Markey, who unseated Values Voter favorite Marilyn Musgrave in last year’s election, is described thus on the ballot: “Radical leftist in conservative /moderate district. Beatable. Heavy pro-abortion campaign contributions in 2008.”

Bennet, facing a primary challenge announced this week by former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, gets a more tactical description that skips the values assessment: “Has never won a statewide race. Conservatives can take back this important seat.”

The Values Voter Summit is sponsored by the Family Research Council, which describes itself as a “Christian organization promoting the traditional family unit and the Judeo-Christian value system upon which it is built.” Co-sponsors include the group’s political arm, FRC Action, and Focus on the Family Action, the political arm of the Colorado Springs-based evangelical ministry Focus on the Family.

Here’s the whole FRC Action 2010 target list ballot, including descriptions:

Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.) – Won in 2008 by only 727 votes! From conservative district.

Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio) – Liberal in a moderate to conservative district.

Rep. Glenn Nye (D-Va.) – Pro-abortion, pro-sex-ed favorite of Planned Parenthood. Barely won in historically conservative district.

Rep. Betsy Markey (D-Co.) – Radical leftist in conservative /moderate district. Beatable. Heavy pro-abortion campaign contributions in 2008.

Rep. Walt Minnick (D-Id.) – Endorsed by Planned Parenthood. In conservative/moderate district.
Rep. Parker Griffith (D-Ala.) – Liberal in more conservative district. Vulnerable.

Rep. Alice (sic) Titus (D-Nev.) – Leftist in a toss-up district. Beatable with enough funding. (Note: She goes by “Dina” Titus.)

Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-Ohio) – Heavy pro-abortion backing. Won by only 2,300 votes in more conservative district. Beatable with funding.

Rep. John Boccieri (D-Ohio) – One of Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s priority candidates. District usually votes conservative.

Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.) – Key Nancy Pelosi lieutenant. Once moderate, has swung left and is vulnerable.

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.) – Liberal in conservative district–beatable.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) – Lead of Obama agenda in the Senate. Victory would help change the political landscape.

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Col.) – Has never won a statewide race. Conservatives can take back this important seat.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) – Ultra-liberal veteran. Low approval numbers. We can topple this leftist icon.

Weigel notes the group also names two Democratic U.S. Senate candidates:

Robin Carnahan in Missouri (“pro-abortionists pouring money into this race’) and Rep. Paul Hodes in New Hampshire (”homosexual ‘marriage’ supporter, vulnerable if we expose his views”)

and wants advice on which of four incumbent Republicans it should “save” from liberals:

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Penn.), and Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the last of whom is running for Senate.

Bob Moore, executive editor of The Coloradoan of Fort Collins, extracts some unspoken subtext in Markey’s appearance on the list of potential targets. Reminding that Markey defeated Values Voter luminary Musgrave, Moore digs up the source of a particularly memorable Musgrave-ism:

Musgrave was a frequent speaker at FRC events. In fact, it was at the 2006 Voter Values Summit that Musgrave uttered one of the most controversial quotes of her six-year tenure in Congress. At a time when the United States was involved in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Musgrave said this of gay marriage: “But this battle is the most important issue that we face today, and what an honor it has been to serve in the United States Congress and carry the Marriage Amendment.”

Check out Weigel’s dispatches from the Values Voter Summit, including his on-the-scene description of a blogger being forcibly ejected from a speech by Fox News personality Bill O’Reilly.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

The reports came Friday afternoon during Zazi’s third day of questioning at the Federal Building in Denver. Earlier this week, FBI and other law enforcement officials searched Zazi’s Aurora apartment and a nearby home belonging to family members but haven’t revealed what, if anything, was found in the raids. Officials have linked the investigation to a search for bomb-making materials earlier this week in Queens, N.Y., where Zazi reportedly visited his old neighborhood after a cross-country drive.

ABC News reported authorities seized a dozen “new black backpacks they suspect were going to be used to carry homemade bombs,” and a laptop computer with instructions for making bombs similar to those used in a series of explosions in London in 2005. This week, officials have questioned 12 New York residents in connection with a suspected terror plot to attack New York subways, The New York Daily News reported.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, speaking to reporters in Minneapolis, said the investigation hasn’t revealed any “imminent threats,” The Associated Press reports.

“The FBI is working this case around the clock in both cities and in other parts of the country,” Holder said. “And we will make sure that if there are crimes that were committed that they will be charged and people will be held accountable.”

Zazi’s attorney said his client was cooperating fully with authorities and hadn’t been arrested. He also denied reports Zazi’s laptop computer contained bomb-making diagrams and said the Aurora man hadn’t trained at a terrorism camp in Pakistan.

