This update post is brought to you today by ‘guyinathinsuit’, co-founder of ‘smalltown7'.
"From August 6 2012, on through her own testimony admission under oath on August 13, 2012, the President and CEO of the Glenwood Springs Chamber Resort Association was named by fourteen sworn under oath individuals as the primary leader of a vigilante group of three women who sought to take the law into their own hands over a period of five years.
With the now publicly documented power and assistance of the 9th Judicial District Office of the District Attorney Martin Beeson.
With the now publicly stated cooperation in local media by Virgili herself, and by the publicly documented through her own testimony: apathy of GSCRA, the City of Glenwood Springs City Council, COGS administration and city tourism boards (past and present). With the Glenwood Springs Police Department and Garfield County Sheriff’s cooperation due to their now publicly documented through the district attorney's office own sworn admissions; absence of enforcing and protecting the law over the five year period in question; these fourteen individuals spoke in different ways regarding Marianne Virgili’s leadership of this vigilante effort.
What is especially noteworthy in each of these individual testimonies is that none of them retracted in any way how significant and involved Virgili was as she gathered them in her effort. Most gave detail and were not reluctant in doing so.
One of Virgili’s cohorts was named repeatedly by the majority of testimony; with the third woman involved being made the obvious scapegoat by Virgili herself under oath as the trial heated up and pressure on the prosecution increased. Locals recognize that pattern of Marianne in shifting blame and dirtying of others hands any time she is put into an unfavorable public eye. ‘smalltown7' does not condone the actions of the third woman of this group but does recognize her vulnerability to that unbridled power now.
What is ironically noteworthy in further testimony by Virgili on 13 August, are her admissions under oath of her use of GSCRA credit for personal use and her justification of her actions once again being accepted as a proper use of public funds by the GSCRA Board of Directors.
Locals can think back to the year 2005 and the ‘odd’ use (still not fully accounted for in 2012) of $86,000 plus change of public funds within GSCRA and accused by former whistles as inappropriate use of public funds and reimbursements.
Locals can now add on an admitted on 13 August 2012, by Virgili, of nearly $11,000 (spent in 2008) for personal use that was "paid back" by John and Marianne Virgili on an undisclosed by the District Attorney date in 2009 and only after still yet another exposure by a whistle blower.
All local business owners can continue to watch Marianne, as spokesperson on behalf of this one 501C-6 organization, rob them of their voice and proclaim through local print media that they can rest safely in their beds at night as long as she and her vigilantism is at the helm of our business community.
One of my co-founders of ‘smalltown7' coined a phrase a few years back that I am going to borrow part of now:
"The irony does not escape me.." that any resident of 81601, who blindly follows the power of a few in our business community that are headed by such individuals as Virgili and GSCRA, can also rest easy in their beds at night knowing that the full, totalitarian power of the state is behind GSCRA and such people as Marianne no matter how unethical, unlawful and presumptuous their actions may be.
Roughly a year or so ago, ‘smalltown7' announced here on safeplace that we pulled more than a decade of CORA and FOIA records on tourism board contracts, funds spent and various other information. We then took that information and laid it out side by side with hard and dated evidence of Virgili’s now admitted under oath vigilante efforts, what the court and public have had held back from their view by the power of the state over the past three years in hard evidence of wrongdoing by Virgili and the actual production of viable tourism gain against accommodations revenue in 81601.
Last week, after realizing that the testimony of Virgili herself gives now more publicly documented proof of ‘odd’ handling of public funds by Virgili and the decision making by GSCRA to justify all that Marianne does; we logged that information into a detailed time line spanning from 2004 through to present day.
The trail of swift and near immediate social and business retaliation to anyone, whistle or otherwise that dares to speak up in either question or protest of any abuse by GSCRA or Virgili, is documented from 2004 so very clearly in our time line we all had to step back and triple check the data.
Between city records, public revenue records, hard data from all who have suffered over the years at that hand of vengeance and the now sworn admissions by others and Virgili herself as to specific dates; there is no denying that the City of Glenwood Springs, all related city, county, federal law enforcement and the 9th Judicial District have turned their eyes and backs on investigating valid complaints over the years.
‘smalltown7' has seen nothing in the outcome of the vigilante efforts of Marianne Virgili to sway us from our support of the latest whistle. In fact, after now seeing the catastrophic abuse of the power of the state and the near rape of law and ethics by the state in its blind support of Virgili and cohorts; we stand more firmly than ever behind the latest whistle as she moves through the appellate process.
The outpouring of email to us since Virgli’s testimony and the testimony of 14 others naming Marianne has been tremendous.
We agree with you that the supporting of Randi Lowenthal’s newest efforts to boost small business within 81601 is to be supported heavily and we encourage you to throw monetary support to Randi’s resource. We thank COGS City Council for finally recognizing Randi’s efforts are the best for our business community.
Coming up in early September at city council is a request for COGS to release to the current tourism marketing vendor of GSCRA, the additional funds left over from the accommodations tax collections. JUST SAY NO. Until the day comes when the City of Glenwood Springs takes full stewardship and responsibility for every questionable decision made by the Glenwood Springs Chamber Resort Association; JUST SAY NO to the release of more public funds into that non-profit entity's hands.
We agree with you that there is no place within our business community for any organization, but especially one in a position of the trust of a non-profit, that abuses their power to such an extent it brings harm of any kind to a business or individual within our community. Boycott and speak up against in whatever way you can safely do so. The depth of overwhelming arrogance and self-righteous declaration of being above the law was so pronounced as I sat in the gallery and watched this trial; I was ashamed to be a member of the bar here in the 9th. Our legal communities within our district are currently filled with similar feeling members.
As strong and dare we say, now powerful conservative voices within our community, we urge you to vote for Democrat Sherry Caloia for District Attorney of the 9th and completely clean house on every available seat upcoming within our BOCC and City Council. For the first time in my life, I am voting blue instead of red on a number of those upcoming seats. You should too.
Out of consideration for the appellate efforts of the latest whistle, comment ability on this post is blocked.
‘smalltown7' once again turns the volume back on, turns it up and keeps talking."
