Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Alerts | Electronic edition | Advertise | Subscribe to the paper | Today's Extras
Subscribe

Breaking News:

Ritter staff expected heat

Aides rushed to be prepared before he issued union order

By Chris Barge, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published November 29, 2007 at 12:30 a.m.
Updated November 29, 2007 at 8:19 a.m.

Text size  

Related Links

Related Stories

More Colorado Government

More stories »

Map my news

On the day he issued his executive order making unions a bigger player in state government, Gov. Bill Ritter and union representatives assured Coloradans they weren't going to rock the boat.

But behind the scenes, the waters were anything but calm, e-mails and other documents provided by Ritter's office in response to a Rocky Mountain News open records request show.

Ritter's senior staff scrambled in the hours leading up to his announcement to deal with what they accurately predicted would be "a good deal of backlash."

And a group representing seven Colorado unions rushed Ritter a "personal and confidential" letter urging him not to sign the order because it did not go far enough.

Four hours before Ritter announced his order in a Friday afternoon news release, his deputy chief of staff for policy and initiatives, Ken Weil, tapped out an e-mail on his BlackBerry to Wade Buchanan, president of the Denver-based Bell Policy Center.

Weil wrote that the order was imminent and that he also understood the left-leaning, nonprofit public policy research group was drafting a study on organized public employees. He asked if he could get an early look.

"Also wanted to give you a heads up since there will be a good deal of backlash," Weil wrote.

"We expect bad editorials in (the Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News) this weekend," he wrote in another e-mail 14 minutes later. "Any help would be greatly appreciated."

Buchanan replied he would show Weil an advance copy of the study and would alert his director of policy and research of the coming announcement so he could "be ready" to lend Ritter some support.

Costs in Washington

The day before that interchange, Ritter's senior policy analyst, Christine Murphy, e-mailed Steve McLain, the Washington governor's chief labor negotiator.

Murphy wanted to know the accuracy of the "much bruited about" statement that a new collective bargaining agreement for state workers will cost Washington taxpayers $1.6 billion over the next two years.

"We look to be right on the brink of facing lots of press questions, and I expect the Washington example to be one subject of those questions," Murphy wrote. "I just want to be sure I have my facts right. An answer as soon as reasonably convenient would be most appreciated."

McLain confirmed that the $1.6 billion figure was correct.

Evan Dreyer, the governor's spokesman, was asked Wednesday to reconcile the contrast between Ritter's low-keyed announcement and the urgent tone of his staff's correspondence.

The staff e-mails are in keeping with Ritter's reaching out to all groups with experience and interest in the union issue, Dreyer said. He also said that Ritter's decision not to hold a news conference wasn't an attempt to downplay what he knew would be an unpopular order.

"If you're going to try to sneak something through, you just do it," Dreyer said. "You don't announce you've done it."

'Breakthrough' cited

Thirty minutes before Ritter's news release landed, the largest union in state government sent out a statement cheering his decision.

"Colorado state employees reached a breakthrough today when Governor Bill Ritter issued an executive order giving state employees the freedom to vote and choose an employee association of their choice, enabling them to negotiate job and service improvements directly," read the news release from the Colorado Association of Public Employees and the Service Employees International Union.

But earlier in the day, Teamsters Local 455 Secretary Steven Vairma wrote Ritter on behalf of seven unions, including SEIU, that were members of Colorado Change to Win, an umbrella organized labor group Vairma chaired.

"The affiliates of Change to Win ask that you delay the signing of the executive order on allowing state employees to organize under an open shop," Vairma wrote. "Change to Win is opposed to the executive order that in its current form it does not go far enough to advance and protect the interests and rights of state employees."

Mitch Ackerman, president of SEIU Local 105, was listed by name on the letter from Vairma.

But Ackerman said Wednesday he and his union support Ritter's order and Vairma's letter didn't represent their position.

