Blake: Is Amendment 41 too harsh? Just redefine the language

Published January 20, 2007 at midnight

Text size

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

The draft language of the bill designed to "fix" the awkward provisions of the "ethics in government" amendment came floating over the transom this week.

Say this for its author, attorney Mark "The Bus" Grueskin. He's done what he said he would.

He plays fullback here, not scatback. When faced with clear, crisp language that would seem to prevent what he's trying to do, he doesn't try to skirt the end with cute verbal stutter steps. He just runs right over it.

Let the courts try to tackle him later.

For instance, the language in Amendment 41 says: "No statewide officeholder or member of the General Assembly shall personally represent another person or entity for compensation before any other statewide elected officeholder of member of the General Assembly" for two years after leaving office.

That's very awkward. For instance, it would seem to prevent Tom Plant, whose term in the House just ended, from lobbying lawmakers in his new capacity as head of Gov. Bill Ritter's Office of Energy Conservation and Management.

Some argue it even prevents him from promoting his views to the governor.

Remember, this is in the state constitution. If it were a statute, the legislature could easily amend it. But constitutional changes require a vote of the people.

No problem for Grueskin. He just proposes a new definition for "personally represent for compensation."

In Grueskin's draft bill it means "employment as a professional lobbyist by a nongovernment entity for which payment is realized" by the ex-officeholder or legislator and "which position is primarily dedicated to lobbying."

Note the constitutional language doesn't distinguish between private and public lobbying. Nor does it say that the job you can't have must be "primarily dedicated" to lobbying. It says you can't represent for compensation.

Why would the voters be less leery of recently defrocked lawmakers lobbying for tax-supported government agencies than they would be of those lobbying for Behemoth Oil?

Grueskin's task is, or should be, made more difficult by the last paragraph in Amendment 41. It says legislation may be enacted to "facilitate" it, "but in no way shall such legislation limit or restrict the provisions of this article or the powers herein granted."

Grueskin would also, by definiing terms, greatly liberalize the gift ban provisions of the amendment. "Private gain" and "personal financial gain" do not include, he said:

• Scholarships and other financial aid given to family members of state employees if they're unrelated to the employees' "performance of an official act as a covered person."

• Payments associated with attending conferences, including meals, travel and lodging, so long as the conferences are "reasonably related" to the covered official's "public position" or advances his "experience, skills or knowledge."

• Any gift from a lobbyist's family member to a family member of a covered official if it's based on the individual's "bona fide social or family relationship."

• "Any award, recognition or compensation" given to a faculty member of a public college or university so long as it's based on his or her "academic achievement, skills, performance or professional standing."

That's so CU professors can keep collecting medals and millions from the Nobel Prize committee.

The sponsor of the pending bill is Rep. Rosemary Marshall, D-Denver. She said Friday that introduction of the bill will be delayed until she figures out "the right thing to do." Some legislative leaders have said they are against trying to tamper with the plain language of the amendment.

More on Amendment 41: Greg Kolomitz, the manager of Ritter's campaign, and Sheila MacDonald, its field director, have been hired to promote the pending bill.

Kolomitz said they won't be working directly with lawmakers (they're not registered lobbyists) but will try "grass-roots coalition building."

What that means is that they'll be trying to get other people to pressure their lawmakers into voting for the bill.

He's back! Former state Sen. Joe Shoemaker has announced he's running next month for one of the most unrewarding jobs in Colorado politics - chairman of the Denver Republican Party.

Shoemaker, 82, served 12 years in the Senate (1962-'66, 1968-'76) and was a member of Joint Budget Committee the whole time. He was something of a tightfisted bully and still hasn't been forgiven by the judicial branch for the undistinguished and trouble-plagued appellate courts building near the Capitol. Opened 30 years ago, it will be replaced as soon as the legislature can be cajoled into approving the funding.

It cost less than anticipated, which prompted one critic to observe, "Anybody can come in under budget if he eliminates the first floor."

Shoemaker ran unsuccessfully for governor in 1978. After leaving politics he ran the Platte River Greenway Foundation for many years.

There used to be several Republicans from Denver in every legislative session but there hasn't been even one for years.

Noting that Denver Democrats outnumber Republicans 3 to 1, Shoemaker said his goal is to "lessen that difference for the benefit of our taxpayers."

Riddle me this: The University of Colorado president has said he'll resign effective Feb. 1, 2008. Asks J.J. Ament: "So who will be off the payroll first? Hank Brown or Ward Churchill?"

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

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News