That’s all it takes to describe him. Two words. Ron. Paul. Unless you want to throw Doctor in front of it for good measure.

Every time I hear those words I think of a man who is principled, thoughtful, galvanized and consistent. Every time I hear them, I remember that a return to Constitutional principle would be a return to a nation where each individual had the opportunity for greatness based on their own willingness to work toward it. When I hear them, I think of a country where capitalism and free markets decide what the value of my dollar is, and not whichever bank or conglomerate the current batch of political appointees  is most loyal too.

Sadly, when I hear the words, Ron Paul, I also have to think about the people that have, over time, coalesced around and behind him. It takes a few more words to describe them. Granted, I have seen many people who were thoughtful, thorough, and clearheadedly came to the conclusion that Ron Paul was the candidate that they supported for President. They have considered all of the candidates, considered our country’s worsening financial situation, considered the state of international affairs, and considered the threats to our personal liberty that Americans face today, and they made the sound decision that Ron Paul would be the candidate of their choice to take up the helm of the Presidency and lead our nation out of crisis.

Millions of people across the country have gone through the same process and many of those have chosen to support Ron Paul. Many more have chosen to support other candidates though, and despite his positive qualities, Ron Paul has only managed to continually get about 10% of the popular vote among registered Republicans in local elections. Within that 10%, lies the problem.

Along with the thoughtful and careful supporters that Ron Paul deserves, his base seems to have been overwhelmed with delusional fanatics, disrespectful radicals, misguided hate mongers, and even blatant outright liars. What’s worse is that this element of his base seems to have taken over at least the most visible aspects of his grassroots presidential campaign, and they have done their absolute best to repel any chance of acceptance of Ron Paul into the main stream of the Republican Party. They’ve marginalized a good candidate, and relegated him to a permanent third string status, regardless of the qualities that he brings to the table.

A look around the tables that held my own county’s delegation at the Wyoming Republican State Convention gave me a hint as to the type of people that consider themselves Ron Paul supporters. When our junior United States Senator was introduced to the Convention, many of them couldn’t be bothered to rise out of their seats to welcome him. Same for when our senior United States Senator was introduced. Same for when our Congresswoman was introduced. It was especially true when our former Congressman, and former Vice President, Dick Cheney was introduced. The Secretary of State? The State Auditor? The Superintendent of Public Instruction? All were invited. All addressed the convention. All were ignored by these folks who couldn’t be bothered to show even a modicum of respect for their elected representatives and officials, all of which are Republicans, all of which have represented the State of Wyoming with dignity and resolve.  As far as I’m concerned, these “patriotic” Ron Paul supporters were an embarrassment to themselves and to the county that elected them to represent it at the Convention.

A brief look at the forums populated by Ron Paul supporters will give you a look at how many of them feel about their fellow Republicans, the volunteers — who dedicate countless hours and personal resources to make sure that Republicans are successful in the general elections and work to make sure the money necessary to operate the Republican Party is raised — and the elected officials that have dedicated themselves to representing the people who elect them. The forums are a constant barrage of charges of fraud, corruption, sleaziness, dishonesty. Every time Ron Paul loses a vote, the forums light up with stories about how their votes were disenfranchised, how their enemies played dirty, and how the “establishment” tried to shut them out.

I understand the heat of political battle. It is all-consuming, and you are entitled to your own opinions. Sometimes, though, those opinions just make you delusional. This is a perfect example:

It is pretty obvious we are winning. We have the true support. The media in this country is being used to carry out a big lie. Don’t get angry with the supporters of Romney, for they don’t know any better, they are basing their beliefs upon the information they have. Most get that from mainstream sources or Romney Sources.

As far as delegates. It is again obvious with very little research that the GOP is part of the machine, and literally make their own straw vote results. The cuacuses are not so easy, they are having to resort to the most dirty of tricks to win those.

Wyoming is a perfect example…the GOP hero Dick Cheney was at the Wyoming convention and turned it around for Romney. On the initial vote, Paul won, so the GOP leadership allowed Paul supporters to leave then declared the vote unacceptable and held it again. Treachery…by none other the mr. weapons of mass destruction himself, yes, the man without a heart, he who profited many many millions from war, former Halliburto employee….mr. cheney.

Cheney is NOT a hero, he is a criminal. He should be in a prison, not speaking at a political event. But for all of our supporters, we CAN win this. It is lies, deciet and injustice that are preventing it. Hold strong and do not let them railroad us again, so far in all three states to have finished their caucuses, the GOP has managed to railroad the democratic process. Put a stop to it immediately.

-DuaneK36, Daily Paul

First of all, there was no initial vote that Ron Paul won. That is an outright lie. No one “declared the vote unacceptable and held it again.” It simply never happened. It really is not “pretty obvious (they) are winning.” If it were “pretty obvious” that Ron Paul was winning, he would be ahead in the delegate count. I won’t even rehash the comments about Vice President Cheney. They’re idiotic and they are a common thread throughout the Ron Paul forums. The above post is pretty representative of the hate that exists in the Ron Paul support groups for both the Republican Party itself, and the elected officials that are endorsed by it.

During the Wyoming Convention, the Romney Campaign realized that the votes for the sheer number of nominated delegates that were declared for Romney would be watered down and result in the election of the more focused group of non Romney declared nominees, so the Romney Campaign did something that was utterly despicable, dishonest, and sleazy.  They *gasp* distributed a Romney endorsed slate of delegate nominees! Oh, the horror! How could they do something so vile?! Oh. Wait. Doesn’t the Paul campaign use preferred delegate slates? They do? Oh yeah, they just don’t put Ron Paul’s name on them. The candidates run as “undeclared” so all of them silly, corrupt, sleazy establishment Republicans won’t know who they are. Yeah. Great strategy. The use of a preferred slate by any campaign is an honest and acceptable and commonly used tactic, especially when the origin of the slate is clearly labeled, as the Romney endorsed slate was. A slate of “undeclared” candidates developed in a private locked door meeting protected by their ”6’7″ 300+lb bouncer?” Just as acceptable, right?

