Public Servants Should Not Take Action Against Those Who File Non-Frivolous Ethics Complaints Against Them

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-Retired, City Ethics

---