President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 25, 2010 06:10 PM UTC

DPS as proxy for Romanoff vs Bennet & the conflicts of interest

  • 21 Comments
  • by: RockyMtnModerate

Watching the proxy battle being waged in the Senate primary, I think it’s time that the players on both side put an end to the conflicts of interest and commit to complete transparency. The clouds hanging over the motives of Andrea Merida, Theresa Peña, Tom Boasberg and to lesser degrees other members of the DPS Board have darkened so much that they make all of them less than credible.

The relationships between Merida and Romanoff on one side and Peña and Bennet on the other side put anything they say or any vote they cast in question of whether it is out of genuine conviction or politically motivated. Boasberg’s conflicts are of a completely different nature but are troubling as well.

Merida, I believe, clearly crossed a line in publishing an OpEd piece questioning Boasberg & Pena and by extension Bennet without clearly disclosing that she was being paid by the Romanoff campaign. I do not think that her questions and blunt words for either had anything to do with being paid by Romanoff but the appearance has damaged her credibility and unfairly tainted Romanoff. To be certain, Merida has been an outspoken critic of Boasberg and the DPS Board majority including Peña since the day she joined the Board and during her campaign for the seat. I have contacted two people I know who volunteer for Romanoff who both told me that her role there is as a field organizer focused on the Latino community and the parts of Denver she represents and organizing the Teachers for Romanoff which apparently is a large group.

So contrary to what the Bennet campaign is trying to stir up I don’t think her OpEd in the Denver Past had anything to do with her job with Romanoff. Having watched how she’s conducted herself, I think she would have written the same piece and would have been raising the questions she has whether she was working for Romanoff or not. If those are her beliefs and the questions she has, I think she not only has the right but the obligation to ask the questions. If there are questions she thinks need to be answered, it is her duty to raise them and to raise them as loudly as possible. The mistake and problem is when she does so without disclosing what could be the appearance of a conflict of interest. A simple “I am a field organizer for Romanoff but am writing this solely in my capacity as a DPS Board member” would have done the job.

Merida created at least the appearance of a conflict of interest and I believe should remove herself from any paid position with the Romanoff campaign.

On the other side of the Senate race, Theresa Peña has crossed the line on several occasions as well. Although her job for Bennet as Treasurer is an unpaid position, she clearly has “skin in the game” and an interest in how the DPS Board handles questions about things that went on while Bennet was Superintendent. For her to publicly attack Merida in the papers and at Board meetings and accuse Merida of having political motivations for raising questions is as rife with conflict and as inappropriate as Merida’s own actions.

There are a lot of questions that have been raised about the financial dealings that went on under Bennet and the impact those are having on the pensions and longterm condition of DPS and PERA. For Peña to dismiss those questions as political is a disservice to DPS, their teachers and all state retirees.

Peña’s close relationship with Bennet and her continued role with his campaign create at least the appearance of a conflict of interest and I believe she should remove herself from any official position with the Bennet campaign.

Tom Boasberg is a lifelong friend of Bennet who was Bennet’s #2 and was closely involved in some of the issues that there are now questions being raised about. Until all of the information is brought into the light and made available for scrutiny, any efforts by Boasberg to hinder that scrutiny create at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. Boasberg’s personal attacks on individual members of the Board border on insubordination and show his lack of understanding of either the role he serves vs that of the DPS Board or of the seriousness of the questions being raised. It has been reported that Boasberg actively fought against an amendment at the Statehouse to subject the DPS financing and condition of the retirement system under greater transparency and open records requirements. Boasberg has said it was not needed and was duplicating existing regulations.

Given his involvement with the financings under question and his personal ties to Bennet, Boasberg should be going out of his way to be as open and transparent as possible and should take extraordinary steps not to give the appearance that he is attacking or trying to undermine Bennet’s critics. He should invite a full public inspection of all of the DPS and DPS pension financing transactions including who was involved, the real costs associated, potential upside or downside and he should call for PERA to release the most recent reports immediately for public viewing.

At the end of the day, the DPS Board needs to get back to doing their work and not be using it is a proxy to attack or support Romanoff or Bennet. If there are legitimate questions about Bennet’s tenure at DPS, they should be asked and answered fully but Merida, Peña & Boasberg do their candidates and DPS families and employees a disservice by allowing their roles to be blurred. They are all entitled to support who they wish and they should all continue to fulfill their obligations to DPS but the conflicts of interest need to be ended and absolute transparency brought to the past financial transactions at DPS, the current condition and outlook for the DPS pension and PERA pension system.

