| VailDaily.com

Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon looms over Trump impeachment inquiry

As the House impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump enters its public phase, polls show the nation is dramatically divided on the issue — an even deeper split than the national rift that motivated former president and Vail Valley resident Gerald Ford to pardon President Richard Nixon in 1974.

In an exclusive interview with the Vail Daily a quarter-century ago, Ford, a Beaver Creek resident at the time, said his controversial pardoning of Nixon in the wake of the Watergate scandal “was the right decision for the country as a whole.”

Nixon had recently died when Ford gave the Vail Daily that phone interview in 1994, 20 years after Nixon became the only president to ever resign the office as he faced almost certain impeachment in the House and removal by the Senate for crimes related to the break-in at Democratic National Party headquarters in the Watergate building. Issues of government mistrust, congressional overreach and presidential abuse of power resonate to this day.

“ … If we do not wrestle this to the ground right now based on principle, you can draw a straight line, I believe, from the Nixon pardon and the consequences of that to what we are experiencing today with Donald Trump’s lawlessness,” former federal prosecutor turned television analyst Glenn Kirschner said recently on MSNBC, calling Trump’s alleged Ukraine transgressions like “Nixon’s lawlessness on steroids.”

Trump is accused of exchanging nearly $400 million in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine in its ongoing war with Russia for a Ukrainian investigation into political rival and 2020 Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden. If the House acts with just under a year to go until the 2020 election, Trump would be only the fourth president to face articles of impeachment.

Vail’s president

Ford, a Vail Valley icon who started skiing here while a Michigan congressman, remains the only man to be appointed both vice president and president — named to the vice presidency by Nixon in the wake of Spiro Agnew’s resignation following tax evasion and money laundering charges in 1973. Ford pardoned Nixon for any crimes related to Watergate, while others went to jail, and he later swore under oath there was no previous deal in place before Nixon resigned.

“I was right when I made the decision in September of 1974, and I’m more convinced today that it was the right decision for the country as a whole,” Ford told the Vail Daily in May of 1994. “It would have been a long tortuous process — the indictment, the trial, probably a conviction on some counts, an appeal. That would have taken two, three, maybe four years. That would only have exacerbated the unrest and the domestic trouble here in the United States, and the only way to get that whole problem off my desk in the Oval Office, the only way for me to concentrate 100 percent of my time on the problems of 240 million Americans, was to grant the pardon.”

While Nixon avoided impeachment, just under five years after Ford spoke those words, President Bill Clinton — a Democrat who had been a houseguest of the Republican Ford in Beaver Creek — was narrowly impeached by the House for perjury and obstruction of justice in late 1998. Clinton, acquitted by the Senate in early 1999, was only the second president to be impeached. Both he and Andrew Johnson in 1868 were acquitted by the Senate and stayed in office.

That is the likely scenario in 2020 if the House impeaches Trump, who is the only president facing impeachment who is running for a second term (Johnson sought the Democratic nomination in 1868 but was rebuffed by his party, and Clinton was term-limited).

Should articles of impeachment against Trump be approved by the Democrat-controlled House, a two-thirds majority is needed in the Senate to remove an impeached president, and Republicans largely loyal to Trump currently control the Senate.

Price of impeachment politics

In the 2016 election, Democrat Hillary Clinton won by 5 percentage points over Trump in Colorado. Asked why Republicans seeking reelection in Colorado would choose to defend the president in the impeachment inquiry, Metropolitan State University of Denver Professor and Chair of Political Science Robert Preuhs said it’s likely a purely political calculation.

“All Republicans, including [Sen. Cory] Gardner and [U.S. Rep. Scott] Tipton. know that [impeachment is] just not going to get the two-thirds majority in the Senate,” Preuhs said. “And so what you do is you play the game as much as you can in terms of public perception, knowing that the outcome is that Trump will remain president and run in 2020.

“So you don’t want to piss off the president, partly because he has a lot of money and has a lot of sway within the electorate, and while it’s kind of late for a legitimate primary challenge, if you don’t back the president, there’s a real chance that you will get a challenger in the primary and that could cost you your seat,” Preuhs added.

Tipton, who represents the western two-thirds of Eagle County in his massive Western Slope and southern Colorado district, is, in fact, the honorary co-chair of the Trump 2020 campaign in Colorado. The five-term congressman from Cortez, seeking reelection in a fairly safe GOP district, put out a statement on Nov. 1 criticizing the impeachment inquiry process after the House approved a resolution setting up the overall process and next phase of public testimony.

