2008-08-01_REVISION - M1980244

• Permit No: M1980244
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 8/1/2008
• Doc Name: Public Comment Letters
• From: CC & V
• To: DRMS
• Type & Sequence: AM9
• Email Name: BMK
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Goodrich, Gary
From: Carl Poch [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 11:20 AM
To: Goodrich, Gary; Mannon, Jane; O'Connor, Peter; Comer, Timm; [e-mail];
Jeff Fugate
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Response to Ex Parte e-mail
Jeff: Thank you for taking the time to explain your role. Regardless of your letter, if
I include the mine in all communications to the commissioners, there is no ex parte
concerns as you and others have explained to me. I'd be happy to include you and anyone
else on the many e-mails that the public want to send to the commissioners. I recognize
that you do not attempt to interpret constitutional law, I only wish our county attorney
and county administrator recognized their limitations.
With regard to bias, I suspect that mine communication to the commissioners in conjunction
with their application tends to be biased. My providing the opposition bias can only help
the commissioners see both sides of the issues.
Carl Poch 611 E. Golden
PO Box 570
Cripple Creek, CO 80813
719 689-3179
--- On Mon, 7/28/08, Jeff Fugate <[e-mail]> wrote:
> From: Jeff Fugate <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Response to Ex Parte e-mail
> To: [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail], [e-mail],
> [e-mail], [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]
> Date: Monday, July 28, 2008, 10:28 AM
> I am responding to an e-mail that was forwarded to me earlier this
> morning regarding a discussion that I had with Mr. Carl Poch during
> the informal meeting held by the Division of Reclamation, Mining and
> Safety in Victor Friday, July 25th.
> Mr. Poch has taken parts of this conversation and included them in an
> e-mail to Teller County, inappropriately using my name and the Office
> of the Attorney General. I feel it is necessary to clarify that Mr.
> Poch has taken parts of the conversation out of context and in some
> cases has misrepresented what was discussed. I thought that I made it
> clear to Mr. Poch that I represent the Colorado Division of
> Reclamation, Mining and Safety and that I could not provide him legal
> advice. My responses to his questions were general, and in most cases
> I advised him that I did not know the answers to his questions. I
> informed him that I do not practice Constitutional law, and did not
> know why the County Attorney informed him that he was no longer
> allowed to communicate with the commissioners. At no time did I state
> that the County was on shaky ground attempting to interpret the
> constitution. I also advised him that I am not familiar with, nor
> have I ever practiced, administrative law at the county level. I
> explained the concept of ex parte communications in the context of
> communications with the Mined Land Reclamation Board. I
> explained that if the commissioners operate like the MLRB they cannot
> receive and read ex parte communications, nor will they read
> information from parties that could create an impression of bias or
> inhibit their ability to make an
> impartial decision.
I