Library Board comments
Dear Editor:
I would like to thank Jared Henderson for his excellent article and reporting on the September library board meeting. I hope he will continue to attend future meetings.
That said, I have a soft voice that may not have been clearly heard by all those attending. I had a few points which I specifically wanted to make, was not able to finish my statement, and would like to complete it here. My first point was that any personal (not personnel) issues a library board member has with the director should be addressed on a one-on-one basis between individuals. It is not appropriate to air them at a public board meeting. The second point pertains to a reexamination of each of the bylaws (policies) that was suggested at the August meeting by Dan Olsen. This is not something that should be undertaken at a board meeting, but instead in separate work sessions. Reworking policy is an incredibly time-intensive process. Previously at the same meeting, a very clear statement was made by Sharon Morrison, the Colorado Public Library Leadership Principal Consultant: “All of the library’s current policies (bylaws) are compliant to state laws, and state and federal laws have to align.” In view of this statement, an individual bylaw reexamination would be totally redundant and unnecessary. Please let Kristina get on with the duties of running our outstanding library and help her to facilitate the needed roof repairs prior to winter’s snows.
Sincerely,
Pat Daggett
Meeker
Vote NO on Proposition 127
Dear Editor:
Colorado, before you cast your ballot, take a moment to reflect on what Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) means to you. If you don’t know about them, walk outside and look around. Their work touches so many aspects of our lives and Coloradans. They are the ones responsible for some of our state’s most valued resources. As a current CPW commissioner, I offer a unique perspective on this critical issue. What you read below are my thoughts and do not represent the whole Commission.
Colorado’s wildlife history is complex, and not all of it is positive. By the early 20th century, species like elk, deer, lions, and bobcats were nearly wiped out due to market hunting and demand from the east. However, our residents wanted wildlife restored, and so in 1897, the ancestor agency of CPW was formed — to bring balance back to our ecosystems. Today, thanks to careful management and many successful reintroduction efforts, over 960 species now thrive across the state.
Some of CPW’s proudest achievements include the reintroduction of the lynx in the 1990s, a once-endangered species whose population continues to grow. Similarly, the swift fox has recovered so successfully under our management that we are now able to provide animals to other states whose populations have dwindled.
It’s important to recognize that all of this success is made possible through the support of hunting and fishing. A staggering 80% of CPW’s revenue is generated from these activities. If we continue to undermine these resources and ignore science-based wildlife management, Colorado’s wildlife will suffer—and ultimately, CPW will lose its ability to serve Colorado effectively.
So, what legacy do you want for wildlife? It’s up to us to help species remain abundant in Colorado. CPW’s team of over 200 biologists work tirelessly to ensure that our wildlife is managed using the best available science. We need to trust their expertise. That’s why I urge you to vote NO on Ballot Initiative 127—because I will.
Marie Haskett
Meeker
