Liberal and Loving It

Valerie Mitchell Interview

I interviewed Valerie Mitchell yesterday. Valerie is a member of the demographic we are doing our best to drive out of Boulder – a blue collar worker. She is a high energy person and has depth on the issues she discusses.

So what does Valerie bring to the council? She rents her home and is working class. I cannot recall any council member who rented their home (although there must have been one sometime). And I don't think we've ever had anyone who is not upper middle class or richer on the council. She undoubtedly brings a different perspective to council.

I then asked if these specific background traits are useful on council. She immediately dived in to the value of having a renter on the council. She says over 50% of the people in Boulder rent, and they should have someone who understands how the city impacts that and what it can do.

She was also quick to say that she does not think landlords are bad or that renters need to be given complete power over the landlords. But she does want to see a couple of issues addressed. The first thing she proposed is working to make sure all rental properties are inspected and has a great suggestion for the city to provide a web page where you can enter an addressed, see if it's licensed for rentals, and if so when it was last inspected and when the next inspection will occur.

We then got on to housing. She would like to see affordable housing for families that don't make that much money. What was interesting is she was contemptuous of the affordable housing program saying that what's the point of buying if the most you can profit from the house is 5K. So we put all this effort into affordable housing and her response is it's not what people want.

I'm not saying Valerie is right (or wrong) on this. But it brings up a strong argument for having someone of limited means on the council. Because we presently have designed and implemented affordable housing without having anyone who qualifies for it on the council. It's like back in the '50s when all the women's magazines were edited by men – and everyone wondered why they were not writing about the issues women really wanted to see discussed.

Valerie's big proposal on making housing affordable is rent to own. She's light on the mechanics of it but thinks that this is a way to get more blue collar families into owner occupied homes. She did state that she doesn't want to use tax money for this because it's not fair to ask others to pay for her home.

She also talked about increased densification and she is in favor of a bit – but not a lot. She wants to keep Boulder as it is, but return to the affordability of a couple of decades ago. This seems to be a constant theme among all the candidates – they want to return Boulder to 1950 (oh my god – they're all Reagan Republicans!!!).

We also discussed the revenue shortfall and Valerie would like to see Boulder have more events like the Bolder Boulder that bring in lots of tourists (and their money). One specific she would like to see is our having fairs during the summer with the carnival rides. Because we don't, she takes her kids to Longmont for the ones there – and Longmont gets the sales tax from that spending. It would be fun for the kids to have those carnival rides here during the summer – not everyone in Boulder limits themselves to events that require 2K or more in equipment.

The biggest thing Valerie brings to the council is a perspective that represents a large chunk of our community and yet historically has not been represented on council at all. What is really interesting is she is campaigning directly to that part of our community. Historically not a lot of people in that group vote, but historically they are not offered someone who will represent them. It will be interesting to see how she does.

podcast: Download ValerieMitchell

Where do we owe our allegiance?

Ok, this is not going to make me Mr. Popular.

As I've mentioned to a couple of campaign managers, we owe our primary allegiance not to a candidate or party, but to our country and to the world. This is essential at times like this when we are in a world of hurt and we have to be focused on what will improve things, not on what gives one side temporary political advantage.

In addition while we decry the lack of civility and discussion in the political sphere, if we at the same time focus on political advantage, support our candidates regardless of their efforts and votes, and can only see the bad in the other party – then we are a cause of the problem. We cannot expect Republicans to be open-minded if we ourselves are not.

Let's talk about the Ritter administration. We are presently in a world of financial hurt. And while Governor Ritter has done an excellent job of applying cuts to minimize the impact on the state, his efforts have ended there. Not only do we see no efforts to find systemic changes that will significantly increase revenues or reduce expenses, but we find him "reassuring" us that he will not consider anything that might be construed as a tax increase. (Note – most of us don't find that statement reassuring at all.)

What we appear to have with Bill Ritter is an administration that is no different from a GOP administration on the big issues and makes slightly different choices on exactly how to apply the cuts. In fact a big part of his message is that unlike the GOP, Bill Ritter anguishes over these cuts and cares deeply about their impact on the people of Colorado. Now I may be going out on a limb here but I think Josh Penry & Scott McInnis are also anguished about what the people in this state are going through and care deeply about the people in this state. And truth be told, although empathy is nice but results are what we need.

