Thursday, September 10, 2009

Now That You Mention It — 090910

The Chieftain fires a ‘Warning Shot’?

Seems that a couple of weeks ago, the Chieftain ran an interesting editorial item from a source that, to the best of my knowledge, they’d never called upon before. This after a couple of posts I made on this blog wherein I took their ‘journalistic qualities’ to task.

I made those posts in order to provide what I call ‘counter-spin’ to the articles that had been written about two events I attended.

I’ve held off on replying to their more recent item until I’d consulted with some others. And having done that, I’ve decided it was time to call out the Chieftain once again.

Why do I do this?

Because it is essential for a free country to have ALL the facts of a matter. Not just one-sided ‘spin’ on matters of importance. Otherwise, that saying by President James Madison….

A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.

....will come to pass.

So, here is my reply to their ‘editorial’.....

More...

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Those Damn Dams

Remembrances and Thoughts on Some Damming Business.

Frank Starginer passed away last week. He was quite the man in town. Some people loved him. Some people didn’t think so highly of him. I wish I’d had the time to pick his highly informative brain and record all I could from him. He was so full of information that we need. And now….most of it is lost to us.

One of Frank’s pet ‘peeves’—he had a number of important ones—was the safety of Pueblo from the possibility of a failure of the Pueblo Lake dam. I’ve heard him talk on it a number of times. As I’m sure a number of others have as well. Many to the point of despair. However, what he said about the potential for disaster may have been more accurate than most people would care to think.

I say this based on two incidents. One from a year ago. Another just today.

A year ago, I attended the Colorado Federation of Garden Clubs, Southern District Annual Meeting. There the guest speaker was talking about water issues for southern Colorado. I happened to be seated at the table with the gentleman and somehow….I don’t know exactly how….the discussion came around to water control mechanisms, e.g., dams. During the conversation, he mentioned that about 50% of the dams in Colorado were below ‘par’, i.e., not up to ‘snuff’, for their requirements. This prompted me to remember Frank’s comments about dam safety. Especially the Pueblo Reservoir dam.

Today, I found THIS on the web.

Now I have to wonder about the safety of Pueblo again.

If Frank were here and heard about this, I’m certain he would have been at the next 2010 Commission meeting raising (1) his hand and (2) cain.

[Hero: n., One who is never appreciated until he is no longer around.]

Now That You Mention It — 090827

Blow-back on the Loretta Sword article in the Pueblo Chieftain, i.e., a ‘fisking’.

I attended the Public Forum on the proposed health care reform legislation working its way through Congress, last Monday evening. I also read the article in the Chieftain from Loretta Sword about her observations of the forum.

As I had some thinks to say to Juan Espinosa earlier this month about his ‘reporting’ of a Tea Party event about the legislation, it would be ‘sexist’ of me not to give Loretta the same ‘attention’.

Sooooo…...here ya go, ladies and gentlemen…..

More...

Monday, August 17, 2009

Milk-Carton Politicians

The MIAs of Congress.

An interesting list.

It doesn’t include our own Congressperson John Salazar, who, as I reported earlier, is not planning on holding a Town Hall meeting for us to address ourselves to him over HR 3200.

So I passed the source of the list his name.

On the other hand, our own Pueblo Chieftain reports that….

Salazar, who will also be in Grand Junction today, is looking to “schedule other events at this time,” a spokesman said Friday. - Peter Strescino

I guess I’ll call his office AGAIN and ask for specifics.

But, knowing politicians and poli-speak, it’s mostly double-talk, i.e., it can mean many things. None of which may involve a Town Hall meeting.

Saturday, August 15, 2009

A GREAT Idea!

If my Congressperson, John Salazar, doesn’t host a town hall this August….

....I recommend that whomever is planning to run against him for the Colorado Third Congressional District do THIS!

Friday, August 14, 2009

Where Is John?

Missing Inaction?

I’ve contacted my Congressman’s local office (phone #: 543-8200) twice now on a matter near and dear to the hearts of a LOT of my fellow citizens. That is if you believe the reports of ruckus being raised over House Resolution (HR) 3200.

I called on August 3d. And I just got off the phone with that office again.