"Absolutely not," he said. "Not me, not SEIU, not CAPE-SEIU. I had no idea that they sent it until after it was already in the governor's hands."

Union order not in speech

The issue continues to dog Ritter, who mentioned almost all of his major policy initiatives except his union order in a speech Tuesday in Colorado Springs to officials representing 62 of the state's 64 counties.

Asked afterward by a local television reporter about his union order, Ritter reiterated it doesn't permit strikes or "any kind of collective bargaining that results in binding arbitration."

"It looks for ways for state employees to be involved and engaged in our work force, to be productive and find efficiencies, he said."

Comments

  • November 29, 2007

    6:36 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacwright writes:

    In the way he choose to take this action, Gov. Ritter severely undermined his credibility. Earlier in year, he originally vetoed a union bill under the guise that the legislative process wasn't inclusive nor thorough enough and that he wanted to set the tone that his administration was going to be open and inclusive. Then he undertook this stealth-like executive action on this contentious issue. Now what is to be believed about his intentions towards inclusiveness and openness in the legislative process? Sadly, we don't know anymore. With this latest backstairs action, he violated his own trust and our trust in him.

    John Wright

  • November 29, 2007

    8:23 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    RJS07 writes:

    "In the way he choose to take this action, Gov. Ritter severely undermined his credibility."

    You are absolutely right, John. If this was such a swell idea, it would have stood the scrutiny of the legislature (already in his corner) and the public. One has to wonder what other trickery is up the governors sleeve...I am disgusted with his behavior, and the weaseling around since.

  • November 29, 2007

    9:28 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    GrayOwl writes:

    Both of you are right on the money -- and speaking of money, that's where the governor's attention is. This was a very clumsy attempt to pay back his union masters at the expense of the people of Colorado. What happens next? Easy: When the union bosses whistle and clap their hands, the governor will jump. Thanks to the Rocky for demanding that the info used in this story be made public -- as it should be. I remain amazed and appalled at how many bureaucrats and their flunkies think they somehow have ownership -- as opposed to the public having ownership -- of such communications.

  • November 29, 2007

    12:50 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Brockage writes:

    I love the defense of this mess by the claim the workforce will as a result be more productive and find efficiencies. Right, like unions have always had as their aim productivity and efficiency. How droll.

  • November 29, 2007

    1:05 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    StateWorker writes:

    Personally I can’t believe how over blown the media has made this thing. Oh wow the Gov. gave the state workers a collective voice. Yes a voice but with no teeth we can’t strike. If we had this voice five years ago we “The State Workers” could have saved all tax payers hundreds of millions of dollars on projects that were doomed to fail.

    Makes me wonder how many palms were greased under Owens. Thank god we have a law now prohibiting gifts over $50 for state workers.

    Why doesn’t the RMNews write about the states workers “Pay for performance” and how it has not been funded for the last five years?

    I am all for the Union as long as it is non-profit organization.

    I'm tired of the Republican mumbo-jumbo!!!

  • November 29, 2007

    4:48 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    GrayOwl writes:

    I suspect StateWorker speaks for many pro-union types. The whole thing is very sad. Many, including the governor, seem to miss a very central point: If we need unions and their outside union bosses (who facilitate the forwarding of a portion of their revenue -- dues -- to their own higher-ups, of course) to help workers communicate with bosses, something is seriously wrong with the bosses (including, I dare say, the governor) or the workers or the whole lot of those on the public payroll. I think it's time for the Rocky to check again on the union and union-related campaign contributions to the governor. Then, since he has proved that he operates on a payback system, I think the Rocky should analyze all of his other sizeable contributions so we can go ahead and project which other interest groups he will be kissing. A scorecard would make it easier for us to check them off as they occur (or have occurred). Keep reporting, friends.

  • November 30, 2007

    8:55 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    rellimpank writes:

    ---Remember the slogan "Don't Californicate Colorado"??---seems to me it applies here , too---

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.




(Forgotten your password?)




News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Sponsored links



Reprints