op candalS of

Ethics Roundup T S 2012

Ethics Watch

INTRODUCTION: COLORADO FAILS INTEGRITY TEST

Earlier this year, the State Integrity Investigation released findings of its research on the ethics laws, enforcement and infrastructure for state government in all 50 states in the nation. Colorado received an overall score of a D+ in this report, with a grade of F in five of the 14 examined areas. In essence, Colorado has laws on the books requiring ethical conduct by our government officials and transparency in our government systems, but the state does not have the structure to prevent and respond to corruption. Colorado received failing grades in the categories of ethics enforcement, public access to information, and three others. On the bright side, the states auditor received an A, bringing the overall integrity grade just above failing. Colorado Ethics Watch was formed in 2006 specifically to be a public watchdog of our state officials and state government. We were the first organization to act on the lack of structure in existence to enforce ethical standards, taking on much of the responsibility ourselves. Over the years, laws have been added, review panels introduced, and other positive reforms made. All too often, however, it is left to private citizens with no power to perform audits or serve subpoenas to actually enforce ethics and transparency standards. Until we have the infrastructure in place to respond to corruption appropriately, our state will continue to enable misbehavior. The five scandals detailed in this years Ethics Roundup are the clearest examples of where our enforcement system is working, and where it is lacking. When a city council is its own ethics panel, or where a public official who has been convicted of crime related to his office and awaits trial for more such crimes is still in office, we know we have a problem. The sooner local governments and our state legislature recognize the shortcomings in our enforcement systems, the sooner well have government that we can all trust. Colorado Ethics Watch Luis Toro Peg Perl Doug Staggs Allison McGee Johnson

PUBLIC TRUSTEES LOSE THE PUBLIC TRUST

This year, Colorados public trustees lost the public trust by accepting excessive gifts from for-profit companies for the entertainment of trustees and highly questionable spending of taxpayer money by some individual trustees without sufficient oversight. Each public trustee is responsible for managing the foreclosure system of a Colorado county,1 but the trustees have a high degree of flexibility in how they accomplish this task.2 The governor of Colorado appoints 10 of Colorados 64 public trustees, the rest are elected county officials.3 The unethical conduct of many trustees this year led to the imposition of hefty fines, the resignation of all appointed public trustees, and calls to reform the public trustee system overall. In November of 2011, Ethics Watch filed an ethics complaint with the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission (IEC) against the Public Trustee Association of Colorado (PTAC) for violating state ethics laws by accepting contributions from for-profit companies and using the funds to provide members with a gift of free lodging. PTAC is a nonprofit that receives more than 5% of its funding from for-profit corporations; specifically, the nonprofit accepted contributions from a law firm and software vendor that did business with the organization. PTAC put the funds into an education account, and then used the funds to pay for convention lodging at a Black Hawk casino hotel for 32 public trustees, valued at $99 per trustee. Amendment 41 to the Colorado Constitution limits gifts to public officials to $53 in a calendar year.4 PTAC did not dispute the allegations. In March 2012, the IEC found that PTAC violated Amendment 41 and ordered them to pay nearly $3,000 in fines, divided among the 32 counties whose trustees attended the convention.5 In addition to the fines, the trustees agreed to receive training in complying with Amendment 41 of the Colorado Constitution.6 Then in July 2012, Governor Hickenlooper requested the resignation of all 10 of the appointed public trustees amid reports of questionable spending.7 The dubious spending practices of the appointed trustees ranged broadly. In Pueblo County, trustee Nick Gradisar moved the Countys public trustee office into a building he co-owned.8 Mr. Gradisar and the

1 2

Colo. Rev. Stat. 38-37-104 (2012). David Migoya, Mesa County trustee inked newspaper classified deal without bids, The Denver Post, Jul. 9, 2012. 3 Colo. Rev. Stat. 38-37-102 (2012). 4 Colo. Const. art. XXIX, 3(2). 5 David Migoya, Public trustees admit ethics violations and agree to fines, The Denver Post, Mar. 19, 2012. 6 Id. 7 Governor Accepts Resignations of Appointed Public Trustees, Colorado.gov (Jul. 10, 2012), http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=GovHickenlooper%2FCBONLay out&cid=1251626114594&pagename=CBONWrapper. 8 David Migoya, Colorado public trustee spending raises red flags, The Denver Post, Jul. 10, 2012.

