this narrow range as diverse - it's not.

We need to get a diverse council now, who with a varied set of ideas between them start coming up with real solutions Otherwise we are going to go down another 10 years of just making things worse. This should include 1 or 2 of the candidates on the PBC list. Their view does need a voice at the table - it just shouldn't be the only voice.

And don't get me started on how with all of the quality candidates of color we have, everyone endorsed just happened to be white. Yeah right - B.O.C. and FIDOS mamanged to do better with just 4 & 5 endorsements repsectively.

• Macon Cowles
• Crystal Gray
• Lisa Morzel
• Susan Osborne
• Eugene Pearson
• Susan Peterson
• Ken Wilson.

Grading the candidates: Pops & Scrapes

Today's Camera questions is about pop & scrape redevelopment - or as other cities call it, remodeling. As with many things in Boulder, most people figure my remodeling is fine, but yours is too much.

Seriously, it is a quandary. Civilization has advanced and with it has come an increase in floor space for the average home. Boulder is not immune to this pressure and with housing prices so high, it almost forces remodeling. We don't want Boulder filled with identical house after house barely fitting on it's lot. Yet Martin Acres when it was first built had the same charge levied against it and is identical house after identical house at present.

So, tis a quandary. With that, lets look at the candidate answers.

Matthew Applebaum C : Wants a system that limits the most egregious cases, making those both pay more and meet stricter energy guidelines - which is a sensible approach. But nothing about taking the neighborhood into account - he would treat downtown the same as Martin Acres.

Philip Bradley B : Short answer but great central point that we need to preserve the spirit of each neighborhood and that it needs to be tailored to each neighborhood.

Shawn Coleman C+ : Short general answer. He does suggest the fees for remodeling going toward the affordable housing fund. He also brings up that people need to be careful in what they object to lest their "reasonable" remodel is also objected to.

Macon Cowles D+ : Wow, Macon is ready to regulate everything down to the last nail pounded. People want so limiting of what is going on, but not to the degree that the city is involved in every little detail of design. He apparently also dislikes complex roof designs.

Angelique Espinoza B++ : A very general answer but it gives a very clear statement that homeowners should be allowed to do what they want - within reason. Of course the devil is in the details of "within reason." But she does make a clear statement that she wants to try and minimize the government intrusion.

Crystal Gray C- : Crystal has a good point that increased home valuations decreases opportunities for middle class families. But it appears (she has a pretty general answer) that she would work to eliminate tear downs. For a lot of Boulder that would freeze it in the 1950's or earlier.

Andrew Harrison D : A short short answer. Andrew, what guidelines would those boards use - or would each just randomly pick it's own criteria?

Philip Hernandez A- : I'm not sure Philip's answer is legal or enforceable. But if it is both, it's a very interesting concept. Owner occupied houses - yes, spec homes no. People who live in a neighborhood and will continue living there have a large investment in not screwing the neighborhood.

Nabil Karkamaz F : no answer.

Kathy Kramer C : Mostly we get a review of the problem and the history of the city's actions. She does discuss making it easier for homeowners than developers to remodel.

Adam Massey D : A generic review of the problem and ... that's it.

Lisa Morzel C- : Lisa gets the Joe Biden award on today's question. Lots and lots about how throwing out materials from the old house is unacceptable and we must reuse everything. I guess we all keep our old windows that are almost useless in stopping heat loss. Then a little bit about the neighborhood character and then we're back to don't throw the old material out - aargh!

Alan O'Hashi C : what seems like a rushed short answer. Generic look at both sides of the argument and standard possible approaches.

Susan Osborne C+ : Ok, nothing specific but a good understanding of how hard this is to address and why.

Eugene Pearson D+ : Eugene (and Lisa), yes we should recycle more when an old house is torn down - but this is not the only large issue here. And replacing old windows with new ones is a net plus for the environment and carbon footprint. Same in many cases for siding, insulation, etc. Eugene also wants hard limits on house sizes based on carbon footprint. So I guess a 3,000 sq foot house with no solar beats a 3,500 sq ft house with solar?

