After five months and a criminal investigation, the circumstances surrounding last year’s misspending of more than $200,000 in gubernatorial inauguration money still are not clear.
And that’s unacceptable.
After an independent investigation of the matter was concluded earlier this week with no criminal charges, Gov. Bill Ritter said he considered this part of the matter “closed.”
We respectfully disagree. Significant questions remain about Ritter’s management of money and people that the governor should address.
One of those involved in the matter has stepped forward and told his side of the story. After learning he would not face criminal charges for the misspent inaugural money, Greg Kolomitz, former campaign manager for Ritter, sat down with Denver Post reporter Karen Crummy.
He told The Post he was legitimately owed the money he paid himself from an inaugural account, though he admits the money came from the wrong fund.
Kolomitz said he had a verbal agreement with Ritter that he would be paid $7,500 a month. He has produced records showing his work — numerous meetings with Ritter and travel with him on political business.
Kolomitz’s account differs sharply with that of Ritter, who called a news conference in April to say an audit had turned up problematic spending from a fund that was supposed to pay for inaugural activities. Ritter said Kolomitz paid himself $83,250 that he wasn’t entitled to. Ritter contends Kolomitz, a professional political consultant, was working on a voluntary basis.
That seems unlikely, particularly since Ritter’s campaign paid Kolomitz or his company tens of thousands of dollars from a campaign account during a time when Kolomitz was supposedly volunteering. The money was for travel reimbursement, salary and other fees.
Several questions emerge. Why wasn’t the relationship with Kolomitz put in writing? Why didn’t Ritter have financial controls in place to quickly detect money being paid out of the wrong account to someone who purportedly shouldn’t have gotten it? Why did a “volunteer” have check-signing authority?
Kolomitz says his relationship with Ritter changed after two incidents in which Kolomitz was critical of actions of Ritter’s staff or family.
Jim Carpenter, Ritter’s chief of staff, dismissed Kolomitz’s account, calling him a “vindictive, disgruntled and p—-d off” person who has “all kinds of wild allegations.”
Disgruntled about what? If Kolomitz’s character is so questionable, why did Ritter depend so heavily on Kolomitz to get him elected?
It’s true, the campaign and the inauguration are over. The misspent money has been repaid. And the governor is to be commended for putting up his house as collateral for a loan to repay the inaugural account. But Ritter’s management of those who worked for him — or volunteered for him — still is pertinent. The ability to exert fiscal controls was an important issue then and remains so today.
The governor should carefully consider the implications of these discrepancies before dismissing the matter as “closed.”
