There’s another clown for the car. Podcaster and election conspiracy theorist Joe Oltmann has joined the growing list of Republican candidates for governor. Like other unserious candidates, his presence further diminishes the state GOP at a time when the party is most needed.

In his rambling, hour-long online announcement, Oltmann railed against mail-in ballots, taxes, tolls, gun laws, and medical companies concealing a cure for cancer. He promised to free former county clerk and convicted felon Tina Peters, close off primaries to unaffiliated voters, and represent the state’s “have-nots.” Oltmann is the only candidate thus far to address chem trails.

Among election delusion peddlers, Oltmann has distinguished himself by calling for violence and defaming innocent people. Recently, he called Gov. Jared Polis, Attorney General Phil Weiser, District Attorney Dan Rubinstein, Secretary of State Jena Griswold, and Judge Matthew Barrett a “synagogue of Satan Jews” who robbed Tina Peters of her life and dignity while hiding a “company of demons” in plain sight. These “traitors” should hang, said he.

I know I’m being pedantic but “Satan synagogue” should be “satanic synagogue,” since the noun should be modified by an adjective, not another noun. At least in the aforementioned social media post, Oltmann used the correct conjugation of the verb “to hang.” In the past, he has insisted “they be hung” which isn’t the same thing, not by a long shot.

Oltmann’s Twitter bio claims he lives in San Antonio, Texas. Surely there’s a newly gerrymandered district there calling his name. A homeowner’s association board would be the best fit. Nothing takes care of weeds and yard kitsch like the threat of execution.

Oltmann joins a crowded field of 20 candidates. Of the few candidates with actual legislative experience, only State Rep. Scott Bottoms, is a fellow election denier. In addition to pleading for Peters, Bottoms has accused the Federal Bureau of Investigation of instigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Conspiracy theory credentials might give Bottoms and Oltmann an edge among precinct caucus attendees, but debunked theories are unlikely to sway primary voters. Mainstream Republicans and right-leaning unaffiliated voters will gravitate to candidates with experience and scruples.

Among the dozen also-ran candidates who decided to skip serving in local office for a chance to be on camera, Oltmann stands out as the only one currently being sued for defamation. Oltmann’s specious claims against Eric Coomer, a former employee of Dominion Voting Systems, cost Coomer more than Oltmann can ever repay — his reputation, health, and safety.

The court has already ordered Oltmann to pay more than $90,000 in fees and sanctions for failing to cooperate. Judging by the losses incurred by fellow defamers Mike Lindell, Randy Corporon, and Eric Metaxas, it won’t go well for Oltmann when the court rules later this spring. Oltmann can’t pay damages with campaign donations.

Too bad bankruptcy can’t come sooner and dissuade him from running altogether. Candidates like Oltmann, Bottoms, and the other MAGA conspiracy theorists tarnish the once proud Republican brand. That’s not just bad for the party but bad for the state which was more affordable and better run when there were two healthy, competitive political parties.

Today, Colorado faces high health and home insurance rates, poor road conditions, business-stifling overregulation, state budget shortfalls, and rising electricity and heating costs. We need a well-known, experienced Republican gubernatorial candidate who can compete against a well-known, experienced Democratic opponent. Those who lack experience and name recognition should leave the race. Those who peddle conspiracy theories, defame innocent Americans, and wish death upon their political rivals should leave the state. Do us a solid; go tackle those lawn gnomes in Texas.

Krista Kafer is a Sunday Denver Post columnist.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

At 3 a.m. on a winter morning, when most Coloradans are still asleep, our shuttle drivers at Peak 1 Express are loading up chains, checking tires, and prepping for another icy run up to Summit County and the Vail Valley.

As CEO of this mountain-based transportation company, I’ve spent 14 years helping travelers safely reach the Rockies in every kind of weather imaginable. Our reputation is built on reliability — but that reliability depends on something most travelers never think about: the ability to maintain and repair our fleet quickly when something goes wrong. For small operators like us, that’s getting harder every year.

