Blake: No Cabinet post for you!

Published November 15, 2006 at midnight

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

Attorney Mark Grueskin wants us to know two things:

• Contrary to an article in Saturday's News, he was not involved in the drafting of Amendment 41, the garbled and increasingly controversial "ethics in government" ballot issue that no self-respecting lawyer would want to be identified with.

• Nevertheless, it's a splendid document and when the next legislature approves "clarifying" statutes he is now getting paid to help draft, it will be even better.

Amendment 41, which passed overwhelmingly, is best known for prohibiting elected state officials and other government employees from accepting gifts worth more than $50 in any given year and even $2 hot dogs from lobbyists. It will also prevent lawmakers and statewide officeholders from becoming paid lobbyists for two years after leaving office.

But if Amendment 41 means what it appears to say, it would also prevent current lawmakers from becoming members of Gov.-elect Bill Ritter's Cabinet for two years. That would be a crushing blow to an undetermined number of legislators who can't wait to make about $130,000 a year instead of $30,000.

Here's the language in Section 4: "No statewide elected officeholder or member of the General Assembly shall personally represent another person or entity for compensation before any other statewide elected officeholder or member of the General Assembly, for a period of two years following vacation of office."

You'll note that it uses the word "represent," not "lobby." Nor does it distinguish between representing private and public interests. And you probably know that Cabinet members invariably appear before the Joint Budget Committee every year to justify their budget requests, and often testify before other committees as well. If they don't do a good job at the legislature, the governor stops their compensation and puts them back on the street.

"You can't exempt government lobbying from the two-year ban placed on former legislators while enforcing it on those going into the private sector," insists political consultant Rob Fairbank on his blog.

The ban "unnecessarily hinders any governor from putting together an administration of qualified applicants," he added.

Poor Rob. He's a strict constructionist. He thinks language means what it says. But Grueskin is galloping up to assure outgoing Rep. Mark Larson, recently re-elected Sen. Jim Isgar, and others who have been less candid about their Cabinet ambitions that the language doesn't mean what it says. It means what the drafters really meant to say, or whatever vague notions were rattling around in voters' heads when they cast their ballots.

And surely they didn't envision legislators not getting Cabinet jobs. Did they?

To be sure, Grueskin won't be trying to rewrite the document itself. It's a constitutional amendment and can only be changed by another popular vote. But unless the "clarifying" statutes are challenged and overturned in the courts, they will take precedence.

Grueskin maintains Cabinet members are paid to run their departments, not testify before the JBC.

When Grueskin's bills are passed, it will no doubt be OK not only for lawmakers to go to the Cabinet, but for Ritter to hold a lavish, corporate-sponsored inaugural ball - even though the same amendment would seem to require him to buy a ticket to his own party.

Don't bet against Grueskin. He likes to point out the courts are in his corner, noting that three appellate decisions last summer on Colorado's campaign finance law all held that the cases couldn't be decided without looking at "the express intent" of the voters. Never mind the language itself, he said, the courts "will look at the whole enchilada." Regrettably, he's probably right.

Nevertheless, there would be sweet irony in any ruling that prohibits the term-limited Larson, of Cortez, from getting a Cabinet job. Although he's nominally a Republican, he often voted against his party at the legislature, endorsed Ritter's candidacy and co-authored an Op-Ed for The Denver Post endorsing Amendment 41. The other author: Jared Polis, who bankrolled the initiative.

Larson isn't shy about his hope that Ritter gives him a Cabinet job. "If a position in the Ritter administration opens up, I'll give it 100 percent," he told The Durango Herald. He's already sent in his résumé and is moving to Denver "to be closer to his grandson."

At least Larson needs a steady job. Isgar admitted to the Herald he too would "talk to" Ritter about a post - even though he was re-elected to a second four-year term just last week.

blakep@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5119.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News