Days after the passage of SB13 there were many reports across the internet that the Secret Service had obtained new found arrest powers in Colorado so VetTheGov dug in a little deeper and requested all related documents from The Colorado Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) office. Before we reveal some of the documentation VetTheGov needs to set up all the responses from many either behind or against the bill.

Senator King on his public facebook site defended SB13 as follows:

I hear all the time about the waste of tax payer money and the lack of government doing things in the most cost effective way. SB13 is simply about the ability of the Secret Service to take a complex investigation directly to our District Attorney for local prosecution of criminals in our community. With this LIMITED police power it eliminate the redundancy and cost of the Police Department or Sheriff’s office to start all over again doing their own time consuming and expensive complex investigation just to be able to present a case to the same district attorney. Ask our District Attorney, our Sheriff or Chief of Police how much Tax payer money and local investigator time (time that can be spent investigating violent crime) is saved by this legislation. This bill is supported and endorsed unanimously by the Colorado Police Officers Standards and Training Board, by Colorado Sheriff's, Colorado Chiefs of Police, Colorado District Attorney's Council and the Attorney General of Colorado.

Mesa County Sheriff Hilkey was then asked by Mesa County Patriot president Jeff Mccloskey if he supported SB13 and he gave the following answer:

Yes Jeff, I've supported this bill.   Perhaps Senator King said it best:

What SB13-013 is not about:

1) Enforcing Gun control or the 2nd amendment
2) Power to enforce or not to enforce federal gun legislation
3) Expansion of unregulated Secret Service authority and power

What SB13-013 is about:

Senate Bill 13 is public safety legislation that improves the efficacy of law enforcement via the elimination of wasteful criminal investigation redundancy between the Secret Service and local police and sheriff’s departments. The bill maintains local control in line with the 10th amendment while improving the value citizens get from local law enforcement for their tax dollar.

Who supports SB13-013?

This bill was supported and endorsed UNANIMOUSLY by the Colorado Police Officers Standards and Training Board, Colorado Sheriffs, Colorado Chiefs of Police, the Colorado District Attorney's Council and the Attorney General of Colorado.

The fact sheet you've attached is pretty accurate. I've supported because it gives local LE the ability to enlist their assistance on a more efficient basis if needed. I've seen the opposition comments on this based on the "what if" questions frankly, the support and consent of the State's local law enforcement community would evaporate in a heartbeat if we saw the abuses that some are concerned about.

Thanks for asking,
SH

Not only did Sheriff Hilkey support SB13 he also Endorsed on Mesa County Sheriff letterhead on September 11, 2012. VetTheGov must mention that the Board of POST are all law enforcement officers in the State of Colorado and there are no civilians on this board. Basically the cards are always stacked in their favor regarding any legislative action. City of Grand Junction Police Chief Camper who sits on the POST Sunrise committee also voted to approve SB13 and allow sponsorship.

VetTheGov spoke with house Rep. Ray Scott District 55 who stated the following: "I voted No on SB13 due the language in the summary portion of the bill and basically decided the Feds have too much power already in Colorado and they didn't need any more."

House Rep. Jared Wright District 54 who put his comments regarding SB13 out on his public facebook:

"While debating SB13 today, granting Colorado peace officer (POST) status to US Secret Service agents, I began to think about the "free speech zones" the USSS constructs in areas the president will be visiting in the name of security. Here is a picture of a "free speech cage" built in the area of the 2004 Democratic National Convention which protesters were forced to stand behind to practice their First Amendment rights. And now, Colorado legislators just blindly granted more powers of arrest for "state felony AND misdemeanor crimes committed in an agent's presence" to the Secret Service working in our state - even though the Secret Service themselves told me their making an arrest of a Colorado citizen for a misdemeanor crime unrelated to their duties would violate their own policy guidelines. So why are we giving the Secret Service authority that violates the agency's own internal policies? Why didn't the red flag go up for a majority of the members of the House? Last I checked we were elected to represent Colorado citizens, not the federal government. Shame on members of the law enforcement community who supported this measure. They have willingly given up their own and their citizen's 10th Amendment Constitutional rights in the name of possibly lightening their caseloads."

In another email to VetTheGov Rep. Wright made the following comments regarding SB13:

"As written, the bill places no limits for USSS agents on the exercise of police power within this state short of these:

VetTheGov would argue that the Secret Service could use their new given powers to enforce any State law and would have the ability to make traffic stops as SB13 does not state otherwise or that they can't enforce these specifics especially now since they also have immunity to being sued. They might not write tickets but they do have the authority to stop a car if the person driving is committing a crime in their presence or a known active warrant is determined. Even Sheriff Hilkey admitted he would enforce the new gun laws if his department felt the need to arrest and charge if no others existed and the individual(s) were drug dealers and such because of liability to the taxpayers!

From a recent story in WND here are a couple of comments from republican lawmakers:

“This is absolutely insane,” Rep. Lori Saine, R-Dacono, said. “In theory if a Secret Service agent is in a county where the sheriff has refused to enforce some of the recent unenforceable gun laws, the agent could arrest an individual if he believes the law has been broken.”