On BOTH occasions, the staffers I talked to indicated that my Congressman has no plans to hold a Town Hall meeting on this matter.

And I have to wonder just WHY.

His staff has not been forthcoming when I’ve asked what has he been doing all this time.

On MIGHT get the impression he’s flown to Argentina, for all we know.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Tamiflu a No-No for Kidos?

Oh oh…..

An interesting report from England about the use of Tamiflu to treat children for Swine Flu.

Monday, August 10, 2009

Now That You Mention It — 090810

Comments on an article in the Pueblo Chieftain.

I normally do not comment on matters at the national level in this forum. But because of the importance of the issue of healthcare ‘reform’ and its impact on everyone in the city and county of Pueblo, I’ve decided to start this Now That You Mention It series.

The Pueblo Chieftain article caught our attention the other morning. And I decided it was time to throw in my two-bits on what was said in it.

The article, titled “Health care debate deserves more than one-sided rhetoric”, relates to HR 3200, a.k.a., America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.

It is by Juan Espinosa. He’s the “night city editor” of the Pueblo Chieftain. And, as with all too many people in such an organization, he’s ‘liberal’ to the point of obvious bias. Maybe even to the point of being ‘progressive’. But that’s beside the points I’m about to make here.

But before I begin here, let me comment that this matter is being complicated in a manner that Juan is NOT addressing. Like so many others, he is getting confused by mutually conflicting issues. And I’ll discuss those as “The Bottom Line” after fisking Juan’s article.

So, now, let us begin…..

More...

Thursday, April 02, 2009

ISSUES- ISSUES- ISSUES

Transparency, oversight, bidding procedures

Issues- Issues- Issues
January 28, 2009

I am concerned about the honor farm deal with NEK that is being considered without competitive bidding.  There are those that say NEK is willing to invest their own money to make improvements.  That may be true.  But it must be remembered that NEK is a for profit company and their motive, most likely, for making improvements is not for the benefit of the community but for their ability to increase profits. 
Might there be better qualified companies/organizations interested in operating the honor farm facilities and are willing to invest in making improvements.  We may never know, because the city was not and continues not to be willing to go out on bid for the operations of the facilities.  Secret negotiations generally seem to be the preferred way of doing business.
It is my understanding NEK has been using the honor farm facilities for some period of time for training (a profitable service).  I would like to know how long NEK has used the facility and how much they have paid the city prior to the July, 2008 agreement and since that agreement.
This brings up the problem of little or no oversight of non-departmental operations.  I believe the proposed change of the city management hierarchy, which I believe is a step in the right direction, must include well defined oversight of these operations.  The honor farm/PMI situation is an example.
There is also another example, the fixed base operations at the airport.  Recently the city issued a RFP, possibly for the second time, for the fixed base operations.  I reviewed the RFP and came to the conclusion that the requirements to update and maintain the operations at the expected high level requested versus the risks and cost for an operator did not make good business sense for any potential bidder.
I attended to the bid opening, I was the only one that did, and it was no surprise to me that only one bid was submitted.  This was from a company that was incorporated in November of 2008.  This kind of situation seems to happen on a too frequent basis.  Why?  Is it lack of long term planning, and oversight, or is the city hard to do business with.  The people need answers on how the city can provide a more efficient and cost effective government.
Ted Freeman
 

City Council-City Manager or City Council-Mayor

The existing form of government does not appear to meet the needs or the will of the people.

