Ethics Watch is on the new Denver Huffington Post! Look for more postings by Ethics Watch senior counsel Luis Toro at www.huffingtonpost.com/denver/.

Keep Ethics Commission Business in the Sunshine
By Luis Toro, The Huffington Post, September 16, 2009

Colorado's Independent Ethics Commission is still in its infancy, but already it has shown an unfortunate penchant for secrecy. Colorado Ethics Watch won an open records lawsuit against the Ethics Commission in May, securing release of documents about requests for ethics opinions that the commission had illegally withheld. Last month, in a case filed by the Colorado Independent, a court ruled that the Ethics Commission violated the state's Open Meetings Law by discussing public business in executive session, and ordered the commission to release tapes of those sessions to the public. Still pending is a suit filed by Ethics Watch in June alleging that the Ethics Commission unlawfully debated the merits of one of its advisory opinions in an executive session.

I've been listening to the newly-released tapes. What's most remarkable about them is how mundane they are. Certainly, the commissioners' discussions about how to interpret and apply Amendment 41 and other ethics laws to the situations presented in advisory opinion requests can sometimes become heated. But that's just democracy in action, and it would be much worse if the commissioners weren't energetically debating the issues. It's good to know that the commissioners are seriously grappling with the questions before them, and having watched the Ethics Commission debate these issues in public since they changed their executive session policy in June, I can say that the public debate since then has been no less robust than the debates the commission held in secret.

So why is the Ethics Commission so concerned about having to operate in the public eye that it is reportedly considering going to the legislature to ask for a special exemption from Colorado's sunshine laws? As ethics expert Robert Wechsler has pointed out, the purpose of ethics commission confidentiality rules is to protect the reputations of "innocent government officials and employees." However, Amendment 41, which created the Ethics Commission, already protects reputations by requiring frivolous complaints to be maintained as confidential, and the Commission's desire for even more secrecy raises the prospect that it views its mission as protecting public officials from ethics complaints, not the enforcement of ethics standards against violators.

The truth is, though, that Ethics Commission transparency benefits everyone. The commission doesn't do any favors to public officials by deliberating on ethics complaints or formal opinion requests in private. That only raises the suspicion that the commissioners -- a majority of whom are present or former elected officials themselves -- have something to cover up. Certainly, secrecy doesn't benefit the public at large in any way. Colorado voters, who created the Ethics Commission, ought to be able to know as much as possible about the requests being processed by the commission and how the commission reaches decisions on those requests.

As the editorial board of the Colorado Springs Gazette wrote in an editorial in favor of transparency in that city's own ethics commission: "Our government relies on accountability of elected officials to the people who elected them. Without accountability, the whole system is less reliable as a way for the people to govern themselves. And self-governance is what this nation was founded on."

Let's hope the Colorado legislature heeds this wisdom, and rejects any effort to return Ethics Commission business to the shadows.

For the full story, please visit http://www.huffingtonpost.com/luis-toro/keep-ethics-commission-bu_b_287224....

Help Us Expose Unethical Government . . .

Ethics Watch raises public awareness about government accountability, and exposes those who are misusing taxpayer resources. Tips from Coloradoans are integral to our work, as are individual donations from those who support our mission. Please consider supporting Ethics Watch with information or a donation or both, so that we can continue to research, identify and expose unethical behavior by our public officials.

Submit a tip here.
Make a donation here.

