The Routt Report

We are the 15%!

 

Congressional approval rating is hard to really know.  Like all polling the data is subject to variables such as who is aksed? what was asked? who answered ... and why did they answer.

There are recent polls that put the approval rating of Congress as low as 9%.  However I would guess that it actually hoovers around 15%.  I use 15% primarily because it's a nice round number but I also base that on a premise that has recently occured to me.  Be it noted that I'm not sure I believe this premise nor do I think it a good excuse for elected leaders to punt leadership, however I offer this as a view of hope and eternal wisdom, not cynicissm.

 

I think there this probably a floor of approval for Congress at about 15% ... this floor is comprised of (hear me out):

1. 8.5%  Simple majority of regular primary voters (primary voters being about 17%)  

2. 6.5%  A combination of people who actually agree with the policies of the current Congress (they did pass patent reform and 3 trade agreements, for the people that care about those isssues above others the 112th Congress has been fantastic), and perhaps some people who may agree with the following premise:

Congressional inaction is by design and obligation ...

 

HEAR ME OUT!

Let's take a few steps back ...  The founding fathers where many things, visionaries, idealist, etc.  But they were also products of their times.  Wealthy elites in a world where it was not only acceptable but in many cases seen as divine right that the wealthy elite should rule over the populace (let alone women and slaves) for the populace's benefit.  It is not an accident that even in the most liberal and populist founding documents of their age, the franchise of government was limited to those who were wealthy, male, white and of the correct faith.

And though it has been the history of our republic that the franchise is expanded over time, that expansion has never been easily won or immediatley embraced by those already in the franchise.  Whether the voter suppression was overt (poll taxes etc.) or covert the systematic silencing of voices and end runs around their participation has been the rule not the exception.

The most sustained covert voter suppression on the Congressional level has been the re-districing process.  As districts become increasinly lopsided in favor of a party the result is only the members of the local majority party get to decide who represents them in Congress.  The minority party -and even the simple minority of the majority party are effectively silenced.  And since in the most gerrymandered districts the winner of the primary is the winner of the general election, many members of Congress are the wholly owned subsidary of not the unsympathetic corporate interests or lobby pools but rather the elite majority party activist who though are earnest as any indiviual in their policy beliefs, are hardly representative of a communities national view or practical needs.  Their world view is developed by and limited to about 15% and as result those people who are being represented are of course happy with the job Congress is doing.

But their world view is a very narrow world view.  And though the founding fathers were not particularly interested in an inclusive franchise, they were supremely interested in all those who were in the franchise having equal right to power.  Every foreseeable caution was taken to ensure that the voice of the Congress represented the complete voice of those in the franchise.  What they couldn't bring themselves to do unfortunately is compell participation by those in the franchise.  At the time it probably wasn't an issue but as the franchise increased combined with voter suppression efforts every step of the way, we now have a situation that the majority of those in the franchise are not participants in it.

So the Congress, representing only clean minority voices as opposed to the noisy majority voices as intended is working with clear mandates from a small class.  A small class that in itself is deeply divided.

Congress is by design supposed to take in the broad diverse view of the populace and distill it to find the policy that does have broad consensus.  However because of an emboldened minority in Congress both party's seeks to create policy that they think makes sense while coercing (or silencing) the minority into compliance.  

I offer as a premise that the failure of the Super Committee on Deficit Reduction is actually exactly what is supposed to happen in this context.  The Super Committee was tasked with a very big job. A job where there is no clear mandate from the divided 15% and no input from the remaining 85% of the franchise.  

Perhaps what we have been calling partisan gridlock is actually just a safety valve.  

 

hear me out ...

The current state of affairs is that Congress, designed to run on the input of all the disparate voices of the franchise, is now only being fueled by passionate minority voices.  As a result of lack of fuel (or bad fuel depending on your viewpoint) the engine just shuts itself off to protect itself from further damage.

I agree that this is not a time for inaction.  This concept is not intended to apologize for lack of leadership.  However ask yourself do you really want THIS Congress to do anything? Example, without doing a poll I would expect that a majority of those in the franchise i.e. registered voters of any party affiliation over the age of 18 but still breathing, would be in favor of Congress passing a federal budget. However they haven't done so in quite awhile.  Why?  Because while there is clear directive from the extreme left and right there is no voice of the center.  Members of Congress are supporting the ideology of the small electorate, not distilling the voice of all people to find some small area of consensus to move forward with.  Since the fuel is rancid the engine shuts itself down.

I argue that if primary voting regardless of party reached a majority of active voters, the candidates coming out of primaries would be more moderate, representing (or better said beholden to) a wider swath of ideas.  The general election between two moderates would result in the most moderate (or rather most broadly beholden) candidate winnig.

Granted this would yield the kind of politicians many people think they don't want ... unprincipiled, compromsing at every turn, placing expediency over virtue flip-floppers.  You know just like now like we have now.  

But the incentive model for compromise will have fundamentally changed. 

Our national legislative body, (not unlike our local elected body in Boulder with our all at-large, minority electorate for City Council) in it's current form is incredibly susceptible to the influence of powerful minority interests.  With a small zelaous, ideologically charged electorate it is very easy for those with influence to retain and expand their influence.  

With a large electorate elected officials must at best find and hold themselves to what few areas of broad consensus exist or at worst avoid being too far into any particular ideological corner.  It is easy to point fingers at corporate money, lobbying and special interest groups as the reason Congress is ineffective however at best those are only rationale for why Congress does things that individuals disagree with.

