Article Contributed on: 9/25/2009 7:34:59 PM
Since civility in campaigning seems to be the topic of the month, I thought the residents of
Ward 2 would like a peek into their representative who is running for reelection -
Councilmember Karen Benker.
On the surface, the statement on her website "
My
opposition raised an issue about my volunteer work for HOPE..." seems benign enough. Her
opposition could mean anyone, including an opponent or group of people who think she's doing a lousy job as a representative. But digging a little deeper into the op-eds and emails Ms. Benker has sent around puts things into better perspective.
I found an email exchange between Ms. Benker and
Greg Burt which is fairly interesting, especially Ms. Benker's overly defensive (turning into offensive) response. Mr. Burt's initial email said among other things "
before I publish this information...I wanted in fairness to give you a chance to explain your actions." The "actions" in question are her involvement with HOPE, which I agree crossed the line with the "personal or private interest" portion of the relevant Colorado state statute. It doesn't matter if she didn't financially benefit, which some people seem to be hung up on.
But what did her response include? Here's some of it, with running commentary: "
Mr. Burt, I have heard from several members of the community (
like who?)
that you are being paid to "investigate" me in case I decide to run for reelection and have emails (
these were NOT found during an Open Records request)
from folks that substantiate that statement. I understand (
here comes the attack through deflection)
you are a former employee of Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave's office and were responsible for much of the negative campaign material coming from her campaign in the last election. It's too bad that
LIFT and
Katie Witt (
care to substantiate these accusations)
are going negative in this upcoming campaign and do not want to talk about the important issues that the city currently is facing."
So, on July 23rd (date of the above email), before Ms. Benker even announced she was running for re-election,
she slung the first mud of the race at Katie Witt. I bet none of you knew that. I also bet none of you know the nickname Ms. Benker (or at least her supporters) are using to describe Ms. Witt. Let's just say it rhymes with
itch. Some people should be careful who they speak to, even some people on the left have consciences and think local politics should at least
pretend to be non-partisan.
But there's more, Ms. Benkers email ends with "
So what individual or group has hired you? What are the terms of your contract? and How much are you getting paid to investigate me?" I'll remind Ms. Benker she's an elected official who
works for us, not the other way around, we'll ask the questions. This is getting to be a regular defense of the
politically coddled incumbency - answer a question with a question
and an accusation, if you can get away with it. Also, I thought she already figured it was
LIFT or
Katie Witt? So she
doesn't know and is on a feeble fishing expedition, but why not throw out some baseless accusations along the way. (Remember the "
opposition" comment)
Then in a
8/5/09 Times-Call op-ed Ms. Benker continues on her offensive defensive strategy with "
A former employee of Rep. Marilyn Musgrave has been hired by one of my political
opponents to "investigate" me." With the lag time between sending in an op-ed and it actually getting printed, this statement was made around the same time as the emails, which means her "political
opponents" (and "
opposition" on website) comment is again aimed at Katie Witt and/or LIFT. Again, she can't substantiate this claim, swinging at windmills.
Also included in this op-ed was this: "
According to one of his e-mails: 'I'm doing some consulting work for a client in Longmont who is upset with Karen Benker...My client has asked me to catalog the frustrations that Longmont developers have with Karen Benker...He hopes to use this information to persuade voters to vote against her.'" Odd, I have the email exchange between the two of them and this doesn't appear there. There were no emails on the city server remotely close to this either.
Ms. Benker has once again broken Open Records law by not properly forwarding emails to the city servers like she's legally supposed to do.
This
shrill and unfriendly tone (to put it mildly) is the kind of representation Ward 2 has
enjoyed for the last few years. It would be one thing if it were from an elected official who enjoyed large margins in their elected races, but here are the facts:
2005: Ms. Benker
appointed (or selected, if you prefer) to this seat, not elected.
2005: Ms. Benker barely wins with only
37% of the vote (beat Alex Sammoury by only
278 votes)
2007: Ms. Benker loses her mayoral bid only getting
43% of the vote (
1,000 votes instead go to Doug Brown who pulled out of the race)
At the very least the newly formed civil campaigns committee should look into this fairly uncivil behavior. And voters in Ward 2 should think twice before returning Ms. Benker to this council seat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
©2009 Chris Rodriguez/Longmont Advocate LLC (Chris Rodriguez is a Longmont resident, and the publisher and broadcaster of Longmont Advocate, a community website and podcast that raises local issues to increase public awareness and interest)