Last Post

OK ... we're outa here. No more posting to Blogspot; we're moved over to

Writing Places @ Wordpress.com

We think Wordpress gives us a better look, and it's easier to manage.

This blog will stay up, but it will be inactive.

Thank you one and all for your visits over the years.

And another one ...

Over on WordPress:

Golfers score a hole-in-one!

New one over on WordPress

Here's another commentary on Tamarisk Hills over on our new blogsite:

Hi Times at Tamarisk Hills Golf Course ... again

Yep. We're abusing the golf association. Again. Shame on us. We're just so ... negative.

We're moving ...

... over to WordPress.

We've combined SmileHi and Yahbut into WritingPlaces.

Please go to:

WritingPlaces Blogs

Our WritingPlaces website remains the same.

"Cash for Clunkers": another Obama Bust

We spent $3 billion on Obama's "Cash for Clunkers" program.

Obama and his henchmen pimped it to nearly orgasmic heights of economic ecstasy.

Edmunds says it was a bust.

Edmunds' report on 'Cash for Clunkers'

I can't wait for "Giggles" Gibbs to start taking potshots at Edmunds. How dare they question The Emperor's New Clothes?

How to raise campaign funding

From the Democratic National Committee, over on Barack H. Obama's my.BarackObama.com website:




DNC uses flag desecration to raise funds



What can you expect from a White House that sells itself to the highest 'donor':

Democratic donors rewarded with White House perks

Of course, the Orchid Office denies it all:

White House pushes back

Meanwhile, the Orchid Office is taking shots at AP now, over their article on the White House's fact-stretching about jobs:

Number of jobs credited to the stimulus overstated by thousands

Further meanwhile ... anyone heard anything decisive from the Orchid Office about that 'splendid little war' in Afghanistan? Otherwise known as "Obama's Splendid Little War"?

Quack!

The 'consumer option'

That's what Nancy Pelosi is calling it. Apparently, we don't call it 'the public option' now. Now, it's the 'consumer option'.

Other than the name change, it still quacks. It's still a duck.

It's like 'terrorism'. Remember when the Obamanians did away with that? We no longer have 'terrorism'. We have 'man-caused disasters'.

Of course, they've kind of back-pedaled on that one a bit, and today you will hear Obamanians use the 'T-word'.

But for the present, we no longer have a 'public option'. It's a 'consumer option'.

Harry Reid may be backing off some on his 'HarryCare' bill, given that Joe Lieberman has flatly refused to vote for it so long as it has the '... option'. Several Blue Dogs are hemming and hawing over it as well. Harry doesn't have the votes to get HarryCare through the Senate.

So this morning, Pelosi is dragging 'PelosiCare', with the 'consumer option', out for a dog and pony show.

Stand firm, Joe. Stand firm, Blue Dogs. Send 'em back to the drawing boards in their secretive little back rooms. Note that the back rooms are no longer 'smoke-filled'. That's politically incorrect ... unless, of course, you are ... the President.

"You lie, Joe!"

No ... not Joltin' Joe, our beloved Gaffer-in-Chief.

Not Joe Wilson, though there is some poetic justice here.

No ... that's the left's reaction to Joe Lieberman's opposition to HarryCare, and presumably PelosiCare. Bill Jacobson has it over on Legal Insurrection:

Dems to Leiberman: "You lie!"

An excerpt:

• Hullabaloo: "But it always seemed absurd to me to trust good old Lieb since he's become a bitter, angry, resentful, creepy, arch conservative, vengeful old fuck (which isn't all that different than he always was, but he used to be a little bit constricted by his religious image.)"
• Crooks and Liars: "Can we strip this traitor of his chairmanships already?"
• DownWithTyranny!: "Of course the loathsome snotrag lies with every breath he draws. He's wholly owned by the Moneyed Interests.... Okay, the gloves are off. Now that the little bug has taken his stand, it's time to squash him."
• Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns and Money: "his office should be transferred to a broom closet somewhere in Camden."
• Emptywheel: "He is either completely ignorant about health care works (unlikely, for a Senator from Connecticut). Or, he’s lying his ass off as to his rationale."
• mcjoan at DailyKos: "Lieberman doesn't care, and knows that Politico and AP and WaPo and any number of outlets don't care, so he'll keep on lying."
• Bill Scher at HuffPo: "Lieberman Lies About the Public Option."
• MyDD: "Joe, you ignorant war-monger, you."
• OpenLeft: "Liar."