I offer that the root of the problem is that a small electorate is like diesel being poured into a Twin Turbo Gasoline engine.  

We have a population that is more moderate than the electorate and an electorate that is more moderate than the much smaller primary electorate.  Add to this (and I argue as result of this) we have a Congress that believes it's job is to create and sell its policy as opposed to distilling the combined wisdom of the governened and turning the limited consensus into policy. 

Therefore our founding father's have given us a collective time out.

The House of Representatives was designed to be the virtue of the populace and the Senate a further distillation to ensure only policy that has incredibly broad consensus can become national law.  Without proper fuel the engine SHOULD cease to run.  

This is granted a bit of tough love.  Refueling our legislative engine can only come from increasing participation in primaries to levels equal to general elections (and increasing that as well to much higher levels) then accepting  that the noise of the masses is better than quite of the minority.  We have to accept that within the noise is truth.  As individuals it does not require setting aside your ideology or bias but it does require making that voice heard while respecting the right of others to disagree.  

 

And this may be the hardest part but it also requires allowing politicians to be exactly that. Politicians!

Activist and Politicians serve different and important roles in our public discourse and while it is essential that activist hold fast to their views it is equally important the politicians have a much more flexible worldview that balances passion and pragmatism. It's not to say politicians should not have ideals or agendas, but it is to say that those ideals and agendas should only come to fruition as the result of their wisdom being made plain to their colleagues rather than the accident of their party having a majority in Congress at the time.

Like a well designed modern engine our centuries old Congress has a safety valve.  Without proper fuel Congress is actually limited to only must-do emergency policy ... you know things that have broad consensus such as not going into national default.  If you look at what the past few Congress have actually accomplished and compare those things to the public opinion polling of the time you see that very little was done, most of which also enjoyed at least simple majority public support at the time.  

Congress does not know enough to determine the best way to reduce the defict among many other things because the electorate has not made its full voice heard.  It's not that we don't have serious problems that demand bold and solutions in a timely fashion. It's that Unfortunately our legislative engine was not designed that way. Our engine was designed to run on the full voice of those in the franchise ... or not at all.  Congress is not solely responsible for our nation's problems, whether they be economic, environmental or otherwise, we are all in our own way complicit and in our own ways empowered to fix them.  

The eternal wisdom of our founding fathers is that the ability of any ideology to hold too much power is to be avoided.  Even if that group is simply a vocal minority that has power due to the apathy of the rest of the franchise it is still dangerous.  And when the power rest in the hands of those drunk with ideology the engine will stall until it can be regained by a sober hand.

And right now the 15% is as drunk as a frat boy on his 21st birthday.  

Sobriety can only be returned by the 85% and that's simply going to take awhile.

Is Congress broken? Well perhaps not broken but it is in SAFE mode, and though we would be better off if it was functioning properly this is still better than if our situation was made worse by a very active but broken Congress.  

     I've yet to see a toddler think that their time out was well timed, however I do see the wisdom of our founding fathers  telling our current political class that it's time for them to sit in corner and think about what they have done.  

Here's some fun additional reading to help you draw your own conclusions:

 

Congressional Approval rating, click here 

Primary Voting turnout, click here

And a member of Congress who may actually agree with this premise ... click here

2011 elections

 

It's taken me a few weeks to put pen to paper ... or rather finger to keyboard because to the extent elections are a team sport, my team got clobbered!  

With the one bright spot for "my agenda" being in Routt County where voters in Steamboat Springs and Routt County voted in favor of staying the course with their medical marijauana programs.  Aside from that it was defeat after defeat after defeat for the things I care about.

First allow me to say the following which will be enough whining to get you wasted off of my sour grapes:

I don't know if folks like "Team Ft. Collins" ( a group of "civic-minded" beer producers who bankrolled the effort to remove medical marijuana centers from Ft. Collins) and PLAN/Sierra, the majority (read only) organized political party in Boulder's nominally non-partisan City elections inteneded to ply their case in 2011 because this was their best electorate.  Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say that thier timing was just a stroke of luck by folks who believe in what they do and just got lucky. But what is clear is that if you are trying to win a battle of (pick your word, local conservatism, status quo, re-affirmation of the claims of those who already have the power) any political strategist will tell you this is accomplished by first picking your electorate and then ensuring that electorate is small and conservative.  

Statistically the smallest and most conservative electorate is the odd number year before a presidential election. Add to that, this year was a bonus for non-intentional voter suppresion because our election day with an all mail-in ballot was a week earlier than the calendar election day.  

I don't accuse the victors of this year's election of manipulating odds to their advantage any more than I accuse the loosers for failing to factor in the electorate when mounting campaigns that in hindsight were doomed. I just point out that the deck was heavily stacked for the proponents of the winners to win and the proponents of the loosers to loose not based on the merits of their campaigns but due to the nature of the electorate.

There is an elitist view that the "off-year" (that there is even such a term as "off-year" I think strengthens my argument) electorates deserve their over-sized influence because they are the dedicated and informed voter.   Those who make that argument sometimes also go as far to say that this electorate has the largest stake in the outcomes ... and with that part of the argument I tend to agree.

However,

This eliteist view is ademocratic and lends itself to elections that are based on misinformation.  We already have a problem where there is a lack of interest in local issues.  As a Juilliard grad and former professional classical musician who now fools around in politics I am perfectly aware that the thing that orchestral concert audiences and off-year election electorates have in common is that they are a wierd minority.  It is also obvious that the downfall of both classical music and local politics is their exclusivity.  I believe that an election is a mirror in which we can look at society and anytime you have participation of less than 100% then your image is distorted by the same percentage of those who did not vote. In 2011 that distortion is about 60%.

