Letters to the editor

2/16/2006 - Dear Editor,

  It was brought to my attention that the commissioner's corner written by Lynn regarding the 1/26 meeting has a statement that by first impression implies the Fire District wrote bad checks to the county. The article states, "Three Gilpin County funds ended in the negative this year. Colorado Sierra Fire Department's account was down $217." The board asked me to contact you about a correction/clarification. We did not receive this tax money because someone bounced a check to the county. This was nothing done on our part. Please print a clarification. 

Thanks, Cece Miller

Colorado Sierra Fire Department

Black Hawk Transportation Authority                                       February 14, 2006
Philo Shelton, President

Dear Philo:

   I am sorry to have to tell you, on behalf of the Board of Gilpin County Commissioners, that we’re unable, at this time, to sign the Intergovernmental Agreement for transit services in unincorporated Gilpin County. We appreciate all of the hard work you, Amy Ostrander and others have put into this program. We certainly recognize that our inability to reach agreement on a Memorandum of Understanding, modifying the IGA in such a way as to make it acceptable to all parties, is simply a reflection of the different constituencies we are pledged to serve

   We hope this will not be the final word on cooperation in this area, and even more sincerely, wish that our failure to reach consensus on this matter will not affect future collaborative efforts between the County and the Cities.

   Please feel free to call upon us if there’s any additional information we can provide.

Sincerely,

Forrest Whitman
Chairman, on behalf of the Board of Gilpin County Commissioners

I don’t attend many Board of County Commissioners meetings anymore. My doctor had advised me that listening to the rhetorical, wide-ranging platitudes was probably not good for my heart. My buddy Bill and I stopped going to the meetings some months ago when it finally “occurred” to us that the Commissioners were going to do as they pleased, irrespective of “any” public opinions or comments.  New residential developments are going up, new county buildings are going up – who knows what they (Commissioners) have up their proverbial sleeve – and we know nothing (or very little) about them because little or no information is forthcoming. Well, one of the Commissioners did manage to tell a friend that the public still the opportunity to comment on the “design” of a new building – even though the “public” had been kept in the dark about the new Road and Bridge building. My sentiments had been that until we get “new Commissioners”, nothing was going to change, so I simply gave up.

  But, something in last week’s paper caught my eye – the “After Prom Party.” Now, you’ll forgive me for not “being in the minutiae” on this one, but this is my understanding: (1) Some folks in Nederland asked for the use of the our (Gilpin County) Recreation Center for an after-prom gathering; (2) Our County Manager and Recreation Center Director develop a quasi-policy that outlines costs associated with using the Rec. Center; (3) The Nederland folks say the cost is too high; (4) Commissioners say they’ll help offset the cost by “donating” either $2,400 or $3,000 (I’m still not clear which number is correct); (5) Then our own (Gilpin – yes our own) school and parent representatives approach the Commissioners about use the Rec. Center for an after-prom gathering and they’re presented with the same proposal/options previously presented to the Nederland folks.

  Our County Manager is known for his pragmatic approach to public policy issues and his applied due diligence to matters of fiduciary responsibility. Whatever the costs may be to an organization for using Gilpin County facilities, such as the Rec Center, as a policy matter, I’m sure are accurate, because the County Manager has researched those issues carefully.

  I attended today’s (Valentines Day) Commissioners’ meeting during which, I believe, the Commissioners voted on the new policies as they regard the use of the Gilpin County Recreation Center (and maybe other facilities). Commissioner Nicholson was intent on making policy that was rigid and “across-the-board” – applicable to everyone and (most importantly) that any money donated by county should be “earmarked” for use at the Recreation Center. Commissioner Whitman actively supporting Commissioner Nicholson and the new policy, in general. Commissioner Price “bringing up the rear” - but not in lockstep with Nicholson and Whitman. Dissent on this issue?

  Commissioner Price arguing that “earmarking” that money for use “only” at the Recreation Center was simply moving money from one county pot of money to another county pot of money – and didn’t make sense to him.  It didn’t make sense to many of us in attendance either. But that was the policy and was voted upon. Commissioner Price lost that one. Too bad.

  Here is something taxpaying citizens of Gilpin County may wish to consider: Why can’t we use “discretionary” county funds (or other funds that may be available) to donate to “our” Booster Club (or whomever is sponsoring the after-prom gathering) to cover the “entire” costs of having the after-prom party at “our” Recreation Center? Why are we even having a discussion about having to “grovel” in front of the Commissioners for something that is clearly a benefit to the entire citizenry of Gilpin County. Why didn’t the Commissioners “order” – not ask – the appropriate county officials to make whatever arrangement necessary to accommodate an after-prom party for “our” (Gilpin County) students? Why wouldn’t they do that?  I’ll tell you why. Because Commissioners Whitman and Nicholson would rather present themselves as the “benevolent” caretakers of the community by setting obstructionist policies and then offering to mitigate that policy by placing unrealistic condition on “their benevolence.” They said: Sure we’ll let you use the Rec. Center (a facility for which we all paid “dearly”, including the parents of our Junior and Senior students); we’ll even “throw in” some money and anything not covered by “our benevolence” you’ll just have to come up with yourself.

  Commissioner Price (seemingly the only reasonable official on this issue) was “partly” correct. The current policy, as it applies to our students, simply moves money from pot to another – while still requiring the sponsoring organization (Boosters or others) to make up the difference. Here’s another rhetorical question for you: What would it cost (actual costs) to open up the Rec Center for an after-prom party for our students? And, what are we charging other Gilpin County groups for the use of “our” facility?

  Here’s what I find, not only hypocritical, but dead wrong: County officials, including the Commissioners expend quite a bit of taxpayers’ money on trips to San Francisco, Washington, D.C, various locations around our great state, all under the auspices of “county business.” Oh sure, they can explain the need for this training or that training, or this meeting or that meeting – all at a great cost to the taxpayers. Now, for sure, I’m not saying those trips (or other costs/expenses) are not justified. I just find it extremely hypocritical for our county officials, including the Commissioners to discuss (at other forums), in wide-ranging platitudes, the importance of education and our educational institutions and then “set a trap” for a time-honored event that is part of every educational institution. It makes no sense. If the Commissioners want to set a policy about use of “our” facilities by residents of other counties and associated costs – that’s good public policy. It is not good public policy when they (Commissioners) tell our students (who own our public facilities) that they either can’t use those facilities or make so prohibitively expensive that they have to resort to using their lunchroom for hold their after-prom party – and tell them with a smile. Shame on you Commissioners Whitman and Nicholson. It reminds me of the “short-lived” policy you had adopted to ensure that folks at the dump could not “cut into line” ahead of others who had been waiting to dump their trash – Simply setting policy for the sakes of setting policy makes no sense at all. And, whom does it hurt? Our students.

Rudy V. Garcia

Dory Lakes