Like ... wowsers. What a nice bunch of people, hmmmm? And this is the bunch that threw the big hissy fit over Joe Wilson's "You lie!".

Livin' large in Obama-land

David Slaughter is running against incumbent Jackie Abrams over in Ward 1.

Mr. Slaughter is apparently of the opinion that it is the responsibility of the taxpayer, of the city administration, to cart visitors around the area.

This view seems to stem from the experiences of the Australian Visitor, a lady who saved up for a number of years to come visit Bents' Old Fort, and who ran into a number of 'issues' during her trip. Most of the 'issues' she suffered were demonstrably the result of her own lack of planning and research for the trip. We draw from Slaughter's website:

La Junta currently has 3 buses that service our area on a year round basis. Usually this works well but as a example early this year we had a visitor from Australia who for the last 10 years saved her money so she could come and visit Bents fort. When she finally got to Colorado shortly after a severe hail storm to find that there were no rental car's available.

This visitor to our lovely city paid someone in Denver $500.00 to bring her from Denver to La Junta, and then upon arrival was unable to find a rental car, so she ended up riding a borrowed bike (thanks to Beth Klob) from downtown La Junta to Bents Fort and back in 90 degree plus weather. That situation is totally unacceptable.

So, because one visitor planned so poorly, we are to fund through tax bux a shuttle service to Bents' Old Fort and other such sites?

Tell me ... when you plan a trip, do you not check out local transportation? Availability of rental cars? Local eateries? Local accommodations? That sort of thing? I once arrived in Denver after a violent blizzard ... yet it never crossed my mind that the Denver city government owed me transportation or a place to stay.

Consider this: Why doesn't the Chamber of Commerce take it upon themselves to organize a shuttle service? You know, like motels do. Airport shuttles, that sort of thing. The local government doesn't run those. And, how many tourists actually show up around here with no transportation? And why, if visitors and tourists are so important, is the best the business community can do is give our bedraggled tourist a borrowed bike and tell her to hump it on out there on her own?

I thought this was The Smile Hi City, priding itself on good ol' small town neighborliness and hospitality.

Was it really that hard to find someone to cart the woman out to the fort and wander around for a bit? Where's all that old Wake Up Breakfast bonhomie? Just what about the situation is so 'unacceptable'? The fact that the lady rode out there in the heat, thanks to her own lack of planning, or the fact that none of the promoters of The Smile Hi City could -so it seems - make the effort to show a visitor some of that down home Smallville hospitality? OTOH, I've talked to several people who would have taken the Austrialian Visitor out to the fort, and enjoyed the opportunity... had they but known. Leece and I would have; we love Bents' Old Fort. We would have piled the Visitor and the kids in the van and had a 'cultural exchange'. We could have swapped recipes for Wallaby Stew for recipes for Prairie Dog Curry. We could have sung "Waltzin' Matilda" together, and "Dead Skunk in the Middle of the Road" and so on. But that's all another story ...

Jackie Abrams, on the other hand, has invested heavily in the community, keeping the Book Stop open, and serving on the Airport Board. Did you know that the last Airport Fun Day was funded entirely by sponsors, and the city's tax revenues allocated for the event were not required? The Airport Board and Ms. Abrams had a lot to do with that. The golf course should do so well...

Ms. Abrams is looking at ways to get things done without looking for government handouts. She's doing more than just looking ... she actually does get things done. Mr. Slaughter, on the other hand, thinks the government should do it.

Recently, we had the Ace of Spades take city council to task for not giving them more, even though the city has been supporting their rodeo grounds activities for years. It wasn't enough, and they came to council throwing a fit. Over the wrong bit of land as it turns out, but what the hey, facts just get in the way.