Susan Peterson A : Oh wow, another clear voice of sanity (along with Philip). Homeowners pay based on their impact. Covering impact of throwing out the old material, how well the new structure meets the LEED standards, it's impact on the neighborhood, etc. This lets the market regulate what people do with their houses.

Larry Quilling C : Only suggestion is for neighborhoods that are concerned should create a homeowners association. Not terribly realistic and does not touch on the city wide concerns such as landfill, carbon footprint, overall city character, etc.

Tom Riley B+ : Lots of good specific points on the present FAR requirements (they have almost no impact) and some good ideas working toward improving the efficiency of existing houses. But nothing about how to address the impact on neighborhood character.

Eric Rutherford C : Wants balance with preference given to homeowners. But no real specifics. He does quote the golden rule which my dad said is "he who has the gold makes the rules."

Rob Smoke C+ : Not much detail but is clearly against the most egregious expansions and wants the neighborhoods to determine what is allowed. Nothing about what criteria these local boards would use.

Ken Wilson B : No specific proposals but does make it clear that what is allowed depends on the neighborhood, that the spec homes are the big problem, and fees should go toward affordable housing. Good general approach.

Got a complaint at BCH? Tough

On 9/24 I sent the following email to pr@bch.org (their Contact Us email address on their website):

About 2 weeks ago I brought my daughter into the emergency room with a possible broken finger. They took x-rays and the doctor said it was not broken but if it still hurt Wednesday, go see a doctor. It still hurt so we took her to our orthopedic doctor who looked at the x-ray from the emergency room and pointed to where the chipped bone had been circled by someone in the emergency room.

So any quick look at the x-ray showed the bone had been chipped. Someone in the emergency room circled the chip. But the Dr. told us nope - no problem. This is really bad.

And to date, no reply. I do think the level of care at BCH tends to be very good. But they're not perfect. Apparently however, they figure they are good enough that they don't need to address imperfections.

I do have one suggestion for BCH - if you're not going to respond to email, don't put a Contact Us email link on your page. Be upfront about the fact that you aren't going to listen to anyone. It's less annoying than creating a false expectation.

Candidates schmoozing with DBI

Tonight Downtown Boulder Inc (which as far as I can tell is composed exclusively of realtors and landlords) had a meet & greet for the candidates. Since I have never even seen most of the candidates I went to see them in person.

I went in disguise (I didn't wear a name-tag) and I tried to just watch them in action. A few joined groups I was talking to so I did talk to a couple. Lisa Morzel did pierce my clever disguise - when she asked my name and I said David she then asked "David Thielen?" Apparently she and I have met before at someone's house - I never remember names and faces so I don't remember.

Update: Several candidates are upset I did not introduce myself to them. I apologize and will make a point of saying hi and introducing myself to everyone next time - even if I have to interrupt a conversation (some of them were always talking to someone). But I ask in return please take into account that I have very poor hearing (due to cancer treatment) and in an environment like that I cannot hear most of what is said. This is one of the reasons I prefer the web.

Being able to talk to people in setups like this is a valuable skill for a politician so here's my take on what I saw there.

Superstars

Shawn Coleman was amazing - joining group after group, listening and talking, and an interested look on everyone's face. Numerous people there unsolicited told me that they found him the most compelling candidate of the entire crowd. Shawn rocked.

Philip Bradley was also surprisingly good. He does seem to have a good knack for this. But... I was talking to one woman there and asked her what she thought. She replied that she was very impressed with Lisa Morzel but had only met two candidates so far. I of course asked her who the other was and that was Philip Bradley. So a single data point but while he looked good from a distance, he may not have closed the sale.

