NEWS > 03 December 2006

Article sourced from

Denver Post - Denver,CO,USA
03 December 2006

This article appeared in the above title/site.
To view it in its entirity click this link.

Clarification needed as cities

The bagel bashing has begun and with it, attempts to avoid Colorado's new constitutionally mandated ethics rules.

Last week, legislative leaders banned free continental breakfasts provided by lobbyists at the Capitol. The ban was the first step in an effort to accommodate the state's recently passed constitutional amendment that restricts influence peddlers' gifts to politicians.

It's pretty certain that advocates for the developmentally disabled, who were set to host the first free breakfast, were not going to be able to buy votes for the price of a croissant and a cup of coffee. At the same time, if you must feed your politicians to get their ear, you're not getting the government you deserve.

And yet, many Colorado municipalities are scrambling to make sure they aren't covered by the new ethics amendment. Among other things, the amendment bans "professional" lobbyists from giving gifts or buying meals for certain elected and appointed officials and their immediate families. The amendment also bans anyone but relatives and personal friends from giving money in any amount and gifts valued at more than $50 in any year.

The ethics amendment makes former state legislators wait two years before collecting pay to lobby ex-colleagues.

The amendment is not supposed to apply to so-called "home rule" cities, towns and counties that have already addressed ethics in their charters or ordinances. Many home- rule jurisdictions are trying to avoid a state mandate that some find confusing and more restrictive.

Last week, the Denver city attorney forwarded to Mayor John Hickenlooper a memo concluding that "this constitutional amendment will not apply to the city and county of Denver" because the city and county has its own ethics code.

That the local code is in some cases not as tough as the new ethics amendment does not matter. Section 7 of Amendment 41 states: "The requirements of this article shall not apply to home-rule counties or home-rule municipalities that have adopted charters, ordinances or resolutions that address the matters covered by this article."

Denver's ethics code restricts gift-giving but not as severely as Amendment 41.

"Our law limits gifts to people in positions to take actions that benefit the person giving the gift," explained assistant city attorney David Broadwell.

Some home-rule communities without unique ethics legislation now claim the ethics amendment doesn't apply.

On Oct. 30, a week before Amendment 41 passed, the Aurora City Council passed a resolution adopting "each and every provision" of the state's existing ethics law. In doing so, the city hoped to ensure that it would not be covered by the pending constitutional amendment.

"You have a set of ethics laws in effect since 1988," explained Aurora city attorney Charlie Richardson. "They seem to have worked."

Still, old state statutes are not as strict as the new amendment. Colorado law prohibits elected officials from taking gifts valued at more than $50 in connection with official duties. But other gifts, such as theater and sports tickets, can be accepted in unlimited amounts. They just have to be reported to the state.

Whether home-rule municipalities can make state ethics law prevail over the state constitution is not clear. Most of Colorado's 95 home-rule communities have incorporated state ethics laws rather than write their own, said Colorado Municipal League director Sam Mamet.

"Will that get litigated?" Mamet asked. "I don't know."

The General Assembly must write implementing legislation for the ethics amendment to clear up its vagaries. Guys like Mamet fear that constitutional amendments are "set in legal concrete."

Nothing seems set in stone when places like Denver and Aurora can hold their employees to a lower standard. The ethics amendment definitely needs clarification. But it still doesn't look like the catastrophe that opponents claim.

Naysayers predicted that disabled firefighters would not be able to receive proceeds from fundraisers. They claimed a cop's kid playing pee-wee football would not be able to wear a uniform paid for by a private sponsor. They alleged that scholarships would be withheld from deserving students simply because they or their parents worked in public service.

It will be interesting to see if anyone is stupid enough to try to use the ethics amendment to stop people from donating to injured firefighters or make police officers' children buy football jerseys or deny city hall janitors scholarships. Should that happen, you'll read about the plaintiff here. And it won't be pretty.

Until then, legislators will just have to buy their own meals, pay their way to ballgames and finance their own vacations, just like the rest of us.

For many folks, this is not the definition of disaster. It's the definition of democracy.

EiP Comments:

* We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper or periodical. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and we will remove the article. The articles republished on this site are provided for the purposes of research , private study, criticism , review, and the reporting of current events' We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper , periodical or other works. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and where necessary we will remove the work concerned.

Other related articles:

Article sourced from

Denver Post - Denver,CO,USA03 December 2006

Clarification needed as cities

EiP Comments:

Denver Post - Denver,CO,USA
03 December 2006