Of all the strategies of the Ron Paul supporters, this is the one I find to be most offensive. Do they really believe that the only way they can win is to trick unknowing state delegates into voting for them? I’ll be completely honest here. I would have voted for at least one of the Ron Paul supporters from my county — he is one of those thorough, thoughtful, and clearheaded Ron Paul supporters, and I would have been proud to know that he was in Tampa not only casting a vote for presidential nomination, but fighting for common sense platforms and resolutions to guide the National Republican Party — except he, along with most of the rest of the Ron Paul crowd, ran as “undeclared.” As far as I’m concerned, if he couldn’t be honest about his intent to vote for Ron Paul at the National Convention, he didn’t deserve my vote. The same goes for the rest of the “undeclared” delegates that were, and are, clearly Ron Paul supporters. The forums are ripe with claims that they won all fourteen alternate delegate seats, but most of those seats went to “undeclared” nominees, not people who declared for Ron Paul. Which begs the question: Were the delegate nominees lying about their declaration of support before the election, or are the Ron Paul supporters lying now about having won the seats? Which is it? You can’t have it both ways. What’s more, the reality is that only reason the Ron Paul supporters were able to claim the fourteen alternate positions is that convention participants could only vote for fourteen delegates, and the overwhelming majority of those votes went to a unified slate of candidates that had declared for Mitt Romney. That allowed the unified minority to claim the leftovers. I’d hardly think of that in terms of “how close we came to taking this state.”

The constant claims on the Ron Paul forums that the Romney Preferred Slate was “treachery”, “underhanded”, and a “dirty trick” makes them sound like four-month olds with full diapers. Same goes for their crying that Wyoming’s national elected representatives were allowed to make speeches, and dared to endorse Romney. Of course, the final betrayal by the Wyoming GOP was to allow Josh Romney to make a speech in support of his father! OH MY GOD! How could they let that happen? Too bad that the Paul campaign didn’t have an official representative at the Wyoming convention. Maybe he or she could have made a supporting speech themselves. Why didn’t this happen? Maybe this comment from a Paul supporter explains it:

The grassroots everywhere have to work so much harder to compensate for the lack of assistance from the national campaign. I understand why the campaign ignores places where they think they cannot win and doesn’t spend money in thoses places. But what does it cost for one of the “professionals” to find each state’s grassroots headquarters, pick up a phone or send someone to advise us novices?

While I find it very frustrating, I am heartened to see grassroots people working to get the job done. This is only giving us more individual and collective strength than perhaps we’d otherwise have.

We are in this for the long haul, with or without them.

Bump for Cheyenne WY State Convention grassroots assistance!

-Nonna, Daily Paul

If there had been an official representative from the Paul campaign at the convention, they would have been allowed to speak. Same for Gingrich. The fact is, as the the person clearly realizes in the above post, they just couldn’t be bothered.

The election had some real problems. In the delegate elections at the Wyoming State Convention, there were three ballots cast (out of an eligible 425) that shouldn’t have been. One each from the State Chairman, the National Committeeman, and the National Committeewoman. The Ron Paul forums are screaming about voter fraud, and they have every right to. Was it voter fraud? I don’t know. I don’t know all the details, but I do believe it was questionable and I intend to make sure it is addressed at the next State Central Committee Meeting. I know each of the people in question personally, and can’t imagine that any of them consciously sought to cast a vote that they weren’t entitled to. I find it more likely that it was done out of confusion in the moment, but I don’t know for sure. I won’t make excuses for them. What I do know is that those three improper ballots did not, in any possible mathematical way, have any effect on the final results of the national delegate election. Of course, the outcome was that the slate of candidates supported by the Romney campaign were overwhelmingly elected by a majority of the eligible voters at the convention to be national delegates.

It doesn’t matter though, because the Ron Paul supporters will hold on to that dark stain on the convention and tell everyone that it was the reason they lost.  That, and the underhanded speeches by elected officials, the sleazy candidate slates put out by the Romney campaign, the monstrous onstage conversation by the evil former Vice President and his daughter, and an underlying fear by the “establishment” of a poorly organized hodgepodge of people who start pretty much every conversation with that very same “establishment” with name calling, accusations, and outright hostility.

That may sum up a great portion of the real reason Ron Paul isn’t winning delegates. It’s not because there is a vast some-kind-of-wing conspiracy against him. It’s not because Ron Paul isn’t a great and gifted statesman, because he is. It’s because while Dr. Paul has been extremely effective at lighting a fire under people who believe in liberty and getting them involved and interested, and he has done an astounding job of educating a new generation about how they have been robbed of those liberties, he has also failed to organize a national campaign that could expound on his Constitutional principles in the national political arena, and has allowed his grassroots campaign mechanisms to be hijacked by a bunch of kooks that have about as much credibility as the free Mumia activists. It’s because the average Republican believes Dr. Paul’s followers when they declare that they won’t support the Republican nominee if it is anyone but Dr. Paul. It’s because the average member of the Republican Party doesn’t believe that the average Ron Paul supporter could care less about the future of the Republican party. It’s because while the rest of the Republican Party has spent the last year raising money for the Republican Party, volunteering for the Republican Party, and promoting the Republican Party, the Ron Paul supporters have spent the last year throwing rocks at them.