Stand Outs

I think Angelique Espinoza is probably the best campaigner of all the candidates. And tonight she did very well, looking natural and at ease as she worked her way through the room. She was always talking to several people and made the whole thing look effortless.

Susan Osborne also tended to be in various groups of several people all evening long and in animated conversation with them.

Lisa Morzel does a superb job of easing in to why she would be a good candidate and without realizing it you are suddenly getting a strong compelling argument for why she should be elected. I saw her go talk to person after person and if she did as good on them as she did on me, she closed a number of sales.

Matt Applebaum arrived late but also was moving from group to group in what appeared to be serious discussions people were interested in.

Crystal Gray was very personable but was doing more of just saying hi to each person and moving on. Of course, she's almost a slam dunk so that is an ok approach for her.

Putting in an Effort

Larry Quilling at first looked like he was almost in pain having to go up to people and talk to him. As the evening went on he relaxed more and he then did better. But this is not his forte.

Susan Peterson is a very nice person. I ended up talking to her for awhile and I tend to be quiet to see what the candidates will say - and very little from her was selling herself. So comfortable speaking but she was not trying to close the sale.

Kathryn Kramer looked very ill at ease going around talking to people. I give her a lot of credit for doing something that I think is very difficult for her. But this is clearly not her forte.

Macon Cowles & Adam Massey each tended to have long conversation with one person. That can close that one person but it's a low ROI for the time spent. If that is what they are most at ease with though, it was not a large group and so could be the best approach for them.

Why was he there?

Easily the most bizarre was Eric Rutherford. he was there as well as one of his supporters. We ended up talking and he drove the conversation to real estate and then started drilling me on who was the agent for the office space we just rented, what building, etc. Not a word about why he was running or why I should vote for him. His candidacy may just be a way for him to scare up business.

No Shows

Tom Riley arrived as I was leaving so no feedback on him.

Philip Hernandez was not there but his campaign manager was and he did quite well talking to numerous groups of people. His campaign manager should run.

Seth Brigham, Andrew Harrison, Nabil Karkamaz, Alan O'Hashi, Eugene Pearson, Rob Smoke, & Ken Wilson were no-shows as far as I could tell. However, if you have to miss a forum, this was a good one to miss. I think I was the only person there that was not a candidate, campaign team member, DBI member, or advertising saleswoman for the Colorado Daily.

Anyways, it was interesting to put faces with a lot of the names since I had never seen most of the candidates before this evening.

Update: It looks like Tom Riley, Phil Hernandez, and Ken Wilson were at the Burke Lake meeting (which sounds like it was better). I assume Rob was helping Seth last night. Alan was working. Andrew & Nabil aren't really running so no surprise there. That leaves the interesting question of why Eugene weren't at either event - surprising.

Grading the candidates: Balancing the Budget

The Daily Camera's question is simply "Staying in the black." We'll assume that means balancing the budget and not that we keep the lights off at night to save electricity.

My bias on this is two-fold. First, I have a hard time believing that the city has no fat in the budget when they spend over $1,000,000.00/year on prairie dog mitigation. Second, regardless of needs, the budget can't outpace GDP growth because the logical endpoint of that is the city takes more than we all produce (yes some people in Boulder do actually work for a living).

Interesting note - when I publish this blog, what happens? Every teacher reading it knows - I get 3 - 5 emails from candidates complaining about their grades. They may be out of school but the reaction apparently stays for life.

Ken Wilson D+ : Starts off with a generic  review/ideas/prioritize/act without actually saying anything specific. (Yes you need to do all that - but you aren't telling us anything.) Then his one specific is to find additional sources of revenue - not a word about determining where the city could be more efficient or cut back.

Rob Smoke B- : Wow, a relatively coherent and on-topic post by Rob (or I'm starting to understand him better - which is a scary thought). He dives into determining if the present budget has waste in it. And discusses the head tax (he favors it) listing several pros and cons (mostly pros).