Then we had the golfers, we still have the golfers, throwing hissy fits over their country club action and the taxpayers not doing enough to support their fun in the sun.

Now we have Mr. Slaughter, opining that the city should be providing tax revenue funded transport for whatever tourists happen to dribble into town.

I didn't know that Otero County and The Smile Hi City had gone for Obama. Apparently I missed it, and we've been all this time ... livin' large in Obama-land ...

Coming to grips with the vital issues of the day

"Why ... on the eve of the most important domestic policy debate in a generation, are the president's advisers talking about Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News?" he wrote. "America needs ... Barack Obama to change the tone and go back to attacking problems rather than personalities."

White House bid to marginalize critics is backfiring


The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is on track to exceed last year's fundraising by more than $10 million, thanks in part to the Obama administration's decision to target the pro-business group, according to the organization's president.

Ya think?

Time to get off the pot ...

An editorial from the Chieftain:

Time to act

I don't think this is a case of a president trying to appear 'measured'.

I think this is a case of a superficial suit, full of glib promises and catchy slogans and not much else, finally coming to face reality.

His left wing moonbat base is going to go nuts if he ups the ante in Afghanistan. That's really what has him worried. He's fudging on everything that he promised during the campaigns, is still campaigning, and is focused more on Glenn Beck and FoxNews than on taking care of the business of the nation.

"I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary," Obama told service men and women at Naval Air Station Jacksonville on Monday. He promised a "clear mission" with defined goals and the equipment needed to get the job done.

Yeah yeah yeah ... we've all heard that before. What's next? "The light at the end of the tunnel"? Nope. That's been used. "Peace with Honor"? Nope. That's been used. How about "Mission accomplished"? Nope ... that's been used. How about "The troops will be home by Christmas"? Nope. That's been used so many times in so many wars it's an inside joke.

Let's see ... what vitally important military policy can our commander-in-chief come to grips with ... ah ... how about "Don't ask, don't tell". More superficial crap that has the leftie moonbats in a tizzie but contributes nothing of consequence ... other than to Obama's "Dig me, am I cool or what?" mindset.

Obama's "splendid little war"

"Splendid little war".

That was a term used in the early days of Vietnam, back before the big US troop buildups. You'll find it used in Sheehan's "A Bright Shining Lie".

Obama continues to blame Bush for Afghanistan.

Glenn Beck continues to go nuts over Afghanistan - and pretty much everything else Obama is trying to pull.

Obama's liberal base is foaming at the mouth over the war, and a lot of other things as well.

Meanwhile, we have this:

Official resigns in protest over Afghan war

"I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan," Hoh wrote in his resignation letter, dated Sept. 10 but published early Tuesday. "I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end."

The move sent ripples all the way to the White House, the paper said, where officials immediately appealed for him to stay out of fear he could become a leading critic.

Why does Matthew Hoh's letter send 'ripples' all the way to the White House?

"We took his letter very seriously, because he was a good officer," Holbrooke said in an interview with the newspaper. "We all thought that given how serious his letter was, how much commitment there was, and his prior track record, we should pay close attention to him."

Somebody should pay close attention to him. "Somebody" should probably quit screwing around with FoxNews and start paying attention to things like the war(s), the economy, healthcare, jobs, and a whole lot of other things.

Perhaps "Giggles" Gibbs and the rest of the Obamanian henchmen are so focused on Glenn Beck because, like Hoh, Beck is correct in much of his assessment of just how far up their collective backsides the Obamanians have stuck their heads. I'm finding it hard to believe that here I am, saying "Beck is right", because heretofore I've classed him as one of the far out whackjobs, along with Ann Coulter. But he's making more sense these days, even if, unlike Hoh's rather measured and thoughtful commentaries, Beck is a ranter.

In any case, it isn't Bush's war, and it isn't Bush's economy, and it isn't Bush's problem any more.

It all belongs to Barack H. Obama, and it's about time he quit his 'Dig me, am I cool or what?' campaigning and urinating away mountains of money and got down to actually doing something useful.