Showing posts with label tourism promotion in glenwood springs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tourism promotion in glenwood springs. Show all posts
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Current Watch: Tourism Contract 2012, The City of Glenwood Springs City Council oversight and a sharing of email from a follower"
The following is an email from a follower that we are asked to not cut down to a capacity that fits comment character allowance.
Sure. We are happy to do that for you. Verbatim as received:
Sure. We are happy to do that for you. Verbatim as received:
“The key to this stranglehold on the AC tax and our revenue generating tourism promotion could be said to be in the details that stand when all else falls away.
In the over 20 years the chamber has been the sole source vendor for promotion, there has never once been anyone in true control of the promotion contract funded by public tax except the unprecedented allowing of the vendor.
Nobody cares if the vendor is the chamber or the guy down the street. They care where officials put the marketing contract that gives peak performance and public accountability for that performance. The only ones who seem to care about the chamber being the hired help are the ones who have made this about personally supporting one individual within the chamber and a political popularity contest for the powerful who are run by that individual. The citizenry has never bought into it and we have been listening to it for years.
During that 20+ years, somehow the hired help vendor has developed into controlling all information, handed a contract and a check for the entire amount of the contract and spend that without anything except weak control from their own board.
It’s only been because of friction from citizenry for more than 18 years, that the chamber board handling this contract has moved in the last three out of 20+ years to being even partially not hand-picked by its own employee. An employee that no one can possibly argue with as being the most magnetic polarizing force the community has ever encountered. It’s only because of the yearly repeat of that friction that awareness of a problem continues to grow hits the public eye.
During the past five to six years, the detail that refuses to be lost in the mist is the truth.
There is no employee plot. There is no lack of money. There is no economic factor that put the community here. There is no lack of cooperation or lack of enthusiasm to make big ticket things happen in our town. There is no incompetency in who gets hired within the subs or employees of the hired help. There is no elected official not friendly to the hired help. There are no persons unknown not touched by the hired help, there is only an entire community helplessly in tow of the hired help’s agenda to not part the mists. There are no consequences for the mists of the chamber board, there is now only one apparently very private citizen that apparently did nothing more to get caught up in this than to tell the powerful to take hold of their problem and leave her out of it. Two years or more ago according to public record, yet the mists have not parted, they instead have been turned into a concrete wall using the mother of all excuses that it is OK because they are, the hired help that cannot be fired.
There only remain the two components of the truth that never die.
1. There is a complete shirking of duty on the part of the chamber board in not governing the accountability and transparency of their entity, because they refuse to lay down the public fear fueled by not showing the hired help’s intent.
2. The hired help has convinced elected officials that no matter what the hired help does, the hired help is apparently above ethics, law and is infallible. So much so, elected officials and powerful business now have moved the citizenry from the possibility of belief that even our prosecutor and law enforcement might be approving on behalf of the hired help that anything goes, the public only has to look at the public record and the obvious to know for certain that the hired help has put our prosecutor and his investigation methods into public concern. I resent deeply our prosecutor and our law enforcement being placed in this position but also clearly see the verifiable of public record that duty followed would not have them there. Knowing the hired help as well as they do, the citizenry may have some hope of their concerns over our prosecutor and our law enforcement being alleviated from taint as the mists continue to part. But the verifiable that we have any citizenry, including the private one and all associated with her left hurt and unprotected is as zgnative says, horrifying.
The smaller details remain kicked under the rug even though when combined they are the bulldozer that knocks down the wall are easy to spot. Just pick up the rug and let the bugs scurry.
- A good deal of talk of big things and big change from the chamber with no performance showing the turn-around of this supposedly different chamber board in charge.
- After 3+ years of that big talk, there is still nothing but double speak on what the real numbers are. Leading up to this time the community, despite incredible assets, remains one of the poorest displays of performance in the state. When the citizenry objects, we can believe our eyes and ears and watch where that is brushed over by our own council still letting the hired help run the show.
- There is no itemized break-down of the tourism contract spending because when it suits them, the board still says they are a private entity that now, apparently claims full ownership and control over what our public funds bought and if fired, we can't have our own assets.
- During the past 20+ years, there has never once been any report that tied the lodging sales to the sales tax sales. The city does the sales tax sales, the chamber does the lodging sales. There is no municipality in the state (maybe even the nation) that allows the hired help control over the books when public funds are involved.
- To make this even more alarming, this same vendor has been allowed to co-mingle what they do with a clear and direct tie to being the head of all of our small business in the area. If we were to place a vote of confidence before voters in the way that Aspen just did that earned a voters confidence approval to actually raise the lodging tax in Aspen, it would landslide fail.
- During the course of this massive failure within the AC tax, the downtown has polarized away from everyone and we spend more money to help it. The elite few (not unlike what happens right now with skico) have prospered so much that no one has even blinked an eye yet at the outrageous admission from the chamber retreat that they want an attractions tax added on to the burden of the people so there can be more uncontrolled money to spend. Those elite few are the attractions that have had their advertising budgets paid for by the promotion of what is supposed to be global 81601 tourism. While the small businesses within 81601 have suffered for almost three years from all eggs being in one basket.
- Even knowing they have no confidence from the population, when it suits hired managers, elected council and stroked tourism board members to not tangle with the chamber because it’s too much or fear of ending up like we are right now verifiably in personal harms way; the chamber/hired help hides behind some cock and bull concept that they are a private entity, owner of the brand and all with it that public funds hired and paid for.
- To further that embarrassment of insult to the citizenry’s intelligence, this dancing by the hired help is not being done by a private business, it is being done by a held at high standard non-profit in position of trust. Who highly likely should never have been put in this position in the first place if we are to look around the country at the state of failure our chambers of commerce are in.
On a logistics level, it does not matter if all the above is wrong. The citizenry is neither blind nor dumb. We are not stupid. We will vote out the weak, keep on carrying the load and believe in a democracy that eventually will change all of this.
On a moral level, any individual in the community of 81601 who does not see the magnitude of this entire situation, that feels no concern that our foundation is cracked and marred forever now by the hired help, will remain my community but is no longer a neighbor of my household, my professional services and my firm. You ask too much of me and my own to participate in this.