The FBI has been keeping track of Zazi and four others in Colorado for some time, according to an official familiar with the probe, the AP reports. The Daily News reports five Colorado men “cited as members of the cell” had been under 24-hour surveillance.

Concern about a possible plot has led to heightened security at airports nationwide, the Daily News reported Thursday.

** UPDATE **

Friday evening, the New York Times reported Zazi was cooperating with investigators and “providing federal agents with a volume of new information,” which could lead to “some kind of an agreement,” but that a plea agreement wasn’t imminent.

Mr. Zazi’s statements to government officials suggest a somewhat different narrative than the one he presented in interviews with reporters this week when he denied being affiliated with Al Qaeda and said he had no idea why the government would suspect him of wrongdoing. Indeed, there are now some indications that Mr. Zazi underwent training in explosives and bomb-making while overseas.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

E-mail statement on anti-terror investigation from Sen. Michael Bennet, including staff discussion (click to enlarge PDF).

An e-mailed statement sent Tuesday evening from U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet’s office about an anti-terrorism investigation with Colorado ties inadvertently included a chain of more than a dozen e-mails from staffers scrambling to update the boss and worrying whether news organizations might conclude the state’s junior senator wasn’t “as much in the loop” as U.S. Sen. Mark Udall.

In the e-mail — which a Bennet press aide almost immediately tried to recall with a subsequent message — Bennet staffers propose the senator tell reporters he has “been in close contact” with FBI Director Robert Mueller “[s]ince early this morning,” when it appears staff members are still trying to arrange a conversation late in the afternoon.

Read the entire e-mail chain sent by Bennet’s office to the media here. Phone numbers and explicit e-mail addresses have been deleted.

The e-mail snafu occurs at a particularly bad time for Bennet, who was appointed in January by Gov. Bill Ritter to fill the seat of Ken Salazar, who was appointed U.S. Interior secretary earlier this year. On Wednesday, former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff plans to announce his candidacy challenging Bennet in next year’s Democratic primary.

According to the hurried e-mails, aides appear to be concerned other senators — including Colorado’s Udall and New York’s Charles Schumer — are already talking to the press hours before Bennet, who sits on the Homeland Security Committee, has managed to say anything.

“Bummed we missed this — I was under the impression we were being asked not to talk — looks like everyone else did and will lieky [sic] get the press,” wrote Sarah Hughes, Bennet’s deputy chief of staff. “Lesson learned for next time.”

“I’m sure it’s what the fbi/mueller is telling the members to say,” Murphy writes after another staffer points out Schumer told reporters virtually the same thing as Udall.

Eventually, a two-sentence, official statement emerged, after Bennet’s communications director, Dierdre Murphy frets that “right now the [Denver Post] thinks that [Bennet] hasn’t received a briefing and I think we need to make clear that we are as much in the loop on this as Udall.”

“We have been monitoring this situation closely and I have been in touch with the U.S. Deputy Attorney General. I will continue to keep close contact with law enforcement and work to ensure they have the resources they need.”

“Effective communication and intelligence sharing is a critical component for protecting our communities,” a legislative aide suggests Bennet say in a series of “rough talking points.”

The list also includes a note suggesting how Bennet can answer any questions about wiretaps:

If asked about the government’s surveillance techniques (possible use of wiretaps), he can say: I can’t comment on the details of this investigation at this time. There are a lot of details that are still emerging.

Udall issued a statement roughly an hour before Bennet’s statement went out:

I have been in contact with officials at the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security about an ongoing anti-terrorism investigation, and I will continue to talk with those offices as long as is necessary. While the details are classified, I want to assure Coloradans that there is no imminent threat to our state or to the nation, and that state, local and federal law enforcement agencies are working together to respond as needed.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Nadler said the bill has more than 50 House supporters so far, including Polis and U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat, but the Washington Blade reports that Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank — the senior openly gay member of Congress — isn’t among them.

Frank said he has “strategic differences” with supporters of the DOMA repeal. “It’s not anything that’s achievable in the near term,” Frank told the Blade, adding that Congress has enough on its plate with a host of other gay-rights proposals, including overturning the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Frank also said he thought Nadler’s plan to recognize gay marriages in states that outlaw it could “stir up unnecessary opposition” in Congress.

Earlier this summer, Polis blasted the Obama administration for its legal defense against a lawsuit challenging DOMA.

“I was shocked and disappointed to learn that President Obama chose to defend DOMA in federal court,” Polis said in a statement, “especially given his campaign promise to call for a full repeal of DOMA. My sadness turned to outrage when I read the Justice Department’s brief that not only defended this hurtful law but seemed to embrace it.”

In 2006, Colorado voters passed Amendment 43, “specifying that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Colorado.” The same year, voters rejected a ballot proposal to establish same-sex civil unions.

