|
|
|
|
|
Articles from the Montrose Daily Press are copyright, Montrose Daily Press, 2007. Articles from the Montrose Daily PressThursday, March 13, 2008'It's over' By Katharhynn Heidelberg, Daily Press Senior Writer MONTROSE - After months of accusations, counter-accusations and legal action from both sides, the bid to recall Commissioner Bill Patterson ended with a whimper, not a bang. Al Head and the Patterson Recall Committee Inc. did not specifically withdraw the recall effort, but their agreement to dismiss a related suit against Montrose County Clerk and Recorder Fran Tipton Long effectively ends the attempt. The suit challenged on constitutional grounds Long's decision to reject scores of recall petition signatures last August and her decision the following month to deny the committee's protest. A court order dismissed the suit Tuesday, with prejudice, meaning it cannot be re-filed. That means Long's original decision stands. The recall is over. "They actually approached us and asked for a stipulation of dismissal," Long said Wednesday. "The recall decision stands. There is no more recall." She said she did not know why Head would agree to dismiss the action. "I knew it was over a long time ago," Patterson said. "The very reason for it was false and I could prove it was false." In May 2007, Head, Mike Gordon and Joe Goecke petitioned to recall Patterson, alleging he exerted undue influence over finances at the Montrose Regional Airport. An independent legal review of the committee's claims, undertaken by the district attorney in La Plata County, found no probable cause to support criminal charges. Patterson denied the allegations and claimed the men had ties to JetAway Aviation, which unsuccessfully competed for the fixed-base operator contract and remains locked in a heated legal battle with Montrose County. JetAway's CEO denied direct involvement with the recall. In a statement Wednesday, the recall committee pledged to defeat Patterson in November's elections. "Commissioner Patterson has made a concerted effort to deprive 5,000 Montrose residents the right to vote on his misuse of public funds in a special election, therefore, the committee will focus its efforts to make sure he is not re-elected in November," attorney Mark Haynes wrote in an e-mail to the Daily Press. The suit against Long did not address the merits of the recall itself, but whether she properly rejected the majority of signatures submitted. It additionally sought relief under U.S. Code 42, for alleged civil rights violation. Both the county and the recall committee are to bear their own attorney's fees. That element of the decision angered Patterson, who said the county should be reimbursed for the committee's "frivolous" action. "We ought to jump on their necks with both feet," he said. "They have cost this community a lot of money and a lot of goodwill has gone by the wayside because of their actions. To just let them walk away now is just not right." Long said the fee agreement was fiscally responsible, given that she might not have prevailed at trial. "I felt our resources were better spent moving forward with the 2008 election and issues this year, rather than spending more on attorney's fees and ending up where we are," she said. "I would expend twice as much as I had already. We would still end up with each side paying their own (fees). "I'm glad that it's over. It gives us resources back to concentrate on the 2008 election." Long's attorney, Alan Hassler, said it is rare for governmental entities to recoup legal fees in cases where U.S. Code 42 is invoked. "Frankly, since the court was requiring mediation, that additional step put the possibility of a court decision closer to the regular election, at which Mr. Patterson's seat is up anyway," Hassler said. "I don't think either side backed down from the position that they were right." The agreement didn't prove whether Long was right or wrong in her decision, he said, but was still a victory. "It's over. We stopped the flow of taxpayer dollars and from that perspective, it's a win." But Patterson said it isn't over until he knows who funded the recall efforts. In February, he prevailed when a Denver administrative law judge ruled the committee violated campaign finance rules governing the filing of contribution and expenditure reports. The recall committee formed both an issue committee with the Colorado secretary of state's office and a nonprofit corporation, also called the Patterson Recall Committee, the latter of which was voluntarily dissolved Wednesday. Issue committees must file regular reports of contributions and expenditures. The Patterson Recall Committee filed one such report, last July, showing a contribution and non-itemized expenditure of $14,300. Subsequent reports showed all zeroes; Patterson contended the committee was, in fact, receiving and expending money. Though at the time it was suing Long over her decision, the Patterson Recall Committee argued it was not required to file disclosure reports once Long made her finding of insufficiency. The judge rejected the argument and fined the committee nearly $10,000. "I'm not going to rest until we (know) who the money is behind it. The committee still owes that fine," Patterson said. "As far as I'm concerned, they're still obligated to file their delinquent disclosures and pay the fines that have been assessed against them," Patterson's privately paid attorney, David Reed said. "We'll seek to have the court enforce the order." The committee has until March 17 to pay the fine and until the end of the month to file an appeal. Thursday, November 1, 2007Patterson: Where's the money? Complaint alleges recall committee violated campaign law BY KATHARHYNN HEIDELBERG, Daily Press Senior Writer MONTROSE - County Commissioner Bill Patterson hit the committee seeking his recall with an allegation of his own. In a letter sent Tuesday to the Colorado Secretary of State, Patterson's attorneys allege the recall committee violated the Fair Campaign Practices Act by failing to disclose contributions and expenditures as required under statute. "From what we have available, it would appear there has been a significant violation," Patterson's private attorney David Reed said Wednesday. "We feel this is a very justified claim and the recall committee - who complains about Mr. Patterson's activities as violating the law - has clearly violated the law in failing to properly report their income and expenditures." Patterson wants an administrative lawjudge to hear his case and, if necessary, issue a subpoena for the Patterson Recall Committee's records. Patterson Recall Committee attorney Mark Haynes said Wednesday he hadn't yet seen the letter, which was mailed to him Tuesday. He could not be reached for additional comment after the letter was faxed to him. Businessmen Al Head, Joe Goecke and Mike Gordon began recall attempts against Patterson in late May, which were announced at a luncheon by Rep. Ray Rose, R-Montrose. The men alleged Patterson exerted undue influence over county airport finances. Rose turned over their allegations to the district attorney's office, which sent them away for independent legal review. The La Plata County district attorney subsequently found no basis for a criminal investigation. The county clerk ruled in August the committee failed to turn in enough signatures to place the recall question on the ballot; the Patterson Recall Committee protested the decision and has since filed suit against the clerk. The Patterson Recall Committee is listed with the SOS as an issue committee, which must disclose contributions and expenditures under Colorado law. There is also a nonprofit corporation registered with the SOS under the same name, which is subject to different reporting requirements with the Internal Revenue Service. The nonprofit would have to make public its form990,which does not have to be filed until four and a half months after the close of the corporation's fiscal year. "This was an election," Patterson said Wednesday. "Once they have taken out a petition for recall, then they have to report it in the same way as an election concern." The Patterson recall issue committee filed a report in July, listing $14,300 in contributions from Kienholz-Miller and Co., a Montrose-area real estate agency. That report lists expenditures of the same amount, leaving a balance of $0. Subsequent reports filed Aug. 15, Sept. 10 and Oct. 10 list $0 in expenditures and contributions. "Upon information and belief, the recall committee has violated (statute) by failing to disclose contributions received and expenditures made from July 12, 2007, through the present, and by failing to timely file its October report," the letter of complaint alleged. Patterson said he suspects the committee has been spending money on recall efforts, including for petition circulators, who, according to Head's Sept. 7 testimony during the protest hearing, were paid. "Yet none of the recall committee reports identify these expenditures, nor the source of funds used to make them," the letter said. "Nor do the recall committee reports set forth the amount they have expended in legal fees." The SOS Campaign Finance division will review the letter and then has three days to either ask for additional information or to send it on to an administrative law judge. "Right now, all we can do is say we have this proof they (committee) violated the act and they need to come forward and provide the information," Patterson said. "If they don't, we do ask for subpoena powers to obtain that information." Sunday, October 7, 2007Editorial: New litigation stinks Al Head, who at the Montrose County commissioners meeting Aug. 21 asked for cooperation and an end to the litigation involving JetAway Aviation and the county´s FBO contract, filed a lawsuit suit Friday in district court against county clerk Fran Tipton-Long. Her offense? She declared Aug. 14 that petitioners Head, Mike Gordon and Joe Goecke, didn´t have enough valid signatures on their recall of commissioner Bill Patterson. On Sept. 7, she confirmed her ruling, based upon findings from a protest hearing with Head and his Denver-based legal team. Head, and the Patterson Recall Committee, seek: • The restoration of the signatures Ms. Long deemed invalid because of the petition circulators´ voter registrations, or residency status. • A determination that the statutes she used in denying Head´s appeal Sept. 7 were unconstitutional. • An order to cause the recall election of commissioner Patterson. • Attorney´s costs and fees. An independent legal review, conducted by the La Plata County District Attorney´s office in July, found no basis for the charges on the issues raised in the recall petition, which alleged Patterson had created climate of “fear and economic retaliation’ and malfeasance related to the airport FBO. Despite losing the legal review and two runs at getting the recall petition certified, Head has soldiered on, pushing the county into further litigation and conflict. Briefly, in 2005, the county commissioners voted unanimously to privatize the airport´s fixed-based operations (FBO) and called for bids, awarding the contract to Black Canyon Jet Center. JetAway Aviation filed suit, and there has been litigation and mediation since. Head´s company, Western Skyways, is a tenant of JetAway Aviation. The legal tab so far: $327,287, according to county records. (The county is paying for Ms. Long´s legal representation; commissioner Patterson is paying for his own lawyers.) An obvious question: what´s the point? Outside of the ego investment, next month´s ballot is already in the works, and any recall of Patterson would be in 2008, when he´s up for re-election. Now Ms. Long, a Republican, who was elected last year and is credited by the Colorado Secretary of State´s office for steadily cleaning up the debacle from the last vote, is in the recall muck as well. Contradictions – saying one thing, and doing another – abound in this ongoing hostility. Head´s new litigation is more of the same strategy: Don´t get your way, sue. By seeking reimbursement of legal fees, Head is asking county taxpayers to pay for the manure twice. Saturday, October 06, 2007Al Head accuses Long of neglecting duties; claims state rule unconstitutional By Katharhynn Heidelberg, Daily Press Senior Writer MONTROSE - Recall efforts against Commissioner Bill Patterson took a new turn Friday, when one of the petitioners sued the county clerk. A complaint made by Al Head alleges Clerk Fran Tipton Long was in breach of her duties when she rejected scores of recall petition signatures, and also when, at a subsequent protest hearing, she declined to rule on the constitutionality of arguments raised. Head and fellow petitioners, Mike Gordon and Joe Goecke, submitted 5,583 signatures, but only 2,270 were deemed valid, leaving the men far short of the 3,950 required to place the recall question on the ballot. Head now seeks the restoration of the stricken signatures (which would allow a recall), a ruling on constitutional issues raised and, under U.S. Code 42, attorneys fees. "...Long, in her official capacity as clerk and recorder of Montrose County breached her duty by enforcing an unconstitutional statute, by applying a Colorado Secretary of State rule that is unconstitutional...and by refusing to declare the statute and Colorado Secretary of State rule unconstitutional," the complaint read. Long stood by her decision. "I took a sworn oath to uphold the Colorado Constitution. I feel that's what I'm doing, is upholding my oath and doing what is best for the whole of Montrose County," she said. Long called the accusation she'd neglected her duties false. "It's not a true statement." Head did not return a call seeking comment. A phone message left for his attorney was not returned before deadline. "My perception is she was following the rules and regulations," Commissioner Allan Belt said. "I can see disagreeing with her decision, but alleging there's wrongdoing is harsh. I thought she'd done a good job dealing with the whole thing, regardless what her decisions were. She was honestly interpreting the regulations." The suit reiterates arguments made during the protest hearing Sept. 7. Head's attorneys contended a law requiring petition circulators to be eligible to vote on the recall was unconstitutional under two Supreme Court rulings. The law was corrected with Colorado Senate Bill 83, but SB 83 took effect Aug. 3 - after Long's verification progress began. She said she had to follow the statute that was in effect, and, since several paid circulators weren't registered to vote in Montrose County, their petitions were rejected. In all, roughly 1,400 signatures were rejected because of the circulators' registration and/or because Montrose County circulators' addresses did not