Sen. Vicki Marble, R-Fort Collins, said despite the bill being sponsored by a fellow Republican, the 72-hour mental hold caught the attention of several Republicans in the Senate. “This was one of the big flags for us in the bill,” Marble said. “It’s very suspicious because we have the separation of federal, state and even the local police services. Everyone has their own jurisdiction, and there is a special reason for keeping federal agents away.

Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, said he was told the purpose of the bill was to make it easier to hold a person for mental health reasons. “It does give Secret Service powers in a broad sense, but I’m not sure the changes as stated will automatically change things significantly. It’s not a broad overreach, but it is an overreach. It’s one more step in the wrong direction.”

Republican Senator Kevin Grantham a Yes vote for SB13 stated the following at a recent town hall meeting when questioned on his Yes vote, "I will tell you what I’ve been telling everyone about this legislation since it’s taken on a life of its own: as far as votes go I suppose all things being equal I would probably take that one back…The one criticism leveled against the bill and against my vote, to which I humbly acquiesce, is that it does grant power where none existed before. For that alone I would like to have [my] vote back."

Colorado already has a State Statue in place regarding Secret Service powers and these have worked out just fine over the years. Usually any federal agency would have to contact local Sheriff's and inform them that they will be in their jurisdiction and reasons for the resources being brought in. When or if an arrest is needed the federal agency would request assistance from the Sheriff. Now what we will see is a true reversal of this process and with the new Peace Officer status that makes them equals. Even Sheriff Hilkey in Mesa County now understands and expressed concern over the UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES of SB13 but believes the citizens wouldn't allow federal intrusion into Mesa County.

In a recent CORA request, VetTheGov determined that the Secret Service admitted they already have limited statutory authority to make arrest in Colorado if certain misdemeanors and felonies occur in their presence. The Secret Service now requested and granted via SB13 Peace Officer status for the following reasons in their POST form 12 application.

• Making probable cause arrest for state crimes committed outside their presence even if the situation involves serious state offenses (violent misdemeanors and felonies) and immediate intervention and/or assistance of a USSS agent could prevent escape, serious bodily injury or destruction of property.

• Assisting state or local officers in serving an executing state arrest warrants.

• Assisting state or local officers in serving and executing state search warrants and seizing property under state search warrants.

• Assisting state or local officers in seizing property subject to forfeiture under Colorado law.

• Assisting state or local officers in emergency procedures for putting a seventy-two hour hold on any person appearing to have a mental illness and, as a result of such mental illness, appears to be an imminent danger to others or to himself.

Further on in the 120 pages of CORA documents, a request was made to determine what the roles of the different Secret Service agents are.

• Uniformed officers-they are fully uniformed and travel in support of the President and Vice President. They do magnetometers and have bomb dogs. They could use this provision to deal with mentally ill people coming to an event without involving others. There are none assigned to Denver and only travel in support of the Pres/VP.

• Physical Security Technicians and Specialist-Plainclothes but are armed-they do all the technical stuff involving cameras, sweeps and advance work. Same reason for Colorado status as uniformed officers regarding mentally ill and any onview.

• Special Officers-One assigned to Denver office. Does support work including surveillance and wireless tracking. Works with special agents.

• Special Agents-Those are the working folks as we know-do counterfeit, fraud and dignitary protection.

Notice in the above agents given POST Peace Officer status are not involved with fraud or counterfeit cases. They may be called in to join one of these secret task forces that get assembled from time to time. Could the next task force be called enforcing 30 round magazine laws??? Only time will tell.

In another email from John Jackson Chief of Police in Colorado speaking for the Association of Police Chief's was asking for more information regarding the limitations granting Colorado Peace Officer status gave the Secret Service states, "The Secret Service bill seems awfully broad." It was never answered at least via email.

In another letter from Pete Dunbar POST Director to the Attorney General when DA Ken Buck began asking questions and having concerns, here is a portion of the letter to once again clarify the need for Peace Officer status. "The Secret Service cannot work alone on cases for state prosecution. They have a case right now on counterfeit that they cannot get an arrest warrant without having state peace officer authority. They are waiting, therefore, for the local detective, to be available to put the case together. The efficiencies created by the becoming POST certified make practical sense. They would also be able to use Colorado laws to have someone evaluated mentally who they are doing a threat investigation on. This would eliminate the need to call in local law enforcement to do the evaluation and confinement. I understand DA Buck is worried about the federal folks running around but this certification makes sense, is very helpful to state and local law enforcement and is limited."

Now when it came down to testifying for the Peace Officer status, here was the approach to be used for talking points being sent in another email from David Blake Deputy Attorney General when SB13 started losing republican backing. "All this bill does is the same thing we've done for other Federal LE, including the FBI, and it has never been abused. That is, it gives the USSS authority to work under the supervision of your local elected DA's and the Attorney General on mostly financial crimes-including identity theft and credit card or check fraud-and frees up your local law enforcement resources. Important bill, a good bill to fight fraudsters-support!" Nowhere in the bill does it mention working under the supervision of local DA's or the Attorney General. Just one of many Red Flags!

