Jump to content

Ohv fund hijack take ii! ***Meeting 7-16 at 10AM***


Recommended Posts

**COHVCO ACTION ALERT**

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING, TAKE ACTION AND PASS IT ON!!

Tell the Parks Board, "Hands off!"

If it ain't broke, why fix it?!

· Make government accountable- all meetings should be open to the public!

· Don't let our foes hijack our successful OHV program in Colorado!

· Tell them we won't be setup by illegal meetings with no intention of consensus building

COHVCO's Open Records Request

BLOWS THE LID OFF this Illegal Meeting:

Read the attached E-mail string from bottom to top. It shows the fix was in. (BELOW)

THE PLAYERS ARE:

James Pribyl, Parks Board Member that works for firm that also hires Scott Chase.

Scott Chase, Lobbyist (Politicalworks) who conspires with select Parks Board members to make backroom deals not available to the public.

Bryan Martin, Director of Conservation, Colorado Mountain Club who starts E-mail string to Parks Board members.

Laurie Mathews, Parks Board Member that shares confidential Board votes to Bryan Martin.

Jim Martin, Past Director, Colorado Dept of Natural Resources (CDNR)

Mike King, Current Director, CDNR

Doug Robotham, Assistant Director, CDNR

Jerry Abboud, Executive Director COHVCO

You must attend the next Parks Board meeting on July 16

The meeting is at the Red

Lion Inn, 3200 S. Parker Road in Aurora, CO.

The OHV issue will be addressed at 10:05 am.

(Please arrive by 8:00am.)

Here is the email Thread You need to read it backwards

http://rickramsey.net/pix/May%205-6%202010%20Email%20Chain-5.pdf

A few clarifications:

1. The "Common sense" changes Bryan Martin is pushing is two fold

a. They want to change the makeup of the OHV grant committee to include 3 "environmental" people, in addition, they want any 3 members to be able to veto any project they feel is not in their interest. When they say "over the top" grants they are talking about the fact that because the sticker cost went up, there is more money to give out. SOME grants were actually given some extra money to extend their projects.

b. They also want to change the grant criteria and focus on giving OUR money to projects that stress closures and restoration, giving projects that will CLOSE trails money.

The part about "making it personal" about Jim Martin, Martin was the outgoing exec director of Natural Resources and in effect the "boss" over the State Parks. He is "outgoing" because he took a place in an Enviro organization. HE made it personal, when as his coup-de-grace said the parks board will make the changes proposed by Bryan Martin and the Anti's

HE made it personal with this edict.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow just wow. Can't believe these adults actually act that way. That email is ridiculous.

What the hell did COHVCO and BRC do to them that was so unjust. Oh that's right they stopped them from stealing. Man this pisses me off. I wish i could make that meeting. I hope others can make it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lynch these self-serving government shit-bags and elitist enviro turds...

I mean thanks for your hard work, hopefully a balanced solution can be attained after bringing to light their duplicity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI:

COHVCO is totally outgunned.

They are volunteers on a limited budget, fighting a well oiled and well funded environmental machine that can afford to hire full time lawyers and lobbyists.

They are doing a remarkable job w/ what they have, but are in dire need of more help.

Colorado has 130,000+ OHV tags issued, but COHVCO only has 2000 members!😏 :smirk:

This is sad & ridiculous, let your buddies know that if they want to keep riding the trails here in Colorado COHVCO is one of their best allies and needs the support ASAP!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the issues is that when things go to vote and the panels ask COHVCO how many members they represent they can only claim 2000 out of 130,000+ actual users, while the Colorado Mountain Club has 40,000+ members on file.

So if you are the parks committee in charge of doing the greater good of the people, even before taking into consideration any anti-OHV tendencies, which way are you going to vote?!?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dirtbikers typically work for a living, and ride whenever they can. Most enviro weenies have mommy or daddy pay for their life and go on "green" crusades because they're bored.

Kinda like Boulder, CO. 10 square miles surrounded by reality. If it's so good where you came from, then why are you here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we lost another one!

Turnout was half of what it was for the meeting in Woodland Park (which was totally appropriate since the meeting room was four or five times the size of the facility at the prior meeting - which was standing room only). There were about 60-70 people there, and approximately 3/4 of them were COHVCO supporters. However,

During the public comment section of the meeting, the anti OHV crowd made a better showing than their numbers would suggest. By my account almost 40% of the public comments were anti-OHV.

Most depressing, was the slide that one of the Parks staff put up during his presentation. 850 of 1000 emails the State Parks Board received on this issue were anti-OHV. So our group could manage only to generate less than 150 emails, even though there are almost 300 hits on this thread alone!

It didn't matter though, it looked to me like it was decided before the meeting began. Jerry Aboud gave a good speech and several other OHV supporters made good (and passionate) points, but the opposition had their ducks in a row and as soon as the deliberations started, it was apparent that none of the pro-OHV arguments had hit the mark with the board members.

