And Don't Let The Door Smack Your...

Let's be realistic.

They all had only about another month left in office anyway, and the legislature is not in session either.

---

by: MiddleRoadDem @ Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 10:52:34 AM CST

I agree

I would do the same thing.  Nothing wrong with keeping your options open for the future.  Besides, I believe it was OscarTheCouch who mentioned that Teck and Grossman were leaving for other jobs - not lobbying. 

---

by: Car 31 @ Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 10:59:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Journalists think everyone's overpaid

Everyone thinks journalists are under worked.

---

by: Another skeptic @ Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 13:45:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What a crock

Dan Grossman is an extremely talented individual. So the insightful folks down at the Daily Camera believe that Grossman spent years making $30k in the legislature for his own self enrichment? I don't blame the guy for wanting to have an unencumbered career now that he's out. He deserves to make some money.

---

by: Miss Ive @ Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 10:59:57 AM CST

Except Grossman's going to a non-profit.

I don't think the Regional Director of the Earth Foundation is likely to be living large.

"But every Republican in the world is a lobbyist…" -- Bill O'Reilly

---

by: OscarTheCouch @ Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 11:53:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

But, it could be a job with policy making and

hence lobbying responsibilities, even though it doesn't fit the traditional stereotype of the high paid corporate lobbyist.  Hence, the prudence of leaving early.

---

by: ohwilleke @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 16:26:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah that op-ed is BS

Amendment 41 is flawed logic...not all lobbyists are bad and I would love for someone to produce ONE lawmaker who is swayed in their vote by a lunch or sports tickets. These poorly-paid public officials deserve these minor perks of office to make up for their paltry salary. Citizen legislature my ass.

---

by: Busta6 @ Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 11:21:36 AM CST

only rich need apply

amen--41 basically makes sure only rich people can run for office--which I'm sure is fine with its main backer, Jared Polis

---

by: donkeydem @ Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 16:37:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Agreed, but

I voted against 41 for exactly that reason; it penalizes someone for running for legislature, a choice that almost certainly involves taking a pay cut.

That said, I do find something wrong with the idea that adequate compensation for a legislator is dependent on their ability to score perks from lobbyists or take better jobs when they are done.  There's something terribly unfair there; what's needed is the honesty to realize that it fills a need in many cases, and replace it rather than just remove it.

Alternatively, if we repealed 41 and just accepted lobbyist gifts as job perks, then we probably ought to encourage more lunches and fewer Broncos tickets; suggest to some lobbyists that gas and rent make good perks; and try to arrange it so lawmakers with families can bring their kids along to the legislative lunches.

"... politics has been divided between two types of people: those who want more people to vote, and those who want fewer people to vote."
- Sen. Kerry

---

by: cdsmith @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 03:22:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

crazy!!!

That's very insulting. You are saying that the only reason people who aren't wealthy run for office is for the graft and payoffs!!!! What you are saying is demeaning to those of us who aren't wealthy. Most public servants who aren't rich are not in it for the perks and payoffs from lobbyists, and those grumbling now were in it for the wrong reasons in the first place.... good riddence!

Legislative pay raises are another matter, probably a good idea, but it is not a solution to rely on payoffs from lobbyists!

---

by: DVDfanatic @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 13:11:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

RE-The Camera

...heck, even a BROKEN clock is right twice a day.

Laws not Men

---

by: M. Douglas Wray @ Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 11:59:50 AM CST

Grossman going to not-for-profit sector

Earth Foundation?  My intel said Environmental Defense, Rocky Mnt. Office...

Its legal (and ethical) to leave under the circumstances; the law was passed after they took office, so it is reasonable that they were not planning for such.  Now it is known, if politicos take office and resign now (that the law is in effect) it is slightly more unseemly. 

All that said, Ron Teck...  the only thing good I can say about him is that he is not Josh Penry.

---

by: Oliver @ Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 17:25:11 PM CST

Holy bitch-slap batman!

