Vote no on 4A

To Grady, WindPeak, and others:

I stated upfront and honestly with my very first post in this thread that I was part of the Friends of Elk Creek Fire group. Yes, I absolutely will support worthy causes - I do not sit by as a neutral party if there's something that I know and believe to be for the good of the community, just like with helping the Save Intermountain Animals group oust an inept board that allowed animals to be killed needlessly and money stolen from the community.

If you want to judge my honesty and integrity, notice that despite being for 4A, all posts by the opposition are still here, and moderation has been conducted removing potentially personal identifiable information that was absolutely appropriate to do. No threads are locked, no posts or entire threads deleted , unlike other community forums who claim to serve the community, and the opposition not silenced here. I have NOT insulted, called names, or treated anyone with anything less than respectful dialog.

Note also that I've videotaped many ECFPD BOD meetings at my own time and expense, made them all publicly available and you can tell they are not edited to "hide information" - they are the full meetings, as they happened.

To date, only myself and MountainGirl44 have identified ourselves as FOECF members - all other posters who've weighed in are doing so with their own opinions and I'd appreciate if you don't assign others' personal agendas with what the Friends of Elk Creek Fire are posting. Go back and read mine, FOECF, and MountainGirl 44's posts and see how we've responded to you.

As for the other "crap" that I am involved in - that has nothing to do with this situation, but I would say does demonstrate that I fight for what's right. Nothing more, nothing less. Notice that I haven't posted in that thread in forever (since Page 27 of 45), yet notice who has - I'm not the one continuing to make public what should be a private lawsuit.

And if you want to threaten those businesses that advertise with My Mountain Town, due to my actions, that's your right but I find it disgusting and cowardly on your part to even threaten that. If you don't want to vote for it, fine - THAT'S YOUR RIGHT. That's WHY it's put to the district VOTERS to decide. Agree to disagree, but threatening to harm unrelated businesses over this is petty, vindictive, and makes me lose all respect for your position.

Attacking me, calling me a bad business woman, tells me you've got nothin'. Get back to the facts, as Kincaid Springs has said - that's all I've posted here and that's all that matters for this issue. I could give a rats' ass as to who any posters are - I am here strictly to deal with information, answer questions, explain my side, and ask people to become informed themselves so they can vote for what they want for their community.

GO UNION wrote: SC, So watching the chief say that Soviet Russia altered the books to meet the budget is ok for ECFPD to alter them? I looked at the map and ECFPD IS STILL IN THE USA! Can the chief prove that is what Russia did? Or is he trying to cover up a lie with another? Making jokes on illegally blowing the budget says volumes on his character and the current board. That comment about an auditor making a mistake was sent out over a week ago and when the State was contacted they said NO ONE FROM ELK CREEK FIRE HAS CONTACTED THEM !

I hope the public knows that they are paying top dollar for the lawyer to help cover this up!

It's upsetting to watch the videos of the ECFPD AND ITS CHIEF lie non stop to the taxpayers

Go Union, please watch the video again. The Chief made exactly the OPPOSITE point - that he thinks that those who amend budgets after the fact, to make them look "okay" is WRONG and he DOESN'T believe in doing that.

Here's the answer to your previous question about which CO statute says that you don't have to amend budgets:
Here is the text of the entire state statute - TITLE 29 GOVERNMENT - LOCAL/GENERAL PROVISIONS/ARTICLE 1 BUDGET AND SERVICES:

29-1-110. Expenditures not to exceed appropriation
(1) During the fiscal year, no officer, employee, or other spending agency shall expend or contract to expend any money, or incur any liability, or enter into any contract which, by its terms, involves the expenditures of money in excess of the amounts appropriated. Any contract, verbal or written, made in violation of this section shall be void, and no moneys belonging to a local government shall be paid on such contract.

(2) Multiple-year contracts may be entered into where allowed by law or if subject to annual appropriation.

Please note there is no language in the statute referring to budgeted amounts, only to appropriated amounts. Nor is there any language in the statute referring to any need to amend the budget.

From the ECFPD budget (the following numbers sent by Chief McLaughlin):

The district appropriated the following amounts by resolution on December 13, 2011:

General fund - $1,806,216
TABOR reserves $55,965
Capital projects and contingency - $362,297
Pension - $178,500

The district spent:

General fund - $1,726,771
TABOR reserves - $0 (money only spent in emergencies)
Capital projects - $139,726
Pension fund - $50,667

The state auditor has verified that our interpretation of this law is correct, and that the interpretation by the CPA was incorrect. It has been corrected and resubmitted to the state.

WindPeak, here's the answer to your other question: Where in the Conifer Chamber Public Affairs Meeting does the Chief say he won't campaign for or against? It's at time stamp 3:25.
[youtube:2192pudf][/youtube:2192pudf]