Tag Archive for baum

100

Free Range Longmont has registered our one-hundredth member.

Our member list is here.

If you’d like to submit to FRL, here’s our Submission Form.

If you’d like to be a regular contributor to FRL, Join the FRL team!

We welcome your comments – please read our Commenting policy.

Not sure who your City Council representative is? You can find out here.

Thanks to all our contributors and readers for helping us bring the important news to light in Longmont.

When Longmont went dirty

Ms Baum, you brought dirty politics to Longmont. I received in the mail dirty political attack campaign mailers from the Steve Monger of the Longmont Leadership aka Western Tradition partnership and from you Ms. Baum. You go after citizens who don’t agree with you. It’s not right what you do. It’s shameful what you do.
— blog post by “Onion” on the article BoCo Dems get first look at HD 11 contenders – Times-Call.com

Some people can lose an election and move on (no pun intended).  Some people can’t.  One has to wonder who in the dangerous duo from November’s election is having the most difficulty, ex-mayor Bryan Baum or the ex “First Lady”.  It’s a toss-up.

Bryan seems to have great difficulty letting go.  Would you be surprised to know that he’s still doing the “Monday with the Mayor” radio broadcast, but under a nominally different banner?  Oh, yes, not making that one up.  News flash, “has-been-mayor” Baum, your term is over.  And in spite of a retained conservative majority, at least you cannot continue to damage Longmont.  No matter how much you stroke yourself, you did cause much damage.  It was delineated in the Moving Longmont Forward mailer.  Could it be that you actually do not recognize the harm you’ve caused?  Naw, not likely.  That you have to protest so often and so publicly suggests that even you worry about having been exposed.  Don’t worry.  Those who agree with you won’t hold your skullduggery against you; they applaud it.

As to Bryan Baum’s other half…  I know the usual expression is “better half” …but it this case there is no “better.”  Stephanie seems to have as much difficulty with truth as her husband does.  She led the way in 2008 with the notorious “pink letter” (reproduced below).

A recent Times-Call article gave her the opportunity to get back in the game.  Likely she chafed at having to keep her mouth shut for two years lest she damage her husband’s re-election chances.  She needn’t have worried.  Baum did that quite well all by himself.   First out of the gate, in the article about the first forum for Democratic HD 11 contenders, Stephanie Baum demands that no one support Jonathan Singer in his House District 11 race because he supported Moving Longmont Forward.  Another news flash, this one for the ex-First Lady., Mr. Singer does not endorse lies and that is why he was able to support the mailer exposing your husband’s record and behavior.  Mr. Singer has personal experience with your husband’s bullying.  He chose not to expose him, a kindness that others would not have been so inclined to offer.  Had the contents of that telephone conversation been revealed to the public, your husband would have lost by a landslide.

In Stephanie Baum’s tit-for-tat on the Times-Call website, back and forth, she effectively dared “Onion” to produce a copy of the “pink letter” and demonstrate the attacks that were leveled.  Free Range Longmont is happy to oblige on their behalf.

The irony of all of the protestations by the Baums is their selective memories not only of the launching of negative campaigning in the 2008 campaign, but ready acceptance of the most vile of political campaigning that Longmont has ever experienced, namely the “The Longmont Leader.”

For those who may have preferred to forget, this was a newspaper-style**, 11” x 17” 8-pager that spent most of its ink in inarguable attack.  Ink, by the way, that was paid for by Western Tradition Partnership, an organization that never was, never will be a local voice (except perhaps to hide contributions by those who do not have the courage to display their agenda publicly).

I am not so naïve as to believe that this will be the last word on political lies and political attacks.  Pandora’s Box was opened by Gabe Santos and Stephanie Baum was more than happy to wield an ax.  In the process, they changed Longmont’s politics for the indefinite future and invited the the likes of Scott Shires (responsible for the first attack piece in the 2008 election and connected to political hit sites) and Western (now American) Tradition Partnership.  I’m certain Longmont hasn’t heard the last of them – they have a lot of money and an agenda.


Transcription of the “Pink Letter” sent to Longmont voters during the 2008 Special Election. Underlining is preserved from original. Color-highlighted text is FRL emphasis. Spelling errors in the original have been marked ‘sic’ to indicate they have been left unchanged.


