Coloradans have always relied on firearms for self defense and recreation. In Boulder County, the small number of shooting ranges limits residents’ ability to learn to use firearms safely. A recent proposal allowing public access to the Longmont police range would create more opportunity for residents to practice safe shooting.
While the first priority of the city’s range would be the training of our police force, public access could be accommodated with no inconvenience to our officers. A reasonable user fee would defray some of the costs associated with the ongoing maintenance of the facility and, if hunter safety programs use the range as well, the city of Longmont could leverage up to 75% of the cost of construction through the federal Pittman-Robertson Act. With the dual benefits of increased safety and lower costs, public access to the proposed range could be a win-win for taxpayers.
Additionally, by placing the shooting range in a vacant industrial building, we can create a permanent training facility for the Boulder County Sherriff’s office and preserve the other outdoor site for agriculture and open space uses. An indoor facility would be a tremendous resource for our community.
The public use of a Longmont police firing range will foster safe, responsible use of firearms and create safer communities in Boulder County. The Longmont City Council should approve an indoor shooting range and allow public access to the facility.
Posted by SenatorShaffer as Blog at 10:45 AM UTC []
No Comments »
I consider myself to be a problem solver. As a kid, I loved participating in “Odyssey of the Mind.” Building mousetrap powered cars and solving puzzles and riddles was my idea of fun.
When I was elected to the state Senate in 2004, I brought that same attitude to the legislature. Making public policy is just problem solving in a social context.
As a newcomer to the Senate I was surprised to learn that some of my colleagues don’t share this perspective. Instead, their policy decisions are driven by an almost formulaic approach to voting. Often, they don’t even consider policy outcomes; they simply process a proposal through a simple set of “if/then” statements before determining how to vote
For example, in 2008 the Speaker of the House brought forward a proposal in response to the horrific murder of Jason Midyette – a 10-week old baby who was severely abused by his father. When I saw an article describing the crime, I couldn’t even read it. I have an 8-year old son and 6-year old daughter and think of them every time I hear about cases like these.
The Speaker’s bill required mental health screenings for kids removed from abusive homes. The idea was to ensure we detect serious mental health problems with these kids as early as possible. The bill flew through the House passing with only four opposing votes.
When it came to the Senate, I thought it was a no-brainer. Putting my problem solver hat on, I figured the policy was a step in the right direction. It may not solve all cases of child abuse, but it would at least provide early intervention for kids who were abused. This was a good thing in my book.
The bill came up for a final vote in the Senate. There are only 35 senators, so voting is fairly informal. The President of the Senate asks, “Are there any ‘No’ votes?” To vote no, you simply raise your hand.
When the President called the vote, I noticed a senator sitting in front of me rifling through his notes and I could tell he had doubts about the proposal. I stepped beside his desk, leaned over and said something like, “This will help kids who are victims of child abuse; how can you vote against it?”
He replied, “I just raise my hand like this.”
Upon reflection I realized this conservative senator only considered the cost of the bill and none of its benefits. He disregarded the dedicated funding source we identified ensuring the state’s budget was balanced. A simple if/then statement controlled his vote: “If legislation expands government, then vote no.”
From an ideological perspective, any bill that adds new state employees expands government. It doesn’t matter if we are talking about new mental health professionals, teachers or state patrol officers. In this overly simplistic approach to governing, anything that adds additional employees to the state payroll is bad. The size of government is the only consideration.
For some, this formulaic approach to voting goes even a step further. They add special interests to the mix. So, for example:
“If the oil and gas industry opposes a bill, then vote no.” Or, “If the insurance industry opposes a bill, then vote no.” Or, “If a labor union supports a bill, then vote no.”
Once you figure out the pattern, it’s pretty easy to predict how most votes will play out. Indeed, in this if/then world, policy and problem solving never actually creep into the formula. Instead, discourse is dominated by ideology. All of the sudden, complex policy considerations are boiled down to simple if/then statements.
Over the years I’ve come to realize how much is lost through this formulaic approach to governing. We lose the ability to compromise and brainstorm around constructive solutions. We lose the middle ground. Most importantly, we lose perspective of what governing is about: the people of Colorado.
And, we erode confidence in our government. Hundreds of people come to the Capitol each year to testify on legislative proposals. They tell their personal stories and share their insights hoping to convince elected representatives to vote one way or another. Many, however, realize that no story or insight will sway an ideologue’s opinion. In a binary system driven by if/then statements, votes are committed long before public hearings are held. As a result, good people leave the Capitol entirely disillusioned about the democratic process.
Unfortunately, we have real problems in our state, and no rigid formula can help us find solutions. Only by listening, empathizing and working together will we be able to move forward.
As we head into the 2010 elections, I hope you consider this: rigid ideological approaches to governing have historically created more problems than they’ve solved. We need problem solvers, not ideologues, to lead us into the future.
Posted by brandon as Blog at 1:25 PM UTC []
No Comments »
