If you haven’t had your fill of fireworks and you care about the accountability of Colorado’s public officials, attend the Independent Ethics Commission’s public session scheduled for Monday.
The five-member IEC was created under the citizen-initiated Amendment 41, the so-called ethics-in-government law overwhelmingly approved by Colorado voters in November 2006. Following lawsuits, wrangling and foot dragging in assembling the commission, the five officials are ready to consider public comment on their proposed rules of procedure.
Though most agree the amendment was poorly drafted and too broad in its reach, voters clearly intended to inhibit the influence of special interests by: restricting gifts to public officials; creating a transparent, predictable and independent ethics commissioners with investigatory and subpoena power; and closing the revolving door between lawmakers and their former colleagues by prohibiting statewide office holders from lobbying their colleagues for two years after leaving office.
Members of the commission have impressive credentials and stature. They include:
• Chair Nancy Friedman, a Democrat appointed by Gov. Bill Ritter, spent 10 years as the New York City Council’s chief counsel on ethics.
• Matt Smith, a Grand Junction Republican, was appointed by Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey and served in the state House of Representatives from 1996 to 2004.
• Jefferson County Republican Sally Hopper was appointed by the state Senate and served as a member of that body from 1987 to 1999.
• University of Denver professor Roy V. Woods, a Democrat who was appointed by the state House, teaches and lectures on ethics and communication.
• Fremont County Commissioner Larry Lasha, an independent, was appointed by the four IEC members.
However, despite the commission’s credentials and stature, several of its proposed rules seem in sharp contradiction to the will of the voters.
Perhaps the most egregious is Rule 7.E.6, permitting the IEC to dismiss a complaint when the same complaint is “pending before another body with concurrent jurisdiction.” In other words, a state senator, knowing a problem is about to become public, could ask the Senate Ethics Committee to look into the matter. This preemptive move could allow the IEC to dismiss any complaint filed.
The voters established the IEC as an independent body with authority over the legislative and executive branches. The same circumstances could occur in the case of a county commissioner or public official from a jurisdiction that is not a home-rule city, such as Denver or Broomfield. Colorado voters did not anticipate that a public official might shop for an opaque, collegial and informal forum to consider an ethical dilemma. Shame on the IEC for offering this loophole.
As Colorado Ethics Watch (coloradoforethics.org) points out, there are numerous other problems embedded within the IEC’s proposed rules. For example, complaints may be deemed moot if the respondent has left public service. What if the individual returns to public service or becomes a lobbyist?
Proposed rules give the IEC too much discretion regarding the timeline to respond to requests for advisory opinions and how quickly they must publish letter rulings and advisory opinions on their website. Further, the language pertaining to confidential information is much too broad in the proposed rules.
An example of the latter is illustrated by the recent hiring of the commission’s new executive director. Without notice to the public, the IEC announced its decision to hire Jane Feldman in a one-sentence statement on its website.
Personnel matters are always confidential, but in the spirit of the state’s open-meetings law, information about the director and the decision to hire her should have been done in a public setting.
It’s one thing when the fox guards the henhouse. It’s something else when she lives in the master suite.
The fireworks begin at 9 a.m. Monday at 633 17th Street, Room 2A.