A spokeswoman for Polis said he would have more to say about the DOMA repeal next week when the legislation is introduced.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

U.S. Sens Udall and Bennet

“At some point, after you’ve extended your hand for a number of months and it’s not reciprocated,” Udall said, “I think it is incumbent on us as the majority party, with responsibility to govern and solve problems, to act.”

The group of self-described centrist Democrats summoned to the White House the day after Obama’s congressional address on health care reform has virtually the same membership as a working group formed in March “to pursue moderate, mainstream and fiscally sustainable policies.”

Health care legislation will have to rein in spending and has the potential to make the country more competitive by draining less of the nation’s wealth, said Bennet, who also spoke with reporters on the brief conference call after the White House meeting.

“I am extremely confident that we are working toward a piece of legislation that, when it is passed, will be able to achieve those objectives,” he said.

The group of senators didn’t spend much time talking about the public option — a flash point for opponents of Democratic proposals and a sticking point for some conservative Democrats balking at Obama’s plan — even though there was a range of opinions in the room, Bennet said.

“There was very little discussion about it,” he said. “What united that group is the animating concern that health care reform is critical.”

Both Bennet and Udall have made clear they favor including a public option in the legislation.

Shortly after the White House meeting concluded, Udall’s campaign sent an e-mail to supporters reiterating his support for the public option.

“I support the President’s plan to include the public option as a tool [to] help reform our broken health care system,” Udall wrote. The e-mail included a link to contact other members of Congress with the message: “Urge them to pass health care reform, including a public option, today!”

In an e-mail sent to supporters after his speech, Obama singled out Bennet for attention in a postscript sent to Colorado recipients:

Since arriving in Congress, Senator Bennet has shown his commitment to real, sensible reform, working with me toward the same goals I outlined this evening — and I want to thank him for his leadership on this issue. He’s traveled all across the state of Colorado, holding town hall meetings in small towns and big cities, and he hasn’t stopped standing up for real health reform that will get our economy moving again and help to bring the deficit under control.

Bennet, who was appointed to the seat in January by Gov. Bill Ritter, likely faces a primary challenge from former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, in addition to a growing slate of Republicans vying for the chance to unseat him.

Both Colorado senators sounded notes of optimism that bipartisan health care reform legislation could emerge, but Udall said the group also acknowledged that “at some point it’s time to act,” adding that “the time to act is soon.”

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

President Barack Obama addresses a joint session of Congress on health care reform (Screencap/CNN.com)

The reviews of President Barack Obama’s health care speech are coming in from Colorado elected officials and political leaders. We will post them here as they arrive.

Gov. Bill Ritter, a Democrat, “applauding” the president’s address:

“Skyrocketing health care costs are breaking the budgets of hard-working families, small businesses and states. Too many Coloradans are one illness away from bankruptcy. President Obama is right: the status quo is unacceptable. Fixing our economy requires responsible, moderate reform that will provide security and stability for those who have health care and access to affordable insurance for those who do not.

“I applaud the President for his vision and commitment to finding bipartisan solutions, to building on what works and to fixing what’s broken rather than starting over. In Colorado, we’ve taken a number of steps to control costs, improve quality and ensure access for all. We’ve invested in health information technology, supported delivery system reforms to improve quality and contain costs, and covered thousands of uninsured Coloradans. Now we need our federal partners to do their part by passing comprehensive health reform.

“Cost containment must be at the heart of health reform. We must focus on delivering better value for every health care dollar spent. Governors understand this challenge because health care is such a significant part of our state budgets. In Colorado, Medicaid enrollment is at an all-time high. Nearly 500,000 Coloradans are now on Medicaid, up 20 percent from a year ago and accounting for more than 20 percent of the state’s budget. We must build a more sustainable system.

“While the cynics in Washington have resorted to scare tactics and partisan game-playing just to score political points, I am proud to stand with President Obama to keep fighting for responsible reform and serious solutions.”

Sen. Mark Udall, a Colorado Democrat, issued this statement following the president’s address:

“Over the last month, we’ve watched the debate over health insurance reform get off-track thanks to special interests that benefit from the broken insurance system we have now. In his speech today, President Obama dispelled the myths and misunderstandings that have been swirling around this issue. And he brought back into focus how important it is to all Americans that we reform our broken health insurance system.

“Our economy and the health of hardworking Coloradans can’t wait for health insurance reform – we must act now. Today, millions of middle class Americans are one accident away from bankruptcy – Americans who currently have coverage. That’s unacceptable. Skyrocketing health care costs account for nearly 20 percent of our gross domestic product, and they’re the number one driver of our ballooning federal deficit. That’s not sustainable.