With dozens of vans and buses in our fleet, ongoing maintenance is unavoidable. The mountain environment is harsh on vehicles: long climbs, freezing temperatures, and heavy snowfall can cause issues, such as accelerated brake wear. Regular inspections and winter preparations keep us ready, but even the best upkeep can’t prevent surprises. When a vehicle breaks down, getting it back on the road is crucial.

In recent years, big automakers have made it more challenging for independent repair shops or even small businesses like mine to perform needed repair work. Manufacturers now tightly control access to vehicle repair and maintenance data, forcing us all to rely on their exclusive service networks for slower, costlier repairs.

While we perform most fixes internally, we rely on trusted independent shops for specialized work, such as body damage. Still, we end up spending six figures every year at pricey manufacturer-affiliated service centers. Those dollars could support our workforce, vehicle upgrades, or additional routes–but instead disappear into systems that keep small operators manufacturer-dependent.

And these challenges aren’t hypothetical–they play out in real time. For example, we regularly encounter issues with nitrogen oxide (NOx) sensors. While our team can easily replace a failed sensor, we cannot clear the code, which causes the van to enter “limp mode” and prevents it from reaching highway speeds. When that happens, we have no choice but to tow the vehicle from Breckenridge or Avon to Westminster (114 miles each way) so a manufacturer-approved service center can reset the code. A simple software reset means hours of service downtime and losing a vehicle we urgently need during peak travel times.

The same thing happens with exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) valves: even after we replace the clogged valve, the van stays in a reduced power mode until we can get it to the nearest manufacturer service bay to clear the code. It’d be almost laughable if these issues didn’t occur so frequently, considering our own ASA-certified mechanics can’t access the proprietary scan tools required to reset a vehicle’s computer.

Independent repairers and small business owners aren’t asking for shortcuts. We’re asking for a level playing field, where everyone who owns or operates a vehicle can access the repair information needed to maintain it. That’s why we need clear national rules that let fleets like ours keep turning the wheels of Colorado’s tourism economy.

I’m proud to see many of our leaders in Washington supporting the REPAIR Act (H.R. 1566/S. 1379), a bipartisan bill that would ensure small businesses, fleets, and independent repair shops have equal access to repair information automakers already share within their exclusive repair networks. It’s a commonsense step that protects competition, supports local jobs, and makes sure drivers — not manufacturers — choose who services their vehicles. Boosting competition will also help lower costs, an issue that’s top of mind for me and many American families today.

Whether you’re a mechanic, a small business owner, or someone simply trying to keep your car running affordably, this issue concerns you. All we ask is the freedom to keep doing that work–to maintain our vehicles, serve our customers, and keep Colorado and its travelers moving. Congress should pass the REPAIR Act and stand up for small businesses that keep our roads, economy, and communities connected.

Alison Mathes is CEO of The Outlaw Group, a collection of tourism and travel companies serving Colorado, including Peak 1 Express. She has been in the industry for 14 years and lives in Frisco, CO.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

If you’ve taken an animal to a veterinarian in Colorado recently, you know that medical care for pets isn’t cheap. Even a routine checkup for vaccines, heartworm prevention, and diet recommendations can cost a couple of hundred dollars, and any medical procedure starts at $1,000 and can reach $10,000 quickly.

A ballot measure could help or at least help prevent care from getting more expensive. Proposition 129 would create a master’s degree program to train a new level of care provider between technicians and doctors – a veterinary professional associate or VPA – who could perform surgeries, provide care, and perform other important tasks.

Most veterinarians work hard to keep their prices affordable, but the Denver Dumb Friends League – one of the most trusted animal shelters in the state — and Colorado State University  – our agricultural higher education hub – have teamed up to find ways to keep prices down.

The Dumb Friends League knows first-hand how many animals get surrendered or euthanized every year because a life-saving procedure is too expensive or an animal’s quality of life has deteriorated too far and the surgery would cost thousands of dollars to repair ligaments or remove bone spurs.