Stephanie Baum

January 18, 2008

Dear Friend,

I am writing you today as a mother and a neighbor – please forgive me for my informality – as I have never felt called to send a letter like this.

Normally, I am satisfied to take my son to karate practice, plan play dates with other moms and their kids, and spend my free time keeping up with friends through email.

But I have become gravely concerned about our community of Longmont and the sudden change in direction it has taken.

I have lived in Longmont for nine years and have come to love this community and have developed many deep friendships here. Longmont has grown precisely because it is a beautiful, safe place with strong values, where a family can thrive.

That’s why I care deeply about the kind of leadership my son and daughter, Chase and Brooklynn, and I see in Longmont and across our great state of Colorado.

The future of Longmont is important enough that I wanted to personally write to you about Gabe Santos, who is the common-sense Republican running to bring balance back to Longmont City Council.

I first met Gabe over 7 years ago, at a welcome reception in the home of his in-laws, Van and Diane Stow, whom I’ve known for years.

When I met Gabe, I remember thinking “oh great, another Big City guy moving to our little town,” but as soon as I spoke to him I realized he was anything but a “Big City guy.” His engaging personality is obviously one of the many reasons why his wife Vicki fell in love with him.

Now, if you’re like me, you’re recently seen an organized assault on Longmont by a radical element attempting to distort Gabe’s record and hide their harmful agenda, in an effort to take over city council.

I have believed for some time that this sort of negative campaigning is degrading the way we act and feel towards each other.

In response to the distasteful broadsides being directed at my friend Gabe and at some people of faith in our community, I have some nice – and true – things to say.

I know Gabe Santos is a good and decent man. He has spent his entire adult life serving others.

My husband coordinates the Salvation Army bell-ringing for the Longmont Rotary Club, and Gabe rang the bell more than any other Rotarian this year. Gabe and Vicki chaired Longmont’s Relay for Life, taking over for us in that capacity.

My husband Bryan and I have been very active with local non-profits here in Longmont, and Gabe and Vicki have the same passion that we do in those endeavors. Gabe so often puts the needs of others before his own.

He has served his family by providing for them and being a “hands on” dad with his involvement and support – we can’t go to Art Walk, the Halloween Parade, the Festival on Main, Oktoberfest or any other of a number of community events without running into Gabe, Vicki and their daughter Sylvia.

He worked with city government through Focus on Longmont to ensure our community is a great place to live both now and in the future, and Gabe helps meet the needs of others by volunteering with the Longmont Ending Violence White Ribbon Campaign and working with the Education Summit to improve our childrens school experience.

When Gabe told my husband and I that he was going to run for City Council, we knew right away that Gabe’s integrity and wisdom would make him a great city representative.

That feeling hasn’t changed.

As far as his leadership, I would definately(sic) feel safer with Gabe’s kind of policy on public safety, reasonable growth, restraining taxes and spending, and respecting citizens’ private lives than someone who would choose to divide the city further.

And unlike his opponent, Gabe doesn’t plan to spend his entire life on the government payroll – he knows what a challenge life is for families and businesses, which is why today he’s working as an accountant and studying to become a CPA.

Now, honestly, I wasn’t sure what his opponent stood for, because he seems to change or obscure his views on some of the most important issues our city faces today.

In fact, his opponent, Richard Juday has even gone so far as to delete at least four pages from his website – pages that contain very troubling comments about being “more like Boulder;” attacking the beliefs of people of faith; and the most significant one…his promise not to take campaign contributions.

That’s why, when I looked online at the City Clerk’s campaign finance report, I tell you, I was in for a surprise!

The first that jumped out at them was the number of radical left-wing Democrat activists who were supporting Mr. Juday. Many of the same donors are on record supporting cadidates who push a tax-and-spend, anti-family agenda.

Forgive me, but those groups and individuals – which include many of the same Boulder radicals who recently ran a smear campaign against our neighbors at LifeBridge church – do not share my vision for a strong future for Longmont families.

I looked for names of people whom would show some balance, but truthfully, Juday seems only to be supported by the Boulder County Democrat(sic *) Party, MoveOn.org types (whom I’ve never seen active in our community), and out-of-state donors.

Now, I know it takes money to buy yard signs and run a campaign, but when I saw the list of “zero-growth” Boulder Democrats backing Mr. Juday, I decided to look up his vision for the future, and it’s apparent from his own campaign materials he wants to turn Longmont into “Boulder-lite.”