As for all of us raising our public voices, under the circumstances of the obvious, be wise enough to remain closet expressions and err on the side of prudence. I know I am.
As for the private citizen who still has not spoken a word according to public record, but whom I hear from sources I trust deeply really is a very good person who no one could ever say is not vocally forthcoming if asked and whose intent shows on every aspect of her being; you have my deepest prayers and most heartfelt wishes that your life is not ruined beyond hope of any repair.
As for the verifiable others falling daily in harm to the obvious and verifiably no prosecutor or law enforcement in front of them, I honestly do not know what to say.
As for what sits on that dais calling itself my friends and my leaders, think again."
Friday, October 8, 2010
Current Watch: Glenwood Springs Chamber Resort Association: "Marianne Virgili, President and CEO"
Today’s post is brought by two former employees of the Glenwood Chamber.
“On the 27th day of September 2010, legally upheld confirmation was received that Marianne Virgili, President and CEO of the Glenwood Springs Chamber Resort Association, admitted in June 2009 to engaging in a pattern of deliberate and targeted destruction of a local business and family for a period of five months from February to June 2009.
Further revealed as legally upheld is Virgili’s leadership, encouragement and orchestration during this same span of time, of two other women to band together a pattern of their gossip and previously discredited allegations against this family and their business, spanning from Fall 2007 through 2008.
This company targeted was owned by the latest whistle blower on Virgili and the Chamber. This family a local family consisting of a woman and her four young adult children. This woman is the whistle on Marianne Virgili that began coming forward aprx. New Year’s day of 2009.
“smalltown7's unconditional support, thoughts and prayers go out to this family as they struggle to not only gather their lives in the face of tragedy but continue to seek justice for their own and their responsibilities.”
********
Today, smalltown7 carries on with a loud whistle on the Glenwood Springs Chamber Resort Association by asking the following:
“What have we seen in changes at the City of Glenwood Springs since February 4th, 2010 when the minutes at the end of this post were the high point of that City Council meeting?”
Those minutes make for an interesting read given what we now have lived through in the months since.
smalltown7 has decided to post them again at the end of this post.
First, our comments on the current status of the 2011 Tourism marketing plan:
• In our view, the information on tourism does not pass litmus. A reminder that can be verified below in the 2/4 minutes that there is strong discontent with the lack of results we have seen out of tourism promotion since 2007. It is highly debatable whether or not effective use of marketing funds has taken place. According to council packet, this budget and plan has now been through one round of the new tourism board, where a good deal of the initial presentation was scuttled and funds moved around to be more effective. Great move and news and we thank our new board. We hope that you will make many more changes as the months unfold. We have high confidence in you.
• It’s noted again how little real information there is in these outputs from the current marketing vendor in the Chamber. There is no data. No meat, no substance. It is repeated and flashy power point presentations that we have seen time and time again. There are a few good events coming in and we are glad for that. It is not enough and certainly not an effective use of funds. We call on our new board to not be passive. Be pro-active. If necessary, meet more often and possibly without the marketing vendor attending. That has always been and remains a huge conflict of interest. The vendor on board should have no access to the decision making for the contract and contract execution of disbursing funds, in any way.
Let’s talk now about what changes we have seen since the 2/4/10 minutes below:
• From that February meeting through September 2010, conflict after conflict with the Chamber and tourism fund.
• the grant fund was run dry
• the budget overspent
• a historic new tourism oversight and promotion board put into place with the old disbanded
• City Council put fully in charge of board selections and disbursements of funds
• controls placed on tourism entities for term limits and input
• an empowered Council that no longer just sits and takes at face value what it is told by the Chamber.
• a region with a concentrated focus on our community, unfortunately now facing at least a year more of global media recognition from the entire range of what has been done to a local family.
• We have seen the allowance of biased and censored coverage in the local media.
• We have seen such outcry from the community over that bias that our local newspaper is now seeking new editorial management with previous management taking a “mental” leave of absence.
• We have seen the resignation of Kate Collins from the Chamber with no equal caliber of replacement.
• We have seen a community grow to full awareness and empowerment of themselves against an issue of lack of oversight on tourism that has existed yet swept under a rug for close to two decades.
• We have seen our Chamber Board of Directors still keep the same state of mind on the surface, as Mr. Sanderson has below in the 2/4 minutes.
• We have seen a community support by either apathy or salivating over gossip and scandal; our city officials sitting back with public statements of their full support of all actions within the Glenwood Springs Chamber Resort Association.
smalltown7 keeps talking.
********
From City Council meeting of 2/4/10:
“ITEM NO. 8 Discussion and/or Action Regarding Tourism Promotion Contract.
Mayor Christensen said Council needs to decide if, for 2011, this will continue as a sole source, non-competitive contract or if an RFP is needed. This is a large amount of public money and there needs to be a public discussion as to how it is allocated. The Chamber needs to know as soon as possible which way the City will go.
Kate Collins, Vice-President of Tourism Marketing for the Glenwood Springs Chamber appeared with Steve Beckley of Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park, incoming Chairman of the Tourism Board, and Bill Sanderson from Alpine Bank, past Chairman of the Glenwood Chamber and current Boardmember. She said she would like Council to continue the contract with the Glenwood Springs Chamber. The City has been partners with the Chamber in the stewardship of the Tourism Funds and the tourism business which is the City’s largest economic driver. The Glenwood Springs Chamber is built on 22 years of managing this fund and is built on the strategies and infrastructure they developed. The last year has been difficult, but it has been less bad for Glenwood Springs than for other Colorado destinations due to having a great brand and product but also to the consistency of their marketing efforts. Their website sees 400,000 to 500,000 visitors per year with new visitors and longer visits. Their Central Reservations has one stop shopping and a conversion mechanism for marketing efforts. They have a leads database with 30,000 loyal visitors and prospects. Their PR person has a great reputation and rapport with travel writers and the employees are committed and talented. The Chamber knows the target market and has a continued theme that allows their message to evolve. She encouraged Council to view visitglenwood.com which was launched last week and includes three winter promotions: ski-swim-stay, ski-swim-spa and ski-swim-play. To coincide with Glenwood’s 125th Birthday, there are coupons to area attractions and restaurants for use on your 2010 birthday. There will soon be 220 new lodging rooms so they will need to work hard to try to fill occupancy over 12 months and now would be a risky time to put this out to bid. The City and the Chamber have grown as partners to make Glenwood a model mountain community. An RFP is inconsistent with the local preference policy. There are only 2 staff members that manage this contract and dealing with an RFP would take them from their core work. The Chamber operates the Visitor Information Center which saw 65,000 visitors in 2009. It takes training, commitment and patience to respond to visitors’ needs which then allows them to spend more money. The Chamber helps run events and they consider themselves the stewards of the brand. They would like to continue their contract and this partnership in 2011 and 2012.
