More groups seeking legal resolution on state gift ban

Amendment hurts public employees, attorney argues

Myung Oak Kim And April M. Washington, Rocky Mountain News

Published February 9, 2007 at midnight

Text size

More Colorado Government

More stories »

Two more groups are headed to court over a new gift-ban law that has ignited controversy and confusion across the state.

A coalition representing seven people affected by Amendment 41 filed suit Thursday, saying the voter-approved measure violates free speech and due process.

The First Amendment Council also will seek a preliminary injunction aimed at stopping the law from going into effect, said attorney Doug Friednash, a partner at Denver firm Fairfield and Woods. The tactic is often used to get quicker court action.

The law "has done more than ban lobbyists' gifts," he said. "The amendment has had a profound impact on public employees' everyday life. It's impacted people's right to participate in the governmental process."

Also Thursday, the Daniels Fund, which awards scholarships to high school seniors across the state, said it will file a lawsuit in the next few days asking a judge to rule that the awards are exempt from the law.

A similar suit already has been filed by the -Boettcher Foundation, which also gives out scholarships.

Amendment 41 bans gifts worth over $50 a year to elected officials and most state and local government employees, their spouses and children.

The Daniels Fund estimates about 100 of its 400 scholarship semifinalists could be prevented from taking aid because they are subject to the law's restrictions.

The fund hopes to get an answer from a court before April, when it awards 180 scholarships worth up to $37,000 a year to Colorado high school seniors.

Backers of Amendment 41 - government watchdog group Colorado Common Cause and millionaire Internet entrepreneur Jared Polis - contend that scholarships are not affected because they don't create a violation of the public trust - a key tenet of the law.

A coalition that includes nonprofits and Polis has hired a team of lawyers and consultants to push for legislation that clarifies the intent of the law and takes scholarships off the table. That bill is expected to be introduced early next week.

It faces stiff opposition from lawmakers who dislike the law but maintain that only the voters can change it.

At a news conference Thursday, the First Amendment Council introduced plaintiff John Meeker, executive director of Developmental Pathways Inc., a nonprofit that serves 1,500 developmentally disabled residents.

Because the organization is an independent contractor for the state and several counties, Meeker is worried about the law's impact on his 500 employees and their families.

"Everybody in the nonprofit world is concerned," Meeker said. "But part of the difficulty is that people are confused about what to be concerned about.

"Many of our organizations rely on being able to interact with our elected officials and leaders. It's not a question of lobbying. It's a question of getting out information."

The Daniels Fund had three students on hand at a news conference Thursday who said it's unfair to them to be prevented from getting scholarships just because their parents work for the government.

Tiffany Fisher, 18, a senior at William C. Hinkley High School in Aurora, found out Monday during her interview at the Daniels Fund that she could be out of the running because her mother is an accounting technician at the state health department. She wants to attend Arizona State University.

"My mom is a single parent. There's no way she can pay for it herself," Fisher said.

Added her mother, Mary Arneson: "I'm not an elected official. I don't make $400 million a year. I was just dumbfounded that this would affect her."

Mark Grueskin, a lawyer working on behalf of the law's backers, said lawsuits aren't the best way to fix Amendment 41. He's drafting the bill that will be introduced next week.

But getting a bill through the legislature won't be easy. Even a sponsor of Grueskin's measure, Sen. Steve Ward, R-Littleton, thinks many of his colleagues are so reluctant to tinker with an ethics law passed by voters that the bill will be dead on arrival when it hits the Senate.

"Nobody in this business really wants to touch this thing," Ward said.High school senior, commission volunteer wary of effects

Two people with a stake in lawsuits against Amendment 41

Ginny Buczek served 14 years as a volunteer on the Firestone Planning Commission but quit because of Amendment 41.

Buczek's two daughters - Christine, 20, and Jacqueline, 21 - attend the Colorado School of Mines on scholarships. Her son, James, a high school senior, is applying for scholarships.

"I had no choice but to follow the law. I didn't want it to negatively affect my children," said Buczek, a plaintiff in the First Amendment Council suit. "The thing that strikes me is the evasiveness and intrusiveness of the amendment in my family life. You're walking on eggshells all the time to make sure you're not violating the amendment."

Jaleesa McIntosh is one of about 100 semifinalists for Daniels Fund scholarships who could be ineligible because of her parent's job. Her mother, Paulette McIntosh, is a program manager for the Trio Upward Bound Program at Metropolitan State College of Denver. Jaleesa, 18, is a senior at Denver School of the Arts and wants to attend Colorado State University or Howard University and become a pediatrician. Paulette McIntosh called the situation "surreal." Most people thought the law only stops elected officials from taking gifts from lobbyists, she said. "The full ramifications of it were not seen," the mother said. "All of a sudden it's impacting everybody."

What is Amendment 41?

It's a state constitutional amendment passed by voters Nov. 7 that restricts gifts to public officials and bars state elected officials from working in a lobbying capacity for two years after they leave office.

• Who is affected?

Members of the legislature, plus most state and local government workers, independent contractors or public university employees. Employees of home-rule jurisdictions with existing ethics regulations, including Denver, Arvada and Thornton, are exempt, as are school district and special district workers.

• What are the restrictions?

Lawmakers and government workers, their spouses and children cannot receive more than $50 in gifts, loans, rewards or services in a year. That includes game tickets, meals and trips, among other things. They can't accept anything from lobbyists.

The saga continues

• Thursday, the Daniels Fund said it intends to file a lawsuit, arguing its scholarships are exempt from the law.

Also Thursday, nonprofit organizations and individuals filed a lawsuit, claiming its the law violates their constitutional free speech and due process rights.

• Last week, the Boettcher Foundation filed a lawsuit, saying its full-ride scholarships should be immune from the law.

• A bill seeking to clarify the intent of the law is expected to be introduced early next week. Among other things, it would allow children of government workers to accept scholarships.

• House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, D-Denver, says he intends to ask the state Supreme Court how far lawmakers can go in tweaking the law.

• Republican lawmakers want Gov. Bill Ritter to ask the state Supreme Court to do the same thing.

kimm@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2361

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News