UPDATE: ABC News chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross apologized about his mistake earlier today.

“Earlier I reported incorrectly that the shooting suspect might be tied to the Tea Party. I apologize for the mistake,” he said via Twitter.

Here’s the original blog post:

The Colorado Springs-based state director of Americans for Prosperity said he was “shocked and disgusted” by comments on ABC linking the Tea Party to a deadly mass shooting at an Aurora movie theater.

“I am shocked and disgusted by the knee-jerk reaction of ABC reporters Brian Ross and George Stephanopoulos suggesting the Tea Party might be connected to the mass shootings,” Jeff Crank, a conservative radio host, said in a statement.

“Their haphazard reporting is not only shameful but shows a clear lack of journalistic ethics and standards.  Tragedy after tragedy seems to be exploited for political gain by some,” he said.

Crank is accusing ABC of “politicizing the issue in promotion of their own personal political beliefs” instead of focusing on the victims and families.

“Simply put, ABC crossed the line and should apologize,” he said.

“I pray the perpetrator of this violence will be brought to justice. Until then, we should focus on joining together as Americans to overcome this tragedy and comfort those who have lost someone and are grieving.”

Here’s video the ABC report:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Conservative radio host Jeff Crank, who is also state director of Americans for Prosperity, was at the Donkey Derby Days in Cripple Creek.

Given that Crank has a good sense of humor, I figured it would be fun to have a caption contest with this photo.

The prize?

Bragging rights, of course!

So, let’s see who can come up with the best caption.

Just please remember to keep it civil and follow the other user terms of this blog.

Click on the photo to get a much closer view.

Jeff Crank

The Colorado chapter of Americans for Prosperity asked mayoral and City Council candidates in Colorado Springs last year to sign a no-tax pledge.

Now AFP wants political candidates — as well as elected officials — to sign a pledge to opt out of the Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association.

“The pledge not only asks signers to abstain from participating in such programs themselves, but it commits them to taking every action possible to protect taxpayers from future pension bailouts, by restoring such funds to financial sustainability and refraining from promising public employees pension benefits that aren’t fully funded and sustainable over the long run,” Jeff Crank and Sean Paige, the Colorado chapter’s director and deputy director, respectively, said in a press release.

Here’s the press release in its entirety:

AFP PERA Pledge Aimed at Defusing Pension Time Bomb

Signatures Sought From Elected Officials and Candidates

In recognition of the fact that underfunded, fiscally-unsustainable public employ retirement programs are driving all levels government toward bankruptcy, Americans for Prosperity-Colorado today unveiled a new pledge it is asking elected officials and candidates for office to sign. The pledge not only asks signers to abstain from participating in such programs themselves, but it commits them to taking every action possible to protect taxpayers from future pension bailouts, by restoring such funds to financial sustainability and refraining from promising public employees pension benefits that aren’t fully funded and sustainable over the long run.

The pledge reads as follows:

“I, _______________________________, pledge to the taxpayers of _________________________ that, if elected, I will opt out of the Public Employees’ Retirement Association’s Defined Benefit Plan, or the applicable taxpayer-funded plan that’s available if my office is not eligible for PERA. I further pledge that I will do everything possible as an elected official to make PERA and other public-sector pension programs fiscally sustainable and self-funded, and to safeguard taxpayers against the risk of future liabilities and bailouts by moving such plans from the defined-benefit to a defined-contribution model.  I also pledge to decline invitations to make pay, pension or benefit promises to public employees that aren’t fiscally sustainable and self-supporting.”

AFP will ask elected officials with pension fund responsibility, and all candidates running in relevant races, to sign the pledge.

“Anyone paying attention knows that underfunded government employee pension plans are a major source of financial strain at virtually all levels of government,” said AFP-Colorado Director Jeff Crank, ”and we’re calling on elected officials and candidates to personally help stop the hemorrhaging, and to help prevent future bailouts, by signing this pledge. It not only commits them to not contributing further to the problem, by declining to participate in a pension option that isn’t of the defined-contribution type, but it asks that they take active steps, whenever possible, to stop promising public employees what the taxpayers can’t deliver and to start putting troubled funds back on firm financial ground.”

Crank said he thought it was important that elected officials lead by example on pension reform, which is why the group is asking politicians eligible to enroll in such pension program to decline to do so, unless they are signing up for a defined-contribution plan, or 401K-type plan, modeled after private sector plans. “One obstacle to getting these retirement plans back on track is that many elected officials are beneficiaries of the same plans we’re asking them to overhaul,” said Crank. “That creates a potential conflict of interest that we can help eliminate by asking elected officials to lead by example and not enroll in plans that aren’t sustainable and will contribute to the pension crisis.”