But is the Ritter administration truly no different on the systemic questions than an GOP administration? Absolutely not. In the previous GOP administration we had Bill Owens step up and work to craft C & D and work very hard to get both passed. When the state faced a revenue situation less serious than today, the response of a GOP administration was to increase taxes as needed. It was a close thing, it took major cooperation from the Democratic legislature. But the bottom line is he did it.

Bill Ritter is not even trying. If only a Republican administration will dare raise taxes in Colorado, then we need to elect a Republican administration. I am dead serious on this point. The state is not going to go bankrupt a-la California, but it's going to be in a race to the bottom with Mississippi if we don't have sufficient revenue to help grow the state economically. And if only the Republicans are brave enough to step up and solve this, then we do need to elect a Republican.

And before you say "but, but… Republicans are evil" – they're not. Most (not all) want the same results as most (not all) of us Democrats. They do believe that there is a legitimate role for government. They do understand that government investments in things like roads & education pay back to the state with a significant multiplier. Most are willing to step up and do what is best for our state. And a couple like Al White and Dan Marostica show more political bravery than any Democrat.

Yes the Republicans are in bed with the Oil & Gas industry. But we're in bed with both the unions & the trial lawyers (does that make us Democrats bigamists?). Yes the Republicans make statements for political advantage – so do we Democrats. (Is it truly that big a deal if the mountain in an ad is in another state? But is sure is a useful story for political advantage.)

While everyone was worried that with a Democratic majority and administration the party would go too liberal. Instead what we have is Democrats so timid they are afraid to do anything that the GOP would fundamentally disagree with. And for the few that tried, like Morgan Carroll, boy did they get slapped down fast. So we're left with "better" people who would "like to" do more. But they can't you know, it just would fly.

The thing is, people did not elect a Democratic administration & legislature, both in Colorado and nationally, because they thought everything was just peachy and they didn't want any real change. They elected Democrats because the Republican approach is unpopular. Very very unpopular. They put Democrats in charge because they want a change. Not a couple of minor differences, but some real change. Not "we could effect change if we were brave enough" – but actual "we're implementing it now, and will do more tomorrow."

Now what people want to see, what will make them better off, what the state needs – all are open to discussion. But we need to step up with major systemic change. Because otherwise come '10 the voters will decide that doing nothing new is a clear failure and they'll bet on the candidate offering a change. They'll take almost any change over stay the course when the course is a disaster. And if that happens, we Democrats will have no one to blame but ourselves.

This is not just a problem for Bill Ritter, we face this nationally too. If at the federal level they have not addressed healthcare, financial regulation, and turned the economy around – we're going to see a lot of Democrats going down to defeat. The voters are demanding results, not platitudes. And having a lot of great ideas but not implementing them is nothing more than mental masturbation.

And to those who say (in so many words) "our Democratic candidates may they always be right – but our candidates right or wrong" – that is the last thing this country needs. And it's the last thing our party needs as it's the road to defeat. Blind loyalty is nice in a dog, but it's counterproductive in the political sphere.

I leave our elected leaders with this question – to what use do you gain power if you effect no difference?

George Karakehian Interview

I interviewed George Karakehian yesterday. George is a local businessman who has been in Boulder forever. He's served on boards, worked on issues, etc.

The first thing that jumps out about George, and was there throughout the entire conversation, is he is very earnest in his effort to run. It's an interesting combination – George has been around long enough involved in City politics to know how things actually work, yet he still approaches the election as a discussion of ideas.

George is in for one big reason – the F.A.R. legislation. He was very upset when the council first tried to ram it through as "emergency" legislation (the emergency being that several council members were having a case of the vapors that someone built a house they didn't like). He was very active in the efforts to stop it being passed that way.

And now? He sees the F.A.R. legislation as an unnecessary and unreasonable taking from the homeowners. He showed a very detailed knowledge of the issues around the legislation as well as the 14 specific houses that are viewed as the serious issue that requires a restriction on every remaining house in Boulder.

What's interesting is George is not in favor of unrestrained growth or McMansions, he just sees this as using a sledgehammer to kill a gnat. And in so doing it adds significant expense on any development, limits reasonable development, and depresses home prices. This issue is clearly of major importance to George and took up over half the interview time. And he will be an unequivocal vote to repeal the F.A.R. legislation if elected.

