When a congressman goes after a lawyer whose organization filed an
ethics complaint against him (in his capacity as Colorado's secretary
of state), you know he is more interested in getting even than he is in
the public interest. Getting even, however, is not what public servants should be doing.
According to an
AP
article yesterday, Congressman Mike Coffman filed a complaint with
the state Supreme Court, accusing a Colorado Ethics Watch attorney of
wrongly claiming that the state ethics commission found that he "technically violated
state law" when he was secretary of state. This appears to be an
attorney discipline complaint.
Here's
what
Colorado Ethics Watch wrote and which got the congressman's dander
up:
The IEC [Colorado Independent Ethics Commission] found that Coffman
technically violated state law by allowing a
senior employee to operate a partisan side business, but excused his
conflict with a voting machine vendor based on apparent procedural
safeguards.
Here's what the IEC wrote in
its
decision :
The IEC finds that although there may have been a technical violation
of state law, this was mitigated by the vigorous and immediate remedial
action taken by both Coffman and Mr. Hobbs.
The Colorado Ethics Watch (CEW) description of this finding was not
accurate, and Coffman certainly had reason to point this out and ask
for a correction. I don't know if he did this, but I cannot find the
original statement on the Colorado Ethics Watch website, just
an
article that states:
Commission members ruled in the Kopelman case that “although there may
have been a technical violation of state law, this was mitigated by the
vigorous and immediate remedial action” taken by Coffman and one of his
deputies.
Therefore, at least now, CEW has effectively corrected its misstatement.
The ethics proceeding appears to have been extremely rancorous on both
sides. Coffman has reason for being angry. But for a public servant to
strike out against the professional livelihood of a citizen who opposed
him, on the basis of a minor statement that probably few saw and even
fewer took at face value, considering CEW's strong position against Coffman,
suggests that Coffman does not recognize the obligations and
limitations of his position.
He is an elected public servant bound to represent his constituents,
who couldn't care less about the CEW's description of the IEC's
findings. He also has a duty not to send the message to others that
bringing non-frivolous ethics complaints against public officials could
endanger their livelihoods. He should be happy that he was held not to
be responsible for what his employees did, and let his antagonisms lie.
Similarly, as a public interest group, Colorado Ethics Watch has an
obligation to the public, and to its members, to stick to the facts. It
has made some excellent points criticizing the IEC decision, but it cannot
be taken seriously when it distorts the facts. If its criticisms are
indeed true, it does not need to depend on half-truths or on personal
attacks. The criticisms should stand on their own, based solely on the
facts.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research, City Ethics
203-230-2548