other owners of the building charged $2,000 a month in rent, and Mr. Gradisar never formally told any government officials about the potential conflict of interest.9 Adams County Trustee Carol Snyders office purchased a Dodge Nitro for her personal use. Payments for the car totaled $9,492 in a single year.10 In Boulder County, the public trustee office headed by Rich Gebhardt provided its employees with full health care coverage (a perk that no other Boulder County employee received) and Mr. Gebhardt personally received a yearly small commission connected to the coverage.11 Although the expenditures were not prohibited by law, the spending practices of the public trustees concerned both watchdog organizations and top state officials.12 In asking for the resignation of the appointed trustees Governor Hickenlooper stated, We all have to stand for good government. That means maintaining the publics trust and wherever possible avoiding even the appearance of any impropriety.13 The Governors Office also issued new guidelines for the appointed public trustees that required: 1) Submitting a conflict of interest disclosure each year and disclosing any professional licenses; 2) Following state rules on the use of any vehicle owned by the public trustees office (not using state vehicles for personal use); 3) Receiving approval of all purchases greater than $5,000; 4) Following state rules on official functions; and 5) Restricting the gifts purchased for employees.14 After a more detailed investigation of the trustees spending practices, Governor Hickenlooper reappointed five of the 10 resigned trustees. Mr. Gradisar from Pueblo County and Mr. Gebhardt from Boulder County were not reappointed, and Ms. Snyder from Adams County retired rather than seek reappointment. The Governor also signed a bill into law that makes appointed public trustees more accountable to the public, including biannual audits.15 Despite this years reforms to increase oversight of the 10 appointed public trustees, elected county treasurers which serve as 52 of the trustees are subject to very little oversight of their office budgets. In Denver and Broomfield, the public trustee's office operates in the same manner as other city and county agencies (run by the county clerk and recorder and city revenue
9

Id. Id. 11 Id. 12 David Migoya, Five Colorado trustees re-appointed; three new ones named, The Denver Post, Aug. 15, 2012. 13 Governor Accepts Resignations of Appointed Public Trustees, supra note 7. 14 Id. 15 David Migoya, Governor signs bill making public trustees more accountable, The Denver Post, May 22, 2012.
10

manager, respectively). Colorado is left with an unacceptable patchwork system of different appointment and oversight rules in different counties. Both the Governor and legislative leaders have indicated interest in legislative fixes in the 2013 General Assembly session. Hopefully, they will not forget the public trustee ethical problems of this year and will reform our system into a 21st century model of efficiency and accountability that deserves the public trust.

ADAMS COUNTY MELTDOWN STILL BOILING OVER

Two high-profile scandals rocked the government in Adams County in 2012, prompting reforms but also furthering its reputation for corruption. Surprisingly, the reputation starts at home: in a May 2012 survey, only 44% of Adams County residents agreed that they could trust Adams County government to do what is right always or most of the time.16
Gil Reyes Lowers Taxes for Donors and Friends

Adams County Assessor Gil Reyes already has a criminal record for acts taken in office, but he refuses to step down even while facing a criminal trial for misconduct in office. In 2011, Mr. Reyes pled guilty to misdemeanor failure to report a gift and was ordered to pay a $300 fine for accepting sporting event tickets from a vice-president of a warehouse company that received property-tax breaks.17 He now faces nine charges of official misconduct, each with a maximum sentence of $1,000 and one year in jail, for lowering the property taxes of warehouses owned by his top campaign contributor.18 The criminal misconduct charges were filed after the Adams County District Attorneys Office, FBI, and the U.S. Attorneys Office completed a joint investigation into Mr. Reyes alleged misconduct.19 The investigation focused on allegations that Mr. Reyes personally lowered the taxable values of warehouses owned by Majestic Realty Co., his top campaign contributor, by $23 million by not using values determined by his commercial appraisers. 20 District Attorney Don Quick said Mr. Reyes did not follow the rules and regulations that govern his office when valuing Majestics properties.21 In August 2011, the Colorado Department of Local Affairs Division of Property Taxation furnished a report on taxpayer complaints against Mr. Reyes.22 The report concluded there were enough anomalies discovered during this investigation to indicate certain property-tax laws were violated by the Adams County Assessors office with regard to donor properties.23 The report on that investigation highlights that between 2005 and 2010 Reyess office lowered
16 17

