“Earnings fairness,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, May 11 – 17, 2012, 19.

FAIRNESS

The latest twist in the checkered career of Dr. McEvoy, the CEO of Memorial Hospital System, is upsetting citizens and in different cities could cost Council President Scott Hente his job. Are we upset about 18 month severance, totaling around $1.15 million? Or, are we upset at the lack of oversight by the appropriate governing boards?

The fact that Dr. McEvoy, whom I lampooned months ago for his scare tactics while the hospital was profitable, overplayed his hand and lost badly, agreeing to a “separation” so that he’s neither resigning nor being fired, is perhaps what justice should look like.

He wanted the hospital to himself, setting it up as a non-profit with a board he’d appoint, a cushy relationship indeed. Along the way he got a pay raise amidst negotiations for the sale of MHS to UCH. What warranted his raise, excellent performance? And Council President Hente, consulting with his right-hand woman, Pro Term Jan Martin, thought nothing of it.

They also didn’t challenge the severance pay until Mayor Bach forced the issue in an open letter to Hente. Convening Council, they agreed to dismiss MHS’ board and appoint their own. Does the Mayor have to wake up Hente and Martin from their political slumber? Are they really that out of touch with public sentiments?

What upsets citizens at the end of the day isn’t how much money anyone makes, but rather morality. We want to know that someone in position of power monitors abuses and ensures fairness in the system.

The New York Times reported that according to Greenlining Institute, Apple—the brainchild of Saint Jobs—paid just $3.3 billion in 2011 on profits of $34.2 billion, making it an effective rate of 9.8%. Forbes’ contributor, Tim Worstall, explains that taxes paid in 2011 are for profits made in 2010 which were only $18 billion, making it an effective rate of 18%.

Worstall is probably correct, and The Washington Post was delighted to correct its northern rival. The issue remains: is it fair for Apple to use its off-shore subsidiaries in order to avoid paying taxes in the US? Isn’t its headquarters in California? Isn’t it enjoying the infrastructure provided here? When copyright issues arise, isn’t Apple happy to appeal to American rule of law?

Isn’t the brain-power that propels companies like Apple nourished on our campuses, courtesy of taxpayers who guarantee student loans and provide needed research and development grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Health?

The same fairness questions have been raised before by the legendary Warren Buffet who paid taxes totaling 17% percent of his $40 million in taxable income. Romney’s tax rate for 2010 was 14%, while Obama, comparably the poorest, paid 20% on his $789,674 taxable income. Do any of these relate to the 99% of American taxpayers?

The fact that Dr. McEvoy earns much more than the US President’s $400,000 only proves how much more valuable his services must be. If he were in private practice, no one would care. But he works for us, after all.

Perhaps the comparison should be closer to home. On MHS’ website, this Note was posted: “On June 29, Memorial Health System will begin relying on Bonfils Blood Center, a Colorado organization, to collect blood and provide products for our patients. This change means memorial will no longer operate its own blood donor services.”

Richard Titmuss’ The Gift Relationship (1971) suggested that countries where blood is donated rather than bought and sold had no shortages, and the blood in their banks was less contaminated. What does this switch in policy, under the leadership of McEvoy mean? Has he read the book? 

Or is the financial cut implemented to ensure his salary raise and severance pay? Has he cut anything else at MHS to guarantee that he stays within the budget, and thereby doesn’t need his board to get Council approval?

It won’t be a week too early for MHS to be sold to UCH. Get this mess off our hands, because our own watchdogs, City Council, obviously lack the kind of leadership that can handle its fiduciary responsibilities.

How are they doing with CSU? The less you hear about council leadership and CSU, the more you should worry. At least with MHS there are leaks that get to the press and then to the public. CSU, by contrast, is so close-mouthed that no one knows what’s going on, including Council

This is an open plea for Council to probe the depths of CSU and devise a plan for selling it to the highest bidder. CEO Forte won’t care as much, now that he knows he can ask for a raise and get a hefty severance pay—it’s a win-win, no?

