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
July 14, 2009 05:25 PM UTC

Conservative GJ Sentinel Defends Ritter's Stimulus Legal Contract

  • 19 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

If Governor Bill Ritter’s decision to award a contract to his former law firm concerning distribution of federal stimulus funds was really the public-image disaster some Republicans insist it is, we submit to you the Grand Junction Sentinel’s stalwartly conservative editorial board would say so.

Instead, they said today almost exactly what we said this weekend:

Gov. Bill Ritter would have been better off to ask for bids on legal work related to the $3 billion in federal stimulus funding Colorado is to receive, instead of approving a no-bid contract with his former law firm.

But that doesn’t mean Hogan and Hartson is a poor choice to do the work. In fact, it is one of Colorado’s pre-eminent law firms, with lawyers from both sides of the political aisle. One of Ritter’s Republican opponents in his re-election bid next year, Scott McInnis, is a partner at the law firm.

Furthermore, the firm is very well qualified to deal with the intricacies of federal legislation and public finance. Congress made the stimulus funding a complicated patchwork of conditions and mandates on how the money may be spent, so such expertise is certainly warranted.

Even so, some of Ritter’s opponents will no doubt make much of the fact that he awarded the contract to his old legal buddies. The governor could have deflected that criticism if he had put the contract out to bid. He chose not to, as is his legal right…

And like the Sentinel concludes, he’s going to have to explain that decision on the campaign trail, probably more than once. But just as we said originally and the Sentinel agrees, the underlying reason to bring in this particular law firm for the job is unassailably sound. Kudos to the Sentinel for keeping their criticism focused on the less-controversial facts of the matter, when they could just as easily have chucked all that and eagerly subsidized the latest Ritter-hater sound bite.

Of course, it also doesn’t hurt that Scott McInnis has worked for Hogan and Hartson for the last several years, and the Sentinel doesn’t want to do anything that might boomerang back on their local boy.

Tweet
Share

Comments

19 thoughts on “Conservative GJ Sentinel Defends Ritter’s Stimulus Legal Contract”

  1. The Sentinel simply said the decision was legal.

    Re-read the first paragraph.  The Sentinel said he would have been better off to do it a different way.

    My concern has never been the legality of Ritter’s decision.  It has always been the optics.

    In politics, optics are important.

    1. The Sentinel vouched for Hogan and Hartson’s high qualifications to do the job. We agree with them and with Ritter’s decision to bring them in.

      But as we outlined in our last post on this situation in some detail, we agree with you on the question of how the way the contract was awarded looks. This is meant to respond to the “clearly on the take” nonsense that made its way around this weekend, which the Sentinel has no interest in lending any credence and neither do we.

      1. I was simply reacting to the term “unassailably sound” because the Sentinel didn’t say that.

        I think that sound decision-making is a little more complicated than simple legality.  And if a qualified contractor is desired for a particular job, that can be written into both the specifications and scoring system for a competitive procurement.

        But the bottom line is that I agree with you except for your choice of words.  As you reacted to “clearly on the take,” so also did I react when one commenter used the word “corrupt.”

        That was horse manure.

  2. Does anyone really believe Hogan & Hartson would have gotten the contract if they were equally qualified but they were some obscure, not politically connected law firm?

    1. Isn’t that a little over the top? Wouldn’t having lobbyists/campaign contributors draft legislation be a tad bit worse? Wouldn’t demanding campaign contributions before you even speak to said lobbyists be an itty-bitty bit worse?

      Keep working on that molehill, KK.

      As for the rest of your comment, H&H is a national law firm with offices in DC and elsewhere. That means that they have lots of internal expertise on lots of different aspects of law. And because they have political connections, they can actually get answers from bureaucrats when they ask questions. So, how can an obscure, not politically connected law firm be considered equally qualified?

      just askin’

        1. Some of his biggest political boosters and the firm that housed him while he launched his gubernatorial campaign got a nice, fat contract without even having to compete.  That’s a fact.  They paid and he played.

          1. Except for the part about it being a “nice, fat contract” — it’s a piddling contract for Hogan & Hartson, probably amounts to a couple hours a week for a couple attorneys (Trimpa and Finnegan) and some research time for associates and paralegals.

    2. An obscure, small law firm could never have gotten this job because they wouldn’t have been able to do it. You probably couldn’t count on one hand the number of firms in Denver that would be qualified to do this.