Joey Kirchmer, Poll shows distrust in Adams County, The Denver Post, Sep. 16, 2012. Monte Whaley, Adams County Assessor Gil Reyes fined over gift, The Denver Post, Aug. 3, 2011. 18 Alan Gathright, Gil Reyes Accused Of Slashing Top Campaign Donors Property Taxes By $800k In 1 Year, TheDenverChannel.com, May 11, 2012, http://www.thedenverchannel.com/print/31049727/detail.html. 19 David Olinger, Adams County Assessor Gil Reyes charged with misconduct, The Denver Post, May 11, 2012. 20 Id. 21 Id. 22 CBS4 Denver, Adams County Assessor Charged For Allegedly Lowering Appraisals, May 11, 2012, http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/05/11/adams-county-assessor-charged-for-loweringappraisals/. 23 Olinger, David, All Adams County warehouses to be reappraised, The Denver Post, Jan. 6, 2012.

appraised values for a total reduction of $848,694 in property taxes on properties associated with his contributors.24 Additionally, 49.5% of the property valuation appeals that Mr. Reyes personally handled were for properties of contributors, only one of which was denied. 25 Based on the reports findings, the state conducted a reappraisal of all Adams County warehouses in 2012.26 Mr. Reyes complained that this process was unnecessary and based on imaginary concerns that he favored campaign contributors.27 After first refusing to accept the new state valuation, Mr. Reyes reached an agreement with the State Property Tax Administrators office that stated commercial warehouses in Adams County were undervalued by a total of $19 million.28 The county will increase the value of more than 200 warehouses resulting in approximately $1.9 million in additional tax revenue.29 Mr. Reyes faces additional criticism due to his personal handling of a prominent familys tax appeals.30 Appeals records show that on the Carlson familys appeals of properties worth $100,000 or more, Mr. Reyes reduced the appraised land value in 31 out of 33 cases, a 94 percent success rate.31 The typical success of appeals to the Adams County assessors office is 51 percent. State records show the Carlson family contributed $2,000 to Mr. Reyes 2002 and 2006 campaigns.32 Mr. Reyes recently pled not guilty on the pending charges and a tentative trial date has been set for April 2013.33 The judge originally assigned to the case has now recused himself because he personally knows Mr. Reyes.34 Mr. Reyes remains in office despite calls for his resignation from Ethics Watch and others.35
Quality Paving Cheats Taxpayers

Last year the people of Adams County were shocked to discover that Quality Paving, a contractor working for the county, had worked with several county employees to cheat taxpayers out of an estimated $8.6 million through a fraudulent billing scheme.36 In the end, the scandal

24 25

Id. Id. 26 David Olinger, Reyes defiant in letter, The Denver Post, Sep. 26, 2012. 27 Id. 28 David Olinger, Adams assessor to raise values, The Denver Post, Oct. 26, 2012. 29 Id. 30 David Olinger, Adams County assessors cut taxes for prominent family by $216,000, The Denver Post, Jun. 21, 2012. 31 Id. 32 Id. 33 David Olinger, Jury trial in April for Adams assessor, The Denver Post, Nov. 22, 2012. 34 Id. 35 Ethics Watch: Adams Assessor Reyes Must Resign, http://www.citizensforethics.org/colegal/entry/2687/ (last visited on Dec. 10, 2012). 36 Jessica Fender, Adams commissioner Nichols fails to make primary ballot after paving scandal, The Denver Post, Mar. 19, 2012.

cleared the way for reforms to improve governance and ethics standards in the county, 37 but not before Adams County was thrust into the dirty spotlight once again. Quality Paving and its related company, Quality Resurfacing, executed a scheme with the cooperation of certain county employees in which the county was billed for projects that were never completed.38 The company also did work at the homes of top county officials who supervised work on these no-bid contracts.39 Since the scandal was first reported in 2011, several people have been prosecuted or face pending charges for alleged crimes arising from their involvement:40 Jerry Rhea, former owner of Quality Paving, was sentenced to nine years in prison but is currently out on bond as he appeals the conviction;41 Dennis Coen, former vice president of Quality Paving, was sentenced to 13 years in prison;42 Lee Asay, the former Adams County public works director, pled guilty to theft and will be sentenced in January 2013;43 Sam Gomez, former Adams County construction manager, was sentenced to four years in prison but his sentence is currently suspended as he appeals;44 Former Quality Paving employee, Heath Russo, and former county public works employee Stacey Parkin pled guilty to theft; both received deferred sentences.45

