The Colorado Constitution is clear about ethical problems that arise when the private jobs and public roles of elected officials begin to blur.
Elected officials shall “avoid conduct that is in violation of their public trust or that creates a justifiable impression among members of the public that such trust is being violated.”
Those words are taken from Colorado Constitutional Amendment 29, passed in 2006 overwhelmingly by voters tired of elected officials using their influence, associations and positions of power to make a buck and sully public office on all levels of Colorado government.
The measure was ratified despite the unsurpassed wailing from elected officials about making government unworkable by limiting gifts, graft and all kinds of officials on the take.
The measure was created as Proposition 41 to limit quid pro quo goodies bestowed on elected officials who might be sympathetic to generous “donors” while voting on legislation or deciding lucrative contracts. It was also created to slow the revolving door from being an elected official one day and a highly paid lobbyist the next, working for industries or companies that lawmakers greatly impact. Amendment 41 was created to prevent elected officials from using their government positions to violate the public trust by making a buck, or thousands of them.
The amendment makes clear that “any effort to realize personal financial gain through public office other than compensation provided by law is a violation of that trust.”
And that brings us to Aurora and City Councilman Bob Roth.
Roth was appointed to city council in 2011 and elected to a full term in 2013.
He’s an affable lawmaker who’s spent most of his professional life in commercial construction, especially the part of the industry focusing on electrical contracting.
Recently, Roth announced on social media that he was creating his own consulting firm, Roth Collaborative Resources. His website,rcrinc.org, is rife with ethical red flags and blatant violations of the spirit of the law, if not the law itself.
Among the services Roth says he can provide those in the construction industry are:
“Open doors – With a vast network in the public and private sector, in vertical and horizontal development, we can open doors that have not been available previously; Legislative assistance – Engage civic executives and elected officials on behalf of clients for development projects.”
“Open doors” by tapping a “vast network” in the “public” sector is marginally suspect. But promising legislative assistance by tapping “elected officials” whom Roth works with in his official capacity as a city councilman and official in the Denver Regional Council of Governments is expressly forbidden, even for two years after Roth leaves office. An elected official offering to sell influence over another elected official is anathema to honest, ethical government. It’s the very reason voters sanctioned Amendment 41.
The problem in Aurora is that there really is no oversight or implementation of the law. As a home-rule city, the amendment allows the city to essentially make its own rules, and those are either unclear, non-existent or ignored. While the state offers rules and a commission to the public and elected officials, Aurora has nothing.
Other than optional advice from a city attorney, city council members are free to do what they want with no worries of repercussions. If Aurora were not a home-rule city, Roth would be subject to a ruling by the state ethics commission, which could levy fines.
While some members of city council aren’t troubled by Roth offering up his city council connections for cash, many people are, including Colorado Common Cause.
Besides vague but worrisome promises Roth makes on his website, one claim could endanger the reputation of the massive Gaylord hotel project and warrants scrutiny by the state or district attorney.
Roth touts on his website that for the Gaylord Rockies project he was the “Director of Business Development, in full charge of all aspects of the pursuit of this project,” apparently for electrical contractor giant Intermountain Electric.
“The pursuit included due diligence for the construction team in Denver, CO and Orlando, FL; the A&E team in Dallas; the development team in Florida,” the website says. “This pursuit resulted in a $26MM electrical contract due to be complete in Q-4, 2018.”
Roth was voting as a city councilman on massive Gaylord incentives in June of 2011 and claiming to be developing business deals on the project at or about the same time. In a Sentinel story by reporter Kara Mason, Roth said he couldn’t recall the timeline of events.
City officials who worked on the project said that, by design, elected officials are precluded from access to project decision-makers on such deals, so to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
First, Roth owes constituents a complete and accountable explanation for his dubious Gaylord claims and why he sees no ethical problems with touting his elected position as a marketable aspect of his private consulting firm.
Just as important, the city council must either create an ethics structure that complies with the spirit and text of Amendment 29, or relinquish that responsibility to the state’s existing commission.
Propriety, accountability and respect for the ethical standards demanded by voters in Aurora and statewide shouldn’t be taken lightly. To be cavalier about these matters sows distrust in government and warranted public cynicism.
It doesn’t mean that Roth and others can’t hold elected positions and jobs at the same time, but there must be clear rules of behavior and engagement, with qualified advice on issues such as recusal, disclosure and limitations on creating websites that virtually advertise a way to purchase the power of an elected official.
Aurora is poised to get a new mayor following the death of Mayor Steve Hogan. Straightening out this dangerous ethics shortfall in the city should be job one for whoever gets that job.