Selling out

Here is a good editorial from the Chieftain:

Save our towns

Interestingly enough, at the 'meet the candidates' gathering a couple of weeks ago, not one of the candidates for the Swink school board had a clue about how re-valuing land - as the result, for instance, of taking it out of production as the result of a water sellout - would affect school budgets.

Pace's proposed bill will be one to watch.

Fact-checking Obama's claims

The Obamanians are claiming that the health insurance industry is making 'obscene' profits (Pelosi) while the 'bodies pile up' (Soros' MoveOn.org).

Is that true?

No.

As is usually the case, the Obamanians think you and I are too stupid or too lazy to figure it out.

Here's an interesting article:

Health insurers profits

Of course, that's from Fox, and as we all know from the Obamanians' latest rants, Fox is hardly a news network, like MSNBC and other 'unbiased' sources.

Obama needs a boogieman to jam this health care fiasco down our throats. For the moment, that boogieman is the health insurance industry.

The sophisticated Europeans ...

Remember how the Europeans embraced The One?

That seems to be changing:

Barack Obama must stop campaigning and start governing

Essentially, however, Mr Obama won because of his persona – post-racial, healing, cool, articulate and inspirational. In a sense, therefore, his greatest achievement in life is being Barack Obama. Or the campaign version, at least.

Therein lies the problem. While campaigning could centre around soaring rhetoric, governing is altogether messier. It involves tough, unpopular choices and cutting deals with opponents. It requires doing things rather than talking about them, let alone just being.

A-yup.

Then we have this, from unabashedly left-winger liberal apologist Clarence Page:

Obama outs Fox, but reveals a big flaw

Surely President Barack Obama and his advisers don't really think that their feud with Fox News will do anything but enhance the cable network's viewership. A deeper problem is what the flap reveals about Team Obama, which seems to be more comfortable with campaigning than governing.

I'm not happy about that. It does not fill me with glee to see Fox News star Sean Hannity joyfully replaying Obama's 2004 come-together speech about how we're "not red states or blues states" but "the United States of America" and asking where is Obama's promise now?

I don't agree with Hannity on much. He's only a tad more serious-minded as a news clown, in my grumpy view, than his colleague Glenn Beck. But, as much as my wife might run from the house when she hears me say it, Hannity's right on this one.

"News clown"? Sean Hannity? Ummmm ... that's a bit harsh. I'd agree if Page had stuck with Glenn Beck.

Ah well. Speaking of news clowns, I have to go watch Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, and Keith Olbermann. Talk about 'fair and balanced'...

Here's more on this from Bill Jacobson, over on Legal Insurrection:

What if he can't?

"The Chikaga Way"

"They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way."

–Jim Malone,"The Untouchables"

That's the Obama and Rahm Emanuel Way.

The Bullies of the Orchid Office. Obama and Emanuel.

The Chicago Way

An excerpt:

In recent weeks the Windy City gang added a new name to their list of societal offenders: the Chamber of Commerce. For the cheek of disagreeing with Democrats on climate and financial regulation, it was reported the Oval Office will neuter the business lobby. Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett slammed the outfit as "old school," and warned CEOs they'd be wise to seek better protection.

That was after the president accused the business lobby of false advertising. And that recent black eye for the Chamber (when several companies, all with Democratic ties, quit in a huff)—think that happened on its own? ("Somebody messes with me, I'm gonna mess with him! Somebody steals from me, I'm gonna say you stole. Not talk to him for spitting on the sidewalk. Understand!?")

The Chamber can at least take comfort in crowds. Who isn't on the business end of the White House's sawed-off shotgun? First up were Chrysler bondholders who—upon balking at a White House deal that rewarded only unions—were privately threatened and then publicly excoriated by the president.

Next, every pharmaceutical, hospital and insurance executive in the nation was held out as a prime obstacle to health-care nirvana. And that was their reward for cooperating. When Humana warned customers about cuts to Medicare under "reform," the White House didn't bother to complain. They went straight for the gag order. When the insurance industry criticized the Baucus health bill, the response was this week's bill to strip them of their federal antitrust immunity. ("I want you to find this nancy-boy . . . I want him dead! I want his family dead! I want his house burned to the ground!")