I know Boulder – I grew up there, and my parents still live there. Businesses and families are fleeing “the People’s Republic of Boulder” because of it’s city government’s radical anti-growth policies and dangerous social engineering projects and experiments.

Longmont’s realtors and small businesses are obviously very concerned – because the last thing our local economy needs is repressive taxation and regulation on our housing. That’s why the Longmont Association of Realtors endorsed Gabe Santos.

Now I, like everyone, want to enjoy our surrounding and be a good steward of our environment – but I also know that Longmont’s long-held policies of smart and well-planned growth are the biggest reason our taxes have not skyrocketed like we’ve seen in Boulder.

That’s why I also agree with Gabe about cutting waste in City government to maintain our open space, in a way that doesn’t increase the tax burden on middle class families.

His opponent believes tax increases are the way to go, and several of Richard Juday’s tax-and-spend city council members have already voted to reverse existing, sensible cost-cutting measures in the interest of buying support from government bureaucrats.

Gabe’s belief in fiscal restraint will translate into stronger parks, library, and recreation for all our children over the long term – without creating a heavy-handed bureaucracy that micromanages our every move.

That’s how I know that Gabe is definately(sic) against Mr. Juday’s proposed scheme to institute an “inner-governmental agreement” to “track individual shoppers by their license plate numbers,” while we are inside browsing supermarket aisles.

I know that’s hard to believe – that’s why I posted his deleted pages on my blog, www.takebacklongmont.blogspot.com (and yes, those are my cute kids in the blog’s photo!!)

So, it’s now clear to me why Gabe’s opponent has done everything to hide his own views – candidates with such Big Brother schemes have to cloak themselves – because they don’t stand for anything I believe most Longmont families would agree with.

So it turns out the Boulder radicals are actually the ones propping up Gabe’s opponent.

Our community has several important issue facing us, including public safety and gangs, infrastructure, and responsible growth. I am gravely concerned about the kind of future a city councilman like Richard Juday would give us.

In the end, it comes down to money – lots of it given to Juday from outside our district, and the rest from partisan operatives willing to deceive voters in their attempt to turn Longmont into another “Boulder-utopia.”

I am asking you to find your mail-in ballot, and cast your vote for a family-friendly vision for Longmont’s future that I hope you and I share.

With the underhanded campaign against our community and on Gabe Santos – a truly good man – coming from Richard Juday’s campaign and the radical special interests that support him – I’m not sure I can stomach his vision for Colorado’s future.

So, in the end, I just thought I’d let you know what’s been on my mind.

If you’d like to talk, please give me a call at 303-946-9507.

Sincerely,

(signed) Stephanie Baum

P.S. It has been a blessing to know Gabe Santos and to work with him in our community.

I guarantee, if you will cast your vote for Gabe on the mail-in ballot you recently received, you will love him as a city councilman, as much as his family and those in Longmont already do!

Please remember to vote for Gabe Santos before January 29th.


Scans of original mailer pages used for transcription.

Stephanie Baum

Councilman Gabe Santos

* It’s not the ‘Democrat’ Party of Boulder County, it’s ‘Democratic’ – this is a common and oft-repeated extremist-right slur/purposeful ‘mistake’/hyper-partisan rhetoric.

** Gee… golly… it looked so real. I believe on purpose. Some people believe anything “the newspaper” tells them.

Fracking in Longmont Open Space?

Dear Mayor Baum and City Council,

Oil and Money -do mix

I found out several days ago that plans are being prepared by city staff and others to allow for horizontal drilling for natural gas and oil on Longmont city-owned properties, including on Longmont Open Space. Then I find in the City Council Study Session packet for October 18, 2011, that the City is having a conversation with Weld County about how they deal with their gas and oil well drilling agreements. What’s up?

First, before any kind of drilling is approved, I urge our Mayor and City Council members to educate themselves about the dangers of fracking by watching the movie, “Gasland” to get a better understanding of hydraulic fracturing, also know as FRACKING.

Caustic fluids (things such as biocides and breaking agents – very toxic chemical concoctions that are trade secrets) are injected under pressure deep into the strata in order to release natural gas and/or oil that might not be obtainable through regular drilling methods. One of the problems, however, is the forcing of natural gas into places where it doesn’t belong, like in people’s water wells. Just to the east of Longmont, people are able to light the water coming out of their faucets because it is full of methane.