Although AFP is a non-partisan organization that doesn’t endorse individual candidates or political parties, it reserves the right to publicize who signs or doesn’t sign the pledge as part of its citizen education efforts.

Video from the Americans for Prosperity rally:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Video from the Americans for Prosperity rally outside Memorial Central:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Jeff Crank

The Colorado chapter of Americans for Prosperity is planning a rally next week to oppose the $1.15 million separation agreement for Memorial CEO Larry McEvoy.

The separation agreement, which has sparked public outrage, includes 18 months’ severance pay, or $1 million.

It also includes $20,000 to help McEvoy find a new job when he leaves Memorial and transferring title of a 2007 Toyota Camry hybrid that McEvoy has driven during his time as CEO.

The rally will be at noon Wednesday at Memorial Hospital, 1400 E. Boulder.

According to AFP’s blog, the name of the event is: “Stop Memorial Hospital Golden Parachute Rally!”

The state director of AFP is Jeff Crank.

Here’s what AFP’s website says about Crank:

Retention bonuses for several senior executives at Memorial Health System — possibly in excess of $1 million — are turning into a big battle.

On Friday, Jeff Crank of Americans for Prosperity Colorado asked AFP members to contact the City Council and Memorial’s Board of Trustee to strongly oppose “golden parachutes” to the hospital’s top administrators.

“We’ve blown the whistle before about questionable activities and insider game-playing related to the debate Springs residents are having about future ownership and management alternatives for city-owned Memorial Health System,” Crank wrote in an email blast.

“Our concern this time is with the potentially huge ‘retention bonuses’ Memorial’s unelected governing board is planning to pay the system’s already well-compensated top administrators, for fear of losing their services before any final decision on Memorial is made.”

AFP’s members responded.

Councilman Bernie Herpin shared the following email thread with The Gazette after an angry Colorado Springs man threatened to share their email exchange with the news media.

“You are nothing but a lousy politician who is WRONG!”  Joseph Barcellos wrote in the email to Herpin.

Here’s the first email:

March 16, 2012
Colorado Springs City Council Bernie Herpin

Dear Bernie Herpin,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to a proposal to pay “retention bonuses” to senior Memorial Health System executives who might be thinking about bailing-out on their responsibilities before a final decision on the system’s future is made. Reports are vague about what those payouts might total, but I feel that any “golden parachute” of any size is unwarranted under the circumstances.

If these already highly compensated senior officials don’t see their responsibilities through to the resolution of this issue, they don’t deserve a dollar more than what we’re paying them now.
Memorial simply isn’t in a financial position to be giving away money. And part of the responsibility for that rests with those who would be on the giving and receiving end of these payments.

I also strongly urge City Council members to weigh-in on this issue, with an up or down vote, so I will know who to hold responsible for an unnecessary and wasteful misuse of patient dollars. Oversight responsibility for this enterprise still ultimately rests with City Council. And a refusal to weigh-in doesn’t just constitute a political dodge, but a dereliction of duty.

These issues are important and I urge you to consider my viewpoint. As the ultimate owner of this enterprise, my opinion needs to be heard.

Sincerely,

Joseph F Barcellos

Here’s the second email:

Thank you for your message on Memorial Health System (MHS).

We are currently going through the most significant change to MHS since it became a city owned hospital in the 1940s.

To allow MHS to achieve its full potential and become a destination healthcare system for all of Southern Colorado and the surrounding states, city council and a citizen led commission made the decision to lease MHS to another healthcare system. The bidding process attracted bids from several major healthcare providers. This interest in being associated with our healthcare system indicates the strength and potential of MHS. It also showed how the current MHS leadership team had improved MHS’ ability to provide excellent healthcare services.

As evidenced by the bids to take over the management of MHS, MHS is financially stable and is one of the best healthcare systems in the nation.

The city’s proposal review team selected Colorado University Hospital (UCH) as the winning proposal. They have since formed a partnership with Poudre Valley Hospital in Fort Collins. With the addition of MHS, UCH will have a healthcare system spanning the state. In addition, being associated with the University of Colorado Medical School, UCH will be aligning with the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs (UCCS) to open a medical school at UCCS and this will give MHS the opportunity to become a teaching hospital augmenting our existing nursing program associated with the Beth-El nursing program at UCCS.

