The Colorado chapter of Americans for Prosperity is advising the City Council to take a breather on the contentious issue involving the future of Memorial Health System.
This afternoon, the council will consider two possible ballot questions for November involving Memorial, a city-owned enterprise.
“We understand the desire to bring this debate to a head and get the issue resolved,” Jeff Crank, a conservative radio host who is the state director of AFP, said in a letter sent to council this morning.
“But blundering forward with a fatally-flawed ballot proposal, simply to satisfy the impatience of a small group of city insiders, which is blindly convinced of the correctness of one concept, would be far worse than continuing to discuss, study, refine and debate,” he wrote.
AFP will “vigorously” oppose any ballot proposal that doesn’t meet what he calls “common sense standards,” Crank warned.
“We understand that pressures are mounting to act,” he wrote.
“But acting precipitously and unwisely, just to meet artificial timelines established by self-interested insiders, is the surest way to squander all the time and effort that has already gone into studying this critically-import issue.”
The letter is also addressed to Mayor Steve Bach, who on Monday called for hitting reset on the entire process. However, it’s the council that decides whether or not to refer a question to the ballot.
Here is the full text of Crank’s letter:
Dear Mayor Bach and City Council,
Out of town events prevent a representative of Americans Prosperity-Colorado from speaking at today’s city council meeting, but we have a keen interested in what’s likely to occur regarding a possible ballot question on the future of Memorial Health System. Please take a moment to consider the following observations and advice before acting on a ballot measure today.
This debate has gone on for much longer than many anticipated or preferred, but this is also a momentous decision, impacting local jobs, regional medical care and the future success or failure of a valuable city-owned asset. We understand the desire to bring this debate to a head and get the issue resolved. But blundering forward with a fatally-flawed ballot proposal, simply to satisfy the impatience of a small group of city insiders, which is blindly convinced of the correctness of one concept, would be far worse than continuing to discuss, study, refine and debate.
A relatively few insiders may have grown impatient for a resolution, but the general public won’t really begin tuning–in until decision time is at hand. And voters are likely to resoundingly reject – with AFP-Colorado’s active encouragement — any proposal that doesn’t meet some common sense criteria and standards.
AFP-Colorado is agnostic on the question of which governance or ownership model is best-suited to ensure the future success of Memorial. We trust that the people will choose correctly when all the information and options are presented to them – emphasis on all. We just want to ensure that the following occurs:
1.) That all options are thoroughly and fairly considered before a decision is made;
2.) That a fair, open, competitive bidding process precedes any partnership approval;
3.) That the final decision is made by voters;
4.) That future financial risk and liability to taxpayers is eliminated;
5.) That any PERA-related buyout plan is equitable, fair and understood by the public before a partnership is approved;
6.) That the citizen-owners of the enterprise are due a fair market return on their investment in Memorial, unless voters decide to settle for something less.
Any proposal that fails to meet these common sense standards will be vigorously opposed by AFP-Colorado and, we believe, defeated at the ballot box. We understand that pressures are mounting to act, but acting precipitously and unwisely, just to meet artificial timelines established by self-interested insiders, is the surest way to squander all the time and effort that has already gone into studying this critically-import issue.
Please feel free to contact me if you have questions and concerns.
Jeff Crank
Jeff it is time for you to go the way of the Dodo bird. Your 15 minutes of fame ended with your failed election run. While your going away take your buddy Sean Paige with you
Good thing for us, most people don’t listen to what Jeff Crank has to say.
And since 67% of poll respondants voted to change it into a non-profit I think Mr. Crank’s money could be spent better elsewhere.
Every poll the Gazette does has the same results. Maybe we are not as stupid as they think we are
So the process has gone on painfully long, but we need to step back and re-examine? This is not the efficeint bussiness model embraced by prosperous amercians. Why can’t Americans for Prosperity admit they did not get what they want and that they are opposed to a non-profit model and want the hospital sold to a private operator?
I’m sure our corrupt city government will find a way to give it away for pennies on the dollar to their cronies.
If these comments by those in favor of Memorial going non-profit reflect their thought processes then we’re in trouble. It seems all are ready to exercise ad-hominem attacks upon Crank rather than speak to the substance of the issue. I’ve been following the story for some months but don’t have enough information to form a truly informed position.
indolawson why is it that you attack us? Can we not have an opionion that is difefrent than yous? What makes you think yours is the right one? Isnt American great?
I agree with indolawson: why don’t any of you critics read and comment on the substance of the letter? I read it and it makes sense to me.
Aren’t all of you interested in knowing what all the options are? Don’t you believe that we should have an open and fair bidding process? What’s wrong with having voters decide, rather than city council? How many of you support simply giving it away? Don’t you believe citizens are entitled to get something for their investment in Memorial?
So much of what goes on in these posts is just mindless muckslinging and personal attacks. I guess that’s easier than debating the issues intelligently. I think most of what is in the letter makes sense. And I hope people on city council take these reccomendations seriously. Anybody have anything worthwhile to contribute?
valvolorum funny how the majority of the citizens in every poll taken say vote now? How much longer do you want to wait how many more commissions need to be done? I would bet as many as it takes to get the answer that YOU want.
Not sure what polls you mean, rickshaw. One unscientific reader survey done by the Gazette, which can be skewed by people like you stuffing the ballot box, isn’t something I would bet your fat PERA pension on. The only poll that counts will be the one that comes this fall if council puts something stupid on the ballot. But it’s after 5:00 now. Shouldn’t all you overpaid press people at Memorial be going home by now?
Valvolorum showing your ignorance by jumping to conclusions? I don’t have a fat PERA retirement. I have a military retirement from over 30 years military services, BTW…It isn’t fat. You also show a real ability to not know what you’re talking about because there have been a number (that’s more than one dude) polls done by the Gazette and I do not now, nor ever will work for MHS. Nice try but you failed. NEXT
รายได้เสริมทางเน็ต…
[...]Crank says ‘blundering forward’ on Memorial issue a big mistake – City Desk : Colorado Springs Gazette, CO[...]…