Colorado State University runs the state’s largest veterinarian college and is fighting to keep the state supplied with enough doctorates of veterinarian medicine to meet demand.

But Colorado is a pet-loving state, and there is a shortage of vets.

So the Dumb Friends League brought us Proposition 129. It changes state law and directs the State Board of Veterinary Medicine to create a licensing process for a two-year master’s program for veterinary professional associates. And CSU has drafted up a proposal to implement the master’s program.

These VPAs once licensed by the state will be able to perform almost all of the same duties as a doctor of veterinary medicine under the doctor’s supervision.

The language of the ballot measure limits the VPA’s work to what they were trained in school to do and what the licensed veterinarian assigns them to perform. The state board will create credentialing requirements for schools, and we urge them not to allow programs to be primarily conducted online. Physician assistants for human care — a master’s degree program — spend long hours in clinical care seeing patients and getting hands-on experience diagnosing and developing treatment plans. VPAs must get the same hands-on training with animals.

There will be a licensing test and required ongoing professional development.

We understand the concern from veterinarians across the state that this change could lead to substandard care. No one wants hurriedly trained employees working with animals. Large vet chains, including some who have donated money to help put this on the ballot, may abuse these new employees setting up teams of VPAs working under the supervision of a single veterinarian who doesn’t have time to ensure quality of care. There is no guarantee that any savings realized by hiring fewer doctorates in veterinary care would be passed along to pet owners.

The issue is being framed by the American Veterinary Medical Association — which opposes the measure — as a choice between substandard care and the status quo.

But for many Coloradans today the status quo is prohibitively expensive and the choice often is not seeking any medical care for their animals. The risk of poorly trained VPAs or large chain veterinary hospitals abusing the intent of the law is worth the potential outcome of more Colorado pets receiving medical care when needed because it is readily available and more affordable.

Just as humans seek care from PAs who received master’s degrees, so too pets should be able to get care from VPAs with master’s degrees.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

The Front Range’s largest safety net hospital is struggling to subsist and Ballot Issue 2Q would infuse Denver Health with $70 million a year.

The cost of shoring up this critical health system would be a .34% sales tax which translates to a little more than $.03 on every $10 someone spends on non-grocery food items in the City and County of Denver. It’s an investment this city’s voters can make for the future of health care.

Denver Health has long been one of the best trauma hospitals in the state — the place you want an ambulance to go when tragedy strikes — but it serves the state in other ways. The mom and baby unit delivers one in three children born in Denver. The quasi-governmental entity also operates primary care and mental health clinics in our schools, neighborhoods, and jails. It runs ambulances and hires our EMTs. It has dental clinics and provides vaccines.

The hospital has operated at a net loss over the last three years, although for the past two years, the new CEO, Donna Lynne, has managed to tighten the belt and solicit enough emergency funds to stay in the black — just barely. In 2022 the hospital reported a $58 million loss and in 2023 the hospital came out ahead by $11 million.

The driving factors of this fiscal crisis have been increased costs associated with rising wages and inflation, and increased uncompensated care from homeless individuals, South American migrants, and the thousands of Coloradans who were kicked off of Medicaid this year. The hospital receives state, federal and city of Denver payments for patients who cannot pay, but those payments have remained fairly stagnant for many years.

Denver Health needs a dedicated revenue stream so it can remain a thriving force for public health in our community.

For the past five years, The Denver Post editorial board has taken a conservative stance on sales tax increases, urging voters to not create new programs using the city’s limited ability to increase sales taxes.

But Denver can still afford one more sales tax increase, and this proposal is not for a new, untested, and ungovernable venture. Denver Health is one of the state’s oldest institutions. At one point it was a city agency before it became independent and it historically made its budget work by tightening its belt in lean times and expanding only when prudent.

