A Cathy Kipp CORA bill double header--updates on the bill and who spoke in support of it. Then, for fun, a trick to tighten up holes in sheet metal.

A Cathy Kipp CORA bill double header

I wanted to do an update on the Kipp CORA bill I posted about earlier.

Despite some pretty vocal testimony against a bill that would, among other things, extend CORA records request deadlines and put stricter rules on multiple requests for those that the government doesn't deem media*, by a vote of 4 to 1 with Senator R Pelton joining the Democrats passed out of committee last week.

There are more details in the CFOIC article linked first below if you want them.

This was disappointing to not just me, but to many other people I know and/or whose reactions I saw on social media. Disappointing not so much because of the good things in the bill (and there are some, to be fair), but because of the fact that the sponsors and the legislators (save for Sen B Pelton who voted against this for specifically this reason) who voted for it were so eager to offer special privileges to what the government defines as media.

Add to the disappointment the fact that no one from any media outlets or any media associations spoke against that provision either. Not a word about how citizens, the ones who foot the bills in this state, are second class. I guess this shouldn't be surprising, I'd bet my lunch that the provisions are there to buy the media's silence and/or acquiescence.**

All this talk about preferential treatment for media might make you wonder (as I did) just exactly how it is that the media are defined for the purposes of Kipp's CORA bill. I wrote to Mr. Roberts at CFOIC to double check what I thought it was and he confirmed it.

I attached the relevant bit of statute as screenshot 1 to this post.

I highlighted the three most relevant bits at the top. After reading it, I came to a decision. Should this bill pass with the media privilege still intact, I intend to claim myself as media. If challenged by a records custodian, I will be giving serious thought to taking the issue to court, even if I have to fund that challenge myself. What Kipp and others are trying to do here is not okay.

To use the words I have heard others use, these are the public's records and the public should have just as much access as any other.

As of this writing, the bill has passed out of the Senate after a yes vote which (sadly) included a fair number of Republicans. It now moves to the House. I may try to speak against it there too. If this issue is a passion for you, bookmark the bill's webpage (linked second below) and keep checking back.

I will update as I know more.

*And which the sponsor herself, Senator Kipp, dismissively refers to as not "legitimate members of the media" -- see the next post.

**To be fair, I want to give a note what CPR's Executive Editor Kevin Dale said in response to Speaker McCluskie's question about giving special privileges to the media at the 12/30 hearing over SB24-157. I won't give quotes because I do not remember the exact words, but Mr. Dale spoke up to say that the media should have no more access or special privileges than ordinary citizens.

https://coloradofoic.org/bill-to-extend-cora-response-deadlines-advances-in-colorado-senate/

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb25-077

Related:

RTD wants to offer special privileges re. public records to media too.

Per the CFOIC article below, RTD is proposing offering a fee waiver to media (as defined in Colorado's Press Shield Law--see the post above) when they make CORA requests.

Not for you plebians, however. You should just pay your taxes and then pay to get information out of RTD.

As of this writing, I've not seen anyone in the mainstream media speaking against this particular privilege being granted to only some. If I do, I will update.

One last thing. Keep in mind that you can email and/or speak at RTD meetings. If you find this potential policy onerous, I encourage you to join me in speaking up!

https://coloradofoic.org/rtd-board-member-proposes-waiving-some-records-fees-for-journalists/

---

A Cathy Kipp CORA double header part 2

A friend shared the Colorado Engaged YouTube video linked below. It's a video of the hearing for Kipp's SB25-077 CORA bill.

I posted it so you could hear what the sponsors and committee members had to say firsthand.

For example, this jewel from sponsor Senator Kipp, saying that in giving preferential treatment to the media she wanted to (quoting the video) "...make sure that we were giving access to people who are legitimate members of the media, and not just somebody who's got a blog somewhere."

Pretty dismissive if you ask me. I wonder what exactly Senator Kipp would say makes one media outlet or writer legitimate vs. another who isn't. I both emailed and called her office. I got an email from Senator Kipp. Quoting from that email: "Yes. The bill uses a definition of news media already defined in Colorado statute." Senator Kipp then attached the definition I shared with you in the first post today.

I followed up to reiterate the question I put to her originally, asking not what what was in the law, but what she herself viewed as legitimate media. I received the following back (quoting from the email): "I am saying that we chose what seemed to be a reasonable definition that was already in statute."

