It is currently Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:45 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
DEBATE Candidates Park County Sheriff's Office - Declined 
Author Message

Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 4:53 pm
Posts: 1
Post DEBATE Candidates Park County Sheriff's Office - Declined
I'm shamefully green when it comes to the nuances of politics so I am going on gut instinct. Do we even have a polling system as Wayne suggests in his post on [another website].com?

Wayne([another website].com poster), I totally get the concept, and I could believe it if I did not hear that at last nights central committee meeting Dick Elsner, Chairperson for Central Committee, announced the central committee would host 3 (?) debates for PCSO. Questions for the debate would come the central committee each; precinct to submit 2 questions, and the executive board would then select the questions. This is the 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 am the chairperson for Michael's candidate committee.

I think I smell something funny. I swore I wouldn't get into junk 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, not sure how this is ‘gonna’ work, but bottom line the public will not be heard. 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! Already done. 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 on this committee. 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. I wonder what their by-laws state about this, and I 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" <pcsheriff> (Add as Preferred Sender)
Date: Wed, Jun 09, 2010 7:02 am
To: <info>
Cc: "Richard Elsner" <relsner>, "Park County Bulletin" <admin>, "Tom Locke" <editor>

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

From: info@rubysresale.com [mailto:info@rubysresale.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 5:24 PM
To: Fred Wegener
Cc: michaelgraves2010@michaelgraves2010.com; editor@theflume.com
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

[another website].com's offer to web cam the debate has also been posted on [another website] and PineCam. I think it behooves you to give your supporters an opportunity to hear 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" <pcsheriff>
Date: Mon, June 07, 2010 6:42 am
To: <info>
-------- Original Messa
Haven't heard anything on format or ground rules. Would like to see that before I accept the invitation. Thanks

From: info@rubysresale.com [mailto:info@rubysresale.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 3:53 PM
To: Fred Wegener
Cc: michaelgraves2010@michaelgraves2010.com
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 [another website], 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" <pcsheriff>
Date: Thu, June 03, 2010 11:13 am
To: <info>

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: info@rubysresale.com [mailto:info@rubysresale.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 11:31 AM
To: Fred Wegener
Cc: michaelgraves2010@michaelgraves.com
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" <pcsheriff>

Date: Thu, June 03, 2010 9:11 am
To: <info>

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: info@rubysresale.com [mailto:info@rubysresale.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 4:43 PM
To: Fred Wegener
Cc: ravey@parko.us
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: info@rubysresale.com
Date: Thu, May 20, 2010 6:21 pm
To: info@wegener2010.com

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


Thu Jun 10, 2010 2:52 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:48 am
Posts: 69
Post Re: DEBATE Candidates Park County Sheriff's Office - Declined
The only difference between your debate and the committee's debate is that the insiders on the exec board for the committee won't allow any citizen input or participation. Only the central committee will be allowed to submit questions and the chairman, who supports Fred, will choose the questions. The chairman playing god again.

That means that Mike will probably by "ambushed" instead of Fred being ambushed as the chairman said he would be if he attended your debate. So he has taken the same risks and turned them around to support his favorites. They have taken control of it and will block the citizens out just like the current government does. The chairman is a friend of commissioners and the incumbents. I get the feeling he will do anything to fight new people coming in even when they are better republicans than what we have. He pretends he's neutral but it would be obvious to a deaf, dumb and blind person that he's far from it, in my opinion. Just another good con man maybe?

That whole committee is just a branch of the current government.


Thu Jun 10, 2010 8:39 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 136
Post Re: DEBATE Candidates Park County Sheriff's Office - Declined
Oy what a mess. Too bad Mike's campaign fell apart when he started a committee. That's bad that all the people supporting him seem to get in public fights, including the commissioner candidate he likes to hang out with. But it's also embarrassing for the Repubs that their tricks are being exposed, too. Is there anybody left that can be trusted? Both sides of everything seem kind of nuts. You've got politicians' kids threatening to beat the f------ sh-- out of an opponent on a public facebook page, a Sheriff who won't face the public's questions, and a political party that wants to take the decisions out of the hands of the voters.
:shrug:
So much for Democracy. We have a Thugocracy instead.


Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:11 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:48 am
Posts: 69
Post Re: DEBATE Candidates Park County Sheriff's Office - Declined
Thugocracy is right. Why bother with elections? The Sheriff tries to intimidate people who support his opponent, the repub central committee power mongers control all of the debates, and the clerk decides who gets the votes. I hope everybody enjoys having the dimwit Tighe as their next sheriff in town abusing power.

Sounds simple. Just like Obama's Chicago.


Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:42 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.

./cache/ is NOT writable.