July 02, 2009 02:04 AM UTC
Governor Ritter - some Q & A
49 Comments- by: DavidThi808
( – promoted by Colorado Pols)
Trying something new – you can listen to the first 45 minutes of the interview here. (It was a 90 minute tape but apparently that’s at the slow speed and I used the high speed so it ended at 45 minutes.) Nothing major in the last 15 minutes, that was just about his trips to Argentina and staying at the Mayflower Hotel in D.C. (For the totally oblivious – just kidding.) The meeting was Governor Ritter, Evan Dryer, & me.
This was a lot different from most of my previous interviews. I figure the first one is to let an individual talk and they drive the conversation. But for the 2nd one, I came in with a bunch of questions and tried to get full answers to those questions. So here’s my first effort at an interview I tried to drive.
Governor Ritter consistently answered my questions. He never avoided them nor did he try to change the subject. And an interview scheduled for ½ hour ran a bit over an hour when he had to call it quits. So being hit with a bunch of questions, he did not use the excuse of times up to cut & run. I think this is one of Ritter’s most commendable features, he will talk to the points brought up and discuss them in full.
We started on what he called the “grocery bill” and his naming of it is interesting. Clearly to him unemployment for locked out workers, with this bill, was totally wrapped up in the negotiations between the unions and the grocery chains. He first discussed how Governors historically did not pre-announce if they would veto bills and that he has been more open on his inclinations than Bill Owens was. Then he discussed how the house bill that took effect in 2010 was what he was looking for. He didn’t say he would have signed it, but he delivered the impression he would have.
He also pointed out the Republicans in the Senate voted for the bill with a July 2009 effect because “they knew” he would then veto it. This is a very credible argument as the Republicans this session have spent most of it trying to just honk anything & everything up. And they’ve never been accused of being strong supporters of the unions. So very interesting argument that people knew the 2009 date was a deal killer.
With all that said, I asked if he told the legislators that 2009 was a deal killer and he was very clear that his staff had delivered a strong message that it needed to be later, but also that he did not have a direct conversation on this specific topic. Bottom line I think is that the hints from his office were not communicated well and that problem could be primarily due to either end of that discussion. But he also should have sat down with the leadership and told them point blank make it 2010 or it’s dead.
We discussed jobs in different ways many times over the hour. Green energy clearly drives the Governor. He started in about how we have jobs coming here because we are the center for green energy and how from Vestas to NREL to a number of others he listed these are quality jobs that are being created now. He clearly views this as a wonderful two-fer in that we are becoming the center for green energy in the country and those companies are providing jobs. Based on what he said I think making us the center for green energy is Ritter’s primary driver and the new jobs is a wonderful additional benefit. And long term that is the right priority.
He also discussed a 5 year FICA credit for companies that create 20 or more jobs where the average wage is greater than the state average. This is a really interesting approach as the credit is substantial, is tied to the employee’s pay, and exists only as long as the new jobs do. He claims that several companies have located new operations here specifically because of this new law. And as an executive I can say that this is something that would influence what we do. On the flip side, they might want to get the word out as I had never heard of this before – and I’m one of the targets for this.
I started a discussion of newspapers by saying that the daily paper has been the core of investigative journalism in this country for the last 100 years with the rest taking their lead from the work of the daily papers. I then asked him what does he think will happen when the daily papers are no more in 3 – 5 years. He talked first about how he & his wife read the paper every day – but his kids don’t. He sees first hand that the web is the only source for the upcoming generations and sees that this is inevitable. He also said that he thinks the blogs are now driving what the daily papers cover (yo Wall Street Journal – Pulitzer Prize story for you – small software company in Boulder with incredible product – call me).
He then talked at some length of the lack of accountability and civility in the blogosphere. What was interesting is the way he talked about accountability he was talking about people being accountable for what they write, not bloggers holding politicians accountable for what they do. It makes sense from his perspective as he (and every other politician) gets hammered mercilessly, and mostly by anonymous posters. (My feeling is toughen up – this is no different from the broadsheets at the founding of our country.)
He did talk about the worry of who is going to cover school board meetings and the many other items like that. He pointed out that school boards have more impact on our lives than most other parts of the government, yet could fall off the radar with the death of newspapers. He does think that out of the blogging community we will see enough reporting done that we will have some good coverage. He also clearly now views talking to bloggers as a key part of getting his message out to the community so I think it’s a safe bet he will be communicating more and more on the web (can Ritter’s Twitter be far off?).