Donna Lynne has a proven track record of leadership. She ran Kaiser Permanente in Colorado before becoming the state’s lieutenant governor under John Hickenlooper. She has pledged that the hospital will disclose exactly how the new sales tax revenue is spent during its annual “Report to the City.” The ballot language limits how the money is spent to five main categories of care: emergency, primary, mental health, pediatric, and substance abuse recovery. Additionally, when Denver City Council members voted 12-1 to refer this measure to voters, they included language stipulating that the city’s annual $30 million contribution to Denver Health would not be reduced in response to the new tax, although other economic factors could cause a reduction.

Denver Health’s financial security benefits the entire region. The hospital serves people from across the state, not just the metro area, so it is fitting that a sales tax that is paid by not only Denver residents but also visitors be the funding source for operations.

Some of the money will allow for the expansion of the hospital’s mobile clinics into parts of the city that are underserved, but most of the new dedicated revenue stream will help prevent layoffs, improve retention of staff, and prevent potential reductions in services.

However, Colorado’s elected officials cannot rest on their laurels even if Ballot Issue 2Q passes. Two other major reforms are needed.

Colorado collects a fee from patients for every night spent in a hospital and uses that fee to get federal matching dollars for Medicaid payments. Those matching dollars are then sent to hospitals through an opaque equation that must be revised based on hospitals’ needs. If the Colorado Healthcare Affordability and Sustainability Enterprise Board won’t adjust the formula, state lawmakers must force their hand.

Second, Colorado lawmakers can tighten requirements for “nonprofit” hospitals to spend more of their required “community benefits” helping other hospitals and medical providers with their uncompensated care. Nonprofit hospitals should be helping to backfill their regions’ uncompensated care before they spend the money on other purposes. Kaiser Permanente set the precedent for this in 2023 when it donated $10 million to Denver Health and started a fundraising effort this year for the Denver Health Foundation.

Health care in America is broken. Everything is too expensive while our healthcare workers are often overworked and underpaid. Even the best medical providers can struggle financially and there are deep flaws with Medicaid, Medicare, and all private insurers.

But one thing we can fix, this November, is ensuring that Denver Health has the resources it needs to serve the Front Range for years to come.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

The busy winter holiday season is upon us, full of celebrations and parties with family, friends, and co-workers. Holiday parties and New Year’s Eve events often include alcohol, and that comes with risk. Making informed decisions about alcohol consumption can be life-saving.

We in Colorado drink a lot (9th highest rate of excessive drinking in the United States) and we pay the price for it. The risk from alcohol consumption that is most often highlighted during the holiday season is that of drunk driving; 30% of Colorado’s fatal car crashes are alcohol related.  However, alcohol consumption causes much more than car crashes.

More than 2,200 Coloradans die each year from alcohol-related health problems. Colorado’s death rate due to alcohol has doubled in the past decade and is currently twice that of the United States. Alcohol is associated with all forms of injury, suicide, liver and heart disease, and breast cancer (among other health problems).

Alcohol also causes serious problems in non-drinkers, being a major factor in intimate partner violence, assault, child abuse, and birth defects.

Most of what we are told about alcohol comes from marketing by the makers, distributors, and retailers of alcohol products. The industry spends nearly $80 million each year to market alcohol in Colorado and devotes only a tiny fraction of its advertising dollars to communication about “responsible drinking.” By comparison, there is no public funding to provide information on the health risks of alcohol.

Alcohol is heavily marketed at Colorado’s sporting events and ski areas. Colorado’s professional and major college sporting teams all have alcohol industry sponsors, as do many Colorado ski areas. Holiday concerts and other performances often include alcohol marketing and the broad availability of alcohol for purchase. RTD, the metro area’s public transportation system, has ads for alcohol that cover an entire light rail car. Alcohol marketing is everywhere and all the time.

It is time to do something about alcohol’s adverse effects on health in Colorado. We need balanced public information about alcohol. Other states have passed sensible limitations on alcohol marketing, and we have none in Colorado.

