(For your crony-riddled joke of a process, a slap on the wrist ole boy! – promoted by Colorado Pols)
The CSU Board of Governors violated the Colorado Open Meetings Law when it named Joe Blake the sole finalist for chancellor, a Larimer County district judge ruled Friday.
An early version of the Coloradoan story is here:
District Judge Stephen Schapanski ruled on a lawsuit brought by the Coloradoan, Pueblo Chieftain and Colorado Independent. After listening to the recording of the May 5 closed-door session, he ruled that the board:
— Illegally interviewed Blake and discussed his candidacy in secret. The judge agreed with the media coalition’s argument that state law prohibits governing bodies from discussing their own members in closed sessions. Blake was the board’s vice chairman when he was named sole finalist. He was the CEO of the Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce.
— Illegally decided in secret to name Blake the sole finalist for chancellor. The board’s lawyers argued their subsequent public vote made the process legal. Judge Schapanksi rejected that argument, saying the public vote, which occurred without discussion, was a “rubber stamp” of a decision already made behind closed doors.
The judge ordered CSU to release about 95 minutes of recordings made in the four-hour executive session. After the suit was filed, the board released about an hour of edited material from the executive session. The judge’s order includes the previously released material, but the editing will need to be removed.
The decision doesn’t impact Blake’s hiring, which is scheduled to formally occur next week. But the ruling sends a strong message on open government and is a rebuke to the BOG, which has insisted that it complied with the law in selecting Blake.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Latest Ballot Return Numbers: Strong Returns for Democrats
BY: Ben Folds5
IN: Dems Close Ranks As Trump Tries To Exploit SoS Password Pickle
BY: Pam Bennett
IN: Mayor Mike’s Aurora Empire Crumbling From The Inside?
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Evans’ Explanation for Skipping Gay Marriage Vote Puzzles His Colleagues
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Dems Close Ranks As Trump Tries To Exploit SoS Password Pickle
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Latest Ballot Return Numbers: Strong Returns for Democrats
BY: NotHopeful
IN: Latest Ballot Return Numbers: Strong Returns for Democrats
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Evans’ Explanation for Skipping Gay Marriage Vote Puzzles His Colleagues
BY: Air Slash
IN: Friday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
what does this possibly mean? Members can’t discuss why another member is late for the meeting while in executive session? Can they discuss the beautiful watch someone is wearing? Can they observe that one member is thirsty?
aren’t in the room. It makes for rather chilly secret meetings.
State law prohibits governing bodies from discussing their own members in closed sessions when making hiring decisions.
Boy, I hope you win front-page status, Jamba. Pols can use a dash of whimsy and surrealism.
Jambalaya, this deals with the “personnel matters” exception in state law. I used some shorthand here that would confuse someone who isn’t immersed in the issue. I apologize. Generally, state law allows a board to discuss personnel matters behind closed doors. But there’s specific language that says the personnel exception doesn’t apply to your own board members. So the board citied the “personnel exception” in going into closed session, completely ignoring the law that said that exception doesn’t apply to someone who’s on your board.
State law limits what can properly be discussed in secret. One of the biggest prohibitions is that you can’t make actual decisions behind closed doors — you can discuss pro’s and con’s, etc., but you can’t reach decisions. You certainly can’t take a vote on hiring someoneone in executive session, and that’s exactly what happened here.
They’re not stupid. They purposefully ignored the law. I’d like to see real punushment for that – too bad the law doesn’t call for 1 day of jail time and the individuals face that on their record.
do people think the board’s discussion or vote would’ve been different if it was in open session?
The discussion might have been different, but the point is, Colorado’s Sunshine Laws require the public’s business be conducted in public. It’s not a suggestion, it’s the law, and has been for decades.
It’s been my impression that the those who cry the loudest about violations of the Sunshine Laws are those who disagree with the substantive decision made by the government body, rather than those who have passion for the Sunshine Laws themselves. This doesn’t mean, of course, that the Sunshine Laws should be ignored, but it does make me a bit cynical about allegations of Sunshine Laws violations. Imagine that….me, cyncial! First time for everything, I guess!
In this case, the Chieftain, one of the parties in the lawsuit, editorialized in favor of the choice of Joe Blake. The Coloradoan has made clear that the issue isn’t about Blake, it’s about government living up to its legal responsibilities to citizens. The fact of the matter is that this process was the latest in a series of actions by the Board of Governors or the CSU administration that flouted the concept that government should be transparent to its bosses.
…but I’ve always enjoyed being part of the opposition! Don’t have to do nothing but complain.