As was pointed out at a recent town board meeting, one trustee is using his bully pulpit in a way that has not been utilized and potentially has even been frowned on in the past. Maybe this is all sour grapes from the opposition, but I am sure new town board members during orientation are reminded that the town board, once decisions are made, must speak as a unit, even if they personally disagree with the decision.
Trustee liaison reports should probably be used mostly for liaison reports, rather than as auditions for the Op/Ed section of the Denver Post on unrelated or marginally-related topics. One of the immediate problems is, there is no equal time provided at that exact moment for opponents to respond. It seems to be a loophole exploited to talk and talk and opine and lecture and browbeat and belittle without consequences.
I believe prior trustees who expressed singular opinions where the entire town board may or may not have weighed in or been consulted beforehand (see, for example, Cody Walker's interpretation of an off-cycle election in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette) or may not hold the same opinion if/when asked, were reminded this was a faux pas by other town board members or the mayor, rather than being given carte blanche to use the dais to not only not apologize, but double down on their rights as a public citizen. Indeed they have this right, and generally the electorate is quite willing to return them to this role if they choose to run again at the next election.
Will this letter of concern be published by any of our newspapers? Does that make people wonder if the expense of conducting the upcoming ballot initiative is worth it when the board who approved putting it on the ballot seems to undercut the democratic process by unleashing its loudest member, knowing the opposition will not be given a similar podium or audience?
Dis bonjour a tes amis. -John