These restrictions include prohibitions on false or misleading claims, images of children in alcohol advertisements or images that portray or encourage intoxication. Other states restrict outdoor advertising near places where children are likely to be present like schools, parks, and playgrounds, restrict advertising at retail alcohol outlets, and prohibit alcohol sponsorship of civic events such as college football games and public transportation.

The Colorado Alcohol Impacts Coalition has brought together concerned institutions and individuals to raise awareness, evaluate policies that can decrease alcohol’s adverse effects, ensure access to treatment, and produce data on the impacts of alcohol.

We do not in any way advocate for a return to prohibition; it was a completely failed policy. Balanced public information and appropriate policy changes can make our state a safer place.

So, have a joyous holiday season, and make an informed decision about what role alcohol will play in those celebrations.

William J. Burman is a public health and infectious diseases physician at Denver Health, the former executive director of Denver Public Health and a founding member of the Colorado Alcohol Impacts Coalition.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Coloradans are getting crushed between hospital profits, insurance company profits and rising uncompensated care. These three insatiable drains on our health care system have broken medicine and made the cost of care for middle-class Americans who aren’t on Medicaid or Medicare unbearable.

Not all of the responsibility for this failed system falls on hospitals, but Colorado’s non-profit health care providers are uniquely positioned to be able to help during this difficult time if they embrace the charitable nature of their business.

According to The Denver Post’s award-winning health reporter Meg Wingerter, most Colorado hospitals saw a profit in 2024. But the most profitable hospitals tried to argue that their profits were untouchable because the money came not from patient care but from returns on investments — we assume that means the trusts and foundations that help support the hospital saw impressive investment gains that were reinvested into the market rather than realized and withdrawn.

UCHealth — a network of non-profit hospitals and clinics across the state affiliated with the University of Colorado — reported a $1.2 billion profit. HCA Health One, the state’s only for-profit hospital network, reported $616.8 million in profit, and CommonSpirit Health reported $22.2 million.

A spokesman for UCHealth said most of the profit came from returns on investments in the stock market, rather than from the 4% return on investment it makes from patient care and hospital operations. However, given that UCHealth is a tax-exempt system required to spend money on charitable activities, we do not think it’s unreasonable for the system to be expected to return some of that profit to its patients in the form of out-of-pocket discounts before deductibles are met.

Most hospitals already write off a huge amount of uncompensated care, and that charitable gift to the poor who are truly unable to pay and have no insurance counts toward their required charitable activities.

But we also know that hospitals like UCHealth are not spending as much of their revenue proportionally on charity care as other organizations. UCHealth does deserve credit for serving the most number of Medicaid patients and having the highest uncompensated care. But when compared to the system’s size of operations, the distinction for taking on “the largest proportion of charity care costs within the state” rests with Denver Health. Colorado’s annual report on charitable care notes that Denver Health “has the largest value for charity care costs with $88.1 million. This is three-fold more than the next largest figure of UC Health University of Colorado Hospital’s of $24 million.”

Meanwhile, Allan Baumgarten, a researcher who compiles data annually about health care in a handful of states, reported that HMOs in Colorado reported a combined net profit of $89.1 million. Yes, that seems paltry compared to the hospital profits, but remember that health insurance doesn’t actually produce anything; it is a middleman, pass-through business operation designed solely to reduce the risk of those it insures.

Ironically, HMOs are covering less and less risk. The high deductible plan ensures that unless an illness or injury requires thousands of dollars in care during a single calendar year, the insurer won’t have to cover any of the costs. And, the deductible resets Jan. 1 every year, meaning that patients can nearly meet their deductible — of say $5,000 — only to have it reset in the new year. A patient could spend $10,000 before their insurance company picks up a dime of the cost for their care.

Meanwhile, non-profit organizations are clearly misunderstanding their mission.

Obviously, we want UCHealth’s investments to grow, and not all of the gains should be realized in a single year. The hospital system is also aggressively growing and purchasing other clinics and hospitals around the state. Given the quality of care we know UCHealth provides, that is great news.