Comments

21 thoughts on “DPS as proxy for Romanoff vs Bennet & the conflicts of interest

  1. than having a personal opinion.

    It’s the Neil Bush defense in civil court: He doesn’t understand what a conflict of interest constitutes.

    Mr.Bush I’m sure is smiling at both Merida and the Romanoff campaign.

    1. you ‘think’

      but you don’t know.

      And don’t use Neil Bush as an example – he is part of the new education model – for the rich only, that Merida is fighting.

      http://www.businessweek.com/ma


      Across the country, some teachers complain that President George W. Bush’s makeover of public education promotes “teaching to the test.” The President’s younger brother Neil takes a different tack: He’s selling to the test. The No Child Left Behind Act compels schools to prove students’ mastery of certain facts by means of standardized exams. Pressure to perform has energized the $1.9 billion-a-year instructional software industry.

      And yes, that is the continued direction we have now with SB 191 – more tests, which makes more money for Neil Bush the felon.

      And also, ask yourself this Ray,

      if it is true that Bennet’s investment swap is really losing all those millions as part of the School Board believes,

      would Pena, his treasurer, really try to investigate that?

      1. I’d be much more obliged to read your posts if they weren’t always formatted so fucking weirdly. Honestly, just let the text group together.

        It’s easier to read

        than this,

        even if you think this is

        easier to read, you know?

    2. Ray you used to just be entertaining if slightly annoying but I think you might want to check the tinfoil.  Good attempt here to completely ignore some facts that the writer brought up. I think this is the only balanced diary I’ve seen about this. But you can’t address the substance of it so you try to distract and go on another attack. But then with you running around other sites and posting conspiracy theories that get crazier and more comical by the day, guess I’m not surprised. Your latest rantings that Romanoff was in Central America illegally and was either working for Daniel Ortega or the Nicaraguan Contras – now that was some good shit. Maybe he really is part of them and he is a super-secret agent who infiltrated Ortega’s government (though Ortega wasn’t in office anymore) AND the Contras.

      Now, back to reality. Put the tinfoil on and they won’t be able to read your thoughts. Now that it’s all ok, do you actually have anything relevant or substantive to add to this conversation or is there no way that Saint Bennet or any of his supporters could ever do anything wrong?  

  2. (pasted in from S2, but removing the “electioneering” parts)

    Some people are operating under the mistaken impression that I am a spokesperson or surrogate for the Romanoff for Colorado campaign.  I am not.  I am a community organizer, and my role is to organize canvassing teams and phone banks.  I occasionally help out with house parties, and I also edit materials translated into Spanish.

    Everyone that knows me knows that I am opinionated and am never afraid to discuss even the most provocative of issues.  It makes people on the other side of issues very uncomfortable, and yet, as a good friend who is in the Bennet camp says, I’m never afraid to “hug it out.” I have a blog at andreamerida.com in which I discuss education and related issues of the day.  The opinions I hold about public education are wide open to the public.  There is never any doubt about where my stance is on an issue.  All one has to do is ask.

    Further, I have never hidden the fact that I am a strong supporter of Andrew Romanoff and of his bid to become our next U.S. Senator.  I endorsed Andrew in November 2009, a week after I won my own election. From that time I was strictly a very vocal volunteer.  It was only until May 2010 that I came on staff as an organizer.

    Some people don’t realize that by statute, school board members are not paid.  Many legislators have outside employment after their session.  Why is it unreasonable that I would be hired to do work in an area in which I have a strong, successful track record of accomplishment?  During my own campaign, my opponent had three times’ the money in his warchest as mine.  I chalk up my victory to good, old-fashioned grassroots organizing, and my mantra is, “he who knocks on the most doors, wins.”  

    Many campaign volunteers are elevated to paid status when they show a certain level of commitment and effectiveness.  This is not unheard of, nor is the fact that some legislators become paid consultants on campaigns.  All of this is open and public information.  There is nothing surreptitious about this.  The Denver Post took it upon themselves to research that I endorsed Andrew Romanoff, but they never asked me if I was a consultant, even though the FEC records show this plainly.  Had they asked, I would have answered yes.  That’s the way I am.  I’m proud to support and work for Andrew Romanoff.

