An Open Letter to the Chair of the Delta County Republican Party — and Why He’s Wrong About the Charter Commission and Question 2B

David Bradford, chairman of the Delta County Republican Party, wrote quite the whopper recently. In what is mostly a 5,000-word diatribe about this year’s ballot, Bradford offers one soft-headed take after another about each and every measure.

I honestly wouldn’t have read any of this blubbering boomer manifesto (who has the time?) until somebody pointed out that he wrote about me. So I figured I had better take a look.

Why did he write about me? I, along with eight other individuals, am on the ballot as a candidate for the City of Delta’s proposed charter commission, which, if voters approve, will work with the city to revise and improve the city’s charter.

Our city charter is old, outdated, and in dire need of reform. It provides guidance that doesn’t make much sense or addresses issues that no longer matter. It conflicts with the Colorado Constitution and the Colorado Revised Statutes, specifically the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) and open-records laws. The charter’s language is, at times, antiquated, vague, and gendered. Though the charter has been amended a few times, a thorough, comprehensive review of the entire document hasn’t occurred since it was first approved by voters in 1950.

In my humble opinion, it is past due for some change.

To change the document, City of Delta voters are presented with two questions: 2B and 2C.

2B asks the following:

Shall the City of Delta form a charter commission for the purposes of submitting amendments to the charter to be considered by the eligible electors of the city at a future election?

2C asks:

If the charter commission is formed, please select among the following up to nine (9) candidates for the commission.

The rest of 2C goes on to list the nine candidates, which includes my name.

Pretty simple, if you ask me: If you think the charter needs to be revised, vote yes on 2B. And you don’t really have to make any hard choices on who will represent you on this board because there are nine candidates and nine positions to fill. (Of course, it would more ideal to have more choices, but I’ll address that later.)

Bradford doesn’t agree, though. Instead, he offered up this stunning array of blockheaded wisdom on the Delta County GOP blog (pardon the grammatical, stylistic, and factual errors that I’ve copied and pasted here):

I am going to cover these two ballot questions in one analysis as they are essentially tied to one another. The City Charter for the City of Delta was approved by the voters in 1952. There are areas of the Charter that need to be updated. However, the proposed process in the ballot question has been promoted by the current City Council and City Manager in a secretive manner. The proposed candidates for the Charter, the number of which just happens to be nine, are believed to be hand-picked and will advance the agenda of the City Manager. It would seem that a more representative process would include enough candidates to actually provide a choice. I believe the City Charter analysis, as presented on this ballot, will probably resemble the Main Street Development Debacle that we are currently living with. Little or no public input. These two ballot questions should be voted down until a more open and specified charter revision process is presented to the voters of the City of Delta.

Here is my response to this blog. After all, one wordy diatribe deserves another.

Dear Mr. Bradford,

With all due respect, you’re full of shit about questions 2B and 2C on the ballot.

Please allow me to dissect said bullshit line by line. When I’m done, I hope you realize that you not only are wrong but also contradict yourself.

“I am going to cover these two ballot questions in one analysis as they are essentially tied to one another.”

This is one of two truthful things you wrote on the subject. 2C is dependent upon the passing of 2B. If the city votes against 2B, then 2C is moot. So, yes, these measures are tied to one another.

Kudos for making a salient point.

“The City Charter for the City of Delta was approved by the voters in 1952.”

I hate to split hairs here (no, I don’t), but this is factually wrong.

City of Delta voters approved the charter during a special election in 1950, not 1952. The charter went into effect on January 2, 1952, as recognized by the Colorado Secretary of State’s office.

I hate to be that guy (again — no, I don’t), but please get your facts straight.

“There are areas of the Charter that need to be updated.”

Here, you and I agree.

Our city charter is outdated and in dire need of reform. It provides guidance that doesn’t make much sense or addresses issues that no longer matter. It conflicts with the Colorado Constitution and the Colorado Revised Statutes, specifically the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) and open-records laws. The charter’s language is, at times, antiquated, vague, and gendered. Though the charter has been amended a few times, a thorough, comprehensive review of the entire document hasn’t occurred since, as mentioned before, it was first approved by voters in 1950.

