Vote Yes on 2-A

Some of you visiting this site may have read the recent Times Call Editorial urging a no vote on this issue. We fully expected, as did many citizens, to see the paper take a position against this amendment. We also expected professional journalism to make their argument. What we did not expect was a litany of mistruths, fantasy, and distortion of fact. Something that is rare from most responsible newspapers that view their opinions as a public service. Apparently that obligation to the public has been misplaced along the way by the Times Call’s editorial staff. That is truly unfortunate because whether it is opinion or not the paper has an obligation to the community to stay within certain bounds. That was lost with this editorial.

The editorial staff’s ballot recommendations mirror the politics of the newspaper’s owner. That fact is well known and treated for what it is by the citizens of Longmont. A biased political opinion. Nothing more and nothing less. Be that what it may, it has been our experience that Longmont is compromised of people that put aside editorial politics and one-sided spin. The voters here are known to approach an issue like this with a fair perspective and a balanced approach.

The bottom line to the Times Call editorial is they know better. Many of the so called facts they portray they know are false. They are already aware of reality on many of their inaccurate assertions, and on the issues they might not fully understand that could be resolved by them with a phone call. The Times Call went way over the top with this editorial throwing mistruths, fantasy, and distortion of fact at the voters apparently hoping some would stick. That editorial behavior to this extreme is a disservice to the community. We have taken each mistruth and distortion of fact contained in that editorial and written truthful rebuttals to each of the Times Call's mistruths. It is something every citizen visiting here should read. You can access our rebuttal by clicking on this link:

Rebuttal Counterpoints to the Times Call

For an upcoming podcast/blog, Longmont Advocate's Chris Rodriguez (who previously helped us in 2004 on this issue) suggested we do a point-by-point rebuttal of the Times-Call editorial. This is the result of that request. The podcast on this subject will air late Monday afternoon October 20th. Longmont Advocate can be accessed by clicking on this link:

The Longmont Advocate

Since 2003 the firefighters and police officers serving Longmont, through their representative organizations, have been fighting to gain a formal system that will give them a level playing field and an equal voice in their working conditions. In 2004 our two organizations gained enough petition signatures to have that right placed on a ballot issue to amend the City Charter. We did so then because the City Administration would not entertain any discussion or proposal on this subject, and that was our only option to the ballot. We conducted a very professional and honest campaign. However at the end of the day we narrowly lost that election.

We are again pursuing our goal of gaining this right in this year’s election. The firefighters and police officers are simply asking for the same right all citizens of this country enjoy. That is the right to have our professional organizations formally recognized by our employer, and to be able to sit across from our employer in an atmosphere of mutual respect and enter into cooperative agreements on our working conditions. Unlike 2004, this time we worked together with City Staff, City Council, and both chiefs, to bring a fair measure to the community. The result is an end product crafted by all involved parties affected by its passage. This time your elected representatives were satisfied and referred the matter to the November 4th ballot.

Public safety officers in large numbers, both in Colorado and across this country, have gained or seek to gain this right. This system of fairness is in place in numerous jurisdictions across the country, including ten police departments and thirteen fire departments in Colorado. For those entities it is a normal and accepted way of doing business. History has demonstrated that the system works quite well, and that both sides benefit from it. However, this right can only be obtained by a vote of the citizens amending the City Charter.

If a City expects to reduce the burden on its taxpayers by asking its firefighters and law enforcement officers for greater efficiency and effectiveness, then it must involve them in the discussions that affect their working conditions. In doing so, it helps build a relationship of trust and partnership between public safety employees, management, and the citizens we serve. We seek a productive relationship with City Administration. That is our goal. We believe the citizens want that also. We want a positive channel of communications. We want to work together in the interest of our city. This Amendment to the City Charter promotes enhanced morale and basic levels of self-determination. It allows and firefighters and police officers to participate in employment-related discussions and offer insightful feedback on issues that affect their future and their working conditions.

As dedicated emergency workers we put our lives and well-being on the line for the citizens of the community daily without reservation. That is our job and we accept it proudly. As firefighters and police officers we constantly fight for better working conditions in our professions. Not just better, but safer working conditions as well as providing a high level of service to the community. We provide essential services needed by the community. As such we feel it is essential that we have a voice, and the right to weigh in on decisions concerning our safety as well as the safety of the citizens we serve. That is why this amendment is needed, and why we believe the citizens of Longmont will support it.

On July 29th four of seven members of the Longmont City Council voiced their agreement and support, and voted to refer a Charter Amendment to the November Ballot that will grant us these rights that we have fought so hard and so long to gain. This amendment to the City Charter is not solely a product of our two employee groups. The City of Longmont hired a recognized expert on this subject to advise and work with City Staff. An expert in this field hired to represent the interests of the citizens in this matter. His name is Martin Semple. He is a highly recommended and very experienced labor attorney whose entire career has been devoted to assisting cities on matters such as this. Much of this amendment in front of the voters as "Issue 2-A" is the end result of Mr. Semple's input, analysis, and expert advice. Experience and advice that the taxpayers paid for and will benefit from.