At a recent meeting that discussed the dangers of fracking, a woman from Firestone, where drilling platforms and condensate tanks surround the neighborhood and local schools, told us that people are getting sick. Cancer rates in her neighborhood have risen dramatically and other serious health issues have appeared. Of course, that is in Weld County, where they’ve dug hundreds if not thousands of these kinds of wells. However, Weld County Commissioners appear not to be concerned with the health and wellbeing of their population.

When I heard that Longmont is considering allowing drilling on our Open Space land that is owned by the people of Longmont and close to homes, I was flabbergasted.

Drilling for oil THIS CLOSE to Union Reservoir?! Insane!

By the way, did you know that Fracking requires the use of millions of gallons of water? An initial “Frack” requires one to four million gallons of water. That amount is enough domestic water for 30 to 100 homes for a year. However, since each well requires up to 32 frackings – well, you do the math. In our state, it’s common knowledge that water supplies are already inadequate.

Of course, there is the issue of cleaning up of the injected water. The extracted water sits in ponds to evaporate. What type of chemical soup is in the water? Deadly toxins!

And what about emissions? Fracking is producing seriously harmful air quality problems. In Wyoming, for example, there is a rural town that has the highest ozone levels in the country. Ozone gives lungs a sunburn – did you know that?

Sure, it makes sense to find out how Weld County manages their oil and gas wells. However, given the problems that Weld County is experiencing, you should be running in the opposite direction as fast as you can. It’s a nightmare waiting to happen. But wait, is it all about the money?

Please, don’t allow FRACKING anywhere near our city.

Real time transparency

Anyone that comes to Free Range Longmont is reaping the benefits of Open Source Software. We run our site using WordPress, a team-built program. The source for WordPress is freely available on the web – the catch is that you contribute to the project if you can, either in money or services (like writing plugins). One of the great things about WordPress is that when a bug or a vulnerability is found, in a matter of days a fix can be written by any of the team – or any member of the public. That’s the beauty of real-time transparency.

The open source model includes the concept of concurrent yet different agendas and differing approaches in production, in contrast with more centralized models of development such as those typically used in commercial software companies. A main principle and practice of open source software development is peer production by bartering and collaboration, with the end-product, source-material, “blueprints” and documentation available at no cost to the public. This is increasingly being applied in other fields of endeavor, such as biotechnology.

A problem comes up, everyone sees it, it gets fixed. Wouldn’t it be great if government ran that well? You could still have your differences but they’d be honest differences, not secret schemes.

So the agendas could still be there – but now we’d know who was behind them.

We need real-time reporting now!

Real time donation tracking just makes sense.

Fundraising While Voting Should Be Disclosed in Real Time

From the Sunlight Foundation:
By Lisa Rosenberg on 07/16/10 @ 11:37 am

The New York Times reported yesterday about a bold and far-reaching investigation underway by the Office of Congressional Ethics that looks into what most consider business as usual in Washington—lawmakers asking for and receiving contributions from the industries they are regulating at the time they are voting on laws that impact those industries. In this case, the OCE’s focus is on congressional fundraisers hosted by Wall Street lobbyists and executives immediately prior to crucial votes on the financial reform bill.

Regardless of the outcome of the investigation, to make it easier for future investigators as well as average citizens to establish whether there any links between campaign funding and legislative action, contributions by lobbyists should be electronically reported online, in real time.

Current law requires contributions by lobbyists be reported semi-annually. But a six-month lag time for reporting not only is unnecessary in the digital age, it delays until well after it is meaningful information about money and access and influence in Washington. As Nancy Watzman posted yesterday—and our Party Time database demonstrates—fundraisers often coincide with votes on issues important to the hosts. But current reporting requirements mean that voters often have to wait months for confirmation that campaign contributions and votes coincide.

Read the rest at Sunlight Foundation

Longmont Mayor Backstabs Community

Prefers Teabaggers to Council Member

Where people display questionable motives and intimidating communication to win arguments, display power and/or belittle others.

Elections are supposed to represent the will of the people.  However, if you accept this premise, then it would be necessary to conclude that the people of Longmont are suffering from a pronounced case of arrested development.  Is this the case or were the voters in Longmont hoodwinked?