City Council-City Manager
or
City Council-Mayor

Comments to City Council

January 26, 2009

I am concerned about the situation in which we find the city government; do we keep the council-city manager form and how can that be accomplished when we find that the city is without a city manager and there is an organized group in favor of changing the government to a council-mayor form.  How can the city hire a new city manager when these conditions exist?  Is it the right time to consider a council-mayor form of city government and for the right reasons?
I feel, as do others, that some of the reasons to change from the council-city manager form, real or perceived are;  primarily little or no transparency(the breakdown of communications between the council and city manager, and between the council, the city manager and the public);  little or no justification made public of criteria or basis on which decisions on major issues are based and independent of other council members;  the lack of opportunities for public input; the inefficient operation of some of the city departments;  the lack of oversight of non-departmental operations, including the Urban Renewal Authority.
Let’s examine or analyze both the council-city manager and the council-mayor forms of government in their simplest of terms.
A.   In the council- city manager form, the city council is elected and is obligated to represent their constituents and to serve the needs of the people.  The City manager hired by the council is responsible for the operations of the city at the direction of the council and as prescribed by the city charter.  The city manager shall be a professional manager both in education and experience.  In this form, the council has oversight on how well the city manager is performing the duties of the office.  Since the city manager is not an elected official, there is no direct obligation to the people but only to the council.
B.   In the council-mayor form, the council is elected as is the mayor and therefore both have a moral obligation in meeting the needs of the people.  Since the office of mayor is by election, it is implied that candidates for the office be a resident of Pueblo and not necessarily be a professional manager.  It brings additional political forces on the position but also provides that the leadership be based on the desires and needs of the electorate.  The council does not have oversight of the mayor, the people do.
Both forms of government appear to have their strengths and weaknesses.  I feel regardless of the direction taken a charter convention must be convened as soon as possible to either update the existing charter while maintaining the council-manager form or changing the government to a council-mayor.  Today, the existing city charter is not adhered to in many areas and should be updated due to new and additional needs of the city, new management techniques and procedures and technology.  Otherwise we must examine, analyze and modernize how Pueblo is governed.
I am concerned about Pueblo having the dedicated leadership required to bring together people with diverse ideas to create a new governance in which the largest of majorities can believe.  We must find this leadership.
Presented by,
Ted Freeman

Thursday, March 05, 2009

Back to Politics — BRPoCG - 3

How we got here? How we’re organized?

More views of the on-going Blue Ribbon Panel on City Government (BRPoCG).

The week before meeting focused on a presentation of how the Pueblo city government got to be the way it is configured today.

In my professional opinion, something about being a retired Army officer with some experience in giving information briefings, it could have been done better. There were no visual materials other than a copy of the City Charter for reference. The presenter had his copy marked with post-it notes to help him quickly flip to a particular page.

Furthermore, there was no organizational charting to show the different forms that the city government took, let alone the various departments therein and who they reported to. This, I think, is an important aspect of understanding what the city organization looks like. Not everyone is as ‘textually’ oriented as the presenter apparently was. Some people are more ‘visually’ oriented, i.e., they understand a complex topic better with diagrams and pictures.

One example would be the Board of Water Works. When and why did this utility get separated from the city? Another example is the electricity utility. Colorado Springs has that utility inside its government. Additionally, consider Englewood. They have a ‘concrete’ utility that deals with the development and maintenance of sidewalks, curbs and gutters.

These are ALL aspects of the city government that should be looked into. If not having to do with a mayoral form of government, certainly have a significant impact on how the government functions, mayor or no.

It is my considered opinion that the panel was poorly served by this presentation. And, for their sake, I hope they get better information on how we got to this current organization, as it will likely impact on where we go with the question at hand.

The more I look at this. The more I believe that a City Charter Convention is going to be required to address the form of city government Pueblo adopts and other important aspects of how the government functions.

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

Caveat Emptor — Cooper Wiring Devices

Is THIS ‘stupid’ or what?

So one of the pull-chain ceiling lighting fixtures in the basement went ‘south’ on us. You pull the chain and the light doesn’t turn on-or-off. It seems to be stuck in the ‘on’ position. So the only way to turn it off is to unscrew it slightly.

In the first place, the old porcelain fixture will not readily admit to replacement of the faulty switch assembly. We obviously need to do a LOT of work with a soldering iron or get a new assembly.

Going to Lowe’s to get a replacement assembly we have two offerings. One plastic and the other porcelain. The porcelain opinion is clever in design, allowing for replacement of faulty switch elements. It’s only $1 more than the plastic option. So I get it.

Doing all the work to put it into place, I get to the final installation step…..screwing the new porcelain assembly onto the metal housing that holds it to the ceiling.

Guess what….

....the holes in the porcelain assembly do not match up with the screws in the metal box.

OH! There are a couple of plugs in the assembly that, if you remove them properly, you CAN affix it to the narrower metal box.

Wait a moment! In my dealings with ceramics, I’m somewhat familiar with dealing with porcelain. It’s not particularly keen on punching, hitting, or even drilling it. Better be careful…..