Eric Rutherford B- : Goes in the direction of getting more money spent here which is a good idea as far as it can be done. But he's basically a one trick pony with that being the sum total - bringing more businesses to Boulder.

Tom Riley B+ : A lot of B's on this one. A bunch of good ideas, but all listed very generally. Tom does however finish up with creating efficiencies and eliminating redundant services. Again very general but spot-on in terms of what needs to be done first.

Larry Quilling C+ : Another answer with a lot of good general ideas and the need to deliver city services efficiently. And a lot of suggestions pointed at bringing businesses. But also appears to embrace economic vitality grants, ie cash payments to businesses - yuck (and I say that as a business owner).

Susan Peterson D : Incredibly generic "we need to solve this problem." And apparently wants to get the city into the business of providing health care for old people to make money.

Eugene Pearson A- : Eugene has a number of real interesting ideas about how to more fairly assess taxes, what different mechanisms to use, the pros and cons of each, and what is workable. Really impressive. No mention of if he would look to make the city more efficient and/or look for unnecessary expenses.

Susan Osborne D- : Mentions that a bunch of the earmarked taxes expire in the next decade... And that's the sum total from Susan.

Alan O'Hashi C : Incredibly generic statement that mentions all the keywords in one sentence. It's an impressive achievement but doesn't really tell us where Alan is coming from.

Lisa Morzel F : no answer

Adam Massey D : Basically says nothing.

Kathy Kramer C+ : Kathy gets the Joe Biden award today for the longest-winded answer. Does touch on a lot of good points but in presenting everything it's difficult to determine where she would go on this. She lists pros & cons on several items without saying which way she would lean.

Nabil Karkamaz F : no answer

Philip Hernandez C : Standard general points. His opinion is there is no fat (and one would assume, no possible efficiencies) and that leaves raising taxes.

Andrew Harrison D : Talk about phoning it in - two minor suggestions that would bring it a small amount of additional revenue - and that's it.

Crystal Gray A- : Good point that we need to stabilize revenue. And brings up looking for efficiencies in operations. Also brings up looking at how land use impacts potential revenue. Pretty specific answers covering a lot of ground in 1 paragraph - impressive.

Angelique Espinoza B : Good solid answer. And lists the key problem that an aging population moves a lot of spending away from items that have a sales tax. As always with Angelique, nothing too specific in what she would do.

Macon Cowles F : no answer

Shawn Coleman A+ : When Shawn discusses something he has put the time in to, you get a full picture of the issues, what needs to be done, and a lot of good suggestions on things we could try. Clearly has the knowledge and the approach to handle this very well.

Seth Brigham C- : Short clear concise answer. Wants to stop public/private partnerships and slow down the development of downtown - it's not real clear how that helps balance the budget. Wants to pile the taxes on to the top 10% (I assume of either wealth or incomes) but no listing of how he would do that.

Philip Bradley B- : Pretty generic answer but he does concentrate on growing the businesses in Boulder to cause the existing sales tax to rise. And hits on the need for office space if you want hi-tech companies locating here.

Matthew Applebaum B+ : A very intelligent and comprehensive look at where we are and where we can go tax-wise. And some good points on examining some taxes and subsidies that others did not bring up. Matt does know this stuff. However, not a word on improving the efficiency of the city government or finding services that can be scaled back.

BVSD Board Election Info

Several people have claimed that because I am anti teachers union I am anti public education. It's actually the opposite, because I am pro public education I am anti teacher's union. I think unions are an important and valuable part of our body politic. But the teachers unions have made absolute job security their prime directive and the result is that no matter how bad a teacher is, if they have tenure our kids are stuck with them.

This is incredibly destructive toward our children. every child suffers from several incompetent teachers as they go from kindergarten through 12th grade. Some leave school because of uninspiring teachers. Others are ill prepared for college and don't go or drop out. The effects of these incompetents is immense.

