Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

False alarm on Schaffer

A phony ethics charge

Published August 26, 2007 at midnight

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

Give Michael Huttner credit. The head of ProgressNowAction, a left-wing activist group, has ginned up plenty of media coverage by alleging Colorado State Board of Education member Bob Schaffer crossed an imaginary ethical barrier that would be impossible to enforce.

Huttner says Schaffer did something fishy when he cast a vote in a dispute between a charter school contractor and Denver Public Schools. The man who heads the charter company contributed to Schaffer's 2004 and 2008 U.S. Senate campaigns, so - voila! - there's a conflict.

Easy now. If Schaffer did something unethical, then every elected official who has accepted a significant number of campaign contributions should probably be suspected of influence-peddling as well. Huttner's gripe looks like nothing more than a partisan attack that lacks substance.

White Hat Management, which runs the Life Skills Center of Denver, appealed a decision by DPS to revoke its charter for the coming school year. The state board heard the appeal, as it's supposed to, and in May voted 4-3 to ask DPS to reconsider that decision. Schaffer, who's the likely Republican nominee for retiring U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard's seat next year, cast one of the majority's four votes.

ProgressNowAction cried foul, suggesting that Schaffer's vote was somehow influenced by David Brennan, the head of White Hat, who donated to Schaffer's 2004 and 2008 U.S. Senate campaigns. Huttner argues that at a minimum Schaffer should return the contributions from Brennan and his wife, who also gave to Schaffer's 2008 efforts.

Look at the calendar. The Brennans' 2008 contributions to Schaffer came after the board's May vote, not before it.

Moreover, Schaffer had no controlling influence to peddle in this matter. DPS controls the charter, not the state board. DPS could have ignored the state board's recommendation. It did not. The school district gave White Hat a one-year extension, with conditions attached.

Under Colorado law, a conflict of interest exists when an elected official (or an immediate family member) stands to gain financially from an official act. The state board's vote did nothing to line Schaffer's pockets, or boost his family's fortunes.

Besides, most politicians who function in a legislative or quasi-judicial capacity (such as ed board members) take contributions from individuals or interest groups who have a stake - economic or ideological - in how those individuals vote. State GOP Chairman Dick Wadhams quickly noted that the likely Democratic Senate nominee next year, 2nd District Rep. Mark Udall, accepted $75,000 in contributions from labor unions in the first quarter of this year. In March, Udall announced his support for the so-called "card check" bill on labor organizing, a priority for unions.

Using Huttner's guidelines, Udall should return the money. But of course he shouldn't. Trying to apply the standard to all officeholders would be impractical and even ridiculous. Besides, Schaffer has never been bashful about his support for vouchers and charter schools, while Udall is an ally of organized labor. Both candidates articulate principles and act on them.

Yes, genuine conflicts of interest exist and some elected officials breach well-established and easily understood ethical boundaries. Schaffer did nothing of the type in this instance. But the mere suggestion he did and the attention this allegation attracted lets us know 2008 is going to be a bare-knuckle campaign.