Mostly though, it’s because the majority of registered Republicans are voting for someone else.

But, you know, there is always their fall back strategy at the National Convention to get rid of all those pesky Romney delegates and replace them with all of those “undeclared” Paul alternates.

Offer them free coffee full of ex-lax the day of the convention. They will have to try and vote from the bathroom.

-namealreadyinuse, Daily Paul

Wow, I can’t believe these campaign strategies aren’t working.

Wisdom

One thing I do know from my experience as both a blogger, and a frequent commenter on various political forums, is that by publishing this 2500 word essay on this particular subject, I am begging to be flamed and trolled. I’m tempted to turn off the comments for this one, because frankly, I just don’t want to deal with the emotional outbursts that are likely to follow. But, alas, that isn’t my way. The comments are open (if you can get past the spam filters.) Just don’t expect me to come out and play if you insist on turning on the flamethrower. I’ll be busy, doing the real work of the Republican Party. Raising money. Recruiting candidates. Registering voters. Getting Republicans elected.

Which brings to mind one last issue I have with the typical Ron Paul supporter, but didn’t fit into the scope of the essay above. That I know of, there has been one, count ‘em, one, Ron Paul supporter that has been continuously active at the county party level in the last year. (Thumbs up to you YC!) The rest of the crew? The ones that so proudly “took over” the County Convention? Other than a couple of sporadic appearances, they haven’t done a thing in the last year to help the Republican Party in Sweetwater County. They haven’t come to meetings (Thumbs up to you, too, TB). They haven’t helped with the fundraiser. And they didn’t show up at the fundraiser (Except for you RZ and YC, more thumbs up.) Again, there are a couple of exceptions, but very few. There might have even been one or two “undeclared” Paul supporters helping out, I don’t know. I truly hope they will all change your mind and become active, and engaging, and stop looking at the rest of us as their enemy, but honestly? I’m not holding my breath. 

Private property is a cornerstone of the American way of life. The idea that the community has some extraneous right to derive economic benefit from real estate, beyond the property taxes that are already collected, is an insult to the people who actually own the property. This is especially true in our current harsh economic environment, and the proposed fines amount to a double hit on owners who could already be facing a loss of income from the inability to find paying occupants for their property.

The URA is promoting the belief that you don’t have the right to “not” use your property. James Madison once said, “It is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties.”  I argue that “not” using your own property is a protected “free use” of that property and punishing you for leaving your property vacant is a blatant violation of your private property rights. This is nothing more than a veiled attempt to usurp the right of private owners to determine for themselves the best way to manage their own private property.

Even more disturbing, this ordinance could be used as a weapon to force owners to release property into the market that they would otherwise be unwilling to sell. A property owner, who might able to afford their annual property taxes while they wait for a more favorable real estate market, might not be able to afford the additional tax burden that this ordinance would impose, and be forced to sell the property. A perfect opportunity for a URA that has shown themselves to be more than willing to buy up prime real estate and enter into competition with private business.

This should be a wake up call to property owners in Rock Springs that the URA does not have their interests at heart. Rather than focusing on their original intent, to be a tool and a resource for local businesses and to promote development in downtown Rock Springs, they have become just another bureaucracy exerting themselves over the people who really create economic development. They are permanently tying up valuable real estate, competing with the businesses that they were supposed to be supporting, and looking to expand their power and influence.

If you are a property owner in Rock Springs, I urge you to make it very clear to the URA Board of Directors that you want them to stop interfering with your private property rights. I also urge you to give the members of the Rock Springs City Council a call and let them know that you don’t want to be punished for exercising your right to the free use of your own private property. The government already has no business being in the commercial real estate business. Giving them the ability to levy punitive taxes on their competition in that market is just plain dangerous.

Speaking of Romney, Romney is obviously the most polished. He has the support of most of the moderate Republicans out there, and is probably the most likely to receive votes from the independents in the general election, but I just can’t get over his history. Obamacare is Romneycare on a larger scale. Yes, it was done on a state level, which is where such experiments should be done, but it is the very thought that he believed it was okay for the government to interfere in the everyday lives of his constituents, on such a dramatic level, that makes me look at him a little warily. It also seems to me that he has a tendency to pick sides based on populism, rather than principle, and because of it, he has had to rewrite his positions as the job he runs for gets bigger. I’m not sold on his second amendment credentials yet, and he has a long way to go to sell me on the others as well. He has done a good job of reinventing himself as a true conservative during the campaign, but I worry that once the primaries are over, he’ll slip back into being a moderate liberal.

Newt Gingrish - Photo by Gage Skidmore

Which brings me to the last guy at the table. Why isn’t Newt Gingrich getting more credit for his debate performances? He has been 100% solid on each and every one of them. I was a huge fan of his during his tenure as Speaker, but I soured on him after the whole “sittin’ on a bench with Pelosi” fiasco and kind of wrote him off. As I’ve watched the individual debates though, I’ve found myself to be nodding my head every time he talks. He seems to have a solid grasp on what really needs to be done to turn our country around. He has a proven ability to work with the other party effectively without compromising his conservative principles. He understands fiscal policy. He understands foreign policy. He understands that overregulation is choking American entrepreneurism. He is a proven leader, who has showed remarkable ability to get things done, and is never afraid to tell it like he sees it.