match the address on their voting registration records. An additional 378 signatures were tossed because the signers' addresses did not match their voting records. The complaint lists 195 more signatures stricken for miscellaneous reasons, including 75 that were withdrawn by signers. Patterson's privately paid attorneys argued Long did not have the authority to make constitutional declarations, but only authority to question proceedings brought against her in court on constitutional grounds. In her decision on the protest, Long said Head's arguments as to her authority were a misreading of law and that because the circulators' affidavits attested to their eligibility, they were false. Head's attorneys fired back in the most recent complaint, calling that part of her decision "nonsensical." They also argued she misapplied statute herself, as to her authority on constitutional matters and that this was "a breach of her duty." Additionally, they said county voters whose addresses do not match their voting registration still have several means of changing their address and voting, and even if the voter does not do so, he or she is still able to vote via provisional ballot, absentee ballot, early voting, or at the polling place where registered. "In contrast, the Secretary of State Rule 16.5.5(a) does not permit electors who have moved to another residence in the same county but who have not yet filed a change of address form to sign a recall petition, despite the fact that those electors would be qualified to vote in a recall election at the time they signed the recall petition," the complaint reads. "Thus (the rule) violates the Colorado Constitution..." The complaint later argues the rule violates equal protection guarantees and Colorado recall statute. "If the address on the petition does not match the address we have on file from the county clerk's office, we do reject those signatures," Wayne Munster of the Colorado Secretary of State's office said Friday. "As to the constitutionality of our rule, I'm going to have to leave that for a judge to decide." At stake are the petitions circulated by county resident Crystal Cole, which were rejected because, according to Long, she failed to maintain her current address on the voter registration rolls. Cole submitted the most petition sections and Long said Friday her office went above and beyond to find a way to qualify those signatures. "We actively searched her out to see if there was a way we could make her an approved circulator," Long said, adding that it was still her job to verify the identity of both circulators and voters. She said federal law required voter identification. "We have to know they're one in the same. Until there's proof positive of a person's identity, we can't go on assumption," Long said. "Without proof positive of who these people are, and without verifying they're exactly who they say they are, why would we bother to check a petition? Why would we need to verify if there were no standards? That's a scary concept." Patterson, the subject of recall efforts, said Head's action wasn't surprising, but it seemed to go beyond an ordinary appeal. "They're accusing Fran of some of the malfeasance of office they originally tried to imply I was guilty of," he said. "When does this all end? Why are these people that have no interest in this county and this community continuing to disrupt our lives and call all our officials corrupt?" Patterson reiterated that he wasn't afraid of an election and wouldn't have objected to a recall effort he believed was genuinely driven by citizens. Long has until Oct. 25 to file a response to the action. Her attorney, Alan Hassler, said the complaint is still under review. Friday, September 28, 2007Clerk denies recall protest By Katharhynn Heidelberg, Daily Press Senior Writer MONTROSE - The falsity of circulators' affidavits, not constitutional concerns directly, led to the denial of a protest the Committee to Recall (Bill) Patterson filed with the clerk and recorder. "Based upon the information in the record...I would...reject all challenged petition sections based on false affidavits of the circulators," Clerk Fran Tipton Long wrote in a 12-page decision issued Thursday afternoon. Montrose County Commissioner Bill Patterson said while Long's decision was not a surprise, he intended to file a complaint alleging violations of the Fair Campaign Finance Act. Montrose businessmen Al Head and Mike Gordon, with Joe Goecke, began recall efforts against Patterson in late May. They alleged he exerted undue influence over airport finances and that he was unfit for office. Subsequent independent legal review found no basis for the men's allegations, which State Rep. Ray Rose, R-Montrose, had turned over to the district attorney. Patterson alleged the recall efforts were driven by JetAway Aviation, which failed to win the airport's fixed-base operator bid. Head, whose aircraft turbine shop shares space with JetAway, previously denied this as motivation. Though the three petitioners turned in more than 5,000 signatures to effect a recall, Long found more than half were invalid and declared their petitions insufficient. Head then appealed during a statutory protest period and Long heard arguments Sept. 7. Head's attorneys were not immediately able to respond to requests for comment. Head did not immediately return a phone message. He has the option of appealing to local courts. Attorneys Mark Haynes and Stefania Scott argued Sept. 7 that Long improperly rejected scores of signatures because petition circulators hadn't been registered to vote in Montrose County. They said a Supreme Court ruling made the state law upon which Long relied in those rejections unconstitutional. They also argued the Colorado Legislature changed the law to come into compliance with the Supreme Court ruling. Patterson's privately paid attorneys said the high court decision hadn't dealt specifically with recall petitions and also, as previously reported, the new law hadn't yet taken effect during the petition gathering process. The new provision, under Senate Bill 83, became law Aug. 3; petitions were turned in July 31, when the previous law requiring anyone circulating a petition to be eligible to vote on it was still in effect. Patterson's attorneys argued Long did not have the authority to make constitutional declarations. "A great deal of deliberation went into this decision," Long said of her protest ruling. "I do not feel I have the authority in this point of the process to declare anything unconstitutional." In her written decision, Long called Head's assertion that she had statutory authority to do so "a total misreading of the statute." "It's not unexpected. The way the argument goes, there's nothing, really, else she could have done," Patterson said. "They were basing all their arguments on a constitutional argument that belongs in the courts, not in the executive branch." He expects the petitioners to appeal Long's decision. "By the time they get this all done, I'll be up for re-election anyway," said Patterson, whose term is up in 2008. "As I've said before, if this was a true recall, where there were local people upset with what I'd done, and organized their friends and neighbors to circulate petitions, there wouldn't be any protest (of recall attempts). I would feel that I needed to go through an election." He reiterated previous accusations of dishonesty on the part of some of the committee's paid circulators, whom he did not specifically identify. "They basically tricked people into signing it. For that reason, I feel the recall was not correct. We do intend to file action under the Fair Campaign Finance Act." Head testified Sept. 7 that JetAway placed advertisements to hire petition circulators, but had little success. Patterson alleged some of the circulators were JetAway employees. "There was testimony JetAway had indeed done the ad and were hiring the petitioners," he said. "This is an election (issue). A corporation is not supposed to be involved directly in an election." Patterson said he would have to turn over his complaint to the district attorney. "We'll see if we have sufficient evidence." Long said the petitions' affidavits attested to circulators eligibility as electors. "That's the false part." The sticking point is the definition of eligible. Long reiterated SB 83 wasn't law during the petition period. The applicable law, which she was constrained to obey, did require voter eligibility. She also said the recall committee's constitutional case didn't challenge statewide residency requirements of 30 days. "Based on the submitted Affidavit of Circulator, there is no way to determine if this residency requirement has been met, even on a statewide basis," Long wrote. "There was no information in the record to indicate that any of the circulators otherwise met the legal qualifications to vote in this state." Two of the circulators, Michael Rhodes and Jose Rivas, live in Montrose, but were not registered to vote. Another, Crystal Cole, was registered but according to Long "failed to maintain her current address on the voter registration rolls." Of those circulators named in Long's document, Cole circulated the most petitions - 41 - and these were rejected because her stated address did not match the address where she was registered to vote. Others whose gathered signatures were rejected - James Abeyta, Jon Birndorf, Donald Martinez, Lawrence Martinez, Bonnie Todd and Vincent Trottner - were "neither eligible nor qualified, based on the lack of residency." Long rejected Head's arguments that the National Voter Registration act eliminated the need to identify people as registered voters. She said the Colorado Supreme Court held a registered elector may have only one legal place of residence and also said federal voting legislation Scott and Haynes relied on was not as strong as was argued. "The federal laws do not address the validity of the petition signatures ... These federal laws do not, as asserted, bar disqualification of electors who fail to take steps to maintain accurate voter registration records." Patterson said Head failed to meet his burden of proof when he did not call Cole to testify Sept. 7. "You need that person to come in" and confirm her intentions, he said. "Now, when they go to district court, no new evidence can be presented. It will be based entirely on the evidence presented to Fran Long. "I'm not sure how they could legally do anything at this point. They didn't present any evidence." Long restored 13 signatures for miscellaneous reasons, but rejected other miscellaneous arguments raised as "moot." She did not know whether there would be an appeal, or how long it might take, but said it's now too late to get a recall question onto November's ballot. Pending future court action, a special election would have to be called. Sunday, September 23, 2007From an airport issue to a recall effort (And everything in between) Aug. 23, 2001 Original off-airport agreement signed between county and several off-airport companies. Nov. 30, 2004 JetAway takes 'off-airport' agreement from STW and signs amended agreement with county. Kienholz-Miller & Co., as well as the Montrose Economic Development Corporation, help complete the deal. April 15, 2005 County receives FBO proposals from JetAway Aviation and Black Canyon Jet Center. Aug. 15, 2005 The BOCC vote 3-0 to begin negotiations with Black Canyon Jet Center to run the fixed-based operator at the Montrose Regional Airport. Dec. 5, 2005 The County Commissioners award fixed-based operations to Black Canyon Jet Center. Dec. 20, 2005 Steve Stuhmer and his attorneys present the county with a proposal for a second fixed-based operator at the airport. The commissioners table the proposal until the middle of January. Jan. 3, 2006 Steve Stuhmer and his affiliated companies file lawsuits in district court and a complaint with the Federal Aviation Administration. Jan. 4, 2006 Black Canyon Jet Center takes control of the fixed-based operations. Feb. 10, 2006 District Court Judge Dennis Friedrich issues a temporary restraining order against JetAway after alleged fueling violation. Feb. 17, 2006 District Court Judge James Schum upholds the temporary restraining order after a two-day hearing. Feb. 22, 2006 County continues hearing on alleged violations off JetAway's off-airport agreement. March 20, 2006 Verbal confrontation breaks out between Stuhmer and Commissioner Allan Belt at the regular commissioners' meeting. The board tables all items concerning etAway until August. March 21, 2006 Black Canyon Jet Center files a motion to intervene in the lawsuit between the county and JetAway and files a Part 16 complaint with the FAA. July 7, 2006 Judge Schum rules against JetAway in a case filed in June in which it sought to force the county to allow it to complete construction of a new ramp and aircraft parking facility. Nov. 9, 2006 Judge Schum denies JetAway's request to continue construction on the new ramp and parking facility, but the ruling will allow construction to continue if JetAway meets the county's requirements. Nov. 10, 2006 The FAA calls JetAway "unreasonable" and denies its complaint against Montrose County. March 30, 2007 Representatives from Montrose County and JetAway participate in a mediation with the FAA and continue negotiations for a settlement. May 30, 2007 Montrose County residents Joe Goecke, Al Head and Mike Gordon, file a petition to recall County Commissioner Bill Patterson. State Rep. Ray Rose announced the recall petition during a County Republican Party luncheon. The petition was officially submitted to the Montrose Clerk and Recorder by a Denver law firm, on behalf of Goecke. May 30, 2007 Patterson calls a petition to recall him nothing less than a "smear campaign." He also said Republican representative Ray Rose's announcement of the petition was politically motivated, a charge Rose denied. June 1, 2007 A petition to recall Patterson meets legal requirements, county spokesperson Ana Mostaccero said. The clerk's office had two days to check the petition to ensure it met formatting requirements. Mostacerro confirmed this was completed. June 2007 Soon after the petition circulators begin gathering signatures, the Daily Press and county clerk's office receive letters questioning the tactics used to gather signatures for the recall effort. June 13, 2007 Rep. Rose holds a press conference and says the media has publicized recall efforts against Patterson while ignoring the substance of petitioners' claims. He also referred to documentation (legal opinion) from a Denver law firm that represents one of the petitioners. Patterson said the accusations raised by those seeking his recall can be easily disproved. He responded to each one made against him, listed in a press conference held by Rose. June 