Mayor Bryan Baum demonstrated today that he has not matured beyond the level of a junior high student, one with major character flaws at that.  Beyond immaturity, Baum demonstrated that he is one of the most vindictive members of the Longmont community.  The man dishonors and humiliates the City of Longmont at every opportunity.

This week the Colorado Municipal League (CML) meets in Breckenridge for its annual meeting to cover a number of areas important in the conduct of municipal governance.  As part of the agenda, each year the CML elects a certain number to its Board of Directors.  Amongst this year’s candidates was Longmont Council Member Sarah Levison.

When it came time to cast votes, Baum along with his accomplices, refused to cast votes in support of their fellow colleague.  A well-placed anonymous source revealed that when questioned about his lack of decency, Mayor Baum replied, “I’m not voting for her and you can’t make me.

“You can’t make me!” How many times have we as parents heard that from recalcitrant children who refused to behave properly?  While we all know that we can lead the proverbial horse to water but we can’t make it drink, as parents we have options.  We can call a time out.  We can deprive the child of something of value to him.  We can inflict a variety of punishment measures, especially if the behavior is egregious and persistent.

Mayor Baum and Council Members Gabe Santos and Alex Sammoury revealed the depths to which they would sink in recent city council meetings over the Resolution to endorse Council Member Levison in her bid to sit on the CML Board.  Even Council Member Katie Witt cautioned about the long-run implications of this food fight instigated by Baum and Santos and carried to its extreme by Sammoury.

This year’s CML conference began on Tuesday.  Fortuitously or serendipitously, early in the conference agenda was a session on “learning to face conflict in new and effective ways.” The material presented four environments that describe methods of conflict resolution.  It’s astonishing that the method that our current majority leadership follows precisely the “Harsh –Light” environment.

“Harsh-Light Environment”

Where people display questionable motives and intimidating communication to win arguments, display power and/or belittle others.

+ Debate +Questionable motives +Back-stabbing +Defensiveness

The CML Bylaws allow for member municipalities to cast votes in all of the three categories defined by population size.  Sources report that Mayor Baum chose to vote for every candidate that displays a “teabagger” mentality over intelligent, learned and dedicated public servants like Ms. Levison.

Evidence of collusion amongst Baum and others was in evidence up until the final votes were cast.  Apparently the deplorable behavior of our mayor even delayed the conclusion of voting for a period of time.

Mayor Baum, you do not  “play well with others” and you are in desperate need of an intervention.  Cease and desist, Mayor Baum.  You were not elected as “God”.  You were not elected as “King”.  And your dictatorial behavior has no place in a representative democracy.

The level of Voter Remorse is growing exponentially.  The community has only so much patience.  Your role as mayor is not a lifetime appointment.  Sooner or later you will be voted out of office.

Where’s the skin?

Ruh Roh

Bryan Baum 2010

There’s skin.  There’s thin skin.  And then there’s no skin at all. The latter appears to be the apt description of Longmont’s Mayor.  Perhaps he put it all into the quid-pro-quo game.

KCRN 1060 AM and the Best of Longmont  have created a live broadcast between 6 and 7 PM called “Mondays with the Mayor”.  It seems, however, that Mayor Baum considers this an exclusive opportunity to pepper the airways with his personal ideology.

It’s a new show and is broadcast live from Buzz Coffee.  I was present to observe Mayor Baum demonstrate his intolerance—again.  And in so very many ways!!

Today’s guest was Jonathan Singer, President of the Longmont Area Democrats.  As always, Mr. Singer’s humor is quick and witty.  Such a marvelous contrast to the dour  and humorless  Mayor Baum, a characteristic  so typical of the rabid right – whether in Longmont or across this great country.

After Mr. Singer introduced himself to the Longmont listeners, he quipped, “So we have a mayor and a president.”  I’m confident that brought a chuckle to some and some head-banging to others.

One of the first questions asked of the mayor was about tuition equity at our Colorado colleges and universities.  Many of Colorado’s immigrant students are effectively blocked from fair tuition rates because their parents, here without documentation, brought them to Colorado.  These are good, dedicated students who have demonstrated their ability.

Baum’s reply was the typical deflection used by right wing ideologues.  But before he was finished talking the truth slipped out.  (He just can’t help himself.  No matter how his handlers try, and no matter how far up the food chain they go, they won’t be able to make a silk purse out of this sow’s ear.)

