CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

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) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

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%↑

35%↓

30%↑

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
February 04, 2011 06:50 PM UTC

Post should call on moonlighters like Stapleton to follow Hick's lead

  • 19 Comments
  • by: Jason Salzman

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Kenny Be summed up Scott Gessler’s moonlighting problem nicely in Westword last month, depicting Colorado’s Secretary of State with a phone on each ear.

If you’re The Denver Post, the two phones in the cartoon would have caught your eye, because the newspaper waged a multi-faceted campaign to get Bill Ritter to turn over his personal cell-phone records for public review-with his personal calls excised.

Ritter refused to do this, even though he apparently conducted state business on his personal cell phone, because he said it was an invasion of privacy.

The Post got pretty upset at Ritter, as was its custom at the time. There weren’t any front-page editorials on this issue, but it hopped up and down on the editorial page, calling for the release of his cell-phone records, and even filed a lawsuit that drags on to this day. (Two decisions have gone against The Post, and the daily has appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.)

Ritter has come and gone and, unfortunately, we never reviewed the state calls he made on his personal cell-phone.

But The Post’s campaign paid off.

John Hickenlooper  told a conservative journalist that he’ll use two cell phones, one for conducting the people’s business and another for personal and campaign work.

He’ll make records of calls on his “government cell phone” available for public review. And he plans to have a neutral party review the records from his private phone to make sure he’s not hiding state biz there.

Former Post Editorial Board member and current Post reporter Chuck Plunkett discussed Hick’s cell phone policies on Jon Caldara’s “Devil’s Advocate” TV show on KBDI. (The name of the show should actually be “The Devil,” dropping the “Advocate” part, but who am I?)

Caldara and Plunkett couldn’t say enough good things about Hick’s cell-phone policies. And a Post editorial patted the new gov on the back.

Recent news cycles have illuminated other state officials whom The Post should now call on to follow Hick’s lead.

I’m thinking of Colorado’s proliferating crop of moonlighting public officials. Among other things, we need to be sure that their moonlighting doesn’t blend their two jobs together on their personal cell phones.

So that means these guys: GOP Attorney General John Suthers, who’s teaching law classes; Secretary of State Scott Gessler, if he starts down the moonlighting path again; and Dwayne Romero, whom Hick appointed to lead the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade.

Of most concern, when it comes to transparency, is Colorado Treasurer Walker Stapleton. He’ll be raking in to $150,000 per year, at $250 per hour, working for his old real estate firm.

This works out to 600 hours or over 11 hours per week. That’s over quarter time, based on a 40-hour work week. Of course, Stapleton’s weeks will likely be longer, but it’s a lot of time.

I mean, with 600 hours of out-of-state business to conduct, Stapleton will have to be on the phone so frequently that some state matters could slip onto his personal phone, despite his best intentions. He might just get mixed up about whose clock, I mean, phone he should be on, as he makes quick calls for his own business and then the people’s.

I asked Stapleton’s Communications Director Michael Fortney whether his boss would be following Hick’s example on the cell phone issue.

He said he’ll have one cell phone for personal use and another for matters relating to his state work.

“He’s going to do his state business either on his land line or state-issued cell phone,” Fortney told me. “He won’t do state business on the personal.”

Fortney has not yet discussed with Stapleton whether he will let a neutral party review records for his personal cell phone, as Hick says he’ll do, and weed out anything that should be made public.

The Post, which has waged the good fight on the cell phone issue, should stay the course, with a focus mostly on Stapleton, but all the moonlighters should be urged to follow Hick’s lead.

Here’s video of Plunkett discussing the issue with Caldara and Todd Shepherd.

Tweet
Share

Comments

19 thoughts on “Post should call on moonlighters like Stapleton to follow Hick’s lead”

  1. (although since we’re talking about The Denver Past . . . one can understand the time challenge . . .)

    Our elected officials now think that the “solution” has become a charade of cell-phone monte?

    What we need is a constitutional amendment that requires all elected office holders to carry two hats.  For example, when they’re spending time on their government job (i.e., toadying for business), they should wear a top hat, and, when they’re being private citizens, put on a seed cap.

