Ethics commission's first big test
Rocky Mountain News
Published April 13, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Last week the legislature gave the Independent Ethics Commission created by Amendment 41 its first major test. How the commission responds will go a long way toward determining whether the panel is truly independent or is instead little more than a rubber stamp for the political establishment. It may also decide how soon the courts decide the amendment's eventual fate.
House Speaker Andrew Romanoff and lawmakers of both parties drew up a dozen separate questions about the amendment's gift bans and revolving- door provisions. The commission must rule on them by April 27. Gov. Bill Ritter is expected to submit a separate set of questions related to executive branch employees in the next couple of weeks.
The queries ask, in effect, does Amendment 41 mean what it says?
If the panel says yes, then elected state officials, government workers and their immediate families will be denied everything from scholarships to employee discounts. We don't want those benefits taken away. But we don't want to make a mockery of the state constitution either, and if the commission concludes that 41's gift ban is as flexible as putty, then an amendment passed by 60 percent of Colorado voters will be little more than a joke.
And in that case, the provisions of that amendment could be altered on a whim by five unelected commissioners who aren't accountable to the public.
Political officials, public employees and the original sponsors of Amendment 41 want the commission to interpret the gift ban loosely, and gut its toughest measures. But we hope the commission interprets it literally. If so, the controversy will then return to the courts, where at least part of Amendment 41 is on shaky ground. Some provisions appear to violate the freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment.
The amendment, Article XXIX of the Colorado Constitution, outlaws "any effort to realize personal financial gain through public office other than compensation provided by law." It bans elected officials and government employees from accepting any "money, forbearance or forgiveness of indebtedness from any person" unless that person gets something "of equal or greater value" in return.
It also prevents their spouses or children from receiving "any gift or thing of value" - including "loans, rewards, promises . . . of future employment, favors or services, honoraria, travel, entertainment or special discounts" of more than $50 a year unless the donor gets equal value in return.
That's tough. Last year, however, Senate Bill 210 tried to morph the amendment's definition of "personal financial gain" so that it covers only offers made by entities "seeking to influence an official act . . . " In other words, the bill illegally attempted to convert a straightforward gift ban into an anti-lobbying measure even though the amendment specifies that legislation can "in no way . . . limit or restrict the provisions of this article or the powers herein granted."
Given this context, the first question posed by lawmakers is key: Does the ban outlaw gifts offered by donors that aren't trying to influence public policy?
Read literally, it does.
In a rational world, the commission should never be asked whether, for instance, the parents of public employees can take their grandchildren to Disneyland. But Amendment 41 is not a sensible measure.
We hope the ethics commission agrees and does not override the amendment's harsh provisions. And then? See you in court.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Holiday movies
Check out our movie page to read reviews and see your holiday options.
-
Holiday Lights
Is your house the jolliest on the block? Submit your holiday lights display.
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Broncos-Jets Action
Visit our photo galleries for some hard-hitting action photos from Sunday's game.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's postgame rant on the Jets.
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Stein's View
Editorial cartoons by Ed Stein
-
Holiday Gift Guide
Looking to get a jump-start on the holiday shopping season?
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
Read the Rocky's coverage of Colorado's cannibal, Alfred Packer, in 1886.
April 13, 2008
11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
sunshinestate writes:
Make lobbyists list their clients and then see a big test!
April 15, 2008
9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sandy_S writes:
To sunshinestate - go to the Secretary of State's website - you'll find a comprehensive listing of all paid and volunteer lobbyists and the clients they represent. It's been on the SoS website for, oh, maybe the last 10 years or so.