While a lot of people are throwing their support behind Romney (mostly I think because people see him as the likely winner and people like to be able to say they picked a winner), I think I’m starting to lean toward Gingrich. Sure, he isn’t the strong individual libertarian that Ron Paul is, but I think he is true conservative, and a true leader, who is worthy of a little bit closer look, and a lot more credit for his performance in the debates. He may not have as much money, and he may not even have much of a chance, but I’m not here to ride the coattails of media favorites. I’m trying to decide who should get my vote be the President of the United States, and right now, unless there are some changes in the field, that guy is probably Newt.

Now that I’ve said the word “kids” a bunch of times, everything I say from here on out must be true, right? It has to be.

Last year, Ann Owens, executive director of the  Sweetwater County Child Development Center, went before the people of Sweetwater County and asked for almost ten million dollars to pay for new and upgraded facilities in which to provide their services. While chanting the “kids, kids, kids” mantra, she was able to convince the cities of Rock Springs and Green River, and the County Commissioners, that she had  shovel ready projects, that could be funded by a sixth-cent capital facilities tax, ready to go. The elected councils and board of commissioners approved putting it on the ballot, and the people of Sweetwater County were then bombarded with more “kids, kids, kids.” When people went to the polls, they passed the ballot measure.

Now that we are paying the new increased sales tax, and the money is finding its way into a bank account, ready to be spent, we are learning a whole new set of truths:

1. The projects weren’t shovel ready.
2. The CDC isn’t a government entity, and doesn’t have the legal authority to spend sixth-cent money on a non-government owned building.
3. There was no plan to deal with either of these problems. The only plan was to work it out later.

So here we are, a year later, paying higher taxes, and being told that not only do we have to pay for these new facilities, but we, as taxpayers, have to accept ownership of them, and be responsible for them indefinitely. We are being told that there isn’t any choice as to whether a government entity takes ownership. We are being told that our only choice is which government entity will take ownership, and, of course, if we don’t like it, we must be against the kids. Both the City of Rock Springs, and the Sweetwater County Commissioners have already held votes determining that they wouldn’t take ownership. Mayor Castillion of Green River has indicated that they were amenable to taking ownership, but they haven’t yet made it official.

I’m only going to spend a little time here on why this tax initiative was a bad idea in the first place. Most importantly, the capital facilities tax was provided by the legislature as a taxing mechanism for local communities for that purpose. Capital facilities. Not nonprofit organization facilities. Not charitable facilities. Capital facilities. Facilities that are to be owned by the public and for the use of and benefit of the public. It was never meant to provide free money for non-governmental organizations no matter how genuine their service or how altruistic their mission. This tax initiative had no business being on the ballot, and the four city councils and the board of county commissioners that allowed it to be put there were downright negligent in their duties to vet the issue responsibly. They didn’t do their legal homework, and they didn’t perform the due diligence that they commit to when they take on the job of being our representatives in government.

Regardless, now we are stuck with this boondoggle, and we have to deal with problems in the present.

How do we do that? Well, if you ask Ann Owens, the answer is clear. They should be bailed out. By who? Well, by  you of course. It’s not enough that the taxpayers gave them the unprecedented gift of $10,000,000.00. She wants you to take ownership of the buildings, along with the long term liability that is associated with it. And how is she selling this idea? By showing up at government meetings with dozens of challenged children and their parents in a blatant attempt to shame our representatives into taking responsibility for fixing this mess.

Do you think, though, that when Ms. Owens is organizing these government sit-ins that she tells all of the parents, “Hey, I’m really the one that royally screwed the pooch on this one, and never mind I’m paid a pretty good salary to do this job, but I’d really appreciate it if you’ll come on down to the courthouse with me and strong arm our elected officials into fixing this crap basket, and if they don’t, I also hope you’ll stand by me and make sure everyone knows that they are all against the kids, kids, kids, Kids, KIDS!!!!”

I doubt it.

Since there is a huge fear of political reprisal against any elected official that dares to lay blame in the right place for fear of being labeled as “anti-kid,” I’ll do it. The blame for all of this lies squarely at the feet of Ann Owens, executive director of the Child Development Center, and its board of directors, who forwarded this ballot measure without doing the proper planning and legwork. It lies squarely at the feet of Mayor Hank Castillion and the members of the Green River City Council that voted to approve this ballot measure without properly vetting it. It lies squarely at the feet of former Mayor Tim Kaumo and the members of the Rock Springs City Council that voted to approve this ballot measure without properly vetting it. It lies squarely at the feet of our previous county commissioners — Debbi Delai-Boese, Paula Wonnacott, and Randy Walker — who had the final say on whether a sixth-cent tax proposal got put on the ballot, and who shirked their responsibility to properly vet the initiative. Finally, it lies squarely at the feet of the 7,360 people in Sweetwater County that voted to give ten million freaking dollars to a non-government entity, without having any idea how the money was going to be spent, because it was for the “kids, kids, kids, kids, kids!”

The reality is that everyone here wants what is best for the kids, but what is best for the kids isn’t necessarily a blank check from the taxpayers. The people of Sweetwater County gave the Child Development Center ten million dollars! Gave it to them! Based only on shady assurances and half-assed plans. We don’t deserve the attempt by the Child Development Center, its employees, or its clients, to shame us into going to extraordinary lengths to clean up the discombobulated wreck that they drove us into. They need to knock it off!

Here’s what should happen:

First, the shame tactics have to stop. The Child Development Center already got its ten million, and it’s going to get its remodel and its new building. Ann Owens is paid to do her job, let her do it. You employees are paid to do your job too, quit pretending your altruism is greater than that of the people who are paying your wages. You parents are fighting the wrong battle. Everyone involved at every level is already doing the best they can to do what’s best for your kids. You don’t have any enemies here. Enough with the whining and the show-boating, its only going to create ill will, and it has already jeopardized any future sixth-cent initiatives.