The result on the local and national level is government that works well for a small group of people i.e. the simple majority of the minority of people who participate and for everyone else ... well it's a crapshoot.

Sure perhpas the majority of people who don't vote in municipal elections are just so happy with the status-quo that they can't even pause their celebration long enough to cast a ballot to say so. I would believe that if when asked non-voters would say that. Non-voters are very forthcoming in their rationale for not participating in my experience, but I've never heard that complete and utter satisifaction with the status-quo as the reason.

So in an off-year, small conservative electorate a nominal tax increase to fund our public schools went down in flames, the residents of Ft. Collins banished medical marijuana centers from their City and in Boulder the entrenched political establishment had a landslide in the council election.  

Voters in Ft. Collins have simply been duped.  When you have local elections where there are few resources to get good information it is easy to see how opponents of Colorado's medical marijuana program could be convinced that by eliminating medical marijuana centers they would be eliminating medical marijuana in their community. Of course the reality is that while the heavily regulated medical marijuana centers go away, the demand for marijuana won't change at all.  As a result expect to see the re-establishment of the black market for marijuana in Ft. Collins as well as a surge in home grows which are still protected under the state constitution. Not to mention all the driving to Boulder and Denver of Ft. Collins residents to buy legal medical marijuana from licesened centers which is bad for the carbon footprint ... but of course even a climate hawk like myself must surely see the value of sacrificing some vehicle miles traveled for the sake of the children ... who can now go back to buying their marijuana from a local resurgent black market instead of being turned away by licesned centers.

 

Speaking of being a climtate hawk ... as I mentioned before I am one and environmentally concerned Boulder narrowly approved a measure that I believe is actually a step backwards disguised as a step forward in passing a meausure that allows Boulder to form a municipal utility.  As I have said in earlier posts I was not opposed to this because I don't think the City could run a utility.  I opposed it because I don't believe the City ever will run its electric utility.  

 

Morever this is sacrificing the war to win a battle.  Climate change is a global problem and as much as I would love for the world to follow Boulder's example in most things thats simply not reality. In order to effect the greatest change the fastest we need to be working regionally, nationally and globaly instead of pulling up our drawbridge.  Instead of the debate being about renewable energy the debate became about just about everything else ... corporate america, money in elections, conservative vs. liberal ...

Well here is a right-wing conservative heralding the renewable energy portfolio of that evil corporation Xcel energy in a twitter posting yesterday:

 

MarkUdall Mark Udall 

With 55.6% of its energy from #wind, #Colorado's @XcelEnergy is the new world-record holder for most #windpower. bit.ly/sisfHU

17 Nov  Unfavorite  Undo Retweet  Reply

 Retweeted by SLC_CO

 

Oh oops! That's liberal, total climate hawk (but pragmatic enough to understand how solutions actually work) Colorado Senator Mark Udall talking about how the corporation Boulder voters narrowly banished for "not producing enough renewable energy" is the WORLD"S LARGEST PRODUCER OF WIND POWER. 

Look I'm all for reform and punishing those who do the wrong thing, the problem with 2B and 2C was that this was never about the merits of Xcel it was a proxy war about corporate vs. local power.  And I agree with the sentitment however Xcel energy has tremendous regional influence on people's energy use choices.  Unless indiviuals everywhere, not just Boulder start making better choices what we do locally won't much matter.  It would be great if the passage of 2B and 2C start a nationwide move towards micro-generation, smart energy brokerage and increased adoption of renewable energy.

 

But with what capital? What infrastructure?  Xcel energy is a corporation, a large one and the last lesson we should be teaching corporate America is that if you dare be the leader in what we want we will punish you.  My interest is the maximum amount of renewable energy on the grid in the shortest amount of time.  2B and 2C may just yet achieve that goal and I hope that it does and I'm proven wrong. But for now it seems that this idea was not unwise, it was just pennywise.

 

And finally the council election. What is clear is that PLAN/Sierra have the superior ground game and for that they deserve to win the election and they did walking away. I just wonder if this built-in advantage could sustain a larger electorate.  I own that my choices for candidates where not the most-likely Boulder City Council winners and I'm not surprised by the outcome except for one, Dan King.

 

Really? the guy that owns a zero-waste hotel is not environmentally active enough to win a seat on Boulder City Council?  Is the idea of running a business and creating jobs that awful?

The answer is yes if you were to only poll the wierdos like myself who vote in off year elections. Though Boulder debates when viewed from outside the City Limits appear to be the struggle between liberal and liberaller ... If you really wanted to make an analogy that someone outside Boulder could understand, PLAN/Sierra is the organized, disciplined conservative party and "everyone else" is the disorganized progressives who spend so much time trying to determine good policy they forget factor in good politics and as a reuslt simply cannot win an election. This situation is exacerbated by the soft voter suppresion of off-year elections.

I don't think PLAN/Sierra are evil political masterminds nor do I think they are that wrong or wrong that often.  In fact my fist entree into Boulder politics was through PLAN when I met Lisa Morzel and Pat Shanks at a gargage sale, I consider them both friends and I've been to parties at both of their houses.  I shared a flight to New York with Ben Bender once and  we had a great chat. The issue is that I have finally come to determine that PLAN/Sierra fundamentally believe that Boulder's best days are behind it and thefore recommend a back to the future strategy.  It is my view after spending considerable time in both camps that it is the business and recreational community that are the true progressives.  These are the people that are actually proposing and supporting policy that will increase diveristy and livability in our community.  I realize this is counter-intutitve.  I understand that it most places the Chamber of Commerce run everything with a iron-conservative fist.  