But hospitals need to be much more transparent about how much of their profits are being poured into growth and increased profitability, and how much is going to actual charitable work, like reductions in costs for low-income and middle-class patients who face crippling deductibles.

Yes, USHealth is a teaching hospital, and we know that much of its charitable work goes toward preparing the next generation of doctors and nurses. There is a shortage of health care providers in America, so we are not suggesting this work stop.

But a balance is needed when the hospital system reports $1.2 billion in profit in a single year.

Greater transparency from the state-affiliated system, and from all the nonprofit hospitals enjoying tax-exempt status, would go a long way to alleviate the bad taste patients have in their mouth when their care is completed and the bill arrives.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Cartoonists Nate Beeler of The Columbus Dispatch and Bruce Plante of the Tulsa World had a little fun with President Donald Trump’s talk of developing a new military branch, “Space Force.” “When it comes to defending America, it is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance in space,” Trump said during his announcement.

Denver voters can reject two misguided ballot measures and send a strong message to animal welfare advocates that Colorado will not bully our ranchers and hat makers out of business.

Initiated Ordinance 308 would ban new textile fur products like mink fur coats and beaver skin hats from being sold inside city limits and Initiated Ordinance 309 would ban slaughterhouses from operating inside city limits.

Both ordinances were brought forward by animal rights advocates who are part of a nationwide movement to stop the slaughter of all animals across the United States whether it’s for fur coats or food.

We disagree vehemently with the premise behind this movement. Killing animals for food and clothing is not inherently cruel. Although, we’ve seen disturbing evidence across the United States of animal cruelty at chicken, pig, cattle, and sheep farms, ranches and slaughterhouses.

So then the question becomes: Is the only slaughterhouse in Denver – a lamb processing facility called Superior Farms in the Globeville neighborhood – guilty of animal mistreatment?

So far, we have not seen any evidence of mistreatment.

Aidan Kankyoku with Pro-animal Future points to a 2019 undercover investigation done at a Superior Farms lamb slaughterhouse in California as evidence that the Globeville facility is guilty of animal cruelty. The video of the fully grown lambs being slaughtered is hard to watch. The animals thrash after their throats are cut struggling to survive as they bleed to death over the course of several minutes, but that has been the harsh reality of animal slaughter for all of human existence.

Both the California facility and the Colorado facility use high-powered electric stun guns to knock the animals unconscious before their throats are cut. Kankyoku says reports from slaughterhouses across the country show that the stunning is often ineffective and animals suffer needlessly while they bleed to death.

But there is no evidence that the Superior Farms facility in Globeville is guilty of failing to properly stun animals. This facility is not on some “worst offenders” list of slaughterhouses. Shutting down this one slaughterhouse makes no sense unless you agree with the premise that Americans should not be eating meat because killing animals is an unnecessary evil. Killing animals is hard and gruesome but it is a necessary part of the animal food chain.

Americans should demand that the U.S. Department of Agriculture improve and enforce the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. Kankyoku, who lives in Denver, said animal welfare advocates have been asking for decades for small changes such as unannounced inspections and large changes such as banning high-speed slaughter so workers can take their time and reduce suffering. Nothing has come of their advocacy.

That frustration has spilled over to a ballot measure that would close a facility that likely is treating its animals as humanely as possible given that the goal is to kill the hundreds of animals arriving every day as quickly as possible and to process their skin and meat into useable parts for distribution across the world.

But the facility is also providing good-paying, steady jobs to about 160 people directly and is supporting Colorado ranchers who bring their livestock to the facility from across the state. The facility provides lamb to local restaurants and grocery stores. Colorado lambs getting shipped further away only to get shipped back as meat would be worse for the environment and the economy. Would the treatment of those lambs be better in another facility? Superior Farms developed its process for killing the animals with the consultation of Temple Grandin at Colorado State University, who is a known advocate for animal rights.

Perhaps Superior Farms needs to slow down its animal processing speed, but it certainly doesn’t need to be shut down.