You'd think everyone in Boulder would just be absolutely giddy with the political landscape since November.

IMHO I think 41 is the second step to making lawmaking a full time job under the Golden Dome. By 2020 I am all but certain the Leg will become a full time gig when the public gets fed up with having only wealthy folks represent them. I mean we've seen this in American history before right?

---

by: Iron_Mike @ Thu Dec 07, 2006 at 23:05:52 PM CST

The worst part of 41 is that the gift ban goes far, far

beyond gifts to legislators.  A ban on gifts to legislators would have been reasonable.

But, a ban on gifts to almost all state employees, most of whom have no political power whatsoever, without even requiring that the gift have any nexis at all with their professional duties, is way over the top.

---

by: ohwilleke @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 16:28:39 PM CST

Why?

Why is that way over the top?

Discipline without purpose is tyranny.

---

by: Automaticftp @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 17:55:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

because the ban

applies to all government employees (including school teachers, ditch diggers and janitors) as well as any contractor for government and all of those employees.  But it just doesn't ban gifts from lobbyists, it bans the gift of anything with a value of over $50 from anyone except immediate family members and close personal friends.  So if your 8-year old wants to give a teacher a thankyou gift certificate for $50, your 8-year old and the teacher would be guilty of ethics violations.

It is so over the top

---

by: Roger D @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 18:28:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually

Amendment 41 doesn't exempt immediate family members and close personal friends, unless it is a "special occasion", whatever that is as a term of law.  There are actually many people, a majority even, who actually believe that a snow-plow driver is somehow corrupt when she gets $51 worth of flowers from her husband "just because".  And before you all start with the claims that "nobody meant that", it doesn't matter, because that is what the Constitution now SAYS!  But that's not over the top, no.  State employees should all just quit and let the electorate live with their "reasonable measure to promote public faith".

---

by: MontesquieuianGauntlet @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 20:22:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What about an apple?

---

by: Lauren Bacall @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 21:19:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

golden apples are probably too much

But golden delicious apples are A-OK!

What are you talking about?...I don't get it." - bjwilson83

---

by: Aristotle @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 22:03:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

funny

This whole thread would be hysterical but it seems that you folks thing you're serious. Amendment 41 did not ban gifts to all state employees, teachers, or anyone else

It only bans conduct "that is in violation of their public trust or that creates a justifiable impression among members of the public that such trust is being violated"

It can't just be an impression, but it has to be a justifiable one, and there's an ethics committee to check. SO no, lobbyists can't give gifts to legislators. And that's about it.

Are you all going to eat your own shirts when none of the crazy stuff you're talking about happens?

---

by: DVDfanatic @ Fri Dec 08, 2006 at 22:41:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Nice quote

And the excerpt you cite fits nicely within your desired outcome of the amendment.  There is an awful lot it leaves out though.  How about this definition:  "Government employee means any employee, including government contractor, of the state... public institution of higher education, or any local government".  Pair that with this:  "No...  government employee shall accept or receive any money, forbearance, or forgiveness of indebtedness FROM ANY PERSON (emphasis added) without... receiving lawful consideration of equal or greater value in return..."  Now explain to me again how a professor isn't banned from getting a gift?  Sure, maybe the ethics commission gives the professor a pass, but the professor will still be in violation of the plain language of the Constitution.  And wouldn't violation of the Constitution by a professor create a justifiable impression that the public trust has been breached?  Maybe my Constitution means more than yours.

---

by: MontesquieuianGauntlet @ Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 00:30:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Please read the blue book

comments and explanation by Legislative Council as to what the amendment says and means.

---

by: Roger D @ Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 07:35:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

So you're saying

apples, Golden Delicious or otherwise, are OK?

---

by: Lauren Bacall @ Sat Dec 09, 2006 at 10:10:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

wrong

the language includes "pulblic officer, member of the general assembly, local government official, or government employee"

That may not be what is meant but that's what it says.

---

by: Miss Ive @ Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 21:48:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]