Health Care - Local and Personal

Air Force One over Clifton.

I spent my Saturday afternoon with an orange vest on, listening to at least three separate radios while helping to keep traffic off of F Road between 31 1/2 Rd. and the I-70 approaches while the President's motorcade passed by. There may have been over 200 officers deployed from various agencies to assist with the overall operation, but there were a lot of volunteers assisting in that role as well.

This blog is subtitled "notes from the journey". That means my journey. Regurgitating someone else's opinions, position papers, news reports, etc. may be helpful in embellishing a point or building consensus, but this issue is too close to home and too well-debated already to warrant me wasting time adding to the noise floor.

I've got lots of experience, both personal and professional, in the health care delivery system. Most of it relates to Emergency Medical Services, which is best described as a symbiotic hybrid of the health care and public safety disciplines.

Add aircraft to the mix and you incorporate the rigorous disciplines of aviation. More about that later on.

Here's what I believe must happen if we are to come anywhere near providing adequate health care to all citizens:

• Universal coverage is essential. No one with a pre-existing condition should be excluded from obtaining health care coverage.
  
• Health care coverage must be in force and accepted regardless of the location within the country or the qualified provider used.
  
• A profit motive is incompatible with the provision of health insurance coverage.
  

I've had a front row seat to catastrophic illness, out of network care issues, hospice care, and coordination of benefits disputes, among other things. I've been fortunate to have had good health care coverage through employers, that covered the vast majority of the costs involved in many of these circumstances.

There are things that I prefer to handle myself. I choose to self-pay for my own prescriptions, because I want to be able to control where I obtain these, and in what quantities.

At this point I don't have a great deal more to share. I'll keep reading and listening to both sides, and will watch yesterday's town meeting coverage on the DVR. I can tell you one thing, though. If the debate is indeed distilling itself down to hope versus fear, count me in for hope.

Have a great day.

Bresnan Outage - It's Personal

I'll try not to get too deep into the massive outage that deprived Bresnan Communications subscribers of Telephone and Internet service for the better part of 16 hours (at least in Grand Junction) on Thursday and Friday.

Shawn Beqaj, Bresnan's Vice President for Public Affairs, was a very busy man Friday, fielding comment requests from media outlets all over the Mountain West. From speaking with him previously, I know that his company is very concerned with providing efficient and reliable service, and I appreciated his candor when he detailed the root cause behind this week's problem, which related to a "corrupt routing table" on one server that cascaded to others.

I'm no IT or networking professional, but I would be interested to know if this outage was the result of hacker activity, or something else. Is it coincidental that the outage affected two of the three areas where the President is scheduled to visit? How's THAT for a conspiracy theory? Perhaps I should start making signs and listening to KNZZ. Scary...

Seriously, when dealing with a problem like this, the process surrounding the mitigation and resolution of the problem, especially as it relates to the people affected, is as equally important as any technology component that may need to be repaired. With that, I was concerned that NO local broadcast media were apparently aware of the outage when it started, or didn't think it worth mentioning as part of their Thursday evening reporting.

A friend on Facebook brought the lack of phone service, but the availability of cable TV, into real perspective on Friday morning:

Only the most life-and-death commodity they offer. If I have a medical emergency, I will die slowly, but be able to watch "Housewives of Atlanta" as I go.

I believe that any interruption of phone service is a serious matter, especially given the number of Bresnan phone service subscribers who have bought into the "reliability" message as put forward by Bresnan in their advertising. I've caught Bresnan in the past doing late night "scheduled maintenance" on their Internet and phone systems, and have let their customer service have it for not making subscribers aware in advance.

Considering the duration and scope of this particular outage, and the seeming lack of notification through the media or other means, I contacted Kate Porras, PIO for the Grand Junction Police, which also operates the county 9-1-1 center. I was curious if they had received any formal notification from Bresnan of a major outage, and if so when that notification was made.

Kate responded that the 9-1-1 center was advised on Thursday evening, but couldn't elaborate on the manner in which the notification was received, i.e. from a citizen or via a Bresnan network operations person. At about the same time as Kate spoke with me, the GJPD issued a press release that provided some rudimentary instructions for people who had no phone service and needed help.

Yes, many of us had backup in the form of cell phones, neighbors, etc. should the unthinkable have occurred during the outage. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the seemingly cavalier attitude taken by Bresnan regarding a service that is largely perceived by the public as reliable and available in the vast majority of circumstances. The same might be said for our local emergency services, who while aware of the interruption took no apparent action to inform the public until asked about it.

I'm curious as to why a corrupt routing table for a DNS (Domain Name System) routing server would compromise a telephone switch, supposedly located here in Grand Junction, which is connected through what is known as a CLEC (Competitive Local Exchange Carrier) to the PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network). That's about as techie as I am willing or able to get about it, but if I find that my landline phone service is in any way dependent upon the Internet to establish connectivity, I'm going to get serious about a service change.

I think that Bresnan is going to need to do some serious follow-up with its customers. Some in the social networking cloud are calling for a credit to their bill, and I think that's reasonable. I'm hoping to hear back from Bresnan regarding some of my questions and concerns, and I'll post an update when I get it.

I'm also going to do some research through the Colorado Public Utility Commission on what resources are available through the state agency that is responsible for regulating and monitoring the activities of Telecommunications services providers doing business in Colorado.

I would have done this before posting, but as luck (?) would have it, the PUC's servers are down.

Looking forward to the President's visit this afternoon. Have a great weekend.

ADDENDUM, Sat. 8/15 10:30 AM - The PUC website is back up this morning, and has a comment and complaint page with an associated form. These pages include telephone numbers to contact the commission as well.

According to the PUC website, their jurisdiction in a matter such as this is limited to the provision of basic telephone service.

Homelessness: Two Perspectives

Grand Junction got a mention in another New York-based publication this week, but it's doubtful that anyone will be tooting their horn about this one.

The City's recent dalliance with a panhandling and solicitation ordinance was mentioned by Barbara Ehrenreich in an op-ed in this past Sunday's New York Times. The piece, titled "Is it Now a Crime to be Poor?", references a new study titled Homes Not Handcuffs: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities.