“Health insurance reform can’t leave any American behind – this means we must ensure there are strong provisions to improve access to quality care in rural areas. It means we must strengthen Medicare by preserving benefits, lowering drug costs, and cutting down on inefficiency, waste, and fraud. And it means we must provide choice, stability and security for those who have insurance. We must see to it that insurance companies can’t ever break their promises to consumers or drop their coverage unexpectedly – especially not when they’re sick.

“We’ve entered a new phase of the debate marked by this historic speech. My colleagues and I are more determined than ever to put the best ideas – from Democrats and Republicans – on the table so we can pass a meaningful health insurance reform bill that lowers costs and improves coverage for Coloradans and all Americans. The time to act is now.”

Sen. Michael Bennet, a Colorado Democrat, released this statement following the president’s address:

“Tonight, President Obama reminded us of exactly what is at stake in the health care debate and of why we owe it to the American people to enact reform that makes a meaningful departure from a status quo that isn’t working for families and small businesses.

“In my travels across the state, I heard story after story of people who simply can’t sustain another decade of soaring health care costs that are crushing working families and small businesses, crippling our economy and driving our country further into debt.”

“While some of us may disagree on the right prescription for reform, we all need to recognize that the status quo is unacceptable – for working families, for small businesses, and for our economy – and that the need for change is now.”

Rep. Diana DeGette, a Democrat representing Colorado’s 1st Congressional District, released the following statement in response to the health care address. DeGette is vice chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

“President Obama clearly laid out the way forward in reforming our nation’s health insurance system. The President and Congress are working together on a plan that will bring security and stability to millions of Americans who have insurance today, and affordable coverage to those who do not. Doing nothing is simply not an option.

“As President Obama has called for, our plan builds upon the parts of our health care system that do well while reforming the parts that are broken. Skyrocketing costs and the lack of competition in our insurance market have put us in an unsustainable position. I agree with the President that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. The best way to achieve this is by offering a strong public option that will not only bring down rising costs, but will also ensure competition and transparency among private companies within the insurance Exchange. No one will be forced into the public option, but they will have that choice as an affordable alternative.”

Rep. Mike Coffman, a Republican representing Colorado’s 6th Congressional District, released the following statement in response to the president’s address:

“The President has already given 27 speeches entirely on health care and another 92 in which health care was a prominent theme. This is also Obama’s sixth prime time appearance in eight months, surpassing the records of all other presidents. Americans don’t need another speech from the President on health care, they need a different plan.”

“The President’s speech was intended to assert his leadership on the Democrats’ sputtering agenda. Something he should have done months ago. The President has been doing a lot of talking, now we will see if he’s been listening to the American people.”

“I heard loud and clear from my constituents this August that the current Democrat proposals are unacceptable – they won’t help reduce costs and they’ll kill millions of small business jobs. Americans don’t want the creation of a government run insurance plan that will lead to the takeover of the health care economy, paid for by almost a trillion dollars in new taxes – regardless of the President’s rhetoric.”

A spokesman for Rep. Betsy Markey, a Democrat representing Colorado’s 4th Congressional District, sent this statement after the president’s address:

“Congresswoman Markey appreciated hearing from the President on federal health care reform, and she agrees with him that the time for reform is now. She learned more by spending a month talking to thousands of Coloradans all across her district about their questions, concerns and thoughts on health care reform, and hearing hundreds of personal stories about their own experiences with health care in America.”

Rep. John Salazar, a Democrat representing Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District, issued this statement in response to the president’s address:

“I’m glad that President Obama chose to address Congress tonight. Health care reform is an incredibly complex issue, and we all benefit by having the President of the United States lay out his vision for reform.

“I believe he succeeded in outlining how he would like to move forward with reform, and I support much of that vision. I agree that health care reform is a critical issue facing our nation. We cannot afford to continue down our current path or more Americans will find themselves without health insurance and the costs will increase for everyone.

“As I have stated before, I will support a public option if that is included in the final bill before Congress. We must act prudently and with sound judgment and bring forward a bill that can get enough votes to succeed. This is not an issue we can afford to fail on. I believe this issue is too important to our nation to issue ridiculous ultimatums and hide behind extreme political rhetoric. It is time for us to pass health care reform.”

Rep. Doug Lamborn, a Republican representing Colorado’s 5th Congressional District, issued the following response to the president’s speech:

“What the American people need is a new plan, not new rhetoric. The President tried to repackage his plan tonight, but what he doesn’t realize is that the package isn’t the problem – it’s what is inside that’s the problem. He didn’t say anything tonight that will get me to support a government takeover of health care in this country.