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

“A tale of two cities,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, May 4 – 10, 2012, 19.

A TALE OF TWO CITIES

Instead of Charles Dickens’ famous novel about Paris and London during the French Revolution, we are talking about Colorado Springs Utilities and the Pikes Peak Regional Building Department, representing two radically different “cities” or mindsets.

Dickens’ opening paragraph still resonates: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness…” Is our city going through “the spring of hope” or “the winter of despair”?

When there is unanimity of public disregard, as is the case with the CEO of CSU (Forte) and its Chairman (Councilman Hente), then no oversight is expected and stonewalling is standard procedure. Perhaps they already concede that CSU will be sold like Memorial, so why bother?

But when there is a difference between the head of RBD (Yankpwski) and its Chair (Brown), when the former responds in person while the latter takes three months to respond by e-mail (after pressure from the other two Commissioners), we can hear quite a bit.

Having taunted RBD’s Commissioners, it’s only fair that a brief summary of their answers should be provided.

Many answers come from the Intergovernmental Agreement that set up RBD in 1966. Once RBD puts it on its website, anyone can read it. It specifies the role of the Commissioners, the composition of their board, and the relationships between the oversight body, the advisory boards, and employment conditions.

Likewise, the organizational charts are in place—they know who does what—but should find their way to the website for public scrutiny.

The budget of $9.5 million (2012) reflects a decrease from $9.8 million (2011) and $11.2 million (2006). Since the budget is entirely composed of fees, and since fees haven’t increased since 2008, staff has been cut from 114 (2008) to 72 (2012).

Other statistical data that may be of interest: in 2011 some 53,000 permits were issued, 63% of them on the website. Around 150,000 inspections were required for these permits with over 80% approved on the first visit; 99% of the inspections are performed the same day they are requested. Pretty impressive!

RBD instituted a call-ahead program where an inspector will call thirty minutes prior to arrival so that the contractor or homeowner can be present. RBD is trying to streamline its operations electronically, from submission to approval, while maintaining a process for appeal with various technical boards. So, why are there still complaints about RBD?

Perhaps the culprits are architects and designers who have been “grand-fathered” when new codes were adopted a few years ago. When developers and owners think they get reliable information about zoning or use-change, they might be mistaken. Better ask RBD officials than rely on some professionals.

It seems that of the three Commissioners, Sharon Brown (Chair), Bernie Herpin (CS Councilman), and Dennis Hisey (County Commissioner), only Hisey takes his oversight job seriously. He recounted in writing his political engagement with state agencies on behalf of RBD.

What is politically at stake here? Why is RBD the “other city” as compared to CSU? While at CSU everyone seems to be asleep, congratulating themselves on lower-than-expected rate hikes for water, for example, RBD is proactive and serious about its mission and responsibilities.

At stake is political leadership that should ensure a climate that is responsive to local needs without shirking public responsibilities, balancing public safety with entrepreneurial efficiency. Developers and remodelers can put pressure on politicians so they perform.

Unlike CSU which raises rates in order to cover an ever-increasing budget—new cars for executives lately?—RBD hasn’t increased fees in four years. Unlike CSU, RBD realizes the impact of the Great Recession and has adjusted its budget.

Unlike CSU, RBD realized that to hustle for new business means spreading its wings outside the region, specializing in school permits and inspections in other counties. Yes, it’s legal; other jurisdictions are puzzled by this competition. This mindset guards against the need to raise fees.

Likewise, some legislation that imposes state electrical and plumbing codes on local jurisdictions ties the hands of RBD’s inspectors. Even when the cases are ridiculous, like requiring a child-proof outlet on the ceiling of garages, the local agency isn’t permitted discretionary application. It has to administer the state code, however bizarre.

Here’s where politics comes into play, and no, it doesn’t require money. Instead, the political leadership of RBD can ask for political help from other local politicians and petition the pro-business Governor who appoints individuals to these state boards so as to allow for greater local maneuvering power.

As long as government agencies hold the power to dictate building codes, the best we can do is direct this power to the local level, where common sense may prevail.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

“Play nice, Council & Mayor” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, March 30 – April 5, 2012, 21.