18, 2007 Clerk and Recorder Fran Tipton Long announces the commitment of the county to a hybrid polling place and mail election. A mail-only election had been planned for November, but the recall petition changed those plans. Under state law, recall elections must be held at polling places. Long estimated the cost to be $30,000 to $40,000 more than the mail-only election. June 21, 2007 One of the three petitioners, Al Head, sits down with the Daily Press to discuss the recall. He said what turned into a recall effort began as an airport issue. Head said he is not a partner of JetAway, but a tenant, and that his fellow petitioners had no ties to the company. He also said all three petitioners voted for Patterson in 2004. June 27, 2007 Patterson holds a public forum to address issues swirling around the recall process. Patterson alleges the men were working on behalf of Stuhmer and JetAway Aviation. Neither Head, Gordon, nor Goecke attended the forum. Rep. Rose and Stuhmer were also invited, but didn't attend. The chairman of the Montrose Democratic Party, Randy See, said he had proof that recall petition circulators violated election law. See alleged the petition was being circulated by someone other than the circulator who signed the petition affidavit. Petitions for recall may only be circulated by someone eligible to vote on the recall, the Secretary of State's office said. June 28, 2007 Rep. Rose likened the controversy swirling over the recall to "war," but the majority of other Montrose Republican Central Committee members voted to issue a statement of neutrality; Rose and his wife Donna voted no. July 12, 2007 A local real estate company, Kienholz-Miller & Co., with ties to JetAway, made a $14,300 contribution to the Patterson Recall Committee, Inc., according to the Colorado Secretary of State Campaign Finance reports. David Kienholz told the Daily Press he had no comment on the contribution. July 29, 2007 Petitioners turn in 5,583 presumptive signatures; clerk has 10 business days to verify them. Aug. 14, 2007 Clerk declares petitions insufficient, rejecting more than 2,000 signatures based on such things as incorrect address, illegibility and circulators not registered to vote in Montrose County. Aug. 29, 2007 Petitioners protest clerk's finding on constitutional grounds; protest hearing set. Sept. 7, 2007 Protesters argue that clerk's basis for rejecting the signatures was an invalid law the Legislature repealed to come into compliance with constitutional law. Patterson's privately paid attorneys say clerk lacks authority to make a constitutional ruling; the old law was in effect when the validation process began, and the constitutional precedent did not address recall petitions. Thursday, September 20, 2007Climate of fear? By Stephen Woody, The Notebook (Exerpted) •••••• Fear, and the pot calling the kettle black. We get letters. Earlier this week, a letter writer said we were off the mark about the coverage of County Commissioner Bill Patterson´s recall, saying our free speech principles created fear and “destroyed’ the character of the petitioners — Al Head, Mike Gordon, Joe Goecke — and organizations — presumably the Montrose Economic Development Corp. Lest we forget: Fear is a primary premise of the recall effort. In the original recall letter to State Rep. Ray Rose that launched this noisy endeavor earlier this year, the petitioners cited “fear of political and economic retaliation’ as a consequence if Patterson wasn´t removed from office. The letter further states local law enforcement (the DA´s office) was “powerless.’ In the recall´s wake, we have endured all of the debris that has roiled a good community. In the name of better government, of course. Did the petitioners and those on board with it believe they could simply fill out some paperwork, and recall a duly elected sitting county commissioner, without anyone questioning motives or methods? (Fear, and naiveté.) The Daily Press didn´t create this climate of “fear,’ but we have aggressively reported on the metastasizing of it, editorialized on it and developed timelines to keep the readership informed. Like it or not, a recall is a big deal. And if the coverage disrupts the business-as-usual strategies over at the MEDC, well, that´s okay. Who knows, it may well benefit from a little disruption. (Dept. of disclosure: The Daily Press was a longtime member of the MEDC, and in 2006, received its President´s Award.) Fear, always handy. Kind of like that messenger. •••••• Saturday, September 08, 2007Petitioners present challenge on decision to throw out signatures Katharhynn Heidelberg, Daily Press Senior Writer MONTROSE - The protracted battle over attempts to recall County Commissioner Bill Patterson now comes down to two claims and a possible decision Sept. 18. The dueling claims, heard during a protest Friday, addressed the constitutionality of the clerk's declaration of insufficiency - and whether she has the power to make a constitutional determination in the first place. Attorneys for petitioner Al Head told Montrose County Clerk and Recorder Fran Tipton Long that she must restore some 1,488 signatures she'd rejected because petition circulators were not eligible to vote in Montrose County. Stefania Scott and Mark Haynes argued the voter registration requirement was unconstitutional under two Supreme Court decisions. They also sought the restoration of signatures rejected for such reasons as mismatched addresses, for a total of 2,074. But Patterson attorneys Michael Gilbert and David Reed said Long had no authority to make constitutional declarations and accordingly, the matter should've proceeded immediately to district court. Without those 1,488 disputed signatures, Head wouldn't have enough to effect a recall, Gilbert said. Long had earlier rejected all but 2,270 signatures on recall petitions that were turned in July 31. Head and his fellow petitioners, Joe Goecke and Mike Gordon, needed 3,950 valid signatures to get a recall question on the ballot and had turned in 5,583. They had accused Patterson of exerting undue influence over airport finances and malfeasance; an independent legal review found no basis for a criminal investigation. "The statute upon which this is based is unconstitutional," Haynes said, in reference to Long's decision to throw out all signatures gathered by petitioners who weren't registered to vote in Montrose County. "We're asking the voices of 2,027 Montrose County voters be heard." He and Scott cited Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. and Chandler v. Arvada. Buckley, they said, found "limitation of petition circulators to registered voters was an impermissible and unconstitutional burden on political expression." Chandler found Arvada's requirement of city residency for petition circulation was unconstitutional. Gilbert said both cases dealt specifically with referenda and initiatives, not recalls, though Scott and Haynes said the distinction was moot. Gilbert also said constitutional adjudication was the province of the judiciary, not executive branch officials such as Long. "This goes to the very heart of our constitutional system," Gilbert said, citing Marbury v. Madison. That 1803 decision held that a judge could declare legislation unconstitutional, but an executive, for obvious reasons of the separation of powers, could not. "It is not granted to the legislature or the executive," he said. "It's a violation of the separation of powers. My point is, we shouldn't even be here." Montrose Elections Supervisor Debbie Rudy later testified that when a petition was rejected because of its circulator's voting registration, no further formal consideration of its validity was given. "If the petition were to be accepted, we should have to verify every (signature) before we could accept them," she said. Gilbert later said Head's reliance on Senate Bill 83, which did remove Colorado's state requirement that petition circulators be qualified to vote on the petition, was faulty. As previously reported (Sept. 1), the bill took effect Aug. 3 and the verification began Aug. 1, when the previous rule concerning a circulator's registration was in effect. The bulk of arguments Friday morning centered on whether certain exhibits could be admitted. The parties eventually agreed to submit in writing the signatures they felt should be restored on constitutional grounds by Sept. 11. Patterson's attorney has seven days after that to file a written response. The hearing also shed some light on the controversy concerning the actual gathering of petitions. In June, Head told the Daily Press he did not know who had selected the circulators or what they were paid. Friday, he testified that Dan Kennedy and Associates of Colorado Springs was secured to hire circulators and direct the gathering of signatures, although his specific knowledge was limited. Head said the Kennedy firm had no motive to help conduct the recall other than financial gain. He also said he was aware of the recall committee's efforts to obtain Montrose County circulators, including an advertisement in the Daily Press. The ad, which did not mention petition circulation, sought registered Montrose County voters 18 and up for temporary work and promised up to $150 per day. It was placed by JetAway, which unsuccessfully competed to be the county's fixed-base operator at the airport. The results of efforts to obtain circulators who lived in Montrose County were " very minimal," Head testified. "We were under pretty short notice. We weren't able to get them very quick, or enough of them," Head said. "We were there waving a flag and saying something is wrong (at airport). ... We have a responsibility" to the signatories. When pressed by Gilbert, Head said he was "very distantly" involved in gathering signatures himself, but was only involved in discussions concerning how to obtain circulators. He said he didn't have the precise names of the people who participated in those discussions, which prompted Gilbert to say his his testimony concerning the difficulty of securing local circulators was hearsay. "I guess it would be," Head said. He later testified he did not know how much circulators were paid, and disclosed the hiring of Dan Kennedy's firm. Scott, citing hearsay, successfully objected to some of Gilbert's other questions concerning circulators. She and Haynes also argued for the restoration of signatures voters had requested be removed. The attorneys said several of 100 people who asked the clerk to remove their signatures had failed to notify the recall committee, as required by state law. Part of the issue, they said, was Patterson's own newspaper ad, which asked people to mail in a form for removal. That ad did not advise the voters they should also send a copy to the recall committee. Equal protection was also an issue, they argued, because disqualifying petition signers based on voter registration created "two classes of voters." In closing, Haynes expressed "astonishment" that Patterson would "demand" the application of a statute that was unconstitutional. He also said the general assembly gave county officers standing to question the constitutional underpinnings of arguments. Gilbert disagreed with that interpretation. He said the statute in question gave county officials the right to question proceedings brought against them in district court on constitutional grounds - a far cry, he argued, from empowering them to make constitutional declarations. For him, the question was whether the clerk correctly applied applicable statute when she began verifying signatures. "That essentially has not been disputed," he said. Circulators' eligibility still an issueNew law not in effect when signatures were verified BY KATHARHYNN HEIDELBERG, DAILY PRESS SENIOR WRITER MONTROSE - Whether the insufficiency of the petition to recall Commissioner Bill Patterson holds up under protest could boil down to a question of "when?" At issue is the date Senate Bill 83 took effect. Part of the bill, deemed a technical cleanup measure, defined an eligible elector as both a U.S. citizen and a state resident at least 18 years of age. Prior to the bill's passage, an "eligible elector" for a recall petition had to be eligible to vote on the issue. Accordingly, to circulate the Patterson recall petition, a person would, under this definition, have to be registered to vote in Montrose County. But SB 83 took effect Aug. 3, and because Montrose County Clerk and Recorder Fran Tipton-Long began verifying petition signatures Aug. 1, there lies the rub. "We started verification on the first," Long said. "We had to go with the law that was on the books at that time." Montrose businessmen Al Head and Mike Gordon, with Joe Goecke, first brought a petition to recall Patterson in May. They alleged he exerted undue influence over airport finances; an independent legal review found no basis to support an investigation into their claims. The men turned in petitions July 31, but Long rejected more than half of those submitted, including those circulated by persons not registered to vote in Montrose County. Petitioners needed 3,950 valid signatures to place the recall on November's ballot, but only 2,270 were verified and Long declared the petition insufficient. Head filed a protest Wednesday and through his attorneys alleged the clerk had relied on unconstitutional rules, as well as a previous state election law changed by SB 83. "The protestants (sic) are only asking this office to recognize what the courts and the Colorado General Assembly have already recognized - the registered voter requirement for petition circulators is invalid as a matter of law," the protest document, prepared by Mark Haynes and Stefania Scott, reads. Long said both her legal counsel and the Colorado Secretary of State's office confirmed the date she began verifying some 5,583 signatures - Aug. 1 - was the applicable date and that it did not matter whether verification continued after the new law took effect. "You can't change history," she said. "Just because the rule changes halfway through, you don't stop and turn things around. We wanted to follow the letter of the law and that's what we thought we did - the law as it stood when we were doing this (verifying)." The secretary of state's office said it'd advised Long to follow the law as it was written when she began verification. "Our office will not weigh in on who is right or wrong on this issue," spokesman Jonathan Tee said. "Nothingwas repealed per se.The statutes were amended and the effective date was Aug. 3." The protest document also pointed to two cases, Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. and Chandler v. Arvada. The attorneys said the U.S. Supreme Court's Buckley ruling found "limitation of petition circulators to registered voters was an impermissible and