So, I just got off the phone with ‘Tim’ at Tech Support for Cooper Wiring Devices. In the discussion, it comes out that the probability of success in ‘drilling’ or ‘punching’ out the plugs in their porcelain assembly is rather ‘low’. He suggests I return the product and find something more amiable to the metal housing. Something with holes designed to go with the screws thereon.

My first question is if the idiot engineer at Cooper Wiring Devices KNEW there were two different standards for screwing their product onto the metal housing, why didn’t they leave BOTH pairs of holes open?

The second question is why haven’t they fired this dweeb?

More...

Thursday, February 26, 2009

On Pinion Canyon — 2

Why the resistence?

Some additional thoughts on the situation around Pinion Canyon. These deal with the history to date.

In the last quarter of the 20th Century….[Gads! That makes me feel sooooo ‘old’.]....I worked at Fort Carson and with units that trained in Pinion Canyon. Indeed. I was an infantry company commander at Fort Carson.

The problem is that one cannot maneuver—for training purposes—anything larger than a brigade. And even then, it has to be a force-on-force excercise—one group against another—as the entire brigade cannot maneuver effectively. This does not allow the brigade commander and his staff to function properly, as all they are in a force-on-force exercise is the ‘referee’. Not the commander of their entire force. This is, in my honest opinion, PP training. [Note: The smart people can figure out what “PP” stands for.]

Fort Carson and the units stationed there need more room to maneuver in order to train well.

Pinion Canyon, as it is today, was purchased in order to provide additional maneuver space. However, people who have no regard for national security, maneuvered themselves to prevent it from being used to its intended purposes. Anyplace where it was suspected that some pre-Columbian American Indian hunting party make a fire to cook their game was declared an archeological find. Therefore ‘off-limits’ for maneuvering units. This restricted training of combat forces to ‘roads’ and ‘trails’ This, in effect, made the training area useless to its intended purposes.

Now, with the expansion of Fort Carson’s tenant units to the return of the 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized) along with aviation and special operations, we need to review the training areas to support these forces. Pinion Canyon is part of that review.

So this fellow lives in the area of Pinion Canyon. And he’s opposed to expanding it to provide for good training of the people who protect his property, liberty and life.

WHY? And I invite anyone here to answer that question…...

Caveat Emptor — Gain$saver

A less than satisfactory encounter with eCommerce.

We decided we needed another desktop computer last month. But we didn’t feel a need for a new machine, as the new operating system was incompatible with some of the high-end software we had on hand. The software worked well enough on the old machine’s operating system but word was out that there were issues working it in the new operating system. So we decided to look for a refurbished machine to work our older software on the older operating system.

Looking around we encountered an outfit called Gain$aver, a.k.a. GainSaver. It seemed to have the best pricing and reasonable reports on veracity. So we ordered an older machine. We paid extra for it to be bench tested for 24 hours. We paid extra for an extended warranty.

Two weeks ago, about a month after the purchase, the machine began acting up. We reported the problem to Gain$aver.

They promptly issued an RMA. However, the RMA said that it was only good for ‘store credit’, i.e., no refund if they could not replace the machine. This sounded to me like an interesting variation on ‘bait and switch’.  They never answered my question about refunds or replacements.

Last week, it was determined that the problem wasn’t the computer. Rather it was an esoteric peripheral device that was messing with the computer. Replacing the device seems to have solved the problem. But not the problem with Gain$aver…..

More...

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

On Pinion Canyon — 1

Thoughts on training areas and eminent domain.

I’ve been quiet on this particular issue. And, based on an inspiration of a bumper sticker I saw on a station-wagon at Hobby Lobby lasts weekend, I think it’s time I came out on this matter.

Who the HECK are these people? And WHY are they so short sighted?

These are the simple questions I’d like to understand better about this matter of expanding the training area afforded the 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized).

Additionally, why do they think their property is any more or less at risk than my own house in light of Kelo v. New London? That they should think their home is more important than national defense?

I’ll have more thoughts on that last item in the near future. [Note: Oddly enough, the fellow walking into Hobby Lobby looked like he had a son that could well be impacted, if not a casualty of war, if this matter were resolved in the wrong manner…..