A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, Aug. 15, on U.S. debt deal:
There’s the ideological divide between Republicans and Democrats, which seems to be wider than ever. Then there’s the divide between what Americans say they want and what elected officials in Washington give them.
The latest McClatchy-Marist poll says that 47 percent of us think the debt-ceiling deal is bad for everyone except the wealthy and corporations (43 percent were OK with it). Here’s who voters think are treated unfairly by the deal:
The elderly: 65 percent.
The poor: 63 percent.
The middle class: 61 percent.
Conversely, 57 percent of voters polled think people with high incomes were treated fairly, and 56 percent said corporations got a fair shake.
Some other interesting results:
69 percent of respondents are for raising taxes on those who earn more than $250,000 a year, versus 28 percent against.
62 percent say Congress should get rid of subsidies to oil and gas companies.
50 percent support cuts in defense spending, while 46 percent oppose cuts to the military.
On the other hand, a much larger majority—84 percent—opposes cuts to Medicare and Social Security, and 73 percent are against cutting Medicare and entitlements.
And a whopping 70 percent think the country is headed in the wrong direction.
Faced with gaping deficits and an unsustainable national debt, lawmakers are in a difficult position. How do they balance the budget, cut deficits and restore confidence in their ability to govern?
As we’ve said before, not with short-term deals with an eye toward getting re-elected. And it appears lawmakers are listening more to vocal (or powerful) minorities.
Should Congress and the administration start paying more attention to polls? Maybe. But they definitely need to come up with a long-term plan to cut the debt, because there’s not much joy in their short-term deal.
Editorial:
———
The Gazette, Aug. 15, on teacher losing her job for breastfeeding:
A teacher who routinely pumped breast milk during work has lost her job, leading the American Civil Liberties Union to file a notice of claim against the Rocky Mountain Academy of Evergreen.
ACLU lawyers claim the public charter school declined to renew the contract of teacher Heather Burgbacher because she maintained a breast-pumping schedule. Lynn Setzer, a spokeswoman for Jefferson County schools, said Burgbacher’s position was altered and she was no longer a good fit.
We have no idea which story is true, so we’ll leave it to the courts to render judgment. Nevertheless, it is always great to see the ACLU stand up for mothers and babies.
Regardless of the outcome, this case is the latest reminder of an absurd reality. In a culture that has become hyper-sensitive to the feelings of those who have suffered prejudice and other forms of injustice—a society that tries to respect equal opportunity for women and minorities—mothers who nurse babies are too often treated as pariah. Every few months another breastfeeding controversy makes headlines, involving a mother ejected from public space, or a place of public accommodation, for exposing a breast. The mother is treated with the respect of a flasher for simply doing what is best for the physical and mental health of an infant.
For those who did not get the memo, it is unlawful to harass a mother for breastfeeding a child. Colorado is among 45 states with a law that specifically allows women to breastfeed in any public or private location. Colorado Revised Statute 25-6-302 could not be simpler: “A mother may breastfeed in any place she has a right to be.”
As of 2008, Colorado law has required all public and private employers to provide reasonable unpaid break time for any mother to express breast milk for two years after her child’s birth. Employers must also permit employees to use paid break time and meal breaks to express milk.
Federal law require employers to provide “reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for her nursing child for one year after the child’s birth each time such employee has need to express the milk.”
There is simply no legal room for anyone to infringe on a woman who is feeding a baby or expressing milk in Colorado. It is difficult to believe we need laws to protect women who engage in an activity so crucial to civilization. A society cannot grow and prosper if employers don’t protect the smallest among us, who will comprise tomorrow’s workforce. Besides, the needs of children motivate responsible parents to work hard.
Most laws that regulate employers and places of public accommodation go too far. But modern breastfeeding protections are essential to protecting the needs of babies. Though they cannot speak for themselves or defend their best interests, babies are the most valuable members of the human race. Laws that protect their ability to eat what God intended must be known and respected at all times, in all places.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Denver Post, Aug. 12, on relationship between state officials and foreclosure lawyer:
The financial connections between government officials who are supposed to impartially oversee foreclosures in Colorado and the state’s most prolific foreclosure lawyer raise serious ethical questions that must be resolved.
These relationships, spelled out in a Denver Post story by reporter David Migoya, have the potential to undermine public confidence in the foreclosure process.
The importance of the independence of public trustees comes into clearer focus once you understand what they do.
These officials, one in each of Colorado’s 64 counties, handle foreclosures as opposed to such matters going through the court system.
It’s a unique setup, created by the state legislature in 1894, to make sure the rights of lenders and borrowers are fairly balanced.
The Post story laid out troubling financial links between the Public Trustees’ Association of Colorado and attorney Lawrence Castle, whose firm files more foreclosure cases on behalf of banks and lenders than anyone else in Colorado.
Castle and his law firm have contributed thousands to the association. The association also has taken sizeable donations from a software company called Government Technology Systems (GTS), in which Castle has an interest.
Last year, donations from GTS alone totaled $20,000. The association used some of that money to pay for hotel rooms at the trustees’ annual convention in Black Hawk.
That’s a big donation, and we think it raises Amendment 41 questions. Amendment 41, passed by voters in 2006, imposes a broad ban on gifts to public officials.
The financial connections don’t end there. GTS also got lucrative no-bid contracts from public trustees to manage foreclosure systems in eight of the state’s largest counties.
That seems way too cozy to us.
Unfortunately, there’s more. Castle appeared before state legislators in 2008, urging them to raise the salaries of the 10 public trustees appointed by the governor.
Lawmakers granted the raise, which eventually increased trustees’ pay from $48,500 to $72,500.
The Post story explaining this compendium of connections caught the attention of Gov. John Hickenlooper. His legal staff will give the 10 trustees appointed by the governor a presentation to remind them of ethical boundaries.
We hope there is further scrutiny of the connections between Castle and the state’s public trustees. It strikes us that Colorado’s Independent Ethics Commission would be a good forum for such questions.
The trustees themselves ought to address these issues as well. Their stock in trade is their objectivity.
It is in their best interest to protect their reputations from even an appearance of a conflict of interest.
Editorial:
———
Canon City Daily Record, Aug. 15, on elected leaders’ votes being public:
State law is clear: “The formation of public policy is public business and may not be conducted in secret.”
At least we think it’s clear. The Colorado Court of Appeals, however, believes that this means a city council or other public body can vote via secret ballot, so long as residents watch them do it. Back in 2009 and 2010, the Fort Morgan City Council filled two council vacancies and appointed a municipal judge using anonymous written ballots.
A resident challenged the city in court and lost. In upholding that lower-court ruling, the Court of Appeals stated that Colorado Open Meetings Law requires only that “the public have access to meetings of local public bodies and be able to observe the decision-making process.”
Hogwash.
The court’s ruling trashes the spirit of the law and provides a defense for elected “leaders” who would rather that voters not know their decisions. If a council can fill a vacancy by secretly scribbling their votes on pieces of paper, then they can spend public money and create public policy the same way.
Want to know how they voted?
Tough luck, the Court of Appeals says. If the solution to this has to be spelled out in law—no secret ballots on public decisions—then we trust that state lawmakers will address this as soon as possible in the coming session.
Discussions of public matters are important for voters to understand the motives of their elected officials, but we agree with state Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, who said that politicians vote and stand for re-election based on what they do. The action of a public body is in voting.
And that should be transparent.
Editorial:
