Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Crystal Gray told me Ken and George conspired to silence Seth

Dear Internet,
I had a long talk with Crystal Gray, former assistant mayor, current city council member, long time Boulderite, Whittier Neighborhood resident....exhale!
Crystal's around my age and I've known her for a long time. She's a fan. Her dad was a Baltimore sports reporter, so she has an affection for old guy news types like myself. She reads the blog and watches the TV show without regret.........well at least up until today.
So it turns out that when Seth was speaking at city council and got arrested last week, it was KEN WILSON who was scratching the sensitive mic that muffled Seth's comments. The council is now spilt over free speech issues. Ken, George, and Susie are about to be lynched by the other six council members. Or at least they are very close to getting slapped. I'm enjoying this immensely....mostly because I am not the center of this mess.....and secondly because "they had it coming" they really did. Seth's criminal case will most likely be dropped by the city attorney.
But the city government is in for a real firestorm now!
Seth it turns out is hiring my civil rights lawyer, David Lane. Lane has represented a lot of high profile cases including Ward Churchill. He is also very good and generally wins. The city will be smart enough not to go to trial and will settle for something in the neighborhood of up to 1 million dollars. Today, two council members Morzel and Gray both came out publicly stated that Seth's first amendment rights were violated.......that's it. It's a slam dunk now for the plaintiff. I think between all of us who had our rights abridged by the city or the university, it is clear to any reasonable person that our city has crossed the line to a real breach of our constituional rights.
So this is all good now

from Americas most famous small city
Jann Scott
Boulder Colorado
338 days


Life in Boulder said...


As I've stated in prior emails, I find myself put in a bind by the city's behavior regards postponing a decision
involving public health and safety at the reservoir. I don't see myself as one prone to inflammatory speech,
but the simple fact is...I was lied to by staff and/or members of council.

I was told it would be a fair process, a one-year process -- and I was promised that staff would examine
the issues raised by material presented to them and seek answers, or at least determine whether they can
obtain answers and get back with me -- that never occurred. None of it. Not only that, a process without
a decision on the end of it is not a process. It's not a fair process, but it's also simply not a process.
Processes have results; we don't need a judge and jury to tell us this.

I sat through a really disgraceful abuse of my friend Seth's rights at the last council meeting; but, as if that weren't
enough, in the aftermath there's more abuse. Two days ago I read an account from the city manager that
simply was not factual. During Seth's testimony, I had my eyes fixed on the police officer. He waited for a signal from the
city clerk (Alisa Lewis). The city clerk relayed the signal from George Karakheian. The police officer then rose and proceeded towards Seth. That's exactly what occurred.

In an effort to minimize liability -- or some perceived blame -- the city clerk's name was taken out of the loop --
when she was very much in the loop in terms of what occurred. So, in a crucial instance, with tremendous public scrutiny,
the city manager prepared a report in which she simply...lied.

It doesn't end there. Ken Wilson recently had the temerity to defend his scratching of the microphone by saying it
inadvertently occurred when he 'put his hand over it'. Problem is, you don't get that sort of noise from putting your hand
over the mic -- you get it from rubbing your hand or fingers or nails on the head of the mic -- and that is what
Ken had to have done -- so again, here's someone in a significant position of authority...lying...when the truth
would not only be far more helpful, but pretty much a prerequisite for forward movement after the type of episode that occurred. By the way, the public has a right to know if they no longer have the right to redress of grievance before city council, or should be frightened of arrest in the event they seek it.

How plainly do you require the above be stated?

I'm fed up. I'm absolutely fed up. I would estimate I've attended more than 200 city council meetings. I've never seen anything quite as bad as this, or quite as pathetic. I believe in non-violence, but if I did not, this would be the ripe occasion
to rent a bulldozer and run it through the lobby of city hall.

Since I have no driver's license, I'm going to stick with calling all of you on this bullshit -- which is a threat
to the integrity of our civic discourse, and a threat to basic civil liberties that are a damn sight more significant
than the narcissistic demand that members of the public be discouraged from sharing their thoughts with you
at a council business meeting.

Rob Smoke

Life in Boulder said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Life in Boulder said...

Gee Rob. was there a problem with the resevoir ? Would uou explain here so everybody is up to speed.

(Rob is longtime Boulder Journalist)


I've shared at length on this topic with several members of council, the parks and rec board, city staff, and so on.

background on this can be found at my site -- ---

water resources being as tight and fought over as they indeed are, it's a tremendous shame
that we would put any of those resources at risk --

A research prof at CU, David Norris, published an amazing bit of work recently -- documenting
that very small quantities of pharmaceuticals and other substances, that fail to be filtered
by waste systems and occur in parts per billion, have extraordinary biological effects on living creatures (fish).
The importance and significance of this is that it demonstrates -- in bold black type -- that safety precautions
we thought were good enough, really aren't precautions at all. Boulder creek is a separate issue from the reservoir; however,
if the restrictions of the EPA can be met, but pollutants in water can still have significant biological impacts on aquatic species, then we have to consider if our choices as a community don't merit a higher level of safety and precaution. EPA and state standards have some value and meaning, but they simply don't cover us with regard to the range of dangerous pollutants that can and do land in drinking water. The fact that the water at the res is also used for swimming -- and in particular, young children who swim -- is another cause for concern.

Although quantities may seem relatively small, pollutants coming from fuel-burning boats are a known danger to humans.

Jann, we live in an apartheid state in Boulder. The water from Boulder reservoir is delivered as tap water only as far west as Folsom avenue at a time of peak usage. In other words, the people who live on the east side of town can have polluted water. The west side of town gets their water from reservoirs that don't allow polluting boats. BTW, most of our city council live in neighborhoods that would be served by a reservoir with a fuel-burning ban in place.

One further note -- I only asked for (hoped for) a decision. In 2008, they drew up documents stating it was a one-year process to come up with a new master plan (and make decisions on issues like boat recreation before this upcoming season.) With no announcement, and no one taking credit, it was decided to make it a two-year process -- keeping the status quo for another year. It's underhanded -- like much of what we're seeing with the city of late.

All watershed resources in this region are extremely valuable, and the value goes wild when a drought hits -- the res is likely to get much more polluted within the next two years due to various factors that
include the likely invasion of zebra mussels. In the event they do arrive, an event that can only be hastened by the fuel-burning boats, it will cost the city another $100k or more per year to get that water clean enough to have it still be used for tap water. The decision to make "no decision" is really an abuse of the public trust with regard to health and safety issues that
ought to have a much higher priority than more incidental use and activity choice issues. A year ought to be enough time to have a look at the public health issues and gather that material together for council's review and decision.

There are many good reasons for getting rid of the big boats -- not the least of which is the fact that
all the people who own them will still be free to park them in their yards, install DVD players and flat screens, and watch
reruns of Gilligan's Island any time they want.