“House Republicans have a plan, H.R. 3400 Empowering Patients First Act, which provides refundable tax credits for health insurance costs to low-income individuals. Additionally, this plan allows for improvements in the individual market by pooling mechanisms and opens opportunities for individuals to shop for insurance across state lines. By giving choice and portability, this bill addresses many of the problems currently facing our health care system without government intrusion.

The American people need health care reform, but what the Democrats’ plan proposes is a government takeover of the entire health care industry that will force Americans out of their own plans, and will have a tremendous cost that can only result in higher taxes and a larger deficit.”

Rep. Jared Polis, a Democrat representing Colorado’s 2nd Congressional District, released this statement in response to the president’s address:

President Obama gave a great speech, making the case for health care reform from the heart and from the pocketbook. He called on Americans to recognize good ideas regardless of whether they originate on the left or the right, and to pass a bill that will benefit us all. President Obama “closed the deal” with many undecided Americans and undecided members of Congress on health care reform tonight.

Pat Waak, chairwoman of the Colorado Democratic Party, issued this statement in response to the president’s address:

“Tonight, President Obama made an overwhelming and compelling case to the American people about the need to pass health insurance reform this year.

“The core of his plan is simple: provide more security and stability for people who have insurance, provide quality, affordable care to those who don’t, and rein in skyrocketing costs that are crushing American families, businesses and the government itself.

“The President’s plan will protect Coloradans from unfair insurance industry practices. It’ll prohibit insurance companies from discriminating against someone for a preexisting condition and it’ll stop them from dropping someone’s coverage when they get sick and need help the most.

“Too many of Colorado’s residents and small businesses are struggling under the high costs of care. Reform will bring down costs, by creating a Health Insurance Exchange – a kind of one stop shop for health plans. It’ll also provide new tax credits to help people buy insurance and create a public insurance option to increase competition, lower costs and expand choice. What’s more, the President’s plan won’t add to our deficit – it’ll pay for reform upfront – and it takes the best from Democratic and Republican ideas.

“We are closer than ever to passing comprehensive reform and President Obama has laid out a clear path forward. Unfortunately, Republicans in Colorado have decided to stand in lock-step opposition to reform. They want to maintain the status quo and hurt President Obama politically. Opponents of reform have a choice. They can either stop playing partisan games and come up with their own reform proposal, or they can start explaining to the American people why it’s better to stand by and do nothing at all as thousands more Coloradans face skyrocketing costs and lose their coverage every day. Being the Party of No on health insurance reform just won’t cut it.”

“Democrats in Colorado support President Obama’s plan for health insurance reform. The time for action is now.”

Rep. Ed Perlmutter, a Democrat representing Colorado’s 7th Congressional District, released this statement after the president’s speech:

“I applaud the President tonight for the way in which he spoke to Congress and more importantly the American people. Our health care system is broken and unsustainable. Over the district work period I met with many of my constituents in government in the grocery meetings, telephone town halls and meetings with small and large businesses. Everyone had a story to tell and for most of them the current system is not working.

This issue touches each one of us personally. I have a daughter with epilepsy and she has this condition through no fault of her own. But under our current system she is discriminated against and so are millions of others who have prior illnesses. They are pushed aside and that’s the way it is. This is immoral and probably unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment in which we are all assured equal protection.

Furthermore, I believe we need a public option to help small businesses thrive and provide an option for those who can’t afford private insurance. This will help us all by promoting competition and keeping costs down.

I look forward to working with the Obama Administration and my colleagues in Congress to work toward a solution to creating a fair and affordable health care system.”

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

The Colorado Independent Ethics Commission meets behind closed doors for an executive session at its Denver headquarters. (Photo/Ernest Luning)

The state’s top ethics panel has turned over to the Denver District Court copies of all the notes and other records made during five secret meetings a judge said were held in violation of Colorado Open Meetings Law. The judge plans to review the notes and decide whether they should be made public in response to an open records request and lawsuit filed by The Colorado Independent.

Earlier this week, Chief Judge Larry Naves ordered the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission to release unedited recordings made during seven closed-door meetings the commission held from January to May after finding the ethics commission didn’t follow state law when it met in secret to discuss ethical questions posed by public officials. In addition, Naves said he wanted to review any notes made during five meetings the commission didn’t record — including four meetings when commissioners deliberated on an ethical complaint they eventually dismissed against U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman — to determine whether the written records fall under a “work product” protection that could keep them confidential.

Late Tuesday, the ethics commission released nearly 13 hours of audio recordings it made during more than 46 hours it spent in closed-door meetings between January 14 and May 6 in response to a court order. The new audio files include two hours of conversations government lawyers redacted last month when they handed over almost 11 hours of recordings to the Independent after a court hearing on the open records lawsuit. At the hearing, lawyers with the Colorado attorney general’s office argued some of the recordings should be kept confidential because they were privileged attorney-client communications, but Naves disagreed and ordered them released.