"Bi-partisanship" to Obama means you get to play if first you agree with him. Once you get past that little roadblock, then he'll give you some Wagyu scraps from the Orchid Office table.

Until then, you're The Enemy. You'll have Rahm Emanuel stabbing at the table screaming "He's dead! Dead! Dead!" in a psychotic frenzy.

And you'll know you've hit the Big Time when you get a rotting fish, presumably wrapped in the Chicago Tribune, delivered to your doorstep, compliments of The Obama Regime.

What a collection of thugs we have running the government.

"... a deliberate campaign to marginalize and ostracize recalcitrants ..."

That's how Charles Krauthammer describes the Nixonian tactics openly in play by the Obama Regime:

Fox wars: The 'post-partisan' president makes an enemies list

An excerpt:

Fox and its viewers (numbering more than those of CNN and MSNBC combined) need no defense. Defend Fox compared to whom? To CNN -- which recently unleashed its fact-checkers on a "Saturday Night Live" skit mildly critical of President Obama, but did no checking of a grotesquely racist remark that CNN falsely attributed to Rush Limbaugh?

Defend Fox from whom? Fox's flagship 6 o'clock evening news out of Washington (hosted by Bret Baier, formerly by Brit Hume) is, to my mind, the best hour of news on television. (Definitive evidence: My mother watches it even on the odd night when I'm not on.) Defend Fox from the likes of Anita Dunn? She's been attacked for extolling Mao's political philosophy in a speech at a high school graduation. But the critics miss the surpassing stupidity of her larger point: She was invoking Mao as support and authority for her impassioned plea for individuality and trusting one's own choices. Mao as champion of individuality? Mao, the greatest imposer of mass uniformity in modern history, creator of a slave society of a near-billion worker bees wearing Mao suits and waving the Little Red Book?

The White House communications director cannot be trusted to address high schoolers without uttering inanities. She and her cohorts are now to instruct the country on truth and objectivity?

The White House pool pretty much told Obama to take the Rahm Emanuel fish and shove it where the moon don't shine:

White House loses bid to exclude FoxNews

Obama also said:

"... I think the American people are a lot more interested in what we're doing to create jobs or how we're handling the situation in Afghanistan."

Yeah. We are. So far, Obama has neither created jobs, nor has he handled the situation in Afghanistan. His highly touted "plan" for Afghanistan, announced last spring with a fair amount of self-serving fanfare, has gone. Our "allies" are telling us to go fish until Obama comes up with some kind of a strategy. So far, all he is doing is waffling, shuckin' and jivin', and still ... still ... blaming Bush.

Jeez. It's your war, Barack ... you really gotta stop worrying about campaigning, and about FoxNews, and get with the program. That is, if you can figure out what your program is. And then, tell the rest of us what it is.

Oh ... here's another commentary on Obama's Nixonian approach to the press:

Time for Obama to Grow Up

The Tesla Tango

I'm thinking of buying a Tesla:



Yup.

Doncha think Leece and I'd look good, tooling down Colorado Avenue in that thing?

And we can, thanks to you.

You can pay for a good chunk of it. You and the rest of our Friends and Neighbors will contribute $42,000 toward the $109,000 sticker price.

Well ... that still leaves it at a fairly stiff price, one I don't think we'll really consider very seriously ... but Gosh Durn It, don't you feel warm and fuzzy that you and I and the rest of We the Taxpayers will be subsidizing, one way or another, a high end hundred thousand dollar car for wealthy enviro-whackos? These babies will be buzzing all over the Republic of Boulder ... and we'll be pushing our ten year old rust buckets around.

You gotta love the Obama Regime and the Ritter Raiders.

Colorado offering $42,000 tax break to Tesla buyers

High times at Tamarisk Hills

Here are some interesting tidbits about water out at Tamarisk Hills. The information is drawn from minutes of city council meetings; utility board meetings; rate schedules; budget sessions; articles from Tribune-Democrat archives. All of it is a matter of public record.