This study, commissioned by the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty and The National Coalition for the Homeless, also identifies what it calls the ten "Meanest Cities" in terms of their treatment of the homeless and poor in their areas.

The column included stories that sound a familiar chord to those who advocate locally for what are called the "publicly poor"; targeted enforcement of petty infractions such as littering or smoking in a public park, warrant sweeps through shelters, camps, and public housing, and a resulting cycle of arrest, incarceration, and debt that is nearly impossible to get out of.

Ms. Ehrenreich summarized things nicely:

The pattern is to curtail financing for services that might help the poor while ramping up law enforcement: starve school and public transportation budgets, then make truancy illegal. Shut down public housing, then make it a crime to be homeless. Be sure to harass street vendors when there are few other opportunities for employment. The experience of the poor, and especially poor minorities, comes to resemble that of a rat in a cage scrambling to avoid erratically administered electric shocks.

Some cities have gone so far as to criminalize the activities of their communities of faith, among others, by passing laws prohibiting the sharing of food with indigent people. Las Vegas and Orlando were mentioned specifically; perhaps the vital nature of their tourist economy was the impetus behind such a mean-spirited measure, but this is one tourist whose dollars will not be going to either of those locations, at least until those laws are repealed.

While the NYT piece was painting a picture of ongoing despair combined with draconian indifference on the part of some local governments, a story in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal offered a picture of hope and common sense for many with no other choice.

Cities Tolerate Homeless Camps showcased several initiatives that were undertaken by local governments around the country to allow tent cities in certain areas, while entering into partnerships with local non-profits and advocacy groups to coordinate the provision of municipal services to the camps.

This story also focused on efforts in Nashville and Tampa, as well as in Sacramento, where:

"legalizing the camps is more compassionate and cost-effective than forcing 'poor people who are camping because they have a lack of better choices to constantly have to fear being rousted and cited by police,' (according to) Joan Burke, advocacy director for Sacramento Loaves & Fishes, a homeless-assistance agency."

It's nice to know that there are places in this country where government can clearly recognize the nature of the problem beyond the surface appearances. With the realization that the problem will not be going away anytime soon, local governments can enter into partnerships with the non-profit community to provide for more effective service delivery.

With regard to how some of these things can be paid for, the study cited by Ms. Ehrenreich contains several examples of ways that some community partnerships are helping to fund services. One example comes from just over the hill:

"The Denver Road Home campaign began with 36 meters in March 2007; by October 2008 there were 86 meters. This initiative is part of Denver’s 10-year plan to end homelessness. The idea behind the meters is to funnel the $4 million given to homeless individuals in the city annually, as estimated by the Downtown Denver Partnership, toward agencies better equipped to distribute resources without the fear of money being used for counterproductive purposes. The meters serve two purposes - to be donation receptacles and to raise public awareness. The meters have raised close to $15,000 in coins, in addition to nearly $100,000 through private donors and businesses 'adopting' a meter. This model has had national influence and more cities have looked to emulate Denver’s example."

Here's one potential application of this idea locally; instead of not charging for parking in Downtown GJ over the Christmas holiday shopping season, earmark all proceeds from the meters, as well as all parking fines, to established non-profits and social service agencies that serve the local homeless population.

The City of Grand Junction can benefit from these lessons learned elsewhere, especially as the fall and winter grow closer, by partnering with stakeholders and looking into the feasibility of permitting a more stable and accessible location for a homeless camp, if necessary. There is no shortage of community groups that might be willing to partner with the city to provide a more stable base of services to the homeless population.

In a Christian nation, Compassion and Caring should be the benchmark of how we look after one another, instead of Criminalization and Contempt.

Have a good day.

Photo Credit: National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, The National Coalition for the Homeless

Disorderly Conduct in GJ - Part 2

I received a call Tuesday from Kate Porras, Public Information Coordinator for the Grand Junction Police Department. She provided an update and response to my inquiry that was detailed in Monday's post, about a case in which a summons for Disorderly Conduct was issued to a Grand Junction woman for a display that appeared to fall within First Amendment protections of freedom of speech.

Ms. Porras provided me with the following background information:

• The summons was written due to the incident being a continuation of an ongoing neighbor dispute. Since July 18, GJPD officers had responded 5 times to the area to deal with complaints directed between the same neighbors, and had fielded several phone calls as well.
  
• The officer felt that the latest incident, involving the 'PSYCHO' sign, was an attempt to incite or harass the person being targeted. Rather than charge Ms. Stevenson with Harassment, a misdemeanor which would require a County Court appearance, the officer instead opted for Disorderly Conduct, which would be handled in GJ Municipal Court. It was felt that this step was necessary to "get the attention" of the persons involved.
  
• The officer's report included that Ms. Stevenson had written a letter of apology to the object of her aggravation. With an "ongoing issue" such as this dispute, the goal of the Police Department is to prevent further escalation. It appears that this is the case with the incident in question.
• This case will be brought to the attention of the City Attorney's office for further review, due in part to the attention that it has generated.
• The Police Department is very cognizant of the need to respect and protect the First Amendment rights of those they may come into contact with.
  

Sounds like a tough call on the part of the officer that handled this. The dispute between the two neighbors, which began when a complaint was registered with the City and their HOA over a sanctioned block party, probably shouldn't have festered that long. According to the officer's report, the alleged victim admitted that she refused to speak with Ms. Stevenson when approached by her about the complaint letter. This apparently led to the adorning of Ms. Stevenson's truck with "PSYCHO" in front of her neighbor's house.

Colorado Revised Statutes, Section 18-9-111 (in part):

(1) A person commits harassment if, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, he or she:

(a) Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise touches a person or subjects him to physical contact; or

(b) In a public place directs obscene language or makes an obscene gesture to or at another person; or

(c) Follows a person in or about a public place; or

(h) Repeatedly insults, taunts, challenges, or makes communications in offensively coarse language to, another in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response.

The harassment statute doesn't seem to fit the bill either, unless you consider the word 'psycho' an example of "offensively coarse language". In the end, the officer apparently elected to use Ms. Stevenson's acceptance of her role in the incident, along with her stated regret for the situation, to make an example of her behavior in a way that would be the least problematic for her.