IMO, this is a triple loss. We lost on the proposed changes - which sucks, because the new "scoring" standards for OHV fund expenditures are slanted sharply away from promoting OHV (i.e. new trails, more maintenance of existing trails, etc..) and toward cutting OHV (more money for law enforcement, new barriers to new trails, more emphasis on restoring impacted areas, etc.) recreation. Second, board members were overtly non-transparent, prejudiced and a strong case can be made that some of them broke the law (by 2 or more board members having meetings with our opponents, and excluding our representatives). All of which was glossed over and explained away as a "misunderstanding" and a "good learning opportunity." Wost of all though, the board has materialized, out of thin air, new rationalizations for curbing OHV usage (e.g. the multiuse trails that our funds exclusively pay for are on public lands, so therefore anti-ohv members should have a substantial say in how those OHV funds are used).

Clearly we were outmaneuvered. We might have had a loosing hand going in (even though there are 133,000 OHV registrations in Colorado, we're still a small minority of people who claim to be "trail users"), but we were taken down hard.

Another loss for the good guys.

Thanks to everyone that hung in there for the 5 plus hours it took to get through this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So one of the statements made in the template letter over in one of the other threads was: "The Parks Board is required to implement the program in a way that is consistent with the legislation that established the program."

Is that statement true? If so, one would think that some kind of legal action could reasonably be pursued if the Parks Board has deviated from the legislation and essentially hijacked the funds for purposes contrary to the original (legislative) intent??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So one of the statements made in the template letter over in one of the other threads was: "The Parks Board is required to implement the program in a way that is consistent with the legislation that established the program."

Is that statement true? If so, one would think that some kind of legal action could reasonably be pursued if the Parks Board has deviated from the legislation and essentially hijacked the funds for purposes contrary to the original (legislative) intent??

Several of the pro OHV speakers made that exact point. However, once the board had developed the intellectual and logical flexibility necessary to label the violation of the open meeting rule and conspiratorial emails as a "misunderstanding" and "learning opportunity", they had no problem blowing right by the concept of "legislative intent".

I would love to hear that COHVCO is going to sue them, but I'm not sure it would do any good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My next question; is there some kind of regulatory body or auditing process to oversee or review how the Parks Board conducts itself and how it chooses to disburse the funds it has collected from the sticker program?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New OHV Grant Board composition:

6 OHV

3 Anti-OHV

1 Multi-User

What the hell is a multi user???????????

Pretty much every OHV guy is a multi user. I'm sure we all hike, ski, ride bicycles, etc... ?!?!?!?1

Sounds to me like a way to fudge the numbers so they don't seem like 4 vs 6!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My next question; is there some kind of regulatory body or auditing process to oversee or review how the Parks Board conducts itself and how it chooses to disburse the funds it has collected from the sticker program?

My understanding is NO - other than the legislature / governor, that can pass legislation and/or affect funding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New OHV Grant Board composition:

6 OHV

3 Anti-OHV

1 Multi-User

What the hell is a multi user???????????

Pretty much every OHV guy is a multi user. I'm sure we all hike, ski, ride bicycles, etc... ?!?!?!?1

Sounds to me like a way to fudge the numbers so they don't seem like 4 vs 6!

IMO the problem isn't so much the composition of the "grant board" or subcommittee as it is the new rules that they're using to score the grant applications.

The way the process works is that each member uses specific criteria to evaluate and score each grant proposal. The scores are added up and they start divvying up the money from the top (highest scoring proposal) down, until they run out of money.

The new grant scoring criteria are slanted (imo) against expanding/improving OHV recreation and toward mitigation and law enforcement. Consequently, even if you have pro OHV members scoring applications, if they're doing it fairly - i.e. following the scoring criteria - they won't be able to keep/score pro OHV proposals (e.g. constructing new trails) ahead of anti OHV proposals (e.g. pay for more law enforcement or shut down trails).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope this decision can be stalled through legal action (common practice used by the environmentalist). I got the feeling that the Parks Board had made their decision way back in May and they wanted us to feel that we had due process.

Many Democrats are "in bed" with the environmentalist. We can all help ourselves by voting this November and never forget what these people are trying to accomplish. These environmentalist are so passionate about getting your motor off our land that they are trying to brainwash our children through movies like Avatar and inserting their agenda through our education system. Read the following article from Education Week and tell me if I'm overreacting.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/07/16/37environment.h29.html?tkn=RYWFLmn/pCD7mH3wYnftf2et1jGlGTHTxOiA&intc=es

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope this decision can be stalled through legal action (common practice used by the environmentalist). I got the feeling that the Parks Board had made their decision way back in May and they wanted us to feel that we had due process.

I have no doubt that their decision had been made before we even got there. If you watched the body language of the board, they were not paying attention to their laywer when he was speaking about the "illegal" e-mail correspondence, they were obviously briefed ahead of time and his speech was directed at the audience. They did not pay attention to the screen presentation of the board and grant requirements........the things they were voting on. The woman in particular was joking around, almost flirting with the men on either side of her, while the others looked down, perhaps reading during these critical presentations. They showed no response or awarness that I could see during the presentations. Very disappointing 😏

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Reply with:

×
×
  • Create New...