Denver voters will have to wait until November to vote on the Extraterrestrial Affairs Commission ballot initiative. The initiative had been put on the August 10, primary election ballot. But on June 9, the Denver Elections Division posted the change of date on its web site.
Campaign supporters welcomed news of the change. They see the delayed vote as helping to achieve the main goal of the historic campaign which is to educate the masses about risks and benefits of interacting with extraterrestrial visitors. Voter turnout is projected to be four times larger in November and voter education will occur when students are back in school and focused on election issues.
The Extraterrestrial Affairs Commission initiative will also gain from greater public awareness about UFOs and extraterrestrial visitors. New books, television programs, and events between August and November are expected to provide more resources for voters. The recent History Channel program, "Ancient Aliens: The Series", is just one sign of greater interest in UFOs and aliens as more governments release UFO files.
Campaign supporters also see more interest in clean energy sources that is being fueled by the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Government whistleblowers claim that some of these clean energy alternatives have already been derived from alien crafts and kept secret from the public for decades to protect oil company profits. They have also revealed knowledge of advanced extraterrestrial technologies that are able to clean up BP's Gulf oil catastrophe and other pollution of water, air, and soil.
If passed by voters in November, the seven member commission would post credible evidence of extraterrestrial visitors on the Denver government web site. The commission would be funded "entirely by grants, gifts and donations, without requiring any fiscal outlay from the city budget". This fact has been confirmed by Ed Scholz, Director of Denver's Budget Management Office.
For more information: www.extracampaign.org
Full text of ballot initiative: New Launch for Extraterrestrial Affairs Commission Initiative in Denver
Comments
What Mr Peckman didn't say, was that he requested this change, though he makes it sound like it was the election's division action.
And I've found the Director of Denver's Budget Management Office letter online, explaining how this will cost the Denver citizens. www.rockymountainparanormal.com/ufo/
"Currently, the initiative states the DEAC will be funded through grants, gifts, and donations, but does not take into consideration the indirect costs for Mayor, Council, and related staff time spent working with the Commission. "
Which it then goes on to estimate at $22,800 for the first year.
Why would there be a move of the ballot initiative?
Peckman is asking for donations (about $20,000 I believe), to fund a "voter education" campaign and I wonder if he was having difficulty collecting those funds, and needs the extension.
His article doesn't say why it was moved. Wonder how he managed to forget to put in that FACT since he was the one who, (reported by the Division Staff), went in on June 10th to submit the request for the move? Wonder if he wasn't able to come up with the $100,000 that the commission would HAVE to pay the city back for being the ONLY non-partisan initiative on the August Ballot?
Wonder why, if all these conferences and events with the SAME information that the government has (claims Peckman), are happening between now and November, do we need a Denver ET Commission?
Notice when he quotes Ed Scholz, Director of Denver's Budget Management Office he does not quote the full text. Always ask why.
Rj is misinformed and misquoting information. It WAS the Election’s Division desire and action. I was asked to refer all inquiries about the “why and how” to the Elections Division Communications Office.
Also, in an e-mail to Denver Budget Management Director Ed Scholz, Bryan Bonner of the Rocky Mountain Paranormal Research Society asked, "If the commission does not collect enough 'gifts, grants and donations' to operate will the commission have to become City funded because it is an official City Commission?"
Scholz' reply to Bonner was, "No, if operating costs impact the General Fund, it will be the responsibility of the Commission to reimburse the General Fund for those expenses in a timely manner."
What part of "NO" does Rj not understand? It doesn’t matter how much the "indirect costs" are, they must be reimbursed in order to comply with the language of the ordinance.
Always Ask Why needs to ask the Denver Elections Division why it moved the initiative to November.
Re: the "100,000, her claim that the "commission would HAVE to pay the city back…" is completely wrong and misleading. She also does not have the authority to represent such claims. There has been no request or suggestion to the campaign supporting the ETA Commission, by anyone representing the City of Denver, for the proposed ETA Commission or the campaign supporting the ballot initiative to "pay back the City of Denver for being the only non-partisan initiative on the August ballot".