Jefferson County District Attorney Scott Storey was appointed as special prosecutor to investigate the relationship between County Commissioner Alice Nichol and Quality Paving. 46 The investigation was triggered by reporting that Quality Paving won a no-bid contract to pave Commissioner Nichols home driveway just months after the company hired her son-in-law.47 It was also alleged that Commissioner Nichol received $10,000 in cash from Quality Paving, representing a return of the money paid for the paving job after work was completed.48

37 38

Yesenia Robles, Adams County adding to reforms, The Denver Post, May 23, 2012. Associated Press, Ex-Adams County employee pleads guilty to theft, CBS4.com, Oct.10, 2012. 39 Yesenia Robles, Trial of Adams County director accused in paving scandal delayed, The Denver Post, Aug.17, 2012. 40 Yesenia Robles, Former Quality Paving chief can remain free during appeal, The Denver Post, Jul. 26, 2012. 41 Id. 42 Id. 43 Associated Press, supra note 38. 44 Robles, supra note 39. 45 Id 46 David Olinger, Adams County Commissioner Alice Nichol will not face criminal charges, The Denver Post, Oct. 16, 2012. 47 Id. 48 David Olinger and Kevin Vaughan, Quality Paving VP paid $10,000 to Adams County official, lawyer claims, The Denver Post, Aug. 20, 2011.

In October 2012, DA Storey announced that Commissioner Nichol will not face criminal charges for her involvement in the Quality Paving scandal. A spokeswoman for the DA said, We do not believe we could prove anything criminal beyond a reasonable doubt.49 Commissioner Nichol abandoned her re-election bid this year50 after failing to secure a spot on the Democratic primary ballot.51 She then left the Democratic Party while publicly blaming party leaders for failing to protect her during the criminal investigation and her re-election campaign.52 In May 2011, shortly after the Quality Paving theft allegations were brought to light, the Adams County Commission enacted a sweeping set of reforms in order to combat corruption and eliminate waste.53 Those reforms included changes to centralized purchasing, hiring an internal auditor, and rewriting ethics standards to prohibit county employees from doing personal business with county contractors.54 The resolutions also included a lawsuit against perpetrators in the Quality Paving scandal to recover the $8.6 million stolen from taxpayers and establishing a process for ethics complaints to be reviewed by an independent official.55 In 2012, the county continued to implement these reforms by appointing the countys first Independent Ethics Officer, Suzanne Dugan, to investigate ethics complaints and design a county-wide ethics education program.56 The county also created an online Adams County Transparency Reporting Portal run by a third-party audit firm that allows employees or citizens to report suspected fraud or ethical violations by county officials and has been hailed by open government activists.57 The Quality Paving scandal also prompted reform efforts on a statewide level with a bill introduced by Senator Mary Hodge which would prohibit public officials from accepting goods and services from any entity who is also providing such items to the state or local government without proof of a fair and legitimate transaction with full and adequate consideration.58 The measure passed the General Assembly and became law after the Governor signed it in April 2012.

49 50

Olinger, supra note 46. Fender, supra note 36. 51 Ernest Luning, Speculation about stuffed ballot boxes, old-style political intrigue erupts in Adams County, The Colorado Statesman, Mar. 23, 2012. 52 David Olinger, Nicol no longer in Democratic Party, The Denver Post, Oct. 17, 2012. 53 Adams County Colorado, Reform Resolutions, last visited Nov. 30, 2012, adcogov.org/index.aspx?NID=887. 54 Robles, supra note 37. 55 Adams County Colorado, supra note 53. 56 David Olinger, Adams County hires New York ethics officer, The Denver Post, May 3, 2012. 57 Monte Whaley, Scandal-plagued Adams County gets transparency award from national nonprofit, The Denver Post, May 25, 2012. The website can be found at: http://www.cicn.biz/adcohotline (last visited Nov. 30, 2012). 58 David Olinger, Scandal paves way to new bill, The Denver Post, Feb. 11, 2012.

SCOTT GESSLERS PERSONAL PIGGY BANK?