Bill Sanderson, Alpine Bank Branch President and Chamber Boardmember, stated when he joined the Chamber 5 years ago there were discussions of putting this contract out for bid and allegations of misappropriation of funds. The Chamber and the Tourism Board came through with flying colors. They have diversified the Tourism Board by adding non-tourism members and have proven that keeping administration of the funds in-house has been very effective. He pledged his support to keep things as they have been.
Steve Beckley mentioned that the Tourism Board works closely with Council and has tried to accommodate their suggestions. He is excited about the things being done and encouraged Council to keep the 2011 and 2012 contracts with the Chamber.
Larry Emery said this has been an ongoing issue for many years. The Chamber does its best to promote Glenwood Springs but the issue is that $750,000 of public money is spent annually. How do you justify spending it on something that hasn’t been bid or seeing what is available? This is probably the largest budget item Council has control over and it is awarded to the Chamber every year. He said he takes exception with the Chamber saying they don’t have time for an RFP. They do an annual plan on how the $750,000 will be spent and probably have the facts and figures in place. These funds from the Glenwood Springs’ taxpayers are to be used to promote the City and it is left to Council’s discretion as to how best to spend the money. He received the audit results 5 years ago. This audit was not a forensic audit, just an analysis of the figures to make sure they added up.
Bob Campbell said he has worked a lot with Chamber staff. They are hard working, conscience and knowledgeable. He said he was impressed with their understanding of what works best for Glenwood Springs.
Councilor Steckler said he is the Council representative to the Tourism Board, knows what the Chamber does and is happy with their work. It’s a good idea to look at this from an RFP prospective, but there is a lot of learned knowledge and continuity. The Chamber knows what works and what doesn’t. From what he understands of the business there would be some risks of going with an outside entity. He said he doesn’t think it would be difficult for the Chamber to put together an RFP, but it would be difficult for an outside firm to compete. He said he is happy with how the money is spent, but would like broader input from the community, a more regional approach. He said he is happy with the status quo.
Councilor Bershenyi said he is conflicted because it is Council’s responsibility to do the best thing with the public’s money and they should be doing this through a more open process. The Chamber has done a wonderful job and has a quality product.
Councilor Kaup echoed the comments that this is not about performance of the contract. The Chamber’s main strength is an understanding of the product and the market to which Glenwood appeals. She said she is happy with the changes made to the Tourism Board. Council has a responsibility to make sure this money is spent prudently. She would like someone to analyze the impacts, benefits and costs of changing the structure of this contract before sending this to a RFP.
Councilor Sturges said everyone has reviewed the history, the Chamber product and the marketing. He said the Chamber’s marking work is high quality and consistent with its message. This is no longer just about the money. The Visitor Center is one of the best, from the location to the friendliness. He said someone from outside the area could not manage that responsibility so it should be separate from the RFP. The Chamber’s marketing plans have been professional and well documented. Staff raised a question about oversight and administration so, if Council decides to go through with it, he would like staff to come back with a proposed RFP. He wants to get the best marketing program that will bring in the best return.
Councilor McKinney reiterated that Council is the steward of the public money and it is a disservice if the money isn’t spent in an open and just manner. If it goes to bid it will likely go to the Chamber. He said most of the information should be in place for the Chamber to put together a bid and the money should stay local. He asked if this is the way it has always been done.
Mayor Christensen explained that it has been done like this for the last 22 years and prior to that it was administered by the City and bid out as an advertising contract. The amounts were much smaller.
Councilor McKinney said he is leaning toward putting it out for bid.
Councilor Arensman said he has served as Council liaison to the Chamber for the last 2 years and respects the people on the Chamber Board and all the volunteer efforts. They are doing a good job with the City’s tourism marketing and they understand the local attractions and appeal. If it isn’t broken don’t fix it. The City is getting good value for the money. The Tourism Board has improved its accountability, broadened the representation, and implemented conflict of interest waivers. They have allowed regional golf course promotions and that’s the type of regional marketing that needs done. If this goes out to bid front range companies could under-bid because they don’t have to pay the operating costs of living here and the City is trying to keep funds local. He said he supports not changing at this time, but would like more scrutiny. What does the $200,000 in overhead pay? This was an almost $800,000 budget which has shrunk to $600,000.
Mayor Christensen said Council would negligent to spend this amount of money without seeing what is available. If this was done with any other entity there would be public furor. The City has given the Chamber $2.8 million over the last 4 years to market Glenwood Springs. Council took an oath and is responsible to see what the alternatives are no matter how much they like the people here. The Tourism Board should be looking at all the regions’ resources and look at Glenwood as a gateway to them. Glenwood’s Chamber is paid to host Ride the Rockies, but none of the other western slope municipalities do that. The Chamber is paid to market Glenwood, but they can’t do an RFP because it will take time from marketing. That is unethical. There are things that need tightened up. The Chamber is paid $22,800 for rent under the contract, but the County provides the facility for free. He said he hopes an RFP would provide someone local, but if they continue with a sole-source and no bid contract, the oversight needs improved. The Tourism Board should not be appointed by the Chamber. The Chamber promotes Glenwood with a water theme yet pays dues to and supports the U.S. Chamber of Commerce which is trying to dry up the West. Other options must be explored.
Councilor Steckler said he agreed that maybe a different structure should be explored, but continuity is needed with a marketing entity. This wouldn’t be easy to bid, but an RFP could be explored. How costs are allocated through the Tourism Fund needs examined and an external auditing procedure is warranted. He said he is in favor of a more regional approach but likes the basic execution of the contract. This is public money so it shouldn’t be contentious and justifying how it is spent should be accepted as a matter of course.