As much as I agree with the concept of an officer exercising discretion when faced with the various circumstances that he or she may encounter during the course of doing what is a very difficult job, I'm still having a hard time believing that the end justified the means here.

The officer's report describes the history surrounding the incident, but doesn't make reference to any ongoing dispute or multiple calls for service in the context of justifying the actions he took that day.

Under the reported circumstances, the dispute didn't seem to be so long-standing and acrimonious that it was completely intractable. The offended party also refused to talk with Ms. Stevenson, and that lack of willingness to communicate likely helped to fuel the problem.

I still think that Ms. Stevenson had every right to display her sign on the side of her truck. Like Professor Gates, she exercised her right to be a jerk. Unlike that other situation, an ongoing dispute had to be dealt with.

I know from personal experience how annoyingly stupid some of these disputes can be, and how the parties to them can be extraordinarily nasty at times. The officer must exhibit the wisdom of Solomon while endeavoring to maintain order.

While the ticket that Ms. Stevenson received seemed to be the path of least resistance toward resolving this particular dispute, it's little incursions like this into the slippery slope of the Bill of Rights that threaten to set dangerous precedents for the future.

Thanks to the Police Department for their response to my questions. May they receive sage direction and advice from the City Attorney in this area.

Disorderly Conduct in Grand Junction

'Psycho’ sign nets ticket

A northeast Grand Junction woman decided one word would speak louder than violent actions Thursday when she parked her car in front of a neighbor’s house with “Psycho” written in parchment paper on the side of her vehicle.

Grand Junction police said they cited Wini Stevenson, 53, for disorderly conduct after she parked her car in front of a neighbor’s home to protest the neighbor complaining to their homeowner’s association about a block party.

- Police Blotter, Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, August 1, 2009

A week ago, while working on a previous post about a similar topic, this blurb from the newspaper jumped out at me. Something didn't seem right; I wondered what extenuating circumstances may have existed to warrant a criminal citation for what would normally be just an ill-advised, rude, and largely pointless, but not illegal gesture.

Given the timeliness of these questions to what was a national point of discussion, I decided to obtain a copy of the police report for the incident, which in most cases is permitted under the Colorado Open Records Act. The report accurately detailed the summary in the newspaper account.

The officer wrote that he "issued Stevenson a municipal summons for disorderly conduct for directing derogatory language" at her neighbor. The officer added in his narrative, "Stevenson's attitude continued to be positive and truthful. She answered each question I asked her and was totally cooperative throughout my entire contact with her."

It sounds like Ms. Stevenson didn't give the officer a hard time at all. I really started wondering about how a sign on a car, or in a window, or being carried on a public sidewalk, without any associated belligerent behavior on the part of anyone, could be a crime.

If I were to walk in front of a local used car lot with a sign that says "XYZ AUTO SELLS LEMONS", this could be considered "derogatory language" by the business owner, and he could seek relief in the civil courts if he saw fit. But is it a criminal act?














Here is a picture of the few pro-health care reform citizens who showed up at Saturday's rally against the current health care proposal being considered in Washington.

What if one of these signs had just the word "PSYCHO" on it? Would that be considered "derogatory language"? Would the officer in the picture have probable cause to cite that person for Disorderly Conduct?

What is the difference between this lawful expression of free speech rights, and what happened above?

I posed this question last Tuesday to both the Colorado Chapter of the ACLU and to Kate Porras, Public Information Coordinator for the Grand Junction Police Department.

Perhaps it would be good to review what the applicable laws actually say about Disorderly Conduct.

Colorado Revised Statutes, Section 18-9-106 (in part):

(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly:

(a) Makes a coarse and obviously offensive utterance, gesture, or display in a public place and the utterance, gesture, or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

Grand Junction City Code, Section 24-4 (in part):

A person commits disorderly conduct if he knowingly:

(1) Addresses abusive language or threats to any person present which creates a clear and present danger of violence.

I think that if a reasonable person looks at what the law says, and how it relates to the account at the top of this post, there appears to be a disconnect. Mark Silverstein, the ACLU Of Colorado's Legal Director, replied to my question with the following:

As described in the Sentinel, the actions of the Grand Junction woman are not disorderly conduct nor any other crime; she engaged in free speech that is protected by the Constitution. There is a narrow exception to the First Amendment for so-called "fighting words," but the display of a sign under the circumstances described here does not qualify as "fighting words."

I have yet to receive a reply from Ms. Porras. She did say that she would get back to me, and it's understandable that her workload may have prevented a more expedient response. The announcement of a new interim Police Chief, activities surrounding National Night Out, and preparations for a Presidential visit were likely all on her calendar last week, along with the usual incident stuff. I'll post an update with her reply when I receive it.

I felt it necessary to complete this post without her contribution, because there are timely issues relating to the use and enforcement of laws like this one that need to be discussed.

First and foremost, we the people need to remember that the rights conveyed by the Constitution apply to all citizens, regardless of race, cultural or political background, or perceived socio-economic status. I say "perceived" because of this story from last week.

Second, when any attempt is made to use vague statutes like Disorderly Conduct to quell or restrict appropriate free speech, it needs to be called out for what it is. The recent attempt to criminalize solicitation and panhandling in Grand Junction is one example.

Another example was in a local response to the tumult that has erupted at various congressional town meetings across the country, orchestrated by opponents of the health care reform package. Grand Junction blogger and attorney Bill Hugenberg offered the following in a recent blog post:

Under the law, “(1) A person commits disorderly conduct if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly: . . . (c) Makes unreasonable noise in a public place . . .” In People v Fitzgerald, 194 Colo. 415, 573 P.2d 100 (1978), the Colorado Supreme Court interpreted the foregoing language as follows: Section 18-9-106(1)(c) cannot, consistent with First Amendment rights, be construed to prohibit automatically all speech which might disturb people even when the speaker had that intent. . . . However, the state may act to prohibit, consistent with the First Amendment, the use of the human voice to disturb others when there is no substantial effort to communicate or when the seeming communication is used as a guise to accomplish disruption (emphasis added).

I'm not in favor of law enforcement trying to wade through a morass like this; their job is hard enough already. As I see it, if those disrupting a meeting won't cooperate, then they should be asked to leave. If they won't, then trespass them.

