SNAP aid falls to pre-pandemic monthly totals

Dropping $90 per month

BY HALEY LENA HLENA@COLORADOCOMMUNITYMEDIA.COM

ose who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, bene ts will see a reduction in monthly totals after February as emergency allotments are slated to end.

Part of a federal nutrition program, SNAP helps low-income households in Colorado purchase food by providing monthly bene ts based on income, resources and the number of individuals in the household.

Sender remains unknown

BY ELLIS ARNOLD EARNOLD@COLORADOCOMMUNITYMEDIA.COM

e mailings from an unknown source criticizing Douglas County e postcard calls out what it says is “conduct unbecoming (of) an elected o cial.”

Commissioner Lora omas continue, according to images omas provided Colorado Community Media in mid-February.

Starting in December, an unknown number of Douglas County residents received postcards that accused omas of wasting taxpayers’ time and money.

One part of the newer mailing references a news story about omas

In March 2020, in an e ort to ease the nancial impact the COVID-19 pandemic had on households, Congress approved temporary bene t amounts known as Emergency Allotments.

At the end of February, SNAP bene ts will not disappear but bene t amounts will go down to pre-pandemic levels.

SEE DECREASE, P10

“Not only is it unfair, it simply doesn’t make sense,” state Sen. Rachel Zenzinger, an Arvada Democrat, said in a news release. She added: “A stolen car represents much more than stolen property — it impacts people’s ability to get to work, shop for groceries and live their daily lives.”

If state Senate Bill 23-097 passes, the penalties for auto theft would no longer be based on the value of the vehicle stolen. The proposal would make most auto theft a felony regardless of the vehicle’s value.

Some portion of what would be misdemeanors — on the low end of stolen vehicle value — would then be treated as felonies, but Weekly said he had not seen specifics on what percentage of thefts would be classified differently.

Arapahoe County Sheriff Tyler Brown also did not know. But Brown, another supporter of the bill, highlighted another change he says would strengthen accountability.

“We’re seeing a lot of people in stolen cars saying, ‘Oh, I just borrowed this car from so and so — I didn’t know it was stolen,’” Brown said.

If the vehicle is in a situation that would make a “reasonable person” likely to know it was stolen, the bill makes it easier for authorities to charge that person, Brown said.

Pasko argued the bill doesn’t address the “front end” of why people are stealing cars.

A web of influences

Pasko, who wrote a commentary on recent media coverage of the increase in Colorado’s crime rates, pointed to a range of factors that can influence crime.

“As we have long known, increase in crime is tied with housing insecurity, drug misuse and abuse, gun sales, unemployment and joblessness, mental health struggles, family disruption and violence, as well as fewer youth in school, (and) lower consumer confidence,” Pasko wrote.

Many people are stealing cars to live in them, a problem that could reflect how unaffordable the Denver area is to live in, she told

Colorado Community Media.

“We see evidence of living in (stolen cars) including drug use. We also see the drug of choice here is meth,” Pasko said.

Sometimes there are habitual offenders, Pasko said, “but they are not the ones accounting for thousands and thousands of car thefts. It’s just not possible.”

Weekly spoke to the pattern of repeat offenders in his jurisdiction in Douglas County.

“They’re out on bond very quickly, and they’re going out and committing auto theft again,” Weekly said.

Pasko pointed to other historical periods in the 1970s, `80s and `90s in evaluating crime policies.

“We’ve done this same thing, which is increase penalties, increase jail time and increase incarceration, and it’s never given us the results we want,” Pasko said.

She added: “We need police, jails, and prison, for sure. But we need more front-end services too, to avoid crime in the first place.”

Mental health needs

Brown, a Democrat, pointed to the need for those kinds of services, noting the lack of “community bedspace” for people going through mental health crisis and the lack of mental health clinicians to help with those situations.

“People that are struggling with mental health don’t have the resources they need, and then there’s certain times — and it’s not all the time — but there are certain times when they’re selfmedicating and they’re involved in these activities that can fall into the categories that we’re talking about,” said Brown, who noted the problem of people getting involved in the “illicit drug trade.”

It’s important to expose people to programs for recovery, Brown said.

Weekly, a Republican, pointed to programs in the Douglas County jail.

“I do think that obviously the drug issues play a big factor into (crime), mental health issues play a big factor into this. But at the end of the day, they can get drug treatment quite frankly in a detention setting. They can get mental health treatment in a detention setting,” Weekly said.

The Douglas County jail has a “very robust” drug treatment program, Weekly said.

“We don’t just put people in jail and let them languish — not in my jail. There’s a lot of programs that can help them get back on their feet and live a productive life,” he added.

He felt a harsher approach in criminal penalties is necessary to get people off a criminal path.

“My perspective is at the end of the day, people are responsible for their actions,” Weekly said.

Another part of the solution to addressing crime could be adding more officers in the right places, according to Pasko, which can be difficult amid police experiencing hiring issues.

“Denver did hot spot policing with positive results in the past few years. Instead of patrol broadly in high-crime areas, really zone in on the hot spots, including some problem-oriented approaches,” Pasko said.

Weekly agreed that putting more officers on patrol is critical.