Second, the City of Green River should agree to take ownership of the proposed Green River facility. They have already indicated their support, they just need to make it official.

Third, the City of Rock Springs should agree to take ownership of the Rock Springs facility. Other than Councilor Zotti’s lone dissension, the approval for this ballot measure was unanimous amongst the city council, and they have some serious responsibility to make this right. The first dispersements of tax money should be used to pay the mortgage on the building in conjunction with the transfer of the title.

Finally, the Sweetwater County Commissioners, working together with the two cities, the CDC, and the County Treasurer, should take the lead in developing the framework for the memorandums of understanding that are going to be necessary to make this stink pile smell a little bit better.

There are going to be arguments that Sweetwater County should own the building in Rock Springs, and it’s a valid argument, but keep this in mind. Sweetwater County is already funding the CDC at a rate of about $300,000 a year. Green River funded them around $25,000 last year. Rock Springs? Zero. Nada. As the libertarian that I am, I have serious reservations any time public money is funneled out to non-government entities, but the voters have spoken, and that includes the voters in Rock Springs, who voted overwhelmingly to support the CDC. It’s time for Rock Springs to step up to the plate and take a couple swings. They don’t get to hide in the dugout for this inning.

In the end, the lesson is that just because someone chants “kids, kids, kids, kids, kids,” before they tell you something, it doesn’t mean that they are telling you the truth, or even that they have the first idea about what they are talking about in the first place. Next time, pay attention, and know what the hell you’re voting for.

While they fell short of vetting their decisions in public (they spent 90 minutes in executive session with their attorney) they at  least acknowledged their mistakes and then made their final votes in public. At the beginning of the meeting, board Vice Chairman Justin Spicer read a thorough apology to the people of the district, outlining their transgression, and also explaining the procedure they would follow to remedy it. From the statement, and from personal discussions that I had with individual board members about what happened, I am satisfied that the board understands their error, and will be vigilant in the future to make sure that such a thing never happens again.

The voting results that came out of the public meeting, compared to the results that came from the secret ballot are quite indicative of the need for public scrutiny of these kinds of decisions. It is clear that some members of the board voted differently under the watchful eye of the public than they did when they were able to make their decision in secret. A single vote made the difference between the original secret decision to not rehire Head of Curriculum Ron Kalicki, whose contract was rejected by a 4-3 vote in the secret ballot, but was rehired when the decision was made in public, also by a 4-3 vote. Every other decision was upheld, though in the public vote, five administrators who received “No” votes in the secret ballot received unanimous “Yes” votes when their contracts were reviewed in public. East Junior High Principal Kelly Boren was not rehired by a vote of 6-1, and the contract for prospective teacher and High School Football Coach John Scott failed with the same 6-1 vote. In both cases, the total vote tally was the same both in the secret ballot and in the public decision.

This shows one of two possible things:

First is the possibility that at least one board member, but possibly more, secretly voted against rehire in at least six separate instances, but refused to stand by their “No” vote when it came time to cast it in public. If that is the case, then those board members should be ashamed  of themselves. Hiring and firing employees is tough to do. As a business owner, I understand that all to well. But as a business owner, I don’t get to hide behind a secret ballot when I choose to fire someone. I have to own up to my decision, look my employee in the eye, and give them the bad news. If you cannot do that, you have no business being in a position where you have to make those decisions and stand by them.

The second possibility, the one that I hope is a reflection of what really happened, is that the board truly and thoroughly vetted the decisions in their executive session, and the board member or members who changed their votes did so because of careful reconsideration based on those discussions. The problem is, since those discussions were held in an executive session, and the decisions were not vetted in public, we will never know, and the decisions will always be tainted with the likelihood of the first possibility.

Overall, I am happy with the outcome. The board realized their errors, and corrected them to the best of their ability. I do think, however, that how John Scott’s contract was handled was shameful. If the board did not want him hired as a teacher and coach, he should have never been offered the position in the first place. The board should take this as a sign that their hiring policies might need to be reworked. Superintendent Grube and HR Director Lopiccolo should know exactly what the will of the board is before they offer someone a job and they should not have been put in a situation where they believed they had the confidence of the board, and then had the rug yanked out from underneath them. In the future, I would recommend that the board pre-approve an offer for employment, and give the Superintendent and the HR Director some latitude and support in their decision making. After all, why are we paying them as much as we do if they are just going to get thrown under the bus when they make such a large, and public, decision?

For some reason though, the school board decided that Wyoming’s open meetings laws no longer applied to them. What they did instead was cast secret ballots to determine which contracts they were or weren’t going to renew or offer. Apparently, the process they used was to cast their secret votes, and then have the District’s top administrators — Superintendant Paul Grube and Head of Human Resources Mike Lopiccolo (whose contract was also included in the secret ballots) — stay after the meeting was adjourned and tally the votes. They even threw a proposed teacher’s contract into the secret ballot for good measure. Grube would then contact the employees affected personally and let them know they outcomes of the secret votes before the board’s decisions were made public, or as it were, before the board itself was informed of their own decisions.

This is a blatant abuse of the school board’s responsibility to publicly vet and make their decisions. The fact is, by shirking the responsibilities that they themselves asked for when they chose to run for elected office, every single member of the school board has insulted the intelligence and violated the trust of every person in Sweetwater County School District #1 that wasted their vote on them. When we elect people to represent us, at any level of government, we do it with the promise that those people will govern openly, and supposedly with the assurance that those who are elected will make informed decisions that they can and will stand by.