We discussed small business. He started off on this saying the biggest need he had heard from small businesses was that without credit they were dead. And credit has disappeared. My company does not need credit, but we run up substantial Visa bills between Google and ordering hardware & software – and with reduced limits we have to pay the cards off every 2 weeks instead of monthly. For a company that needs credit to bring in the materials they use to create what they sell this would kill them. So he has put a major effort into making sure credit is available. Critically important work.
I then got the standard “small business is important to us” spiel. So I asked him why the State is unwilling to consider purchasing from small high-tech companies in the state. Governor Ritter was insistent that the State absolutely was open to buying from local companies. When I brought up several specific situations he continued to insist that while a few departments might not be perfect on this issue, that the state was very open on this.
This is where as a blogger I have an advantage over a reporter. With a reporter they can pass on he said/she said but they don’t know what’s really going on. But I could (and did) tell the governor that I have found the OIT unwilling to even look at our company. Not that they looked and didn’t like it, but totally unwilling to look. (If Xcel operated like OIT they would tell us they had all this lovely infrastructure for coal power plants and so would not even look at wind or solar.) Even with this Ritter insisted that the state is open to local small business. I think he does truly believe this and is simply unaware of how his administration is handling this. He might want to talk to Greg Lopez.
This then took us to the topic of CBMS as there are some local companies that tried to step up and offer solutions to this. And of course were told to go away. Ritter agreed that it was a complete disaster and they had gotten Deloitte to fix it. Ritter’s view is that for a system this big with a problem this big, they needed a major player like Deloitte. My opinion is they have a total clusterfuck because they decided to create a gigantic system using a major consulting service. I don’t expect a governor to understand who to hire to get quality software delivered on time and under budget, but he should have people working for him that do. My guess is Ritter is going to be surprised when this is still an issue 4 years from now. But he thinks they have it under control.
I then brought up the criticism that he tends to go for the safe plays and never goes for the hail mary pass. But with the economy in the toilet, it pretty much demands that we go for some major changes. Ok, if you want to annoy Bill Ritter, tell him he doesn’t go for the impossible goals. This got a passionate response. His main point was that you don’t get “Las Vegas lights” from him, you just get results. He brought up FASTER, the doubling of alternative energy requirements (and including the REAs in the requirement), and the new education measurement & 5 years of high school legislation.
And you know something… He has a point. We would always like to see more, but there have been some substantial efforts. And I think the education one is the one that actually was the furthest reach and it will have the most impact. Evan Dryer afterwards also brought up the Oil & Gas rules and A-58 which are two other examples. And the fact that A-58 lost makes it an even better example because it’s one where he tried to do something that was very difficult and failed. If he always succeeded then he is being too careful.
So we (because I agreed with this criticism) should maybe change it from Ritter never tries for the big win to we would prefer that he did so on a few other issues. Governor Ritter also made the very legit point that substantial change is a multi-year effort to get passed and then takes many years to effect the system. He definitely takes the long view on applying his efforts. So if all of his work over his two terms works out well and bears fruit, then the next Governor will be able to take credit for all the wonderful improvements then starting to bear fruit.
This discussion led to the work on improving K-12 education. We discussed first how the mother’s educational level was the driving force in how a child does not just in school, but health, success, life. He had seen the same thing during his time in Africa. He then launched in to a discussion about the state’s efforts to get adults GEDs, etc to improve that educational level.
He then discussed the efforts presently under way which is primarily pre-school for all that need it and full day kindergarten. Both of these efforts should (he said will) improve our graduation rates. He also discussed the new systems coming on to measure improvement by student, school, and teacher. And he then discussed how this will show if a teacher is effective. And if a teacher is not effective, and he stressed that this measurement is one tool but not the total story, but if a teacher is not getting the job done – then they need to be let go. This is major because measurement is a key step but if schools cannot take corrective action, it doesn’t do much good.
So there you go. My big take-aways are that to him the blow-up concerning vetoing the union bills is over. That green energy & education are the two issues (we discussed) that have his passion and major efforts. That he is concentrating on doing what the state needs with an emphasis on jobs today and big picture long-term. And finally, that he’s not going to show-boat.
And here’s the thing, while he’s not perfect, this is someone who is concentrating on governing well as opposed to campaigning well. Quiet competence is always under appreciated.
first published at Liberal and Loving It Governor Bill Ritter
Ritter’s Twitter isn’t imminent, though — it’s right here:
http://twitter.com/govritter
govritter is a pr dept feed (or at least that’s how it appears to me).
Let me amend that. This is a really interesting interview, and you draw out some good responses to thoughtful questions.