David Blake Deputy Attorney General wrote in another email when doubts were forming and citizens began to express concern, "Would love to get a R to speak but can't think of a pro-law enforcement (i.e. former Cop) in the R. House Caucus that is reasonable!" "Sounds like there is an email campaign against it and some D's are asking questions." "Apparently there is a letter writing campaign that will cause us to lose more R's than I counted last week and had a few D's say something to McCann. Haven't seen what it says. Don't know the source."

David Blake forwards this email from Rep. McCann to Secret Service agent Bruce Ward, Pete Dunbar, and Matthew Durkin, "Here is the kind of email we have been getting about the bill." Dear Beth McCann, I am opposed to expanding the powers of the Secret Service in Colorado. The track record of this agency in the past decade has been deplorable on the issue of free speech. There are many cases of this agency silencing dissenting voices. There is no sound reason for offering this bill. This is a solution in search of a problem. The potential benefits are tiny compared to the risk of further trampling basic free speech rights. Vote "NO" on SB13!"

More than like this is one of the cases this email letter to McCann was referencing and happened right here in Colorado. Remember the talking points above, "never been abused!"

In Connecticut when this similar bill allowing Secret Service Peace Officer status was met with resistance from the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees and their attorney made the following comment, "Allowing the Secret Service this new appointment will take power away from both local and state police, despite their jurisdiction."

Libertarian for Colorado Governor Matthew Hess gave the following comment regarding SB13: 

These talking points were used in promotion of the bill and included one case in Colorado from 2012. Two individuals were arrested for passing counterfeit United States currency. They go on to mention no charges have been filed by either the Secret Service or the State of Colorado and nothing in the talking points mention this because the Secret Service wants Peace Officer status. If the counterfeiting is a federal crime then federal courts must handle them. It appears the forgery case might just be a little more complex and taking the DA's office a little more time. Pay attention to the fact that nowhere in the bill does it mention any cost savings and how this helps the citizens of Colorado any more then the current State Statutes offer. Smoke & Mirrors goes a long way with the Feds. This bill is a perfect example of how they obtain more and more power and control by stretching ONE small case into more federal intrusion.

The talking points also mention how the system has been set up and working well in that most of the Secret Service cases originate from local and state law enforcement agencies. So again the question arises since most Secret Service cases originate from the local and state level, WHY the need for more Secret Service powers? Simple they can now act on State laws without any resistance from local authorities. Now that federal agents are protected from First & Fourth Amendment lawsuits, let the Federal abuse continue! We now have four bills that have been passed since 2006 granting Federal Peace officer status to the following federal agents, FBI, ATF, DHS, US Marshall's, and now the Secret Service.

VetTheGov agrees now more than ever after receiving the POST documents that SB13 is exactly as thought by many citizens of Colorado that the Department of Homeland Security Secret Service divisions have even more opportunity to arrest and prosecute in Colorado when local and state law enforcement won't or without their presence being needed or notification given! No doubt this is free reign for federal agents. Surely with these new gun bills being passed the Dems who were beneficial to SB13's passing and found a "REASONABLE" Republican pro law enforcement police statist Steve King, set this bill up nicely and rolled out the red carpet for the higher powers to have their way in Colorado! Mayor Bloomberg and VP Biden are thankful for your contributions!

However when you drive past these large dust busters/dust makers, it appears they are violating their own city code noted below and is described as an unlawful act and could result in jail time. Wow that's a huge statement!  

8.20.010 Control of dust-producing areas.

It shall be unlawful for any person to own, possess or control any cleared area, parking lot, vacant lot or other site used by vehicular traffic without implementing an effective abatement or preventive fugitive dust-control measure, as may be required, which may include, but is not limited to, the following:

(a)    Wetting down of the dust-producing area;

(b)    Landscaping;

(c)    Covering, shielding or enclosing;

(d)    Paving on a temporary or permanent basis;

(e)    Treating through the use of palliatives and chemical stabilization.

(Code 1994 § 16-126; Code 1965 § 19-70)

Unlawful for not controlling dust? So your next question will be what are the ramifications of creating such an act of dust pollution? Here you go and it is hefty that includes JAIL of up to 10 days and up to $1,000.00 fine or BOTH! They do have a first conviction out of a slap on the wrist 100.00 fine but nevertheless it's a conviction!

8.20.130 Penalty.

(a)    Any person, firm or corporation violating any provision of this chapter shall be fined not more than $1,000 and/or 10 days in jail for each offense. A separate offense shall be deemed committed on each day, or portion thereof, during or on which a violation occurs or continues. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a realtor, closer or inspector involved in a transfer of ownership shall not be deemed to have violated this chapter in the event that a transfer of ownership occurs in violation of this chapter, unless such realtor, closer or inspector is the transferor, grantor or seller. For the first conviction of GJMC 8.20.060, a person, firm or corporation shall not be fined in excess of $100.00 and no jail time shall be imposed.