Mayor Christensen explained that he personally has a problem when the Tourism Board wants to put the 20% into advertising. It is the one thing the community receives and it is spent wisely. Infrastructure needs built to enhance the community. The Tourism Board didn’t want to partner for downtown Christmas lights or on a better bus service.
Councilor Kaup said there are some valid questions with issues over the years, but will an RFP address them? She said there are advantages to having the contract local and involving community cooperation in marketing Glenwood Springs. If things need fixed, then look at the best way to address them.
Councilor Bershenyi reiterated that no one is denigrating the Chamber’s product, but it is Council’s fiduciary responsibility to the community to oversee these funds. The Chamber tonight has asked for the 2011 and 2012 contracts which are $l.4 million and he is unwilling to give blanket approval to an expenditure of that amount without a formal process.
Councilor Sturges said Council is executing their responsibility as prior Councils have. There are legitimate questions and he would like to better understand the issues of administration and oversight. It’s not as simple as requiring an RFP. There should be discussion with staff regarding the type of oversight and an RFP, review the proposal and then make a decision as to an RFP. If it is decided an RFP is needed, he is sure the Chamber will make a good argument that they can deliver what the City wants.
Councilor Arensman agreed that it is premature to go to an RFP now. If it goes to bid, a different form of governance will be needed and the ramifications need thought through. He said he would like to discuss the issues brought up tonight.
Mayor Christensen said the Chamber needs to know they will have the 2011 contract, then have the discussion sometime during this year.
Jeff Hecksel said the discussion tonight is not an approval of a contract, just a discussion and decision about issuing an RFP. This is a significant process with involving overlap and time to transition.
Councilor Kaup said if Council seriously considers going for an RFP, questions need to be answered about the implications, what type of changes would need to be made to administration and structure, etc.
Mayor Christensen said those are structural issues.
Councilor Steckler said an RFP is not simple. How is the RFP sculpted? What do you do with the infrastructure already in place? What about the marketing leads?
Jeff Hecksel said, from his perspective, those are losses that will have to be paid again when/if providers are changed. The investment to the website is gone and would have to be redone. The only way to get those costs is to go through an RFP.
Mayor Christensen said those are advantages to the current vendor and he is fine with that.
Councilor Bershenyi said those are work products produced using public funds so it should be the property of the City of Glenwood Springs.
Mayor Christensen and Jeff Hecksel disagreed.
Councilor McKinney suggested extending the contract for a year and having a worksession before June.
Councilor Sturges pointed out that renewing or continuing a contract is not the issue tonight. He asked if there was a date by which they need to decide who receives the contract.
Jeff Hecksel replied, it feeds into the budget and it would be preferable to have more time to minimize the disruption. Changing providers, especially when they involve the items in the memorandum, will cause disruption because development lead time is significant. He said he sees this as a political issue for Council and has no recommendations.
Councilor Sturges said there in an issue as to how the contract is administered and another one of oversight. He said Council should have a worksession to discuss what they want under an RFP.
Councilor McKinney said if this is the same conversation that’s been happening for 22 years. The right thing to do is put it out to bid because of Council’s obligation as public servants and nothing will change until that is done.
Councilor Steckler said if you lose 6 months marketing getting a new vendor up to speed it is a disservice to the community. It isn’t a tangible service.
Councilor Kaup said the decision should be how best to serve the City and it is not best served to lose marketing time in a down economy.
Mayor Christensen said it is on the agenda tonight because there is almost a year lead time. If there is ever going to be a change, it needs to be planned well in advance.
Councilor Bershenyi moved, seconded by Councilor Kaup, to direct staff to schedule a worksession to examine the ramifications of an RFP.
Councilor Steckler said he would like it amended to expand the scope to include structural issues with the existing approach.
Mayor Christensen said, in that case, the RFP would be for the 2012 contract.
Councilor Steckler asked if they were going ahead with the status quo for 2011.
Councilor Arensman answered, it doesn’t have to be status quo. There is the opportunity to interact with the Chamber and the Tourism Board during the entire next year.
Mayor Christensen said that’s a good thing then everybody can work through the issues and it can be a component of what happens in 2012.
Councilor Bershenyi amended his motion and Councilor Kaup amended her second to schedule a worksession to discuss the ramifications of an RFP for the 2012 contract and some of the structural and/or policy concerns with the current situation.
Council registered their votes on the electronic lighting system. The motion passed unanimously.”
“On the 27th day of September 2010, legally upheld confirmation was received that Marianne Virgili, President and CEO of the Glenwood Springs Chamber Resort Association, admitted in June 2009 to engaging in a pattern of deliberate and targeted destruction of a local business and family for a period of five months from February to June 2009.
Further revealed as legally upheld is Virgili’s leadership, encouragement and orchestration during this same span of time, of two other women to band together a pattern of their gossip and previously discredited allegations against this family and their business, spanning from Fall 2007 through 2008.
This company targeted was owned by the latest whistle blower on Virgili and the Chamber. This family a local family consisting of a woman and her four young adult children. This woman is the whistle on Marianne Virgili that began coming forward aprx. New Year’s day of 2009.
“smalltown7's unconditional support, thoughts and prayers go out to this family as they struggle to not only gather their lives in the face of tragedy but continue to seek justice for their own and their responsibilities.”
********
Today, smalltown7 carries on with a loud whistle on the Glenwood Springs Chamber Resort Association by asking the following:
“What have we seen in changes at the City of Glenwood Springs since February 4th, 2010 when the minutes at the end of this post were the high point of that City Council meeting?”
Those minutes make for an interesting read given what we now have lived through in the months since.
smalltown7 has decided to post them again at the end of this post.
First, our comments on the current status of the 2011 Tourism marketing plan:
• In our view, the information on tourism does not pass litmus. A reminder that can be verified below in the 2/4 minutes that there is strong discontent with the lack of results we have seen out of tourism promotion since 2007. It is highly debatable whether or not effective use of marketing funds has taken place. According to council packet, this budget and plan has now been through one round of the new tourism board, where a good deal of the initial presentation was scuttled and funds moved around to be more effective. Great move and news and we thank our new board. We hope that you will make many more changes as the months unfold. We have high confidence in you.
• It’s noted again how little real information there is in these outputs from the current marketing vendor in the Chamber. There is no data. No meat, no substance. It is repeated and flashy power point presentations that we have seen time and time again. There are a few good events coming in and we are glad for that. It is not enough and certainly not an effective use of funds. We call on our new board to not be passive. Be pro-active. If necessary, meet more often and possibly without the marketing vendor attending. That has always been and remains a huge conflict of interest. The vendor on board should have no access to the decision making for the contract and contract execution of disbursing funds, in any way.
Let’s talk now about what changes we have seen since the 2/4/10 minutes below:
• From that February meeting through September 2010, conflict after conflict with the Chamber and tourism fund.
• the grant fund was run dry
• the budget overspent
• a historic new tourism oversight and promotion board put into place with the old disbanded
• City Council put fully in charge of board selections and disbursements of funds
• controls placed on tourism entities for term limits and input
• an empowered Council that no longer just sits and takes at face value what it is told by the Chamber.
• a region with a concentrated focus on our community, unfortunately now facing at least a year more of global media recognition from the entire range of what has been done to a local family.
• We have seen the allowance of biased and censored coverage in the local media.
• We have seen such outcry from the community over that bias that our local newspaper is now seeking new editorial management with previous management taking a “mental” leave of absence.
• We have seen the resignation of Kate Collins from the Chamber with no equal caliber of replacement.
• We have seen a community grow to full awareness and empowerment of themselves against an issue of lack of oversight on tourism that has existed yet swept under a rug for close to two decades.
• We have seen our Chamber Board of Directors still keep the same state of mind on the surface, as Mr. Sanderson has below in the 2/4 minutes.
• We have seen a community support by either apathy or salivating over gossip and scandal; our city officials sitting back with public statements of their full support of all actions within the Glenwood Springs Chamber Resort Association.
smalltown7 keeps talking.
********
From City Council meeting of 2/4/10:
“ITEM NO. 8 Discussion and/or Action Regarding Tourism Promotion Contract.
Mayor Christensen said Council needs to decide if, for 2011, this will continue as a sole source, non-competitive contract or if an RFP is needed. This is a large amount of public money and there needs to be a public discussion as to how it is allocated. The Chamber needs to know as soon as possible which way the City will go.
Kate Collins, Vice-President of Tourism Marketing for the Glenwood Springs Chamber appeared with Steve Beckley of Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park, incoming Chairman of the Tourism Board, and Bill Sanderson from Alpine Bank, past Chairman of the Glenwood Chamber and current Boardmember. She said she would like Council to continue the contract with the Glenwood Springs Chamber. The City has been partners with the Chamber in the stewardship of the Tourism Funds and the tourism business which is the City’s largest economic driver. The Glenwood Springs Chamber is built on 22 years of managing this fund and is built on the strategies and infrastructure they developed. The last year has been difficult, but it has been less bad for Glenwood Springs than for other Colorado destinations due to having a great brand and product but also to the consistency of their marketing efforts. Their website sees 400,000 to 500,000 visitors per year with new visitors and longer visits. Their Central Reservations has one stop shopping and a conversion mechanism for marketing efforts. They have a leads database with 30,000 loyal visitors and prospects. Their PR person has a great reputation and rapport with travel writers and the employees are committed and talented. The Chamber knows the target market and has a continued theme that allows their message to evolve. She encouraged Council to view visitglenwood.com which was launched last week and includes three winter promotions: ski-swim-stay, ski-swim-spa and ski-swim-play. To coincide with Glenwood’s 125th Birthday, there are coupons to area attractions and restaurants for use on your 2010 birthday. There will soon be 220 new lodging rooms so they will need to work hard to try to fill occupancy over 12 months and now would be a risky time to put this out to bid. The City and the Chamber have grown as partners to make Glenwood a model mountain community. An RFP is inconsistent with the local preference policy. There are only 2 staff members that manage this contract and dealing with an RFP would take them from their core work. The Chamber operates the Visitor Information Center which saw 65,000 visitors in 2009. It takes training, commitment and patience to respond to visitors’ needs which then allows them to spend more money. The Chamber helps run events and they consider themselves the stewards of the brand. They would like to continue their contract and this partnership in 2011 and 2012.
Bill Sanderson, Alpine Bank Branch President and Chamber Boardmember, stated when he joined the Chamber 5 years ago there were discussions of putting this contract out for bid and allegations of misappropriation of funds. The Chamber and the Tourism Board came through with flying colors. They have diversified the Tourism Board by adding non-tourism members and have proven that keeping administration of the funds in-house has been very effective. He pledged his support to keep things as they have been.
Steve Beckley mentioned that the Tourism Board works closely with Council and has tried to accommodate their suggestions. He is excited about the things being done and encouraged Council to keep the 2011 and 2012 contracts with the Chamber.
Larry Emery said this has been an ongoing issue for many years. The Chamber does its best to promote Glenwood Springs but the issue is that $750,000 of public money is spent annually. How do you justify spending it on something that hasn’t been bid or seeing what is available? This is probably the largest budget item Council has control over and it is awarded to the Chamber every year. He said he takes exception with the Chamber saying they don’t have time for an RFP. They do an annual plan on how the $750,000 will be spent and probably have the facts and figures in place. These funds from the Glenwood Springs’ taxpayers are to be used to promote the City and it is left to Council’s discretion as to how best to spend the money. He received the audit results 5 years ago. This audit was not a forensic audit, just an analysis of the figures to make sure they added up.
Bob Campbell said he has worked a lot with Chamber staff. They are hard working, conscience and knowledgeable. He said he was impressed with their understanding of what works best for Glenwood Springs.
Councilor Steckler said he is the Council representative to the Tourism Board, knows what the Chamber does and is happy with their work. It’s a good idea to look at this from an RFP prospective, but there is a lot of learned knowledge and continuity. The Chamber knows what works and what doesn’t. From what he understands of the business there would be some risks of going with an outside entity. He said he doesn’t think it would be difficult for the Chamber to put together an RFP, but it would be difficult for an outside firm to compete. He said he is happy with how the money is spent, but would like broader input from the community, a more regional approach. He said he is happy with the status quo.