PLAY NICE AND BE RESPONSIBLE

Let’s assume that the strong mayor and the nine members of council are here to stay for a while; let’s also assume that the city’s legal team cannot quite sort out their lines of authority. These assumptions do not warrant, in themselves, the kind of childish behavior we have been observing in the past few months. Grow up and try to do your jobs! Otherwise, take your toys and go home to play alone.

This is a city, after all, not the school yard. Instead of figuring out who is right and who said what to whom, instead of laying blame on this incident or that slight, perhaps we should outline our expectations.

Start with the strong mayor: you should manage city administration, oversee the Police and Fire departments, and be the city’s chief promoter. Make the city bureaucracy the best it can be, being both business-friendly and citizen-friendly, treating the taxpayers as stakeholders to whom every one of them is accountable. Whether filling potholes or collecting sales-taxes, all city employees should become models of courtesy and genuine care, ensuring that we are all served fairly and well, and if possible, with a smile.

As for the nine councilmembers: forget whatever you used to do and how you deliberated about every little issue twice monthly. There are professionals who can take care of the day-to-day operations, while you should divide oversight responsibilities among you to ensure direct engagement. Here are nine areas of focus:

1.    Parks and recreation: budgets, facilities, operations, programs

2.    Roads and infrastructure: potholes, zoning, public transportation

3.    Real-estate holding: what is owned, leased, bought and sold, budgets

4.    Tourism and marketing: city facilities and the Visitors and Convention Bureau

5.    Sports (including USOC): bike tours and trails, city leagues, Sky Sox, arena

6.    Utilities (until sold): deep understanding of operations, budgets, and planning

7.    Urban Renewal Authority: site selection, bonds, future planning

8.    Finance and budgets: details of every department needs and expenditures

9.    Education: school districts (consolidated?), higher education, Air Force Academy

If each council member focused on one area and reported monthly to the others what’s going on in his or her area, then everyone would be better informed and make decisions more rationally.

Councilmembers can decide among themselves who’ll do what, as long as they keep the real estate guys away from real-estate matters to ensure avoidance of conflict-of-interest voting (do they recuse themselves now?).

Assume you don’t like these nine areas; please put forth others. For example, should there be one dedicated to the Military or one to the Downtown?  Assume you don’t like one person being the leader in one area, then double up and have two members cover certain areas. This is a minor adjustment compared to nine members pretending to be experts or involved or even knowledgeable about all the areas on which they regularly vote.

This isn’t that complicated from a business stand-point: the CEO oversees everything, but in large organizations delegation of responsibility makes sense. One cannot expect the mayor, strong or weak, to really manage well such a large organization without division of labor and without the collaboration of council.

Just because councilmembers don’t see the mayor as their “boss” for obvious reasons (they were elected to their positions to represent constituents), isn’t sufficient ground for turning this city into a malfunctioning operation that might scare potential newcomers.

Perhaps we don’t want the Chicago Daley model of a strong mayor, but Chicago’s garbage was collected and streets were plowed when it snowed (Jane Byrne served only one term because of snow-plowing problems). Our city doesn’t collect the garbage and rarely plows. So, perhaps our governance model should be different.

We have local experts who might help with this, and I don’t mean the scores of therapists who can help in group therapy to find what ails these ten elected officials. Do we really want to hear about their potty-training or childhood traumas? Let’s hope not.

Instead of psycho-therapists, UCCS’ Chancellor, Professor Pam Schokley-Zalabak, who specializes in organization management, and whose own experience running a large institution that has different constituents (including tenured professors she cannot fire), could be helpful. If she is unavailable, perhaps someone with expertise similar to hers can be of service.

Getting elected is one thing—it’s a beauty or popularity contest of sorts. Being an effective public official is quite another. If any of our Elected Ten wants our respect, they better earn it on the job! Their past got them elected, but it’s the present that we must judge: it’s their work right now that matters to us.