(b)    Unless otherwise authorized, the operation of a wood stove or fireplace on a high pollution, “no burn” day is found and declared to be a nuisance against both the public and private individuals. It is the intent and the purpose of the City Council that private individuals aggrieved or injured by the unauthorized operation of a wood stove or fireplace on a high pollution, “no burn” day or days may cite a violation of this chapter or any regulation implementing this chapter as evidence of nuisance per se in support of any claim for damages and/or injunctive or other relief before a court of competent jurisdiction, including the Municipal Court. It is therefore found and declared that any written evidence of a violation of this chapter or any regulation implementing this chapter issued by an authorized agent for the City of Grand Junction, and served on any individual as required by law, shall constitute prima facie evidence of the violation of this chapter and/or any applicable regulation implementing this chapter, as well as prima facie evidence of a nuisance per se.

(c)    This section shall not confer a private right for an action against the City of Grand Junction for the endorsement of this chapter or for the enforcement of any regulation implementing this chapter.

(Amended during 2009 recodification; Ord. 2981, 2-19-97. Code 1994 § 16-138)

So as you watch the video below, who should get fined or arrested for allowing contaminated road dust from street sweepers to infect our City and County air???



See the EPA's Clean Air Act for additional information and contact your city officials and ask why they are throwing so much contaminated 2.5 and 10 micron particulates into the air! http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/caa.html 

The Municipal codes in question are 2.44.010, 2.04, and 2.28.090.

2.44.010 OATH OF SERVICE

Before entering upon the duties of their respective office, each of the officers named in Chapter 2.04 shall take and subscribe the following oath:

"I,_________________________________, do solemnly swear that I will support the constitution of the United States and of the State of Colorado and that I will well and faithfully discharge and perform the duties of the ________________________________ of the City of Fruita, to the best of my skill and ability: So Help Me God." (Ord. 28 Art. 1, S4 (part), 1907)

Notice the word Before at the beginning of the Municipal code and the word Subscribe that are two very important parts of this Oath requirement. Typically the Subscribed Oath's are then filed with the City Clerk! VetTheGov received an email from the Clerk when requesting these Oath of Service documents and was informed that no Oath of Service's were on file for any of the named Office positions above. VetTheGov was informed that these Officer positions have only taken ceremonial Oath's and never Subscribed an Oath of Service and nothing is on file with the City Clerk's Office. In speaking with Clint Kinney City Manager, he stated he was not required to take or subscribe an Oath of Service since he was appointed and contracted by the City Council. If you are a resident in the City Limits of Fruita, wouldn't you have expected the CEO of your city to uphold the United States Constitution, the Colorado Constitution your city is chartered under, and finally your local Municipal codes that the CEO is in direct charge of making sure they are adhered too??? In section 4.05 in the City of Fruita Charter it specifically calls the City Manager Chief Administration Officer and in section F of the same paragraph gives the City Manager direct authority to see that all laws and provisions of the Charter and Code are properly performed.

The City Manager also believes if he hires or contracts someone out of his office they work for him directly and not the Citizens of Fruita and therefore not required to take, subscribe, and file an Oath of Service. The City Manager specifically noted this in regards to the municipal prosecutor position. The City Manager advised VetTheGov that the Municipal Prosecutor is a contracted position with his office and not required to take an Oath of Service, yet in the municipal prosecutors contract it specifically states the contract is with the City of Fruita and the attorney being contracted as the City's attorney. Municipal Court documents also state that the City can use the City Attorney against you in court. The Municipal prosecutor represents the People of Fruita along with People of the State of Colorado, yet no requirement to uphold the Constitution or much less the City municipal codes they enforce in court. The Colorado Bar issued the following statement in an Ethics opinion regarding attorney's working for a Public Entity: "A lawyer representing a governmental body assumes certain responsibilities of a public or quasi-public official and thus, having the same ethical responsibilities as a public official."

This behavior and thought process cannot be tolerated or the City will continue to forge its given power against the will of its people who give it to them! If left unchecked by the Citizens of Fruita, this behavior will only exacerbate itself at a huge cost to the taxpayers inside the City Limits! 

For the Citizens of Fruita, the law of Colorado typically recognizes the positions that did not meet the requirements in taking the offices in question as Vacant. This is very serious when you have a City Council, the City Manager, City Attorney, the municipal prosecuting attorney, the Judge, and the Police Chief making decisions and enforcing Municipal Codes for your City potentially seen as Vacant. If these aren't specifically spelled out in your Charter then the Colorado Constitution becomes the authority on what constitutes a Vacancy. This question was raised to the Texas Municipal League regarding Oath of Office and since the City of Fruita is a member of the Municipal League it might behoove the City to seek some additional help in defining the word Subscribe in regards to Oath of Office, although the document states to refer to the City Attorney who also must Subscribe an Oath and hasn't! Will make for an interesting opinion! If positions are considered Vacant, then are all the Officers and Appointed Officers Impersonating Public Officials or Peace Officers in their current roles??? Again will make for an interesting opinion! The City of Fruita Charter specifically states if a Council position is found Vacant the Council has 60 days to fill the Vacancy. But what if all the positions are considered Vacant? Can you see the dilemma? 