unconstitutional burden on political expression. "...The (10th Circuit Appeals and U.S. Supreme) courts based this ruling in part on the testimony of the Colorado Secretary of State that large numbers of Colorado residents who are eligible to vote are not registered to vote, but these people should not lose their right to petition their government as a consequence." A similar ruling was made in Chandler, finding Arvada's requirement of city residency for petition circulation was unconstitutional. Colorado Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon said Thursday the court decision had related to initiative, or ballot measures. "But it did not address recall gatherers. We have a statute that's still in existence that says you have to be a registered elector. There's no relevant court case that deals with it. They got half the story right, but the half that doesn't apply to them." Gordon was not commenting specifically on the veracity of Long's decision and said his information had come from the Legislature's legal services division. Senate Bill 83 redefines what is considered an eligible elector. "A recall has a totally different section in statutes than referendums and initiatives," Long said. "That's what I had to follow (on Aug. 1). This is a local issue, whereas referendums and initiatives are statewide. Some recalls can be statewide, but this (one) is a local issue. That's how we dealt with it." The protest document acknowledged the Buckley and Chandler cases "dealt with initiative and referendum statutes," but also argued "there is no legally cognizable distinction between initiative and referendum provisions and recall provisions." The protest hearing has been slated for 9 a.m. Sept. 7 in courtroom 2A of the Montrose County Justice Center Thursday, August 30, 2007Protest filed over recall results Men contend that law used to reject signatures was unconstitutional BY KATHARHYNN HEIDELBERG, DAILY PRESS SENIOR WRITER MONTROSE - Al Head contends the county clerk relied on an unconstitutional law in rejecting more than 2,000 recall petition signatures. Head, who with Joe Goecke and Mike Gordon, sought the recall of Montrose County Commissioner Bill Patterson, filed a formal protest Wednesday afternoon, just hours before the cut-off time to do so. Montrose County Clerk and Recorder Fran Tipton-Long has tentatively slated a hearing on the protest for Sept. 7. Head must prove by preponderance of evidence that Long's declaration of petition insufficiency was incorrect. Long confirmed receipt of the protest Wednesday, but said she hadn't yet had time to examine the complaint. The petitioners alleged Patterson, a Democrat, exerted undue influence over airport finances and was unfit to serve. State Rep. Ray Rose, R-Montrose, handed over documentation to the district attorney's office, which sent it for independent review. That review found no basis for a criminal investigation. Patterson has long maintained the men do not understand airport finance and also pointed out Head's business ties to JetAway Aviation. That company failed to win a fixed-base operator contract and sued the county. Its allegations of a "monopoly" at the airport were deemed invalid by a Federal Aviation Administration ruling last year. Mediation is ongoing. The recall petitioners turned in 5,583 signatures Aug. 1, well over the 3,950 required to effect a recall, but Long found only 2,270 of those signatures were valid. She rejected several petition sections because the circulators were not registered to vote in Montrose County. The protest seeks the reinstatement of 2,074 names. Head's protest said the recall committee was "extremely concerned" that 59 percent of submitted signatures were deemed insufficient. "More troubling is that most of these signatures were rejected on the basis of an unconstitutional statute the Colorado legislature repealed in its last session," the recall committee's attorneys, Mark Haynes and Stefania Scott, wrote. At the time the petitions were circulated, the law stated only an eligible elector could do so. Under that statute, Haynes and Scott argued, "eligible elector" did mean a registered Montrose elector. But they pointed to case law in which the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court found "the limitation of petition circulators to registered voters was an impermissible and unconstitutional burden on political expression." The attorneys said the "eligible electors" requirement could be interpreted as a residence requirement, though "by its plain language" it was not, and in any event would be unconstitutional. They said legal decision on Chandler v. Arvada had found Arvada's city ordinance requiring residency in order to circulate petitions there was unconstitutional and that "there is no basis on which to distinguish Montrose County from the city of Arvada." The protest document also said the Colorado General Assembly has amended statute to state that recall petitioners must be state residents, U.S. citizens and at least 18. The petitioners contend several stricken circulators were state residents. The Colorado Secretary of State's office could not immediately provide a response to the recall committee's arguments Wednesday night. "I guess that Al (Head) and I are not going to be singing 'Kum Bah Ya,'" Patterson said Wednesday, referring to an editorial about Head's recent statements at the Aug. 20 commissioners' meeting. "I just have to be constantly amazed at the amount of money they're spending to get rid of me. I have to be a really good politician if I can create that much (controversy)," he said. "It is just very irritating that it detracts from business the county should be doing and creates an additional financial burden for the county." Patterson said the petitioners were welcome to their interpretation of the law. He also said he was not afraid to face an election, if it came to that, but resented the costs to the county to hold one "on the whim of a bunch of outsiders." The petitioners also argued against striking signatures in which the circulators' registered addresses differed from their current addresses and claimed violation of Equal Protection guarantees. The protest document additionally argued against striking the signatures of those electors who had signed, but later asked the clerk to remove their signatures. The protest contends those names should have been sent directly to the recall committee but weren't and shouldn't be tossed as improper. "That's an interpretation. Everything they sent in is an interpretation," Patterson said. Patterson and numerous county residents complained during the circulation process of improper tactics, which allegedly included evasiveness, prerecorded phone calls, and petition affidavits that were pre-signed by someone other than the circulator. "It will be decided first by Fran (Long) and then, if protested, by the courts.We feel we complied at all times with the law even though they didn't," Patterson said. "These guys are just a bunch of bullies and they need put down. They haven't done anything to obey the laws in terms of the elections. I have to call them on it. "They have misled good people." Wednesday, August 15, 2007Clerk deems recall insufficient By Katharhynn Heidelberg, Daily Press Senior Writer MONTROSE - Signatures to place the recall of County Commissioner Bill Patterson on the ballot fell far short of the statutory mark, the clerk's office announced Tuesday. Montrose County Clerk and Recorder Fran Tipton Long said of 5,583 signatures turned in, only 2,270 were deemed valid after three counts, while 3,950 valid signatures were needed. She therefore declared the petitions insufficient, though petitioners have 15 days in which to file a protest. "We did an exhaustive review, going through every single one of them. We went through them three times," she said. Some petition's sections themselves were deemed invalid because those circulating them were not registered to vote in Montrose County, Long said, echoing what has been one of Patterson's chief complaints since recall efforts began in June. Patterson's attorney, David Reed, praised Long's staff for its diligence. "It's also clear to me that, with less than half of the signatures being qualified, it proves what we knew all along: the deceit and misrepresentation that was used to get these signatures," he said. "It's further evidence they (petitioners) will stop at nothing to get what they want. And fortunately, they won't be getting what they want." What petitioners Al Head, Joe Goecke and Mike Gordon wanted was to remove Patterson from office for what they alleged was malfeasance and exerting undue influence over airport finances to benefit a private company, the facility's fixed-base operator. An independent legal review later found allegations turned over to the district attorney's office were too weak to merit an investigation. None of the men could be reached for comment Tuesday afternoon and the recall committee's attorney did not immediately return a phone message. Patterson denied all of the men's allegations and accused them of working to benefit JetAway Aviation, a company that failed to win the FBO bid and which has since sued the county. Head has previously denied such a motivation. "I was surprised," Patterson said Tuesday of the clerk's count. "I thought they would have enough signatures. They hired expert people. I'd have thought they (petitioners) would check their paperwork more." Under state election law, only those who would be qualified to vote in the recall election are eligible to circulate recall petitions. Additionally, those who sign the petitions must be eligible to vote in Montrose County and, among other requirements, their signatures and addresses must match those on their voter registration cards. Long said it was hard to tell if ineligible circulators or bad signatures resulted in the most disqualifications. "But basically, it's easy to follow the rules. You just want to make sure you go over and over (it)," she said. Reed said the numbers of valid signatures, significantly less than half of what was needed to carry the recall question to the ballot box, were telling. "It's a good day for Mr. Patterson and the county. Now it's time to allow the commissioners to focus on the real issues of the county ... and not be distracted by such outrageous allegations that cost time and money to defend against." Patterson has borne his own legal and advertising expenses, but the county will be paying for a polling place election this November because of the recall attempt. Had recall efforts been successful, state law would've required a polling place election Long had to plan accordingly. The county is now committed to a polling place election because of time constraints; Long's previous "extremely rough estimates" stood between $25,000 and $40,000 in extra expenses because of the recall attempt. Long and seven staff members, including three temporary workers, spent eight hours a day for 10 days completing the petition verification process. The county will also pay for the lawyer who assisted Long. "It's not over," Patterson said. "They can protest. I really want to see if we can get our money back. This has been an effort for the benefit of a very few people." Patterson said last week he would protest if the petitions were deemed sufficient. He said Tuesday the focus was on the methods used and how people were misled into signing them. "If people are unsatisfied with me, that's their right. But this is the first time an outside group has come in and conducted a recall of a county commissioner. If you have enough money, you can do that." The residue of a recallPublisher's Notebook, By Stephen Woody Helluva thing, getting recalled, I would imagine. Tuesday afternoon, Montrose County clerk Fran Long announced that only 40 percent of the signatures turned in on petitions to recall county commissioner Bill Patterson were valid. The petitioners have two weeks to protest the results. If not successful, there will be no recall vote in November. Walter Burke was the last Montrose County commissioner recalled. A Democrat, Burke in 1990 defeated Ron Henderson by 305 votes, securing the District 2 seat with 4,294 ayes. He wasn´t in office long. • In January, 1991, a recall was started by The Committee for Responsible Government. It failed, because of errors on the petitions which invalidated the effort. A second recall effort was initiated after a meeting of the recall group where Burke allegedly threatened a committee member with a shotgun, according to Daily Press accounts then. • On June 2, 1992, Burke was recalled by a vote of 2,860 for, and 764 against the recall. Some 3,624 voters of 12,580 registered cast ballots. • The next month, a special election was held. On July 14, Bob Corey, a Republican, who had been a county commissioner from 1978 to 1986, was elected with 1,434 of the 4,166 votes cast. What was noteworthy is that Democrat Nancy Fishering finished a close second, with 1,385 votes. (This was Ms. Fishering´s first entry into local politics. She has since been elected to the Montrose/Olathe school board.) Others getting votes in the Burke recall were Republicans Don Bonser (569) and Bob Reynolds (420), and independents Howard Fields (203) and Brian Roberts (115.) With the results in, Burke announced he would withdraw his appeal of the recall election. Corey served the rest of Burke´s term, giving way to Republican David Gann, who was elected in 1994. (Much thanks to Daily Press intern John Deneen for the research. Since this was a special election, it wasn´t easy to find the archival data). •••••• Walter Burke and his family moved to Montrose in 1981. Many know him through his business, the Park Avenue True Value Hardware store. His Better Half, Marril Lee Burke, is a longtime Daily Press gardening columnist, and recognized local historian and successful book author. He and Marril Lee are the parents of seven children, 14 grandchildren, and have sold their business to Wayne Adams and Chris (Burke) Adams. His children are educators, architects and business people; he´s prideful when speaking of them. Before relocating to Montrose, the Burkes owned the Geneva Basin Ski Area, developed real estate in Evergreen, Blue Mesa, Coal Creek Canyon; were partners with former Gov. Roy Romer in John Deere dealerships. Walter was on the planning commission of Park County. And as many know, Walter´s blessed with a direct way of speaking. • Q: What do you think of Bill Patterson´s recall? • A: “They´re idiots. Bill was elected. He´s a good man, hard working, and has a good family. He didn´t lie or cheat and didn´t deserve all this.’ Burke, 76, said his recall 16 years ago was different, yet a bitter experience. “They came at me twice with petitions. The road and bridge department was a welfare state. I looked into it. They didn´t like it.’ Burke says the recall was particularly hard on Marril Lee and his family. “It was hell on them,’ he adds, saying one bad memory is the pickets and petitioners in front of his store. “But they didn´t have to pay anyone to circulate petitions. They did it themselves,’ he adds. Petitioners Joe Goecke, Mike Gordon and Al Head used paid circulators from primarily out of the county to register names for Patterson´s recall. (Patterson said he would protest the validity of the the petition process if it was declared sufficient. Goecke has relocated from Montrose) •••••• The residue of a recall are lingering hard feelings, distrust, he says. Relationships are never quite the same; friendships are impacted. “People are fearful, they´re cautious. They´re afraid of making a decision, a decision that might turn out wrong, because of all the litigation.’ “A recall distracts everyone from what needs to be done to move the county forward. Commissioners have to spend time on it, lawyers get involved and there´s courthouse time, the county clerk´s time, plus it costs money.’ One voice of experience, that recently doubled. Sunday, August 12, 2007Montrose County Q&A with Montrose County Cleark & Recorder Fran Long Montrose County, as part of its ongoing focus on community outreach, would like to inform County residents of key aspects of the recall process. The following article is seeking to clarify any questions about the procedure in the recall process. The Colorado Revised Statutes, Article 12 of Title 1, dictate the process to be followed in a recall petition and the protest period. 1. What is included in the sufficiency requirement? The first step is the signature verification process. There are ten working days for the election team to verify signatures submitted. During this process we look at our voter registration database and compare addresses and names to make sure they match the registration information. Although, the voter registration is electronic, the election team member would read the list and make sure it exactly matches the address. 2. Are there checks and balances? An election team member starts the process to verify signatures. There are procedures we use such as codes. Another team member double-checks that the correct code and information was used with each individual name. There is a third confirmation of the information on the computer using a petition software maintenance program. 3. How long is the verification process? No longer than ten working days. When complete, we notify both the petitioners and the elected official of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition. Basically, "sufficiency" is referring to whether or not there are the 3,950 valid signatures required for the recall process to go forward. This number calculation is statutory, and is twenty five percent of all votes cast for the office in the last general election. After the decision, there is a 15-day protest period in which findings of the Clerk's Office can be challenged. 4. What does the protest period involve? Any eligible elector can file a protest contesting the decision of the Clerk's Office, basing his/her protest on specific grounds but not limited to: Failure of any portion of a petition or circulator affidavit to meet the requirements of Article 12 of Title 1 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, or any conduct of the part of petition circulators that substantially misleads the person signing the petition. If a protest is filed, the next step is a public summary hearing. 5. What is a summary hearing? It is a public hearing to determine if the protest is founded, or not. Clerk & Recorder Fran Long presides the hearing. The protester has to prove his/her case by the preponderance of the evidence. The testimony given is under oath and can address how the signatures were collected by the circulators and whether both those who circulated the petition and those who signed it were eligible to do so or not. By statute, this hearing will take place within 5 to 10 days from the date the notice was mailed to the petition committee. The citizens of Montrose County will be notified of the date of the public hearing. For additional information, kindly visit our Montrose County website http://www.co.montrose.co.us/elections/ index.cfm. - Ana Mostaccero, Montrose County Community Relations Wednesday, August 08, 2007Attorney: Petition process broke law By Katharhynn Heidelberg, Daily Press Senior Writer MONTROSE - Petitions to recall Commissioner Bill Patterson are fruits of a poisoned tree, his attorney said, pledging a fight. "We intend, if they are in fact certified, that we will file a protest," David Reed said. "We feel this professionally funded petition process violated the law and we think we have credible evidence of improper signature gathering." The men seeking to recall Patterson turned in petitions last week, with potentially 5,583 signatures on them. To place a recall question on November's ballot, 3,850 valid signatures are needed. Montrose County Clerk and Recorder Fran Long has until Aug. 14 to verify whether both those who circulated the petitions on behalf of Al Head, Joe Goecke and Mike Gordon - and those who signed them - were eligible to do so. If either the petitioners or Patterson want to dispute Long's count of valid signatures, they have 15 days after Aug. 14 to file a protest. Long would then convene a hearing. Patterson and his attorney both objected to alleged signature-gathering tactics, but said petitioning was a fundamental right of the people. "If they had gone out and distributed the petition and been direct, I would not have a problem with it," Patterson said. "But that's not what they did. They tried to use deceit and lies to get people to sign the petition." Those circulating the petition were apparently paid to do so. Head previously told the Daily Press he did not know who had selected circulators or whether they were paid. Goecke said he knew who was involved with the circulators, but didn't care to discuss it. Reed said it was not specifically illegal to pay circulators, but it was questionable. He said the petition was being driven by "greedy private interests," which were abusing an important legal right. Reed also said the petitioners were hiding behind the circulators and leaving them to take the heat from the public. "We need to stand up to them and hold people responsible. Mr. Patterson is accountable (to the public). On the private side, those who instigated this are accountable to Mr. Patterson. They should be, and will be, held responsible to the maximum extent of the law," he said. "It's now time for Mr. Patterson to speak out. He's been completely exonerated of any wrongdoing. According to the La Plata County DA, the allegations don't even merit an investigation, yet these people continue to push the effort with no basis and with malice toward Mr. Patterson." Long's verification process only considers whether those who signed the petition are registered voters. "She's not looking at how the signatures were obtained, who obtained them or what representations are made," Reed said. "If we have to march 100 people in here to testify about the gathering process, that's what we intend to do. ...We feel compelled to challenge the entire recall process. We think those who signed were in many instances duped and misled." Reed said the petitions ought to be tossed because of the misrepresentations allegedly made and the manner in which they were circulated. He also said he will seek to subpoena financial records. "Obviously, it's not going to come to use voluntarily. To the extent necessary, we will subpoena people and documents," Reed said. Colorado Revised Statute 1-12-108 says grounds for a protest must be specifically laid out. Grounds include "failure of any portion of a petition or circulator affidavit to meet the requirements of this article (CRS 1-12-108) or any conduct on the part of petition circulators that substantially misleads persons signing the petition." The statute also says that all testimony during a protest hearing shall be under oath. Reed said whether sufficient valid signatures would be found remained to be seen. "It goes to the very concern we had that the entire process was tainted by paid circulators who misled the people into signing these petitions," he said. "While the names may be valid, the reason they signed and what induced them to sign is questionable at best." Reed said anyone who wants to withdraw his or her signature can do so through the clerk's office up until Aug. 14. "We simply don't have anything to hide. We know what the process was; we know mostly who was behind it ...We understand it's a fundamental right of citizens to petition, but it's not a fundamental right to misuse or abuse the process and that's what we think has happened here." Head, Goecke and Gordon alleged Patterson exerted undue influence over airport finances in his role with the Montrose County Building Authority. Patterson denied wrongdoing and said the MCBA, as a holding company, cannot indebt the airport as the men alleged. His fellow commissioners also said all decisions concerning the airport, particularly concerning the awarding of its fixed base operator contract - which has since led to litigation - were made openly, with all three commissioners who were in office at the time. Patterson alleged the petitioners had ties to JetAway Aviation, the unsuccessful FBO bidder, but the men denied any relationship with JetAway was driving their petition. Allegations the petitioners turned over to the district attorney's office through state Rep. Ray Rose, R-Montrose, did not merit an investigation or charges, an independent legal review found. Tuesday, August 07, 2007Citizens draft letter questioning recall By Katharhynn Heidelberg, Daily Press Senior Writer MONTROSE - Montrose citizens demanded answers concerning recall efforts against County Commissioner Bill Patterson. "Someone has to say it," Bob Connor said, reading from a letter drafted on behalf of several county residents of both parties. The letter also pledged support to Patterson and thanked all three commissioners for their work. The letter asked why Patterson, the board of commissioners' lone Democrat, had been singled out for recall concerning airport finances and its fixed-base operator contract. Three local businessmen, Al Head, Joe Goecke and Mike Gordon, petitioned to have Patterson recalled, alleging he exerted undue influence on airport finances; claims Patterson denies. They also complained of criminal conduct to the district attorney's office. An independent legal review found no basis for criminal charges. The men turned in petitions to the county clerk's office last week; verification of signatures is to be completed by Aug. 14 and if there are 3,950 valid ones, the recall question will be placed on the November ballot. "Why was only one chosen? Why not the others as well?" the letter Connor presented asked. "We've been dealing with that question since the start," Commissioner Allan Belt said. "I'm afraid when you get down to it, you have to ask the petitioners. Bill does not have a ring through our nose, he doesn't lead us around." Belt said decisions pertaining to the airport financing were made by all three county commissioners and in public. "We were as totally above board as possible." The letter questioned why the commissioners were continuing arbitration with JetAway Aviation, a company that sued the county after losing a competitive bidding process for the airport's FBO contract. The letter also asked whether JetAway was in violation of its own contract with the county, and whether Head's business, Western Skyways, was in violation. JetAway accesses airport property via a through the fence agreement, for which it pays $250 per year. It took over a previous agreement the county had with STW Composites, an agreement that explicitly prohibits the sale of aircraft fuel. The county alleged last year that JetAway had sold fuel. It was able to obtain a temporary injunction to stop such activities. The county and JetAway are currently in court-ordered mediation and the current FBO, Black Canyon Jet Centers, is also now a party to the litigation. "As far as I know... JetAway has for the most part been in compliance with the restraining order," County Attorney Bob Hill said. He earlier explained an exception could exist in terms of advertising of fuel sales allegedly undertaken by JetAway. If true, that would violate the court order, but JetAway denied the contempt complaint, which was filed by Black Canyon Aug. 2. (See the Daily Press, Aug. 4). Hill said he did not know about Western Skyways, because the county does not have a contract with it. Western Skyways is apparently considered a park owner under the STW Composites agreement and Hill said he had no information it was in violation. Belt said the mediation was court-ordered and the county was taking action. "Unfortunately, when things get into court, that doesn't mean they speed up," Hill said. "It needs to be known to the public these steps are being taken," Connor said. JetAway is not explicitly named in the recall petition, but that document alleges Black Canyon Jet Centers was given an illegal monopoly. However, the Federal Aviation Administration rejected similar arguments by JetAway last year, finding the county had not granted anyone exclusive rights. Belt also said Monday Black Canyon had known from the get-go its contract was not exclusive. The letter writers questioned perceptions to the contrary Monday. "The FAA stated that the commissioners acted properly in their ruling," Connor read. "A district attorney determined that allegations against Commissioner Patterson were without merit. It is clear that the county has done nothing wrong. Can the same be said for Commissioner Patterson's accusers?" Connor asked how it was fair to jeopardize Black Canyon's investment of $350,000 per year in lease payments by placating "bullies and intimidators." "...We do not want you or your office pressured and intimidated," the letter concluded. "It is time to put an end to this travesty." Patterson agreed it was time to end the controversy and reminded the public that petition signatures can be removed at the request of signers up until Aug. 14. "It's very simple," he said, prompting laughter. "If the object was to divide us, it has done the opposite," Patterson said. "We've been pressured, but have we been intimidated? We have not. I think it's an attempt at intimidation," Belt said. He said pressure was part of the job and the commissioners had a responsibility not to simply cave in. "That'd make for a peaceful world, but a crappy county." "Through the whole process, we made a commitment. We weren't going to self-destruct," Commissioner