As if we haven't seen enough of disorderly conduct issues in recent weeks, we in Grand Junction get to explore these limits a little more as part of what constitutes Critical Mass for the civil liberties crowd; a visit from the President of the United States. Even this pales in comparison to what some of my friends in Pittsburgh are busy preparing for; a G-20 Summit.

Recent local history surrounding these types of visits has seen local law enforcement exercising admirable restraint in the vast majority of circumstances, acting only when obviously necessary. Let's hope that this practice translates to everyday operations, with appropriate action where needed, and respect for established rights being the clearly established norm.

Have a great week ahead.

Solar Rethink

Good news today, in the wake of this afternoon's PUC hearing to consider Xcel Energy's request for a rate hike.

Xcel informed the state yesterday that it was stripping from its request a controversial fee that would have levied an additional charge on customers with solar power systems tied into the power grid. Seems that the pressure exerted from the public, solar consumers and installers, and the Governor's Energy Office caused Xcel to rethink this part of their request.

The Denver Business Journal delivered a very balanced and thorough account of the issues surrounding the fee. It included some of Xcel's concerns regarding what they perceive as a free ride that solar is getting. Here's a sample:

Since many solar-powered customers don’t have a monthly bill, they don’t pay embedded costs for things such as power plants, transmission lines, or equipment upgrades at power plants that are aimed at improving air quality, (Xcel spokesman Tom) Henley said.

They also don’t pay fuel costs associated with generating electricity at night, or pay into the “Solar*Rewards” fund that Xcel uses to pay rebates for new solar power systems, Henley said.

Regardless of what you think of the future of solar power, I've read about some of the advances. Japanese companies such as Kyocera and Sharp are making significant strides in the area of lightweight, flexible, and cost-effective solar arrays, and the less you draw from the grid to run your things, the less money Xcel makes, or at least they think so.

So with all parties understanding what each other wants and has planned for the future, it's prudent to share those things with concerned citizens, business owners, utilities, and those otherwise engaged in noteworthy activity to reduce Colorado's carbon emissions in the form of fossil fuels to generate power.

Then again, today's PUC hearing could be crashed by the body-snatched drones of talk radio, shouting over people that solar power is a socialist plot to weaken the oil and coal producers so that they can be more easily nationalized by the non-native-born occupant of the White House...

Time to get some sleep.

Gates v. Crowley - The Real Lesson

One should not be subject to arrest merely for berating an officer (particularly at one's own home). Disorderly conduct statutes tend to be vague and amorphous, allowing police officers to use them against those who annoy them. This is contrary to the concepts of free speech.

- Nationstates.net

Amid the media circus that played out ad nauseam last week over the Professor Gates and Cambridge Police issue, I've found some little tidbits of wisdom that highlight what I consider the biggest issue that the incident has brought up; the relationship of the incident to the First Amendment right to free speech, and the use of 'disorderly conduct' laws on a punitive basis by law enforcement.

Don't get me wrong; by all accounts, Professor Gates acted inappropriately, and has been called out by many for doing so. The question being brought up in many places is, do we as citizens have the constitutional right to act in such a manner, so long as there is no imminent danger to others?

Judging from many commentators and other media outlets, there is wide latitude available to police when they are attempting to address a problem, and feel the need to resolve the problem by taking someone into custody and charging them with "Disorderly Conduct" or the local equivalent. Here is a sampling of what is out there:

Harvey Silverglate, writing in Forbes magazine:

Today, the law recognizes only four exceptions to the First Amendment's protection for free speech: (1) speech posing the "clear and present danger" of imminent violence or lawless action...(2) disclosures threatening "national security," (3) "obscenity" and (4) so-called "fighting words" that would provoke a reasonable person to an imminent, violent response.

There is a serious problem in this country: Police are overly sensitive to insults from those they confront. And one can hardly blame the confronted citizen, especially if the citizen is doing nothing wrong when confronted by official power. This is, after all, a free country, and if "free" means anything meaningful, it means being left alone--especially in one's own home--when one is not breaking the law.

Sgt. Crowley had every right to check on what was reported as a possible break and entry. But as soon as he realized that the occupant was entitled to be in the house, he should have left. He admits in his own police report that he was indeed able to ascertain Professor Gates' residency and hence right to be in the house.

Vikram David Amar, writing on Findlaw:

...this brings us to the likely real basis for the disorderly conduct arrest: Sergeant Crowley was being yelled at and accused of racism within view and earshot of many other police officers and members of the community, and that kind of disrespect and accusation angered and embarrassed him.

Being angry is natural when a person is being yelled at and accused of evil. But as the Supreme Court has made clear in a number of cases (largely from the 1970s and 1980s), police officers cannot invoke vague and open-ended laws like "disorderly conduct" ordinances simply because police are being unfairly berated.

As free speech champion Justice William Brennan explained for the (U.S. Supreme) Court two decades ago in a seminal case in this line of decisions, Houston v. Hill, "contrary to the city's contention, the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers. 'Speech is often provocative and challenging.... [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.'"

Grand Junction-area blogger and self-described "individualist" John Wilkenson wrote an exhaustive piece about the incident, and how it illustrates the current nature of freedom in America. One of its subtitles, "Jerk vs. Jerk" seemed to sum the whole thing up nicely, but Mr. Wilkenson made an excellent concise point or two as well:

I suspect Crowley became angry when Gates repeatedly and vigorously insisted that Crowley give Gates his name and badge number. Obviously 4th Amendment probable cause law was on Gates' side, and Crowley, for whatever reason, was unable or unwilling to simply ratchet down and walk away saying, "Thank you. We're glad everything is OK. Have a nice evening." But that's not what cops do. Cops tend not to ratchet down. They most often tend to take control, even if that means making a knowingly unconstitutional arrest in prima facie violation of the 4th Amendment's probable cause requirements and relevant 1st Amendment free speech law.

Over the last week, several mainstream media outlets, from Time Magazine to the Los Angeles Times, have explored the issue of Disorderly Conduct laws and how they are used by police. This was a refreshing change from the knee-jerk litany about racial profiling, class, and beer that dominated most of the reporting I saw.

