Ritter, Suthers send letter on 41: Analysis
The two biggest debates of the 2007 legislative session have been trumped-up, partisan, finger-pointing fests.
Bill Ritter and John Suthers' letter spoke of "very little guidance regarding the meaning of certain provisions of Amendment 41." But the amendment was ambiguous by design. Morgan Carroll's eloquent pre-election endorsement of 41 stated:
Amendment 41 will have "enacting legislation" to nail down precise definitions and address any potential ambiguities before taking effect. The public can and will have a say in that process as well. The measure was written to put some flexibility to shape the implementation of Amendment 41 to make sure that while we implement this that we can be fairly surgical in clarify that it reaches only those we intend to.
Colorado Confidential wrote that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have expressed a willingness to write enacting legislation - at least in the case of Amendment 27, which contained similar language.
And a few days ago The Rocky Mountain News reported that this process was already underway:
Children of government employees could accept scholarships and lobbyists could socialize with public officials under a bill that seeks to clarify the controversial gift-ban law known as Amendment 41.
The proposal, expected to be introduced early next week, is designed to prevent a host of unintended consequences of the law approved by voters in November.
It does so by listing a handful of exemptions, including allowing CU professors to take Nobel Prize money and spouses of slain police officers to accept donations.
It also inserts language that more closely ties a gift to its intended effect.
So for the second time in just a few days, Ritter has had to go to extraordinary lengths to quiet a controversy that shouldn't have been.
(More: Sentinel, Post, SquareState)
Bill Ritter and John Suthers' letter spoke of "very little guidance regarding the meaning of certain provisions of Amendment 41." But the amendment was ambiguous by design. Morgan Carroll's eloquent pre-election endorsement of 41 stated:
Amendment 41 will have "enacting legislation" to nail down precise definitions and address any potential ambiguities before taking effect. The public can and will have a say in that process as well. The measure was written to put some flexibility to shape the implementation of Amendment 41 to make sure that while we implement this that we can be fairly surgical in clarify that it reaches only those we intend to.
Colorado Confidential wrote that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have expressed a willingness to write enacting legislation - at least in the case of Amendment 27, which contained similar language.
And a few days ago The Rocky Mountain News reported that this process was already underway:
Children of government employees could accept scholarships and lobbyists could socialize with public officials under a bill that seeks to clarify the controversial gift-ban law known as Amendment 41.
The proposal, expected to be introduced early next week, is designed to prevent a host of unintended consequences of the law approved by voters in November.
It does so by listing a handful of exemptions, including allowing CU professors to take Nobel Prize money and spouses of slain police officers to accept donations.
It also inserts language that more closely ties a gift to its intended effect.
So for the second time in just a few days, Ritter has had to go to extraordinary lengths to quiet a controversy that shouldn't have been.
(More: Sentinel, Post, SquareState)
Labels: Amendment 41, Bill Ritter, John Suthers, punditry
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home