But, seriously, you used an interview with the governor to complain about your own company’s fortunes trying to win state contracts? It’s true, you don’t see real journalists doing that kind of thing every day.
I think that would be called in journalism a “conflict of interest.”
On a smaller matter of criticism, spell out for your readers what acronyms stand for the first time you use them, then hit us with NREL or CBMS.
It was good to hear the Governor’s perspective on the union vetoes, and that he considers the matters settled. It doesn’t sound like things are settled from union members’ perspectives in the Ludlow thread on Colorado Pols, but good to hear him address it, at least.
I’m not particularly interested in the Governor’s perspective on the decline of newspapers, so that part didn’t do much for me. I think bloggers ought to be held accountable, too; they shouldn’t write libelous or slanderous stuff. But as far as hearty go-for-the-neck criticism, you’re right: too bad if he doesn’t like it.
The school stuff was decent. A worthy topic.
Kudos for doing what you did in setting up and conducting the interview. (I’ve only read your post here; I haven’t listened to the audio.) Still, I would have liked to have heard his answer to your question in another thread regarding “pragmatism” and voting blocs.
On the one hand I do have self-interest (although to be honest, not a lot as our s/w is pretty low-cost). On the flip side, it is that self-interest that gives me the knowledge to say the governor doesn’t know the real situation.
I figure if I’m up front about it then specific knowledge, even if it is self-interested, makes for a more informative interview.
You say: “This is where as a blogger I have an advantage over a reporter. With a reporter they can pass on he said/she said but they don’t know what’s really going on.” I don’t take anything away from your direct knowledge of the subject of software projects when I say that many, many journalists do a terrific job in interviews not because of their personal involvement in the issues, but because they’ve educated themselves well and have done a lot of background work (research, interviews with others, etc) prior to the interview. Bloggers can approach interviews the same way if they choose to.
Not to mention adhere to a code of ethics that would drown David’s position in stunned laughter.
David, you’re good at what you do, but let’s dispense with the notion it has anything to do with journalism, not when you’re shilling your product to the head of an organization you consider a giant, untapped market. Nice job, too, getting in a point about your low, low prices while explaining what you did.
It’s obvious you have no idea why what you did is so appalling (albeit fairly minor in the scheme of things), but that’s why your antics give me such a headache.
Nice interview otherwise, though.
I don’t disagree with this. But the question then becomes, do I also forget what I know personally to then re-learn it by interviewing myself before the interview with the governor? The question initially rasied was not should I have prepped more, but was should I have used knowledge I have from work.
I was primarily addressing the larger question which has been discussed here — do we (society) lose anything if journalism goes and blogging replaces it. IMO, we lose a lot if that happens.
If you’re not getting paid just to do the story, then your primary motivation is something else. And people in power can co-opt you on those terms. It may be that they can get you money, or it may be that they will do a pet project just for you, or something else.
When I was a student, I interviewed one of the campus vice presidents about the way the campus was spending money. This was big stuff, and it looked like there might be shady dealings, and so every time there was something suspicious, I jumped on it (even if it didn’t go anywhere).
Eventually this got annoying for the vice president, so he started challenging me personally on why I thought money was being wasted. I mentioned that money wasn’t going to basic maintenance, he said it was, and so I mentioned that I knew it wasn’t since my own dorm was in such bad shape.
Two days later, maintenance comes to fix my room. It was a little weird.
Do you think Michale Locatis & the OIT will ever consider us after I have pointed out publicly here how they refuse to investigate new solutions. No way. He may suddenly be “very interested” in looking at the product but no way they’ll ever buy from us now.
But I figured better to put the situation out there as it impacts a lot of companies. And because the state would be much better off if it actually looked at what it could get from other companies with a better solution. Disasters like CBMS hurt a lot of people.
That was nice they fixed your dorm room though 🙂
I agree with your approach. Of course you have a job that pays you and doesn’t include pols. And you’re right, by mentioning it you make enemies of the very people you want to serve. Good government should always include an ombudsman – on as many levels as needed to be effective. But if that’s not available it’s the right thing to mention it.
Not only with readers, who now know anything you say on this subject can’t be seen through an objective lens, but also with the subject of the interview. Do you think Ritter will want to sit down with you again after you used the last interview as a roundabout way to grill him on why your company isn’t getting state contracts?
The code of ethics in journalism (no matter the venue, medium of form) explicitly advocates against this kind of conflict of interest for many reasons. Credibility being the big one.