In any case, the discourse about what is called "contempt of cop" in some circles has generated increased interest in what differences exist between what police are trained to do, what they try to do, and what they actually can do in certain situations.

I hope to explore in greater detail later this week the application of Disorderly Conduct laws in Colorado, with emphasis on some of our local West Slope resources and jurisdictions.

Have a good rest of the week.

An Inconvenient Tale

After the tragic events in Montrose a little over a week ago, I happened upon a link to a police mug shot of Dennis Gurney, the man that killed Sgt. David Kinterknecht and wounded two other Montrose officers before taking his own life.

After the initial shock, I was struck with questions about the kind of tortured soul that resided inside what was literally a mask of scar tissue. What limited information that was available indicated that he had several recent run-ins with local law enforcement, with a history of alcohol-fueled violence against his wife. The circumstances surrounding Mr. Gurney's disfigurement were usually limited to one sentence, that he had been burned in an oil rig fire in the 1980's.

With our deserving final respects paid and Sgt. Kinterknecht laid to rest, I was surprised that any segment of the media would choose to focus so soon on the life and times of Dennis Gurney. But there it was, on the front page of Sunday's Denver Post.

West slope-based reporter Nancy Lofholm detailed the very things I was looking for. The circumstances surrounding the drill rig mishap in 1980 that left Mr. Gurney burned over 3/4 of his body. His family's relocation to Montrose, and his assimilation into that community. The dark cloud of depression, band-aided with medications and alcohol, and his tragic end a week ago Saturday.

The comments on the story understandably ran the gamut; from a desire to understand, to the extent that we can, how trauma shaped Dennis Gurney, to those all too quick to judge him, his wife, and the Post, unable to see past the "psycho cop killer" label. Add a little flame war to muck it up all the more, and you have a pretty classic example of Internet discourse in this country.
Fortunately, a diamond in the rough stood out:

While there can never be a valid justification for anyone taking another person's life, the Post was right in presenting another side to Dennis Gurney's sad and painful life rather than just allowing him to be remembered as another psycho abuser and cop killer. There is a story behind every single person who eventually ends up as an alcoholic, drug addict, abuser or cop killer. Unfortunately, most of them are never told. It takes a willingness to be subjected to criticism such as the kind we are seeing in this discussion to present another side to a "cop killer's" personality and I commend the Post for having the courage to do so on this occasion.

As it happens, there was another, much more comprehensive report about a group of citizens who engaged in substance abuse and violent behavior after being involved in a lengthy traumatic experience.

The Colorado Springs Gazette is getting national attention for a two-part series published last week titled Casualties of War. The series focuses on the alarming number of violent crimes committed in the Colorado Springs area by military personnel, with emphasis on a single Army infantry battalion based at Fort Carson.

The two stories are filled with graphic descriptions of battle, atrocities alleged to have been committed on innocent Iraqis by American soldiers, and numerous random violent acts stateside. It's worth a complete read.

Now the Army, for the first time, will be watching the soldiers at Fort Carson for signs of PTSD.

A recurrent statement during soldier interviews for the Gazette story is how there is a "stigma" or "culture" in the Army that views asking for help in coping with the rigors of war as a sign of weakness. There's a common thread here to what I've seen among public safety personnel who I assisted during my time as a Peer Debriefer for a CISM team in Pittsburgh.

The mantra for me was, "Hey, you're a human being, complete with strengths, weaknesses, with unique experiences that help to shape how you react to bad things when they happen. Get this; somewhere, someone has dealt with the things you're dealing with. You're not alone."

Coupled with a greater social and cultural acceptance (particularly among men) of the need to communicate with professionals about emotional problems, is the need for readily available mental health services, more robust than trying to mask a problem with something like Zoloft or Xanax.

Yes, Dennis Gurney did a horrible thing. He is receiving an eternal judgment far greater than any of us could impose. Some of the soldiers returning from multiple deployments to Iraq or Afghanistan did terrible things, too. We as a society need to remember and understand; it will be a victory for responsible, well-rounded journalism if these stories help to begin that process.

Have a good week.

Sgt. David Kinterknecht

Last Saturday was a somewhat unsettled evening at work, with the report of the shooting of several police officers in Montrose. Details were sketchy at first, and as word came in that St. Mary's would be getting one of the officers, talk and speculation were the order of the evening.

It wasn't until Monday morning that I read the news of Sgt. David Kinterknecht's death, and my heart sank. I never had the opportunity to meet him, but I know his wife, Kathy. She worked for a brief time with me at the Grand Junction 9-1-1 Center, and prior to that worked in Montrose County's dispatch center. So among the sadness in the public safety community, there is also a particular degree of concern in the dispatch area for a significant loss suffered by a fellow colleague.

On the front page of today's Montrose Daily Press is a tribute and expression of thanks by Kathy for the outpouring of support from the community at large.

I worked overnight, but I'll be staying up to watch Sgt. Kinterknecht's memorial service today. KJCT is providing live coverage, as well as an Internet stream. Kudos to them for making a commitment of air time to a significant local event.

My thoughts and prayers are with Sgt. Kinterknecht's family, and with the entire public safety community in Montrose.

Have a good day.

Solar Doublethink

Joe and Linda Skinner's column in Monday's Free Press was very entertaining. Included with their usual repartee was a discussion about the concept of Doublethink, which is one of the more insidious ideas to come out of George Orwell's masterpiece Nineteen Eighty-Four. Luckily, I don't own or depend upon an Amazon Kindle, and still have access to the copy that I read in middle school.

The Skinners brought up what they thought to be some present-day examples of doublethink in action. These included:

Doublethink is illustrated by the person who plans on leaving their assets for others to be eligible for Medicaid financed nursing home care, while railing against all government programs.

They also asked for anyone else who had ideas to let them know, so here's a quick reply:

Those who privately scorn the homeless and downtrodden, while publicly espousing Christian values.

Before I get too off the track here, there is one issue that threw me for a loop over the weekend that just might fit into this niche. Xcel Energy, as part of its latest rate increase request to the Colorado Public Utility Commission, is proposing to levy an additional fee on the owners of solar energy systems that are also connected into the electric grid. This setup is called net metering; electricity produced by the solar array can be sold back to Xcel, turning the meter backward, and offset (or in many cases exceed) the amount of electricity the user draws from the grid.

