ISSUE # 14b ... ApplicANTs ANSWER COUNCIL'S WACKY QUESTIONS

"Will you promise to run (or not to run) in the next election?"

"What conditions would have to be present for you to exercise the condemnation powers of the City Council?"

"How would you behave if you had evidence someone was lying to City Council?"

"Which part of intense media scrutiny, 400 page memos, and 7 hour meetings interests you?"

(No, sadly, these are NOT Red Ant jokes, as many of you thought after we released Council's 22 questions. See the list of candidate questions at www.theredant.com.  Many of you were offended by the highly partisan political question 22, which was either a juvenile attempt at humor, or aimed at eliciting the applicant's personal politics.) 

Those and 18 other questions were posed by Council to the five finalist Council candidates, Marsha Goshorn, Jackie Kasabach, Howie Mallory, Jim Pomeroy and Jasmine Tygre for written answers.

The Ant is happy to report that the candidates' answers were far more professional than the Council's questions. Despite the country's economic crisis, the RETT and Sales Tax extensions got a thumbs up from all but Howie, who has reservations about the RETT. (See below.)

Most applicants did not address the REAL question being asked about the relationship between Council and Staff responsibilities. They replied with the obvious answer that staff should not set policy but, take direction of Council, or with assumptions that this question was about disagreements between staff and Council.  Few seemed to understand that the real issue is that Council is operating as day-to-day managers, and not elevating their own work to the strategic policy level responsibility they were elected to address.

A few comments are noteworthy:
 
Marsha Goshorn:  "I take abuse well, sometimes I even enjoy it!!!!!" (emphasis hers), on the topic of media scrutiny and 7 hour meetings.  The Ant wonders if, as next-door neighbor to Mayor Mick she is accustomed to neighborly political abuse.
 
 She supports 300 units at Burlingame, and sites her experience on that COWOP which studied this matter at length.
 
She would support "scrape and replace" bans on single family homes, if AACP supports it.
 
On historic preservation, "not everything is historically valuable simply by automatic virtue of its age."
 
Jackie Kasabach: On Burlingame, "would have requested time to have Staff research issues." (Perhaps Jackie does not realize that staff was asked to research these issues for 1 ½  months and could not produce answers.)

She promotes "an open approach to community-generated ideas on affordable housing." This is something many of us feel has great possibilities and is a healthy change from the past.

Jackie says, "Council must rely on staff and volunteer commissions or else it will end up micro-managing city government."  (Some of us fear they already do!) Jackie wisely says, "We must utilize the talent we have, or frankly, get rid of it."

When asked about the long memos and 7 hour meetings, she disappointed us in her response, "Doesn't it all come with the territory?" No, it need not. We hope that a new Council member will help lead the way to elevating Council's role to the Charter-designed role of a policy body, not micro-managers.

As a former long-time manager at The Gant, Jackie, surely recognizes the impacts of a tumultuous economy on businesses of all kinds in Aspen, a crucial perspective in the immediate term for this Council.

Howie Mallory:  The only candidate who directly confronted the current/impending economic downturn was frank about trust, transparency and responsiveness as keys to successful governance.  He also gave essay-length, serious answers to 22 questions, ignoring the partisan swipe at Palin.

On Burlingame, he recommends, "To build trust, the initial response must not be to simply defend the institution of the City government, but rather to identify the problem. . . "

He recommends a business-oriented task force to help craft ideas on supporting locally serving businesses. This sounds like a good idea to us. Ask the guys who are making their living doing it!
As a former banker, he commits to "utilize my financial analytical skills to examine the reasonableness of the upcoming City budget." He speaks of the likely "serious downturn" depressing sales tax and RETT funds. He adds the most powerful statement the Ant saw on any application, "No budget can be too conservative for the next several years."

He wants to avoid having the Council use its condemnation powers, and warns against unintended consequences of rushed moratoriums.
On the RETT ballot measure, he feels that the rush to extend from 2024 to 2040 is "not compelling. Future use of the RETT funds should be tied to specific projects and specific needs. Accumulating funds without specific uses and plans is simply not good governance. The absence of this kind of common sense internal discipline contributed to the casual management of the RETT funds employed in the Burlingame 1 experience."

Jim Pomeroy:
On Burlingame, "one of the lessons is the importance of transparency in government." But he "whole-heartedly believes" that no "cover up was at work," which makes the Ant wonder if Pomeroy has read the detailed findings and communications related to the issue. In fact he goes on to say that Council should not "lay blame" on who "caused the situation. What is past is past," he says, which is exactly what those say who want to cover up what happened.