In a recent records request, VetTheGov was provided only one Oath of Service and it was from a police officer with the City of Fruita but nothing for the City attorney's, Chief of Police, or the Judge. In the attached Oath of Service the City only shows the Oath was administered never Subscribed by the actual person taking the Office!!! In the response from the clerk she states, "There are no written oaths for Judge Brown and Chief Angelo. They gave their oaths at a public City Council meeting. The minutes of the Council meeting are an official record of their promise, or subscription, to the oath." Debra Woods, Deputy City Clerk City of Fruita 325 E. Aspen Ave. Fruita, CO  81521 (970) 858-3663 (970) 858-0210 (fax). VetTheGov spoke with a former Elected City Council official who stated he never Subscribed the Oath of Office only a ceremonial one at a Council meeting! It appears the Judge is appointed and offered a contract every one or two years, so a question surfaces of wouldn't the Contracted Judge be required to Subscribe the Oath of Service every contract interval??? This opens up a huge can of worms for any decisions the contracted Judge would have made during their contracted tenure with no Oath of Office/Service on file! Interesting to note the current City Judge is also a traffic defense attorney. VetTheGov asked the City Manager what checks and balances were in place to make sure there is never a conflict of interest with the Judge. The City Manager's answer was there are no checks or balances in place, only trust in the Judges personal integrity. 

VetTheGov wanting to make sure this is a requirement across the Grand Valley looked into other Home Rule Municipalities such as the City of Grand Junction and The City of Delta. VetTheGov even communicated with the City Attorney for the City of Grand Junction who confirmed they require every Officer of the City (Elected and Appointed) as well as every employee take and subscribe their Oath of Office and file it with their City Clerk. The question arises as to why the City of Fruita doesn't feel the need to meet this same requirement noted above in their Oath of Service? 

99. Oath of Office. City of Grand Junction, CO

Every officer or salaried employee shall, before he enters upon the duties of his office, take, subscribe, and file with the clerk an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Colorado, and the Charter and ordinances of the City of Grand Junction, and faithfully to perform the duties of the position upon which he is about to enter.

138. Oath of Office--Bond-City of Delta, CO. Every officer or salaried employee shall, before he enters upon the duties of his office, take, subscribe and file with the Clerk an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Colorado and the Charter and ordinances of the City of Delta, and faithfully to perform the duties of the position upon which he is about to enter. Any officer or employee required to give bond shall not be qualified for his office or appointment until such bond has been duly approved by the Council and filed with the Clerk who shall have custody thereof.

Citizens of Fruita as shown in your City's organizational chart could this mean in the Court's opinion that all decisions ever made without fulfilling the City's Oath requirement be considered erroneous? Could this mean litigation and challenge for any of these previous decisions the City Council or City Officers implemented are invalid? It definitely leaves open the opportunity for challenge! Citizens of Fruita it is time for you to look under the hood and make sure your Elected and Appointed government servants are meeting the requirements set out in your Charter and your Municipal Codes. Citizens of Fruita its time to make sure your Charter reflects the conditions you want your Elected and Appointed leaders to follow! VetTheGov believes if they won't adhere to your own local codes by subscribing to your required Oath of Service, then it must be that they really don't feel obligated to uphold these foundational principles on your behalf! Citizens of Fruita you deserve better!

VetTheGov has reached out to the City Council and the City Manager, as they are now well aware of this situation. Hopefully they will make this right for the Citizens of Fruita's sake!!! Thomas Jefferson said, "At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account." 

So the delay can only be to allow time to offer a new PR campaign on how to the District needs more dollars for the provided service instead of letting the Community and teachers decide!  Surely the behind closed door sessions between the District and local law enforcement agencies confirms this PR campaign!

Mesa County citizens We can no longer allow our government agencies to behave in such complete disregard for our Kids Safety because of Smoke & Mirror PR campaigns for more money!  It's time we allow the local Community to step up and protect our kids by Volunteering to protect our Most Treasured Assets!  Make the Time to get involved today and contact District 51 and let your opinion be heard loud and clear!  District 51 Contact information click HERE!

Here is a Colorado study showing 15.5% of kids in school are carrying a weapon at any given time!  Maybe teachers should just borrow one of these in case the need to defend themselves or their students.

"It doesn't make sense that we guard our gold with guns and we guard our kids with hope!"

Here is the School District meeting from January 8, 2013 discussing school security and yes Ann Tisue admits having plenty of funds with her commments starting at 55:52 in the below video!!!