“That is one of my goals as sheriff,” Weekly said. “I am putting more deputies and marked cars on the street. That’s what I’m focusing on is the fundamentals.” threatening to take legal action unless the county agrees to pay for her legal bills stemming from an ongoing dispute that involved investigations of Thomas.

The proposed legislation also includes a “joy-ride” provision that would make it a misdemeanor to use a vehicle without the owner’s permission as long as the car is returned within 24 hours without damage and only minor traffic offenses were committed, The Colorado Sun reported. A second and subsequent conviction for the joy-ride offense would be a felony, however.

Another part of the newer mailing criticizes other matters involving Thomas, citing older news articles.

An earlier postcard reads “You’re being scrooged by Lora Thomas” and asks voters to support state Sen. Kevin Van Winkle to replace Thomas. Thomas is term limited and can’t run for her commissioner seat again.

Abe Laydon, one of the other two commissioners who make policy decisions for the county, said he does not know who paid for the postcards and that the postcards do not have any connection to him.

He has received at least some of the postcards at his home address, he said.

“I know that our citizens expect good governance and positive upstream work, and negative campaigns undermine the credibility of our work, from my perspective,” Laydon said.

Complaint dismissed

Thomas took the issue to the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office, filing a complaint in January because a postcard did not include a paid-for-by disclaimer and doesn’t indicate who sent the mailers outside of the postage li- cense naming Vistaprint, a Nevada printing company.

The secretary of state’s office ruled the postcards did not violate campaign finance laws because there’s no evidence Vistaprint paid for the postcards and the postcards were mailed after the election. The ruling also found no evidence that the mailers cost more than $1,000, which is the threshold for requiring a paid-for-by disclaimer on election materials.

In its response to the complaint, Vistaprint’s attorney said 153 postcards were ordered for a total of $248 but didn’t provide information about who the customer was.

Though one of the postcards Thomas identified in her complaint encouraged voters to support Van Winkle to replace her, Thomas has said she confirmed with Van Winkle that he is not paying for the mailers.

Asked whether the postcards affect the commissioners’ ability to put personal issues aside, Laydon said the betterment of the county is “always my top priority.”

“I came into 2023 as the board chair asking the board and our staff to focus on upstream, positive, civil discussion,” Laydon said.

He added: “And disagreement is fine. I think it’s normal for a

Dear Davis Schilken, board of county commissioners to disagree, but what’s inappropriate is incivility.”

Commissioner George Teal did not return Colorado Community Media’s call for comment regarding the mailings.

Legal layers

The legal dispute referenced by the newer mailing stems from an investigation Teal and Laydon initiated after accusing Thomas of circulating an anonymous letter that criticized specific employees in the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office, allegedly creating a hostile work environment. They also accused her of emailing county legal representation with a request not authorized by the full board.

The $17,000 investigation into Thomas by outside legal counsel found that while Thomas had distributed the letter, doing so did not create a hostile work environment. It also found she did direct legal representation to provide her with information the board had determined to keep secret.

Thomas appeared in a CBS Colorado news story in July discussing the confidential report that showed the results of the investigation, prompting the Douglas County government’s attorney to find that Thomas could have broken the law by doing so.

A second investigation ordered by Laydon and Teal — this time conducted by the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office — did not find probable cause to believe that Thomas committed the crime of first-degree official misconduct.

I just recently proposed to my girlfriend (now fiancée) and now her parents insist the two of us sign a prenup before we get married. How can I appease my in-laws while still protecting my rights?

Sincerely, Perplexed by a Prenup

Dear Perplexed by a Prenup,

First off, let us congratulate your fiancée and you on your pending marriage. We hope your wedding day is as amazing as your life together will be!! Now, let’s get down to the business of nuptial agreements, which can either be done prior to or after marriage.

Marital agreements, both prenuptial and postnuptial, are a written contract executed between a couple to specify what will happen to the couple’s assets in the event of divorce or death.

Even if you build a happy, healthy marriage, one spouse will likely outlive the other. Marital agreements can give partners peace of mind about the financial future.

When you’re about to get married, divorce is the last thing on your mind. However, the reality is that between 40 and 50 percent of first marriages end in divorce. If you bring significant assets to your marriage or if your fiancée has significant debts, a pre-nuptial agreement is an important way to protect yourself financially. The attorneys at Davis Schilken, PC can draft a prenuptial agreement that details the assets and debts of both parties to be married and explain how property will be divided and support handled in the event of death or divorce. The agreement can encompass children’s and grandparents’ rights, if desired.

There are a few requirements that a nuptial agreement must meet before it becomes valid. These include the following conditions -

• The nuptial agreement must be written, signed, and notarized.

• The agreement must include valid disclosure of assets and financial obligations between both parties.

• Threats, force, or emotional duress must not have influenced the creation of the agreement.

• Terms of the agreement must not appear unethical or lacking fairness.

If nuptial agreements aren’t drafted correctly, they may do nothing but complicate things further. Unfortunately, just because you have created an agreement in writing doesn’t mean that it is presumed to be valid or enforceable. Therefore, it’s crucial that you have a nuptial agreement reviewed by a qualified lawyer to ensure everything is executed properly.

Contact the Davis Schilken, PC team with any of your Estate Planning needs (303) 670-9855. We offer no obligation in person or virtual meetings. We make estate planning simple!

Visit