This election is vastly more important than the City Council election (and yet gets much less attention). The City Council determines how livable our city is. The school board determines how successful a future our children have. (Or if you don't have kids, how well the taxpayers who will pay for your nursing home are doing.) Read up on the candidates in Districts C & G.

At the same time, take a snapshot of the district 10, 20, 30 years ago and compare it to today. There has been no improvement! Over 50% of our 10th graders are not proficient in math. Socio-economic status remains the overwhelming determinator of success in school. So all these candidates that are a variation upon the theme of things are good, we'll make them a little better, are a recipe for our continued failure. Meanwhile, they have lots of meetings that aren't making things better.

Resources:

• Daily Camera election page
• Boulder Weekly election page (not up yet)
• Colorado Daily election page
• {to add a resource please email david@thielen.com}

Scheduled Candidate Events:

• {to add an event please email david@thielen.com}

candidate	website	blog	daily camera
District A
Helayne Jones	www.helayne.org	{none}	Q&A
District C
John Satter		{none}	Q&A
Laurie Albright	www.AlbrightForSchoolBoard.com	{none}	Q&A
District D
Kenneth J. Roberge		{none}	Q&A
District G
Edward A. Gazvoda	www.readit.us	{none}	Q&A
Rosabelle Rice	www.rosabellericeruns.com	{none}	Q&A
Jim Reed	www.reedforbvsd.com	{none}	Q&A

Candidate Statements:

Ed Gazvoda - For the 2006-07 school year, the CDE's reports confirmed that BVSD's performance was dismal.  Less than half of BVSD's 10th grader scored proficient in math, reading, and writing. BVSD is failing to meet the basic educational needs of over 15,000 students.

In fourth grade, our students achieve near the top on standardized international education assessments. Given another 8 years in our educational system, they rank below 25 other industrialized countries.

BVSD is inefficient and ineffective. The onus falls solely with the way the school district is organized. For an organization to be efficient and effective, it must be properly aligned. Given the teachers' union's contract (which evoked memories of George Orwell's book: Animal Farm, with its ridiculously stupid rules), the school district is in a confused state with no clear lines of accountability and control.

To achieve desired educational outcomes, I propose making a parent dominated local school board responsible and accountable for their children's education. The parent led site-based school boards would consist of 4 parents, 1 teacher, 1 administrator, and 1 community member.

With this proper alignment, the site-based school board would hire and fire principals. Principals would be given substantial autonomy. Principals would reward teachers for their accomplishments or let them go. Administrators would serve as support staff for the parents, principals, and teachers.

Perhaps you and or your children received or are receiving a good education in the BVSD. If so, you are in the minority. Recognize the fact that a majority of the students are not receiving an adequate education. Even those proud of their educational achievement in the BVSD would have faired better had the educational system been organized to maximize their potential.  I urge you not to be a complacent bystander to the harm being done to students. Vote to reform BVSD.

Jim Reed - Hello, I'm Jim Reed.  My wife and I have three daughters under the age of eight, attending our neighborhood school, Lafayette Elementary.  I've served as Legislative Chair for the PTA, as well as on the school improvement team.   Last year, I was appointed to the Citizens Bond Oversight Committee (CBOC,) that oversees compliance of the $296.4m bond with the facilities master plan.   I also serve as that committee's liaison to the ITAC, working on the $10m fiber-optic network for our schools.  I have a BS degree in Chemical Engineering, and have worked my entire professional life, 17 years, in information technology for Boulder County companies.

As your voice on the school board, I will work to reduce stratification, narrow the achievement gap, and invest for the future in early childhood education, technology and sustainability.

With my background in information technology, I know how to solve problems.  I have experience working to build bridges, even among traditionally adversarial parties.  I believe my style of creative collaboration is a good fit as we transition to make a great district better.

I am a thoughtful, reasonable problem solver who understands the scope and responsibilities of the job.  I'm proud to have the unanimous recommendation of the Boulder Valley Education Association as well as the support of many citizens of BVSD.