Pomeroy, noting the "many pressing issues concerning affordable housing" wisely says that we need a "task force to look at updating the entire system and making recommendations to Council."  We agree that a new and far more progressive strategic plan is needed.

On condemnation, he has a difficult time thinking of a circumstance that would justify it. But recommends using the emergency powers "often" when land use code changes are being contemplated!

Something we rarely hear at City Hall, "One of the other top issues in Aspen is fostering small business."  Pomeroy states, a "priority of City council needs to be strengthening and encouraging these sorts of businesses."

"Lying to Council?" He wisely advises being "very careful about making accusations," and asking the person directly.

Historic preservation of WWII-era homes in Aspen is, Pomeroy believes, "one of the most contentious in Aspen." He thinks there should be very clear importance of a building for preservation initiatives, and supports incentives for voluntary preservation.

Jasmine Tygre:
Jasmine supported the Burlingame audits as necessary but thought that their analysis was "fair and impartial," which indicates that she probably did not do her homework on this one by reading the full reports. But she "emphatically disagrees with the creation of a new department to oversee affordable housing development," fearing the spending on "soft cost" rather than more housing. She recommends a "committee oversight" rather than direct-line responsibility.  We'd agree that the City doesn't have the right answer yet, but the responsibility for a major development resting with committee of citizens doesn't sound like a good solution to the Ant!

While Jasmine supports more density at Burlingame, her homework was lacking again in that she thought that the prior ballot specified a lower number of units. (Even Mayor Mick and the registered Issue Committee for Burlingame in 2005 promised a possibility of up to 330 units.)

Jasmine doesn't seem to like Obermeyer Place, calling it "one of the scariest sites I have ever visited. . .  Drearily empty, and most of the space is occupied by architects and designers." Dwayne, didn't you build that "scary" place?  We don't find architects and designers so scary or such bad people!  Sounds like Jasmine doesn't like development, although she works for Sotheby's Real Estate.

Her take on the most pressing non-housing problem is "empty neighborhoods, loss of individuality and eccentricity that characterized Aspen."  We haven't noticed any shortage of eccentricity, but we'd have to agree on that loss of individuality. There certainly do seem to be a lot of people who don't want to think for themselves.

She councils her questioners that "evidence of false information is not enough to establish lying" and it is best to avoid the term "liar," and to fulfill the Council members'  "responsibility to ensure that truthful information is presented."

She does say that "meetings could be shorter and more efficient."

 

Mick's Picks
Notably, of the 19 original applicants for the vacant City Council seat, 7 showed up on the list of Mick's supporters, "People Making a Difference", as he calls them.  Of the finalists selected, all 5 are from that list.  Politics as usual in Aspen.  This, from the Mayor who promised that he valued diversity of ideas and looked forward to appointing people whose ideas differed from his.

More Questions from Council
Each applicant will be interviewed for 30 minutes by Council in an open meeting at 4 p.m. today,  Wednesday, the 15th.  Presumably the decision will be made this evening. Meeting will be broadcast live on Channel 11, and likely replayed in the future.

See The Red Ant TV show where Tim Semrau, Andrew Kole and Marilyn discuss the candidates and Council's process.  Channel 12 and live web http://www.grassrootstv.org/liveweb.html

broadcast schedule: (Mountain Time)
Wednesday 10/15 10 p.m.
Friday 10/17   2 p.m.
Saturday  10/18 at 9 p.m.

Your Comments

We received some fascinating comments on the blog  (www.theRedAnt.com ) on the Council process. Also, see the results of readers who answered the questions for themselves.   http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07e2dhnigwflvuxh1m/results .  In answering those questions we feel that more people understood the unprofessional nature of the Council questions. Luckily, it appears that the real Council candidates did as well.      We are always happy for your comments on our ANThology, www.theRedAnt.com

Don't be IgnorANT on Election Day

The Ant is overwhelmed by the complexity of ballot issues. We are learning that even  some of our elected officials feel the same way, trying to get up to speed on the complexities of area ballot measures. Here's an opportunity to feel confident on the local issues when you are in the voting booth.   Come to the local issues forum where community leaders will deliver the big picture perspective on all City, County, RFTA and Schools issues. 3 minute presentations on pros and cons of each ballot issue, with plenty of time for your questions and comments.  BOCC candidates will weigh in as well, ready to take your questions.   5:30 -8:30 p.m. Wednesday, Oct 22, Paepcke Auditorium   Speakers and resources to include: Bruce Anderson, Patti Clapper, Don Davidson, Jack Hatfield, Ward Hauenstein, Andrew Kole, Laura Kornasiewicz, Dee Malone,  Mike Maple, Paul Menter, George Newman, Kevin Patrick, Rachel Richards, Dan Richardson, Shellie Roy, Katherine Sand, Tim Semrau, Shirley Ritter, Dan Blankenship, and Diana Sirko. Please join us!