After City Council's initial action your firefighters and police officers worked side by side with the city staff (including both chiefs) for two weeks and worked on fixing problem areas that City Administration had identified with our original proposal. City management, under Mr. Semple's guidance, negotiated with the firefighter and police employee representatives to revise the language of the original amendment. Through negotiations with management we re-wrote much of the original language and reached common ground on areas of concern. This measure in front of the voters is the by-product of that effort. It is a document that both sides believe is fair to the community. The end result provides a fair system that both sides can work under together.

On August 26^th City Council agreed, and by a 6 to 1 vote adopted the compromise amendment language negotiated by City Staff and our organizations. Only one council person, Gabe Santos, disagreed with the new language negotiated by the City. He voted not to accept the recommended changes. Choosing instead to retain the original language. Interestingly on July 29th Santos said he could not support the Amendment because of the issues pointed out in Mr. Semple's analysis. That evening Santos demanded that both sides sit down together. He urged both sides to develop compromise language that addressed those concerns. For two weeks both management and the employees did exactly that. Yet on August 26th Santos voted against what he asked them to do. He was the only councilperson to reject the agreed to language. On that same evening the amended measure was referred to this November’s ballot by a 4 to 3 Council vote.

This measure is a vastly different proposal from our 2004 ballot issue. The amendment that was voted to the ballot by Council on August 26^th is one that both the City Staff and our organizations believe best serves the interests of the community. This amendment is a product of management working together with the employees to develop language that will best serve the needs of both sides.

Contrary to the spin that has been circulated by the un-informed, or by those who would seek to mislead and put forth misinformation, your firefighters & police have been represented by their chosen employee organizations for over 25 years. This is not about our wages or benefits. We are adequately compensated when compared to other area departments. We don't see that changing, and it is not a priority in our need for passage of this amendment. The problem is the City will not officially recognize that professional representation without this amendment. This amendment provides an equal playing field and legitimate representative voice on many areas of working conditions. It provides us official recognition and a voice through a public safety organization of the employees' choosing. We have no formal voice without this amendment.

As public safety employees it is our very nature to protect our citizens and serve our community faithfully. We are on the front line daily in that service. When police officers put on the badge and the gun, or firefighters their bunker gear and answer the alarm, there is no guarantee we will go home at the end of our watch. That is the nature of our job, and we accept that proudly. But that is also why we believe that we should have a formal voice on decisions that affect our working conditions. That is why we have brought this amendment to the citizens of Longmont.

The denial of a representative voice has been the source of many serious problems over the years. It is important that firefighters and police officers be heard. We are the ones who daily are directly involved in service delivery and the safety of this community. We are the first responders. We have the daily working experience and street level knowledge of what community security entails. Our jobs involve the public safety and our citizens' welfare on a daily basis in which the employees’ safety and lives are constantly exposed to danger. For that and other reasons we believe it is paramount that a system of representation be in place to give us a voice. For us, and for public safety employees in many parts of this state and country, that system is collective bargaining. Obtaining such a system has been the foremost goal of both firefighters and police officers in Longmont for over 5 years.

It is our honor to serve Longmont. We also take great pride in the city we protect, and the privilege we have been given to do so. That is why we work in our chosen professions. We realize our issue on this year's ballot is a controversial matter for some people. Many have not taken the time to read the proposed amendment and have developed inaccurate and pre-conceived notions about this matter. Unfortunately that has been, and will always be, the case whenever this issue is raised anywhere.

One of the primary traits, among many, looked for when a city hires a firefighter or police officer is integrity. Integrity is a standard that governs the daily work performance of these employees. It is a standard that extends into their personal lives. It is the primary standard that extends into how we run this campaign. We use truth and not deception in our campaign to the citizens. On October 1^st at the local election forum on this measure Stephanie Baum, who is a spokesperson for the opposition to this amendment, insulted every man & woman who wears, or has worn, the badge in service to this city. Baum publically alleged that if this amendment is adopted, the firefighters and police officers would engage in “blue flu” and withhold services if they did not get their way. This statement is a slap in the face to not only these proud professionals, but to the citizens of this community who place their very lives in these dedicated employees hands daily.

When confronted after her presentation by a firefighter about her statement, she told him she really did not believe any firefighter or police officer in Longmont would actually do such a thing. When asked then why she said this publicly her reply was, “Well I had to say something negative”. These statements by this political activist should shock every citizen of this community. It shows the lack of integrity of this individual and those who she represents. It exposes the nature of the opposition to this measure as being an extreme group with an agenda who will stoop to any depth with statements designed to move the vote on this against the firefighters and police officers with fear mongering and outright lies. That is truly unfortunate and says a lot about the straws being grasped by the organized opposition.

Want to help your City’s Firefighters and Police Officers?

Donations to this campaign are greatly appreciated. Please make checks payable to “Public Safety Employees in Support of 2A”.

Contributions are not tax deductible. Please mail contributions to:

Public Safety Employees in Support of 2-A
Matt Cage, Treasurer
2211 Meadow Vale Rd.
Longmont, CO 80504

This is a privately owned website. Although most of the people involved with this website are employed as Longmont Police Officers. The Longmont Police Department is not responsible for its construction, content, or operation.

The FOP star logo, the FOP scroll logo, the name "Fraternal Order of Police" and the name "FOP" are registered trademarks of the Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police. The use or reproduction of the FOP name or logo is forbidden without the express written consent of the Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police