Meanwhile, the fur ban comes on the tail end of a successful social movement that began with civil disobedience in New York in 1985. Today, very few people wear fur, and even fewer buy luxury fur products new. Neiman Marcus stopped selling fur clothing in 2023.

We fear this fur ban in Denver, however, will have no discernable impacts on Louis Vuitton and other couture shops that can simply move outside city limits but will impact people like Coleen Orr. Orr makes cowboy hats from beaver pelts and the products would no longer be able to ship through Denver to her store in Adams County.

Simply put we are not endorsing the fur industry but we also aren’t endorsing the anti-animal husbandry message ingrained in a fur ban.

Please vote no on these two ballot measures to support Colorado’s western roots.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Denver is at a fragile turning point, and this week we learned that the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce has seen unsustainable turnover in the last year, losing 28 of its roughly 60 employees – half its staff — since the summer of 2024.

We are concerned.

Two reporters with the non-profit, online news agency Denverite interviewed 18 people close to the Chamber about the exodus and found a troubling and recurring complaint about a “toxic culture” fostered by the Chamber’s CEO and president J.J. Ament.

That is not five people raising concerns, or even 10, but out of 25 people successfully contacted by the reporters at Denverite, 18 expressed concern. The other seven individuals described their time at the Chamber as positive or neutral. Several people were so adamant about their experiences that they bravely used their names to back stories about the bad behavior of one of the most powerful men in Denver’s business community.

And on top of that, Ament’s control at the chamber is so poor that changes to the renowned training program – Leadership Denver – led to three of 50 members of the foundation resigning in protest to what Paul Lhevine described in a letter to the Chamber as changes that do not “honor the mission we have been fulfilling for decades.” Lhevine was not one of the individuals interviewed for the Denverite story.

Finally, the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade cut ties with the Chamber over what China Califf, the leader of the Small Business Development Center, described as concerns over the negative culture at the Chamber. Shortly after Califf resigned, the Small Business Development Center was moved from the Chamber to Red Rocks Community College.

That is a lot of smoke coming from the Chamber at a time when this city needs steady leadership that inspires confidence, not controversy.

The chair of the Chamber’s board says he is happy with Ament’s tenure. Mowa Haile told Denverite that the problem is a controversial but necessary restructuring of the organization, not Ament’s leadership or demeanor. Ament began requiring a 5-day in-person work week, and the Chamber’s vice-president for customer experience, Cayti Stein, said that change is what drove off a number of employees.

“The Board has confidence that the direction charted by J.J. and the leadership team best serves our members and the entire Metro Denver business community, as evidenced by the significant growth in membership over the past four years,” Haile wrote in response to questions from Denverite.

We can certainly imagine employees being disappointed about a return-to-office policy, but half of the Chamber’s staff left in the course of 15 months, Denverite found. Many Americans would be skeptical that, in this economy, so many people would be willing to leave a stable job over having to return to the office, no matter how difficult the commute or their personal circumstances.

More credible are employee stories about Ament’s abrasive leadership style, stories that Ament denies, calling himself a collaborative leader. The stories included allegations of: telling an employee who was later demoted and fired for insubordination that he didn’t care for her at a holiday party, threatening to fire employees in front of their peers, and an employee who said the organization failed to adequately address an incident where she was exposed to a nude photograph of a male colleague.

The city’s Chamber of Commerce is far more than just a marketing tool for local businesses, and now more than ever, Colorado needs the heart of downtown to thrive. The Chamber owns and rents the building it occupies. Like other landlords in downtown, it is struggling to break even despite growth in membership, relying on its foundation and other external organizations to balance the books.

While membership is certainly an important measure of the Chamber’s success – after all, those members pay the dues that keep the Chamber running – we are confident that the Chamber can find a leader who will support businesses and drive investment in the Chamber without driving off half of the staff.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Colorado voters have an opportunity this fall to guarantee reproductive freedom in the state Constitution, and also to finally make certain that this liberty doesn’t just pertain to affluent women with private health insurance. We urge people to vote “yes” on Amendment 79.