But this is Boulder! And Boulder is wierd so it would only make perfect sense that in Boulder it is the Chamber of Commerce that is the progressive group with no political power.

 

What is hearting is that in the weeks leading up to the election this odd situation was starting to be discussed openly. And this discussion seems to be sustained.  I am glad to see so much talk of election reform in the City.  I happen to agree with those who think that even year elections, the election of council in representative districts instead of all at-large and the direct election of the Mayor would result in city leadership that reflects more accuratelly the direction Boulderites would support were they paying attention.  

Reformers in Boulder have one additional challenge.  Life in Boulder is pretty awesome.  Much like the president has had to defend the stimulus package with "it could've been worse" which though true is hard to quantify, Boulder's reformers have to hang their hat on "it could be a lot better"  again true, but hard to quantify.  For this reason I think moving the election to an even year is the most critical reform.  Since it will be nigh impossible to convince the small conservative off-year electorate that reform would be better when its clearly contrary to their interests, the only chance reform has is by chosing an electorate that reform would actually benefit, the larger voting bloc.

Previous attempts at election reform failed because of they tried to convince those who benefit from the status-quo to look past their interest towards the greater good, a fool's errand I don't care where you are.  Politics in Boulder are the same as they are in any small city, those who have the power have no incentive to yeild it others.  Previous election reform measures failed becasue they were on off-year ballots.  The champions of election reform have the best chance in four years next year.  A ballot measure to create representative districts or move municipal elections to even years has it's best shot at passing in 2012.  I would also think that those who oppose such reforms should want to see it on a 2012 ballot as well.  If reform failed on a 2012 ballot that would give the city's political establishment the greatest mandate to stay the course.  

Living outside of Boulder for a few years and coming back gives one some great perspective on the place. Boulder is a great place, but it is far from the sustainable, environmentally responsible, intellectually diverse and embracing community that it could be or one can be lulled into thinking it is if you don't leave town enough.  I believe Boulder can walk its talk and that doing so wouldn't even be that hard but it will require not a revoultion, but something more difficult to achieve, a minor course correction, something that I don't believe that the current political establishment of the city is capable of unfortunately.   

Its not now or later, its now AND later

TABOR,  the Colorado Constitutional amendment known as the Tax Payer's Bill of Rights is a document only a policy wonk could love (And I do have a perverse affinity for it).  Not only is it convoluded but it creates bizarre interactions with other provisions of our state constitution and as a result creates the "fund transfer" which anyone with a hint of intellectual honesty knows is deficit spending by another name.  The propenets of TABOR inadvertently created a path, an end run around the constitutional ban on deficit spending by municipal governments in the name of fiscal constraint ...

 

OOPS!

 

The other oops is Boulder Ballot measure 2A.  One of the good features of TABOR that should be kept in a neccessary TABOR reform process is that taxes are approved by the people and have a sunset.  The concept is simple;

"Hey Joe and Jane Q. Public, we got these pot holes over here we need to fix so tell you what, you gives us a .08% sales tax for 10 years and we'll take care of it, with love, your local government.  Then the voters can decide if they believe the hype ... and the math.  

And if they do the potholes get fixed and in 10 years the tax goes away all by itself.  Unless said CIty Council then uses the rest of the general fund for Quixotic pursuits of folly. In which case other basic CIty services suffer and the council finds itself asking for an extension.

 

Vote YES on 2A.  This is not a tax increase, its an extension of a tax that already exists. This is not the time to take a stand against high taxes etc. it is the time to say we live here and we would like to have the paved roads and sidewalks that prove we are in fact a modern city.  It would have been better had maintenance not been deferred but at least now we can blame the council.  Should 2A fail the blame will then rest with the public.  All those who believe they are more responsible than the council, here is your chance to prove it.

 

For those who do want to send a message that we shouldn't have had a "2A' in the first place, elect at minimum Dan King and Ken Wilson to City Council two well know budget hawks but I would then recommend you support Fenno Hoffman, Mark Gelband and Kevin Hotaling as well.  In order to get serious about the city's budget issues Dan and Ken will need not only a working majority but a Mayor who actually wants to talk about budget issues.  The Mayor who will have that leadership is Suzy Ageton and she only gets elected Mayor if the council elected is majority pragmatic.  I cannot stress the importance of this enough, especially since I suspect 2B and 2c will also pass, if we end up with someone like Macon Cowles as Mayor, the next two years will be all municipalization all the time with budgetary issues as an afterthought resolved by a 2A in 2013. 

 

The choice is clear open your ballots today, or open your wallets tomorrow, its up to you. 

 

Vote yes on 2A

Beethoven 's 5.32th Symphony

Once upon a time I was Principal Clarinetist of the Wyoming Symphony.  There is a cultural difference between the East and the West that is important to remember if that is your job ... 

Although in the East concerts begin at 8 p.m. in general in the West we prefer our concerts to start at 7:30.

 

I had been on the East Coast performing for a few weeks and had become so accustomed that luxurious additional 30 minutes in my day that I mentally blocked that concerts begin at 7:30 in Casper.  I even arrived to the concert that evening at 7:30 way earlier than my usual anxiety inducing (for others) 5 minutes before the gig with idea of catching up with some folks before the show.   

I walked in to hear the Overture to Candide already in progress.

 

OOPS!

Fortunately for me 3 months later I got hired to work in Washington D.C. because punctuality is not my strong suit and as it's a prerequisite in orchestral playing, Congress tends to have more of a soft 15 minute policy.

