A Tribute To Jackie “Muddy” Bubis
by Laura “Lucy” Vass,
Recollection and Commentary
I recall the first day that Dan and Jackie Bubis came into the old log Sentinel building at 610 Main Street, Westcliffe, CO.
They came in to see what we were about and were very forthcoming about their willingness to get involved, including an offer to report on local affairs. It was obvious in the first ten minutes that they were pro-constitution, God-fearing, motivated and impressively involved in protecting our rights as citizens.
I remember telling Editor/Owner George (Gramlich), after they left. “Keep an eye on these two. Everything about them is so honest and straight forward. Too good to be true, maybe.” Turns out that Jax and Dan were everything they said they were and more. And as part of the Sentinel team, I valued their efforts, their insight, and the many contributions they would make over the years.
On a lighter side, Jackie, who had many nicknames, but not one assigned to her by George Gramlich, the editor/owner of the Sentinel, would pester him about it. He had nicknames for everyone else connected to the paper, and had even given one to her husband, Dan “Rebbe”. Finally, after about four years of reporting, and some fantastic fun at the gun range, George gave her a nickname based on her new AR-15 (gifted to her by George) which was muddy girl camo. It was “Muddy”. She liked it, and it stuck.
Jackie was instrumental in bringing the BOCC meetings to the forefront, reporting accurately, putting her audio recordings of the meetings up on YouTube for all to hear (at a time when there were not audios posted and no Zoom,) and pointing out articulately any possible abuse of the state’s Sunshine laws, utilizing CORA to get documents, and documenting abuses of power which led to the recall of 2017. Not showing discrimination or favoritism, she continued with the post-recall elected officials, to hold their feet to the fire.
I remember one time in particular that she addressed the BOCC at meetings and workshops concerning a proposed fees hike for some zoning items. She explained to the audience, as she was addressing the board, the difference between a fee and a tax. It was a good presentation. I still have a copy of her open letter follow up. With new administration in P&Z over the last year hiking “fees” with the
approval of the BOCC, we would all do well to review. (See below.)
Jackie “Muddy” Bubis will be missed. As George says, “She was really the bedrock of reporting for the Sentinel for years,” but more, she contributed meaningful dialogue regarding the preservation of our rights as citizens, wherever she went and what ever she did. And Dan “Rebbe” Bubis, (Jackie’s bedrock) is still with us as our IT guy, faithful to a fault, and much appreciated.
An Open Letter to the
Commissioners
Tax or Fee?
May 17, 2019
To: Chairman Flower, Commissioner Canda and Commissioner Printz with an aside to Attorney Smith
On April 17th, I brought to the Board a document which gave great credence to my claim that the recent increase in “fees” in the Planning and Zoning Office was not a fee but was, in fact, a tax. If it is a tax, then this increase must go before a vote of the people of Custer County.
In two separate discussions of this fee – one in a workshop and one in the BOCC meeting in which it was approved, I pointedly asked the reason for this increase. The general consensus was that it was not required to run the Planning and Zoning office, which now brings in more in revenue than its expenses, and that the purpose would be to increase the general revenue of the county.
The document I provided you was from a Colorado Supreme Court case and stated it this way:
“So, to determine whether a government has enacted a tax, or levied another type of charge, we must determine if the government is exercising its legislative taxation power or its regulatory police power. To make this determination, we examine the government’s primary purpose for enacting the charge. Barber, 196 P.3d at 248–49. If the primary purpose is to raise revenue for general governmental use, it is a tax. Bloom, 784 P.2d at 308; Zelinger, 724 P.2d at 1358. Conversely, if a charge is imposed as part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme, and if the primary purpose of the charge is to defray the reasonable direct and indirect costs of providing a service or regulating an activity under that scheme, then the charge is not raising revenue for the general expenses of government, and therefore, not a tax.”
(https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2016/16SC377.pdf)
When I brought up the subject at the April meeting, the very quick answer from both the Chairman and the Attorney was: it wasn’t a tax. End of story. No promise to look into it. No willingness to
consider wise counsel.
Gentlemen, I don’t believe that any of your constituents expect you to be perfect commissioners. We concede that our representatives, as flawed human beings, can make honest mistakes. But what we do expect is that, when mistakes are made and pointed out, you will change your mind, change your decision. At the very least you will make honest, diligent inquiry into the matter to make sure your decision was lawful and constitutional.
After being dismissed at the meeting, I did that diligent inquiry. I got in touch with the Tabor Foundation and the Independence Institute. Both confirmed that, if the funds were not going directly to support the office that was charging the fees but going to the general welfare of the county, this was, in fact, a tax.
But my due diligence means nothing if honest inquiry at the BOCC meetings is flippantly dismissed, and honor and integrity is not cherished.
“Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature.”
President James Garfield
Jackie Bubis