Gardner, considered one of the most endangered Republican senators in 2020, has declined to say whether it’s appropriate for a president to ask for foreign help in a U.S. election. He has supported a partisan Senate resolution criticizing the House inquiry, but says he takes the issue seriously and “to not fall for the partisan talking points and make sure we end the political circus and actually have this done fairly and transparently.”

The Colorado delegation was split 4-3 in favor on the House vote, with Democratic U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse, whose mostly Front Range district includes the eastern third of Eagle County, joining his three fellow Democrats in moving the inquiry forward. Neguse, who serves on the House Judiciary Committee, supported an impeachment inquiry in May after the Mueller report.

Metro State’s Preuhs says voters are far more polarized and entrenched in their partisan camps than they were during both modern inquiries into Nixon and Clinton, making impeachment politics a possibly permanent part of our political landscape going forward.

“Given this heightened polarization, it’s a real possibility that impeachment politics plays out this way [going forward], but ultimately, keep in mind that at some point there really is a desire among the public and voters not to change the results of elections,” Preuhs said.

“We saw that when it comes to some of the recent recall petitions [against Democrat state lawmakers] in Colorado for instance, and the heightened fight mentality, while it’s acceptable if it’s policy, at some point I think grows old with voters …,” Preuhs added.

The price of presidential impeachment politics for the two parties is unclear at this point, partly because there’s so little history to go on.

Following Clinton’s impeachment in 1998 and acquittal in the Senate in 1999, Republicans paid a short-term price in Congress but wound up winning the White House in 2000 with President George W. Bush. Following Nixon’s resignation and Ford’s subsequent pardon in 1974, Democrats wound up winning the White House with President Jimmy Carter in 1976.

“The pardon had no impact on how I conducted my responsibilities as president,” Ford told the Vail Daily after Nixon’s death in 1994. “It undoubtedly was one of several major factors in my defeat in 1976. I only lost by a handful of votes, figuratively speaking, so there were people then and maybe some today who never forgave me for pardoning President Nixon, but a president has to do what he believes to be right and not what is politically expedient. And by doing what I thought was right … it was a way to handle a very tough problem so I could concentrate on the major challenges that I faced in the Oval Office at home and abroad.”

Colorado Prop CC’s failure may lead to bigger TABOR fights in 2020

Proposition CC’s big defeat this week was only the latest in a series of bruising ballot-box losses for Colorado Democrats and their allies, but some activists are gearing up for an even bigger fight next year.

Already on the menu of options: a full repeal of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights — the nuclear option of Colorado politics — and a revived stab at a progressive income tax that would cost high earners more. Voters rejected the latter proposal last year as a way to raise more money for schools, but its backers see a potential opening in a presidential election year with far greater turnout.

“Whatever we do next must be bold enough to drown out the alarmists,” declared Scott Wasserman from the liberal Bell Policy Center on Tuesday night as CC’s decisive defeat sunk in. “That work begins today.”

That sentiment was the most aggressive signal that backers of CC don’t intend to stand down in their efforts to reform TABOR — or to seek out new sources to fill recurring funding gaps of hundreds of millions of dollars for K-12 education, higher education and transportation, the three areas that would have benefited from CC. Losing by more than 8 percentage points in the latest results, the measure would have let the state keep excess tax revenues above the spending cap instead of returning it to taxpayers.

Read more via The Denver Post.

Hickenlooper didn’t always reimburse travel on private planes, report says. An ethics panel will decide if that was illegal.

Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper on several occasions last year criss-crossed the nation on private planes owned by high-powered businessmen or their companies, at times during trips to conduct state business, but only repaid the owners of the aircraft in one instance. 

The Democrat told investigators that he tried to repay the planes’ owners for the travel but was rebuffed or claimed that he was riding on their aircrafts as a friend.

That’s according to a report released Thursday by the state’s Independent Ethics Commission as part of an investigation into allegations made by a Republican group that Hickenlooper violated Colorado laws around public officials accepting gifts. 

It’s not clear, though, if any of the travel was illegal since there are exemptions for travel for official business and gifts made by friends.

The report, notably, doesn’t make conclusions about whether the travel was legal — that could come at a later date, once the commission has digested its findings. The report is comprised of interviews with Hickenlooper and the people or representatives of organizations that provided him with flights or other travel accommodations and includes documents substantiating his claims.  