Controversial Secretary of State Scott Gessler made a name for himself while attempting to reshape Colorado election and campaign finance laws in this election year. He earned fame of a different kind when a review of public records revealed evidence of misuse of public funds by Secretary Gessler. On August 24 and 25, 2012, Secretary Gessler attended the Republican National Lawyers Association election law conference in Sarasota, Florida.59 He then spent the week of August 26 at the Republican National Convention in Tampa. Secretary Gessler requested reimbursement for travel costs for his attendance at these events (over $1000 in airfare and lodging alone), certifying that that travel performed for which reimbursement is claimed was performed by me on state business and that no claims are made for expenses of a personal or political nature.60 However, Secretary Gesslers calendar does not show any official business scheduled for that week in Tampa.61 Secretary Gesslers use of state funds to cover travel expenses for partisan events implicates several laws against public corruption. The Colorado Fiscal Rules specifically provide that state funds must be used for official state business purposes only.62 The Secretary of States compensation of $68,500 per year is described in statute as constituting both salary and allowance.63 Criminal laws prohibit official misconduct64 and conversion of public money for personal use,65 as well as making false entries in public records,66 such as travel expense reimbursement requests. A closer look at Secretary Gesslers spending from the Department of State discretionary fund then revealed a disturbing pattern suggesting he has used this fund as a personal piggy bank.67 In July 2011, the end of Fiscal Year 2010, Secretary Gessler filed a one sentence reimbursement request seeking any remaining discretionary funds.68 Documents obtained from the State Comptroller by an Ethics Watch open records request showed a payment of $1,400 on July 13, 2011 to Scott Gessler for 6/30/11 balance and coded as Other Employee Benefits.69 Secretary Gessler repeated this request in July 2012, again requesting personal
59

Itinerary, RNLA/RNC Trip, Sarasota and Tampa Bay, FL, Thursday Aug. 23 Saturday Sep. 1 (Exhibit 1). 60 Letter from Scott Gessler to Heather Lizotte, Sep. 6, 2012 (Exhibit 2). 61 Calendar for week of Aug. 26, 2012 (Exhibit 3). 62 1 C.C.R. 1-101, Rule 2-1.01 (2012). 63 Colo. Rev. Stat. 24-9-101 (2012). 64 Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-8-104 (2012). 65 Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-8-407 (2012). 66 Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-8-114 (2012). 67 Patrick Malone, Gessler received personal payment of expiring budget funds, The Coloradoan, Oct. 18, 2012. 68 Letter from Scott Gessler to Heather Lizotte, Jul. 12, 2011 (Exhibit 4). 69 Office of State Comptroller, Report of Expenditures for Secretary of State for Fiscal Years 2010-11 (Exhibit 5).

reimbursement of any moneys left in the discretionary fund at the end of Fiscal Year 2011 without any attached receipts.70 This time, State Comptroller records show payments on July 9, 2012 to an unnamed employee totaling $118 for Employee Non-Cash Incentives.71 Subject to annual appropriations, Colorados four statewide elected officers are provided a discretionary fund in the amount of $5,000 for the Attorney General, Secretary of State and Treasurer, and $20,000 for the Governor.72 Use of these funds is limited by statute to expenditure[s] in pursuance of official business.73 However, Secretary Gesslers year-end requests were not accompanied by any receipts or proof of official business, but instead a demand for a personal check in the amount left in the account. Ethics Watch reviewed the discretionary fund spending by other statewide officers with such accounts: Governor John Hickenlooper, Attorney General John Suthers and Treasurer Walker Stapleton. There did not appear to be any evidence that these officials used discretionary funds to travel to political party conventions or events, or evidence of any questionable personal use of these state funds. In October 2012, Ethics Watch sent a letter and supporting documentation of these findings to Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey and requested a criminal investigation into Secretary Gesslers use of public funds for political and personal use.74 The Denver District Attorneys Office confirmed to the media in November 2012 that it has launched a criminal investigation into Secretary Gesslers use of funds.75 The District Attorney has not disclosed whether the scope of that investigation includes both the partisan trip to Florida and the year-end sweeping up of remaining funds in 2011 and 2012. Ethics Watch also filed a complaint with the Independent Ethics Commission (IEC) seeking an investigation and possible assessment of fines for misuse of funds based on both the RNLA/RNC trip and the 2012 year-end disbursement.76 The IEC unanimously voted that Ethics Watchs complaint was not frivolous and directed IEC staff to investigate the matter.77 The IECs jurisdiction is limited to one year, so that investigation cannot include the 2011 year-end disbursement.