The next issue he brought up is Boulder's shrinking revenue. And he sees it continuing to decline even when the economy turns around (which is true). He sees two initiatives which can improve our revenue significantly. First is increasing tourism. He would like to see us put more effort in to bringing more tourists here. And he would like to see a conference center to also bring more people here – not just for the conference but they return with their families on vacation. He was contemptuous of the existing Council for killing the proposed conference center (and the revenue it would have brought).

His second suggestion for increasing revenue is to relax the restrictions on commercial development on the Hill a bit. He thinks that if owners of the property there had a bit more leeway in their designs, we could see a renaissance, first in the properties there, and then in the stores in those properties. It would be nice to see the Hill fixed up, and not just because of the increased revenue.

The final issue he brought up was relations between the city and C.U., which he characterized as abysmal. I asked if that wasn't normally the case in college towns but he thinks it is much worse here than most comparable cases. He will definitely focus on working to improve this, based on numerous contacts he has in the C.U. administration from his work there. He also thinks the city and C.U. should cooperate on conference centers (he thinks C.U. will build one soon).

He spoke to the environment a bit, mainly saying that it is important to him and he did not mean to give it short shrift. And that he walks the walk – he's on his second Prius.

Then at the end he did something no other candidate, for any office, has ever done. He asked me for my vote. This was interesting in that this is what is required to win – that you ask people for their vote. I'm not sure what it says that he is the only case, but I think it speaks well of his approach to running.

So what do you get with George? First you get someone who is direct and will tell you where he stands on issues. Politicians like to equivocate so they don't upset anyone, and we're left wondering. With George you know what you're getting. Second you have someone who wants to make sure that we don't pass legislation where the cure is worse than the disease.

podcast: Download GeorgeKarakehian

Boulder Weekly Questions

Hi all,
Below and attached are the questions we are asking all city council
candidates to answer for our election guide. We must receive your answers by
next Wednesday, Sept. 30. The answer to each question should be less than
100 words, and we reserve the right to edit for length. Please also provide
your age, occupation and a head-and-shoulders photo of yourself as a .jpg
file.
Please contact me if you have any questions, and thanks so much for your
time on this. We want to have all candidates' views represented, so please
e-mail me your answers by Wednesday to ensure that they can be included.
Best,
Jeff

Jefferson Dodge
Managing Editor
Boulder Weekly
303-494-5511, ext. 111

Questions for Boulder City Council candidates:

1. How should the council balance the rights of private property owners with the council's ability to implement zoning and other regulations that reflect the community's values on growth, development and density?
2. Do you believe medicinal marijuana dispensaries should be banned in the city? Why or why not?
3. In managing the city's public lands, there seems to be a tension between preservation and recreation. If city planners must err on one side or the other, which way do you believe they should lean as the West TSA process moves forward?
4. Which do you see as a higher priority right now: environmental efforts, affordable housing or the city's financial stability? Why?
5. What would you do if you found a prairie dog burrowing in your backyard?

Boulder Outdoor Coalition details

Their endorsements: Download BOC CC Endorsements

Their process:

The Boulder Outdoor Coalition adjusted our process to select Candidates in this years election.  In the past, we sent formal questionnaires to all serious candidates, and have often conducted group interviews.  The following factors influenced our shift to a more streamlined selection process this year:

 

* The City Election process has grown to become a huge commitment for such a small town as ours.  Good Candidates no longer just "step up"; to be elected they must invest large amounts of time and money.  If elected, they must spend even more time, and for almost no money.

 

* This has the effect of reducing the pool of good candidates, and greatly reducing their diversity.  Instead of reflecting the City population, Candidates for City Council now are largely non-working people, older, wealthier, and retired.

 

* People with families, working class people, or even people with any job, can no longer afford to run for office.  This is very bad. 

 

* Thus, the burdensome election process tends to pre-select the type of person who has the time to run for office, which in turn determines the type of policies that Council will end up adopting for all citizens.

 

* Candidates have expressed their dismay of this time crunch, and many have had to not attend functions put on by some groups, because they either did not have the time, or knew they would not be endorsed by that group, and so decided not to show up.