      That doesn’t mean that this was an awkward move by Ritter’s office, but you can’t say that this was a job that just any ‘ol law firm could have done.

      1. to proposed alternative of putting the contract out for bid.  Many seem to think this would have solved the problem, but it probably wouldn’t. In fact, it may have made it worse.  Had the Governor solicited bids in a quick process, he almost certainly would have received lower bids from law firms that were less qualified to do the work.  He would have had to reject them because in this type of area, lesser legal work could cost the state much, much more than the cost of a more expensive law firm.  So then, instead of the story being that the Governor gave HH a no-bid contract, it would have been that the Governor took an HH bid even though others bid lower.  Would that really have made it any better from a publicity perspective?  The truth is, in this type of case, with hundreds of millions on the line, the Governor’s office was going to choose whomever they thought was most qualified.  No matter what, that wasn’t going to be the cheapest option (which is nothing shocking, how often is the highest quality choice also the cheapest?).  Perhaps going through a bid process would have given other firms the chance to make an argument, but if the Governor’s office was comfortable enough with the different firms’ qualifications and knew they would stand to take flak either way, it becomes easier to understand why they went ahead and moved forward, seeing as time was of the essence.

        1. Less qualified firms from a competitive process.  I have, unfortunately, used the term “bids” in places.  What I should have said was “competition.”

          I have worked on several government proposals that required “offerers” (note I didn’t say “bidders”) to describe their experience working on similar projects.  Those “quals” are built into the scoring system.

          Very few contracts are awarded solely on the basis of price anymore.  Maybe something like a paving contract, but consulting contracts are typically awarded on the basis of “best value to the government.”

          Ultimately, that means whatever the government wants it to mean.  But the RFP, specs, and scoring system are available to anyone to inspect.

          Transparency is built into competition.

          1. I guess the question is whether a typical legal  RFP process would have led to a headline other than “Governor awards stimulus work to former firm, rejecting lower bids.”  Perhaps the added transparency of an RFP process would have outweighed the benefits of getting the attorneys on the job sooner, I’m just not sure the answer is as clear cut as we seem to think it is.

      2. What’s so darn hard about reading the stimulus bill and giving legal advice?  That’s what lawyers do.  Most of them do it for a hell of a lot less than $290-450 an hour.

        I could probably find a bunch of law firms in Denver that could do the legal work.  If you’re paying for political juice, there would still be 3-4 firms who would have the juice and would probably have drooled at the opportunity to bid.

  3. I accept all 3 suppositions: 1)H&H is qualified 2) oversight was necessary and the AG’s office lacked the capacity to move quicky on this issue without leaving other priorities unaddressed 3) there was no impropriety intended, nor was this some sort of inappropriate payoff to friends or colleagues.

    It does raise an important future question:  Should the state have a streamlined process for emergency contract bidding?

    I don’t know–In business its not necessary because no one feels the need to monitor every dime despite most shareholders entrusting their money to remote managers, just like we do with the government.

  5. Is the idea that because we know someone and they do good work, let’s just hire them. The common phrase for that is “the old boy’s network.” It inherently leaves those that dominate the market continuing to get new business.

    The reason we have bidding on contracts is to give all qualified companies a shot at the work. And it is the only way a law firm that does not have this level of political connections can have a shot.

    The no-bid process may have been legal, but it wasn’t right.

  6. So now because an unquestionably partisan rag agrees with you, your opinion is validated?  You have got to be kidding.  It doesn’t matter how qualified the law firm is, a no-bid contract to your former employer is a stupid move.  What you have ignored is that Josh Penry, who had a pretty good roll out from what I can see, is the only candidate who didn’t work for this firm.  Can you say wedge issue?  Whether it’s perception or reality, people don’t like no-bid contracts, no matter how qualified the winner is, and they really don’t like the cronyism that this kind of a no-bid contract implies.

    This is an with me, and I am an insider.  It’s an issue for me because I believe that it once again shows that the Governor is not up to this job.  He just doesn’t have the political experience or  instinct and he hasn’t hired people he listens to who do.  This makes him a dangerous person in the Governor’s office for anyone who doesn’t want a Republican elected there.  

    It’s not like there is nothing at stake.  Remember, the next Governor has a hand in redistricting.  Having a Republican Governor is a problem.

    I believe this issue will resonate with the public and it will be a problem for the Governor, because he simply doesn’t know how to handle this sort of disaster.

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

38 readers online now

Newsletter

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