A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Gazette, Colorado Springs, Colo., June 18, on the resignation of North Carolina District Attorney Michael Nifong:
Friday saw the welcome resignation of Durham County District Attorney Michael Nifong, who was under investigation by the North Carolina State Bar for ethics violations stemming from dubious charges of rape and sexual assault brought against three members of Duke University’s lacrosse team.
The state attorney general, who took charge of the celebrated case after it unraveled amid inflammatory comments from Nifong, declared the three students “innocent,” instead of “not guilty,” and labeled Nifong a “rogue prosecutor.”
It remains to be seen if Nifong’s license to practice law will be pulled. But his ethics trial and resignation is at least a rare and welcome moment of accountability for a public employee who seems to have abused his power in ways calculated to advance his political campaign and encourage the polarization of a community.
Although it is far too early to tell whether it will serve as a warning to other prosecutors in the country who are sometimes tempted to abuse their power, it suggests a certain self-correcting mechanism that still abides in the American justice system.
Most of us remember the case from last year.
An African American stripper hired for a lacrosse team fraternity party later claimed she had been raped. Despite early inconsistencies in her story, Nifong, who had been appointed and faced a tough election battle against a popular former prosecutor, seized on the case, calling the lacrosse players “hooligans” and announcing his confidence that serious charges were warranted.
The early days of his ethics trial were damning. A police investigator testified about Nifong’s early doubts, despite his confident and even inflammatory public statements, due to the lack of solid evidence against the three young men later indicted. Nifong also was accused of hiding exculpatory DNA evidence from defense attorneys and the judge, and lying to the judge and to state bar investigators.
There are larger issues that may or may not be resolved by this trial.
All too many prosecutors see their job as getting convictions—scalps on their belt—rather than seeing justice done, while sometimes ruining the lives of innocent people.
Too many people serving on juries are inclined to believe prosecutors even in the face of reasonable doubt.
And all too many in our society, including many in the media, are eager to pounce on any story that involves a possible white-on-black crime.
The resignation of one rogue prosecutor, while certainly welcome, is unlikely to resolve those problems. Still, it is heartening that a public employee is being called to account for the damage he inflicted on three innocent young men.
It’s just amazing it took so long for Nifong to admit he botched the case and to hand in his resignation.
Newspaper:
———
Montrose Daily Press, June 18, on the need for a no-confidence vote for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales:
A no-confidence vote for Alberto Gonzales is long overdue.
But our Congress just couldn’t do it. In fact, members of Congress couldn’t even agree to debate a non-binding resolution of no confidence in our embattled Attorney General. Pathetic. And, predictably, partisan.
The majority of Republicans, with the help of a few Democrats and one Independent, sunk the resolution, despite their criticism of Gonzales, who is suspected of firing nine U.S. attorneys for purely political reasons. Gonzales’ defenders contend the fuss itself is what’s purely political.
It is true U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and that George Bush’s administration was hardly the first to fire any. But it seems just as certain several of the most recent slate of terminees were targeted for reasons other than poor performance, as contended.
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers told us in March he thought the White House erred in categorizing all the attorneys in question as under-performers, when an audit by the executive office of U.S. attorneys found otherwise.
He also said giving the attorney general supervisory authority over the U.S. attorneys has led to “more and more micromanagement,” which he called unfortunate. The office, he said, ought to be about getting competent prosecutors and giving them adequate discretion.
Suthers did not think Gonzales should be given the heave-ho. But he had the guts to honestly assess the situation.
This is more than can be said for our Congress, whose members, again, despite their willingness to criticize Gonzales, wouldn’t even debate a vote of no-confidence.
Trent Lott, who can almost always be relied upon to carry water for the hard right, called the resolution “irrelevant.” Bush adopted his typical head-in-the-sand stance and whined about politics.
But we’re tired of hearing excuses. Alberto Gonzales has done little during his tenure but erode American liberties and steadily advance unwarranted increases in executive power. In the latest flap, he has done nothing but obfuscate through convenient “memory lapses,” some of which make one wonder whether he even knows how to do his job. To date, five members of his department have resigned, most recently Mike Elston, a fella whom some of the ousted attorneys accuse of trying to compel their silence.