 

Last night I missed the Candide Overture again, this time as a tardy audience member.  En route to Boettcher Concert Hall to hear the Colorado Symphony perform Beethoven's 7th Symphony friends and I encountered the march that was a part of the Denver branch of the "Occupy X" movement that is sweeping the nation and the world.  I don't like Candide Overture so I'm glad I missed it.  And in the context I was in I actually felt a little vindicated.  Why should I feel obligated to hear the entire concert?  I came to hear Beethoven, why should I have to suffer Bernstein in order to do that, I don't work here!

 

The context since I brought it up is witnessing for the first time with my own eyes the "Occupy" movement.  I have no idea where this is going, but I saw a lot fo the Tea Party when I worked in Washington.  I thought the Tea Party made some solid points but on a whole seemed disorganized without clear greivances or solutions ... does that description sound exactly like what people are saying about "Occupy"?  I first heard about Occupy as a overnight thing ... that was a month ago, I thought the Tea Party was a fad also ... That was two years ago!  

Adding to that was this was my first time going to the CSO since the beginning of that organizaitons revolution.  I give this post the title Beethoven's 5.32th Symphony (I didn't come up with it, it was a suggestion by a friend) in support of the musiciains -many of whom are close friends who took a 20% pay cut to keep the organiziation a float.  Where this and the Occupy Movement come together is the Occupy movement is raising voice against the very irrational assesment of value that the 20% pay cut embodies.

Occupy is saying something that is very important.  Something Elizabeth Warren has recently and rightly become famous for saying in a way that needs to be heard.  Even in a capitalist society the concept of distribution of wealth is ... well essential to the commonwealth.  Of course those who by virtue of labor or accident of birth have control of many resources should enjoy and benefit from their abundance.  Scarcity how people become wealthy.  The control of a scarce resource is one way to do it, but an even better way to do it is to have control so much of an abundant resource that you make it scarce ... and get to control how scare it is.  Currency is very good a serving that role and as a proxy makes abundant global resources appear scarce.  We do not have a scarcity problem, we have a distribtion problem and it seems that these mini (CSO) and macro (occupy) revolutions are making clear that the clock is ticking on using false scarcity as an wealth generating tool.

 

I say all that to say this:

We have mini and macro revolutions occuring in Boulder right now.  In my viewpoint the min-revolution is the municipal energy issue which though I oppose it I am fairly confident it will pass.  This issue is having relatively a lot of attention as compared to what I think is the potentially macro-revoution, the City Council election.  Where the municipal utility no matter the outcome of this election is most likely to have been a very expensive barganing chip of dubious value; it is who we elect to Council that will be guiding what happens next not only for light switches but what kind of City Boulder will become.  Another local blogger has referenced this and after spending 2 years away I am more convinced that to ignore the direction the state and region is going is folly.  And with the growth the region is going to experience in both the near term and longer term leave Boulder with exactly two choices:

Become a Suburb or a City in it's own right.  There are no alternatives.

 

I strongly favor Boulder becoming a City in it's own right.  Not only for quality of life issue but also some very practical reasons.  That said it's not that Boulder becomes Denver northwest let alone New York as fearmongers suggest.  It's that Boulder becomes the example of a modern, sustainable City that we have the potential to be.  What Occupy and the Tea Party say about our national political structure is the same discussion being had by the Colorado Symphony and I will say here about Boulder's current direction:

It's simply not going to work.

 

It's not to say that Congress the former CEO of the CSO or PLAN Boulder/Sierra Club are not a. right about a lot of things b. well intentioned c. competent and thoughtful.  It is to say that they are all a. also wrong about a lot of things b. prone to uninteneded and unmitigated consequences and c. too blinded by what they believe to be able to think rationally about the current actual state of play.

 

It is for that reason that I am going to do exactly what I have formerly criticized others for and not endorese a full slate of Candidates.  When I ran for Council, partly because I thought it was good political strategy but also because I do think in an ideal world where everyone practiced politics with the intellectual honesty to acknowldege that even those who disagree with them deserve a voice; I suggested people use all their votes, voting for candidates that balance each other out ideologically with the result being a balanced Council of the best talent.   

So now I am going to be a complete hypocrite and not only endorse a "bullet voting" slate but also with complete disregard to balance.

 

I will be voting for:

Dan King

Fenno Hoffman

Kevin Hotaling

Mark Gelband 

 

I reconcile my hypocrisy by saying this:

1. In a representative democracy having an all at-large council is ridicolous in the first place. This model only plays into the hands of those who want to load up the council with people who agree with them ideologically so they can run wild loose and free without any  obstruction, delay or input from opposing viewpoints ... exaclty like I'm doing now.

and

2. I am going to at least own up to my bias right up front so you can decide for yourself and in case that wasn't clear enough I  AM COMPLETELY BIASED.

I don't have anything against any of the incumbents.  I know Ken, Lisa and George, I consider them freinds and I was colleagues with George on the Downtown Management Commission.  I also expect all 3 will get re-elected and thats fine because I find them of the current council to be among the most reasonable as individuals even when I disagree with them personally.  Their re-elections won't neccessarily move the City forward but they will also do no harm which in politics is frequently good enough.