In its lawsuit, the Independent argued any records of the 12 closed-door meeting, including notes and audio recordings, should be released to the public because the ethics commission didn’t follow the law when it convened in secret and that commissioners had discussions Colorado law forbids public officials from having behind closed doors.

The judge also ordered the ethics commission to pay the Independent’s attorneys’ fees. The lawyer representing the Independent, Christopher Beall, has until next week to submit an application to the court detailing charges.

Here’s the notice the ethics commission filed with the court late Thursday:

NOTICE OF LODGING OF PROTECTED DOCUMENTS

The Independent Ethics Commission of the State of Colorado and Jane T. Feldman, in her official capacity as the executive director of the Independent Ethics Commission of the State of Colorado (collectively referred to as the “Commission”), by and through their counsel and in accordance with this Court’s Order dated August 31, 2009, hereby lodges with the Court, for an in camera review, copies of all notes and written records in the Commission’s possession regarding the closed meetings that occurred on February 20, 2009, March 18, 2009, March 31, 2009, April 13, 2009 and April 16, 2009.

The ethics commission was created in 2006 when Colorado voters approved Amendment 41, touted as a measure to increase accountability and transparency in government. The five-member commission considers ethical violations and enforces ethical standards for public officials and government employees. Its members are appointed by the governor, both chambers of the General Assembly, the Colorado Supreme Court and the commission itself.

The Colorado Independent is published by the Center for Independent Media, a non-profit and non-partisan organization that also publishes The Washington Independent in the nation’s capital, and state-focused politics and policy news sites in Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and New Mexico.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

(Photo/Dpbsmith, Wikimedia)

DENVER — The Colorado Independent Ethics Commission violated the state’s Open Meetings Law when it failed to convene a dozen closed-door meetings held earlier this year according to strict legal requirements, a Denver District Court judge has ruled. Because the ethics panel didn’t follow the law, the court ordered the state’s top ethics panel to “immediately” release all records of any improperly closed meeting, even those the commission claims are protected by attorney-client privilege.

The ruling by Chief Judge Larry Naves was in response to a lawsuit filed by The Colorado Independent in May over the secret meetings. In its lawsuit, The Independent alleged the commission repeatedly violated state law by failing to adhere to required procedures and, once huddled behind closed doors, held discussions the law says the public has a right to hear.

The judge agreed with The Independent’s arguments. He also directed the commission to hand over notes made during meetings the commission didn’t record to decide whether those should also be released. In addition, the judge ordered the commission to pay The Independent’s legal fees.

Late Tuesday, the commission delivered the unedited recordings of the five meetings still in dispute to The Independent’s attorneys.

“Colorado law assumes the public’s business will be conducted in public,” Colorado Independent editor John Tomasic said after the ruling was handed down. “This is most important when we’re talking about the state ethics commission, which routinely wields the power to hold other public officials to account.”

Last month, the ethics commission released nearly 11 hours of recordings of its closed-door meetings but held back two hours of recordings, claiming the conversations were protected communications between the commission and its attorneys.

An attorney for the commission said no recordings exist for five of its closed-door executive sessions, chiefly when commissioners talked about a formal complaint filed — and later dismissed — against U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman alleging ethical misconduct while he was Colorado’s secretary of state.

The ethics commission released unedited recordings from two meetings and made public hours of recordings from another five meetings after government lawyers finished erasing segments the commission wanted to keep confidential.

“Public bodies really ought to sit up and take notice,” said Denver attorney Christopher Beall, who represented The Independent in its lawsuit. “Unless they follow the rules for closing a meeting, they’re going to be required to produce the record of the closed meeting.”

“In such circumstances where a public body has not properly convened an ‘executive session,’ the recording of the closed meeting will be treated as an ordinary public record, subject to disclosure under the [Colorado Open Records Act], because the meeting does not constitute a privileged ‘executive session,’ ” Naves wrote in his ruling.

The public’s business

During the first four months of 2009, the ethics panel met regularly and often in secret — behind closed doors for 42 hours, 15 minutes, and in open session for just 7 hours, 30 minutes — to formulate decisions on ethical questions, only to emerge with rulings ready to be adopted by commissioners in swift, unanimous votes without any public discussion.

Colorado’s Open Meetings Law allows government officials to go into executive session to discuss certain topics, including personnel questions, pending land deals and lawsuit strategies, among other matters, though it requires public officials follow procedures strictly. The law doesn’t allow public officials to deliberate in private or reach decisions without the public watching.