2012 Top Recipients of your Tax Dollars:

1. First Student   $5,028,533.33 - Bus Program. Time to make Prius buses!
2. Home Loan State Bank   $2,106,604.07 - Taxpayer Re-Investment Program.
3. Xcel Energy    $1,948,501.92 - How about this energy consumption?
4. Western Colordo FCU    $1,590,151.05 - At least some monies staying local.
5. Grand Valley-BOCES    $1,518,972.56 - Really more layers of bureaucracy!!!
6. Delta Dental   $1,337,323.72 - Teeth costing more than Health these days! Smile!
7. Dell Financial SVP LP   $1,227,034.59 - Why Apple stocks aren't doing well!
8. LOCO Inc   $976,954.67 - Cost of Fuel for these Global Warming buses!
9. Andrews Food Service   $970,334.51 - Must be because they have cheap food!
10. Reliastar Life Ins    $823,855.55 - Another promised benefit!
11. Evans Newton   $687,814.34 - Consulting? Curriculum? Tough Times call them?
12. Trane   $645,279.38 - Someone has some new AC/Heat!
13. Meadow Gold Dairy   $594,670.50 - We all know Milk is pricey these days!
14. Mesa Valley Edu Assoc  $546,947.32 - The all powerful Union! See where it ends up here!
15. Colorado Dept of Edu   $470,544.26 - Must have overpaid the District or extra services!

Honorable Mentions:

Hoskin, Farina, & Kampf - $230,632.61  D51 has no staff attorney but you would think with CDE & BOCES they could afford to split a full-time attorney to handle any legal matters. Or better yet CDE & BOCES should just provide one!

Colorado West Regional Mental Health - $140,733.95  One can only wonder how many teachers and administrator's are being treated at the moment???

Gallup Marketing - $31,970.00  This was for the 3B campaign for even more of your taxes!!!

Next the Procurement Credit Card Gone WILD:

• Jan 2012  $273,827.99
• Feb 2012  $299,635.91
• Mar 2012  $301,096.44
• Apr 2012  $373,072.25
• May 2012  $425,300.70
• Jun 2012  $506,707.43
• Jul 2012  $201,564.76
• Aug 2012  $301,945.19
• Sep 2012  $377,856.65
• Oct 2012  $326,890.01
• Nov 2012  $258,024.92
• Dec 2012  $434,469.60

WOW! $4,080,391.85 in Credit Card swipes. From Amazon.com to Walmart to Lowes to plane rides and hotels, these cards get used and hopefully not abused. Now the BIGGEST question is who gets one??? What are the limits? Do they get abused? How do we know? Lot's of nickel-and-diming at these stores! Just a few questions to begin asking the School District Administration and UNISERV folks at the next School Board Meeting!

Current CASH available as of December 2012 - $31,875,277.00

Sorry didn't hear that in the we need more money budget video! Remember after 3B failed last year there was an immediate removal of School Resource Officers from several schools and fears of many schools having to close. Notice how they always flip this nonsense back on the local hard working makers by sparking emotion in the community rather than fact by pulling away funding to programs that are needed "FOR THE KIDS SAFETY!" Hopefully you now understand that District 51, CDE, CEA, The State, and The Feds are all responsible for these out of control budget issues and internal spending nightmares, NOT YOU!!!

Hear it from a recent School Board meeting that they have more funds! Thanks for visiting VetTheGov and stay tuned for more in-depth coverage of local government spending and accountability!

Total Revenues (Incoming Taxes) $212,037,042.00 or $10,085 per pupil

Total Expenditures (Outgoing Cost) $209,912,512.00 or $9984 per pupil

Surplus (What's left over after all Cost) $2,124,530.00 or $101 per pupil

Just to completely verify the above numbers as accurate, VetTheGov contacted CDE finance office staff via email. Here is the Exchange:

Hello Theresa,

Questions on Total Revenues vs Expenditures at the District Level.

Do the totals in Table IIB rows J & K for 2010-2011 represent every dime from that District??? Is there any other Expenditures or Revenues not shown here and if not where else would they be???

Do reimbursements for transportation or special needs appear in these calculations???

Mr./Mrs. _______,

It reflects all reported expenditures reported by the districts. If you asking about state categorical funding for transportation and special education? If so, yes the revenue and associated expenditures are reported.

Theresa Christensen | Sr. Consultant Public School Finance | Colorado Department of Education

Since we have been hearing about the dire straight budget constraints over the past few years of recession lets look back a couple of budget cycles.