Finally, David, you could very well of asked him about the state contracts (using your knowledge of the situation) without brining up your self-interested rant about your company. As a journalist, as a blogger, I see what you did as unprofessional. I guarantee Ritter and Evan Dryer did as well. You asked for an interview with Ritter. What you really went after was a chance to complain about your company not being looked at for a state contract. I bet $100 that Evan wouldn’t have accepted the interview had he known that would happen.
I’m sure Ritter gets lobbied all the time, and will continue to do so.
David’s a combination of journalist and lobbyist. That’s a weird combination historically, except in the sense I mentioned above that amateur journalists frequently have some other agenda just by nature. It’s different from what we’re familiar with (either a paid journalist posing as objective, or a lobbyist concerned only about their own interest), but it’s not necessarily bad.
It just means you have to read this interview with some understanding of the bias of the interviewer. You might conclude, for example, that the extremely positive things he says about elected officials arise because he either doesn’t want to offend them (and risk messing up a state contract) or because he’s grateful that they promised to help him get contracts (which they all seem to). Or you could conclude that David’s just positive because he’s a positive guy.
As long as he gives you all the information needed to make this judgment, I don’t think it’s unethical. The only thing I wish David would do is admit that he does have pressing business in front of the state and that many of these interviews are simultaneously an attempt to learn more about politicians and an attempt to get more business for his own company. But as long as that’s obvious to everyone else, I don’t think it particularly matters whether he shouts it from the rooftops or mentions it begrudgingly.
I’ve read stories in the paper many times that clearly were written because of someones press release. I’ve even seen stories that were almost complete quotes of the press release. Usually, these stories do not include any follow-up or independent journalism that verifies the claims being made. Nor do those stories indicate they came from a press release.
I appreciate that Dave has a point of view. I understand and he clearly states that point of view. Every story written in a newspaper has a slant, it’s just that the author doesn’t point it out. I prefer the former approach as more transparent and useful.
I half wish I had been more vague and just said “the state won’t even look at local companies.” But I do still think that being able to list a specific case where I have first hand knowledge made the point more powerful.
As to business before the state, I don’t have it. I weighed this out ahead of time and assumed that there is no way the state will ever purchase from us after I laid out how they operate. So I did not do this to gain business, I did this knowing it would eliminate any chance of us ever getting state business.
As to what is professional, acceptable, expected, I will leave the replies others have made on this issue here as I think they speak to that quite well.
We hear all the time how our legislators are “citizen legislators” and must have jobs outside the legislature. Some of them even work for state agencies.
You’re a citizen journalist and need to have a day job too.
You had face time with the Governor. I don’t blame you for doing a little marketing. You have bills to pay. The only way it would interfere with your role as a citizen journalist is if you start throwing him softballs to curry favor. Or if you disguise the fact that you marketed him, which you didn’t. And as a small business owner, you bring some credibility to the party.
It’s not a whole lot different really than any blog, or newspaper for that matter, running ads on their sites. The only way that’s a problem is if they color their reporting so as to curry favor with the advertiser.
one of the greatest strides forward we could take would be to develop a more refined sense of when to lighten up a little, and when not to; in other words, to better discern real issues of consequence from artificial ones of no consequence. We should start by keeping our eye on ultimate goals (like contributing to robust, sustainable, and fair human welfare), and intermediate goals that serve those ultimate goals (like effective flows of information), and discipline ourselves to get less stuck in these ruts of assumptions and predispositions. This was an amateur interview (conducted out of “love” rather than for profit), contributing freely to the flow of information. It’s fine just the way it is.
Would we be well served if this type of information flow displaced or replaced other, more professional, forms? Probably not. Do we benefit from having these new forms complement the old, and allowing the entire matrix to evolve according to modern means and needs? Sure.
They lead.
And he may think that the blow up is over, but that’s wishful thinking.
As far as governing well vs. campaigning well, I have three words for his consideration: “One-term Governor.”
It’s easy to downgrade Ritter against some hypothetical superstar. But the real life Republican will have a lot of scars from the nomination process when he staggers into the ring against an unopposed Ritter. Right now, I see Ryan Frazier as the only one who could shake up Ritter but he is too pro choice for the religious right.
But his pro-choice views are even more disabling there. If he switched for gov, he’d have a better chance, but I am not predicting that he will.
It’s more than two months old, but it’s been a bad couple of months for Ritter:
http://www.denverpost.com/elec…
Ritter’s approval rating two months ago was only 41 percent. His disapproval rating was 49 percent. An incumbent needs to have an approval rating over 50 percent, as undecideds tend to break away from the incumbent.