70 71

Letter from Scott Gessler to Heather Lizotte, Jul. 5, 2012 (Exhibit 6). Office of State Comptroller, Report of Expenditures for Secretary of State for Fiscal Years 2010-11 (Exhibit 5). 72 Colo. Rev. Stat. 24-9-105 (2012). 73 Id. 74 Patrick Malone, Criminal, ethical probes sought for Gesslers use of public funds, The Coloradoan, Oct. 15, 2012. 75 Tim Hoover, Denver DA launches criminal probe of Secretary of State Scott Gessler, The Denver Post, Nov. 5, 2012. 76 Id. 77 John Tomasic, State ethics commission, Denver DA investigating Secretary of State Gessler, The Colorado Independent, Nov. 5, 2012.

10

The Denver Post editorial board has urged Secretary Gessler to repay all the money he received for both the RNLA/RNC trip and the year-end payouts.78 Instead, Secretary Gessler has hired a team of lawyers to defend his actions79 and has not indicated that he will return the funds.80 Presumably this case will follow the pattern, unique to Colorado, under which the state pays for the defense of the official accused of misconduct while the private sector bears the cost of filing the complaint and participating in the hearing.

78 79

Editorial: Gessler needs to repay taxpayers, The Denver Post, Oct. 23, 2012. Tim Hoover, Secretary of State Gessler hired David Lane as attorney in ethics case, The Denver Post, Dec. 6, 2012. 80 Sam Levin, Scott Gessler says hes innocent as Ethics Commission begins investigation, Denver Westword, Nov. 9, 2012.

11

SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR STATE LEGISLATORS

State Representative Laura Bradfords traffic stop for suspicion of drunk driving in January 2012 revealed an internal policy of special treatment for state legislators by Denver law enforcement. The incident also showcased a failure of the House of Representatives to selfpolice standards of conduct through its ethics committee. Taken together, the actions of the Denver Police Department (DPD) and the House Ethics Committee demonstrate that members of the General Assembly get special treatment, even if (like Rep. Bradford) they do not ask for it.
Denver Police Departments Double Standard

Instead of following normal police procedure for a suspected drunk driver and administering a blood-alcohol test, the DPD officers making the stop called a taxi for Rep. Bradford, parked her car, and sent her on her way. The discrepancy in police procedure was due to an internal policy affording Rep. Bradford legislative privilege based the DPDs interpretation of a Colorado Constitutional provision stating that [m]embers of the general assembly shall, in all cases except treason or felony, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the sessions of their respective houses, or any committees thereof, and in going to and returning from the same. . . .81 Putting aside the fact that Rep. Bradford was traveling from a bar, not a session or committee meeting of the House, this clause is intended to allow legislators to conduct the business of lawmaking without undue hindrance or fear caused by threatened or pending lawsuits related to their legislative duties, not to protect them from the consequences of private misconduct.82 The DPD released an internal investigation report detailing Rep. Bradfords traffic stop.83 Although a blood-alcohol test was not administered at the time of the stop, police did administer roadside sobriety tests, each of which Rep. Bradford failed. The administering officer estimated her blood-alcohol content to be at .20, more than twice the .08 legal limit. 84 Police on the scene also found a loaded handgun in Rep. Bradfords car.85 Possession of a loaded handgun by an intoxicated person is a misdemeanor offense in Colorado.86 Although Rep. Bradford claimed to have a concealed weapons permit, a record search conducted by an officer involved in the traffic stop showed that she did not have a permit.87 Possession of a concealed weapon without a permit is also a misdemeanor.88

81 82

Colo. Const. art. V, 16. Colorado Common Cause v. Bledsoe, 810 P.2d 201, 208 (Colo. 1991) (emphasis added). 83 Christina Dickinson and Cheryl Preheim, Police: Rep Laura Bradford failed roadside sobriety tests, 9News.com, Feb. 22, 2012, http://www.9news.com/news/article/251129/339/Police-Repfailed-roadside-sobriety-tests?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Cbc%7Clarge. 84 Brian Klaus, Internal Denver Police Statement, Jan. 30, 2012 (Exhibit 7). 85 Id. 86 Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-12-106(1)(d). 87 Klaus, supra note 84. 88 Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-12-105 (2012).