 

In light of this, we experimented this year with a more efficient process:

 

* We looked at all 13 candidates, and examined their background and records.

 

* We phoned all candidates who we felt were in the "potential" category.  

 

* Some we did not call - this was not intended to show disrespect; rather, we respect the huge amount of time Candidates are investing, and we did not wish to take up any more of their time than appropriate.

 

* Rather that written questionnaires, we met at length with some of the Candidates.  This turned out to be very valuable, as the human qualities of people are important, what they really believe is important, and that does not come thru in questionnaires, which often take on a "Don't make anyone mad at me" generic aspect.

 

* We were expecting to meet with more Candidates, but were surprised to be so happy with the four we ended up selecting, that we decided to save everyone's time, and focus on moving positively forward with these four. 

 

* We are hosting a Meet The Candidates night soon, at which time our constituency's as well as anyone who wants to, can meet our four Candidates and judge for themselves if they are right for Boulder.

 

We don't think our selection process was perfect or ideal.  It represented a new situation in Boulder politics, where the stakes have grown high, true "citizen" candidates are growing too rare, and we are reflecting that by trying to be as easy as is reasonable, while still keeping the welcome mat out for all candidates.  And our process this year turned out to be more streamlined than we intended, simply because four candidates appeared whom we were very happy with. 

 

In closing, we don't think our selection process is important.  Rather, we think what all 13 Candidates are doing is important: they are the ones volunteering huge amounts of time for almost no reward.  What the rest of us is doing is nothing.  Our gratitude, thanks, and respect go to all of them.

 

Buzz Burrell

Matt Appelbaum Interview

I interviewed Matt Appelbaum on Tuesday. The main impression I got from Matt was what did not happen in the meeting. He did not campaign or sell himself, not even indirectly. Unusual in a politician to say the least.

I asked what the big problems are that Boulder is facing. He started off on the revenue picture. He made the very valid observation that available revenue drives the vast majority of what the Council can and cannot do. He discussed where we are and what the future looks like, with a couple of very interesting observations.

First he said that the revenue needs to be allocated to cover what we are going to do today, but have some left to try new things. Because if we allocate every penny to what we are presently doing, then we have no ability to try anything new. And a city needs to keep trying new things to find what else will work well for it. This is a very important issue to keep in mind when we have to cut existing programs because the impulse will be to spend every last cent on existing programs.

Second he pointed out that Boulder actually still has a good income for a city its size. But it has great expectations for services provided. So another way of looking at the budget crunch is that we have more than enough money for the basics, but that all the extras we take for granted may be too extensive. This does give the crunch a little perspective. It also shows why revenue sharing is a chimera (Matt did not mention it).

He also touched on the open space taxes. He thinks when they run out (in about 10 years) the proposal will be to continue that sales tax amount, but to steer it to the general fund instead. That's apostasy for some but is probably what will come to pass at that time. And that will help the general revenue picture at that time.

He brought up the changing city demographics and societal changes which also affect the revenue from sales taxes. But he didn't offer up anything in terms of addressing that. I brought up taxing Internet sales and he does agree that needs to happen, but that was at my prompting. So very good understanding of where we are and how we need to handle the revenue decrease. But no proposals for changes to how the city is funded (that is a very tough problem).

We then got on to the recent F.A.R. legislation. He clearly is annoyed by all the sturm und drang surrounding it. The nut-cases from both sides that come out on issues like this have to be annoying for the council & city employees – Matt doesn't hide his annoyance as well as most of them do. I give him kudos for speaking honestly.

He thinks the legislation is good, and its impact will be a lot less than most think. This took us into a very interesting direction. Matt is a major proponent of trying something, seeing how it works, and then tweaking it as required, and then watching it again. He was effusive in his praise for the present council for their willingness to go look at things that are not working well, and then adjust them.

He then discussed how all cities have some zoning regulation. And how cities will initially bring in new regulations that at first are the end of the world and 20 years later are consider "of course." So for F.A.R. he see that over the next year a moderate number of people will build or remodel under the codes. And we will see what impact they actually have. Based on that the council can then adjust the rules.

I asked if something like that should be put to the voters and he was adamant that it should not. Matt is a giant proponent of representative government in that the voters do not have the time or resources to dive in to these issues and then vote on them. He said that the voters are smart enough that they could get up to speed, but that the time doesn't exist.