 

Budget

I am supporting Dan because he is laser focused on long-term budget issues.  That's the only reason, 100% litmus test style voting here, the exact type of thing I wish people wouldn't do I'm telling you I'm doing it this time because he's right about it.  Don't let the largesse of some of our residents fool you.  This city has deep structural budgetary problems that will either get fixed in a careful thoughtful way ... or in the next 15 years will take care of themselves in ways that will make Boulder a fundamentally different and worse place.  I don't care what you're most important litmus test issue is, Open Space? Great, Recreation? Fantastatic, Conservation? Awesome.  Whatever it may be it will be a non-starter unless we have people like Dan minding the store.

Representation

I am supporting Keving Hotaling because he is the youngest person on the ballot.  That's the only reason, 100% litmus test style voting here.   Ron Tupa told me once that he voted for me for that reason once (that he always votes for the youngest person on the ballot) It seemed like good advice, for starters, the youngest person is likely to live the results of their policy longer right?  I also frequently agree with where Keving is trying to go (I don't always agree with how he wants to get there but that's why you have 8 other council members).  Kevin has vision but more important experience being a young professional in Boulder in today's economy.  I remember watching a Judiciary Committee hearing on technology and my former boss and current freind Jared Polis who was a member of the committee asked the only questions of the panel that were in anyway cogent.  It's not to say the other members quesiton's weren't relevant, it is to say that they were clearly written by staff and the member didn't really understand the underlying meaning of the questions. Jared understood perfectly not because he's neccessarrily smarter than his colleagues ... But because HE'S 36 YEARS OLD and actually has used facebook and twitter before.  It's bad enough that in an all at-large system neighborhoods don't have representation, leaving those of us who don't live in Whitier or University Hill without a real advocate for our potholes.  If you want Boulder to have a future where people raise their families here (like perhaps you had the opportunity to) then you need young professionals to stay instead of graduate and move to Denver.  A city with no children is a city with no future, and a city can't have children unless it has young professionals.  If we plan to keep Boulder a vibrant diverse place then our council should reflect that.  If you believe in representation vote for Keving Hotaling.

 

Vision

I am voting for Fenno Hoffman because he has vision. That's the only reason, 100% litmus test. I think more than anyone I've talked to Fenno Hoffman understands that lifestyles are going to be fundamentally different in the near future and we better be prepared for it.  I find him practical, thoughtful and intellectualy honest. I also believe that Fenno is a neccessary counter balance to Macon Cowles.  In some ways they are cut from the same intellectual cloth but Fenno has a much more sympathetic touch that will be important in having high minded debates but more importatnly keeping the council grounded when neccessary.  If you recognize that Boulder cannot stay the same and prefer that Boulder get better over time vote for Fenno Hoffman

 

Virtue

I am voting for Mark Gelband out of pure virture.  That's the only reason.  Mark actually says what he thinks. He is apolitical (which if elected I'm sure will change somewhat but that will be ok politics is a team sport).  I also almost always agree with Mark, if not from the begining he can usually win me over in discussion.  I don't know if he is just persuasive or just right a lot but unlike some current members of the council he is NOT pious.  When he is wrong he says so.  I think there is and ought to be a distinction between an activist and a politician and Mark is certainly more on the activist end of the spectrum than I usually support in an election but the reality is the other side has activist on council already and their candidates are all at least where Mark is on the specturm between activist and politico so why shouldn't the side of good governance, pragmatism and breaking the special interest strangehold also have an activist.  If you believe having a watchdog for pragmatism that knows how to bark on council is valuable, vote Mark Gelband.

 

You can vote for my slate, you can vote against these people because they are my slate, the most important thing to do however is vote. Then tell everyone you live with to vote, the make sure all of your freinds vote.  The election year before a presidential year typically has the lowest voter turnout of the cycle.  It is my hope that the passion of Occupy may yield a voter turnout higher than the abysmally low participation in municipal elections because though some of our problems  may have been caused on Wall Street, or Pennsylvania Avenue, or Colfax, we live here and the solutions that will allow Boulder to continue to be the amazing place to live that it is will by and large either be produced or unfortunately defeated at 1777 Broadway.

 

Now please, go vote! And then buy some tickets to the Colorado Symphony.  The orchestra played great as usual last night but the most interesting thing about last night's performance was the audience. I was wearing flip flops and jeans, and I wasn't the only one.  The audience was younger than I've ever seen at an orchestra concert and they gave a Philip Glass violin concerto a standing ovation.  There is indeed something happening not only in America right now but at the CSO as well and where it remains to be seen where any of these culture shifts go, I am somehow the most optimistic about the revolution that is happening at the Colorado Symphony.  It is my hope that Boulder can also ride this wave to become the city she must become for the future.

 

10-19-11

P.S.

I've decided to use my fifth vote after all ...

Realizing that on the one hand I am statistically reducing the chances of my candidates but on the other hand that the difference is nominal and is more likely to NOT CHANGE what is the most likely outcome that all 3 incumbents get re-elected.  As I said above I don't see any reason why the incumbents as individuals deserve to be fired.  They have their own voices, their own constituencies, all of whom deserve a voice whether I agree with them or not, and I think all three serve their ideological constiuencies well.

With that said I am going to use my fifth vote for Ken Wilson, though I could easily use it for George to get the same desired effect ... Mayor Ageton.

Lisa represents her constiuency well and is almost certainly going to get re-elected but I don't think she would support Suzy for Mayor which for me is a HUGE litmus test when I look at the potential make-up of the next council.

 

For those of you who are not from Boulder reading this (or those who are but need a Boulder civics refresher)  aside from the already undemocratic all at-large system we have for our City Council which lends itself readily to the council too busy bringing home the bacon for their idelogical special interest constituentcies to be bothered with how to fix their neighborhood potholes, our Mayor is elected by the Council from its members.