Xcel is trying to spin this as if it's about fairness to the rest of us on the grid who can't afford, or for some other reason can't take advantage of solar right now. The obstacles at my house are two large trees to the south, and roofing that is approaching the end of its useful life.

KMGH in Denver had some excellent coverage of the issue. Some really basic questions and collective scratching of heads has followed the initial reports of this, such as:

• How are solar users having their "access to the grid subsidized" when in many cases those users sell more electricity than they use back to Xcel as excess capacity?
  
• Is this less about any possible "freeloading" that solar users may engage in down the road, or more toward discouraging large-scale future movement toward a consumer-produced resource that can't be easily commoditized? Some suit at a desk in Minneapolis is probably saying to himself, "What about all those coal futures we bought?"
• Sure, Xcel has promoted solar energy rebates; how can you not in Colorado and be seen in the proper political light? Now they're getting worried; continued improvements in solar technology are slowly driving the costs within reach for a greater segment of the population, and not just in the household installations. The first cell phones with embedded solar cells are starting to come to market; what will the dent be if a lot of charging devices for personal electronics start to disappear from the grid?

Now the doublethink equation is starting to come into play. Xcel wants people to go solar; just not as many people as could go solar, and threaten the grand business plan of the corporation, whatever that plan may be. So let's just try to attach an artificial premium to energy self-sufficiency.

There are lots of arguments floating about as to why Xcel is behaving stupidly in asking for this. The most pervasive one for me is the potential impact that widespread future use of an increasingly cost-efficient technology, with surplus energy being put back into the grid for collective distribution, will have on the environment and our ability to achieve more cooperative and responsible energy consumption as a society. And we can't have that...

War is Peace..Freedom is Slavery..Ignorance is Strength.

The PUC hearing on Xcel's request is in Denver next Wednesday, August 5, at 4PM.

Have a great day.

Perfection, Profiling, and Being Presidential

I was excited to be able to see the last three outs of Mark Buehrle's perfect game for the White Sox on Thursday. ESPN carried it live, and it included an amazing catch at the left center field wall by reserve outfielder Dewayne Wise. It was fun to see a team come together like that, and to see a crowd so into the experience. A lot of collective joy was evident.

Later, President Obama, who makes no effort to conceal his decided enthusiasm for the Chisox, called Mr. Buehrle to congratulate him on his accomplishment.

Perhaps that should be the extent of the President's comments regarding issues of local significance.

The controversy over the President's assessment of the Cambridge, Mass. Police Department's handling of the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. should not have happened. This is not because the incident is controversial, but because the President should not be paying public attention to it like he did.

His comments, and the response to them from the law enforcement community (as well as just about everyone else), shifted attention away from more critical issues, intruded on a local jurisdiction's ability to manage its own affairs, and forced the President to make a 'clarification' of his remarks today. This makes the President seem less than presidential.

Nothing will raise the hackles of local authorities like the uninvited and/or uninformed 'contribution' of a seemingly well-intentioned Federal government. Google "Grand Junction Mercury Storage" for more information on this.

To President Obama's credit, some of the related things he said at the press conference were more in line with what, as President, could be seen as more "presidential". For example:

"..there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately, and that's just a fact."

Those are some broad brush strokes that bring attention to an important issue. That's what a President should be saying, while assuring that his leadership can be asserted in addressing the problem in practical ways. I have no personal experience in this area, but I know someone who does.

When I asked my girlfriend Leslie if she felt she had ever been the subject of racial profiling by police, her response was a somewhat annoyed "Duh". She went on to describe the various places and circumstances in which she felt she had been paid extra attention by law enforcement solely on the basis of her skin color. She had particular disdain for the authorities in Texas. She added, "If I drive down the wrong street in an expensive car, it's assumed that I stole it, and I'm considered a menace to society".

KJCT tried to capitalize on the attention paid to the controversy, by making inquiries of the GJPD about racial profiling complaints. I believe that their approach, while well-intentioned, was way too narrow in scope. They appeared to contact only one law enforcement agency, and made no apparent attempt to contact a representative of the minority community for a more balanced perspective.

The problem of racial profiling notwithstanding, perhaps a larger issue locally is the targeting of individuals based on their perceived socioeconomic or demographic status. These manifest themselves in focused police attention upon those who appear to be transients and/or homeless persons, or persons under 21, among others. Such allegations have been leveled, but not quantified empirically...yet. Most of the allegations are anecdotal, and some in the community have also alleged that the GJPD complaint process is overly complicated and intimidating.
Put that on the assignment board, KJCT.

Admittedly, a lot of this type of 'profiling' is being done in the reactive mode, with law enforcement responding to complaints from citizens about "suspicious subjects" or "welfare checks", which in some cases may be a concern that someone in the neighborhood just doesn't look like they belong.

I personally took a call several years ago from someone in the Redlands, where the caller, when asked what was suspicious about the person they was calling about, stated very matter-of-factly, "he's black". This may be an extreme example, but if the practical application of the law is a reflection of community standards, then the GJPD's reported vigilance in officer training about profiling is an important thing. As Leslie said to me last night, "we all profile".

We still have a lot of work to do as a society. Old habits, attitudes, and approaches learned from childhood are sometimes difficult to overcome. That includes me.

I'll conclude with my own anecdote. My mother, during a recent visit, drove my son in his car to a bike shop downtown. He wasn't going to be long, so she looked around for a parking space and couldn't find one. She decided to park in a part of the street posted as No Parking, behind a luxury car that was unattended.

After a few minutes a patrol car pulled up; an officer got out and approached my son's car, and asked my mother how long she had been parked there. My mother turned and replied, "The question should be, how long has that car been parked there?", pointing to the BMW in front of her. The officer, perhaps a little taken aback by a seventy-something with attitude, in a car adorned with bumper stickers and a ski rack, excused himself and left.

Let's resolve to work harder to appreciate and assess others for the human beings that they are, not by the labels and stereotypes that some in our society would seek to divide us with. It's one way to get us closer to truly being e pluribus unum; out of many, one.

This weekend I'm going to get together with my neighbors. Our President is trying to get a certain professor and a cop to join him for a beer at the White House. Hey, it's a start.