Who knows, if the Elected Ten get their act together, we might rightfully aspire to compete with Austin, Texas and Portland, Oregon as one of those second-tier great cities!

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

  

“CSU should follow Memorial’s fate,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, March 9 - 15, 2012, 21.

CSU SHOULD FOLLOW MEMORIAL’S FATE

Just as the recalcitrant Memorial’s CEO, Dr. McEvoy, thought his ideas were the only ones worth listening to and never expected his imperial visions will evaporate before his very eyes, so CSU’s CEO, Mr. Forte, may be dreaming that his empire is beyond reproach. Wake up and smell the roses!

With public scrutiny now finally at professional levels, as the city has enlisted expert lawyers to negotiate on its behalf the transfer of Memorial to UCH, it has become clear that selling the hospital is the right choice among many others that were available. We, as a city, can have our cake and eat it, too: enjoy the benefits of a first-class health care service (underwritten in part by the billionaire Anschutz) without liabilities and an incompetent leadership team and supervisory board.

If we were worried about what to do with Memorial (around $600 million enterprise), why aren’t we worried about what to do with CSU (around $1.1 billion enterprise)? The same incompetent board that supervises Memorial is still supervising CSU. Despite the recommendation to install an independent board, this monolith has got to go!

Just as Memorial was run by a provincial leadership that scared us into thinking increased health-care costs would ruin the hospital and leave us without proper care, so does CSU pretend that its leadership, and even ownership, can never be different from what it is.

Why not put CSU out to bids and see what happens? By now even our confused Council can figure out how to handle such an offering, with all the legal guidelines that have been set in place for MHS to solicit bidders. There are companies out there, from Xcel on one extreme of the private spectrum, to RISI on the other extreme of non-profit regional utilities, who might be interested.

Yes, we need to set a task-force and finesse the nuances of negotiations; yes, we need to have people with integrity serving on it for the right reason; and yes, we need to see that our future liabilities regarding pollution and any toxic waste associated with any of the power plants will be cared for by the new owners.

So, what’s holding us back? Is it a bureaucracy that fears losing its grip on wages and benefits, pensions and other perks? It can’t be that petty. Or is it? What is so special about a municipality that owns its utilities if rates go up while services decrease? What’s so special about CSU that warrants keeping it city-owned?

Perhaps it’s a lethal combination of pride, tradition, and inertia, lethal because it has no warrant, no rationale. Until we try to sell CSU we wouldn’t know if we can get a deal better than the one we currently have. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, as the saying goes. Our local rates are definitely higher than those offered by Xcel Energy in Denver and in Summit County, as local citizens who have second homes report. So, this argument doesn’t hold.

The big management questions about CSU haven’t been answered yet. Who oversees this huge organization? What is the competence of top management at CSU? Is its CEO qualified and up to the task (still waiting to see his resume)? Rumor has it that he won’t just retire, but has another job waiting for him (with whom?). Will an “independent advisory board” make any difference, as long as legally oversight responsibilities remain with Council?

There are other big operational questions that need to be answered as well. Why is CSU still using coal, an energy source that might be cheap up front but very expensive in terms of pollution and EPA guidelines that must be adhered to? Is the so-called Neumann solution for filtering after burning coal not backwards (more on that in a later column)?

Shouldn’t we worry about replacing coal with gas or biofuels and then not have to deal with this kind of pollution at all? Are we stuck using 20^th century equipment in the 21^st?

Likewise, one wonders if all the resources available to operators, like CSU, have been exhausted. Given the global economy (see my last column), has CSU consulted all potential solutions to providing energy for the future?

For example, regardless of alternative energy sources, have equipment efficiencies been considered? We have Sturman Industries up the pass in Woodland Park: can they help make the equipment 10-30% more efficient as they have done for major trucking companies?

Should we have one centralized source of energy with an expensive grid and potential for failure? This is where national security concerns (of sabotage) merge with the concerns of the Sierra Club (of ecological preservation).

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who is praying CSU doesn’t turn off service to his buildings. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

 

“Shouldn’t public servants face questioning?,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, February 3 - 9, 2012, 21.