The executive powers of the City rest with the City Manager however the Mayor is more than just a figurehead.  I have heard folks downplay the role of Mayor, mostly those who support whichever special interest regime that has a strangelhold on the city government at the time but you should be aware of one important thing:

 

The Mayor and the Deputy Mayor have PERMANENT seats on the Council Agenda Committee.  This is a very big deal as it is the "CAC" that decides what issues the council will take up.  As an example we have a corporate personhood referendum on the ballot this year.  Whether you support it or not, we wouldn't be having the community discussion if Mayor Osborne didn't want to talk about it on council.

Of the current members of the Council I find Suzy Ageton to be the best suited to lead Boulder for the next two years.   Her combination of institutional memory, insight to the needs of the broader community and thoughtful, pragmatic approach to problem solving will be exactly what we need as move forward with issues like municipalization (which I suspect will win) and budget reform ...

 

Not to mention she gets the highest number of votes of all the candidates every time she runs which is the best proxy for who the people might want to have as their Mayor.

The Mayoral election is the most inside baseball Boulder's otherwise transparent government gets.  But make no mistake that it is intensely political and the decision which by and large you as a voter are not party to has serious policy outcomes.

 

So succumbing to the campaign mailer I received with a picture of Ken standing next to Suzy I choose him for my fifth vote for no other reason that he reminded me how important it is for Suzy to become Mayor.

My Grandmother the environmentalist ...

This morning I walked into a room in my 607sq condo and turned on a light.

 

I then turned it off immediately, well maybe not immediately.  

My brain quickly tried to do a cost benefit analysis to determine if since I had already turned the light on and used that energy did it make more sense to just leave it on since I was only going to be in the room breifly or would the amount of wind (austensibly as I pay for 100% wind through the Xcel windsource about a 10% premium on my on average $40 utility bill though in reality the kilowats could be anything but likely some combination of coal and natural gas and if i'm lucky a touch of wind) used by the one compact floursent bulb in my bedroom for the 10 more seconds it was going to take grab a sweater would be less than the energy used to turn it on in the first place, and by leaving it on would I remain consistent with the argument I always gave my grandmother for why a light was on ...

And then the part of my brain that remembers the terror of those foot steps marching towards that room when I was 13 convinced my 33 year old brain that it does not have enough information to make an accurate decision based on facts in the time allotted and therefore the most consistent course of action is to remain afraid of my now deceased grandmother ... and turned the light off.  This took about 5 seconds and if anyone reading this has the skill set to crunch the numbers I'd love to know if I made the most environmentally responsible choice or not.

What I used to tell my grandmother when I was in my teenage years and she would accuse me of "working for ConEd" (the electric utility where I grew up) was that it made more sense to leave the (at the time) incandecent light bulb on while I was practicing clarinet in the basement because the amount of energy used to turn it on far exceeded the amount used to power it all day.  

I have no idea where I picked up that information, I suspect public school, nor did I verify it then or know if it was in fact the truth now.  What I did know is that it sounded reasonable enough and what I needed was an argument against what was in my view an unreasonable outcome -that in order to save $x I should rely solely on natural light ... from a north facing basement window ... in New York, in December to practice.  My Grandmother who was born in 1928 was not only a depression era baby, but black and poor so came from a world that I born in 1978 young enough to have missed the depression and living in a world where black kids went to Juilliard prep could not understand.

Oddly enough I now have the same obsessive compulsion to turn things off when not in use.  This disorder isn't genetic and my granndmother and I though experieincing the same symptoms have very different compulsive diseases. She was frugal (i'd say irratioanlly cheap but thats a debate for another time) and I am a climate hawk. 

I am totally out of touch.  Where most people believe the biggest issues facing the country and the world right now are the economy, soveriegn and private debt crisisis and on-going international military conflicts, if I had my way, we would do nothing whether in Congress, research universities or corporate boardrooms than reform, research, develop and implement new energy policy.  I am a dedicated climate hawk and I firmly believe that addressing energy, not only prevents the worst outcomes of climate change (or at least mitigates them as the avoidance ship may have already sailed) but also addresses all these other problems other people seem to be so hopped up about.

So take this opinion with a grain of salt becasue I am admittedly biased and out of the mainstream ... by a lot.

I have recently read two opinions about the City of Boulder questions 2B and 2C that I found very compelling. There are some who argue against 2B and 2C because they believe the City Council and the City Organization can't handle an electric utitlity.  This is of course a ridiculous argument for 2 reasons.

1.  The council never handles anything, they set policy which is then executed by CIty Manager, think of the Council as the Board of Directors and the City Mangaer as the C.E.O of ...

2. The corporaion that is the City of Boulder. Because that's exactly how it works.  Council sets policy, staff does the work. And whether you agree with the implementation of policy by city staff, they are at least (as opposed to council members who generally are not nor actually need to be) experts in their line of work.  The city would create a new division of the city governement that is the utility, populated with staff who have the technical expertise to do the job.

Distrust for the city is not enough reason to vote no on these measures.

County Commissoner Will Toor  and Blake Jones opine that if at the end we don't end up with a municipal electric utility that our strongest barganing position with Xcel would be with passage of these two measures.  I agree with that premise.  Another way of making the case to those who do not support municipilization or those who actually believe that the best path forward is with Xcel is that sure, it would be better if this wasn't a ballot question at all but that being unavailable, the best place to be for your interests is back at the barganing table with the will of the people as evidenced by the ballot box in imporving the renewable energy side of the ledger.  Again I agree and that is why I have struggled on how to vote on these measures.