Here are the 2009-2010 Totals based on 20,996.2 pupils

Total Revenues (Incoming Taxes) $202,371,247.00 or $9638 per pupil

Total Expenditures (Outgoing Cost) $201,300,376.00 or $9587 per pupil

Surplus (What's left over after all Cost) $1,070,871.00 or $51 per pupil

Here are the 2008-2009 Totals based on 21,041.8 pupils

Total Revenues (Incoming Taxes) $195,144,726.00 or $9274 per pupil

Total Expenditures (Outgoing Cost) $199,263,059.00 or $9470 per pupil

Deficit (Overspent Revenues) $-4,118,333.00 or $-196 per pupil

Here are the 2007-2008 Totals based on 20,241 pupils

Total Revenues (Incoming Taxes) $188,562,683.00 or $9316 per pupil

Total Expenditures (Outgoing Cost) $194,187,598.00 or $9594 per pupil

Deficit (Overspent Revenues) $-5,624,915.00 or $-278 per pupil

Here are the 2006-2007 Totals based on 20,206 pupils

Total Revenues (Incoming Taxes) $179,871,623.00 or $8902 per pupil

Total Expenditures (Outgoing Cost) $194,976,795.00 or $9649 per pupil

Deficit (Overspent Revenues) $-15,105,142.00 or $-747 per pupil

Interesting to Note that in 2010-2011 the CDE administration's budget was $38.5 Million for 110 Full Time Equivalents (FTE) and has been raised during this recession to just over $80 Million for 150 FTE's!  So CDE how can you justify 40 new administrators during a recession for twice the previous allocations???  Taxpayers these are the questions you need to ask your elected officials, otherwise the Smoke & mirrors campaign pushes forward!

After following the PAST money trail it appears during the Boom cycles Mesa Valley District 51 Overspent by a large amount and after being over $24 Million in the RED  they finally have their hands around how to budget!  Kudos to the current administration especially Melissa Devita for stopping the bleeding but it leaves many questions as to why the HUGE deficits when times were best and now when times are poor you are actually in Surplus. Mesa County residents these are the questions to begin asking the school board and school administration!  Where have the TARP monies been spent???  Why are you not discussing all Revenues when discussing the budget only State and local funds???  Why do you state that Federal funds are directed to be spent in certain areas when you know that is an untrue statement???  Why did you overspend back in the BOOM cycle???  How much monies from Referendum C did you receive???  Why the ATTACK on TABOR???

Here is the Districts Smoke & Mirror campaign of trying to cover up the past OVERSPENDING issues when State Tax Revenue times were at their pinnacle!!!  Enjoy the Video!

One of Dan's biggest victim's are illegal aliens.  Dan offers (denies the allegation) pro bono legal services to these individuals and even tells them how to speak to police if and when they encounter them.  It's no wonder Dan denied he does this in front of the voters at the Club 20 debates because it is a Felony to Harbor illegal aliens.  Another interesting note is that Dan actually convinced a group of his illegal alien clients to share their concerns at the Mesa County courthouse. Here is the exact writings from the 2011 Colorado Access to Justice Commission report made by local defense attorney and JD21 ATJ representative Leslie Castro:

"Dan Robinson, local attorney who does a lot of pro bono work with undocumented immigrants, convinced a handful of his clients to come to the COURTHOUSE to talk to the ATJ group about the problems they face. (What do I do if I get pulled over? Etc.) This meeting was followed up with a meeting with local law enforcement to discuss these issues."

Dan wanted added to a School District business meeting regarding illegal aliens and remember voters you pay for these services!

MINUTES APPROVAL

August 22, 2006, Business Meeting Adopted

Dan Robinson asked the minutes be amended to reflect a key-point from the discussion regarding services for immigrant children, by adding the following statement: The Mesa County Health Department encourages and invites anyone, regardless of their immigration status, to have immunizations for their children at the Health Department

Dan's support for La Raza became public information from this school board meeting. 

"Leslie Kiesler acknowledged this conference as very worthwhile for students, and noted that Dan Robinson is highly supportive of LaRaza and the staff who sponsor this annual conference."

Dan in his run for County Commissioner back in 2008 gave this statement on Gun Control.

Dan Robinson, a candidate for county commissioner, suggested that technology circumscribes our rights. "Plastic guns cannot be identified in metal detectors and should be controlled," he said. Setting aside the fact that no such gun exists, we wonder if Robinson would extend his argument about technology to the First Amendment. Should we restrict freedom of the press because we now have electricity and the internet?

Dan's recent endorsement from One Colorado another progressive Special Interest group representing the Gay & Lesbian agenda!

Here is Dan stumping for Obama in 2008! Clearly shows Dan is a typical progressive with no new ideas, just old retreads of class warfare and victim hood!

Dan thinks Obamacare is a good law and wants to capitalize on Federal funding for Medicaid. Also wants to revisit TABOR and severance tax rates!  Visit his answers here the League of Women Voters Q & A.  

The evidence is crystal clear on why Dan is NOT the man for CO HD55.  Dan is another leftist progressive liberal that will do everything in their power to bankrupt not only our local economy and State but circumvent the Constitution for his quest of a Social Justice Socialism Utopia!

The 2010-2011 Total Expenditures were recently released from the Colorado Department of Education which show for 21,025.2 pupils $209,912,512.00 was allocated to the District or better put $9984.00 per pupil!  Compared to the previous year of $9587.00 per pupil this is the biggest increase per pupil over the past several years! $397.00 per pupil or $8,612,136.00 increase from last year to be exact and the highest ever total expenditures in the District and somehow this wasn't enough! 

The Smoke & Mirrors campaign is still full steam ahead and the continued shame being placed on the local Mesa County citizens will continue because you failed to pass and agree to more taxes and fees without any financial accountability.  See VetTheGov's previous story on why Voting NO on 3B was your only way of holding the Big Government tax and fee robbers at bay! 