Read more via The Colorado Sun.

The Colorado Sun is a reader-supported news organization dedicated to covering the people, places and policies that matter in Colorado. Read more, sign up for free newsletters and subscribe at coloradosun.com.

Proposition DD narrowly squeaks by to legalize sports betting in Colorado

Colorado voters have narrowly passed a measure that will legalize sports betting and use the taxes raised to fund projects outlined in the Colorado Water Plan.

As votes trickled in Tuesday night, the measure remained too close to call; at some points, the margin was just a few hundred votes. By just after 9 a.m. Wednesday, with all 64 Colorado counties reporting, the “for” votes had pulled decisively ahead.

The unofficial results from the Colorado Secretary of State website show that 50.48 percent of voters supported Proposition DD and 49.52 percent were against it —a difference of 13,141 votes.

Pitkin, Eagle and Summit counties passed the measure, with 61 percent, 59 percent and 58 percent of voters, respectively, supporting it. Fifty-two percent of voters in Garfield County voted against Proposition DD.

The state is now authorized to collect a 10 percent tax up to $29 million (but probably closer to $15 million) a year from casino’s sports-betting proceeds. The money will go toward funding projects that align with the goals outlined in the water plan, as well as toward meeting interstate obligations such as the Colorado River Compact.

The funds would be administered by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, a statewide agency charged with managing Colorado’s water supply.

District 5 State Sen. Kerry Donovan, who was a sponsor of the legislation behind Proposition DD, said going into Election Day she wasn’t sure whether it would pass. With Colorado’s growing population and the looming threat of climate change, the Western Slope will see an increasingly large burden when it comes to water supply, she said.

“As a rancher and a Western Slope native, I am really excited the state has decided to invest in the future of water in Colorado,” she said.

Funding the water plan could mean a number of things. Outlined in a 567-page policy document, the water plan does not prescribe or endorse specific projects, but, instead, sets Colorado’s water values, goals and measurable objectives. According to the water plan, there is an estimated funding gap of $100 million per year over 30 years, but CWCB officials have said that number is an estimate and not precise.

Some of the projects outlined in the water plan stand in opposition to one another — for example, stream-restoration projects with an emphasis on environmental health and building or expanding dams and reservoirs that would divert and impound more Colorado River water.

CWCB director Becky Mitchell highlighted that the money could indeed go toward many different types of projects.

“I think the most exciting thing for us is that we will have a more permanent pool of funding and it will support all types of projects,” Mitchell said. “So, whether it’s a watershed health or agricultural project or storage project or recreational project, the benefit of a more permanent source of funding is to have secure funding for all types of projects.”

In addition to being distributed in the form of water-plan grants, the revenue could also be spent to ensure compliance with interstate compacts and to pay water users for temporary and voluntary reductions in consumptive use. That could mean a demand-management program — the feasibility of which the state is currently studying — in which agricultural water users would be paid to leave more water in the river.

The measure had received broad support from environmental organizations, agriculture interests, water-conservation districts and even Aspen Skiing Company.

Glenwood Springs-based Colorado River Water Conservation District also supported Proposition DD. While the estimated $15 million a year is a good start, river district community affairs director Jim Pokrandt stressed it’s not enough to implement all the projects outlined in the water plan.

“What this does is creates a funding stream,” he said. “And it’s really only a down payment. What we don’t want to see is the other funding streams diminish because everybody will say ‘Oh, you got (Proposition DD).’”

Although there wasn’t much organized opposition to Proposition DD, the measure asked voters to consider three complex topics in one question: a new tax, legalizing sports betting and funding the water plan.

Political Action Committee Yes on Proposition DD spent more than $2.3 million, which came mostly from casino and gaming interests, on its campaign. The only registered group in opposition was small-scale issue committee Coloradans for Climate Justice, which argued that fossil-fuel companies should pay for the damage to water-supply systems caused by climate change.

Editor’s note: Aspen Journalism collaborates with The Aspen Times and other Swift Communications newspapers on coverage of rivers and water. For more, go to aspenjournalism.org.

Vail Town Council 2019 election: Foley, Langmaid, Mason, Stockmar win seats

This story will be updated.

VAIL — Voters here turned out in solid numbers to elect four members to the Vail Town Council.

