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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 13, 2008 07:41 PM UTC

Ethics Watchdogs File Complaint Against Coffman

  • 20 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Colorado Ethics Watch today filed a complaint with the state’s new Independent Ethics Commission, “asking it to penalize Secretary of State Mike Coffman for his continued egregious pattern of misconduct.”

Release follows.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 13, 2008

CONTACT: Chantell Taylor – 303-626-2100 / ctaylor@coloradoforethics.org    

Allison McGee Johnson – 303/507-8355/ajohnson@coloradoforethics.org

Colorado Ethics Watch Files First Complaint With

Colorado Independent Ethics Commission Against Secretary of State Mike Coffman

DENVER – Today, Colorado Ethics Watch (Ethics Watch) filed a complaint with the Independent Ethics Commission asking it to penalize Secretary of State Mike Coffman for his continued egregious pattern of misconduct.  This is the first complaint filed with the Independent Ethics Commission since it was approved by voters in November 2006.

Ethics Watch’s complaint details how Secretary Coffman violated his duties under state law and state personnel rules twice in 2007.  First, Secretary Coffman allowed at least one employee in his office to operate a partisan side business without proper authorization and disclosure – a business that was patently incompatible with the official duties of that employee.  Secondly, Secretary Coffman failed to disclose a conflict of interest between he and one of the voting system vendors seeking certification from the secretary of state’s office – the only vendor that Secretary Coffman agreed to certify.

“How can Coloradoans trust Secretary Coffman to manage a fair and accurate election this fall when he has demonstrated a disturbing pattern of disregard for the law?” questioned Chantell Taylor, director of Colorado Ethics Watch.

The Independent Ethics Commission was established in 2006 as this state’s primary recourse for ethics complaints and investigations.  It is authorized to conduct investigations, hold public hearings, and render findings on complaints regarding allegations that any public official failed to comply with appropriate standards of conduct under state law.

“The Commission needs to show the public that it will take ethics complaints against Colorado’s top officials seriously.   Ethics Watch’s complaint against Secretary Coffman is a great first step,” said Taylor.

More information about the complaint filed by Ethics Watch to the Independent Ethics Commission is available online at www.coloradoforethics.org.

Colorado Ethics Watch is a non-profit, legal watchdog group dedicated to identifying and exposing ethics issues in city, county and state governments in Colorado, ultimately holding public officials accountable.  For more information, please visit www.coloradoforethics.org or contact Chantell Taylor at (303) 626-2100 or ctaylor@coloradoforethics.org.

###

Tweet
Share

Comments

20 thoughts on “Ethics Watchdogs File Complaint Against Coffman”

  1. These groups keep brining up the same thing over and over, hoping for a different result.  Coffmanis going to Congress and Ritter will get to appoint a replacement.  These tempests in a tea-cup aren’t going to matter at the end of the day

    1. Ethics watch should pick less battles and try to be more effective in them rather than filing complaints against everyone with an R behind their name and then sending out such sanctimonious press releases.  It just makes them look like a sorry hack organization with a short attention span.  I am wondering why Pols is even giving them ink (or bytes)…

  2. Her made up organization does nothing but attack Republicans in Colorado and around the country. I would be intrested to know who funds her “non partisan organization”. I will bet she refuses to disclose.

    This morning she was attacking Bruce Bensons nomination with her phoney organization. The press should call her out as an uber liberal front group like they do progress now.

  3. Chantell Taylor continues to “beat a dead horse”… much as she did when she wanted Denver District Attorney, Mitch Morrissey, to initiate a criminal investigation of Mike Coffman over these exact allegations on June 15, 2007. That didn’t go anywhere either, did it?

    This sure looks like nothing but a desperate cry for attention on behalf of a purely partisan non-profit group.  

    1. reads like something written by a desperate partisan (apparently on the Coffman staff) who created a sock puppet account to create the false impression that there’s a groundswell of citizens who feel this way.

      If you’re legit, apologies are now offered conditionally (you have to post about a variety of topics to prove you’re a real citizen).

        1. Groups like Colorado Ethics Watch are what they are, and like them or not you know that. You can’t say the same about sock puppets who pretend to be ordinary citizens.

      2. I’m 54 years old and never have participated in any kind of blog before this one.  A mere two days after creating this account, my credibility as a “real citizen” is being questioned.  

        Pardon me, Aristotle, I didn’t realize you were the gatekeeper and the ultimate purveyor of truth here.  Will you now be directing me to which topics I need to post to before I gain your approval?

        Am a partisan?  You bet!  Just like everyone else here is!  There are no wall flowers in politics!

        I’m a registered Republican… a mere Jeffco precinct committeeman… and proud of it.  I’m also a constituent in the 6th CD, so you can be quite sure I have a keen and legitimate interest in who is going to succeed Tom Tancredo.

        Is Mike Coffman my candidate for this seat?  Absolutely!  I voted for him both times he ran for state treasurer.  I voted for him when he ran for secretary of state.  In fact, I had hoped he would have been my party’s candidate for governor in 2006.

        I have the utmost respect for a man who would put the call of his nation, particularly in time of war, before any political aspirations. There are very few people in the country who have done this.  I have no problem speaking out in defense of the man I believe is the best qualified to be my next congressman.

