Opinion: Musical chairs at Boulder County


As has been reported, Ben Pearlman resigned from being county commissioner as of January 1, with about a year still left in his term. In a meeting unattended by the public just before Christmas, he was appointed to be the County Attorney by the two other commissioners, Will Toor and Cindy Domenico. He will replace Larry Hoyt, who recently resigned after many years on the job. Pearlman’s commissioner seat will be filled by the Democratic Party vacancy committee, and if that appointee is also currently an elected official, his/her vacancy will also be filled by the party.
Apparently, the commissioners’ argument for making this appointment and doing it now is that Pearlman is very qualified and knowledgeable and the best of the applicants, and the timing during the holidays was unavoidable. But there are some very good arguments as to why this position should not have been filled in this way.
First, both Toor and Pearlman’s terms expire at the end of 2012. They are both term-limited, so in the November 2012 election, two new commissioners will be selected. But the County Attorney — probably their most important employee — will already have been chosen for them. Given that Pearlman was a commissioner and already has Domenico’s vote, it would be politically difficult for the two new commissioners to replace Pearlman if they so desired. So at least for a time, they will be stuck with someone they might not want.
The new commissioners should be making this choice. Larry Hoyt’s resignation did not have to trigger the hiring of a new permanent attorney. The current commissioners could have simply appointed one of the attorney’s staff to serve as interim county attorney for 2012. With Pearlman still a commissioner, there would have been plenty of legal expertise. The current commissioners also could have also begun the search process so that the new commissioners would be in a better position to act promptly to fill the post. Pearlman could have applied if he so desired, but he would not have been in the job, so the new commissioners would have had more flexibility.
Second, this job swap puts Pearlman’s replacement as commissioner in a stronger position to win the 2012 county race for the vacant seat, since that person will be an incumbent. Some politicos may find this acceptable, but many of us on the outside would rather have a process where the open seat really is open, and there will be a real primary where the choice is not pre-determined.
Third, if a sitting state legislator is appointed to fill Pearlman’s seat, then there will be yet another vacancy. This also would be filled by the Dems, creating yet another new incumbent to run in 2012. Again, this is unacceptable to those who feel that this should be the citizens’ choice.
Some legal experts saw the selection of County Attorney as having been made in the executive session, violating state sunshine laws. It’s a credit to the Boulder City Council has they have rejected using such sessions, which are inevitably abused.
If the commissioners wished to, they could reverse the process. Pearlman could simply decline to accept the job as County Attorney, and the Dems could (re)appoint him to fill his own vacancy for the remaining year. Then the three commissioners could hire an interim attorney, leaving the permanent choice for the next commission. Or Pearlman could agree to resign as attorney effective the end of 2012, and the Dem’s could appoint as commissioner someone like former Longmont City Council member Tom McCoy, who has said he would not run for the seat in 2012. Not perfect, but better.
These kinds of deals leave a bad taste in people’s mouths, irrespective of the fact that former county commissioners have served well in county staff positions. Citizens stop trusting their elected officials to act in the people’s interest. Following D.A. Stan Garnett’s suggestion, all commissioner candidates should agree to not take county staff jobs for a year or two after their terms expire, just as candidate Elise Jones has already done.


Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of t...
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further...
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ...
Read more