Preliminary results show the three incumbents — Kevin Foley, 760 votes, Kim Langmaid, 729 votes, and Jen Mason, 678 votes — were re-elected to four-year terms.

A total of 1,102 votes were cast.

Brian Stockmar, with 545 votes, will serve a two-year term.

The Booth Heights factor

The four people elected were all opposed to the Booth Heights workforce housing project in East Vail. Foley, Langmaid and Mason were in the minority in the council’s Oct. 15 decision to uphold the Vail Planning and Environmental Commission’s Aug. 26 approval of the plan.

Stockmar, currently the chairman of the town’s planning board, was also opposed to the plan, and was in the minority in that board’s 4-3 approval vote.

Stockmar will replace Greg Moffet, who was ineligible to run for another term due to the town’s term limit ordinance. Moffet voted to uphold the planning board’s Booth Heights decision.

Booth Heights has dominated much of the campaign season’s discussion in Vail.

But people on both sides of the issue gathered Tuesday evening for drinks and food at the Bully Ranch in the Sonnenalp.

Mayor Dave Chapin said he was pleased to see the turnout at the Bully.

“The whole community can come together here,” Chapin said.

Reached at the Bully, Langmaid said Tuesday’s vote — with a turnout that had people waiting in line at town hall to vote past 7 p.m. — is a sign that people care about the town’s values.

“That’s what people came out for — environmental stewardship,” Langmaid said.

Langmaid said during the campaign that while the Booth Heights decision has been made, she’d like to see the town and project developer Triumph Development work on alternatives.

“Personally, I want to work toward outcomes that benefit all the parties involved,” Langmaid said.

Acknowledging the need for more housing in town, Langmaid added that “We can, with collaborative conversations, come to a triple-win on this.”

Foley wasn’t at the Bully, and Mason is currently on a business trip to London.

The new guy

But Stockmar was among those gathered at the restaurant.

Stockmar said he hopes in the next two years to work on issues he’d talked about while running for office, particularly, greater transparency from the town and its board, and a town code of ethics that more tightly defines conflicts of interest in town.

Stockmar added that he’s coming into office with a commitment to environmental responsibility.

“Every decision on environmental issues has to be weighed and balanced,” he said. “The environment is very important to our future, and I want to make sure that stays in the forefront.”

Sitting at the bar, working on a plate of nachos, Chapin praised everyone who ran for council this year.

“I really commend people willing to run,” Chapin said. “They’re really committed.”

Vail Daily Business Editor Scott Miller can be reached at smiller@vaildaily.com or 970-748-2930.

Elections 2019: See full results for Colorado, Eagle County

Why both hospitals and insurance companies are so worried about a Colorado “state option” plan

In what is shaping up to be the major health care battle at the state Capitol this coming legislative session, Colorado hospitals and insurance companies both have raised concerns about a proposal to dictate hospital prices for a slice of people with private health coverage.

The idea, unprecedented across the country in its precise details, is part of an ambitious plan to create what Colorado health officials are calling a “state option” insurance program. The program would aim to lower insurance costs for people who buy coverage on their own.

It would largely achieve those lower rates by limiting how much hospitals can charge people covered by state option plans, which would be sold and administered by private insurance companies. Both hospitals and insurance companies would likely be required to participate in the program, though state officials have been vague on whether they have the authority to compel participation or whether they would need to ask the legislature for that authority.

Either way, the state-option proposal has found hospitals and insurance companies — frequent foes in the battle over health costs — sharing unusual common ground.

Read more via The Colorado Sun.

The Colorado Sun is a reader-supported news organization dedicated to covering the people, places and policies that matter in Colorado. Read more, sign up for free newsletters and subscribe at coloradosun.com.

Historic CORE Act bill moves to US Senate following House vote

EAGLE COUNTY — The U.S. House of Representatives Thursday voted to approve the Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act. The bill now heads to the U.S. Senate.

The House passed the bill on a 227-118 vote. Among those voting against the bill were Colorado Reps. Ken Buck, Doug Lamborn and Scott Tipton, all Republicans.

Conservation, recreation and wildlife groups across Colorado welcomed Thursday’s result. The CORE Act would safeguard more than 400,000 acres in the state and ensure future generations have access to the state’s wildest lands and historic areas like Camp Hale, the famed World War II training camp of the 10th Mountain Division located between Leadville and Red Cliff.