WHO DO PUBLIC SERVANTS SERVE?

The former chief of police didn’t want to talk to me some months ago, asking that Steve Cox, at the time the mayor’s chief of staff, would be present. I thought this would waste taxpayers’ money, and wrote about the police department’s budget without his input. His e-mails were friendly.

I asked to meet with the chief financial officer of the Fire Department, and when I met Leslie Hickey, Richard Brown (then interim and now Chief) was present, answering any and all questions. Even though the union president, Jeremy Kroto, wasn’t happy with my piece, suggesting that the numbers I got from Hickey and Brown were wrong, he was pleased that there was focus on the CSFD.

The CEO of Colorado Springs Utilities is “not available for an interview” according to David Grossman (1/10/12), one of the corporate communication staff. I asked why he was “unavailable” and about his compensation package and qualification, and received these numbers:

“Mr. Forte's annual salary of $276,750.03 has not changed since 2007. His 2010 short-term incentive was $31,411.13 and his long-term retirement incentive was $39,852.00. His 2011 short-term incentive was $34,455.38 and his long-term retirement incentive was $41,927.63. $50,000 has been budgeted for CEO incentive for 2012.”

I guess someone with a pre-assigned “incentive” doesn’t need to talk to the press or provide a resume. Given his latest shameless stand-off with the mayor about CSU’s line of credit, he is probably ready to retire (and he can definitely afford it).

By the time I contacted the Regional Building Department, the friendly but suspicious chairwoman of the Board of Commissioners, Sharon Brown (Fountain councilwoman) asked for written questions. When I sent her ten questions on 1/12/12, she called back a couple of days later worried about the “purpose” of my inquiry. As we go to print, I’m still waiting for answers to simple questions such as the organizational chart of RBD and its budget. Councilman Herpin who serves on the board has yet to respond to my e-mail of 1/10/12.

Maybe I’m completely off-base for asking public servants to explain how they are fulfilling their mandate. If this line of questioning warrants an apology, please accept mine right here from these pages.

On the other hand, if the CSBJ is to serve the business community, if its charge is to inform the public of anything that relates to business matters, and if the questioning focuses on monopolies (we can’t get electricity elsewhere), then how public officials operate is of paramount interest: who is in charge of licensing and permits; who is enforcing codes and fining businesses; who can we appeal to when bureaucrats play power games?

The fallacy of the digital age is that “it’s all there in the website”, as Councilwoman Jan Martin admonished me when I asked about her maneuvering the Memorial process (which didn’t work out once the public was more involved). If it is, it’s not easily found; if it’s not, as in the case of the RBD, then simply directing an inquirer to the website is Kafkaesque (senseless, disorienting, with menacing complexity).

The danger of the digital age is that in the name of accessibility, the promise of liberalizing or democratizing the community is actually being undermined. It may even serve to control information more tightly, since there are no other modes of communication.

Besides, as every businessperson knows from experience, numbers alone don’t tell much. They need to be contextualized and interpreted. If I have been guilty over the past few months of presenting numbers out of context it’s because their context was not readily explained on websites and power-point presentations, and when officers refuse to explain (either because it’s beneath them or because they don’t know, rather than because they have something to hide), then one must resort to printing numbers and waiting for a response.

We all deserve to know because this is what our Social Contract dictates: agencies levy taxes and fees on us so as to fund regulatory activities (RBD, City administration) or services (fire, police, and utilities). As citizens we implicitly agree to enter a Social Contract with other citizens and use agencies to execute our individual wills (majority rule) in a legitimate way: we self-legislate. This way of thinking goes back to ancient Athens and has been analyzed for two thousand years by political philosophers.

When our agents—civil servants—forget their complicity in the Social Contract perhaps journalists or gadflies, as Socrates liked to describe himself, need to remind them of their role. If they don’t like this, they can resign; it’s that simple.

I realize that writing this column will prevent me from ever doing another project here. It’s a fair price to pay.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who completed a few downtown renovation projects. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

“Mayor Bach is well-equipped, so let him lead,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, January 20 - 26, 2012, 17.