In this train wreck of public trust, the board members don’t even know what their decisions were. They adjourned the meeting without having been informed by Superintendant Grube what they had decided. And, since it was a secret ballot, we don’t have a record of how they voted individually, so as constituents we can’t even question them individually as to the wisdom of their decisions! Furthermore, since it was left to two district employees to tally the votes, outside of the public’s view, we don’t even know if the secret decisions that were made really reflect the decisions that are to be reported by Mr. Grube and Mr. Lopiccolo at a later date. I’m sure both of them are perfectly honest, and will record the board’s votes accurately, but without public scrutiny how will we ever know?

Hiring and firing decisions are hard to make. As a business owner I have to make them every day, but I have the luxury of being allowed to make the decisions privately, because when I do, the money I spend or save is my own. An elected official though, isn’t spending their own money. They are spending our money, and because of it, they don’t get to make secret decisions and play tricks in order to shirk their responsibilities. I’ve been on enough publicly elected boards to know that you don’t get to hide behind a secret ballot when you are performing the duties you volunteered for. When you are elected, you take an oath to uphold the laws and constitutions of both the State of Wyoming and the United States of America. One of those laws, and important one, is that you have to cast your votes in public.

That law also says that any decision that is not made in public is “null and void.” As such, any of the contracts that were decided by that secret ballot don’t really exist, and the only remedy is a full public vetting of the decisions, and a new public vote. That is what the people of Sweetwater County School District #1 must demand now and that is what they deserve — a full public vetting of their decisions and a new public vote on each of the contracts. Because of their actions, the board has even forfeited their right to discuss their decisions in executive session. Only a public vetting will satisfy Wyoming law now.

Since the board’s decision to govern this way was unanimous, I urge you to contact each and every member of the school board to voice your displeasure and demand that they make this right. It is time for our elected officials to respect our right to participate in our own governance, and stop hiding from the responsibilities that they agreed to when we gave them the authority to govern! If they can’t handle that, well, next year is an election year. Maybe it will be time to make a few changes.

____________________

The Sweetwater County School District #1 Board of Trustees

Mr. Brady Baldwin  -  Clerk

Mr. Leonard W. Hay  -  Treasurer

Ms. Melinda Hixon – Trustee

Mr. Robert Parton – Trustee

Mr. Robert J. Ramsey   -  Chairman of the Board

Mr. Justin Spicer  -  Vice-Chairman

Dr. LaWana Sweet – Trustee

Instead, as shown in a short movie that I published², Wonnacott did resign, as expected, in the last minutes of the last meeting of the outgoing commission. From the moment that the reading of her resignation letter was completed, until her replacement was nominated, voted on, and seated, without public notice, and without public comment, only six minutes and fifteen seconds had passed. During those short minutes, Commissioners Delai-Boese and Walker disregarded the very basis of our democratic republic and encumbered us with a government not of our choosing.

That they chose someone without public comment was bad enough. As I explained in the first article on the subject, the law allows it as the result of a loophole in the statutory language. What’s worse was that they allegedly made the decision before the meeting, with a nominee chosen and agreed upon before the advertised public meeting even began. That would be a violation of Wyoming law.

W.S. §16-4-403 states:

“All meetings of the governing body of an agency are public meetings, open to the public at all times, except as otherwise provided. No action of a governing body of an agency shall be taken except during a public meeting following notice of the meeting in accordance with this act. Actions taken at a meeting not in conformity with this act is null and void and not merely voidable.”

If, as I suspected, the decision was made before it was affirmed in the public sham of a meeting that was held on December 30, then Commissioners Delai-Boese and Walker would be guilty of violating the act…a misdemeanor. The problem was, how would a person go about proving it? To the observant cynic that I am, it seemed really obvious. It felt like everyone knew it was coming, and the rumors were being kicked around the courthouse like hacky sacks. When it did happen, it happened so fast. It looked practiced and perfect, like they knew what they were doing. On the surface, though, there seemed little evidence that anything illegal had happened. There was no smoking gun that blew away the haze of uncertaintly and shot glaring holes in the perfectly orchestrated act that they claimed was a public meeting.

There were, however, a few clues that, when all added up, gave us a tiny idea of the behind the scenes nature of their decision. There was the timely break in the final meeting that gave Commissioner Wonnacott the unscheduled opportunity to give her letter of resignation to Delai-Boese and Walker, and to sneak quietly out of the building while no one was looking. Why was an unscheduled break taken in the first place? The only thing left on the agenda was commissioner statements. That would have taken ten minutes at the most. The only reasonable explanation that I can think of is that Commissioner Delai-Boese knew what Wonnacott’s plans were ahead of time.

Then there was the fact that Delai-Boese just so happened to have researched the process for replacement and had those particular notes on hand, right on top of her desk. There was the fact that Delai-Boese had a nominee ready at hand, and notes to read from as she nominated him and asked for a motion. There’s the fact that Walker was ready with a motion to appoint Delai-Boese’s nominee, a motion that he read from a piece of paper on his desk. Walker also read, from notes that just happened to be readily available on his desk, a pretty concise biography of the nominee.

The nominee, Mr. Donald VanMatre, just so happened to be sitting right in front of them in the audience. That in itself isn’t so telling, except when you factor in that Mr. VanMatre had only attended one other meeting in the preceding months. He had no scheduled business before the board, and had never made it a habit to sit in on meetings where he didn’t have official business on the agenda. He was, apparently, invited by e-mail to attend with the other department heads, but even that raises more questions. VanMatre wasn’t a department head. He was, in fact, the director of a component unit. As far as I’ve been able to determine, he was the only director of a component unit that was invited.