Gary Ellis said. Connor said it was still clear the recall was an attempt to intimidate. "If people are willing to go that far, why do business with them?" he asked. Ellis said there were dueling perceptions in the business community, where he said some believe JetAway should be allowed to operate an FBO through the fence while others felt it had violated the agreement. "It almost takes the wisdom of Solomon," Ellis said. "The bottom line is, we're still in mediation." Sunday, August 05, 2007Editorial: Where is the merit for the recall? Three men - Joe Goecke, Al Head and Mike Gordon - brought a petition in June against Montrose County Commissioner Bill Patterson, alleging malfeasance and improper influence in his involvement with the Montrose Regional Airport. An independent, outside legal review on July 20 found no probable cause for a criminal investigation. It is baseless. So when you take away the reason for the petition in the first place, what are you left with? Zip. The petitioners could've have stopped it last week, but chose to turn the signatures into county clerk Fran Tipton Long's office. So why do we continue? Maybe it's because the pressure is too great not to quit, to see it through. Much money has been spent - on lawyers, advertising agencies, the payment of outside circulators. JetAway Aviation and the county have tangled for three years with a slew of lawsuits and complaints. The complaint with the FAA was dismissed; the county won the injunction prohibiting JetAway from selling fuel. Court-ordered mediation continues. Now comes the real scrap: the verification and challenge of 5,000-plus signatures in order to get 3,900 to push it before taxpayers. State Rep. Ray Rose, R-Montrose, is trying to distance himself from this sham he once embraced. Rose announced the recall on May 30, and took the complaint to the local DA's office on behalf of Goecke, Gordon and Head. Rose called a press conference a week later to reiterate the allegations, commandeering the county offices for his stagecraft, and then told the county Republican party last month that the recall against Patterson was "war." With the recall falling apart because of no legal basis, Rose last week told the Daily Sentinel he didn't endorse it, and had "nothing to do with it." Patterson was voted into office by Montrose County residents in 2004. Looking back at his tenure, it's hard to find anything that would merit a recall. Airport decisions have the mark of three commissioners and not one, so why not recall all three? Al Head, one of the petitioners, said as much in June with an interview with the Daily Press and in a letter to the editor. That in retrospect, they might have recalled all the commissioners, instead of just one. How they were the "last men standing" and weary of back-room deals. There's the irony: This whole recall business reeks of a few trying to manipulate the process for the rest of us. Wednesday, August 1, 2007Recall signatures sent to clerk 5,583 potential names to undergo verification by clerk's office before final Aug. 14 deadline BY KATHARHYNN HEIDELBERG, DAILY PRESS SENIOR WRITER MONTROSE - The men seeking to recall Montrose County Commissioner Bill Patterson turned in 233 petition sections - potentially 5,583 signatures - Tuesday morning, one day ahead of schedule. "Officially, as of 11:32 a.m., petitions for the recall of Commissioner Bill Patterson were submitted to the Clerk and Recorder's office," Montrose County Clerk Fran Tipton Long said Tuesday. "We have 10 working days to verify the signatures, to ascertain sufficiency, or not, of the petitions." Al Head, Joe Goecke and Mike Gordon are seeking to recall Patterson, contending that he exerted undue influence over financial decisions made by the Montrose County Building Authority concerning the Montrose Regional Airport. Patterson has roundly denied the men's allegations and said they simply do not understand how the building authority operates. He also alleged the men are motivated by ties to JetAway Aviation, which failed to win the fixed-base operator contract at the airport, but Head denied such a relationship. Head, Goecke and Gordon, through State Rep. Ray Rose, R-Montrose, turned over allegations of malfeasance to the district attorney, but an independent review found no merit in them. "Nowhere in the materials did we find probable cause to believe that a criminal offense, under Title 18 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, was committed by Commissioner Patterson," Sixth Judicial District Attorney Craig Westberg said in a letter to local District Attorney Myrl Serra. The petitioners continued recall efforts,which are being bankrolled in part by Kienholz & Miller, a local real estate company. They need 3,950 valid signatures to place a recall question on November's ballot. The official count was to begin today. Initial counts of potential signatures were 5,583, Elections Supervisor Debbie Rudy said. "All we were doing was seeing how many lines were full," she said. The clerk's office is bringing three extra workers on board during the verification period, which ends Aug. 14. The county has also hired a lawyer to assist Long. "The DA would normally represent me, but he's already decided he has a conflict of interest," she said. The county attorney also has a conflict. "I needed some legal advice to go through this to make sure all parties and all interests have fair representation." After verification, either side can protest the clerk's findings during a 15-day protest period - one which Long and other county leaders say they expect. "Every indication is there will be protests," Montrose County Commissioner Allan Belt said. "When the protests are received, then the clerk is required to hold a public hearing so protesters can provide information that makes their case." Whether protesters make a valid case is up to Long, who said that generally, such decisions are not open for appeal. "The county clerk is in charge of that jurisdiction," she said. If the recall is deemed sufficient, new candidates need to collect 130 valid signatures in order to get their names on the ballot. Anyone eligible to serve in Patterson's district can run for his seat. Long's first step in the process is to verify the eligibility of those circulating the petitions. Circulators must sign an affidavit swearing they have witnessed all signatures and, to the best of their knowledge, collected them from eligible voters. The affidavits must be complete and notarized on the same date on which the circulator signed it and the notary information must be complete. Signs of tampering can also disqualify a petition. Circulators are also required to be eligible to vote in the recall if it goes forward. The Daily Press has received numerous complaints that some circulators are not qualified or were engaging in questionable tactics. In one instance, Democratic Party Chairman Randy See furnished a photograph showing an affidavit signed by a woman, but which he said was being circulated by a man. The document shown in his photograph appeared to be notarized. In another, Nucla Mayor Roxy Allex said she saw a circulator leave his petition unattended and watched a woman sign it during his absence. When told what the petition was for, the woman drew a line through her name, with Allex as witness. Voters are allowed to withdraw their signatures for any reason. Patterson has filed his own complaints with Serra's office. Serra forwarded them away for independent review. The status of that review was not available Tuesday. "We don't have that information," Rudy said, referring to allegations that those circulating the petitions weren't the same people who signed the affidavits. "Once it's determined whether it's sufficient, that will be part of the protest period. We have to accept what we have at face value. That's what we have to do." The signatures themselves can also be disqualified for a variety of reasons, Rudy said. These include, but are not limited to, voter ineligibility, incorrect addresses or dates, incomplete information and illegible signatures. "If it's illegible, it gets kicked out. Obviously, if we can't read it,we can't figure out who they are or if they're eligible," Rudy said. No further information will be released from the clerk's office until Aug. 14, she and Long said. "We're in a wait and see - if they have 3,950 valid signatures and, secondly, for the clerk's review," Belt said. "All three commissioners understand that they (petition points) are not true, just simply not true. We continue to work as a team to get the county business done. We've been determined not to let this get in the way of that." Sunday, July 29, 2007Editorial: Recall petition costs rise There's one more costly wrinkle in the recall of county commissioner Bill Patterson. Since county clerk Fran Tipton Long will have the final say on verification of 3,900 signatures, the county has hired an attorney to represent her in case of any future litigation. Last Monday, the county authorized to retain attorney Alan Hassler of Grand Junction "to protect her," as one put it, against any possible litigation that may be recall related. Given the rancor of these actions, there will be challenges likely. The hiring of Ms. Long's attorney raises the bill for county taxpayers. The county is forced to have a precinct election, because of the recall, instead of a less expensive mail-in ballot. Estimates range from $30,000 to $40,000, or more. Couple this with the hiring on an outside attorney to run interference for Ms. Long, the meter continues to escalate in an effort settle old scores and sell jet fuel at the county airport. On July 20, Justin Fay, a District Attorney with the Sixth Judicial District in Durango, released its independent legal review of commissioner Patterson and determined there was no probable cause, or criminal offense regarding his actions with the airport, from which the petition is based. State rep. Ray Rose, on behalf of Joe Goecke, Mike Gordon, and Al Head, announced Patterson's recall May 30 at the county GOP luncheon. Since then, it's been the Elephant in the Room with petition circulators annoying citizens, angry letters, more threats of litigation. It has roiled the community, and distracted citizens from more pressing issues. The recall has morphed from gossip and scheming, into the legal arena, into the wallets of taxpayers. About the cost of two, or three more much-needed deputies. Sunday, July 22, 2007Legal review a moot point By Daily Press Editorial Board Exonerated. The legal review against Montrose County commissioner Bill Patterson and his alleged malfeasance and improper influence over Montrose County Airport finances was found to have no criminal basis, as per the La Plata County district attorney, it was announced Friday. Three men — Joe Goecke, Mike Gordon, and Al Head — are seeking to recall commissioner Patterson, citing alleged criminality, which now, according to outside review, is without merit. The recall was announced May 30 by state rep. Ray Rose who, acting on behalf of Goecke, Gordon, and Head, presented the allegations to Montrose DA Myrl Serra. He sent them out of his jurisdiction for independent review. Since announcing the recall against Patterson, Rose twice in public meetings used the legal opinion of a Denver law firm, representing the three petitioners, to justify the action. Before the county GOP central committee and membership, Rose said Patterson´s recall was “war.’ Friday, in an e-mail to the Daily Press, Rose said he was “satisfied with the outcome.’ The petitioners could not be reached for comment. Friday´s news raises two questions: • One, the recall needs 3,900 signatures before Aug. 1 before placement on the November ballot. No signatures have been turned in. With the legal review now moot, will Goecke, Gordon and Head continue to press the ouster, which includes petition circulators throughout Montrose Count? The petitioners have hassled and misled county residents (see editor Bill Swaim´s column today) since June. • Two, when does commissioner Patterson, a duly-elected commissioner in 2004, former Montrose mayor, city councilor and Montrose entrepreneur/businessman, get his apology from those who have smeared him? Sunday, July 22, 2007A personal conversation? By Bill Swaim, Daily Press Editor There's nothing more annoying than having words put in my mouth, especially when it's far from the truth. Now, I'm not a huge of fan of those circulating the petition to recall Montrose County Commissioner Bill Patterson. But it's not because they're petitioning, it's on principle (or lack thereof) — but I'll get to that later. On a recent trip to City Market, I was waived over to a petitioner by Erica Lewis Kennedy, former Montrose mayor and current Daily Press writer, because the petitioner was telling anyone who would listen that he had had a "personal conversation" with the editor of the newspaper. Not knowing who I was, he proceeded to tell me how the editor was refusing to accept letters to the editor in support of the recall petition because the editor was a personal supporter of Bill Patterson. The gist of the conversation was that the Daily Press had received lots of letters in support of the recall, but because of (my) personal friendship with Patterson, we weren't running them. Soon after, Erica pointed out that I was the editor. The petitioner simply had no answer for that except to completely change the subject. I informed him that I've received only a few letters in support of the petition. We've run a letter from one of the three petition originators, Mike Gordon of Gordon Composites, and another from petition circulator Tera Seevers. The three other letters I've received and not run were as follows; one was anonymous, the second was a 1,000-plus words and I asked for a slimmed down version to meet our guidelines, and the other simply wasn't fit for print — meaning it was on the x-rated side and made no point. His other claim was the fact the Daily Press was somehow silencing these other factions in the community supporting the recall. His one example was the Libertarian Party, but this week´s letter from chairman Ron Bain was the first we had heard from them. Now it's time to set the record straight: • I have not had any personal conversations with the three petitioners or those circulating the petition. • The Daily Press runs the majority of the letters we receive, although we do withhold a few that don't meet with our "letters to the editor" policy, as do most newspapers. In fact we don't "not run letters just because we disagree with someone's opinion." One of the great things about an opinion page is you have a great many differing thoughts on issues. • I am not a Democrat nor am I a personal friend or supporter of Patterson. While we've brushed