LET THE MAYOR LEAD

I supported the strong mayor initiative and wrote favorably about the Jenkins Proposal that made it happen. I also supported Richard Skorman out of loyalty and a belief that with a new structure in place, experience would count.

I still believe that given our council, a strong mayor is essential, and now believe that Mayor Bach is the right man for the job. His inexperience may be his biggest asset: he doesn’t just go along with what has traditionally been done, and as a one-term mayor, he’s doing what’s right, not what will get him re-elected.

One example the mayor cites is the multi-year budget process: next year’s budget proposal is based on the previous year’s one, rather than on actual revenues and expenditures. This means, for example, that out of a $223M budget, around $5M has been allocated for “authorized positions” at maximum pay even though they are not filled. Why keep this allocation in the budget?

City budget planners could argue that it’s the sensible way of doing business: keep the lines funded even when unoccupied, since they might be filled at some later point. Has the city suffered from these positions remaining unfilled? If unclear, keep them unfilled, and reduce the budget by whatever amount was allocated to them.

What happens if they are needed in the future? Then add them to a revised budget. Having worked on small ($1M/yr) and large budgets ($35/yr), budgets must be periodically revised, given the dynamic nature of organizations: people retire or leave, opportunities materialize, or markets dry out. Though council has to approve the budget annually, and though the mayor has veto rights, it seems that council relishes its ability to over-ride the mayor, as seen recently.

It all looks like the federal farce we are witnessing in Washington, when congress muscles its way to paralysis, leaving a befuddled president powerless. If the intent of council is to show the mayor who’s boss, they should all resign. Perhaps the three incumbents resent the fact that they are not the mayor—they could have run for the position—while the six new ones are as inexperienced as the mayor and still don’t know what role they ought to play.

The mayor claims to have reached out to all of them individually, only to find out that they don’t communicate with each other. The best he could get from them is a rejection of a contingency operating fund of $1.5M which they deemed his “slush fund.” This is a public institution with required transparency. So, it’s not that they don’t trust him, they probably don’t trust themselves.

Unlike them the mayor has offered four initiatives or Solutions Teams: community volunteers in the areas of Parks (Richard Skorman), Transit (Robert Shonkwiler), Streetscapes (Dave Munger), and Downtown (Chuck Murphy). Notice that two chairs were his opponents in the run for mayor. Only councilman Leigh has proposed initiates, and other council members mock him.

Some might be worried that the mayor’s new staff appointments are expensive, especially in this economy. Cindy Aubrey, Chief Communication Officer earns $95,000; her predecessor, Sue Blumberg, made $116,000; her department shrank from 12 to 8 positions. Laura Neumann, who replaced Steve Cox at $182,488, makes $165,000. Steve Cox is making the same salary in his new role as Economic Vitality Chief as before, heading a department with 4 rather than 8 members, while withdrawing $70,000 in subsidy from the EDC.

If these numbers don’t convince you that the mayor is prudent with city expenditures, or that he’s not applying his business acumen to his role as mayor, two other areas may prove the point.

First, he’s drawing on his experience as a commercial real-estate broker to promote the city to local and outside companies. He’s the salesman in chief! And for this role he has trained for forty years, convincing companies to buy buildings and plant their roots here.

Second, he’s trying to make the city business-friendly. What does it mean? I doubt he’ll be able to reduce fees, since our tax base is so low, and fees are essential to maintain an operational infrastructure. But, just talk to the Fire Chief and you’ll hear the mantra of business-friendly. I proposed that the department provide pre-purchase inspection drafts (for a fee) to potential buyers so they’d know in advance what to expect from code enforcement. He promised to consider it. More than can be said about the Regional Building Board (on whose board councilman Bernie Herpin sits), where the mayor has no say.

Perhaps councilmembers should do their jobs as directors of Memorial, Utilities, and RBD and let the mayor run the city. It might be best that council is divesting itself from overseeing Memorial; perhaps council should do the same with CSU and RBD, and let the mayor oversee them, too!

