The Colorado ethics commission matter that I discussed in my
last blog post points to yet another reason why ethics
commissions must have their own counsel, and a sufficient budget to
pay that counsel.
According to a January article in the Colorado Independent, Colorado's Attorney General issued an opinion on January 8 supporting the Secretary of State's request for approval of his legal defense fund, through either transparency or a blind trust. The ethics commission's draft opinion opts for transparency. A blind trust in this situation would require that the public's trust be blind, that is, without any evidence or reason to believe the Secretary of State would not know about any of the gifts to the fund.
The AG opinion is problematic, not just because of its conclusions, but also because the AG is the ethics commission's counsel, just as the city or county attorney is in most local government ethics programs.
According to a January article in the Colorado Independent, Colorado's Attorney General issued an opinion on January 8 supporting the Secretary of State's request for approval of his legal defense fund, through either transparency or a blind trust. The ethics commission's draft opinion opts for transparency. A blind trust in this situation would require that the public's trust be blind, that is, without any evidence or reason to believe the Secretary of State would not know about any of the gifts to the fund.
The AG opinion is problematic, not just because of its conclusions, but also because the AG is the ethics commission's counsel, just as the city or county attorney is in most local government ethics programs.