shoulders at a few events and had coffee back when I first took over as managing editor, I haven't talked personally to him since the recall effort started. • I'm against the recall effort for the simple fact that there is no basis for it. An independent review from the La Plata County district attorney, as well as our own research at the Press, found nothing to base an investigation on. What this means is this whole petition effort is essentially a sham. • State Rep. Ray Rose's involvement in this whole issue was "pure politics," despite his denial of such. He was also the first to announce the recall petition on the day it was filed with the county. • Honestly, I don't care if there is one FBO or five. It's turned into an ugly mess and we taxpayers will be the ones to pay for it. The various lawsuits brought against the county by JetAway Aviation are costing taxpayers as is the recall election effort. And then there's the principle of the matter. Before wasting taxpayers' money, this should have been resolved between the parties (JetAway, Montrose County, FAA) — which is what the current mediation effort is supposed to do. I support the right to petition, I think it is one of those fundamental rights that is important to this country. But this petition is different than any other I've seen. First, those who bring about a petition usually don't detach themselves from the actual petition process. Both Al Head and Joe Goecke have said they don't have anything to do with the petition circulators. It´s been my experience that petitioners who believe in their cause will stand on the street corner, volunteering their time to gather signatures and rallying the community behind them. Not in this effort. Instead, petition circulators are out spreading their "belief" — with the paycheck that follows. Of course it's no wonder the JetAway Three have detached themselves, given all of the misleading and underhanded "selling" by the circulators, who have resorted to a variety of unethical tactics, including pitches that "Patterson is under criminal investigation" and the "only way to vote in the next election is to sign the petition." There's also the question of whether the signatures collected are actually valid. In the beginning, some of the petitioners weren't even from this area and according to the Secretary of State, to gather signatures, they have to be registered Montrose County voters. That tactic has changed into valid registered voters allegedly have circulators out gathering signatures "in their presence." Again a clear violation, according to the state. It's a total sham, unethical and also under review. It's hard to believe why anyone, given the review findings (See Saturday's Daily Press) and all the dirty tactics, would support such an effort. I think Western Skyways' Al Head said it best when he told the Daily Press, “what turned into a recall issue, began as an airport issue." Unfortunately, it should have stayed an airport issue. Saturday, July 21, 2007'No probable cause' Review: No basis for allegations against Patterson By Katharhynn Heidelberg, Daily Press Senior Writer MONTROSE - Recall efforts against Montrose County Commissioner Bill Patterson were dealt a blow Friday, when an independent review found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Seventh Judicial District Attorney Myrl Serra said Friday "no probable cause exists" to support criminal charges against Patterson, the subject of recall efforts led by Al Head, Joe Goecke and Mike Gordon, who alleged Patterson exerted undue influence over airport finances. They turned over their complaints to Serra's office, through State Rep. Ray Rose, R-Montrose,who said he was only trying to serve his constituents by handing the evidence over to the proper authorities. Serra sent the information to a La Plata County district attorney for independent review. A review determines whether there is sufficient cause to merit an investigation. "The result of the independent review is that, based on the materials submitted, no probable cause exists for the filing of criminal charges in this matter against Commissioner Patterson," Serra wrote in a news release. The three petitioners could be reached for comment Friday and Mark Haynes, attorney for the Patterson Recall Committee, Inc., did not immediately return calls. Rose said in an e-mailed statement that he was "satisfied with the outcome of the investigation" and "confident (Serra) looked into all the legal aspects of the matter." Patterson said Friday the review's findings were no surprise. "It's nothing more than what I've said all along. All the allegations were totally false, based on false information. I'm not sure what opinion they've (petitioners) based their allegations on, but it was certainly incorrect," he said. "It takes the wind out of their sails. They can't run around claiming I'm under investigation. There is no investigation. There never was." Head, Gordon and Goecke claim in their petition that Patterson, as a director and president of the Montrose County Building Authority, eliminated county commission approval to appoint the board of directors and, thereby, gained control of Montrose Regional Airport's assets. The men also claimed Patterson then used his influence to have the MCBA issue $3.7 million in airport bonds for improvements to "solely benefit" a private company, the fixed-base operator at the airport. Patterson denied all allegations, saying he is no longer the president of the MCBA; the MCBA cannot indebt the county; the bonds were the result of open votes by all three county commissioners; the improvements did not solely benefit the fixed-base operator, and the change in the makeup of the MCBA came at the request of bond counsel. The review supported Patterson's statements, his attorney said. "The conclusion reached by the analysis reflects what we have said all along: That there was no basis in fact for these allegations in the first place," David Reed said. "Mr. Patterson has been fully exonerated from the charges levied against him (by petitioners). We feel very, very happy about this, although we knew this would be the result." Montrose County Commissioner Allan Belt said the recall efforts had only driven the board of commissioners closer together. "The commissioners and staff knew (allegations) could not be true. It is a board of county commissioners and Bill Patterson does not lead us around with a ring in our nose." His perception was shared by County Manager Joe Kerby, who said Friday he had feared the issue would divide the board on party lines. Patterson is the board's lone Democrat. "I can tell you, the commissioners did not allow this to divide them," Kerby said. "In my mind, they have come out as an even stronger team." Belt and Commissioner Gary Ellis said they believed the findings should change the petitioners' stance. "Apparently, they (Durango DA) felt there was no place to go with this. If there was something there, I would expect an independent DA to make that determination and they didn't. It's got to change the dynamics of what's being done as far as the recall," Ellis said. "He's been exonerated." "If there is no substantiation to the charges, I cannot figure out why the petition wouldn't be dropped immediately," Belt said. "The charges that generated the recall have been found to be false. Does that not pragmatically invalidate the petition?" Petitioners have until Aug. 1 to collect 3,900 valid signatures in order to place a recall question on November's ballot. No signatures have yet been turned into the Montrose County Clerk and Recorder, though the Patterson Recall Committee states in a paid advertisement it has collected 5,000. Patterson said he'd heard circulators were being paid up to $14 per signature. "Money talks," he said. "I guess the next thing is, people need to ask themselves: 'Is Montrose County for sale? Do big, vested interests like this actually dictate what the people of this community do?'" Patterson is exploring possible legal action against the petitioners. "I need to figure out a way to get the people's money back for what's been wasted on the recall. All I can do is keep fighting. You cannot allow people like this to run our county." Patterson has filed his own complaint with Serra's office concerning circulators' alleged tactics. This complaint was also sent away for independent review,which hadn't been completed as of Friday. Contact Katharhynn Heidelberg via e-mail at katharhynnh@montrosepress.com. Sunday, July 15, 2007"Hey, brother can you spare a signature?"Editorial Those petition circulators, representing Joe Goecke, Mike Gordon, Al Head, seeking the recall of county commissioner Bill Patterson, continue to mislead and annoy. o1. At Wal-Mart, one of the clipboard folk told the Daily Press they were doing the task "free of charge." (Hard to believe.) o 2. In reply to a Daily Press questioner, another asked, "what's the big deal, anyway?" (A recall is a serious business.) o 3. Another said commissioner Patterson was being "investigated," but couldn't say why, or by whom. ("Stupid is, as stupid does," a line from the film, 'Forrest Gump.') These are the complaints we can verify. There are many others, with similar, or less than satisfying experiences, or replies. One was described as a "grub street solicitor" with a gift of oratory about Montrose election law. Head told the Daily Press last month that neither he or his company, Western Skyways, had anything to do with the recruiting, hiring or vetting of these people representing himself, Goecke, or Gordon. Goecke told the Daily Press he knew who was paying them, but didn't want to discuss it. The fact is, commissioner Patterson's not under investigation for anything. The charges that Goecke, Gordon, and Head have made - improper influence and malfeasance regarding the county's FBO - are under review by an outside law enforcement agency to see if it merits anything more, like an investigation. This considerable distinction isn't a part of the sales pitch to recall Patterson, who was elected by voters in 2004. Neither District Attoney Myrl Serra, or the county have anything new to report regarding the review. Since state rep. Ray Rose broke the news of Patterson's recall announcement at the county GOP luncheon in May, the Daily Press has attempted, without success, to get a copy of a "substantiating legal opinion," by a Denver law firm, Ireland/Stapleton. Rose has used the law firm's opinion as background in speeches to condemn Patterson. If Rose's "documentation" is so illustrative of Patterson's alleged misdeeds, it's hard to understand why he won't let it out for public scrutiny, especially with the petition deadline coming fast. Goecke, Gordon and Head have until Aug. 1, to collect 3,900 signatures of registered voters. This ham-handed recall has been a sham from the get-go. It's a wonder why prominent business people, along with a sitting state representative, have lent their names and reputations to a cause which is being handled on the front lines by such shady characters. As our mothers would admonish, you would think they would know better. Sunday, July 15, 2007Kienholz-Miller & Co. backs recall effort By Katharhynn Heidelberg, Daily Press Senior Writer MONTROSE - A local real estate company with ties to JetAway Aviation made a $14,300 contribution to the Patterson Recall Committee, Inc. According to the Colorado Secretary of State Campaign Finance reports, Kienholz Miller & Co. made the contribution, which was filed July 12. David Kienholz told the Daily Press he had no comment on the contribution. Public records also show an identical amount was paid to Colorado Winning Edge, Inc. for consulting and advertising. A company called Colorado Winning Edge is also listed as a 2004 contributor to the 527 group, "Save Our State." According to Save Our State's Web site, it works to elect Republicans. The secretary of state's site shows Save Our State made 33 contributions, including three in 2002 to the campaign of state Rep. Ray Rose, R-Montrose. Three local businessmen, Al Head, Joe Goecke and Mike Gordon, are seeking to recall Patterson. They have alleged malfeasance on Patterson's part, saying he exerted undue influence over airport finances and caused taxpayer money to be used to benefit the airport's private fixed-base operator. Patterson denies doing so and says the men are motivated by their ties to JetAway, which was unsuccessful in its bid to become the FBO. Rose handed over the petitioners' information to District Attorney Myrl Serra in May, citing responsibility to his constituents. Serra has sent that information, along with Patterson's complaints regarding the petition circulators' alleged tactics, for independent review. A review does not constitute an investigation. Patterson said Friday he was not surprised to find Kienholz-Miller was a contributor and said Kienholz had real estate ties to JetAway. "Kienholz-Miller has been in this from the beginning," Patterson said. "People are known by their enemies. I should be well known by now." In 2004, JetAway CEO Stephen Stuhmer bought the former 97,000- sq. ft STW Composites building near the Montrose Regional Airport. Montrose Economic Development Corporation President Sandy Head worked with Montrose County to help Stuhmer maintain the through-the-fence agreement STW had with the airport and Kienholz-Miller completed the deal on the property. Prior to that, Kienholz's son in Scottsdale helped lead Stuhmer to look at a different commercial lot when he first came to Montrose. The deal didn't pan out for Stuhmer, who was residing in Scottsdale at the time, but the deal for the STW deal did. JetAway's bid to hold FBO services at the airport have since failed and embroiled JetAway, Montrose County and Black Canyon Jet Center Partners in a legal battle, which is currently in mediation. As for the contribution, under statute, contributions used for the recall of public officials must be reported to the secretary of state. Recall committees must file on a specific schedule, depending on the date on which they formed. July 12 was the first filing date for the Patterson Recall Committee. The next is Aug. 10. The recall attempt means the county has to hold a polling place election in November, instead of the mail-only election that had been planned. County Clerk Fran Tipton Long previously placed "extremely rough estimates" for the additional cost created by the recall effort at $35,000 to $40,000. Part of the money would be for extra staff to help verify the signatures collected by petition circulators. Patterson said he is exploring options for possible legal action, including whether the petitioners can be compelled to pay the county's expenses for the recall. "I feel they should have to pay for that, not the county," he said. "I do intend to file a civil suit." Patterson is bearing his own expenses for fighting the recall efforts and said he has so far spent around $5,000. He expects to spend at least $10,000. "It's a lot for me," Patterson said. Managing Editor Bill Swaim contributed to this report Friday, July 13, 2007 Petitioners complaint still under reviewBy Katharhynn Heidelberg, Daily Press Senior Writer MONTROSE — Allegations made by those seeking to recall Montrose County Commissioner Bill Patterson remain under review and there is no formal investigation to date, the district attorney said. Three local businessmen, Al Head, Joe Goecke and Mike Gordon, are seeking to recall Patterson. They allege he misappropriated airport funds and used taxpayer money to benefit a private business. Patterson denied the complaints and contended in return that the men have ties to an aviation company that unsuccessfully sought to become the fixed-base operator at the Montrose Regional Airport. Head later denied such a connection existed. “What´s being reviewed is whether (there was) any criminal activity that can be prosecuted by this office,’ DA Myrl Serra said in a voicemail concerning the men´s allegations. As previously reported, a review is undertaken to determine whether an investigation is warranted. Serra received the men´s information from state Rep. Ray Rose, R-Montrose, who said he was meeting his responsibility to constituents in turning the matter over. Patterson subsequently filed a complaint with the DA, alleging the people apparently hired to circulate recall petitions were employing questionable tactics. Serra sent both sets of complaints out of his office for independent legal review, citing “obvious conflict.’ He could not disclose where the information was sent. “If they (reviewers) think there´s something that could be criminal in nature, it will be referred to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, who will then investigate it fully. If there´s no indication anything criminal under Title 18 has occurred, that will be the end of it,’ Serra said. Head, Goecke and Gordon have until Aug. 1 to turn in 3,900 valid signatures. If the deadline is met, the recall question would make the November ballot. Patterson says the petition circulators continue to use questionable tactics and have been telling residents that he´s under “criminal investigation’ for a “felony.’ He´s heard nothing about an investigation. “We have no idea who it is. We don´t know if anything is going to happen. We´re just twisting in the wind with all our proof that there is no basis for any of these allegations. Nothing´s been charged,’ Patterson said. The controversy has spilled over into the West End — where Nucla Mayor Roxy Allex says residents are “not too happy about it’ — and onto the ColoradoPols.com Web blog. “He did tell me Bill Patterson was under investigation,’ Allex said of a petition circulator she encountered at a Nucla business Wednesday. “I had two reports that people were told the petition was to retain Bill Patterson. Maybe it´s a new tactic.’ Head previously told the Daily Press he wasn´t involved in the circulation process and didn´t know who´d selected the circulators. Goecke also said he had no role with the circulators and “didn´t care to discuss’ the matter at the time. Allex alleged the Nucla circulator left his petition unattended for a brief period. State election law requires the person collecting signatures to be eligible to vote on the issue addressed in a petition. It also requires circulators to attest in a notarized statement that, to the best of their knowledge, signatories are also eligible to vote on the question. “I did witness the petition being signed when he wasn´t there,’ Allex said. Allex said when she showed the signer the petition, which stated its purpose was to affect the recall of Patterson, the woman “crossed her name off.’ Allex then initialed the line as a witness to the fact that the woman wanted her name removed. Montrose County Clerk and Recorder Fran Long said previously that anyone who signs a petition of any sort can go to her office and have it removed. The Colorado Secretary of State´s office also said in earlier reports that anyone who feels there has been a violation of election law should contact the district attorney. “They´re trying to make it an East End-West End thing,’ Allex said of the circulators´ alleged tactics. The towns of Nucla and Naturita are part of Montrose County´s “West End.’ Sheer distance effectively isolates the West End. “They made it very clear Bill Patterson was a past mayor in Montrose and very popular there. But we´re not stupid,’ Allex said. Though a “die-hard Republican,’ she added that, without proof of wrongdoing, she supported Patterson, whom she said was supportive of the West End. “I do support the right to petition the government. But I hate seeing it used for an axe to grind. It detracts from things that should be being done right now.’ Contact Katharhynn Heidelberg via e-mail at katharhynnh@montrosepress.com Sunday, July 01, 2007 Phone Call Campaign Angers ResidentsBY KATHARHYNN HEIDELBERG DAILY PRESS SENIOR WRITER MONTROSE - The latest campaign tactic in a controversial recall effort has left some Montrose residents angry. Friday, residents reported receiving pre-recorded messages on their phones and answering machines,which asked them to sign a petition to recall Montrose County Commissioner Bill Patterson. "It's really, really annoying and then they can't even ID a phone number it's coming from," Montrose resident Anne Pletsch said Friday. "How can you trust that?" The recorded message, whose origin is unknown, states: "Hello. Did you know that County Commissioner Bill Patterson is under investigation for illegally diverting Montrose County airport funds to a private corporation? The only chance you will have to weigh in on this important issue is by signing the recall petition, which will allow you to vote either to keep him or get a new county commissioner in November. Sign the petition at your grocery store, post office or library today and make your voice heard in November." A group of businessmen is seeking to recall Patterson, alleging he exerted undue influence over airport finances. Patterson has repeatedly denied the accusations and said the push was linked to Jet-Away Aviation's failed bid to become the airport's fixed base operator. Petitioners Al Head, Mike Gordon and Joe Goecke deny there's a connection. "I think if we trusted Bill Patterson enough to vote for him and he's done a good enough job, to start out the comment with 'do you know he's being investigated,' it sounds like the police are investigating him," Pletsch said. "When you use that kind of language, for a lot of people, that means he did something wrong." Friday, a man circulating petitions at a local grocery store also said Patterson was under investigation, but when asked, could not identify what agency was investigating him. The petitioners' complaint was turned over to the district attorney and is now under independent legal review to determine whether the allegations merit an investigation. When asked if he was a county resident and hence, eligible to vote in a recall election here, the circulator indicated a woman with him and later stated that he worked in Montrose County. It was not known whether he was eligible to vote here. According to the Colorado Secretary of State's office, the person gathering signatures must be eligible to vote in the recall. After obtaining signatures, circulators must also sign and have notarized a statement pledging they were the ones to actually gather signatures. An SOS spokesman said Friday it is not sufficient for an ineligible circulator to merely be in the presence of a circulator who is eligible. Failure to sign any petition does not deny anyone the right to vote, the county clerk and recorder said previously. People can request to the clerk that their signatures be removed from any petition, she said. Patterson turned over his own complaint to the DA's office last week, alleging some of the people hired to circulate petitions were employing questionable tactics. One circulator has since written the Daily Press to complain of rude and hostile treatment. Democratic Chair Randy See alleged someone other than the actual circulator who asked for his signature had signed the form's affidavit. The Patterson Recall Committee, through Goecke's law firm of Ireland, Stapleton , Pascoe and Pryor, announced See had signed the petition; See said he only did so to document his allegations and filed paperwork with the county clerk to have his signature removed. "As usual, it's dirty tricks," Patterson said Friday of the automatic calls being received by residents. Pletsch said the phone calls were an invasion of people's personal space. "I don't have a huge axe to grind for or against Patterson, I just have a huge axe to grind against the whole process," she said. Sunday, July 01, 2007 Q&A with Montrose County, Part 2As a follow up to last week's "Their View" column addressing basic questions on the Montrose County Building Authority, here is a brief explanation and time line of pertinent transactions. The origins of Montrose County Building Authority dates back to 1951. The most recent dates refer to airport financing decisions. All the referred documents are public records, available to the public on the Montrose County website www.co.montrose.co.us. A hard copy of the proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) meetings is also available at the reception area of the Montrose County Administration building, 161 S. Townsend. All the decisions mentioned below were made in public, open meetings. Feb. 5, 2007 Commissioner Belt asked then Airport Director, Scott Brownlee, to respond to a list of 27 items of concern about the Airport operation presented by Joe Goecke, representing the Concerned Citizens of Montrose County. All of the questions were answered, revealing that the decisions were made in accordance with the Montrose Regional Airport Master Plan, which dates back to 1975. The unanimous decisions made by the BOCC improved roads and access to hangars for security and safety. These improvements benefited the public and businesses including the Fixed Based Operation (FBO) on the north half of the airport and provided access to all airport facilities.The funding of these improvements was made by a bond refinance. Nov. 20, 2006 BOCC agreed to deny JetAway's proposal of Dec. 9, 2005 to operate an FBO at the Montrose Regional Airport and to also deny the request to lease the additional land referred to as the south tract based on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) determination. William Patterson, chairman was absent at this meeting. Nov. 7, 2006 FAA Director's determination that Montrose County was not in violation of Grant Assurances in its award of FBO to Jet Center Partners (JCP) following a request for proposals and its actions in continuing JetAway's Dec. 9, 2005 proposal for an FBO because of concerns regarding Jetaway's through the fence operations and the negative impact of such proposed operations on FAA grant funding. October 16, 2006 BOCC unanimously approved the award of the Montrose County Airport FBO Apron project bid to Ridgway Valley Enterprises as the lowest responsible bidder. June 19, 2006 First Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation and First Amendment to the Montrose County Building Authority Bylaws, which limited county commissioners' participation to one commissioner and defined the appointment process for other BA directors. Amended lease between the BOCC and the BA,which allowed the bounty to refinance the existing Certificates of Participation issued in 1996, borrow new money for improvements to the airport, and keep the payments the same - saving taxpayers about $100,000. June 4, 2001 Request for Confirmation of Board of Directors for the MCBA. July 5, 1994 Proceedings of the BOCC regarding the newly formed Montrose County Building Authority (BA) Resolution 9-94 on June 27, 1994, including Certificate of Minutes and Resolutions, Minutes of Action of Organizational Meeting of the BA, Bylaws of BA. Dec. 28, 1994 BOCC signed Articles of Incorporation for Montrose County Building Authority. The Montrose County Building Authority was not incorporated until June 27,1994. From Nov.15, 1951 to Aug. 12, 1983 the land we see today as the Montrose Regional Airport was accumulated through a series of transactions of private land deeds from various landowners. This specific information is available through the Assessor's office at http://www.co.montrose.co.us/assessor.htm. This chronological history of events is intended to clarify any questions about the BOCC decisions. For more information on Montrose Regional Airport or any other county service or facility, kindly visit our website www.co.montrose.co.us or call us at 252.4517. -Ana Mostaccero, Community Relations Montrose County Sunday, July 01, 2007 The war rages onEvery Rose has a thorn Editorial "Ladies, and gentlemen," state representative Ray Rose told the county Republican Party members gathered Thursday night, "this is war." Rose is carrying the battle flag for the JetAway Three, petitioners Joe Goecke, Mike Gordon, and Al Head,who allege malfeasance on county commissioner Bill Patterson's role in an FBO contract at the Montrose Regional Airport. The county Republican Party, wisely, didn't buy Rose's rant. With a 10-2 vote, county GOP central committee officers voted to adopt a statement of neutrality regarding the Patterson recall, distancing itself from Rose and his wife, Donna Rose,who cast the two votes in dissent. Rose announced the recall of Patterson at the GOP luncheon May 30; Rose called a press conference June 13 to further endorse the allegations. GOP party chairman Mark Young said last week the party didn't approve of Rose's grandstanding, nor the recall. Former Montrose mayor and Republican Tricia Dickinson Thursday night challenged Rose, who defeated Patterson in 2002 for the House 58 seat, calling his actions "a cheap shot." Dr. Thomas Canfield, the county's coroner, fingered the Democrats, saying it's their fault; that they are making it a political issue, not the Republicans. The previous evening, at the Montrose Pavilion, there was a public forum, which was hosted by Patterson. As expected, it was more of a rally than a debate. The fireworks didn't materialize. He had invited JetAway manager Steve Stuhmer, and the petitioners seeking his ouster, and Rose. Patterson had the dais to himself, with an audience of about 150. Something called the Patterson Recall Committee, Inc., with a Denver address, issued a "press release Wednesday afternoon that stated they couldn't make the forum because the matter with Patterson is under investigation. Rose t |