Leslie, I miss you.

Have a good weekend.

Transitions: Bill Gardner

"A man's got to know his limitations."

-Clint Eastwood (as Insp. 'Dirty' Harry Callahan), in Magnum Force (1973)

I had the distinct privilege of working with Bill Gardner during most of my time as a 9-1-1 Supervisor in Grand Junction. Whether in his position as Operations Captain at the Sheriff's Office, Undersheriff, and later as Grand Junction's Police Chief, Bill brought a passion for excellence, leadership, and establishing positive relationships to every project or event that I was also involved in.

I was personally surprised and dismayed to read of Chief Gardner's decision to leave the GJPD. Considering that the PD had 5 different people serve as Chief during my 13 years there, it's not hard to imagine the stress associated with a leadership position of that magnitude, and the associated magnification in the public eye.

Chief Gardner stated in his press conference yesterday that he felt he was leaving "at the top of my game". I'm inclined to agree, but the man I saw making that assessment looked like someone who had played that game perhaps a little too long and a little too hard. Chief Gardner has always worn his emotions out on his sleeve. Even though I've only seen him lose his cool once (the other guy deserved it), I know that his capacity for laughter or tears, for celebratory praise and passionate persuasion, is always at the ready.

Yesterday I saw an emotionally tired man surrounded by deservedly grateful colleagues. All of the requisite smiles were evident, but looked forced to me. I felt a sadness inside, and perhaps imagined the same sadness around that room.

Many who make public safety their career path cushion the blow of the sometimes unpleasant nature of the job through families, faith, or through the understanding of peers in what is by definition a profession separate from the mainstream working world. Many insulate (and sometimes isolate) themselves in cynicism, and by being overly judgmental; it's an easy trap to fall into. Chief Gardner's leadership skills and straightforward approach have endeared him to many who would have otherwise dismissed the entreaties of lesser leaders, and gave many at the PD hope for the future of that agency.

Bill Gardner came to my house after my wife died. We had a running bet whenever the Steelers played the Broncos; 2 pounds of Bison or Kielbasa, depending on who won. Even when our meetings were about less than pleasant subjects, he was always forthright, fair, and direct.

Bill Gardner is a good, honorable man who was in a bad spot. I wish him all the best.

As the City looks to find new top leadership (with the fortunate assistance of Chief Gardner), the continuing challenge to build infrastructure in keeping with the needs of a growing City and public safety workforce is but one of the significant challenges facing a new Chief and administration.

Today's Sentinel coverage of the effort to get property owners in the Fruitvale and Clifton areas to sign petitions for annexation left me with continuing concern over the ability of the GJPD to respond effectively to these areas, while maintaining adequate coverage of the existing City limits. These petitions, if approved, would annex some of the County's most service-intensive areas for law enforcement into the City.

While the story mentioned no specific timetable for this to happen, whomever is the next leader of the GJPD will have this issue to tackle, along with getting a much-needed new home built. Perhaps during this transition it would be prudent for the City to engage in reasoned discussions with the County and other entities about the possibilities of a regional law enforcement agency serving the entire Grand Valley.

In any event, Bill Gardner made sometimes unseen, but significant, contributions to the efficacy and quality of law enforcement service delivery to all citizens of Mesa County. Here's to the best future possible for Bill and his family.

Thanks, Chief.

Return to the Overpass to Nowhere

View Larger Map

They can tell you what to do
But they'll make a fool of you
And it's all right, baby, it's all right
We're on a road to nowhere...

- Talking Heads

When I moved to Grand Junction in 1995, I was initially puzzled by the presence of a large highway overpass along Highway 50, south of Whitewater. The road that the overpass led to appeared to go nowhere; no big subdivision, industrial area or commercial complex that would explain its presence in the middle of the 'stinking desert' between GJ and Delta.

Only later would it be explained to me that the overpass was for the thousands of truckloads of Uranium mill tailings being taken to the Cheney Disposal Cell, on the other side of that hill from the highway.

As it happens, most of the tailings have been removed to the site, and the overpass was taken down after Highway 50 through Whitewater was widened to 2 lanes in each direction.

With the recent announcement that the U.S. Department of Energy is considering moving upwards of 10,000 tons of elemental Mercury to the Cheney Cell, there's been a considerable amount of community concern expressed in advance of a public meeting tomorrow evening at Two Rivers Convention Center. This is not unexpected.

The Sentinel's Gary Harmon deftly characterized the decision-making process around where the Mercury will go as being primarily political in nature. However, Gary did not go deep enough into his analysis of the issue. He left out the reasons this is all being done in the first place, along with the political legerdemain of a certain senator from Tennessee to assure that his state's nuclear waste facilities would be exempted from consideration.

For that and other information, local geologist and blogger Ralph D'Andrea did some excellent and comprehensive research and reporting on the issue. If you're interested about this issue, this is probably the best information you'll find about it locally.

As other local politicians and leaders weighed in almost uniformly against the issue, several former elected and appointed county officials also lent a historical perspective. Former Commissioner and current Free Press columnist Jim Spehar wrote on a local e-mail list:

"Having been involved in the permitting of the Cheney site as a county commissioner and again during the mill tailings removal process, I distinctly remember that the DOE wouldn't even let tailing mixed with battery acid be disposed of there. Now they want to use the site to store toxic mercury, which will need to travel through Grand Junction and Mesa County while en route?"

Former County Planning Director Bennett Boeschenstein took it a little further:

"The conditional use permit that the County granted to the Department of Energy specifically stated that the only waste that could be disposed of at this site was low level radioactive mill tailings from the Grand Junction area. This case demonstrated that County has the right to require local land use authority on BLM land. This is because of a memorandum of understanding between the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and Mesa County which states that the BLM will require local land use approval of activates on BLM land in Mesa County.

Therefore, any change in the conditional use permit would require additional hearings with the County Planning Commission and the County Commissioners and should be denied. The DOE will attempt to assert federal preemption, but there is already a precedent set by the original conditional use permit."