VetTheGov will also continue to keep an eye on increased and new fees as they will use 3B as an excuse to continue to find more ways of revenue collection with scare tactics!  Stay Tuned and Thanks for visiting VetTheGov! 

VetTheGov has highlighted some positions located on page one of the 2010 & 2011 annual salaries posted on Mesa County's website.

Starting with the elected County Commissioners pay you will notice two of the three received raises from the $72,500 up to $76,600 & $76,700. Only one Commissioner in 2011 received the usual $72,500 annual salary.

The next thing that jumps off the page is the position of Deputy Assessor-Administration pay in 2010 was $80,775.95 and dropped all the way to $71,118.37. Could this be why the next highlighted position below that one is Director of Financial Services which saw their salary INCREASE from $102,745.92 in 2010 up to $107,371.93??? As you continue through the entire salary structure of the County you find a very interesting trend of some winners and many losers on the pay scale freeze or even salary reductions. It just depends on the position you hold. Of course VetTheGov focused on all the director positions for the County and are broken down for your convenience.

Mesa County Director Position Salaries 2010 - 2011

• Financial Services   $102,745.92 in 2010; raised to $107,371.93 in 2011
• Public Works  $129,549.68 in 2010; raised to $139,871.06 in 2011
• Director-CJSD  $102,541.68 in 2010; lowered to $99,450.12 in 2011
• MV & Recording   $90,017.24 in 2010; lowered to $69,529.80 in 2011
• Land Use & Dev   $90,017.24 in 2010; lowered to $87,732.84 in 2011
• Environmental Health   $90,618.05 in 2010; lowered  to $89,427.00 in 2011
• Prevention & ED  $58,368.68 in 2010; raised to $60,732.00 in 2011
• Long Range Planning   $90,660.44 in 2010; lowered to $88,148.64 in 2011
• Dept. Health Services   $99,983.12 in 2010; raised to $106,183.38 in 2011
• Waste management   $72,375.18 in 2010; raised to $82,716.12 in 2011
• Assit. to Public Works Dir.   $62,347.37 in 2010; lowered to $59,645.04 in 2011
• Dev. Engineer   $91,646.90 in 2010; raised to $96,176.76 in 2011
• Health Prep   $82,850.77 in 2010; raised to $89,684.76 in 2011
• Planning   $115,122.88 in 2010; lowered to $87,732.84 in 2011
• Health Dept.   $86,391.99 in 2010; raised to $101,976.10 in 2011
• Elections   $45,600.00 in 2010; kept at $45,600.00 in 2011
• Animal Services   $67,893.06 in 2010; raised to $77,070.96 in 2011
• Engineering Div.   $103,240.09 in 2010 lowered to $100,542.84 in 2011
• Div. Director-CJSD   $91,661.77 in 2010; lowered to $88,676.64 in 2011
• AAA  $58,471.87 in 2010; lowered to $57,093.99 in 2011
• Public Relations   $65,989.77 in 2010; lowered to $107,371.93 in 2011
• Clinical Services   $28,292.51 in 2010; raised to $88,065.04 in 2011
• Family & Children   $85,162.88 in 2010; lowered to $67,905.16 in 2011
• Health Admin. Svcs $86,391.99 in 2010; raised to $92,321.04 in 2011
• Div. Dir.-CJSD  $94,114.66 in 2010; lowered to $89,201.89 in 2011
• SS & EMP   $71,104.46 in 2010; lowered to $69,300.00 in 2011
• Workforce Center   $87,562.88 in 2010; raised to $93,783.80 in 2011
• County Attorney   $122,111.22 in 2010; lowered to $112,561.60 in 2011
• IT Manager   $88,276.25 in 2010; raised to $92,227.33 in 2011

District Attorney's Office/Law Enforcement Directors

• District Attorney   $149,215.56 in 2010; raised to $164,522.60 in 2011
• Assit. DA   $136,251.24 in 2010; raised to $140,875.68 in 2011
• Chief Deputy DA  $114,688.44 in 2010; raised to $116,204.90 in 2011
• Senior Trial DA   $66,246.96 in 2010; raised to $71,931.98 in 2011
• Sheriff   $87,900.08 in 2010; lowered to $87,700.08 in 2011
• Chief Deputy Undersheriff   $107,911.12 in 2010; lowered to $106,293.84 in 2011
• Division Commander   $102,542.47 in 2010; raised to $104,948.04 in 2011

All the above Salaries do not include the additional 25% in benefits received by County employees.

The biggest question that needs answered to the taxpayers of Mesa County is when the media reports no raises for Three years in a row during the economic downturn and over 19.5% unemployment locally, why do we see so many increases in certain Director's pay and yet in lower positions we see salaries cut drastically or positions removed??? Maybe just maybe this is the reason for the high turnover and low moral in many departments.

Another question needing answers are how can this model of government continue to be funded and supported??? VetTheGov believes attrition will continue within the agency especially when the higher salaried positions begin having to take more hits to their pay and benefits! What do you think???

Stay tuned to VetTheGov as the County budget for 2012 will be compared to last years budget!