DEBATE PCSO Declined - Now Open forum please come

You beat me to it Wayne. It would open an opportunity for the challenger much more than the incumbent.

I'm shamefully green when it comes to the nuances of politics so I am going on gut instinct.

Wayne, I totally get the concept, and I could believe it if I did not hear that at last nights central committee meeting Dick Elsner (?) announced the central committee would host 3 debates for PCSO. Questions for the debate would come the central committee and the executive board would then select the questions. Same format as Citizens to Elect Michael Graves Park County Sheriff used. (Dick called me by the way to advise me on how to conduct a debate) Dick himself will be the moderator, same guy who advised me not to be the moderator since I a the chairperosn for Michael's candidate committee.

I think I smell something funny. I swore I wouldn't get into C_ _ _ like this, but.....

These debates, by-the-way, are not open to the public...or maybe the public just won't have an opportunity to ask questions. Talk about a stacked deck.

In Fred's first response to my invitation his first concern was that the forum stick strictly to experience and qualifications. I am posting the e-mail string here so you all can decide for yourselves what is occurring. I thought he first replied w/a yes until I sent the format and ground rules as he requested but not the way Dick Elsner asked me to set them up. Apparently Dick Elsner "instructed" Fred not to accept a debate invitation from anyone in Michael's favor. Keep in mind that much of what I am posting is hear-say not first hand knowledge. Still smells funny though.

I guess Fred is the Central Committee's man and Michael isn't. Wonder why they don't want the best man to win the election? Isn't that what you all want. I just happen to think Michael is it based on my past (lack of) experience with PCSO if you get my drift. I'm just holding out for something better.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Subject:
RE: [FWD: Debate]

From:
"Fred Wegener" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> (Add as Preferred Sender)
Date: Wed, Jun 09, 2010 7:02 am
To: <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Cc: "Richard Elsner" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>, "Park County Bulletin" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>, "Tom Locke" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

I must decline your invitation to this debate. Thanks for your time.

From: [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.]
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 5:24 PM
To: Fred Wegener
Cc: ;
Subject: RE: [FWD: Debate]

Hi Fred,
Attached you will find a document for ground rules and format.
This document is a reiteration of the subject matter in our e-mails.
Tom Locke and I spoke today regarding a posting in The Flume thus he has been copied on this e-mail as well as Michael since he has not been made aware of this specific document.

Tom would like to know before 10P if you are participating in this debate. I posted your acceptance on pinecam several days ago, based on your June 3 response to my invitation. I will clarify that if you choose not to participate.

Either way a definitive reply would be appreciated. I have fulfilled all of your requests so I hope this is satifactory. The meeting/debate will continue with or without you. 285 will webcam for Mich

Webcam's offer to web cam the debate has also been posted on 285Bound and PineCam. I think it behooves you to give your supporters an opportunity to here what you have to say in this debate so that they can draw a conclusion in your favor. Without this your supporters may diminish and/or change their minds simply because they heard only one side.

Citizens in this county want this debate.

Thanks again and best regards,
Jo

---

Subject: RE: [FWD: Debate]
From: "Fred Wegener" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Mon, June 07, 2010 6:42 am
To: <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

---

Original Messa
Haven't heard anything on format or ground rules. Would like to see that before I accept the invitation. Thanks

From: [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.]
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 3:53 PM
To: Fred Wegener
Cc:
Subject: RE: [FWD: Debate]

Hi Fred,
I am replying and copying Michael as the information in the e-mail pertains to both.

A political debate is the cornerstone of any functioning democracy. Your, or Michael Graves’, qualifications and/or experience are not up for debate. Each of you has already presented your qualifications and experience in different arenas in order to get on the ballot.

A good political debate is about issues related to the office for which you want your constituents to elect you. This is an opportunity for local residents/citizens to have their concerns discussed in a public setting and a forum that will consist of fair and reasonable rules that you both should agree to.

As stated in my first e-mail there will be a specific time period in which each candidate will have to answer questions posed by the moderator drawn from questions/concerns from the public.

There will be time penalties for:
Inflammatory or hateful comments related to race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or age. Personal attacks, such as your private life or your family, indecent remarks, name calling and profanity.
Going over your time limit – time will be added to the other candidate as a result
These rules will be posted on electronic communities, pinecam and 285bound, as well as The Flume.

I hope this is satisfactory to your concerns.

Best Regards
Jo

---

Original Message

---

Subject: RE: [FWD: Debate]
From: "Fred Wegener" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Thu, June 03, 2010 11:13 am
To: <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

A neutral group would be fine. As for ground rules I think we should stick to qualifications and experience. I believe that three to five minutes is adequate for responses. Thanks

From: [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.]
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 11:31 AM
To: Fred Wegener
Cc:
Subject: RE: [FWD: Debate]


Thanks for your prompt reply. I absolutely understand your requests and agree. I am considering Father Kizito from St. Mary of the Rockies to be the moderator...one reason is he is not familiar with local politics therefore less biased. I am also considering having a group of people not associated with either campaign to choose the questions...its all about perception therefore a neutral group may be best...let me know what you think.