Also, I was not at the Elections Office on June 10 to submit a request for the move. Lastly, I quoted the part of Ed Scholz comment that was relevant – the part about the fact that the ETA commission will not cost the city money. But that is probably not the part that Always Ask Why wanted to me quote.
Notice how Mr Peckman tries to equate the General Fund with indirect costs that do not come out of the general fund?
Tricky move. But I think the people and the press will see through it. Yes, anything you take from the general fund you are supposed to pay back (and since you have no budget, that's seems a matter of faith). And as the budget director said you did "not take into consideration the indirect costs".
But seriously Mr Peckman, if this is an important issue to the people, just make a budget for it and disclose it to the public! If they want it, they'll vote for it. No need to be so secretive about the costs.
Notice how Rj continues to misrepresent the facts contained in the statements from Denver Budget Management Director Ed Scholz who said “The spreadsheet below [totalling $22,800] itemizes the DEAC requests listed in the ordinance. It also takes into consideration the indirect costs for elected officials and their staff. As mentioned above, if the DEAC is unable to provide these requests through grants, gifts, or donations prior to procurement, it will be the responsibility of the Commission to reimburse the General Fund for those expenses."
Mr. Scholz statement makes it clear that “indirect costs” were already included in his estimate of $22,800.
The People and the press will see through Rj’s obsession with trying to alter the truth. Obtaining funding through “grants, gifts and donations”, making budgets, and spending the funds on the commission’s activities are responsibilities of the proposed commission. What secrets? All these facts are specified in the initiative language.
Mr Peckman, I quoted Mr. Scholz verbatim. Anyone can read his full statements and his FULL quotes (not your excerpts) at the online letter:
www.rockymountainparanormal.com/ufo/
Come on Mr Peckman: just post the budget! Is that too much to disclose to the public? They need to know what is at risk in the event you do not collect the donations needed to repay the city. How many times do I have to ask?
I hope to goodness you DO have an estimated budget, don't you?
If this organization has actuall physical evidence of aliens visiting earth i will donate $25 000 000 tommorow to have it disclosed
Let me put it another way:
1) This ballot initiative requires certain duties, which the budget director estimates will cost $22,800 for the first year. These duties are not optional.
2) Mr Peckman says the commission will pay back the city with "Grants, Gifts, and Donations". But, such income (gifts, etc) are not guaranteed to occur.
3) Since such gifts are not guaranteed (and the law can't force people to make them), what if these donations do not come in? It is a loss to the city. That leaves the citizens footing the bill.
Mr Peckman, what here is not correct?
So what I think the people need is some kind of budget that shows, specifically, from where you are guaranteeing this income will come: specific organizations that have pledged (even escrowed, since a promise of a gift is otherwise not a contractual promise) to support you for specific amounts.
Can you provide that? If not, I don't think TRUST ME is going to get you much voter traction with this.
RJ. I've seen your IP before and I'll be sure to pass on the personal information to Mr. Peckman and otherse immediately. What you need to accept is that you haven't a clue about the support that this initiative is recieving and that I personally have raised over the proposed amount for indirect costs so that ignorant individuals such as yourself can be quieted and your agenda revealed.
The budget is irrelevant considering its already taken care of, so need you say anymore? Or, is this an opportunity to jump back to the apparent agenda and promote the highly irresponsible Rocky Mountain Paranormal Society again? Enacted to poorly initiate counterintelligence tactics that are extremely transparent and obviously will not succeed. You need to wake up soon RJ, the 11th hour isn't a reality nor is it a safety mechanism in coming times. These numbers mean nothing coming from you, and the people, when due diligence is commenced, will reject your false profits and your efforts to discredi
Nice talk Friend. Nice threats. Nice Boasts.
And as expected, no answers. No details of funding, nor explanation how required costs can be paid by optional donations - not one name, not one source, just more TRUST ME.