12

While police on scene at the traffic stop had probable cause to charge Rep. Bradford with drunk driving and weapons violations, they only chose to issue a traffic citation pursuant to the official DPD policy regarding violations by state legislators.89 The Denver Police Department Operations Manual states no member of the Colorado General Assembly may be arrested while in route to or from legislative sessions, except for treason or felony violations.90 The Manual specifically directs officers who have reason to believe a legislator is driving under the influence to merely issue a traffic violation citation and arrange for transportation home for the legislator unless there is an accident with serious injuries involved.91 In addition to the fact that officers would be hard pressed to know whether a legislator was traveling to or from a session, as opposed to merely driving around the city during session, one problem with the DPDs policy is illustrated by events after the incident. DPDs reports initially suggested that Rep. Bradford had invoked legislative privilege to avoid arrest. Later, DPD admitted that Rep. Bradford never invoked any form of immunity during the traffic stop and in fact told officers she want[ed] to be treated like anyone else.92 Yet officers never gave Rep. Bradford any opportunity to be treated like everyone else, because department policy advised them not to do so. Even more disturbing is the message the DPDs policy sends to officers that legislators deserve deferential treatment even when there is evidence of a crime. The police report on Rep. Bradfords traffic stop indicates that the presiding officer on the scene tried to hide evidence of Rep. Bradfords possible weapons violations. The presiding officer, Sgt. Packard, told another officer on the scene to keep the handgun part of the stop quiet.93
Ethics Committee Investigation Curtailed Prematurely

On January 31st House Speaker Frank McNulty filed an ethics complaint calling for the formation of a special ethics committee to investigate Rep. Bradfords traffic stop.94 The ethics committee officially formed on February 1st to determine if there was probable cause, or a sufficient reasonable belief that an ethics violation may have occurred through Rep. Bradford either driving drunk or invoking legislative privilege.95 Rep. Bradford responded to the ethics investigation by threatening to leave the Republican Party. At the time, such a move could disrupt the partys tenuous 33-32 majority.96
89 90

Klaus, supra note 84. Denver Police Department Operations Manual, 205.07 Violations by Colorado Legislators, 2012 (Exhibit 8). 91 Id. 92 Tim Hoover and Lynn Bartels, Denver police apologize to lawmaker, say she didnt invoke immunity during DUI stop, The Denver Post, Feb. 1, 2012. 93 Klaus, supra note 84. 94 Lynn Bartels, Rep. Bradford ethics probe has chorus of critics, The Denver Post, Feb. 3, 2012. 95 Archived Audio House Ethics Committee, Feb. 6, 2012, available at http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2012B/cslFrontPages.nsf/Audio?OpenPage. 96 Lynn Bartels and Tim Hoover, Colorado GOP lawmaker Bradford says she might leave party, The Denver Post, Feb. 1, 2012, http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_19868282.

13

It could also require the House to vote on a new speaker, potentially ousting Rep. McNulty from the position.97 Presumably motivated by Rep. Bradfords partisan threats, the special ethics committee acted quickly to dismiss the complaints, and its investigation was far from thorough. The committee had until March 2 to reach a determination on the possible ethics violations. However, the committee voted to dissolve itself on February 10, just a little more than a week after it was formed and after meeting only twice.98 The committee majority decided that the issue of legislative privilege was laid to rest when the DPD held a press conference stating that Rep. Bradford never invoked legislative privilege, drawing a rare Minority Report that agreed not to proceed but noted the lack of evidence as to whether Rep. Bradford had attempted to invoke privilege.99 The drunk driving charge was dismissed for a lack of evidence.100 After the ethics committee disbanded, Rep. Bradford chose to remain in the Republican Party, but did not seek reelection.101 Days after the special ethics committee dissolved, and before the 30-day time frame for the committee would have expired, the DPD released its internal investigation report on the incident. The committee knew of the DPD internal investigation.102 It also knew that it had the power to subpoena documents relating to that investigation.103 Unfortunately, the ethics committee chose neither to subpoena the documents nor wait for the DPD to finish its internal report of the traffic stop before declaring its work done. It also chose not to pursue the possible weapon violation because it felt its role was limited to only the ethical issues of drunk driving and invoking legislative privilege.104 In the aftermath of Rep. Bradfords incident, the public can have little confidence that the same thing will not happen again. The DPD has apologized for its handling of Rep. Bradfords traffic stop.105 Some members of the Colorado House of Representatives have suggested that law enforcement officers be better educated on the proper application of legislative privilege. 106 The House has not, however, suggested ways that it can improve ethics investigations it conducts in the future. No changes appear to have been made to DPD operational policy. No legislation
97 98

