The City of Boulder has taken a first step in trying to make it easier for council members to tell the truth on their financial disclosure forms. City Attorney Tom Carr and City Clerk Alisa Lewis presented several suggested changes to the forms that were then approved by council. First, the forms should make it clear that council members are supposed to disclose all of the requested information for the previous 12 months preceding the deadline for the annual filing of the forms. Apparently some members of council must have thought that an “annual disclosure form” was only asking for information concerning a couple of arbitrary months here and there, not the whole year.
But better yet, Carr and Lewis actually suggested that font size was a problem. As if by increasing the font size from 8 to 12, council members would suddenly remember what property they owned and who their business partners are.
Note to council:
Increasing the font size on the form will not make any of you more honest.
The inadequate, cartoonish handling of this very serious problem continues to only throw fuel on the fire and make a mockery of our local government. How about this for a fix, Mr. Carr: Require every member of council to refile a completely accurate disclosure form within the next 72 hours, as required by law. Make sure that the form reflects the accurate information that was required to be disclosed on the date that it was originally submitted. This retroactive element is important just in case a few council members might have used your months of doing nothing to get out of potentially embarrassing business relationships before you finally ask them for their real information. Then, use your time to investigate the new information for accuracy and then start enforcing the fines, retroactively, as you are charged with doing for the good of the community. But hey, point size is important too. Everyone in Boulder really does understand by now why you’d want to start there.
Speaking of idiots, how about Congressman Todd Akin’s recent comment about women’s bodies being able to naturally resist pregnancy in cases of “legitimate rape”?
What constitutes “legitimate rape”? Like when women are completely sober, wearing long sleeves, pants, a burka and are sitting in a well-lit and heavily populated library when they are accosted by a stranger?
Could he be implying what other dim-witted numbskulls have dared utter in the past, that rape is somehow deserved when women are walking outside after 1 a.m., are dressed scantily or are inebriated with a companion?
“She shouldn’t have been in that dark alley so late.”
“She shouldn’t have been wearing that low-cut blouse.”
“She shouldn’t have gotten so drunk.”
“She knew the guy, so she must have said yes.”
It’s time to nip this blame-the-woman mindset in the bud by an even larger public outcry than has occurred already.
Here’s hoping Akin’s inexcusable gaffe costs the Republicans control over Congress when the November election rolls around.
POT SHOT MISFIRES?
Gosh, apparently that extra $230,000 spent by CU leaders to snuff out the annual 4/20 pot-smoking protest didn’t pay off.
Our own Boulder campus rocketed from number four to the top of Princeton Review’s “Reefer Madness” list.
Aw, maybe there were a lot more pot smokers on campus, thanks to Colorado’s medical marijuana law.
Or maybe it was because on April 20, just before 4:20, an intrepid group of several hundred pot and political activists marched up University Hill, across campus, had a face-off with rent-a-cops at the traditional Norlin Quad meeting place, and then proceeded to the lawn south of the Duane Physics building to exercise their right to free speech and assembly.
Maybe the headlines and social media reports made such a splash that the Princeton Review took notice.
As has become custom when CU tops such lists, university officials downplayed the ranking. But maybe, just maybe, their crackdown backfired in this case.