Filing

Hi Cheryl,
I need to read that article (been to busy). Personally, I think BF didn't file for a hearing with the Supreme Court because they were happy with the ballot wording relating to Fiscal Impact. This was the topic they had contended before and changes were made as a result of the recent re-hearing. There was never ANY possibility of stopping the whole process, only debating the wording of the proposed ballot measure.

I (also personally) feel the changes in the Fiscal Impact wording of the ballot summary were fair - and all is well. We (CVELG) WANT the Ballot measure to accurately reflect the Fiscal Impact so that voters can take that into account when they vote. If it's going to cost them money to repeal, they have a right to know and weight that information.

For the newcomers:

If BF were still unhappy with that wording after the re-hearing, they had the opportunity to file to have their concerns heard by the Supreme Court. They didn't do that, so now the wording is set and the petition process starts. If we get the required signatures, the measure goes on the Nov 2000 ballot so the state can vote on it.

By WW

reply to Chris

Works for me girlfriend!! Where do these "trolls" come from?? You have never stated why you are monitoring this board and this group and you have never said who "WE" is..so if you can't play fair then we don't need this kind of behavior on this board. Get informed!!

By Cheryl

JOHN

You are a very ignorant person, I feel pity for you. I didn't say it had EVERYTHING on it, i said it touched on the subject, why would we want to tell you what we know here?? For all we know your a BF spy and your just itching for something to go on, if you did, you came to the wrong place. Time will tell and we will see what the CO voters think of good old BF and their so called "ethics".

By Cheryl

Board's Full - Movin' on Up

This board is full, gang. Let's move on to the next.

By WW