Id. Archived Audio House Ethics Committee, Feb. 10, 2012, available at http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2012B/cslFrontpages.nsf/Audio?OpenPage. 99 Reports from the House Ethics Committee, House Journal, Sixty-Eighth General Assembly, State of Colorado, Second Regular Session, pp. 320-21 (Feb. 20, 2012) (Exhibit 9). 100 February 10 Ethics Committee Audio, supra note 98. 101 Lynn Bartels, Embattled lawmaker wont seek re-election, cites husbands health, The Denver Post, Mar. 29, 2012. 102 February 6 Ethics Committee Audio, supra note 95. 103 Id. 104 Id. 105 Jace Larson, et.al, Denver Police admits to special treatment in Rep. Laura Bradford traffic stop, 9News.com, Jan. 31, 2012, http://www.9news.com/news/article/246140/339/DPD-Wewere-wrong-in-state-rep-traffic. 106 Lindsay Watts, Questions about police decision not to breathalyze lawmaker, KRDO.com, Jan. 28, 2012, http://www.krdo.com/pring/30324380/detail.html.

14

has been introduced to clarify that legislators are not entitled to special treatment in connection with routine criminal matters.

15

TRINIDAD COUNCILWOMAN SHOWS POLICE WHOS BOSS

A July 2011 raid revealed gambling and liquor law violations were taking place at Ginos Sports Bar in Trinidad, an establishment co-owned by Trinidad Councilwoman Linda Velasquez. As a result, Councilwoman Velasquez was charged with three felonies, while two misdemeanor charges from the same incident were dropped earlier this year.107 Two of the felony charges were for unlawfully permitting gambling on a premise with a liquor license.108 The other felony charge of illegally attempting to influence a public servant came after the councilwoman allegedly made a threatening comment during the raid. Councilwoman Velasquez is said to have commented to Trinidad Police Chief Charles Glorioso: Im pissed. Who called it in? Paybacks are a bitch. Im going to get you for this.109 Regarding the charge of attempt to influence a public servant, District Attorney Frank Ruybalid said Councilwoman Velasquez has the potential to inflict economic reprisal against the Police Chief.110 Indeed, former Trinidad City Manager Gil de Rubio told City Council that Councilwoman Velasquez was angry with him and the Chief because they knew and approved of the raid on her bar.111 According to the Trinidad Times-Independent, Gil de Rubio said Velasquez had made statements that can only be construed as wanting to get rid of Chief Glorioso. Gil de Rubio said the only way Velasquez could get rid of Glorioso was to get him, Gil de Rubio, fired.112 At the same meeting at which Mr. de Rubio made these remarks, he was terminated as city manager by a split vote of the Trinidad City Council.113 Ethics complaints related to Mr. de Rubios firing and replacement, filed against Councilwoman Velasquez, Mayor John Rino, and the Trinidad City Attorney, were dismissed less than a month later by the City Council, sitting as Trinidads Board of Ethics.114 Chief Glorioso testified at a preliminary hearing that Councilwoman Velasquezs statements made him feel that his job was at risk.115 After the hearing, possibly feeling even more threatened, he reportedly asked the District Attorney to find a way to resolve the case without a trial.116 The result was a plea bargain under which Councilwoman Velasquez pleaded
107 108

Ryan Severance, Trial set for Trinidad councilwoman. Pueblo Chieftain, Jul. 21. 2012. Id. 109 Steve Block, Hearing for Velasquez postponed to July 17. Trinidad Times-Independent, May 8, 2012. 110 Ryan Severance, Lesser charges dropped in Trinidad gambling raid. Pueblo Chieftain, Mar. 15, 2012. 111 Steve Block, City manager fired by split vote, Gil de Rubio refutes alleged grievances, brings retaliation to light, Trinidad Times-Independent, May 4, 2012. 112 Id. 113 Id. 114 Steve Block, Ethics complaints dismissed; Council votes end potential probe of attorneys illegal hire, Trinidad Times-Independent, May 18, 2012; Trinidad Municipal Code 2-71(3)(b). 115 Steve Block, Plea deal ends councilwomans gambling case, Trinidad Times-Independent, Nov. 2, 2012. 116 Id.

16

no contest to a single misdemeanor charge of allowing professional gambling in a licensed establishment and received a deferred sentence.117 The gravity of the initial charges, plus the firing of City Manager de Rubio and Chief Gloriosos change of heart, make this situation appear to be small-town abuse of power at its worst. Trinidad residents can rightly ask if the same rules apply to them as apply to members of their city council.

117

Sentence Order, People v. Velasquez, District Court, Las Animas County, Colorado Case No. 2011CR143, Nov.1, 2012 (Exhibit 10).

17