A vote of no confidence is the least of what Gonzales deserves. Not all symbolism is empty.
Editorial:
———
STATE/REGIONAL:
Fort Collins Coloradoan, June 17, on funding for higher education:
Colorado’s higher education community may learn that there is strength in unity.
In a summit last week that included the governor, business and government leaders, legislators and higher education representatives, a consensus emerged that working together rather than independently is the route to securing a more reliable revenue stream for colleges and universities.
The current lack of dedicated funding is troubling. Although Colorado enjoys a highly educated workforce, it ranks among the bottom of 50 states in the amount of state money spent on higher education. This means Colorado is importing its educated workforce from other states, creating an unsustainable situation. Summit leaders said they want to respond to this education paradox by doubling the number of college degrees received over the next 10 years in Colorado.
Education summit participants also agreed that it will take $800 million over 10 years (or about $1.25 billion in today’s dollars) just to get to peer average among other colleges and universities in the nation. That’s an enormous amount of money spent just to get to average, but it is a realistic goal if the vow of cooperation over competition is sustained. Summit leaders also agreed to pull back on competition by allowing some institutions to receive more funding than others depending upon how they stack up in a peer study.
So where does such a large amount of money come from? This fiscal year, the state Legislature came close to funding what will be needed each of the next 10 years. It allocated $115 million (although about $125 million a year will be needed to reach peer average). Still, there is no guarantee that higher education won’t find itself on the chopping block again, either through competing needs or budget cuts. A task force emanating from the summit will look into potential revenue sources, including a tax ballot issue and tuition increases. One option may be to allow another state “need,” such as transportation, to seek voter support via a ballot issue to free up general fund money for higher education.
David Skaggs, executive director of the Colorado Department of Higher Education, said new benchmarks for accountability will be developed to help the public understand how money on higher education is being spent. Skaggs is correct that higher education needs to do more to prove its case, whether by outlining how the state benefits from a strong system or how institutions are serving the needs of its students, such as improving time-to-degree ratios.
Colorado State University President Larry Penley, for one, has already proved adept at linking higher education to the state’s economy. His message fits in well with this effort.
This unified approach is a tradeoff. Colleges and universities that normally compete against each other for students and research dollars will have to consider what’s best for the entire system. That will be difficult, but it may be the only route to generating more support for higher education as a whole in Colorado.
Editorial: 70347/1014/CUSTOMERSERVICE02
———
Reporter-Herald, Loveland, Colo., June 17, and Daily Times-Call, Longmont, Colo., June 18, on the need for federal help for Rocky Flats workers:
A panel charged with investigating whether health and radiation dose records were adequate at the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons facility in Jefferson County may have met its charge, but it certainly has left former public servants in a lurch.
As a result, many of the former public employees, who were exposed to unsafe levels of radiation as they helped the nation build the nuclear bombs that ended the Cold War, will die before they receive the compensation rightfully theirs.
It’s rare for members of the Colorado congressional delegation to agree on anything, but on this they are united: The nation owes former Rocky Flats workers expedited claims status, similar to the status already given to workers at all the other nuclear weapons factories in the country.
Rocky Flats produced triggers for nuclear weapons starting in 1951 and continuing until the government shut down the plant in 1991. Triggers were ball-shaped components made of nuclear and explosive material meant to initiate the nuclear reaction of the bomb.
Rocky Flats had a history of spills, leaks, fires and explosions that exposed workers to excessive doses of radiation. The FBI raided the facility in 1989, and that investigation resulted in Rockwell International, the contractor, being fined $18.5 million.
Workers at Rocky Flats have waited patiently as first the Department of Energy botched its responsibility, and now the Department of Labor has continued to block timely payment of medical claims.
Just the process of trying to secure special exposure status has taken more than two years.
The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health did provide expedited status to plant workers there from 1959 to 1966. But workers after that time, even those diagnosed with any of 22 cancers typical of radiation exposure, will need to go through standard dosage reconstruction from dusty and incomplete records in order to receive compensation.
The nation owes these workers more. They need to have their claims processed while they are still alive and while they can use the money for treatment that might extend their lives.
If the federal bureaucracy cannot act expeditiously on their claims, then Congress will need to step in to assure that they receive what they are due.
Newspapers: and