Several other local columnists and bloggers have also weighed in against the storage facility, but for me a lot of the reasons not to support its location here came from County planning personnel after the Commissioners voted to re-zone the Whitewater area for denser residential development. As planners were literally gushing over the development potential of the greater Whitewater area, I'm sure that visions of Mercury containers being trucked to a storage facility just a couple of miles from this new 'hotbed' of development had the powers that be, and their predecessors, scratching their heads as to what DOE is up to.

I'm not an expert on these types of issues, so I defer to those who are or who have been there.
The history of the Cheney site's permitting and prior operation, combined with the future of the greater metropolitan Whitewater area as envisioned by Mesa County planners, makes the transportation to and storage of Mercury at Cheney problematic, illegal, and highly ill-advised.

Mesa County has done, and is continuing to do, its bit for King and Country with regard to energy development. This proposal is an example of too much soot on the porch, another overpass to nowhere.

Hopefully the DOE here will get its earful tomorrow, and that will be the end of it.

Have a good week.

Sentinel Sale Raises Spectre of Subscription Switch?

Denver - I drove my mother to DIA yesterday to catch a late afternoon flight back to her home outside Pittsburgh. I then caught an excellent soccer match between the Colorado Rapids and popular Mexican team CF America. Dick's Sporting Goods Park is an excellent venue to view the game. There isn't a bad seat in the house, and everyone is close to the action.

What was even more interesting about the match (a scoreless draw, BTW) was that the number of Club America fans greatly outnumbered the Rapids fans in attendance. You really got the feel of an international futbol match, and even though the match was a "friendly" exhibition, one red card ejection and at least one fight in the stands displayed the passion for this game that we Americans are still trying to get a grasp of. Hockey fans get the idea, I think.

*****

Congratulations are in order to Denny Herzog and his staff at the Daily Sentinel on the announced sale of the paper to Seaton Publishing of Manhattan, Kansas. I'm hopeful for a continued healthy operating posture and positive growth for our local daily.

According to today's story,

"Seaton Publishing is a family business based in Manhattan, Kan., that publishes the daily newspaper in that city. It’s associated with family-owned newspaper companies in Arkansas City and Winfield, Kan.; Alliance and Hastings, Neb.; Spearfish, S.D.; and Sheridan, Wyo., in addition to a group of radio stations in Manhattan, Kan."

I'm familiar with one of Seaton's holdings, the Hastings, Nebraska Tribune. Hastings is, like Grand Junction, a mostly conservative community with a college, bisected by U.S. 6 and served by Amtrak. Hoak Media, the owner of KREX in Grand Junction, also owns the local TV station there, KHAS.

The Tribune has an excellent editorial cartoonist with whom I share some personal common ground. I don't always agree with his sometimes hilarious conservative humor, but perhaps this sale will enable the Sentinel to pick up some of his cartoons. They certainly seem to reflect the tone of the local editorial page in both towns.

One big annoyance about the Tribune is that the bulk of the paper's online content is available by paid subscription only. I'm not saying that they can't charge for their content; it certainly fills a niche if you want to know what's going on in the bustling Hastings-Grand Island metroplex. It just flies in the face of what so many other publications do with their online presence. Perhaps it serves the small-town paper with a more limited print circulation to leverage their online content for additional revenue.

A quick survey of newspaper websites in the towns reported in the Sentinel story revealed a similar pattern. Subscriptions are required to view full story content in the Seaton flagship Manhattan (Kansas) Mercury, the Alliance (Nebraska) Times-Herald, Sheridan (Wyoming) Press, and the Black Hills Pioneer in Spearfish, South Dakota.

However, two other Kansas papers with reported ties to Seaton, the Winfield Courier and Arkansas City Traveler, provide unfettered access to online story content. Perhaps there is hope that the Sentinel's online presence will not be tied down by a change to subscription-based access to stories, etc. If you feel the same way, drop Denny a line and let him know.

Best wishes to the Sentinel and Seaton Publishing on their new relationship, and the opportunity to provide even better service to the readers of the Grand Junction area.

Have a great day.

Techie Trepidation - RFID Update

Last winter I wrote about the civil liberties and other concerns that accompany the continued development and proliferation of RFID (Radio Frequency ID) chips in everything from store goods to currency to identification cards. Some recent news events make this worth mentioning again.

In the last years of the Bush Administration, almost half of the states passed legislation in opposition to implementing the provisions of the REAL ID Act of 2005. This law is basically dead in the water, given the opposition of so many states to many of its provisions. Many forms of Federal ID, including US Passports, already have these chips in them. Many border states that did not oppose REAL ID have started to issue drivers licenses with RFID chips as well.

The proliferation of RFID technology, despite some qualified concerns from many trade groups, privacy advocates, fraud prevention organizations, and the ACLU, has the potential to escalate exponentially with the introduction of another questionable bill from a Democratic lawmaker.

The PASS ID Act, or S. 1261, is currently awaiting committee hearings after being introduced by Hawaii Sen. Daniel Akaka. Sophomoric humor about the bill being a piece of 'Akaka' aside, its provisions include national standards for state-issued IDs, much like REAL ID attempted to do before so many states passed laws essentially flushing it. The new chunk of merde in this version includes mandatory RFID chipping of drivers licenses.

In case you were wondering how much this means to your freedom, these IDs are designed to be read by scanners from nearly 30 feet away. Detection of movements by citizens is a big potential issue, but so is fraud, as reported by Todd Lewan of the Associated Press. The Sentinel thought enough of the story to put it on Page One (below the fold) of Sunday's paper, but a much more comprehensive version of the story is available here. An excerpt or two:

RFID...has a fundamental flaw: Each chip is built to faithfully transmit its unique identifier "in the clear, exposing the tag number to interception during the wireless communication."

Meanwhile, (the U.S. Department of) Homeland Security has been promoting broad use of RFID even though its own advisory committee on data integrity and privacy warned that radio-tagged IDs have the potential to allow "widespread surveillance of individuals" without their knowledge or consent.

"RFID's role is to make the collection and transmission of people's biometric data quick, easy and nonintrusive,"..."Think of it as the thread that ties together the surveillance package."

If you care about individual liberty and preventing the unreasonable monitoring of the lawful movements and activities of citizens, the ACLU has comprehensive information and an action center available online. I also have the bill listed in my Bad Law Tracker on the sidebar of this page.

Have a great day.