Comments

[Andrew Kole and responders]

Here’s an interesting fact or two.

Of the 19 candidates who applied to fill the empty seat on council, seven were listed in the last election as “Mick Supporters” on his website.

Of the five finalists, all five were listed as “Mick Supporters” ... kind of like marrying your cousin.

John Paul Getty once said, “No one can possibly achieve any real and lasting success by being a conformist.”

And while I’m not suggesting all the candidates are conformists, I am saying they appear to be handpicked by the current “Mick Majority.”

Right now it looks like a 4-1 vote is in place on most issues. Of course if Mick, Jack or Steve had to abstain due to a conflict, the vote would still be in hand at 3-1.

I’m not saying a couple of the candidates might not move to the other side of the table at times, but that would still make it 3-2.

I understand, and agree to an extent, that selecting someone who has similar beliefs to J.E. is very important when filling his seat.

But, what I do not understand is the fear of choosing someone who might not fall in line, someone who might not agree so quickly, someone who might challenge this current council to be better. ''

Andrew Kole--

Following responses posted on Aspen Daily News.

Fab 5 and Tinafey:
Submitted by shellieroy on Tue, 10/14/2008 - 11:09am.
The downfall of leaders, governments, businesses or corporations seems to always lie with the number of YES men the leader(s) surround themselves with.

Anties
Submitted by Tinafey on Mon, 10/13/2008 - 11:20pm.
Pretty much Mavericky to see Tim and Marilyn and Andy on the same TV show! Saying the same sound bytes. Where is Katie Couric when you need her.

And Ms. Marks, I think were all Marksists now that the banks have been nationalized by your Republican party! Su Lum said you lack truthiness and laugh inappropriately, but I think you are even funnier than Sara P!

Tinafey Rises To The Occasion
Submitted by koleshow on Tue, 10/14/2008 - 9:47am.
I suggested a little more humor and I congratulate you Tinafey. While you still have a way to go, (don't we all) your humor IQ is climbing up the charts.

Now I'm wondering who you really are? Has the infamous king of letters to the editor, Roger Marolt returned under a new secret identity?

Do we really need Katie Couric - we do have Su? In respect to her use of the word "truthiness": - WARNING! S. Colbert could be knocking on her door soon as I believe he trademarked that term.

Finally - Had I know MM was a Republican, I would have never appeared on her show even for the small appearance fee.

Bitterness, anger, sarcasm and blight!
Submitted by mmarks on Mon, 10/13/2008 - 6:35pm.
A blight on the community!! Of course, the untimely Burlingame discovery is apparently part of WHY I’m such a blight. It is not an offsetting quality, as you imply, Andrew. Anger and bitterness? Yet, Su Lum says I laugh all the time---the classic sign of anger and bitterness, I guess.

But the funniest part is that the criticism for being sarcastic comes from none other than that serious minded, diplomatic Tina Fey who would never mock a government official !

As for Tina’s question---why would Mick appoint someone with whom they don’t agree? Well, first, because, during his campaign, he told us would appoint people of differing views. Secondly, to elevate the quality of the debate and decision making. Thirdly, to represent a broader part of the electorate. And many more reasons. Listening to one side of an issue is never the way to get to the best decision.

Marilyn Marks
www.TheRedAnt.com

Lighten Up
Submitted by koleshow on Mon, 10/13/2008 - 4:13pm.
If you're going to use the screen name Tinafey (from Saturday night fame) you need to lighten up a bit - Of course if your real name is Tina Fey then I can only imagine the struggle to live up to her senses of humor. Anyway, I've only lost 4 elections so I have a way to go until I catch up to Lincoln- Of course he was shot, so I'm not sure if I should even bother to go on. Let me not digress. To be accurate, my letter was filled with irreverent satire - not bitter or mean (although I am curious to specifically you found mean - How about coffee and a muffin to discuss it? Finally in respect to Marilyn (a blight on the community - except she did discover a major financial screw up) deregulators (a McCain supporter?), growth cheerleaders (cool outfits I hope), and tax cutters (not sure who you're upset with here) I can only hope the sun will come up tomorrow.

Another Red Ant?
Submitted by Tinafey on Mon, 10/13/2008 - 10:08am.
Another mean, sarcastic letter from Andrew. Do you think its a coincidence that the voters have declined to elect him six or seven times? Why would Mick or the council appoint someone with whom A) they don't agree and b) who responds to them with sarcasm and bitter anger when they don't go along with his views? They get enough of that from Marilyn and the deregulators, growth cheerleaders and tax cutters.