Do you really think voters should believe promises of money from anonymous internet posters? Have you ever heard of Nigerian banking scams?
So maybe you should let Mr Peckman speak for himself. Posts like yours do him more harm than good.
Rj, ballot initiative laws specifically encourage minimal details in proposed ordinances. It is enough to have legally binding language that requires the commission to be funded "entirely by grants, gifts and donations without requiring any fiscal outlay from the city budget". The Mayor of Denver has the legal duty, which is also not optional, to enforce all ordinances. So it is not necessary or required for ballot initiatives to explain enforcement details.
It is the Mayor's Office that must ensure that the ETA Commission does not create a cost to Denver citizens. The City of Denver needs to comply with any mandates of the proposed ordinance, but only to the extent that a cost is not incurred to the city because that is also one of the mandates.
If you doubt the Mayor's ability to enforce ordinances, then contact the Mayor’s Office.
Mr Peckman, I do not question the Mayor's ability to enforce ordinances. I ask you this:
Since the Denver Budget director has estimated your first year indirect costs at $22,800 based on its requirements (that must be enforced), and you say all costs will be taken care of via "grants, gifts, and donations", and "grants, gifts, and donations" are in no way any kind of guarantee to come, why is it impossible for your commission to create a liability for the city?
To demonstrate that this is possible, this is now occurring at the Colorado state level.
“...the state often gets stuck with the tab when well-intentioned programs lose their outside funding and they come back to lawmakers asking taxpayers to take it over. "It's classic bait and switch," Lambert said.
Full article: www.washingtonexaminer.com/economy/colo-lawmakers-rely-more-on-gifts-grants-and-donations-for-state-budget-93798314.html
They also mention such funding creates potential conflicts of interests.
Rj, do you really think the Mayor is not smart enough to ensure there is no cost to the city, from city personnel performing ETA Commission-related duties, by getting a deposit in advance from the ETA Commission? If they Mayor can not get such a deposit, then the Mayor is not required to enforce the other mandates of the ordinance.
State budget problems, and the article you referenced, are not relevant to the ETA Commission ballot initiative. You are talking about state programs enacted by less than 40-50 politically motivated legislators who are balancing political and budgetary risks. For the ETA Commission to "come back to lawmakers asking taxpayers to take it over...", that would require someone collecting another 4,000 valid petition signatures from taxpayers, getting on the ballot of another election, and then getting a majority of taxpaying voters (probably more than 40,000-50,000) who are the legislators in this case, to approve using taxpayer money to fund the commission.
I gave the state example to show you how it is possible for programs funded by “Grants, gifts, and donations” to still cause a burden on the taxpayers. In the ETAC, it seems even easier to happen: the commission is formed with no money, is required to perform duties that are estimated at $22,800, and potentially winds up with no donations to pay for them.
If you want to take an attitude “That’s the mayor’s problem, not the commissions!”, and imply if he doesn‘t solve the problem for you, he just isn’t “smart enough”, you can try that. Maybe the voters will agree – not so sure how the Mayor will like the sound of it though. And, I don’t understand why you are not using the issues I am raising now, months before the vote, to actually strengthen your campaign, and taking the responsibility to find ways for the commission to resolve them, rather than pushing the problem onto the mayor. It could make the ETAC more viable to the voters if you did.
RJ, why are you complaining over $22,800$ when we are wasting billions of tax payers money on pointless programs. Finally the people have the opportunity to have their voices heard and to bring forward "True Change" and you are making every attempt to discredit this.
Guest, if we are wasting billions of dollars on pointless programs, I encourage you to create a citizens ballot initiative to stop that waste, rather than adding another one.
And what “True Change” are you talking about? Why is a bunch of people publishing their opinions on UFOs on the city web site, “True Change”, when they could just as easily publish the same information on their own, or on your, web site?
I don't think my one little voice will do anything to discredit this really: the text of the initiative does a pretty good job of that itself though. My best advice to voters: read the initiative, and see what it really does (and doesn’t) do.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!