Because the 13 year old part of my brain that is afraid of my grandmother has been lobbying my 33 year old brain against doing any math.

Fortunately people who are smarter than me have done the math ... much of which I even understand! And I actually believe that in the best possible outcome a municipal utitlity would have more renewable energy at a comparable if not slighlty lower cost to the ratepayer. And I definitely am convinced of the best barganing position argument.  However these rosy outocmes are still only marginal if everything goes right.  And when was the last time everything went right?

I know there are some earnest and sincere minds behind this municiplization effort but let's not pretend that political strategy is not exactly that. If you can build a coalition between true believers and pragmatic non-believers you can get anything accomplished (see 18th amendment).  Looking at data from both sides its clear that under the best outcome municipliaztion is a slam dunk great idea, this holds true even under average to some worser case scenarios.  

The problem is not the goodness of the outcome it's the likeliness of the outcome.  And the most likely outcome is that even with passage of these measures, in 3 years the City of Boulder will be in a new franchise agreement with Xcel energy that is marginally better than it would have been without this exercise. 

The best case scenario for municipliaztion over a 20 year term is only marginally better than the outcome staying with Xcel.  This is a very expensive barganing chip for very little bang at the end. 

Further we invent a middleman.

I think the future of energy distribution will be micro-generation with macro-brokerage.  That is to say once we figure out micro-generation, storage (i.e. batteries) and distribution (figuring out to allow micro-generators and batteries electric cars to cellphones) to return unused electricity to the grid, the role of an electric "utility" will be to direct traffic.  Utilities will broker energy transfer, maintain distribution infrastructure and compensate producers with revenues generated from energy purchasers -in other words EXACTLY what a City of Boulder Utility would do!

However we are not there yet, and for the foreseable future energy will continue to be a vertically integrated industry (as all the public utilities supporters of this cite are).  And in a vertically intergrated business model the money is made on the production side. If energy wasn't vertically intergrated then renewable energy adoption would be much easier and much faster I agree but that isn't possible until the infrastructure of micro-generation (where we have made tremendous progess) and storage (hear the crickets?) are in place and no amount of money the city can spend can accelerate that research and development (R&D valued in the $billions is out of reach of a City budget that in its entirety is in the $200 millions). A utility that does not produce energy must buy it which turns the traditional revenue center into a cost.  Now some would argue that this is absorbed by a municipal utility not having to pay shareholders or turn a profit , TRUE but unknown if the offest is enough to not have to be satisfied in some part by generating the revenues on the distribution side (i.e. higher rates).   

My interest is adoption of the plan that makes the most sense. The plan that encourages adoption of renewable energy whether directly in micro-generation for those with the means to do it and voluntary susidy of the renewable energy infrastructure to increase supply (read carbon credits or for Xcel customers "windsource") and does so with comparable pricing so that the price premium doesn't scare off adopters. And if the goal is the maximum adoption of the maximum amount of renewable energy by the broadest base, today and after the passage of 2B and 2C that path is with Xcel energy and mandated by ammendment 37.  

And then there are people outside of Boulder's political class.  People who simply want reliable electricity (which we have) at a reasonable price (debateable) who maybe would buy renewable energy if it were cheap enough but they don't care enough when there is a premium.  In Boulder if you use windsource as a guide that amounts to about 88% of ratepayers.  This is Boulder so I suspsect that price is not the only reason for the anemic 12% adoption of windsource but if definitely raises questions in my mind as to whether our residents, the majority of whom will not vote in this election really believe this is an appropriate undertaking for the City. 

I think about what most people are concered with today and temper that with my agenda and conclude that though well intentioned and in some ways the ideal of what I think a utility -public or private SHOULD be and I arrive at the following conclusions:

1. In the most likely scenario the best opportunity to a. continue with the renewable energy people are using today b. increase adoption and c. retain reasonable costs for those who are early adopters is to stay with Xcel energy.

2. The only way to get other communities, but more importantly individuals in other communities to adopt reneawble energy is to work collaboritvely which is easier to do from within a network than without.

3.While I agree that passing these measures would increase our leverage for renewables in an agreement with Xcel so would a large increase of windsource customers as it is the same data point (customers want renewable energy and are willing to pay for it).

4. You don't have to be wrong to be sued.  This one is important, while increasing the amount of windsource participation would send the same message to Xcel it would have a minimal costs to those who want to send the message and no cost to those who do not. Maybe the City won't be on the hook for going concern and stranded costs etc. but only a judge can decide that and it's not going to be free to find out.

IF 2B and 2C pass and we do end up with a municipal utility I will be very happy to have been on the wrong side of history.  I will be the first to point out my own lack of vision and will welcome the resulting increased renewable energy that results because at the end of the day renewable energy adoption is my interest, doesn't matter how we get there.  Knowing Boulder politics I also suspect that 2B and 2C will pass, but I still think the result will only have been an expensive path to a marginally better franchise.

 

However I think the interests of the fastest adoption of renewables by the largest base still lies in a regional effort where we lead by example and as a customer can influence Xcel and it's other customer communities.  As person that incorporates carbon emissions and climate change into more of my relevant behavioral decisions than most people I believe that further pursuit of a municipal utility as planned at this point is exactly like trying to decide whether or not to turn the uneeded light back of ... In so doing you miss the teachable moment where next time you would remember not to turn the light on in the first place (or walk instead of drive or to throw your orange peel out the window instead of into the trash -you know methane in landfills ...).

 

Vote no on 2B and 2C and while you're at it sign up for windsource here