During this period of lease negotiation and transition, it is important the MHS remain stable and continue to provide superior healthcare to our citizens – the owners of MHS. Since UCH will want to consolidate management between all their campuses, it is likely that some of the current MHS leadership team will be asked to resign. Knowing this, other healthcare systems are actively recruiting some of our team. If any member of our current leadership team were to leave during this critical period, the MHS Board of Trustees, which has the responsibility of ensuring that MHS continue to provide the best healthcare possible, believes this could adversely impact MHS’ ability to be the healthcare leader it has become under the current leadership. Therefore, they have proposed to offer these critical leaders an incentive to remain with MHS during this transition period. No retention pay will be paid if the executive leaves of his/her own accord, is dismissed for cause, or is retained by UCH. This is common practice in business where mergers are occurring or a contract is ending to maintain continuity and stability. The Colorado Springs City Attorney has determined that the MHS Board of Trustees has this authority. In fact, I believe they would be remiss in their responsibilities if they did not take steps to protect this valuable community asset.

The healthcare consultant that has been advising us during the bidding and proposal process stated it is possible to bring in “caretaker” management; however, the cost for such management is general three to five times more costly than the existing management personnel as they know this is a short term employment and they would not move to Colorado Springs. In addition, this temporary management team would not know MHS and would only serve to maintain the status quo and not continue the improvements that are ongoing within MHS. We also know that no one person is indispensable to the operation of any enterprise. However, it would be impossible for us to recruit a replacement given the short term nature of the position.

Therefore, the most cost effective manner to ensure that MHS continue to be an excellent healthcare provider in our community is to retain the current leadership team in place. Their value to MHS has been demonstrated by all of the healthcare providers who were willing to spend millions of dollars to associate with MHS. In addition, the lease arrangement with UCH must be approved by the voters. Should this not happen, we want to ensure that MHS is able to continue to provide the level of healthcare that we expect and demand from a citizen owned system. I believe any mass exodus of the leadership team would seriously impact MHS’ ability to function in this changing and competitive healthcare industry.

Sincerely,

Bernie Herpin

Council Member District 4

Here’s the third email:

Let us be sure of the facts Herpin!  We have an out of control bureaucracy that has failed in its fiduciary responsibilities. The Hospital board, appointed by our renegade and incompetent city council is politically motivated by the status quo. No accountability for the Executive level employees. Yes, they are the employees of this city, as are you! We the people have chosen a strong Mayor because our council, like the U.S. congress, fails to accept responsibility. Memorial’s financial failures are yours as well!

Don’t feed me your standard lies! You can not miss financially in this two hospital town. The quality of care also lags because of operational inefficiencies. You get on it or I will spend money in your district to assure your defeat! Just think we are in a depression and you have access to all kinds of qualified people around the globe to run the hospital. This process of moving Memorial to another organization is the most telling of the serious dereliction of duty demonstrated by the last several and the present councils. Open up the process and take responsibility or prepare to reap you bitter reward!

Joseph Barcellos

Here’s the fourth email:

Thank you for your reasoned and respectful reply.  By the way, I don’t respond well to threats.  If this council is doing such a bad job, why don’t you step up and serve.  I know it’s much easier to sit back and complain and make threats.

Sincerely,

Bernie Herpin

Council Member District 4

Here’s the fifth email:

Your response is now a matter of record. I will find a media outlet to cast you in the light that you deserve to be cast in. You are nothing but a lousy politician who is WRONG!  In the military we say lead, follow or get out of the way.

Since you are neither a leader, or a follower of the people’s will, get out of the way!  I will spend the legal limit to eliminate you from your position, and I will have my friends and associates do the same. Your bumbling response has resolved me!

Like any big government politician you have failed to address my charges, likely because you are not capable of doing so and you now have my determination to place any better more competent person in your spot. Of course you can resolve this and change your arrogant tone and demonstrate some reason and integrity in this matter.

As to your sincerity, I doubt it.

You  have been admonished again and I don’t sit back as you so wrongfully write!

Joseph Barcellos

Here’s the sixth email:

Mr. Barcellos,

I will save you the trouble of finding a media outlet and am forwarding this entire email string to the Gazette and Independent.

I tried to respond to your “parroted” message from Jeff Crank and AFP with the history of the MHS negotiations and why I thought it was necessary to maintain stability during this transition phase.

You responded with threats and insults.

I am proud of my public service.  Feel free to exercise your rights during the next election.  If elected officials responded to every threat of throwing us out of office, we would never make a decision.  I was elected to represent our citizens and to do what I think is in the best interests of our community.  I will continue to serve until I leave office.

