Montrose Deep State

 Opposes the Charter Amendments

By Fite4Truth

In yesterday’s Montrose Mirror a number of articles and letters to the editor argued against the proposed Charter Amendments. The claims would be easier to dismiss if the stakes were lower. Instead, the opposition has settled on a campaign of selective readings and warnings that do not match the plain text of the measures.

The Claim That Council Authority Is a Mayor’s Power Grab

One writer asserted that an amendment giving final authority to the City Council would amount to a power grab by the Mayor. The proposed language does not support that reading. It states that the City Council, acting as a body, would have the ability to approve the City Manager’s list of candidates for the Police Chief position, covering hiring and firing. Everyday administrative duties would remain with the City Manager. The distinction is written in ordinary terms. Treating a decision by the full elected council as the act of one individual requires overlooking the text itself.

Previous city councils chose to delegate hiring and firing authority over the Police Chief to an unelected official. The amendment would return that specific decision to the people voters actually elect. Opposition to restoring that limited role to the council is difficult to square with ordinary expectations of local government. Elected representatives are accountable at the ballot box. A city manager is not.

Opposition to Higher Turnout and Majority Rule

The same opposition has resisted moving city council elections to November. November elections consistently produce higher turnout than the current schedule. More residents participate when the local races appear on the same ballot as state and federal contests. The practical effect of keeping the earlier date is a smaller electorate deciding who sits on the council.

Critics who describe themselves as supporters of democracy have also opposed measures that would let a majority of voters decide council membership. The argument against broader participation is rarely stated directly. It appears instead as concern about process or timing. The result is the same: fewer voters, rather than more, determine the outcome.

Spending and the Source of the Opposition

Another letter warned voters not to let the Republican Party tell them how to vote. The distinction between informing and directing is straightforward. The amendments are written in plain English. Residents can read each one without a legal background. Materials explaining what the measures do are not the same as instructions on how to mark a ballot.

The opposition, by contrast, has spent at least $10,000, funded by two individuals, on advertising that presents a different account of the same text. Republican-side spending on the measures has stayed under $2,000. The groups aligned against the amendments include local Democratic Party organizations and other partisan entities. The nonpartisan label does not survive contact with the funding or the alliances.

The Record of a Former Official Now Aligned with the Opposition

An advertisement in the same Mirror edition came from a former elected official now working with the opposition. The ad invokes trust, honesty, and accountability. The official’s own record while in office undercuts the claim. Elected as a Republican, he later told party members that the R after his name did not mean he represented Republican positions. He used profanity toward those who questioned his actions and made false accusations against citizens.

His legislative choices included the following:

● Sponsored HB 19-1032 that resulted in the Sexual Exploitation of Children, e.g. infamous school survey that asked children as young as TEN years of age about various sexual acts.

● Sponsored SB 21-067 that MANDATES Children be taught diverse SEXUAL LIFESTYLES under the guise of “Civics Education”.

● VOTED yes on HB 19-1263 that decriminalized Drug Dealers and Fentanyl. Shortly thereafter, Colorado ranked #2 in Fentanyl deaths. The law was subsequently changed, but the HARM to our communities had already taken hold. Today, Colorado ranks #3 nationwide in Fentanyl deaths, which is still way too high.

The pattern continued in 2021 when he launched a counter campaign against conservative candidates for the Montrose County School Board, defying the party that had supported him. The move confirmed what his voting record had already shown: he was never aligned with the positions he had used to win election. Today he is actively endorsing the far left Democrat for governor in this year’s Colorado race.

These votes and later actions are a matter of public record. They are not compatible with the standards the advertisement now asks voters to associate with its sponsor.

Reading the Amendments

The four proposed Charter Amendments are available for anyone to examine. They address the specific points raised above: the limited role of the council in Police Chief hiring and firing, the timing of elections, and the role of voters in choosing council members. The language is direct. The opposition’s arguments depend on readings that the text does not support and on warnings that treat higher turnout and elected accountability as risks. Residents who take the time to read the measures themselves are in a position to judge which account is accurate.

The consistent conclusion after that reading is a yes vote on all four.