See the so-called incumbent rule: “An incumbent who fails to poll above 50 percent is in grave jeopardy of losing his job. ”
http://www.prospect.org/cs/art…
So I guess the answer to your question is, “It doesn’t matter. Damned near anybody.”
It’s not about Ritter going for the “hail mary” at all. It’s about communicating with people who are supposed to be his allies in the GA about what he expects out of the legislative session.
All the passive aggressive back and forth–or rather lack of a back and forth–is what is going to be Ritter’s undoing.
Dropping hints doesn’t get things done. It didn’t seem like the Governor was dropping hints when it came to the O&G regs or FASTER. He took a strong leadership position in those issues, and the Democrats came out with victories that will actually benefit the state. He only drops hints when it’s issues that he’s worried will be perceived as anything other than moderate and pragmatic.
I’m tired of cryptomatic leadership. We don’t need hail marys or punts, we need a west coast offense that gets first downs. We need actual results–not just on the New Energy Economy, or transportation either–we need results at every level. That is something that has been lacking from the Guv’s office for most of his first term.
and people criticize SH for long posts.
and Barry Manilow fans.
not that there’s anything wrong with that.
I’m just saying…. 🙂
But we know how you really feel.
My favorite Doonesbury strips in the old days had Uncle Duke (Hunter S. Thompson) sitting on his front porch in Woody Creek shooting at John Denver’s house.
“Poems and prayers and promises,
and things that we believe in,
I don’t remember the words,
but don’t you feel a lump in your throat anyway…?” 🙂
did we learn nothing from Will & Grace?
That if you want to have a show based on a male and a female lead characters in a platonic relationship, and want to avoid increasing demands from the viewing public that they “do it” (or “fall in love,” depending on your gender and/or sensitivity), one of them has to be gay.
I never watched much of that show, but I thought they made out or slept together or something.
(even though it was pretty funny, I just can’t take sitcoms except in small doses), but I remember one dream sequence, where Will was having dreams of having sex with Grace. I’m willing to bet there were other “flirtations” with that plotline along the way. Just inevitable.
Very informative.
Though I am still believe in the governor’s intentions, I remain concerned that governor doesn’t understand the depth of dissatisfaction in the trenches (or in the crosstabs of the private polls for that matter).
And before anyone accuses me of concern trolling–redistricting is so important, in the words of my grandfather, a union railroad man, “I’ll vote for a dead golden retriever that was a Democrat if his Republican opponent was Jesus Christ” (sorry for any offense–my grandfather was a pretty profane man–he probably would have thrown fruit at the Governor if he felt he had been lied to).
BTW David, I don’t have any issue with your conflict since it is properly disclosed. Conflicts are endemic in this type of work and are rarely disclosed. Keep up the good work.
Danny, you know I have the utmost respect for you, but I must respectfully call hogwash.
It’s true, conflicts are common and disclosure is paramount. But the difference between simply having an interest with the guy you’re interviewing — most of us are, after all, taxpayers and subject to laws the governor signs or vetoes — and pestering the governor to make a point about your own company’s experience with state procurement?
Again, fine for a blogger and let’s applaud David for his attempt at transparency. But if this is what’s replacing professional journalism, then God save us all.
I brought up my case as a specific example to refute his statement. And that was it. I did not press my specific case, I did not ask for any favor, and the case I pushed hardest on was CBMS – which has nothing to do with my company.
Yes there is self-interest. But it is also specific knowledge of how screwed up state procurement is and I think it’s better to bring that knowledge and ask that question than it would be to make that topic off limits are reduce it to he said/she said.
I know we disagree. But I will continue to bring specifics I know to the interviews. And like above, I will always disclose my connection.
From the interview, i agree. The anger and sense of betrayal is very pronounced in at least one significant section of the governor’s base — those who are most likely to person the phone banks, and walk the precincts. Yet the governor seems to disregard or ignore this circumstance.
One might speculate: is the governor really oblivious, or is he whistling past the graveyard?
I asked one person at work here before the interview if she had any suggested questions. And her reply was “I love Bill Ritter.” There are a lot of people very upset. But there are a lot more that are very happy with him.
And the unions will forgive because he has done a lot for working people. They may not be thrilled, but they will remain supportive.
I’m curious because I’ve been asked to do that in the past and was wondering if anyone actually found it worthwhile.
thanks – dave
It’s hard for me to concentrate on audio that long without wanting to do something else simultaneously, so I’d much rather read a written summary or even a transcript.
Can’t speak for anyone else though.