There are several 'government accounts', or 'government irrigation accounts' serviced by the city. Those accounts are the cemetery, the city's parks, OJC, and ... the golf course. None of the 'government accounts' are charged a facility fee to pay for the RO plant. But if you are a residential user, or a business user, you are charged that facility fee. Looking at my last water bill, I see that I was charged a 'facility fee'. I'll bet you were, too. But not the golf course.

The current rate for water is $1.80/1000 gallons for all city residential and business users, including government accounts. This is the 'commodity charge'.

In the 1990's, the golf course was using about 36 million gallons per year to irrigate about 36 acres. This does not include water used by or in the clubhouse.

In 2000, the water rate for all city parks, the ball fields, OJC, and the golf course was $0.64/1000 gallons. This was before the RO plant came on line. In 2000, the golf course used 39 million gallons of water.

In 2002, the rate went up to $1.16/1000 gallons for those users.

In 2004, rates were adjusted for the golf course and the cemetery to provide relief on the utility bills. Rates for the golf course were set at $1.16/1000 gallons for the first million gallons, after which the rate dropped to $.064/1000 gallons.The golf course was receiving a special, lower rate.

In 2004 the RO plant came online. At the same time, water use in the overall water system dropped because of the drought and watering restrictions in town. Water use at the golf course does not appear to have dropped at all during the drought.

In 2007, as the result of a rate study by the Utilities Commission, rates for city and industrial water were set at $1.35/1000 gallons. This applied across the board, to all customers in the city, not just the golf course. The special rate for the golf course was discontinued.

In 2008, the rate went to 1.45/1000 gallons for all city customers, including the government accounts, which, as noted, includes the golf course.

In 2009, the rate went to $1.80/1000 gallons for all city customers, including the golf course and the other government accounts. The golf course has not been subjected to any rate increases not suffered by everyone else ... and in 2004, they were given a special, lower rate.

From 2001 through 2005, the golf course used about 40 million gallons per year.

Since 2006, the golf course has used at or over 45 million gallons of water per year. In 2008, the golf course used 45.2 million gallons.

Water use at the golf course has increased by about 25% since the 90's, despite the city's investment in sprinkler technologies specifically designed to conserve water. This usage also increased during the drought years while other customers, limited by water restrictions, used less water. Rather than use the special lower rate authorized in 2004 to reduce the amount spent on water, the golf course actually used it to increase water usage.

The golf course has 36 irrigated acres. This does not count the clubhouse. Since the 1990's the golf course has increased water usage on those acres - there has been no increase in irrigated acreage - from 36 million gallons of water per year to over 45 million gallons.

In the last two years, the budget line item for water at the golf course has increased by 33%.

Tippy Martinez Park, Potter Park, City Park, Tiger Field, ball park on 22nd Street and Veterans field combined come to 76 acres, with a total water usage of 28 million gallons per year. The cemetery, with 38 acres, has been using about 10 million gallons per year.

Despite the City administration's investment in water conserving sprinkler technology, the golfers have increased their water usage consistently, by approximately 25%, since the 1990's. Their acreage out there has not increased, so they are not watering more land. Rather than suffering unilaterally applied rate increases, they have either been subject to the same rates as everyone else, or, as we see in 2004, actually given a break on water rates.

While residential and other business customers were given rate increases, at that time (2004) the golf course saw a rate decrease. When they got that rate decrease, rather than hold the line, they increased water use ... and then complained that they weren't being given enough in the budget to pay for their increased usage. City council responded by voting to increase that budget line item by 33% in the last two municipal fiscal years.

Yet the golfers want more, asking for another $30,000 at the last council meeting.

The fees for our kids' athletic programs went up 20%. Pool fees went up 17%.

How much have golf fees gone up?

It would appear that the golfers are absolutely clueless as to what has been going on regarding support for their playground.