The Continental Divide portion of CORE Act includes Eagle County wilderness additions to Holy Cross and Eagle’s Nest wilderness and the nation’s first “national historic landscape” at Camp Hale. Summit County would see a 17,000-acre recreation management area in the Tenmile Range as well as wildlife conservation protections and new wilderness. Eagle and Summit County commissioners have supported the bill since its introduction.

Most of the public land in the bill is in the 3rd Congressional District, which Tipton represents. In a release Thursday, Tipton wrote that the act is “not there yet,” particularly regarding protecting current grazing rights in the Thompson Divide and water rights and other management issues in the proposed Curecanti National Recreation Area.

Tipton’s statement also refers to letters of objection and concern from the Montrose, Montezuma and Mesa county commissioners, as well as Club 20, a lobbying group for the Western Slope.

Broad support

But Rep. Joe Neguse, whose 2nd Congressional District includes Summit and Grand counties, as well as the eastern portion of Eagle County, said directly affected communities support the act.

“We’ve yet to receive any objections from any community that is impacted by the bill,” Neguse said, adding that commissioners in eight counties, six of which are in the Third District, support the bill.

A large coalition of conservation, recreation, veteran, hunting and fishing groups, as well as over 300 businesses and thousands of Coloradans support the CORE Act.

On the same media call, Sen. Michael Bennet said that some of the objections to the bill “would require us to upset a very clear consensus” forged between local governments, user groups and federal agencies and officials.

“After 10 years of work with them, we’re not about to do that,” Bennet said.

Various groups were quick to praise the House’s action on the bill.

In a text message while traveling, Eagle County Commissioner Kathy Chandler-Henry wrote: “We are very excited that the first vote was positive. There’s a lot of support in Colorado for the passage of this act, and local stakeholders throughout the bill’s area have worked on it for years.”

In Eagle County, the Vail Valley Mountain Trails Alliance has been involved and a supporter of the CORE Act from the beginning. VVMTA Executive Director Ernest Saeger, in a statement, called the CORE Act “the new standard of conservation bills.”

“By including a wide range of stakeholders, such as mountain bikers and trail users, the CORE Act ensures that recreation opportunities are not lost, our outdoor recreation economy thrives, and is balanced. It designates special recreation areas along with wildlife conservation areas that protect critical habitat and migration corridors, while also creating new designated wilderness areas,” Saeger said.

“Today the US House of Representatives affirmed what folks in western Colorado know, protecting the Thompson Divide and Continental Divide landscapes is the right thing to do. For over a decade Wilderness Workshop and local communities have advocated for the protection of these special places, most recently as part of the CORE Act,” said Will Roush, the director of Wilderness Workshop, in a statement.

Preserving Camp Hale

A release from Conservation Colorado included comments from a number of people who worked on the bill over the years.

Among those providing statements was 10th Mountain Division veteran Bradley Noone.

“Protecting Camp Hale and the surrounding area is way to honor generations of veterans, from World War II to Operation Enduring Freedom. Our public lands and the freedoms they represent define our nation, and I fought to defend that. Today I continue that fight by working to preserve Camp Hale…”

Bennet praised the many veterans who supported the bill, which creates the nation’s first National Historic Landscape at Camp Hale. Bennet noted that many veterans made the time to attend community and other meetings to support the bill. 

Soldiers at Camp Hale trained to ski at Ski Cooper, which boasted the world’s longest T-bar ski tow.
Daily file photo

Neguse honored 10th Mountain Division veteran Sandy Treat in the bill. Treat, a World War II-era of the original “soldiers on snow,” died earlier this year.

If the CORE Act passes the U.S. Senate, an overlook in the Camp Hale area will be named for Treat.

An uphill fight in the Senate

Bennet said he’s optimistic about the bill’s future, and will push to have a hearing scheduled quickly with the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Bennet said he’d like a hearing “as soon as we can. People have worked on (the bill) for 10 years.”

But the bill may not have an easy path to Senate passage.

Republican Cory Gardner, the state’s junior senator, hasn’t yet taken a position on the bill.

“We’ll take it one step at a time with the current bill,” Bennet said. Regarding changes to the House version, Bennet said, “We’re willing to work in good faith with people willing to work in good faith with us.”

If the bill can pass the Senate, it then goes to President Donald Trump for final approval, which may pose another hurdle.

An administration statement this week threatened to veto the bill, citing a threat to the Western Slope economy.

Bennet disagreed, saying the CORE act is important to the “preservation and economy of the 3rd Congressional District.”

