Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

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

Denver should provide more details of security spending

Rocky Mountain News

Published July 25, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

Denver's "disclosure" of security-related equipment spending for the Democratic National Convention is hardly an act of "transparency," as the city claims. The one-page-plus-two-lines document resembles an entry in an essay contest requiring responses in 25 words or less, not a reasonable accounting of how the city will spend the public's money.

We don't expect the Department of Safety to turn over every purchase order before the convention. But it has an obligation to provide more than generic one- or two-word descriptions outlining how it will spend a lavish $18.2 million.

While the funding may be coming from Washington, as part of the expected $50 million in reimbursements for hosting the convention, it is tax money. And the public has a right to know whether it will pay for genuine, reasonable security measures and equipment or is being diverted to other purposes.

Colorado's record in spending federal homeland security grants has hardly been exemplary. A 2005 report by the state auditor found state officials parceled out millions of federal dollars to local governments without a careful appraisal of risk. After a 2006 federal audit, Washington ordered the state to repay $1.5 million in misspent federal grants. And a review of state homeland security procedures by Gov. Bill Ritter led to a full revamping of Colorado's security operations.

Denver's accounting for safety equipment, such as it is, leaves far too many questions unanswered. The city did provide some useful information: $1 million will go to interagency communications and another $2.16 million to buy an Urban Search And Rescue vehicle, a HazMat vehicle and a technical rescue vehicle for the Fire Department.

Yet one-third of the safety department's budget - slightly more than $6 million - is listed as "Non Department of Safety Purchases," with no further explanation. What does that mean? For all we know, the city could be purchasing iPods and flat-screen TVs for employees. If the money is targeted for the Department of Safety but will not be spent by that department, then where is it going?

Beyond that, $1,017,500 of the police budget is slated for "Other Misc Equipment," and that's in addition to several million dollars for "personal protection equipment," "crowd control equipment" and "mass arrest equipment."

The city only disclosed this much information because it had to, in a response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union under the Colorado Open Records Act.

The ACLU sought the city's purchase records for weapons, vehicles, body armor, restraint devices and barricades. The city essentially said it did not have to cooperate because the requests were covered by the Criminal Justice Records Act, which grants (in the city's view) greater leeway to conceal information if disclosure is contrary to the public interest.

ACLU legal director Mark Silverstein told us the lawsuit will test how far the government can hide behind that shield.

The legislature modified the open records law in 2005, allowing public review of homeland security documents; the law now allows the government to shield only "specialized details of security arrangements or investigations."

To be sure, there's a public interest in preventing disclosure of the city's planned response to, say, a terrorist attack on the light-rail system . . . or a coordinated effort by protest groups to shut down delegates' main access points to the Pepsi Center.

But that's not what the litigation seeks. If Denver officials really are committed to transparency, they'll be much more forthcoming, and it shouldn't take a lawsuit to make that happen.

Comments

  • July 25, 2008

    1:05 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    daRock writes:

    The city of Denver is taking their marching orders from the feds, Secret Service, FBI etc. There is no reason for them to show their hand in a poker game with anarchists or the ACLU. BUT.....

    There needs to be a total and public accounting of every dime spent after the convention. Including each gallon of gas taken from a city owned pump.

  • July 25, 2008

    7:26 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    yaakovwatkins writes:

    As taxpayers, we are entitled to understand how our elected officials spent our money. We are not normally entitled to create a committee of 2 million to micromanage the Department of Safety.

    The city simply doesn't have time to operate in the real world and subject every decision to public discussion and judicial appraisal prior to enacting it. A detailed proposal for expenditures will inevitably be wrong in some particulars, leading to future charges of deception. Purchases intended to be used only in the most terrible situations might be misconstrued as being for use in normal situations.

    For instance, most police have access to nightsticks, bullet proof vests, mace, hand guns, shotguns, and high powered rifles. That does not mean that a school safety officer will bring all of them into a classroom to give a talk. We give our public servants tools. We need to let them do their jobs and be responsible to us later for how well they did them.

    We should do a detailed analysis of city management of the DNC in September. Until then, let people do their jobs.

  • July 25, 2008

    9:54 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Elwood writes:

    Giving the ACLU and others the information they are requesting would be like Mike Shanahan giving his game plan to the Raiders.

  • July 25, 2008

    10:09 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    lamb writes:

    Right, close the barn door after the horse has been stolen. Then take an inventory. The ACLU isn't asking for the details of the security plan, but letting people know up front that the funds are being strictly accounted for gives some transparency to government. We're talking about our money; it's all come out of our pockets at some point, why shouldn't we have some assurances and truth instead of cover ups, lies, and blaming someone else later on down the road. Although, even if someone takes part in this kind of behavior, she can still run for public office, as demonstrated by Barbara Kirkmeyer running for Weld County Commissioner (again). Ms. Kirkmeyer quit her position as Executive Director of the Department of Local Affairs, (the state department that was responsible for Homeland Security), just one day before the audit in 2006. The result, as mentioned in this article is the state (Colorado taxpayers) had to repay the Federal government $1.5 million. Do we want a repeat of that for Denver?

  • July 25, 2008

    4:38 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    Elwood: "Giving the ACLU and others the information they are requesting would be like Mike Shanahan giving his game plan to the Raiders."

    The ACLU is solely focused on preserving the Bill of Rights as provided for every American citizen in this country. So, using your little football analogy, the citizens of this country are enemies of their elected government?

    Wow.

  • July 25, 2008

    5:45 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    GetReal writes:

    MTS 4:38-

    You should have stated the ACLU is solely focused on preserving only the parts of The Bill Of Rights that are in line with their Liberal agenda.

    What about the second, ninth and tenth amendments for the American citizens? Where is the ACLU on those?

    Wow.

  • July 25, 2008

    7:12 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    renaldo_phlegm writes:

    So we need to buy all these new vehicles and crowd control supplies for a four day event; we can't rent or borrow them and the national guard can't help either? I assume the reason we don't already have this stuff is because we don't normally need it? Heck, I guess it's only another $18 million, and big trucks and guns are a lot cooler than elementary schools.

  • July 26, 2008

    8:55 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    GetReal, quite candidly, I don't agree with the ACLU's interpretation of the second amendment. And I'm not familiar with their stance on the ninth and ten amendments.

    Regarding the situation outlined in the RMN editorial above, though, I am thankful for the ACLU's legal involvement. I truly believe an open, transparent government is one of the hallmarks of an authentically free society.

  • July 27, 2008

    12:06 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    yaakovwatkins writes:

    The Denver ACLU has come out in favor of throwing away police records.

    If the police do an investigation and discover that someone is innocent, the ACLU wants the information discarded so that the police would have to investigate people every time someone thinks about it. This is in the name of not have files on innocent people.

    For instance, if someone has the same name and physical appearance as an infamous criminal who is at large, the police might quite reasonably investigate to make sure that the person is not the criminal. However, unless DPD keeps records of that investigation, the only one in the department who knows that this guy is innocent may not be on duty the next time someone notices him. That would mean that this poor guy could be legitimately arrested multiple times for the same bad reason. DPD would have to protect his privacy by throwing out the investigatory data proving him innocent.