Interpretations of the Colorado Open Meetings law, elected officials campaigning as private citizens, and the appearance of conflict in using city resources to push an issue are as varied as the people fighting to either win or kill the Burlingame vote.

Some political consultants say there always will be exceptions to laws that govern elected officials' ability to shift from politics to citizen advocacy. Instead, what's important is just plain smart campaigning, they say.

In the Burlingame ring three members of Aspen City Council are fighting desperately to build the largest affordable housing project since 1985. In the other corner, another councilman has entered the duel arguing the proposed Burlingame project is a good idea, but poorly planned.

An Aug. 8 advisory ballot question will ask Aspen voters to approve a pre-annexation agreement detailing a contract between the city and partial Burlingame owners -- the Zoline family. The contract provides for 225 family-style affordable housing units, 12 large free market homes, a ranch house, three guesthouses and a cabin. The agreement also will preserve 170 acres in conservation easements.

Ron Faucheux, editor of Campaigns and Elections magazine, says it's common practice for elected officials to campaign in support of measures they themselves put on the ballot. But he says it may not be smart politics for them to do so.

"I advise not to have elected officials in front too much because usually in an issue campaign when you combine the negatives of elected officials -- even if they are popular -- with the negatives of the issue, it could be too much for the issue to carry," Faucheux says.

The elected officials on the pro-Burlingame Aspenites for a Balanced Community committee are Mayor Rachel Richards and Tony Hershey and Tom McCabe, both city councilmen.

Opposing the project with the anti-Burlingame committee Many Voices is Councilman Terry Paulson.

Steve Welchert, of Denver-based political and public relations firm Welchert & Britz Inc., says it's far too often that elected officials place a question on the ballot and then avoid it. He commends officials who campaign for issues they support.

"I support elected officials taking a stand. I think voters like it when elected officials tell them where they are," Welchert says.

"If they don't like the results, they'll throw them out," he adds.

Victor Ajlouny, political consultant with Nebraska-based Eagle Communications, believes the Burlingame election shouldn't be held in the first place. That's because it's poor politics for elected officials to scamper away from making hard decisions, he says. And an issue such as Burlingame should be decided on by the city council, not the voters, he says.

"If they don't have the political spine to make the tough decision that is good public policy, they shouldn't hide behind a campaign," Ajlouny says.

Richards says, however, the reason a question is on the ballot is an attempt to save taxpayers' dollars by avoiding a referendum she feels is destined to surface about the hotly debated project. The city will have paid for years of planning and designing the project, then likely approve the project and Richards doesn't want the money to go to waste if a citizen initiative question ultimately kills the project.

Ajlouny calls that a façade.

"It's a way of being a political coward. They are elected to make the hard decisions," he says.

Theories about smart campaigning, or a lack thereof, are not the only debatable factors involved when elected officials are at the forefront of citizen issue committees.

According to the Colorado Open Meetings law, two or more elected officials are required to post notice when meeting to discuss public business. Richards, McCabe and Hershey met recently for a pro-Burlingame press conference without officially notifying the public.

City Attorney John Worcester says the council members who have given money to and are campaigning for Aspenites for a Balanced Community are not conducting public business because there are no more decisions the council needs to make about the project before the election.

While magazine editor Faucheux says there are always exceptions to the open meetings law, Welchert recognizes that leaders don't lose their First Amendment rights when they take the oath of office. Ajlouny, however, strongly feels elected officials should do everything to avoid even the appearance of violating the open meetings law.

Every time the three of them come together, it's a violation of the open meetings law, Ajlouny says.

"There is no way three political people get together and not talk about public business. They are political animals, even the best of them, and it gets in their blood," Ajlouny says.

To argue the officials aren't discussing public business, that they are instead meeting socially, is also a smokescreen, he says.

"Most political decisions are also social decisions, whether it be land use or setting the budget," he says.

Worcester says the law does not take away elected officials' free speech rights to voice their personal opinions about issues.

"They are allowed to campaign on their own time, as long as they don't use city resources," Worcester says.

There will be a violation in campaign activities if the council members or any city employee uses public resources or funds for campaign purposes.

A memo Worcester gave to all city employees, board and commission members and elected officials, quotes a Colorado law as prohibiting "any municipality from expending public funds or making in-kind contributions in campaigns to urge electors to vote in favor of or against any state or local ballot measure."

When Richards spoke at the recent Aspen Chamber Resort Association annual meeting, she discussed the importance of the Burlingame project filling the draught of places for people to live.

Urging people to vote for Burlingame, Richards also passed around a letter to Aspen business owners with information about the project and envelopes for people to give donations.

"We cannot let this last real opportunity pass us by; please send your $$$ contribution today to make this urgently needed community housing a reality," the letter reads.

The letter was paid for by Aspenites for a Balanced Community.

Richards' $25 ACRA luncheon ticket, however, was paid out of the 2000 city council's travel and training budget of $11,000, according to city administrative staff.

"Good, bad or not, we've always paid for city officials' tickets," Worcester says of the ACRA lunch. Worcester doesn't equate the lunch ticket as using city resources.

Says Richards: "I went there to hear ACRA's presentation as much as anything else."

Hershey, who is also a member of the pro-Burlingame committee, says there is a fine line between elected officials who campaign as private citizens.

Because Hershey is an elected official, he says people view him that way, even if he's "driving around or buying a donut." But he doesn't think that should mean he can't publicly support an issue.

"I haven't crossed any legal lines and I hope people don't think I'm being unfair," Hershey says.

Richards says she didn't even eat the lunch and will refund the ticket if it becomes a problem.

Welchert says the ticket is a non-issue because Colorado law allows governments to spend up to $50 for a campaign.

But Ajlouny asks, "Well if it's only $25, then do $50, $250 tickets become acceptable? Does the envelope keep being stretched?"

Although some people feel elected officials should be held to a higher standard and therefore on principle shouldn't use the allowed $50, Ajlouny says it's most important to avoid negative ethical debates and focus on the issues.

Which brings Faucheux back to the argument that -- ethics and legalities aside -- campaigns are successful because of smart strategies.

"There are fine lines, and generally those things are resolved in favor of elected officials," Faucheux says.

"It's not that the $25 is so important; it would be smart politics for elected officials to avoid the appearance of impropriety, to avoid the appearance of conflict.

"In any kind of ballot issue, officials want to make sure the credibility of the campaign is not threatened by things like that," Faucheux says.

One Many Voices member, Nick De Wolf, says the high profile activity of elected officials involved in the campaign can be construed as another example of citizens feeling officials are just cramming another project down their throats.

But Jamie Knowlton, another Many Voices member, applauds local leaders for taking action toward a project they believe in.