Sincerely,

Bernie Herpin

Council Member District 4

Jan Martin

The Colorado chapter of Americans for Prosperity has called for three members of a Memorial Health System task force with ties to Memorial to recuse themselves from reviewing proposals to lease the city-owned enterprise.

It doesn’t look like that’s going to happen, according to letters and emails obtained by The Gazette.

Last week, AFP state Director Jeff Crank asked City Council President Pro Tem Jan Martin to ask the three members — Memorial surgeon  David Corry, Memorial nurse Carol Flynn and Dr. Michael Welch, the director of medicine at Peak Vista Medical Health Centers — to recuse themselves if they didn’t do so voluntarily.

Martin apparently ignored Crank’s request.

“We’ve asked Chairwoman Jan Martin to correct the situation, so far with no results. That left us no choice but to seek your assistance,” Crank said this week in a letter to City Attorney Chris Melcher.

“Three people on the task force are either employed by Memorial or by Peak Vista Public Health Centers, an organization with significant financial and operational ties to Memorial. This raises doubts about their ability to fairly and objectively weigh the leasing proposals now under review, given that Memorial is one of the competing entities,” wrote Crank, a conservative radio talk show host.

But in an email to her council colleagues and task force members, Martin said Thursday the task force was staying intact.

“I have made the decision to continue moving forward with the current Task Force in place and fully participating in the bidding process to make a recommendation to Council,” Martin wrote. “I believe the current Task Force members are in the best position to review the bids and reach a consensus to take to City Council.”

Martin’s email also states that Mayor Steve Bach won’t be personally involved in the process.

“I spoke to the Mayor earlier today and he has chosen not to participate in the review of the bids other than to have (economic vitality officer) Donna Nelson attend our meetings and report back to him,” Martin wrote. “Donna is planning to be in attendance this evening.  The Mayor has agreed to have someone from the City’s Finance Office review the bids and be available to answer Task Force questions regarding the finance of the bids.”

Jeff Crank

The Colorado chapter of Americans for Prosperity says three members of the Memorial Health System task force have “apparent conflicts of interest” and should recuse themselves from reviewing proposals to lease Memorial.

“We believe these individuals should be asked by (City Council President Pro Tem Jan) Martin to sit-out this part of the process if they decline to do so voluntarily,” former City Councilman Sean Paige, who is AFP’s state deputy director, wrote today in an email to Mayor Steve Bach and council members.

In his email, Paige sent city officials a letter from Jeff Crank, AFP’s state director.

Paige said letter from Crank and AFP Colorado expressed “concerns about the failure/refusal of certain Memorial Task Force members to recuse themselves from this final phase of the RFP process, even though their close ties to the enterprise naturally raise doubts about their objectivity and fairness in weighing various partnership proposals.”

Here’s the full text of Crank’s letter:

Nov. 9, 2011

Dear Chairwoman Martin:

In just a matter of weeks the Memorial Health System task force will be making potentially-momentous decisions about the enterprise’s future, weighing proposals for possible leasing arrangements, yet a number of task force members – members appointed and approved without the benefit of a public or proper vetting — have apparent conflicts of interest that should bar them from participating in this phase of deliberations. The appropriate thing for these individuals to do is to recuse themselves, recognizing that their connections to Memorial raise doubts about their objectivity and fairness. But since they don’t seem inclined to do this voluntarily, we believe it falls to you, as chairwoman, to request that they do so. A failure to act now could raise serious questions about the integrity of this already-flawed process.

The individuals with the appearance of a conflict are Dr. David Corry, a surgeon at Memorial (who already has publicly voiced support for one plan under consideration), Memorial nurse Carol Flynn and Dr. Michael Welch, the director of medicine at Peak Vista Medical Health Centers, an organization with such close ties to Memorial that this may impact his ability to objectively weigh partnership proposals. Memorial not only employs two of these people; it is submitting a proposal on which they’ll be passing judgment. When the time came for task force members to declare potential conflicts, the three did not speak up, though their potential conflicts are arguably greater than those of individuals who did make declarations or — in the case of Mr. Sweet — stepped aside for the good of the process. Their failure to recognize the potential problems this creates raises even deeper doubts about their suitability to take part in this decision. If they won’t correct the situation, the chairwoman must.

While it may have been beneficial to have people serving on the Task Force with medical experience, we believe it was a mistake to appoint members with such direct ties to Memorial. That error in judgment can’t be undone now, unfortunately, but there’s still time to correct it before their involvement taints the integrity of the process. We urge an expeditious resolution to this situation. Given the already-tight timelines involved, there’s no time for delay.

Sincerely,

Jeff Crank

State Director

Americans for Prosperity Colorado

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