“The default position is, the public’s business will be done in public,” Beall said at the July 31 court hearing on The Independent’s lawsuit. The state legislature has created some narrow exceptions, he said, but “it shouldn’t happen often, and it shouldn’t be a regular occurrence.”

Naves found the ethics commission didn’t “strictly comply” with Colorado law when it failed to adequately describe topics commissioners planned to discuss outside public view.

Before The Colorado Independent published a series of stories about secrecy at the ethics commission, the panel routinely posted public notices describing its executive sessions only as “[d]iscussion pertaining to requests for advisory opinions and complaints filed with the Commission.” The commission announced just once that it planned to discuss the hotly contested complaint against Coffman behind closed doors, even though it met several times before rendering its decision.

The commission also violated the law, Naves ruled, by deliberating on topics the law requires public officials to discuss in public.

From Judge Naves’ order:

[B]ecause of the Commission’s failure to adequately identify the particular matter to be discussed behind closed doors, and because the Commission’s deliberations on non-frivolous complaints, advisory opinions, letter ruling, and position statements were not in any event matters that could properly be discussed behind closed doors, the Court concludes that the entire recordings of the following meetings must be made available for inspection and copying as public records: January 14, 2009, January 23, 2009, February 2, 2009, March 19, 2009, April 6, 2009, April 21, 2009, and May 6, 2009.

Naves also ordered the commission to turn over notes from the meetings it didn’t record — most often on the advice of its attorneys, who cited attorney-client privilege as a reason for shutting off the recorder — for an “in camera” review by the judge. He could decide to release those after determining whether they fall under the “protected work product” shield.

“What is important about the outcome here,” Beall said, “is the court is enforcing the rule even in the context of purported attorney-client communications. The rule requiring compliance with Open Meetings Law is effectively more important than attorney-client privilege.”

A spokesman for a government watchdog group cheered the ruling.

“For the second time this year, a court has found the [Independent Ethics Commission] in violation of Colorado’s open government laws and ordered the IEC to release secret documents and pay attorneys’ fees,” said Luis Toro, senior counsel with Colorado Ethics Watch. “The IEC should be a model of transparency, not a repeat offender, and we hope the IEC will take today’s ruling to heart and operate in a public and accountable fashion.”

In May, Ethics Watch won an open records lawsuit that forced the commission to release documents it wanted to keep confidential, including letters from lawmakers and government employees asking for guidance on ethical questions. Ethics Watch is also the organization that filed the complaint against Coffman and argued its case before the commission.

Moves toward transparency

After The Colorado Independent reported on the commission’s public notices and alleged they were insufficient in its lawsuit — and following the ruling on Ethics Watch’s lawsuit over submissions to the commission — the ethics commission drastically changed how much information it made public. Starting at its June 16 meeting, the commission began describing individual court cases up for discussion and listing complaints it intended to consider. Also, after The Independent published the results of its investigation, the commission began discussing and deciding ethical questions in the open, rather than entirely behind closed doors.

The ethics commission was created in 2006 when Colorado voters approved Amendment 41, touted as a measure to increase accountability and transparency in government. The five-member commission is tasked with investigating ethical violations and enforcing ethical standards for public officials and government employees. Its members are appointed by the governor, both chambers of the General Assembly, the Colorado Supreme Court and the commission itself.

Beall represented The Colorado Independent and two newspapers, the Coloradoan of Fort Collins and the Pueblo Chieftain, in another recent lawsuit over open meetings. Earlier this summer, the Colorado State University System Board of Governors settled that lawsuit by agreeing to release recordings of a secret meeting where the board picked a new system chancellor, as well as paying $19,000 to cover the media organizations’ attorneys fees.

Attorneys for The Colorado Independent have until next week to submit an application to the court detailing fees and costs incurred in the litigation.

A spokeswoman for the commission declined to comment on the court order.

“The ruling [on the ethics commission] is a recognition of the importance the state places on open government,” Beall said. “The Legislature has made it very clear through the Open Meetings Law that closing meetings should be very rare, and when a public body wants to close a meeting, it has to do so in very careful compliance with the rules. If it doesn’t follow the rules, there are consequences.”

The Colorado Independent is published by the Center for Independent Media, a non-profit and non-partisan organization that also publishes The Washington Independent in the nation’s capital, and state-focused politics and policy news sites in Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and New Mexico.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter. And we’re hiring.

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican, chats with a supporter at an Independence Institute fundraiser in Denver on Aug. 31. (Photo/Ernest Luning)

DENVER — In a fiery speech that had her conservative Colorado audience cheering, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann railed against the dangers of health care reform and other Democratic initiatives, warning the proposals “have the strength to destroy this country forever.”