Anything that was approved when Truman was president and “Goodnight Irene” on heavy radio rotation probably deserves a second look, eh?

“The proposed process in the ballot question has been promoted by the current City Council and City Manager in a secretive manner.”

Here is the beginning of some outlandish conspiracy theory that deserves debunking.

The process you’re skeptical of, Mr. Bradford, has nothing to do with the city council or city manager. This process is codified by state law. In fact, everything you need to know about this process is in Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) Title 31 (Government — Municipal), Article 2 (Formation and Reorganization), and Part 2 (Municipal Home Rule) — CRS 31–2–2, for short. More specifically, sections 31–2–205 through 31–2–225, which comprises about 25 pages of legalese in PDF format, detail the meticulously regulated process necessary to amend a charter and conduct the subsequent commission elections. (If you are willing to take the time to read it, which I encourage you to do, here is the link to the applicable laws.)

Yes, the city council, city manager, and city attorney have certainly discussed the shortcomings and flaws of the charter. And they have done so during multiple public meetings, which all citizens — including you, Mr. Bradford — are free to attend and engage in.

Just because you didn’t attend those meetings to hear these public discussions doesn’t mean anything “secretive” occurred. That’s the logical equivalent of an ostrich hiding his head in the dirt and being surprised that a hyena bit him on his feathered ass.

“The proposed candidates for the Charter, the number of which just happens to be nine, are believed to be hand-picked and will advance the agenda of the City Manager. It would seem that a more representative process would include enough candidates to actually provide a choice.”

There is a lot of bullshit to unpack here.

First, the telltale sign of any bullshit claim is when phrases like “are believed to be” are uttered. (This is the “some people say” strategy perfected by Fox News.) Believed by whom, Mr. Bradford? Name your sources. Otherwise, claims that lack evidence can be dismissed outright without evidence.

Next, the number of candidates for the charter commission is — surprise, surprise — determined by state law, not the city. CRS 31–2–206(b) states that communities with a population of 2,000 people or more (City of Delta has about 9,200 people according to the 2020 census) must establish a *minimum* of a nine-person commission to amend its charter. The commission size cannot exceed 21 members and must be an odd number in order to maintain a tie-breaking vote. Achieving a board of that size, however, would be impressive for a community like Delta (more on this later).

Finally, to call these candidates “hand-picked” is downright laughable. It implies that the city carefully selected a group of Manchurian candidates — mindless automatons programmed to do their bidding — and placed them on the ballot unbeknownst to a distracted electorate. You don’t think much of the citizens of Delta, do you, Mr. Bradford?

Also, it’s apparent that you don’t know me very well. Anybody who has spent any amount of time with me would know I would suck at being a puppet. If you couldn’t tell by my writing style, I’m a bit of a contrarian. My puppet master would probably grow quite tired of me very quickly. (Besides, the only “hand-picked” thing about me is my nose and the occasional wedgie.)

“Hand-picked” also suggests all these candidates share some unified agenda. I would argue that these candidates represent a fairly wide spectrum of opinions, experience, and backgrounds: young, old, natives, newcomers, business owners, retirees, men, women, etc. When I look at the list of candidates, I see a lot of Delta represented on this proposed board.

This “hand-picked” claim is, at best, delusionally paranoid and, at worst, willfully dishonest.

Furthermore, the claim is mean-spirited. It belittles those who stepped forward to volunteer their limited time. Candidates, of their own volition, went to city hall during business hours, collected petitions, gathered at least 25 signatures (often more) from registered city voters, notarized the petition, and returned everything to the city clerk — all within a relatively tight three-week time frame.

So why would you question the intentions of this group? These nine people stepped up because they are committed to serving our community. To call us “hand-picked” spits in the face of people who are actually doing something worthwhile, rather than spewing misinformation from the comfortable distance of our keyboards. If you don’t like who is on the ballot, then maybe you, Mr. Bradford, should have circulated your own damn petition. (Oh, wait — you can’t. You live in Paonia. Never mind.)

And the reason we have nine candidates on the ballot is entirely happenstance. Based on my understanding, 11 people picked up packets, but only nine completed them. Nothing clandestine happened here; it was simply a matter of luck that nine people made it past the electoral finish line.