This led to his worry that with the F.A.R. vote just before the election, people will be voting in the heat of the moment rather than 6 months after when things had settled down and people had cooled off. He worries than Macon especially faces a vote based on a low level of information when people are still emotional.

I disagreed with him on this and said that I think voters can make a fair decision with the information they have, because it actually is much simpler. People have a good gut feeling for if they think Boulder needs more or less regulation and they will base their vote on that basic viewpoint. Matt sort-of accepted that – I think.

But the bottom line here is Matt thinks it requires a high level of information to make these basic policy decisions. Many agree with that viewpoint. (I personally subscribe to the view that people are pretty good at making reasonable decisions with limited information – the Wisdom of Crowds approach.)

Next Matt brought up carbon emissions. He wants to see Boulder reduce it's usage by improving the buildings in the city. And he wants to see it happen a lot faster than is presently occurring. His proposals in this area is finding better ways to get the word out to people about how they can save themselves money by reducing the carbon footprint of their buildings. (News to me that the City had been doing something about this already.)

He then brought up affordable housing. I asked if that was lower income or middle class housing and he replied yes. He made the common observation that the middle class housing problem is the harder issue. No major specifics though.

He then spent about 10 minutes discussing how the last 8 months have been incredibly interesting for him. As mayor he is focused more on the regional, state, and federal level. He is Boulder's representative on a boatload of different committees at these levels. He's clearly having a really fun time working on those issues.

What is also interesting in retrospect is while he talked quite a bit in general terms, no specific items from his work on those committees were brought up. This may be because he didn't think to do so. Or it could be that at that level with all the different jurisdictions involved, nothing happens in just 8 months. He did speak about working on US-36 and FastTraks, but not what we will see.

He also talked a bit about the blogosphere. Matt is not a fan, especially not of the Camera comments section. (I've gotta agree on that last part, the Camera comments section seems to mostly be the same 6 people shouting past each other.) Matt prefers the professional journalists from the newspapers rather than a random individual posting based on limited knowledge. I think this goes back to his view that it takes significant time and effort to know enough about a subject to discuss it knowledgably. On the flip side, he agreed to this interview. So it's not like he's shutting out the blogosphere.

Well there you have it. Matt is very honest that he thinks we should elect good representatives and leave the governing to them. That they put in the required time to understand the issues. That full time journalists are the only ones with the knowledge & skill to report. This is a pretty common viewpoint, especially with people with skills that require a lot of training. But being up front about it rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

I'm more concerned with what he will do for us in council. With Matt you know what you are getting. And what you are getting is a technocrat who has a strong understanding of the job and will approach the problems we face in a professional and workmanlike manner. He'll almost certainly follow the mainstream course – which we like when that's what we want, and we dislike when we prefer radical change. All in all, he's arguably very well suited to be mayor of this crazy town.

Interview podcast Download MattApplebaum

Sierra Club Endorsements

Sierra Club Endorses Boulder City Council Candidates

Slate of candidates offers exceptional knowledge and experience in environmental and civic leadership

Boulder, CO—The Sierra Club is pleased to announce its endorsement of five candidates for the Boulder City Council. The endorsed candidates are:

Macon Cowles

Matt Appelbaum

Tim Plass

Jyotsna Raj

Suzy Ageton

These candidates offer the City of Boulder exceptional knowledge and experience in environmental and civic leadership. All of the candidates have demonstrated strong support for the City’s Climate Action Plan and its implementation through the Carbon Tax. They also all share in the Sierra Club’s goals of moving closer to Zero Waste, maintaining and enhancing our Open Space and Mountain Park properties, and improving alternative transit options both within and outside our city limits.

Three of the endorsed candidates—Cowles, Appelbaum, and Ageton—bring skill, competence, and knowledge cultivated from years of experience in Boulder civic engagement. The other two candidates—Plass and Raj—have also been active in Boulder civic affairs for many years and will bring intelligence and fresh ideas to Council. The Sierra Club believes that this mix of experience, talent, and fresh perspective is an ideal balance for a new Council.