        Does it rankle me that so called altruistic “watch dog” groups choose to attack Mike Coffman’s integrity, when they themselves don’t disclose who is financing their non-profit activities?  Without a doubt!  Did you notice there is no groundswell of support for Chantell Taylor’s allegations?

        Am I a real citizen?  Definitely more so than you are, Aristotle.  At least I post under my real name.  You’ll find me on the voting list in Jefferson County.  I’m pretty sure the name Aristotle won’t be found anywhere in any county.    

        I find “anonymous” posters fall into one of three categories:  1) cowards  2) people who intend to do harm to others 3) folks who think they are so important their identities cannot be revealed.  I have little respect for any of those reasons.  Our Founding Fathers had no use for anonymity when they signed the Declaration of Independence.

        I’ll accept your conditional apology at this time, Aristotle, and offer you one of my own… just as soon as you start posting under your real name.  But I think we both know that’s not likely to happen any time soon.

         

        1. .

          I’m not “2) people who intend to do harm to others.”

          I’m not “3) folks who think they are so important their identities cannot be revealed.”

          So that means I’m a coward ?  

          No other possibilities ?  

          1. Everyone talks about transparency in politics.  Well, here’s your chance to do it.

            Instead, we have a great number of people — with such “keen insights” — who dare not reveal who they are.  

            Kudos to the candidates and officeholders for attaching their names to their statements, no matter how controversial they are.

            But I also give credit to all of you for at least participating in the discussion.  It’s more than most of our fellow citizens are willing to do.

            Politics is not a spectator sport.  It is a participatory process.  The more people who get involved, the better it works.  I just wasn’t expecting so many to play the role of “Deep Throat” while doing it.    

        2. Welcome to the blog. Keep in mind that I’ve been doing this for a while, and posts like yours follows a distinct pattern – Some pol gets bad press, all of a sudden someone creates a new account and denounces it. Said person disappears as soon as the flap does.

          So you post under you real name? Big fucking deal. You probably don’t have to worry about your name coming up on a google search because your boss likes to spy on his employees’ outside activities. You probably don’t have your name in the phone book so someone who doesn’t like what you have to say can crank call you or, worse, come find where you live. You probably don’t have any children at home who don’t need to have anything come down on them because of what daddy said online. (I’m not saying any of this applies to me, BTW, but you ought to think more about the benefits of anonymity in the blogosphere before spouting off stupid stuff like what you wrote.)

          So, if you stick around, again, welcome. If you disappear, good riddance you phony hack.

          1. Aristotle @ Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 23:04:14 PM MST



            (you ought to think more about the benefits of anonymity in the blogosphere before spouting off stupid stuff like what you wrote.)

            Would that be why you continue to post under a psuedonym?  I’m not suprised.  It probably also covers your inability to disagree without including swear words.

            Some of us are able to engage in political discourse minus the fog of paranoia.  You should try it sometime. As I stated before, the signers of the Declaration of Independence did it with their very lives on the line. That’s what made this country great from the outset.

            Hmmm….

            I should point out that you seem to know what a sock puppet is, yet you’ve never been on any sort of blog before….

            by: Aristotle @ Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 23:05:21 PM MST

            No, I haven’t blogged before.  Why did I know what a sock puppet was?  It wasn’t too hard to deduce the meaning from your two previous posts using the term.

            1. And I see that you’re a scold who just can’t stand adult words. You’ll be pleased to know that I rarely use them.

              If posting under your name makes you feel big and brave, then I won’t get in the way of that. But you are foolish to think that it makes you a better poster, or your opinions more valid. And if you think I’m being “paranoid,” well, so are thousands of other registered users.

              BTW, posting under your real name isn’t like the signers of the Declaration. If it makes you feel like you have something in common with men who had much more to lose than you, hey, whatever floats your boat.

              1. No, I just outgrew that kind of vocabulary in junior high.  But please don’t try to justify yourself by calling them “adult words” like that’s a good thing.    

                I do not believe that posting under my actual name makes me a better poster, or my opinions more valid.  The fact, however, that you’ve been doing it longer and have more posts than me doesn’t make you a better poster, or your opinions more valid.

                But you sure were quick to make a snap judgment that I was not a “real citizen.”  You sure missed that one!

                I see no point of continuing this particular thread.  I’ll let you get the last word in from behind your cloak of invisibility and perceived invincibility.  I’ve already moved on to other topics.  

                1. how can I fail to take you up on it?

                  First, I’ll point you to this comment which I posted prior to your last comment.

                  Next, I’ll point out that I wasn’t hinting at being superior via my choice of online name, but you were.

                  Third, I’ll point out that swearing isn’t a bad thing in moderation. I suspect that you’ll disagree, but can’t or won’t say why.

                  Finally, yes, I did make a snap judgment. I’ve done it before and I’ll do it again. But like always, I owned up to it, just like I acknowledge good points when they’re presented to me in debate (which occurs seldom). I brought up very good points about why an honorable person would choose to post anonymously in a forum like this – if you won’t acknowledge that, that’s a reflection upon you.

            2. Another point… I see that you failed to address the reasons for anonymity that I brought up, even though you just challenged Barron X about that (without reading my post, I imagine). Is that because you can’t acknowledge a good point when it’s brought up?

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

414 readers online now

Newsletter

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