Now we’re talking.
Actually, it’s not us. Coloradans spoke in November when we passed an ethics reform amendment to the state constitution with 62 percent of the vote.
It is our state legislative leaders who have finally decided to talk about solving any potential problems caused by broad language in the amendment. Before, they seemed content to exploit the syntax.
Late Wednesday, state House and Senate leaders announced a compromise on the ethics reform amendment – Amendment 41 – that begins cooperation.
The meaning of Amendment 41 now will be hashed out by an ethics commission with a request for specific guidance from the state Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, a new, more definitive ethics amendment may or may not be crafted for 2008.
“We intend to work with the proponents (of Amendment 41) at every step,” said House Speaker Andrew Romanoff.
“We want a consensus on the language of a streamlined 41,” added Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald.
Mike Feeley, a lawyer for a coalition that pushed Amendment 41, said no 2008 ballot measure of any kind may be necessary, despite what legislators said.
The confusion shows how much more talking everybody needs to do.
“The prevailing opinion (of legislative leaders) is that the only way you can do this is to put something on the ballot,” Fitz-Gerald said.
People voted for Amendment 41 to stop lobbyists from buying meals and giving free tickets to legislators, other elected and appointed officials and government workers. Voters also wanted to limit public servants from taking stuff from anybody that is designed to make them put private gain ahead of public service.
A nine-page rough draft of a new ethics amendment that Senate President pro tem Peter Groff and Senate Minority Leader Andy McElhany offered Thursday says public officials can’t take gifts “intended to influence a Public Official … or is intended as a reward for any official action.” There are plenty of exclusions in the draft. But it is a work in progress that the sponsors expect to be amended.
If it is needed at all.
Feeley claims the new amendment will be unnecessary if the Supreme Court offers the ethics commission sufficient guidance. E-mails between 41’s originators and the House leadership do not specify a new amendment, only discussions about whether one is necessary.
A radio attack ad accusing Fitz-Gerald of blocking ethics reform ran Tuesday. The five-figure ad was paid for by a coalition that put Amendment 41 on the ballot. The coalition includes Jared Polis, who likely will be Fitz-Gerald’s opponent in a 2008 Democratic congressional primary.
Fitz-Gerald vs. Polis is just part of the back story that threatened to turn Amendment 41 from ethics reform to political circus. The other part is the claim by lobbyists and other opponents of 41 that the amendment might keep scholarships from cops’ kids or prohibit fundraisers for injured firefighters.
Fitz-Gerald said her office got “no more than 50 calls” in response to the attack ad, which she said she hadn’t heard.
It is now being taken off the air. The Senate president, however, insisted that the ad didn’t influence the compromise.
“I didn’t think we could do anything statutory,” Fitz-Gerald said of a House bill that would have fixed 41 with a law if the Supreme Court blessed the move in a constitutional advisory. “This (compromise) gives guidance to the ethics commission, not (the legislature).”
Wednesday’s compromise also came after a threat by 41’s originators to put a clarified constitutional amendment on the ballot in November.
Romanoff denied that the mid afternoon announcement of a possible amendment this year caused legislators to announce a compromise a few hours later.
Believe whatever – and whomever – you like.
“There’s been finger-pointing aplenty and probably some shin-kicking too,” said Mark Grueskin, a lawyer for the Amendment 41 coalition. “The voters don’t care. They want clarity.”
Jim Spencer’s column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Reach him at 303-954-1771, jspencer@denverpost.com or blogs.denverpost.com/spencer.