Councilor Bershenyi said he is conflicted because it is Council’s responsibility to do the best thing with the public’s money and they should be doing this through a more open process. The Chamber has done a wonderful job and has a quality product.
Councilor Kaup echoed the comments that this is not about performance of the contract. The Chamber’s main strength is an understanding of the product and the market to which Glenwood appeals. She said she is happy with the changes made to the Tourism Board. Council has a responsibility to make sure this money is spent prudently. She would like someone to analyze the impacts, benefits and costs of changing the structure of this contract before sending this to a RFP.
Councilor Sturges said everyone has reviewed the history, the Chamber product and the marketing. He said the Chamber’s marking work is high quality and consistent with its message. This is no longer just about the money. The Visitor Center is one of the best, from the location to the friendliness. He said someone from outside the area could not manage that responsibility so it should be separate from the RFP. The Chamber’s marketing plans have been professional and well documented. Staff raised a question about oversight and administration so, if Council decides to go through with it, he would like staff to come back with a proposed RFP. He wants to get the best marketing program that will bring in the best return.
Councilor McKinney reiterated that Council is the steward of the public money and it is a disservice if the money isn’t spent in an open and just manner. If it goes to bid it will likely go to the Chamber. He said most of the information should be in place for the Chamber to put together a bid and the money should stay local. He asked if this is the way it has always been done.
Mayor Christensen explained that it has been done like this for the last 22 years and prior to that it was administered by the City and bid out as an advertising contract. The amounts were much smaller.
Councilor McKinney said he is leaning toward putting it out for bid.
Councilor Arensman said he has served as Council liaison to the Chamber for the last 2 years and respects the people on the Chamber Board and all the volunteer efforts. They are doing a good job with the City’s tourism marketing and they understand the local attractions and appeal. If it isn’t broken don’t fix it. The City is getting good value for the money. The Tourism Board has improved its accountability, broadened the representation, and implemented conflict of interest waivers. They have allowed regional golf course promotions and that’s the type of regional marketing that needs done. If this goes out to bid front range companies could under-bid because they don’t have to pay the operating costs of living here and the City is trying to keep funds local. He said he supports not changing at this time, but would like more scrutiny. What does the $200,000 in overhead pay? This was an almost $800,000 budget which has shrunk to $600,000.
Mayor Christensen said Council would negligent to spend this amount of money without seeing what is available. If this was done with any other entity there would be public furor. The City has given the Chamber $2.8 million over the last 4 years to market Glenwood Springs. Council took an oath and is responsible to see what the alternatives are no matter how much they like the people here. The Tourism Board should be looking at all the regions’ resources and look at Glenwood as a gateway to them. Glenwood’s Chamber is paid to host Ride the Rockies, but none of the other western slope municipalities do that. The Chamber is paid to market Glenwood, but they can’t do an RFP because it will take time from marketing. That is unethical. There are things that need tightened up. The Chamber is paid $22,800 for rent under the contract, but the County provides the facility for free. He said he hopes an RFP would provide someone local, but if they continue with a sole-source and no bid contract, the oversight needs improved. The Tourism Board should not be appointed by the Chamber. The Chamber promotes Glenwood with a water theme yet pays dues to and supports the U.S. Chamber of Commerce which is trying to dry up the West. Other options must be explored.
Councilor Steckler said he agreed that maybe a different structure should be explored, but continuity is needed with a marketing entity. This wouldn’t be easy to bid, but an RFP could be explored. How costs are allocated through the Tourism Fund needs examined and an external auditing procedure is warranted. He said he is in favor of a more regional approach but likes the basic execution of the contract. This is public money so it shouldn’t be contentious and justifying how it is spent should be accepted as a matter of course.
Mayor Christensen explained that he personally has a problem when the Tourism Board wants to put the 20% into advertising. It is the one thing the community receives and it is spent wisely. Infrastructure needs built to enhance the community. The Tourism Board didn’t want to partner for downtown Christmas lights or on a better bus service.
Councilor Kaup said there are some valid questions with issues over the years, but will an RFP address them? She said there are advantages to having the contract local and involving community cooperation in marketing Glenwood Springs. If things need fixed, then look at the best way to address them.
Councilor Bershenyi reiterated that no one is denigrating the Chamber’s product, but it is Council’s fiduciary responsibility to the community to oversee these funds. The Chamber tonight has asked for the 2011 and 2012 contracts which are $l.4 million and he is unwilling to give blanket approval to an expenditure of that amount without a formal process.
Councilor Sturges said Council is executing their responsibility as prior Councils have. There are legitimate questions and he would like to better understand the issues of administration and oversight. It’s not as simple as requiring an RFP. There should be discussion with staff regarding the type of oversight and an RFP, review the proposal and then make a decision as to an RFP. If it is decided an RFP is needed, he is sure the Chamber will make a good argument that they can deliver what the City wants.
Councilor Arensman agreed that it is premature to go to an RFP now. If it goes to bid, a different form of governance will be needed and the ramifications need thought through. He said he would like to discuss the issues brought up tonight.
Mayor Christensen said the Chamber needs to know they will have the 2011 contract, then have the discussion sometime during this year.
Jeff Hecksel said the discussion tonight is not an approval of a contract, just a discussion and decision about issuing an RFP. This is a significant process with involving overlap and time to transition.
Councilor Kaup said if Council seriously considers going for an RFP, questions need to be answered about the implications, what type of changes would need to be made to administration and structure, etc.
Mayor Christensen said those are structural issues.
Councilor Steckler said an RFP is not simple. How is the RFP sculpted? What do you do with the infrastructure already in place? What about the marketing leads?
Jeff Hecksel said, from his perspective, those are losses that will have to be paid again when/if providers are changed. The investment to the website is gone and would have to be redone. The only way to get those costs is to go through an RFP.
Mayor Christensen said those are advantages to the current vendor and he is fine with that.
Councilor Bershenyi said those are work products produced using public funds so it should be the property of the City of Glenwood Springs.
Mayor Christensen and Jeff Hecksel disagreed.