Give me some idea of the ground rules you would like to have considered.

There will be a question answer period, followed by an open forum for the audience to present questions based on the debate questions.

Each candidate will have a specific time to respond to the questions from the moderator.

Anything else...?
Best Regards,
Jo

---

Original Message

---

Subject: RE: [FWD: Debate]
From: "Fred Wegener" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date: Thu, June 03, 2010 9:11 am
To: <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

I would like someone from my campaign to help select the questions. I would also like to asked that a neutral person be selected as a moderator. Some ground rules need to be set up and published prior to the debate. I like forward to your response. Thanks

From: [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.]
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 4:43 PM
To: Fred Wegener
Cc:
Subject: [FWD: Debate]

Sheriff Wegener,
Apologies if the previous e-mail did not reach you. Hopefully this will.
I hope to hear from you promptly regarding this debate.
Thank you for your consideration of this invitation
Best Regards,
Jo Ann Showalter

---

Original Message

---

Subject: Debate
From:
Date: Thu, May 20, 2010 6:21 pm
To:

Dear Sheriff Wegener,

You are invited to participate in a “blind debate” with Michael Graves on June 11, 2010 at Shepherd of the Rockies Church, 106 Rosalie RD. Bailey, CO 80421. You are also invited to participate in a second debate on August 6, 2010 at a location TBD.


The debates will be from 7:00 PM – 9:00 PM. The questions for the debate will be chosen from the top 10-15 concerns of citizens of Park County.

I have posted a request for concerns to be forwarded to me for selection and inspection. There will be a committee of three, myself included, who will select the questions for debate.

Each candidate will have a specific time allotted to respond, attendees will be asked to track their questions, and there will then be a question answer period after the debate.

Please RSVP by June 4 to
Jo Ann Showalter
303.816.1232.

If you would like to discuss please feel free to contact me by phone. I look forward to hearing from you.

Warm Regards,

Jo Ann Showalter
Chairperson, Citizens to Elect Michael Graves Park County Sheriff
303.816.1232

Saw this post over on another site and commented on it but for some unkown reason my post is no longer there. So I figured I would post it over here.

Committee2ElectMichaelGra wrote: NavyCPO7 and Daffy Duck, or is that Dick?????

I don't like to reply when I am irritated but some of what you post is just to push buttons...well ya got me!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What do you suppose a candidate committee does, and how do you suppose they do it? If you don't know research. I thought I was politically ignorant!

Oh...and BTW what makes you DD think the the election commission has time to set up debates for every candidate in the state?

You two need to do a little research...it's not the dark ages...that is also what computers and phones are for. You can always call the SOS..that stands for Secretary of State. This is the link to their website if you know how to use the internet I'm sure you can find the contact us page there.

For those of you who are serious about Michael Graves as a candidate it is $5.00 membership fee. Just a token to try to raise funds for this campaign. You can also volunteer and not be an official member.

Thanks to all you serious folks out there..hope to see you tonight. Maybe you'll identify yourselves if you friends...if you are a foe I dare you to introduce yourself.

That sounds like a threat!

I guess I am trying to figure out why it needed to be reposted here? Just a question.

I didn't really see it as a threat. I saw someone who was challenging people who make statements behind the anonymity of a nic to stand behind their statements face to face. I guess it is all about perception.

Sometimes the internet can be soooo frustrating.

People should be aware of how this canidate for Sheriff is conducting his campaign. When someone that represents themselves as a commette member to elect him to office states "I dare you to introduce yourself" it sounds like a threat.

Tilted my head left,right-saw no threat :chillpill:

Hi Ronbo,
Just some clarification on the terms dare and threat.

Dare; synonyms - challenge, urge, have the courage, have the nerve, risk, gamble.

Threat; synonyms – danger, menace, peril, warning, intimidation

I couldn't intimidate and ant much less any of you posters, and a threat is never my intention but a challenge certainly is. I am all about everyone having a personal opinion and I don't impose my realities on anyone. This is a challenge to come and listen to another point of view. I would just love to meet people face to face when they post comments that have no substance and are simply designed to push buttons. I am merely trying to get out a message, and that is, you have a choice for Sheriff this time. We would like for all you posters to come out to the meetings and discuss your issues [for or against Michael].

As for posting this information on all three sites I am trying to reach everyone, and not just posters to one community. If this is not the standard protocol I am always willing to be corrected, educated or constructively criticized.

Stay warm and dry today...

Joe,
I am sorry I missed your question about the jail so it didn't come up at the meeting. I will get some answers for you and send me other questions you might have.

CandidateCommitteeMGraves wrote: Joe,
I am sorry I missed your question about the jail so it didn't come up at the meeting. I will get some answers for you and send me other questions you might have.

I seem to remember reading about the jail being converted from private to county run and expanded, and that is losing a lot of money now? Is this correct? I don't know all the facts, but interested in both candidates plans for improving the jail financial situation going forward.

The only other question would be regarding animal control and a way to better enforce the dog barking and loose running dogs law, it doesn't seem to work very well in Park Co. IMO

Thanks