Bennet also cited a recent survey showing strong support for the CORE Act and other preservation efforts.

“I hope (Trump) will listen to their voices,” Bennet said.

Vail Daily Business Editor Scott Miller can be reached at smiller@vaildaily.com or 970-748-2930.

For months Colorado has quietly been in talks for another multibillion-dollar opioid settlement

For more than a year, Colorado has been locked in a high-profile legal battle with Purdue Pharma that has been recently bogged down amid a bankruptcy filing and disagreements over the size of a settlement.

In a separate case, however, the state could soon secure millions of dollars to fight the opioid crisis from five drug makers and distributors it hasn’t even sued. The money would come through a settlement in which the Colorado Attorney General’s Office has been quietly involved in for months. 

The state is part of the pending $48 billion agreement with Cardinal Health, McKesson, AmerisourceBergen, Johnson & Johnson and Teva over their alleged role in the nationwide addiction epidemic, the attorney general’s office told The Colorado Sun this week. 

The settlement framework negotiated by attorneys general from New Jersey, Tennessee, Pennsylvania and Texas became public just days ago, grabbing national headlines. It includes $22 billion in cash to be distributed over 18 years and $26 billion in medication-assisted treatment drugs, like buprenorphine, to be released over a decade. 

It’s not clear exactly how much Colorado would get under the proposed deal. That would be determined by a formula that hasn’t been finalized. Attorneys general and lawyers representing jurisdictions in all 50 states are expected to be involved. 

Read more via The Colorado Sun.

The Colorado Sun is a reader-supported news organization dedicated to covering the people, places and policies that matter in Colorado. Read more, sign up for free newsletters and subscribe at coloradosun.com.

2019 Colorado Elections Voter Guide: Vail and greater Eagle County

Vail, Eagle Country voters still have time to cast ballots

Letter: Don’t vote for me!

Eagle County ballot integrity requires a team of judges

Colorado Mountain College District

Letter: Virgili, Hartzell for CMC board

Letter: In support of Bob Hartzell for CMC board

Letter: Marianne Virgili for CMC board of trustees

Letter: I’d appreciate your vote for CMC board

Letter: Bob Hartzell for Colorado Mountain College board

Letter: Mary Nell Axelson for CMC board

Letter: Bob Hartzell, Marianne Virgili for CMC board

Letter: Choose Virgili, Hartzell for CMC board

Letter: Virgili, Hartzell for CMC board

Letter: Christine Whittington for CMC board

Letter: Marianne Virgili for CMC board

Eagle County School District

Meet the candidates for Eagle County Schools’ open board seats

State Measures

Prop DD would legalize sports betting and tax it to fund water projects

Colorado Proposition CC: budget relief or a blank check?

Vail Valley water district, water authority back state ballot measure DD

Letter: Vote yes on Prop CC

Letter: In support of Proposition CC

Letter: Proposition DD funds would benefit the Eagle River

Letter: Prop CC represents an investment in Colorado’s future

Letter: Voting yes on Prop CC is good fiscal policy

Letter: Invest in our future and vote yes on Proposition CC

Scherr: Clearing up Prop CC rhetoric

Eagle County

Eagle County tobacco tax question: A justified action or an excessive measure?

Letter: Vote yes on 1A for a healthy Eagle County

Eagle considering home rule, a local constitution for the town

Letter: Vote no on Eagle home rule

Our View: Try on those home rule shoes, Eagle

Eagle Valley Library District

Letter: Support your local libraries and vote yes on 6A

Letter: Support local libraries and vote yes on 6A

Eagle County Health Service District

Eagle Valley’s paramedic, library districts ask for relief from Gallagher Amendment

Letter: Support for 6B

Our View: Tax exemption questions deserve support

Colorado Mountain College District

Colorado Mountain College trustees: Let’s invite Salida to join CMC district

Vail Town Council

Our View: Davis, Foley, Mason, Langmaid for Vail Town Council

Letter: Pete Seibert for Vail Town Council

Letter: No conflicts of interest with Brian Stockmar

Letter: Vote for Brian Stockmar for Vail Town Council

Letter: Jen Mason represents the best of Vail

Letter: Pete Seibert for Vail Town Council

Letter: Vote for Barry Davis for Vail Town Council

Letter: In support of Pete Seibert

Letter: Pete Seibert for Vail Town Council

Letter: Why I am running for Vail Town Council