Hi. I just sent this to City Council and local media. Please spread it and consider contacting Council per slide 22. If you have media contacts, especially national ones, please forward this to them. Without some media attention Council is going to let the butcher this. -Evan

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Fa5lljd-R5yFs9lciXM9MnEdjeYgGw8wuUCzOhlTaCY/edit?usp=sharing

This presentation, including video and audio proof, should bring up questions like:

1. Why did staff reject national nonprofit Maplight's free offer of an online petition system on false pretenses and sign a contract for $250,000, notarized one day before the Elections Working Group met, when the City Atty promised to City Council at the 12/3 meeting that no contract would be signed before the Group met?

2. Why would the City's IT Director tell the Group meeting that in over 9 months she had been unable to get an MOU with either the Secretary of State or the County Clerk to get access to the voter registration database so the petition system could ID people wanting to endorse a petition? The City of Denver has had that necessary access for several years for its eSign tablet petitioning system. Arizona for 7 years has had online petitions (for candidates, which is functionally the same) running on their Secretary of State's voter registration website.

3. What powers can get City employees to risk their professional reputations (and in the case of City Attorneys, their law licenses) by their behavior in the presentation? Could it be that Oil and Gas and others who spent many millions getting Amendment 71 passed, don't want online petitioning making ballot access easier than ever? And/or Boulder developers? What's the quid pro quo?

4. If we let the City Attorney and City Manager get away with this (and so much more), won't they "do it again," to paraphrase Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff?

Evan