Sorry, an error occurred.


Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Invalid password or account does not exist
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the e-mail address listed on your account.

Secure & Encrypted
Secure transaction. Cancel anytime.

Thank you.
Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
A receipt was sent to your email.

Why is writer apologizing for Boebert’s comments?
Third Congressional District candidate Colin Wilhelm’s letter of Dec. 10 involving the recent “jihad squad” squabble between Reps. Lauren Boebert and Ilhan Omar triggered immediate suspicion.
On what basis is he, having no direct participation in the matter, justified to insert himself and apologize to Omar for Boebert’s words and actions? Broadly stated, an apology is a request by the committing party for forgiveness of an act ill-considered and/or damaging to another.
Candidate Wilhelm is neither perpetrator nor victim. What is he, then? How about a grandstander looking to get in a cheap shot, courtesy of the Sentinel’s graciously granted public forum? He continues his charade by claiming “Boebert does not reflect the views or beliefs of the vast majority of western and southern Colorado.” Really? Has he asked? Is he appointed or elected as spokesperson? In fact, he presently speaks officially for exactly no one.
China is on the move. Russia is on the move. Iran is closing in on nuclear capability. The U.S. is facing an existential crisis of mammoth unrepayable debt and still adding to that debt by the trillions. We’re not the richest country on the planet. We’re flat broke and don’t know what to do about it.
Let’s pause momentarily and call on grandma’s enduring wisdom. “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” The Boebert/Omar dust-up is a peanuts deal, yet Mr. Wilhelm chooses it as the theme of his one-act Sentinel letter play to strut and fret on the Western Slope stage. Perhaps it all boils down to a name-recognition gambit by a guy looking for Happy Valley votes. Who knows. In any event, nice try but no cigar.
BUD MARKOS
Grand Junction
Watching board meeting felt like reality television
Thank you for covering local politics, although I’m beginning to get the feeling that I’m watching a reality TV show here in Grand Junction.
Who could have predicted that electing three people long on partisanship and short on public service and experience, listening to all stakeholders, and valuing public education would be a bad idea?
I personally received an excellent education here in these schools. Therefore, I was immediately suspicious of these candidates in August after they apparently tacitly supported physical intimidation against the existing School Board.
Furthermore, during the campaign this fall, I received election threats and intimidation from their supporters and these candidates did nothing to discourage such intimidation.
What are we teaching our children? We’re teaching them to yell and scream, ignore the law and established processes, and threaten their fellow community members over our differences.
It has nothing to do with being economically conservative, supporting free enterprise or the Constitution. I believe in the rule of law, teamwork and respecting all members of the community — foundational values of democracy. Hopefully, our School Board will also come to share these conservative values that once made America great.
JACK BYROM
Grand Junction
Board should go to bid to change legal services
I just read the Dec. 16 article on the District 51 Board of Education on the issue of selecting legal representation when John Williams leaves.
First, this is a board wide decision and the direction and process should be agreed upon. This decision should go through a Request For Proposal (RFP) process as most businesses would do and not sole sourced without adequate due diligence. The process and evaluation criteria should include not only costs, but relevant experience with school districts. It also needs to include local firms.
The cost and experienced gained by outsourcing should be evaluated against employing an in-house counsel. A major advantage of outsourcing is that you are not dependent upon a single resource. It was, however, unclear, as to what exactly was being proposed to outsource. The entire board and resources from D51 should be involved in creating the RFP and evaluating responses.
Lastly, the process needs to be documented and transparent. This is not a political decision — it is a business one. I am speaking of this from my business experience at IBM and as a former Board President where we used RFP’s.
LEONARD LITTLE
Grand Junction
Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.

source