The next clues came after the sudden appointment. In Delai-Boese’s prepared farewell statement, she read directly from the paper in front of her a paragraph that referred to the moments old appointment:

“I believe this Commission has made an excellent choice to fill the vacancy held by former Commissioner Wonnacott.  Commissioner Walker and I know he is a man of great integrity and is well acquainted with government processes.”

If this appointment wasn’t predetermined, why would those two sentences have already been in her statement? Then, when interviewed by the press, newly appointed Commissioner Donald VanMatre commented that the decision to accept the appointment had been “dropped on me overnight.” It could have been a figure of speech, but combined with everything else…

Altogether, these events coalesced into a huge question in my mind about the nature of the appointment. Enough of a question that I felt it was important to join together with other Sweetwater County Residents and file a legal challenge³ seeking to overturn it.

The results of the legal challenge have so far been staggering. Former Commissioners Debby Delai-Boese, Randy Walker, and Paula Wonnacott, along with County Clerk Dale Davis, Deputy County Clerk Vickie Eastin, Former Commission Administrative Assistant Belinda Bridewell, current Commissioner Gary Bailiff, challenged appointee Don VanMatre, journalists David Martin, Katie Glennemeyer, and Tim Boulware, and finally Sweetwater County Attorney Brett Johnson have all given sworn testimony in the case.

Of course all of the former commissioners were adamant that they had followed the law and hadn’t done anything wrong at all. Too bad for them that their testimony wasn’t all that was heard.

Delai-Boese testified that she did not make a decision about the appointment until after Wonnacott’s official resignation, and that she hadn’t discussed the possible appointment with either Walker or VanMatre before the meeting on December 30, and that she had not participated in any illegal meetings with her fellow commissioners. Her testimony was challenged by witnesses who said otherwise.

Deputy County Clerk Vickie Eastin testified that she received an electronic copy of Delai-Boese’s farewell statement (the one that contained language about the appointment) before the part of the meeting where Wonnacott actually resigned. County Clerk Dale Davis testified that he had been told to bring an Oath of Office to the meeting because there was going to be an appointment. Journalist David Martin testified that when he interviewed Delai-Boese immediately after the meeting, she told him she had contacted VanMatre about the appointment the night before. Gary Bailiff testified that he had walked in on what he perceived to be an illegal meeting being held in the first weeks of December which was attended by Commissioners Delai-Boese, Walker, and Wonnacott.

VanMatre testified that he had no discussions with any of the commissioners concerning his possible appointment prior to the December 30 meeting, and had no idea that it was coming. His testimony was also challenged by other witnesses.

Journalist David Martin testified that when interviewing VanMatre he said that the appointment had been “dropped on me overnight.” That testimony was supported by that of journalist Tim Boulware, who also heard the exchange. Martin also testified that, when discussing VanMatre’s relationship with Paula Wonnacott, he said that he “felt honored she would trust him with her remaining term.”

Walker also testified that he did not make a decision about the appointment until after Wonnacott’s official resignation, and that he hadn’t discussed the possible appointment with Delai-Boese before the meeting on December 30, and that he had not participated in any illegal meetings with his fellow commissioners. Walker said that he wrote a statement concerning VanMatre’s appointment the night before the meeting in preparation for the possibility of Wonnacott’s resignation. He also testified that he had spoke by telephone with County Attorney Brett Johnson on the night of December 29, and that in that conversation he had not mentioned the possibility of appointing VanMatre to the commission, and that he told Johnson that no decision about the possible appointment had been made. Walker’s testimony was also cast in doubt by the testimony of other witnesses.

Brett Johnson, Sweetwater County Attorney, testified that during his December 29 conversation with Walker, he asked Walker if Ms. Wonnacott was going to resign, and that Walker said he was 99% sure that she would resign the next day and that “They were going to put Don VanMatre on the commission.” When Johnson asked Walker how that was not a violation of the open meetings act, Walker replied that “They hadn’t discussed it extensively, they hadn’t voted on it, and they weren’t positive she would resign.” Journalist Katie Glennemeyer testified about an interview she conducted with Randy Walker on January 10 concerning the statements that he made about the appointment during the December 30 meeting. In the interview, Walker claimed that he hadn’t written anything in advance, and that he wrote a list of VanMatre’s qualifications while Wonnacott’s letter of resignation was being read. Digital video of the meeting shows Walker reading along silently while Commissioner Delai-Boese read aloud, and even taking over and finishing reading it aloud when Delai-Boese’s emotions no longer allowed her to continue. It does not show him writing anything while the letter was being read. And, again, Bailiff testified about an alleged illegal meeting that Walker attended.

All in all, the evidence against the former Sweetwater County Commissioners is damning. They worked hard to cover their tracks, but they made mistakes. They couldn’t keep their mouths shut, and they told people their plans. They mixed up their stories and they left electronic paper trails that interfered with their fabricated versions of the events. I think that it is clear by the testimony, and the series of events, that Walker and Delai-Boese had reached an agreement prior to the December 30 meeting that if Wonnacott resigned that day, they were going to appoint Don VanMatre to take her place on the board.

The Wyoming Legislature has already seen how wrong the actions of the Commission were that day and have unanimously amended state law to guarantee that this could never happen again. Next time, there won’t be a loophole in the statutes for them to try to hide behind.

What about this time, though? Did we meet the legal hurdles to determine that a violation of the Wyoming Open Meeting Act was violated? Did we provide enough evidence to allow Judge Keith Kautz to declare the appointment of Don VanMatre to board of Sweetwater County Commissioners “null and void and not merely voidable?” I don’t know. None of us will know until the judge renders his decision. We might not even really know then, since this case is likely to go to the Wyoming Supreme Court, regardless of how he decides. Sadly, this could drag out for a long time.