Baum’s solution to high school seniors hoping to go directly into college, is to continue to live in the shadows while seeking naturalization.  Now that, of course, takes years.  Clearly Baum, cares little for the plight of the immigrant community and particularly the Latino community, a substantial part of Longmont’s population.  Baum spoke of immigrants who seek the help of attorneys for naturalization as being “victimized by their own people.”

Their own people!”  Isn’t that lovely.  And I suppose that we’re to accept HIS word for this.  Since you have no skin, Mayor Baum, perhaps you can “show us the beef”.  He spoke of gathering a “consortium of attorneys”  to assist.  I certainly hope these attorneys are not descendents  of Longmont’s presumably buried KKK history.

But, Baum wasn’t done.  Oh, no!

A young student asked Mayor Baum about Longmont’s density per population of gangs and what could be done about this.  The young man is black.  The first question out of Mayor Baum’s mouth, “Are you in a gang?”  Had the question been asked by a white student, I seriously doubt that Baum would have asked the same question.

2 + 2 = 4, Longmont.  I’m sure that those who frequently post racist comments on the Times-Call article blogs are delighted to have elected one of their own.  The rest of us are simply nauseated.

But Mayor Baum, wasn’t done picking fights with those who don’t agree with him.  Don’t forget, this program was viewed by his political allies and operatives as a way to burnish an image of Mr. Nice Guy.  Sorry, Charlie, it won’t wash.  Perhaps the losses should be cut.

This was my first experience with “Mondays with the Mayor”.  So I took the opportunity to ask about an issue that means a great deal to the Longmont community – Twin Peaks Mall.

I asked the mayor why the community hasn’t been given the complete set of facts about Panattoni’s ability to redevelop the Mall.  Since the Times-Call has failed to report the numbers that are relevant to understanding the company’s ability to proceed, I took the opportunity to provide that information.

Panattoni purchased the Mall in 2007 for $37 million.  The boom led to a bust and now the Mall is worth only $17 million. And that is likely not yet the bottom for the commercial retail market.  Panattoni put $8 million down on the property.  Bank of America, who holds the paper, now requires 50% equity in order to refinance.  Panattoni is “underwater,” meaning they owe more that the property is worth.

The Baum SquadBaum doesn’t dispute the data, he merely tries to claim that this is “old news” and “everyone knows this”.  No, Mayor Baum, “everyone” doesn’t know this.  Not the other members of the council outside the well-described “Baum Squad”.  Not the public.  But the Times-Call, who oh-so-carefully reported in generic terms so that the gravity would remain hidden, undoubtedly did know.

Mayor Baum, I read the Times-Call.  EVERY DAY.  These numbers were never published.  They first appeared in an email from Council Member Katie Witt and were revealed on www.freerangelongmont.com.    And unless you don’t read the Times-Call, your statement to the contrary about the availability of this specific information is, yes, “Disingenuous, sir.”  And that was the nice way to put it.

Again, the skinless mayor, had to have a retort (amongst his many incivilities), when he addressed me as amongst those who are not “well-connected”.   Yes, Mayor Baum, I’m not a part of the Longmont oligarchy.  And I’m proud of it.  I “speak truth to power” so that the ordinary Longmont citizen can live his or her life trusting that city business will be taken care of—to the benefit of us all.  I “speak truth to power” to expose what goes on behind all those Wizard of Ozian curtains.

When Singer asked about the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act, Baum suggested that the convoluted “in-kind” method that he used in the recent campaign is the way reporting should be done.   Does he really expect the public to swallow that dollars spent “in-kind” are any different than donated dollars or that somehow they are more open and transparent?

Come-come, Mayor Baum.  The Longmont community is not that gullible.  Keep insulting them and see where that gets you.

And let’s not forget that Baum previously explained that he didn’t want his hands dirtied by political money.  Spoken like a man with a very guilty conscience.  The opportunities to ask Mayor Baum, “What did you know and when did you know it?”, are the gift that keeps on giving.

Mr. Singer asked the mayor what other opportunities might be available to help the environment since Baum ferociously torpedoed Longmont’s opportunity to participate in the Governor’s Energy Office’s matching grant program for solar photovoltaics.  Predictably, he once again “went postal”.