And, in all honesty, a commission of nine people is quite an accomplishment for a community of our size. Having been involved in local government for a while, I understand how hard it is to get just five people to even agree to serve on the city council, which is why so many seats are rarely challenged. I currently serve as chair for the city’s seven-person planning commission, and it has always been difficult to keep all of those seats filled. During my five years on the commission, a full board is a rare occurrence.

The lack of candidates for the charter commission speaks only to the lack of volunteerism in our community, not the cloak-and-dagger machinations of whatever fantastical conspiracy theory is playing out in your fevered-pitch mind. After you remove your head from your ass, may I also recommend ditching the tinfoil hat, too? I would imagine that aluminum must chafe up there.

“I believe the City Charter analysis, as presented on this ballot, will probably resemble the Main Street Development Debacle that we are currently living with. Little or no public input.”

Surprise, surprise — more bullshit.

First, let’s dispense with the red herring that is the Main Street Project. There was a ton of opportunity for public input for that project, all of which received advanced public notice. But, again, nobody — including you, Mr. Bradford — bothered to show up to those meetings before the project began. Citizens sure made a lot of noise after the fact, though — thus, providing ample public feedback. And some of that feedback, such as demands to reopen the light at Fifth Street, was considered and implemented.

And, again, you live in Paonia, so you’re not actually “living with” Delta’s Main Street at all.

Logical fallacies and NIMBYism aside, this charter commission *is* the process for public input. Public input starts with the ballot measure and voters approving the formation of the commission.

The charter commission, if approved by voters, will meet publicly over the course of 180 days (roughly six months) to identify, discuss, and vote on proposed charter revisions. All of the commission’s work will take place during public meetings, so citizens are free to attend and engage based on the commission’s established public-input processes. (I don’t currently know what that process looks like because voters need to approve the commission before anything else is figured out. Let’s not get the cart before the horse, shall we?)

Finally, Delta voters get the opportunity to vote twice on this matter. First, they obviously get to vote on whether the charter needs to be changed in the first place (thus, question 2B on your ballot). Second, voters will approve the final revised charter proposed by the commission, as articulated by the last clause of the ballot question: “amendments to the charter to be considered by the eligible electors of the city at a future election.”

So, even if some rogue commission proposed some radically altered version of the charter — say, a cabal of devil-worshipping communists hellbent on legalizing recreational heroin and mandating pornography in schools — citizens can easily vote down every bit of purported evil that this commission fiendishly concocted.

Simply put, the public has the first and final say on this matter. So, in my humble opinion, this process has plenty of checks and balances with abundant opportunities for public input all along the way.

Anybody who says otherwise, especially those who misdirect with red-herring arguments, is either ignorant of how things actually work or purposefully trying to distort the facts. Neither is a good look, especially for somebody in a position of leadership.

If you want to see the charter amended, this is the *only* way that we can do so. And this is where you contradict yourself, Mr. Bradford. Even you admit that “there are areas of the Charter that need to be updated.” Well, this is what state law mandates, so if you want the charter updated, them’s the rules.

“These two ballot questions should be voted down until a more open and specified charter revision process is presented to the voters of the City of Delta.”

You can vote how ever you want on 2B and 2C (no, wait — you can’t because you live in Paonia), but your premise is wrong. You’re demanding something the city can’t provide. Again, the city doesn’t get to dictate how this process unfolds; state law does. If this is your one hangup with the ballot measures, then you need to speak to your state legislature about reforming state law, which — I agree — needs significant updating.

But in the meantime, if you believe that the charter needs to be updated (which apparently both you and I agree on), then we need to play the cards that we’ve been dealt; otherwise, we might as well just fold our hands.

So, since we seem to agree that the charter needs revision, may I recommend amending your blog post and encouraging voters to vote yes on 2B? It seems like the only logical solution to a problem that we both agree exists.

Sincerely,

Jay Stooksberry
Your resident “hand-picked” candidate for Delta’s charter commission

P.S. Also, in the meantime, Mr. Bradford: Keep my name out of your mouth. You’ll find it to be quite bitter after the first bite.