Councilor McKinney suggested extending the contract for a year and having a worksession before June.
Councilor Sturges pointed out that renewing or continuing a contract is not the issue tonight. He asked if there was a date by which they need to decide who receives the contract.
Jeff Hecksel replied, it feeds into the budget and it would be preferable to have more time to minimize the disruption. Changing providers, especially when they involve the items in the memorandum, will cause disruption because development lead time is significant. He said he sees this as a political issue for Council and has no recommendations.
Councilor Sturges said there in an issue as to how the contract is administered and another one of oversight. He said Council should have a worksession to discuss what they want under an RFP.
Councilor McKinney said if this is the same conversation that’s been happening for 22 years. The right thing to do is put it out to bid because of Council’s obligation as public servants and nothing will change until that is done.
Councilor Steckler said if you lose 6 months marketing getting a new vendor up to speed it is a disservice to the community. It isn’t a tangible service.
Councilor Kaup said the decision should be how best to serve the City and it is not best served to lose marketing time in a down economy.
Mayor Christensen said it is on the agenda tonight because there is almost a year lead time. If there is ever going to be a change, it needs to be planned well in advance.
Councilor Bershenyi moved, seconded by Councilor Kaup, to direct staff to schedule a worksession to examine the ramifications of an RFP.
Councilor Steckler said he would like it amended to expand the scope to include structural issues with the existing approach.
Mayor Christensen said, in that case, the RFP would be for the 2012 contract.
Councilor Steckler asked if they were going ahead with the status quo for 2011.
Councilor Arensman answered, it doesn’t have to be status quo. There is the opportunity to interact with the Chamber and the Tourism Board during the entire next year.
Mayor Christensen said that’s a good thing then everybody can work through the issues and it can be a component of what happens in 2012.
Councilor Bershenyi amended his motion and Councilor Kaup amended her second to schedule a worksession to discuss the ramifications of an RFP for the 2012 contract and some of the structural and/or policy concerns with the current situation.
Council registered their votes on the electronic lighting system. The motion passed unanimously.”
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Current Watch: Glenwood Springs Chamber Resort Association: "Whistle Blowers spanning over a decade finally achieve victory in Glenwood Springs, Colorado"
On September 2nd, 2010, the Glenwood Springs City Council authorized the seating of nine individuals, who will now make up the first tourism oversight board in the history of Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
While very disappointing to see that back-door politics have allowed three Chamber of Commerce seats to be held instead of ordinance required one seat. To see three directly associated tourism industry seats to be held instead of ordinance required two seats.
While very encouraging to see two seats held by common citizens who are strong enough individuals to lend balance to the board.
The undeniable fact, that never again, will there be any ability for zero transparency and accountability to the largest tax generated revenue base in the County of Garfield and the City of Glenwood Springs; is a victory that belongs to six women spanning the years of 1998-2010.
Tourism Business Representatives and Chamber of Commerce Board Member:
Steve Beckley
Ken Murphy (current Chamber Board of Directors)
Lodging Representatives:
John Bosco (Hot Springs Pool)
Peter Tijm (current Chamber Board of Directors)
Chamber Representative:
Carl Moak (current Chamber Board of Directors)
Citizen Representatives and current previous Tourism Board member:
Ian Exelberg (moves from long held seat on disbanded tourism board to new board)
Scott Hemmen
Don Gillespie
Judith Wilson
Collectively here at safeplace, we feel the chosen mix on the board will encounter a tougher road in attempting to bridge the chasm of the two factions that make up small business in the 81601 zip code. This was a critical time to make appropriate choices that hold up under scrutiny.
All on this board are good people. It is the imbalance of weight in the carry-over of proven eyes that refused to see, proven ears that tuned out and proven courage that could not withstand coming under fire that will ultimately be the burden of the community to continue to carry.
We also remain feeling that the small businesses and common citizens on the side of the rift that ultimately bears that burden are no longer at disadvantage. The field is leveled now. It just may take more time than your wishes shared with us hoped for.
In what started out as one voice almost twelve years ago, that raised collectively to global watch-dog attention today; the voices of the small have locked in awareness.
When one believes in the power of good people unafraid to use the front door instead of the back, ultimately the good people win.
Good wishes, from the avatars of smalltown7 as this historic new board steps up.
While very disappointing to see that back-door politics have allowed three Chamber of Commerce seats to be held instead of ordinance required one seat. To see three directly associated tourism industry seats to be held instead of ordinance required two seats.
While very encouraging to see two seats held by common citizens who are strong enough individuals to lend balance to the board.
The undeniable fact, that never again, will there be any ability for zero transparency and accountability to the largest tax generated revenue base in the County of Garfield and the City of Glenwood Springs; is a victory that belongs to six women spanning the years of 1998-2010.
Tourism Business Representatives and Chamber of Commerce Board Member:
Steve Beckley
Ken Murphy (current Chamber Board of Directors)
Lodging Representatives:
John Bosco (Hot Springs Pool)
Peter Tijm (current Chamber Board of Directors)
Chamber Representative:
Carl Moak (current Chamber Board of Directors)
Citizen Representatives and current previous Tourism Board member:
Ian Exelberg (moves from long held seat on disbanded tourism board to new board)
Scott Hemmen
Don Gillespie
Judith Wilson
Collectively here at safeplace, we feel the chosen mix on the board will encounter a tougher road in attempting to bridge the chasm of the two factions that make up small business in the 81601 zip code. This was a critical time to make appropriate choices that hold up under scrutiny.
All on this board are good people. It is the imbalance of weight in the carry-over of proven eyes that refused to see, proven ears that tuned out and proven courage that could not withstand coming under fire that will ultimately be the burden of the community to continue to carry.
We also remain feeling that the small businesses and common citizens on the side of the rift that ultimately bears that burden are no longer at disadvantage. The field is leveled now. It just may take more time than your wishes shared with us hoped for.
In what started out as one voice almost twelve years ago, that raised collectively to global watch-dog attention today; the voices of the small have locked in awareness.
When one believes in the power of good people unafraid to use the front door instead of the back, ultimately the good people win.
Good wishes, from the avatars of smalltown7 as this historic new board steps up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)