Last month, Mayor Steve Bach told reporters he had “all kinds of discussions all the time” with people who don’t want their names out in public.
He was right.
According to the mayor’s 2012 calendar, about 61 percent of Bach’s meetings are held under a shroud of secrecy.
On Feb. 10, The Gazette requested the mayor’s calendar and/or appointment book for January and February of this year.
The mayor’s Communications Office complied with the open-records request and submitted a response three days later as required by Colorado law.
The office provided Bach’s calendar for January and through Feb. 13.
The calendar shows that Bach had about 132 meetings during that time period.
Of those, about 80 — or 60.6 percent — were with people whose names the Bach administration is hiding.
The analysis included both face-to-face and phone meetings.
In instances where the calendar lists the entry as “Mtgs” or “Phone Mtgs,” two meetings were counted as part of the analysis.
But it’s impossible to tell whether there were more than two meetings during a particular time slot because the calendar doesn’t specify the number.
The analysis did not include meetings of the City Council or the Mayor’s Counsel, which are both posted and open to the public.
Highlights of the mayor’s calendar during the Jan. 1-Feb.13 time period:
Bach has had eight meetings each with Chief of Staff Laura Neumann, City Attorney Chris Melcher and Steve Cox, chief of economic vitality and innovation.
Bach has had seven meetings each with Chief Communications Officer Cindy Aubrey and Donna Nelson, economic vitality and innovation specialist.
He has has two meetings with police Chief Pete Carey and one with fire Chief Rich Brown.
He has had three meetings with his assistant, Brenda Bonn.
He met with former Mayor Lionel Rivera on Jan. 9.
The mayor has had at least five meetings with a “primary employer.” However, the calendar keeps the employer’s identity a secret.
When questioned last month about his calendar, Bach — who promised transparency when he was running for office — said the city was complying with the open-records law and that if someone saw otherwise, “engage legal counsel and come after us.”
To watch video of the mayor’s remarks, click here. The discussion starts about 6 minutes and 30 seconds into the video.
The city is providing the media “what we think is appropriate in the way of my public meetings,” Bach said last month.
“That’s just the way it is, and I’m sorry that doesn’t satisfy you,” he said.
WOW. Daniel, you sure are hurting for a story, aren’t you? By *my* calculation, anywhere from 45% – 70% of your stories contain the catchphrase, “The mayor – who pledged transparency during his campaign – …” It’s as if I opened the newspaper every day to find the same story about a squirrel being run over by a car.
In case you’re interested and can take something away from it: you’re sounding awfully desperate. Is there really nothing else you could write about? Is making the proverbial mountain out of a molehill going to continue to be your primary focus? In my opinion, that’s a quick way to grind yourself and your readers into the ground.
Saul,
You’re right. I’ll stop holding the mayor accountable for promises he made on the campaign trail and write about puppies and parades from now on.
All kidding aside, I haven’t done a story count lately, but I’m fairly certain that less — way less — than 45 percent of my stories and/or blog posts include the line about the mayor’s transparency pledge. (One of the reasons I include that line is because as a reporter, you can’t assume that everybody knows the history of a particular issue.)
But I understand what you’re saying. I respect your opinion and value your feedback.
Thanks.
It does appear to the casual reader that Chacon has it out for the Mayor. There is a distinct bias to his reporting.
Bach is a fraud of the highest order. He has wasted more money, and apparently conducted more shady, backroom dealings than any Springs politcian in recent
history. Thanks to the Gazette for bringing this to light.
Biltman,
I don’t have it out for the mayor. I promise.
It’s a GOOD thing that Daniel is keeping an eye on the Mayor. With all the shenanigans he’s pulling, there’s bound to be something fishy going on behind the scenes. And, it’s VERY clear that his campaign was run on lies– both transparency and the idiotic idea that he was “in discussions to bring Venture Capitalist when he’s elected”.
I’m sorry that challenges the Republicans “Pay no attention to the man behind the screen” mantra.
This is what ensues when you elect a person of questionable ethics and morals and then they encircle themselves with others of questionable ethics and morals.
Sure wish the meeting issue was pushed this hard when Lionel and the city council got us the city in the financial mess with the USOC deal. That whole deal still stinks like a dead rat.
Just another way to steal more power.
Maybe he thinks or maybe he (Bach) is part of the Illumanti. Lol
lilithia
said the city was complying with the open-records law and that if someone saw otherwise, “engage legal counsel and come after us.”
“That’s just the way it is, and I’m sorry that doesn’t satisfy you,” he said.
These are two of the most offensive statements I’ve read from a public official. We ask our media to keep an eye on our elected officials and to give us a head’s up when things seem hinky. Transparency does not include statements like ‘That’s just the way it is’. And the suggestion that someone get legal counsel and come after the mayor’s office is insane, do you have a budget for pointless lawsuits Mr. Mayor? How about this as an answer ‘We are glad to comply with the Open Records Act’. Mayor Bach, remember you work for us and if we don’t like something, we are allowed to ask for change and you are required to listen, if you don’t get that resign now.
For the Bach fanboys accusing Chacon for “having it out” for Bach… OPEN YOUR EYES.
The Mayor has wasted more money than he accuses city council of wasting (an economic vitality person making $180K+ collecting his pension from the fire department AND an assistant? A “social media” person for $60K a year?). And while I agree with Janis Heuberger about the secret meetings of the previous administration over the USOC fiasco, Bach campaigned on “transparency” to prevent that from re-occurring. Instead, he’s had meetings with a secret cabal of advisers at the El Paso Club, has thrown out any concept of “checks and balances” and doesn’t seem to think too much of representative government as evidenced by his attempts to make city council irrelevant. When city council asks for a second opinion regarding a recent legal opinion by the city attorney, Bach arrogantly states he will not approve funding for the second opinion. If he is so sure the attorney is right, why is he hiding from a second opinion? If the attorneys opinion turns out to be correct, then city council will come out looking stupid, and he wins X2. Maybe he knows it won’t work out that way?
Bach seems to think he was elected dictator, instead of Mayor. I hope he’ll be a 1 term mayor, but more importantly, I hope he’ll get recalled long before his term is up. Who’s got the petition and where do I sign?
The “shroud of secrecy” obfuscating the nature of these meetings is probably not that much of a mystery. My guess is they’re most likely with the same group of people that got him elected, deciding how best to procede with the agenda. I can’t remember what they called their little cabaI. I think was something like—Nattering Nabobs of Negativism.
Mr. Chacon should be praised for his asking questions that we as citizens cannot. Mr. Bach would rebuke our questions as being nosy even though we are the mere citizens he was chosen to serve. I feel we all want to know answers.
I also feel that Mayor Bach is challenging us to perhaps oust him by his comment of “engage legal counsel and come after us.”, but seriously, who is this “US”? HMMM, I really feel we are owed answers that at his point we truly aren’t getting.
Mr. Chacon, you are looking pretty foolish with this line of attack. How can a CEO operate with 100% transparency? To the extent that might be possible, it certainly isn’t reasonable.
The Mayor is delivering on his promise of transparency, transparent to a workable and reasonable extent. How about doing a study of Council’s transparency rate? Would two councilmembers exchanging views count as a closed door, shrouded in secrecy conspiracy?