Affecting real change at BVSD

We had a very interesting conversation in the comments of the Camera article Boulder Valley teachers turn down 1 percent cost-of-living raise. (This by the way is the Camera commenting at its best – an thoughtful discussion between people who disagree listing out the reasoning behind their points, and coming to agreement on some of the issues.)

Let's look at the facts. First BVSD has only 70% of its students at proficient or better. That means it is failing to do its job for 30% of the children entrusted to its care. Second, over the last 10 years of CSAP testing (CSAP pre-dates NCLB) there has been no improvement in BVSD's effort. Nothing, nada, zilch. Third, in the world today not having a college degree is a sentence of a lifetime of poverty for most. As most of the 30% BVSD is failing to educate are poor, this perpetuates a cycle of poverty.

At the same time, we have two major items that will let us effect significant change that will lead to a more effective system. First the teacher contract is expired. BVSD can come back with anything they wish, including the changes needed to improve the system. Second, in the present economy there are a lot of people well qualified to teach who are desperate for a job. So if many of the existing teachers turn down the offered contract, it is easy enough it find qualified replacements.

Out of this, based on the ideas of myself and others commenting in the article, I think BVSD should consider implementing the following:

1. The total budget allocated for teacher pay be increased by 1%.
2. Principals can select the teachers they want in their schools irrespective of tenure. All teachers not selected regardless of tenure are let go.
3. The school district sets individual pay anywhere within 20% of the presently set union rate for each teacher. But the total matches the present total plus 1%. In other words, say the union rate for a given teacher is 82K. Then the district can pay that teacher between 65.6K and 98.4K. But when adding up all salaries for all teachers, it needs to equal the present total plus 1%. So in total the teachers got a 1% raise, but some received a cut of up to 20% while other received a raise of up to 20%.
4. 20% of each teacher's salary is a bonus based on merit (merit definition below).
5. Half of the salary for principals & administrators is also a bonus based on merit. For merit pay to work, it needs to start at the top and the higher up you are, the higher a percentage of your pay is tied to performance. And it has to be tied to the same metrics. Otherwise it doesn't work.
6. Lousy principals & administrators are fired immediately. (And if administration bonuses are dependent on performance, they will be.)
7. The school board members promise to begin each re-election speech listing the percentage of students proficient & above and the percentage improving 1.2 years/year both when they first took office, and today. In other words they will run for re-election based on what they have, or have not, accomplished in improving the system.

So how do we pay out these bonuses? It is paid proportionally with the full amount for a 2%/year improvement in the number of students advancing 1.2 years each year (1.2 because we have a lot of catching up to do). This is measured on the advance of the student's (which we are now tracking). So a teacher is measured by the students in their class, the principal by the students in their school, and the administrator by the students in the district.

As to the claim that it's impossible to measure teachers accurately – bullshit. Teachers manage quite well distilling their full evaluation of a student in their class to a single letter grade. We've got very good tools in place to measure the improvement in students. Not perfect, but they are quite good. And life always requires us to make decisions, even critical decisions, with incomplete & imperfect information.

And as to the worry that teachers will teach to the test – yep. The trick is to continue to refine the tests so that teaching to the test is exactly the instruction we want. The tests at present range from excellent (generally the math & science ones) to ok. The big problem is that testing for the ability to think, to write, to persuade (all key today) requires essays. And those are expensive to grade. But it can be done.

My question to BVSD is why would you not implement that above? Because the present approach is clearly a failure and small tweaks are not going to affect any real change.

BCU - Questions & Answers

BCU now holds the record for the most transparent organization in Boulder - they are posting not only their questionnaire, but also their answers.

• Boulder Community United blog
• Boulder Community United Questionnaire
• Macon Cowles' Response
• Tim Plass' Response
• Suzy Ageton's Response
• George Karakehian's Response
• KC Becker's Response
• Jyotsna Raj's Response
• Seth Brigham's Response
• Matthew Appelbaum's Response
• Rob Smoke's Response
• Barry Siff's Response

Sierra Club endorsement process

These guys rock. Soerra Club is not just transparent, they're crystal clear. Here's their info:

Hi Dave,

 

Thanks for your patience. It’s been a particularly busy week, which included the successful staging our Boulder City Council Candidate Environmental Issues Forum (http://rockymtn.sierraclub.org/ipg/political/envForumplate.shtml) on Wednesday evening, and the Wild Step Fundraiser earlier today (http://www.rmc.sierraclub.org/hike/).

