Longmont has a huge retial space just off Hover that could be subdivided for a Trader Joe's and a companion store (or two). You think people wouldn't drive from Boulder to Longmont for Trader Joe's? Fans of the store will drive from Denver, Ft. Collins and all over to visit the store. They're stupid to pay the high taxes to be at 29th street - is there even a space big enough to hold them there? Come to Longmont, we have easier access, lower taxes and less competition for natural foods retailers.

The City Attorney rules in favor of the guy who can vote to have him fired. Go figure. I've just lost any respect I had for Eugene. Curious what Bagley (ie, a real attorney) has to say on the subject.

You obviously didn't read the actual document he signed. It says it is being signed by Mayors. When it is signed by Mayors, he is signing as Mayor. Doesn't matter what he says in the article that brings to light what he has done. Prior tohe article I didn't see where he added an addendum to the pledge noting thaat he wasn't signing as mayor, he was signing as a private citizen. Google the story and you'll find references to the story. All of them talk about all the mayors that signed the pledge. Not "all the mayors plus one mayor who signed as a private citizen"

How is it wrong? Seriously hard to have an educated discussion when one side consistantly ignores the facts and won't admit when they are wrong. I'll try and put it in the simplest terms for you (although at this point I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall). Fact 1) Our City's Rules of Procedures prohibit the Mayor and other elected officials from making statements on behalf of the city. Fact 2) Our Mayor signed his name to a pledge for Mayors only that (as you pointed out) says "We are a diverse group of mayors" thus confirming that everyone who signed is signing AS MAYOR. Fact 3) The same organization who produced the pledge has a pledge available for ordinary citizens which our mayor could have chosen to sign as an ordinary citizen. He did not, he chose to sign as mayor to the Mayor's Pledge.

THAT IS HOW IT IS WRONG. How can you disagree with those facts? They are the truth, plain and simple. He was not elected to be an activist on behalf of our city. It is AGAINST THE RULES OF OUR CITY TO DO SO.

You still haven't answered the question, if his intent was to sign as a citizen and not as mayor then what is wrong with him removing his name from the Mayor's pledge and instead signing the citizen's pledge? I'm fine with him doing that. Sign it every day for the next year, I don't care. And yes, I examine all the council's actions, like when Witt and Santos were wrong to limit the speech of Theresa Foster and Jeff Thompson. Neither were "attacking" in their comments but each was censored. Again, a case of Coombs not knowing the rules of the job. He is quickly proving that he is incompetant as mayor. He doesn't effectively lead meetings, he has broken rules of procedure (or allowed them to be broken) several times and stumbles and bumbles through every document he reads (have you heard about how they had to throw out one of the Mayor's Book Club readings because he couldn't read a children's book without fumbling over the words?). His term is nearly 1/8th done and it's been largely a disaster.

Have you read the pledge - here, have a look: http://www.freedomtomarry.org/expressionengine.ph... that's the document he signed. Here is his name on the pledge: http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/meet-the-mayo... please point me to where on EITHER document there is an astrisk saying, "these mayors didn't sign on behalf of their position as mayor or their city, they signed as private citizens" I'll give you a hint, it DOESN'T! He signed it as mayor. He can say in this article over and over than he signed it on his own, but he didn't. It says no where on the document that he signed it as a private citizen. He broke the rules, now fix it. Remove his name from the mayor's pledge and sign the citizen's pledge and all is good. He'll do what he intended in the first place and be signing not as mayor but as a private citizen and more power to him.

He's not allowed to sign a mayor's pledge against it either. He should sign this: http://www.freedomtomarry.org/page/s/pledge not this: http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/meet-the-mayo... one is for citizens, one is for mayors. He was not charged by the council to sign the one as mayor but he can sign the citizen pledge as many times as he wants. There IS a difference. If we allow him to break this rule, what others do we allow him to break? Can he start making policy because it makes him feel good and he's afraid that if it's brought to council, they won't pass it? Government deals in law and there are procedures to keep our elected officials from going rogue and doing whatever they please without checks and balances.

According to our Rules of Procedure, Rule 23, he does.

He can speak his mind but not sign a Mayor's pledge as the Mayor. He violated Rule 23 of the Rules of Procedure. If he wants to sign the Citizen's pledge through the same organization so be it, but he was not directed to sign the Mayor's pledge. If we had a Mayor-Council form of government he would have the power to do that without council's consent, but we have a Council-Manager which forbids him to act on his own behalf, using the Office to move a political agenda.

Please take him. This action violated our Council's Rules of Procedure because he didn't have the council's direction to sign it in the capacity of Mayor (which is exactly what he did - he's the Mayor and he signed a pledge FOR and BY ONLY Mayors and now when called on breaking the rules says he didn't do it as Mayor, only as a citizen...not possible!)