    My personal mentor, former councilwoman and DNC rock star Ramona Martinez, told Mario Solis-Marich on the air last week that she’s glad Andrew Romanoff recognizes that politically-active, wise Latinas are worth more than just licking stamps and writing postcards.  She says it’s about time.  I could not agree more.

    And by the way, Rocky Mountain Moderate, your suggestion to add, “I am a field organizer for Romanoff but am writing this solely in my capacity as a DPS Board member” is an excellent one that I will begin to use immediately.

    I have painstakingly kept Senator Bennet’s name out of our conversations at DPS, simply because he can’t help us anymore.  He has moved on.  I have always kept focused on Tom Boasberg and his lacking response to the financial crisis that looms.  With the exception of my opinion piece last Wednesday, Mr. Bennet has not been part of my DPS discussions.  However, in my recent diary here about the interest-rate transactions, I was asked if he was the Superintendent at the time these transactions were execute.  What else could I do but answer to the affirmative?

    You have also captured the temperature of the water at DPS perfectly.  Thank you for the astute observations.

    1. First, in your capacity as candidate or DPS Board member has anyone ever asked you whether you have been convicted of a felony, or mistreated a child or otherwise violated a position of trust?

      If not, someone should.  Because the way you are defending your actions rests upon “but no one asked me”,

      Have a job, work hard at it earn a paycheck doing things you are good at. These are all good.

      Trade on your elected position and don’t say anything about the payment until or unless asked? Well this seems a little less good.

      If you cannot see that at the very least there you have an appearance problem that needs to be addressed, then you are missing the point.  You have said or written a lot of negative things about Senator Bennet.  Is this because you are paid staff of his primary opponent? Or is it because as a current DPS Board member you believe it is useful to look backward and criticize the decisions made before you were there?  It will take a long time for me to trust you enough to believe it’s not the former.

      And, no one should be licking stamps anymore. They are self adhesive.  I hope you were being metaphoric and if so that other politically active Latinas are more careful in sharing their wisdom for hire.

      1. To the first question, yes.  It’s part of the process to file for candidacy.

        As far as the “negative things,” are you referring to my diaries here?  

        I realize that you’re on the opposite side of the fence.  That’s ok.  You don’t have to like me or my candidate.  That’s America.

        And yes, that was a metaphor.  Ramona has been around for a little bit.

        😉

    2. There’s a big difference between being a staffer and being a supporter.

      This is very relevant information that they shouldn’t have to ask about, you should have volunteered it. This is a serious ethical breech on your part, and I have a feeling the voters of Denver are going to hold you accountable.

      Also, as far as I know the FEC records that “show this plainly” only became available last week. When they did, I assume the Post reporter was shocked to see your name in them after that op-ed, and the piece was promptly written.  

        1. You crossed an ethical line and should either resign, or be recalled. Does anyone know what the procedures are for a recall?

          It also speaks very very poorly to Romanoff’s judgment that he keeps you around.  

        2. Do you post under other names? Have any of those names been asked whether they were paid by the campaign? Does your husband work for the campaign too? and so on.

    3. This sort of BS is why my primary ballot is going in the trash.  Corporate Raider Mike, DLC Andy, and their supporters emit lots of noxious fumes but nothing helpful.

      By the way, great job, Andrea.  I come from the Kansas City area.  I have family dealing with the product of a Kansas City, Missouri, school board that has been dysfunctional for decades.  Thanks for bringing that mentality to Denver.

    4. 1. Resign from DPS to work exclusively on Romanoff’s campaign. He gets your undivided attention and you can show him your “all in” as much as he is. Hell, if he can see his house, resigning is the least you can do. The upside is that Andy is like SUPER confident he’s gonna win and maybe they’ll be a Congressional staff position in it for ya.

      2. Resign from the Romanoff campaign to work for DPS exclusively. This may be far less glamorous but if you are as dedicated to the schools as you claim, should be easy to do. Your credibility may be a little tarnished for awhile but if you work hard and make some real progress, the people would easily forgive and forget. Probably as soon as November 3rd.

      Continue to do both and you’ll forever have that black mark on your permanent record.

      1. I don’t “work for DPS.”  I am an unpaid Director for District 2.  I have a statutory role as one of the overseers of the district.

        Also, school’s out.  Since I have opted to decline taking further payment, I am still a very effective volunteer for the Romanoff campaign.

        If Andrew can go all in by selling his home, so can I.  We’re in this to win this.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

177 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!