This amendment is needed to repeal another constitutional amendment passed by Colorado voters 40 years ago that prohibits taxpayer money, including Medicaid, from being used to pay for abortions. Striking section 50 of article V of the Colorado Constitution would provide equitable health care in this state for the thousands of women on Medicaid. Without insurance coverage, women must find a free clinic or save enough money to obtain a safe abortion in a timely manner.

Colorado clinics have waiting lists for abortion care because this state is pulling women from places across the nation where Republicans have banned abortions. So instead of having an abortion at, say, six weeks gestation performed by her own OBGYN, a woman would be forced to wait two or three more weeks to go to a clinic.

Nothing about that is good for Coloradans, including the blastocyst that is rapidly developing into an embryo and by nine weeks gestation will become a fetus.

We trust women to judge their own personal circumstances and make this decision for themselves. We are resolute that abortions be conducted at the earliest possible moment in gestation. Amendment 79 would make certain that women who choose to have an abortion can do so quickly, with Medicaid coverage, and with their own doctors.

But Amendment 79 is also about protecting Colorado’s status as one of the few remaining safe havens for pregnant women in a post-Roe v. Wade world where 13 states have religiously framed laws banning abortions from the moment an egg is fertilized.

Opponents of Amendment 79 want to make the issue about the regulation of late-term abortions.

Thomas Perille, a doctor with Democrats for Life, told The Denver Post that he fears if Amendment 79 becomes law this state will never be able to regulate abortion clinics, including prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks gestation that are “elective” and providing similar licensing and review processes as other hospital clinics and outpatient surgery centers.

But the language of Amendment 79 would not prohibit all future regulation of abortion. We know that the most basic constitutional rights can and should have reasonable restrictions placed on them. We have freedom of religion until a cult begins harming people. We have the right to bear arms but not machine guns. We have free speech unless it’s a vicious lie that harms someone’s reputation. Even before five conservative Supreme Court justices stripped pregnant women of their constitutional protections, abortion was heavily regulated across much of the nation at all points of gestation.

If Amendment 79 passes, Coloradans will have the right to have an abortion but lawmakers can ensure those abortions are safe and conducted within the medical best practices recommended by the state’s Board of Health.

Perille cites data from 2014 released by an abortion clinic in Boulder that says over the course of five years, only 30% of abortions were prompted by a fetal diagnosis. He’s attempting to scare Coloradans into believing that women and doctors are regularly seeking and performing late-term abortions on perfectly healthy babies.

We know that is not the case.

The study itself is focused on second- and third-trimester abortions, but the reference to 30% of abortions being for a fetal diagnosis is referring to all of the abortions — not just abortions after 12 weeks gestation — at the facility in the five-year period, 1,251 patients, as evidenced by the note that the increase in the percent of abortions done for fetal anomalies “reflected a gradual change in clinic policy to accept patients with more advanced gestation.” Clearly, the more patients served later in pregnancy the higher percent of abortions were performed due to fetal anomalies because the two are closely correlated. Today that clinic does not provide first-term abortions but at the time of the study it did.

Only 1% of abortions are performed after 21 weeks of gestation according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, and there’s no data to show how many of those are performed absent a fetal anomaly or concerns for the mother’s health. Doctors do talk about a small number of abortions later in pregnancy in instances of rape, incest, and sex trafficking.

We know that the No. 1 way to prevent abortions from being needed in the second trimester is to make access to care faster. Fewer Colorado women will need to find a clinic at 12 weeks gestation if their own OBGYN can treat them using Medicaid dollars at nine weeks gestation.

Coloradans have a chance to undo years of harmful public policy and make abortions a part of regular health care. It takes 55% of voters to change the state Constitution, so please, don’t skip over Amendment 79 on the ballots that arrive in mailboxes starting Monday.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.