    Since hats are at least 60 years out of fashion themselves — how about modernizing the concept with some LED headlamps that flash “open” or “closed”?

    Too cumbersome?  Hand signals anyone?  (“You must have your fingers crossed when on official business.”)  Or, . . . “talk coming out of the left side of your mouth is reserved for private speech, from the right side when speaking in an official capacity” . . .?

    Or, maybe everyone — even the kids in the press — could all grow up a little and come to the realization that even publicly paid persons are entitled to have a bit of privacy in their private life?  (I know that has no chance of happening, I just wanted to throw in this last paragraph to be funny.)

  2. To be honest, I’m not sure if this is an argument for regulated cell phone usage of elected officials or a more broad argument against them earning a second income.

    Though ‘part-time’ legislators on paper, the reality is, for some more than others, that the job is a full-time job and lasts longer than the end of the session.

    Should they be expected to forgo additional income?  If not, how do the arguments you make for statewides differ from those that apply to legislators?

    Personally, I think they should be able to make as much as they can – however they can – as long as there is no conflict.  That was a legitimate concern with Gessler.  Gov’s should be able to make extra money giving speeches, etc. as long as there is no conflict.  The press and the voters will judge whether or not their giving enough attention to their jobs.

    1. I don’t know of any current Reps or Senators who aren’t either A)working their normal career when the legislature isn’t in session for a 2nd source of income or B)independently wealthy.

      Otherwise I tend to agree with you. Especially happy that you’re able to see the difference between Gessler and everyone else.

    2. Is that it opens the door for corruption. If a Governor had a second “job,” how do we know that he or she is really doing the job and isn’t just getting a nice chunk of change in exchange for being friendly to that company’s interests? Or with Gessler, for example, how would we know if his law clients were paying him for legitimate legal work or basically paying him to help them with SOS issues?

      Maybe there would never be corruption like this, but if we allow full-time elected officials to take second “jobs,” we make it a lot harder for these relationships to remain transparent. We have enough loopholes in our campaign finance laws as it is.

      The only real solution is to raise the salaries of our top elected officials so that there is no need for them to seek extra income. But we can’t even consider doing that until the economy recovers.

      1. You’d have to raise the pay awfully high for the Stapletons of this world not to need extra income.

        There are numerous examples of very successful people taking a huge pay cut to work in public service for a term or two.

        One other point: State constitutional offices are not competing in the marketplace the same way top appointees and other government positions are, so even those salaries shouldn’t be used as yardsticks. We don’t want our elected officials living in penury, nor restrict elective office only to those already well-off, but if you cant afford to take a pay cut to serve the public, keep your current job.

      2. have been the subject of multiple media mentions if the buffoon SOS hadn’t gone so far as to try to take on such a blatantly improper second job? They can thank clueless, skunk-at-the-picnic Gessler for putting the spotlight on them, too. So can we.  I’m guessing the whole, continuing discussion isn’t making him a favorite among his fellow GOP officials.

        And now the deal to turn over 2 million to the general fund is off, too.  Seems like Gessler just can’t go a day or two without some little dust up in the news.  If he thinks all publicity is good publicity, he should be aware that that doesn’t necessarily apply to pols the way it does to celebrities in the world of entertainment. He’s no rock star.

  3. Seriously, most bosses I’ve had in my life have had two cell phones and separated personal from business calls. The one the company pays for is not for personal calls. That’s not being uptight or foregoing privacy. It’s just common sense.

    Heck, I’m nobody important and even I have a google voice number to give to business contacts who don’t need my personal cell.  

      1. …As much as their desire not to have their private calls and texts on an account the company monitors. Nobody wants their boss to know they were late to work because they were talking to their girlfriend for 2 hours and didn’t get to bed until 4 AM.  

  4. they’ll call the other one.

    I tried the 2 phone thing for a couple of years. People wanting me for private biz call the official one and vice versa. Then, both phones are ringing.

    This is really just nonsense.

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

94 readers online now

Newsletter

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