May 31, 2009 08:53 PM UTC

Bill Ritter and the CSU Chancellorship Scandal

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

In the weeks since the legislative session ended, controversy has been building over the selection by Colorado State University of GOP businessman Joe Blake for the position of “chancellor”–a position created anew for the CSU system, based in Denver and in theory responsible for “big ticket” fundraising for the school and legislative lobbying.

The selection of Blake is proving controversial on a few levels. As reported here and in other media outlets around the state (though not, per troubling usual, by the Denver Post), the CSU Board of Governors is embroiled in a lawsuit that seems to be successfully arguing Blake’s appointment was carried out in violation of Colorado’s open meetings law. Last week, the Fort Collins Coloradoan demanded in an editorial that the search process be restarted, citing uncertainties surrounding the appointment of Blake. The CSU Board of Governors. increasingly under pressure to put the scandal to bed, “reselected” Blake last week in an odd attempt to ‘un-violate’ the law they are accused of breaking. Underscoring all this is the fact that Blake was vice-chair of the board that picked him, which makes any appearance of back-room impropriety a grave concern. The Colorado Independent, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against CSU, summarized the problem this way:

[The situation] fuels perception that the Blake selection was on some level a pre-determined conclusion orchestrated from the inside, exactly the kind of maneuvering lawmakers are seeking to prohibit when it comes to filling major tax-funded positions that come with the power to guide major public institutions like a state university.

But for all the nasty disclosures, none of this seems to be affecting Blake actually taking office as chancellor of CSU. If that surprises you, if you look at this situation and see enough scandal foaming out the top to float a bottlecap on–perhaps wondering why the hell somebody isn’t stepping in–we have a few points for you to consider.

It seems like an eternity but only a little over three weeks ago, the Colorado House passed a bill aimed specifically at opening up the selection process for higher ed executives. House Bill 1369, introduced very late in the session, would not have affected the CSU selection process but was clearly intended to question it. In hindsight, given the current troubled state of that appointment process in particular, we find the spirit of this legislation to be pretty much vindicated.

But on May 5th, a whole bunch of things happened in an eye-opening row. House Bill 1369 was killed by its sponsors, correctly citing their error in introducing the bill so late but also meekly backing off previous admissions that the bill was related to the CSU search at all. A significant retreat. A little later the same day, CSU officially announced that Blake had been selected as “sole finalist” for the new position–freshly dead House Bill 1369 either gained or lost a hell of a lot of import at that moment, depending on how you look at it.

Most important in our view, though, was a press release from the office of Governor Bill Ritter that came a short while afterward.

“Joe has been a key partner and an important supporter of our efforts to strengthen Colorado’s economy, build a modern transportation system and improve higher education,” said Gov. Ritter, who graduated from CSU with a political science degree in 1978. “We’ve made significant progress together these past 2½ years, and I look forward to continuing that partnership with Joe…”

If you’ve been around as long as we have, you know the aforementioned “partnership with Joe” has quite a history. It’s had its good moments, like Referendum C, or last year’s high-stakes negotiations that resulted in onerous bills from both labor and business interests failing, but many Democrats would argue that the “partnership” between Governor Ritter and Joe Blake’s “business community” took a rather nasty turn in the recently concluded legislative session. On a number of issues including the Pinnacol funds transfer, but most importantly the labor-backed lockout and firefighter bills, Ritter has acted (in one case, widely expected to act) in ways that the “business community” cheered, and alienated his friends–both in the legislature where lawmakers carried politically risky bills only to watch them die ingloriously, and across his base of Democratic support. This latest example with Joe Blake and House Bill 1369 is a little more ‘inside baseball’ but it’s a symptom of the same problem.

So here’s the question: if the judge currently reviewing the closed-door meetings that led to Blake’s appointment finds that laws were broken, what is Ritter going to do? He’s going to find himself in a bit of a pickle–the (overly, in our opinion) valued relationship with Blake and his “business community,” versus legislative leaders and watchdog groups with less incentive than ever to not demand intervention from Ritter over exactly what they were warning about with HB-1369. Bill Owens, after all, had an awful lot to say about a certain politically incorrect CU professor when he was governor–this would seem to be a significantly more important matter, wouldn’t it?

We’ll be watching closely to see how this story unfolds. One thing Ritter has never been accused of, even by his critics, is tolerating outright unethical behavior: Greg Kolomitz was as close as he ever got to scandal personally and it didn’t stick. But while he may not have had any role in Joe Blake’s selection other than to give it his swift and dissent-quieting support, possible outcomes for Ritter include that support, unfortunately, earning a little taint of its own.