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

“Who’ll turn on the lights?,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, January 6 - 12, 2012, 17.

WHO’LL TURN ON THE LIGHTS?

Starting in April 2012, energy companies and natural-gas explorers will have to disclose the chemicals they use in hydraulic fracturing. Colorado regulators agreed to a compromise between environmentalists and energy companies. The fact that Colorado forged ahead with a compromise sets the tone for natural gas exploration around the nation. And this is good news for all of us.

The mix of gas and coal in Colorado Springs Utilities’ plants is based on a delicate calculus that includes a variety of variables, such as energy costs and emission regulations. Since CSU buys coal and gas primarily from Colorado and Wyoming, this compromise is relevant to us (since we don’t have to buy it from far away and add to the carbon footprint).

The elephant in our city is the utilities company, a behemoth so big that it’s left on its own. With all due respect, the members of our city council are not up to task, not least because they evaluate CSU according to a matrix designed by CSU. Memorial Hospital, which has kept council awake at night, masterminding solutions to a relatively benign problem, is only a $600 million city enterprise.

CSU’s annual budget is $1.1 billion. Its “dumbed-down” version is 187 page long. It must have taken a few weeks of the huge Corporate Communication department plus the Financial Department; the legal department at $2.4 million must have supervised, too. Since it was produced in the glitzy Plaza of the Rockies (A-rated commercial building owned by the Jenkins dynasty), it has heft.

Asking the stern William Cherrier, Chief Planning & Finance Officer, some questions about the budget was like asking your grandmother if she ever used tainted ingredients for her Christmas pie. Dave Goldberg of Public Affairs, representing an army of twenty, was more than happy to provide further data. Time and again, everything in the budget, from capital improvements to the ratio between operational workers (1,082), customer service employees (590), and Planning & Finance (89) always received the condescending response: “we are in line with industry standards.”  

I won’t bore you with the details of the budget—it’s online, and with some perseverance you may find it—but I suggest that as paying citizens we ask two questions: what does it mean to follow industry standards? And, who is watching over this elephant?

The first question is frightening because last time we heard such language it came from the financial industry, the one that sunk us into the Great Recession. It’s not a matter of trust: perhaps our local utilities officials are trustworthy; rather, what if the whole industry is about to fall off a cliff? Are critics heard as loudly as industry apologists who are well-paid consultants? 

It is because of this concern that the second question comes into play: who is in charge? Council members serve as the board. None of them ever sat on a board of such a large enterprise, let alone ran such a behemoth. Do they even know what they are voting on when they approve the budget? Given their meager financial compensation (Leigh may have a point here), and even with the best of intentions (showing up to meetings), I doubt they can seriously dissect the intricacies of the budget. Even Mr. Cherrier who is a seasoned pro, according to him, sometimes had to strain with his answers.

Assume all nine councilmembers understood the basics of the utilities budget and future challenges, could any of them propose which way the utilities should move? It’s called a board of directors, after all. Forget about future plans for environmentally-responsible solutions, can the budget be cut by 5% without affecting operations? I’d venture to say yes, just because anyone who tries really hard can find ways to cut waste and find economies of scales in an operation as large as $1.1 billion (8.6% increase from last year, with .3% decline in usage).

Now that the future of Memorial Hospital is secure in the hands of UCH, now that we have a Fire and Police chiefs, perhaps the strong mayor, as the businessman-in-charge, and the council can focus their collective attention on the utilities. When CSU makes a decision, like buying the remaining 50% of Front Range Power, it’s a $416 million decision, so it’s worth their attention (it wasn’t included in the 2011 approved budget).

Who knows, maybe they’ll find a way to turn on all street lights for our safety. It may not seem as important as health care, but freezing residents end up in the hospital! And while they are at it, under the mayor’s “business friendly “ motto, please let developers downtown know ahead of time that they will have to come up with $250,000 to get enough electricity, for example, to their Mining Exchange building.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS and will continue with more articles on CSU. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com