What we do know now though, is the truth. We know for a fact that former Sweetwater County Commissioners Debby Delai-Boese and Randy Walker hijacked the appointment process and robbed the People of Sweetwater County of our say in who is allowed to govern us. As the founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Former Commissioner Paula Wonnacott was equally complicit in their plot. She spat in the face of the people who elected her to represent them for a four year term when she walked away, without notice, and left us in this mess. They treated us with arrogance and disdain, and they stole from us our opportunity to participate in the democratic process.

I, for one, have no intention of forgetting what Debby Delai-Boese, Paula Wonnacott and Randy Walker did to us and to our county on December 30, 2010, and if any of them are ever foolish enough to run for public office again, I won’t let them forget it either.

As one of the petitioners in the lawsuit, let me try to make this perfectly clear. Neither I, nor anyone else who has put their name on the lawsuit seeking to overturn Don VanMatre’s illegal appointment to the Board of Sweetwater County Commissioners, have any kind of personal agenda against Mr. VanMatre. We believe he is as much a victim of the illegal activities of Commissioners Delai-Boese and Walker as are the rest of the residents of Sweetwater County. The fact that he apparently knew before the meeting on December 30 that he was going to be appointed to replace the not yet resigned Commissioner Wonnacott in no way reflects upon either his integrity, or his judgment, regardless of the fact that as a former mayor of the County Seat he should have known that such decisions were required by Wyoming law to be made in public.

No, this lawsuit isn’t about Don VanMatre. This lawsuit is about the principle that, in our democratic republic, I absolutely refuse to be governed by someone that has no right to govern me. As the founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” If Don VanMatre gained his position through a violation of Wyoming law, then he does not have my consent to to govern. That is what the lawsuit it about.

When I first broke this story on December 21, nine days before it actually happened, I mistakenly wrote that the commissioners had the legal authority to make an immediate appointment and warned that it was likely to happen. I was wrong about their legal authority. While they were entitled under the loophole in W.S. §18-3-524 to make the appointment, I didn’t take into consideration Wyoming’s open meetings act, W.S. §16-4-403. Sadly, neither did they. I’m just a political hack. Commissioners Delai-Boese and Walker actually had the responsibility to govern. They are held to a higher standard and they should have known better.

The videos that I took of the December 30 meeting clearly show that both Commissioner Delai-Boese and Commissioner Walker knew beforehand that Commissioner Wonnacott was going to resign and had already made the decision to replace her with VanMatre. They both read from prepared statements. There was no discussion. The public was forbidden to comment. There was no consent of the governed.

VanMatre is way off the mark if he thinks this is all about him. That’s just arrogance. This is about us.

“All meetings of the governing body of an agency are public meetings, open to the public at all times, except as otherwise provided. No action of a governing body of an agency shall be taken except during a public meeting following notice of the meeting in accordance with this act. Actions taken at a meeting not in conformity with this act is null and void and not merely voidable.”

A copy of the petition is here: Petition Declaratory Judgment PDF, 86 KB

The actions by Commissioners Delai-Boese and Walker were clear violations of both the letter and the spirit of Wyoming statutes. The decision to both make an immediate appointment to fill the vacated position, and to nominate and appoint Don VanMatre to that position were decided before the public meeting, and out of the view of residents of Sweetwater County. The motion, second, and vote during the public portion were just details.

The following video shows this clearly. At 5:46, Commissioner Delai-Boese reads from prepared notes while she asks for a motion to appoint Don VanMatre. At 6:15, Commissioner Delai-Boese asks VanMatre, who just happens to be one of the few people at the meeting, if he will accept the nomination. (It is interesting to note that VanMatre stated publicly, after the meeting, that the the appointment was dropped on him “overnight.”) At 6:40, Commissioner Walker begins reading off of a prepared statement, detailing VanMatre’s history. At 7:53 County Attorney Brett Johnson tried to slow things down by explaining to the commissioners that they didn’t have to act right then. Commissioner Delai-Boese immediately interrupted him and rebuffed his advice. Then, at 8:42 Commissioner Delai-Boese asks for the vote, and they cast their votes. At 8:49 a reporter can be heard asking if there will be any public comment, to which Commissioner Delai-Boese answers, “Not right now, no there is not, not right now.”

In the next video, at the very beginning, you will see County Clerk Dale Davis has VanMatre’s oath-of-office in hand and ready to go. Then, at 7:50, Commissioner Delai-Boese reads from her prepared written statement, “I believe that this commission has made an excellent choice to fill the vacancy held by former Commissioner Wonnacott. Commissioner Walker and I know he is a man of great integrity and is well acquainted with government processes.” If this decision wasn’t made beforehand, why were all of these statements prewritten?

This was a complete mockery of the spirit of open government. If that isn’t insulting enough, listen to Commissioner Delai-Boese’s final statement in its entirety and take note of how many times she uses the words “transparency” “accountability,” and, funniest of all, “integrity.”

One final, laughable note. The only action that the outgoing commissioners took at their final meeting was to appoint Don VanMatre as a commissioner. It happens to be the only item they addressed that wasn’t on the agenda. Everything that was actually on the agenda was tabled and put off for the new commissioners. How’s that for responsibility?

UPDATE 01-17-2011: Rep. Joe Barbuto has sponsored HB0136 (along with cosponsoring Representatives Blake, Craft, Freeman and Jaggi and Senator(s) Cooper, Hastert and Martin) which would clean up the loophole in §18-3-524 that Commissioners Delai-Boese and Walker used to justify their actions on 12/30/2010.

A copy of the bill is here: HB0136 PDF, 25 KB