This mayor has no respect for the environment.  He’s a climate-change denier.  He’s an oil-gas-and-coal man who was catapulted into office by the rabidly anti-environmental Montana organization Western Tradition Partnership.  He’ll throw a bone once in a while in a feeble attempt to obscure his attitude toward the environment and hoodwink the public.   Don’t expect the Longmont that your kids will live in to be protected by him or his supporters.  They’ll take theirs NOW, thank you.

So, Mayor Baum, you can talk to the community on Monday nights, but this is not a pass to spread your corporatist ideology or advance the agenda of the oligarchy.   Your inner sanctum  knew what they were getting when they voted for you.  The rest, victimized by the Times-Call political water torture for two years and frustrated over the economic conditions prevailing in Longmont and throughout the nation, thought they were getting a fix-it man, new blood.

In fact, they have gotten everything they were sick of in 2007 and before.  The community will figure that out – sooner or later.  Truth eventually rises to the surface.  All the lipstick you apply will not change that.

Mayor doesn’t want ‘scrutiny’

Some content from TimesCall.com

Our mayor point-blank says:

“…I didn’t want the scrutiny.” and “I didn’t want people picking everything apart like they seem to like to do. I wanted to stay out of that fray, and I did.”

One has to wonder about someone that put $4,000 of his own money into his campaign and yet doesn’t think the voters deserve to know what it was spent on. For all we know there were hired thugs blogging for him daily… hm.

A commenter on the story, George S. had this to say:

Bryan’s baum-shell: “I didn’t want the scrutiny.” That speaks volumes. Politicians who say that have something to hide, and whining that the Election Committee is biased against you is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Cockroaches run from a light. The Longmont Leadership folks, Wrongmont and Katie Witt didn’t want the scrutiny either. And their Chamber of Commerce, Rotary and developer pals sit there like the “see-no-evil” monkeys.

What a conundrum for the Times-Call. Baum’s buddies are your big advertisers and country-club pals. And yet you’ve editorialized forthrightly in favor of open government and sunshine laws for decades, and a statement such as “I didn’t want the scrutiny” should make your spidey senses go to DefCon 5.

So which will guide you, Times-Call editorialists? Your ad revenue or your principles? Unfortunately, I’m betting the former. Standing up for what’s right is uncomfortable, but I’m betting you’ll decide that getting the cold shoulder at Fox Hill is worse.

George S., Longmont, 1/20/2010 9:59 AM

and when the mayor’s wife attacked his assertions, he also had this to say:

Stephanie, “being scrutinized by his opposition as to who gave him what” goes by another name: openness. Wouldn’t you want to know that about your opponents in the next election? All declawing the EC does is protect candidates from scrutiny whose funding really needs to be scrutinized. If a council member votes to grant a big zoning change to the XYZ Widget Company or the First Tax-Sheltered Megachurch of Perpetual Profit, shouldn’t we as taxpayers and voters (and you as managing his opponent’s campaign) know if that council member holds stock in that company, is a member of that church, or has received contributions from those who do and are? Bryan said that HE didn’t want the scrutiny … but who else on his slate of candidates is he also protecting from scrutiny? If everything is so above-board, Stephanie Baum, I’m sure you won’t have any trouble, right here in this thread, naming for us the members of Council who are, for instance, members of LifeBridge church. For the record, so the electorate knows. If you dodge my queston, it’s yet another scrutiny-avoidance that will speak volumes.

George S., Longmont, 1/20/2010 2:59 PM

You know, I’d think the mayor’s wife would have the wits to stop trying to defend him, she’s doing more harm than good.

She’s also clearly as thin-skinned as her husband, leaving a comment about a post at my political humor blog ‘Whiskey Tango Foxtrot’:

Too all, please ignore my typo at the bottom of my earlier post – “t-shirts” became a mildly vulger typo. Some people think this is newsworthy enough to repost on their blogs. I would image the adults in the audience would recognize we’re all human and typos are just that. The children among us will giggle and point and make fools of themselves. Decide for yourself which group you fall in to.

Stephanie Baum, Longmont, CO, 1/20/2010 7:27 PM

That’s hilarious Ms. Baum. Your husband, the mayor, says something as childish as ‘…well I guess we should all get up and leave…’ when criticized by citizens and you call his opponents ‘children’.

Pretty obvious to the casual observer who needs to grow up.

Your hard-core partisanship during the election was obvious and hateful and your husband is clearly of the same stripe. The public is watching now and neither of you are acquitting yourselves well.