U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
January 24, 2011 09:58 PM UTC
23 Comments
I have a doubt. You’re assuming or know?
That Suthers is “tasked” with helping Gessler on conflicts of interest, but that attorney/client confidentiality prevents him from talking about it.
This seems like a “private opinion” to me.
My guess is that if Gessler would’ve consulted Suthers, Suthers would’ve told him that it’s political suicide at the very, very least. The fact that it came out of Gessler’s mouth at all tells me that he didn’t consult anyone in any political office, in politics in general, or anyone with common sense.
I’m unclear on why Suthers is being pulled into the discussion without some kind of tiny hint that any meeting has taken place. Gessler hasn’t even put on big boy pants for long enough to cite precedent or the lack of a law. He just said der-uh, I’m totally doing it, waa, waaaa, I’m doing it.
I have plenty of access to attorneys in many bits of my professional life, in two cases they are on retainer just to give me advice, yet I didn’t consult any of them before hitting “post.”
This is not a “tiny hint?”
http://coloradoindependent.com…
They’ve gotten far enough to invoke the privilege, I don’t think the Guvs are saying they know it has happened. But there’s nothing to suggest that Suthers is not working with Gessler as reported. What am I missing?
Or, that if he is now, there’s nothing to suggest he had BEFORE the dumbass announcement was made.
Do you know what “tasked” means? Doesn’t mean did.
And part of privilege is not saying nothing ’bout nothing. Suthers can’t say either way.
Denver Fish Wrap also has careful wording:
http://www.denverpost.com/legi…
“Is asking.” Present tense. You could be right.
If that’s true, and Gessler went public even before he had run it by Suthers, he’s an even bigger dumbfuck than I thought.
in the organization chart of state government that it is his job to do this if it ever comes up.
And, an invocation of attorney-client privilege in this situation doesn’t mean that there has actually been a conversation.
I see that.
And SO[B] Scott Gessler rode the wave of Teabagging anti-incumbent hysteria into office, when he never really was suited to pick up the phone, let alone pick up the call!
I think the State needs to hang up on this guy!
is a conflict, then perhaps Gessler should increase his earnings by playing bingo — oh, wait …
at a luncheon regarding military and veterans affairs. I wanted to attend with Rep Duran, but this affair is for club members only.
I had a check for $250 that I was going to present to him so he could concentrate on the subject at hand for at least an hour.
Here’s a petition link from Progress Now:
https://secure3.convio.net/pn/…
It’s not okay, and there is no circumstance under which it would be okay. It’s time people stop comparing Gessler to “everyone else,” and realize that he has one of the most sensitive and trusted offices in the state. The SoS should not be in the service of ANYONE except the people of Colorado, because there is basically no economic activity in Colorado that is not affected by that office.
The fact that Gessler wants to work at his electorally toxic law firm just makes it stand out more.
I do think there would be less of a brouhaha if Gessler was teaching at DU or something like that, though. Gessler has made the issue glaring enough that I expect it will result in a clear policy.
Except maybe from students wondering why they’re shelling out law school tuition to hear from this guy.
24-18-108 (2)
(2) A public officer or a state employee shall not:
(a) Engage in a substantial financial transaction for his private business purposes with a person whom he inspects, regulates, or supervises in the course of his official duties;
(b) Assist any person for a fee or other compensation in obtaining any contract, claim, license, or other economic benefit from his agency;
(c) Assist any person for a contingent fee in obtaining any contract, claim, license, or other economic benefit from any state agency; or
(d) Perform an official act directly and substantially affecting to its economic benefit a business or other undertaking in which he either has a substantial financial interest or is engaged as counsel, consultant, representative, or agent.
*for the asshats who don’t think this kind of breach is expressly written into state law.
There are really two issues here.
One is the claim that he can’t afford to be Secretary of State on the salary when he knew what it was going into the job. In that regard, it really doesn’t matter what job he does. They all point to his insincerity about campaigning for the post knowing it was a full time job with a given salary. It isn’t illegal to moonlight per se, but it is politically offensive, and there are some circumstances (such as “sweetheart deals” based on elected official status) where it is outright prohibited.
The second is the concern that there is a conflict of interest involved. In this regard that notion that: “The elected SOS should not have a second job with any employer who does business in Colorado.”
This far overstates what is going on. Most of the business obligations of the SOS are truly ministerial and involve absolute no discretionary decision making on the part of the SOS. Mostly, it involves filings of corporate incorporation documents (and parallel documents for other entity types) and filings of corporate annual reports, and filings of chattle mortgages. Mostly, this is automated via a SOS website that is already up and running. No elected official in recent memory has had the IT chops to meaningful participate in programming. The case for the SOS abstaining from this out of conflict of interest concerns isn’t any more reasonable than the notion that the clerk and recorder shouldn’t be allowed to own real estate or vote because the clerk and recorder handles real estate title records and runs elections.
There are areas, like bingo licensing, discipline of malfeasance by notaries, and elections where the SOS’s office has more discretion. But, while involvement in those areas might be a conflict of interest (particularly if one doesen’t realize the need to recuse oneself from cases in which one has personal connections to a party), mere involvement in a Colorado based business with no active SOS disputes does not.
But aren’t state employees (non department heads, I realize it wouldn’t necessarily apply to Gessler) required to get a signoff for ANY outside employment to prevent even oblique conflicts? I’m going to go ask my friend Michie, but I recall this, IIRC.
Does this mean Dave Thi was barking up the wrong tree all along? 🙂
But DavidThi is always right 🙂
ps – what was I barking up the wrong tree about?
We think you are understating the pervasive role of the Secretary of State in Colorado business. The Secretary of State has minimal oversight, and even in a “ministerial” role over business registration requires significant trust. In some states, officials are generally barred from employment by any entity subject to their own authority, or that of the government agency with which he/she is affiliated–and this is interpreted very strictly. That’s quite different from telling a county clerk she can’t own property or vote, which is of course silly.
In any event, we think this is going to boil down to a lack of defined authority and guidelines; and whatever happens to Gessler personally, this is likely to end up as legislation based on conversations we’ve had so far. That legislation will fall somewhere between the hard line we admit we’ve taken here due to the Secretary of State’s unique position, and the under-regulated category this appears to fall in right now in Colorado.