Fort Collins' Andrew Boucher Gets Deferred Prosecution Agreement Thanks to Ethics Watch Complaint On September 18, a special prosecutor for the City of Fort Collins found probable cause to believe that City Council candidate Andrew Boucher violated Fort Collins campaign finance laws. The investigation was initiated in response to a complaint filed by Ethics Watch in March. In response to the special prosecutor's report, Boucher entered into a deferred prosecution agreement that will result in no charges being filed only if he avoids further charges for campaign finance violations for one year. In a letter to the Fort Collins City Clerk in March, Ethics Watch presented evidence that Mr. Boucher committed a potential campaign finance violation. The complaint explained that Mr. Boucher sent a fundraising appeal in February of this year to voters in Fort Collins. In addition to asking for contributions and promoting his own campaign in this appeal, Mr. Boucher also asked recipients of the letter to support Aislinn Kottwitz, a candidate for City Council in District 3. The mailing was effectively a contribution from Mr. Boucher's campaign committee to Ms. Kottwitz's campaign committee contrary to the city code, which dictates that 'No candidate committee shall make a contribution or contribution in kind to, or accept a contribution or contribution in kind from, a candidate committee of another candidate.' Read the investigator's report here. Read the Coloradoan story here. Ethics Watch Complaint Forces Transparency from Lakewood Safe Streets Committee Only one week after filing a complaint with the Colorado Secretary of State against the Lakewood Safe Streets Committee, Colorado Ethics Watch learned that its complaint was successful in forcing this group to register as an issue committee and disclose financial contribution and expenditure information. Ethics Watch filed the complaint against Lakewood Safe Streets Committee, the proponents of the so-called Lakewood Impound Initiative. The complaint alleged that the Committee failed to register as an issue committee before accepting contributions or making expenditures in support of the initiative. Ethics Watch agreed to withdraw the complaint only after the Committee filed registration papers and the Lakewood City Clerk corrected her position that such Committees need not need register with the city. Read the complaint here. Read the Lakewood Edge story here. Ethics Watch Calls for Answers and CDPHE Swiftly Complies Alarmed by a September 13 article in the New York Times reporting that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) provided evasive, nonresponsive information about its enforcement of Clean Water Act standards, Ethics Watch called on the Department to fulfill its obligation to provide prompt, accurate public information. Accordingly, Ethics Watch submitted an open records request to CDPHE asking for all documents reflecting a final determination by the Department finding violations of the Clean Water Act and any associated penalties. Within hours, CDPHE staff released to Ethics Watch documents detailing its enforcement and penalty history since 2004. By its record-time responsiveness to the public, CDPHE staff demonstrated a commitment to transparency. Read the documents CDPHE provided in response to Ethics Watch's CORA request here. Read the Colorado Independent story here. Ethics Watch Completes Briefing in Appeal of 527 Political Ad Case On September 10, Ethics Watch filed its final brief with the Colorado Court of Appeals in its challenge of an administrative law judge (ALJ) order that permitted two so-called 527 political organizations to avoid contribution limits and disclosure obligations applicable to political committees under Colorado law, simply by avoiding the use of words such as "vote for" and "elect" in their ads supporting state House and Senate candidates during the 2008 election. In September 2008, Ethics Watch filed a campaign finance complaint against Senate Majority Fund, LLC (SMF) and Colorado Leadership Fund, LLC (CLF) alleging that SMF and CLF purchased ads for the purpose of expressly advocating for the election of certain candidates without registering as political committees, and for using contributions that exceeded the limits applicable to political committees. In November 2008, the ALJ granted SMF's and CLF's motions to dismiss, ruling that under current state law SMF's and CLF's spending did not expressly advocate for the election of candidates. Ethics Watch submitted its opening brief on June 2, 2009 and SMF and CLF filed responses on August 11, 2009. Oral arguments will likely occur this winter. Read Ethics Watch's opening brief, and the responses filed by SMF and CLF, here. Read information about the original complaint here. Ethics Watch Comments On . . . The accusation by a Colorado Springs city employee that his former boss, City Attorney Patricia Kelly, illegally used government resources to oppose a 2008 ballot initiative: "But aside from the statute of limitations, one would have to prove that the city officials intended to use the memo to urge voters to vote against the initiative. I don't see any evidence one way or another on that here. Further, city officials are permitted under the statute to use government resources to prepare factual summaries that include arguments for and against the initiative, so we'd have to see what the memo says."		Ethics Watch is on the new Denver Huffington Post! Look for more postings by Ethics Watch senior counsel Luis Toro at www.huffingtonpost.com/denver/. Keep Ethics Commission Business in the Sunshine By Luis Toro, The Huffington Post, September 16, 2009 Colorado's Independent Ethics Commission is still in its infancy, but already it has shown an unfortunate penchant for secrecy. Colorado Ethics Watch won an open records lawsuit against the Ethics Commission in May, securing release of documents about requests for ethics opinions that the commission had illegally withheld. Last month, in a case filed by the Colorado Independent, a court ruled that the Ethics Commission violated the state's Open Meetings Law by discussing public business in executive session, and ordered the commission to release tapes of those sessions to the public. Still pending is a suit filed by Ethics Watch in June alleging that the Ethics Commission unlawfully debated the merits of one of its advisory opinions in an executive session. I've been listening to the newly-released tapes. What's most remarkable about them is how mundane they are. Certainly, the commissioners' discussions about how to interpret and apply Amendment 41 and other ethics laws to the situations presented in advisory opinion requests can sometimes become heated. But that's just democracy in action, and it would be much worse if the commissioners weren't energetically debating the issues. It's good to know that the commissioners are seriously grappling with the questions before them, and having watched the Ethics Commission debate these issues in public since they changed their executive session policy in June, I can say that the public debate since then has been no less robust than the debates the commission held in secret. So why is the Ethics Commission so concerned about having to operate in the public eye that it is reportedly considering going to the legislature to ask for a special exemption from Colorado's sunshine laws? As ethics expert Robert Wechsler has pointed out, the purpose of ethics commission confidentiality rules is to protect the reputations of "innocent government officials and employees." However, Amendment 41, which created the Ethics Commission, already protects reputations by requiring frivolous complaints to be maintained as confidential, and the Commission's desire for even more secrecy raises the prospect that it views its mission as protecting public officials from ethics complaints, not the enforcement of ethics standards against violators. The truth is, though, that Ethics Commission transparency benefits everyone. The commission doesn't do any favors to public officials by deliberating on ethics complaints or formal opinion requests in private. That only raises the suspicion that the commissioners -- a majority of whom are present or former elected officials themselves -- have something to cover up. Certainly, secrecy doesn't benefit the public at large in any way. Colorado voters, who created the Ethics Commission, ought to be able to know as much as possible about the requests being processed by the commission and how the commission reaches decisions on those requests. As the editorial board of the Colorado Springs Gazette wrote in an editorial in favor of transparency in that city's own ethics commission: "Our government relies on accountability of elected officials to the people who elected them. Without accountability, the whole system is less reliable as a way for the people to govern themselves. And self-governance is what this nation was founded on." Let's hope the Colorado legislature heeds this wisdom, and rejects any effort to return Ethics Commission business to the shadows. For the full story, please visit http://www.huffingtonpost.com/luis-toro/keep-ethics-commission-bu_b_287224.... Help Us Expose Unethical Government . . . Ethics Watch raises public awareness about government accountability, and exposes those who are misusing taxpayer resources. Tips from Coloradoans are integral to our work, as are individual donations from those who support our mission. Please consider supporting Ethics Watch with information or a donation or both, so that we can continue to research, identify and expose unethical behavior by our public officials. Submit a tip here. Make a donation here.


© 2009 Colorado Ethics Watch, all rights reserved.
If you wish not to receive this newsletter in the future, click here