Consider also the multiple mentions by sponsors (and some by those testifying in favor too) about how much time and effort went into stakeholder meetings. I'm sure there was plenty indeed. I'm also sure that, as per usual, none of this involved ordinary citizens like you and I. We get to fund things. We get to be second class to the media. We don't get a seat at the table when it comes time to discuss policy.

In addition to seeing what sponsors said, I wanted you to get a sense of what those who spoke in support of the bill had to say about it. If you are curious, skip ahead to about the 41:25 mark for this.

The list below is all the parties who spoke in favor of the legislation:

--The county attorney for Jefferson County.

--The Executive Director of the Colorado Association of School Boards as well as Rural Schools Alliance

--Aurora Public Schools Board of Education

--Records Admin and Management of Northern Water

--Colorado Plaintiff Employment Lawyers Association

--Special District Association of Colorado

I will leave it to you to go and listen to their reasons for supporting the bill, but I can tell you that one of the major themes involved here was the amount of work required of records custodians as the number of requests has gone up.

There are a couple of things worth pointing out about that in my view.

I am not privy to every drama in Colorado, but it's notable that school boards are there, JeffCo is there in support. I know those have been political hotbeds lately.

I wonder what role the behavior of a governmental entity has to play in the number of CORA requests. In other words, if there wasn't something going on, if there weren't concerns about something going on, would there be so many requests that these folks feel swamped?

Second, as with many things in government, perhaps the solution to a mismatch between the work required and the funding provided is to reprioritize spending instead of the usual retorts that more tax money is needed or looser regulations are needed.

As I said in the first installment, this bill will at some point wash up in the House for another committee hearing. If you want to follow that, go to the first post today and find the bill link. It will have info on where this bill is headed next.

You might also consider, if you know anyone or support anyone in any of the groups listed above, a word with them about their support for something that puts you in the position of paying the bills and being put in second class.

---

Ah fender washers ...

That time of the week again. Last post til Sunday and thus time for something for fun that's not related to politics.

Do you know what a fender washer is? It's a great big washer, one which is--as opposed to regular wahers--many many times the diameter of the bolt meant to go through it. As their name suggests, they are used often in body work to help attach fenders (though they also have uses where you really want to spread out the pressure from the bolt head).

I have another use to share with you. They are handy to help tighten up sheet metal where the hole has egged out and you cannot get the sheet metal to stay put.

If you've ever worked on anything that's old and worn, you may have noticed that sometimes the bolt holes in sheet metal panels egg out over time. That is, the shank of the bolt and the sheet metal wear on each other and take the hole from a nice tight circle around the shank of the bolt into a big oblong. To help you visualize, I made a drawing of the process I'm about to explain and attached it. The egged out hole is drawn in panel 1.

Putting a bolt down in the egged out hole might hold the sheet metal a little, especially if the bolt head is bigger than the egged out hole, but the sheet metal is not as tightly fixed in place since it can move around under the bolt head. This is especially the case in applications where there is vibration. This is panel 2 in my drawing.

You might think a washer would help, and it does. A little. The washer, especially a big one like a fender washer, does press down on more of the sheet metal when you tighten the bolt, but you'll never get that bolt tightened enough to prevent movement.

But, and this is where the washer IS useful, you can make yourself a new, bolt hole, custom fit and exactly right for the bolt.

What you do is get the sheet metal where you want it to be, tighten the bolt with a fender washer on it, then tack the fender washer in place on the sheet metal.

Do this for all the holes that are egged out and then loosen all the bolts. Finish the job by welding all the way around each fender washer. This is panel 4 in my drawing.

You will now have a tight, custom fit piece of sheet metal.

The side fenders/steps on my tractor were this way when I bought it. There were three bolt holes that attached the step to the case. Every one of them was worn WAY oversize.

I put big thick fender washers on the bolts that hold it. I adjusted the fenders to where they should be. Tightened everything down well, and then welded the washers in place. Boom. Custom fit and the fenders didn't move no matter how much the crawler rattled around.

I attached an older picture of my tractor, circling the part where I welded in the washers.**

Handy little trick to keep in your pocket. One safety caution: do not use galvanized washers or any other kind of coated washers. You could, in theory, burn the coating off in a well-ventilated area, but I'd just skip the danger and buy plain steel.

That's it til Sunday! Have a good rest of your Friday.

**As a side note, this is an old picture of my tractor, from not too long after I bought it. It's on our low boy outside of Nunn, CO if you're familiar--there was a mechanic up there who specialized in two cycle Detroit Diesel engines and I'd taken it up to have the 2-71 rebuilt.