 

Here are answers to your questions:

 

1.   Do you evaluate all candidates or just some? If just some, what are your criteria to pre-select the candidates you will consider?
The local Sierra Club (i.e., the Indian Peaks Group of the Rocky Mountain Chapter) sends each Boulder City Council candidate a questionnaire. If a candidate does not return our questionnaire or respond to follow-up emails and phone calls, we assume they are not interested in our endorsement and we do not pursue the endorsement further. The Sierra Club then evaluates all candidates who express an interest in having a Sierra Club endorsement.

2.   What are the steps in your process? (ie, questionnaire, candidate presentation, etc.)
The Sierra Club’s process includes the questionnaire, a 45-minute candidate interview, a public candidate forum, evaluation of incumbent candidate voting records, and assorted other sources of information (including reading David Thielen’s blog). Sierra Club’s criteria for endorsement include (1) candidates’ overall environmental record, platform, and knowledge of city policy issues; (2) performance on environmental concerns as an incumbent; and (3) ability to run a credible campaign and prospects for winning. Depending on the number of candidates in a given council race, the strength of their candidacy, and the time constraints of an all-volunteer committee, the political committee decides by majority vote how many of the candidates it will move forward to the interview stage of the process. For example, in 2007 there were 23 candidates for 7 seats. The political committee interviewed what it perceived to be the 14 strongest candidates. In 2005 there were only 10 candidates. That year, Sierra Club interviewed all 10 candidates. This year we interviewed 10 of the 12 candidates who expressed interest in a Sierra Club endorsement.

All candidates are also invited to participate in a free and open-to-the-public Environmental Issues Forum. The Sierra Club, along with other local environmental organizations, has been hosting this moderated, question and answer forum for the past three council elections and we hope to continue it in future years. This year, in addition to the 1.5 hour  Q & A session, there was a  45 minute social period for the audience to meet the candidates and ask them questions in an informal “meet and greet” setting. All candidates are invited to this forum whether or not they make it to our interview stage.

Once the candidate interviews and forum are completed, the political committee meets to discuss and vote on candidate endorsements. The committee makes its endorsement recommendations to the Indian Peaks Group Executive Committee based on a majority vote. The Executive Committee then makes its candidate endorsements based on a minimum 2/3 majority vote for each candidate. Those endorsements are then forwarded to the Rocky Mountain Chapter (the state organization). The Rocky Mountain Chapter’s Administrative Committee does a second review of the endorsement and votes on it; they also must approve the endorsements by a 2/3 majority. These voting procedures comply with the national Sierra Club’s rules on making political endorsements.

3.   If you give them a questionnaire (if any), can you provide a copy? And can you provide the answers you received from each candidate?
I’ve attached a copy of our questionnaire and a copy of the questions that were asked at the Environmental Forum. The Forum questions were jointly written by the Sierra Club and other participating groups. Since we did not tell the candidates in advance that we would make their questionnaire responses public, we cannot make them public. However, candidates are certainly free to post their responses as they see fit. Our political committee discussed this and in the future we will alert candidates in advance that we may post their responses.

4.   Who are the people in your organization that vote on who you select?
Indian Peaks Group Political Committee: Steve Welter (Chair), Rebecca Dickson, Sarah Silver, Barry Satlow, Janet Salmons, Cole Kiersey, David Conley, Sharon Conley, Deirdre Butler.
Indian Peaks Group Executive Committee: Deirdre Butler (Chair), Bill Roettker, Mark Webster, Rebecca Dickson, Kirk Cunningham, Todd Sanford, Michael LeDesma
Rocky Mountain Chapter Administrative Committee: Jenny Kedward (Chapter Chair from Pueblo), Steve Welter (Chapter Vice Chair from Boulder), Kirk Cunningham (Chapter Conservation Chair from Boulder), Myrna Poticha (Chapter Executive Committee member from Greenwood Village), Maggie Pedersen (Chapter Executive Committee member from Glenwood Springs).

 

I hope that helps. Please let me know if you have questions.

 

All the best,

 

Steve

Download Sierra Club Questionnaire 2009
Download Final Enviro Forum Schedule & Questions