Nonetheless, we expect to see them in front of council again this next Monday night, demanding more. Not asking, but demanding, as though it is only their rightful due.

Isn't it about time that council put an end to this foolishness? Right now the concessionaire is pocketing all of the money made from the restaurant, the pro shop, the cart and cart storage rentals, the apartment rental, and the driving range. The concessionaire is paying $1 per year rent for this city property - while the aircraft owners are paying nearly $10,000 in rent for the T-hangars - and the concessionaire's utility use is subsidized by the city.

The contract between the city and the golf association and concessionaire expires at the end of this year. Don't you think it's about time for a new contract, which allows the golf course to be run in a business-like manner?

The sun doesn't shine in Bent County ...

Apparently the crime wave over in Bent County has gotten completely out of control, with city council candidate Mike Diez reportedly calling for citizens to carry concealed weapons in order to compensate for the Las Animas Police Department's alleged inability to deal with crime in that Fair City.

As we see reported in The Bent County Democrat by intrepid girl reporter and editor Lola Shrimplin (shades of Brenda Starr and we hope she doesn't vapor-lock over that 'girl reporter' thing), the citizens of Las Animas bent the Las Animas Police Board's ears for an hour or so with concerns about crime.

Then ... Board President Janice LaSalle took the board into executive session, without announcing the statutory cite, the reason for the executive session, or a motion and second and subsequent vote by the board to have the session. Anyone who attends board meetings here in The Smile Hi City is well aware that all of those are requirements these days for going into executive session.

But the real corker, according to Shrimplin's article, is this:

No recording of the session was made.

"We can't record an executive session. That's why it's an executive session," LaSalle said when asked about a recording.

Is LaSalle really that ignorant? And what about reports that a non-member of the board - Clarice Ratzlaff -was invited to sit with the board members, and allegedly remained with the board for the duration of the so-called 'executive session'?

For LaSalle's edification, excerpted from 24-6-402, CRS: Meetings - open to public. :

(II) (A) Discussions that occur in an executive session of a local public body shall be recorded in the same manner and media that the local public body uses to record the minutes of open meetings. If a local public body electronically recorded the minutes of its open meetings on or after August 8, 2001, the local public body shall continue to electronically record the minutes of its open meetings that occur on or after August 8, 2001; except that electronic recording shall not be required for two successive meetings of the local public body while the regularly used electronic equipment is inoperable. A local public body may satisfy the recording requirements of this sub-subparagraph (A) by making any form of electronic recording of the discussions in an executive session of the local public body. Except as provided in sub-subparagraph (B) of this subparagraph (II), the record of an executive session shall reflect the specific citation to the provision in subsection (4) of this section that authorizes the local public body to meet in an executive session, the actual contents of the discussion during the session, and a signed statement from the chair of the executive session attesting that any written minutes substantially reflect the substance of the discussions during the executive session. For purposes of this sub-subparagraph (A), 'actual contents of the discussion' shall not be construed to require the minutes of an executive session to contain a verbatim transcript of the discussion during said executive session. The provisions of this sub-subparagraph (A) shall not apply to discussions of individual students by a local public body pursuant to paragraph (h) of subsection (4) of this section.

There is an exception to the 'recording' requirement:

(B) If, in the opinion of the attorney who is representing the local public body and who is in attendance at an executive session that has been properly announced pursuant to subsection (4) of this section, all or a portion of the discussion during the executive session constitutes a privileged attorney-client communication, no record or electronic recording shall be required to be kept of the part of the discussion that constitutes a privileged attorney-client communication. The electronic recording of said executive session discussion shall reflect that no further record or electronic recording was kept of the discussion based on the opinion of the attorney representing the local public body, as stated for the record during the executive session, that the discussion constituted a privileged attorney-client communication, or the attorney representing the local public body may provide a signed statement attesting that the portion of the executive session that was not recorded constituted a privileged attorney-client communication in the opinion of the attorney.

But according to Shrimplin, there was no attorney present, and in any case, LaSalle made the flat statement that the session was not recorded simply because it was an executive session. She made no claims of 'attorney-client' privilege.