“This cannot pass,” the Minnesota Republican told a crowd at a Denver gathering sponsored by the Independence Institute. “What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn’t pass.”

“Something is way crazy out there,” Bachmann said in her remarks, billed as a “personal legislative briefing” by the Golden-based Independence Institute, which bills itself as a “free market think tank.”

“This is slavery,” Bachmann said after claiming many Americans pay half their income to taxes. “It’s nothing more than slavery.”

In a speech filled with urgent and violent rhetoric, Bachmann — who proudly acknowledges she is the country’s “second-most hated Republican woman,” behind only former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin – drew a clear line on health care reform.

“You’re either for us or against us on this issue,” she said after deriding U.S. Rep. Betsy Markey, a Fort Collins Democrat, for “[sitting] on the fence” about health care proposals at recent town halls.

Bachmann earlier this month joined former U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, the Republican ousted from office last year by Markey, in a telephone town hall where she told abortion opponents the health care “battle will be won – on our knees in prayer and fasting.”

At times, Bachmann’s legislative briefing sounded more like the plot of a slasher movie.

“Right now, we are looking at reaching down the throat and ripping the guts out of freedom,” she said. “And we may never be able to restore it if we don’t man up and take this one on.”

While Bachmann didn’t ask this audience to “rise up” against President Barack Obama’s tyrannical rule, they stood anyway and applauded when she announced she was No. 1 on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s list of “top targets.”

Despite health care reform proponents recently facing “the summer of discontent for Democrats,” Bachmann predicted Pelosi has the muscle to keep the legislation on a fast track.

“[Pelosi] will slam this through in the month of September,” Bachmann said, even if she has to “break the arms of the Blue Dogs.” Then it comes down to the Senate, where Bachmann said “the lobbyists and special interests only have to hover around 15 senators,” with a bill expected by the end of the year.

Bachmann urged those opposed to Democratic plans for health care reform to keep applying pressure.

“This has to be defeated,” she said. “Cap and Trade has to be defeated. Those two alone have the strength to destroy this country forever, so we have to defeat them.”

Rather than hand over the health care industry’s “18 percent” of the economy to control by the federal government, which Bachmann warned would create “a critical mass [where] you are no longer a free-market economy,” she offered her own set of proposals to fix the system:

• “Erase the boundaries around every single state when it comes to health care,” enabling consumers to purchase insurance across state lines;

• increase the use of health savings accounts and allow everyone to “take full deductibility of all medical expenses,” including insurance premiums;

• and throw in tort reform.

“Do a few other tweaks and you’re there,” Bachmann said. “Your whole crisis is gone.”

Bachmann closed by urging the audience at the nonpartisan group’s fundraiser to defeat Democrats at the ballot box.

“You can win these seats back,” she urged the audience. “Hey, I got elected in Franken country!”

Noting that she heard plenty of carping about Markey over the weekend when she spoke at a conference in Steamboat Springs, Bachmann zeroed in on a vulnerability the freshman Democrat might face.

Even though professional organizers packed Markey’s recent town halls with reform advocates “all paid to be there,” Bachmann claimed, “regular normal Americans were allowed in too.” This left Markey no choice but to straddle the issue, her colleague suggested.

“She sat on the fence,” Bachmann said. “She didn’t say she’d support Obama-care or not. That’s her Achilles heel, that’s where you go after her. Because this is so clear, you’re either for us or against us on this issue.”

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter. And we’re hiring.

Wally Stealey, a longtime lobbyist and political mover in Pueblo, said Romanoff called him Friday morning to tell him he had decided to run.

“If I’d have had my choice, I’d have him running against Ritter,” Stealey said. “But I didn’t get my choice. That doesn’t matter. You don’t always get your choice in politics.”

The Post’s Michael Riley and Christopher Osher report that Romanoff’s supporters had urged the 43-year-old Denver Democrat to challenge Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter in a primary, building on discontent with the first-term governor’s veto of two bills backed by organized labor. But, according to sources the Post didn’t identify in its first report, Romanoff has decided instead to take on Bennet, whose controversial appointment by Ritter in January surprised political observers and angered supporters of more high-profile state Democrats, including Romanoff.

Stealey said Bennet’s early fundraising advantage — mostly raised from out-of-state donors — could disappear once Romanoff tapped disgruntled Democrats and labor groups, described as “eager to funnel money toward a primary challenge.”

Stealey said early feelers that he has made suggest there is “$1.5 million out there that’s real early money” that Romanoff will pick up.

Bennet, who had never run for elective office before winning the Senate appointment from Ritter, vastly outpaced potential Republican rivals with strong fundraising during the first two quarters of this year, raking in more than $2.6 million.

Among announced GOP candidates, Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck, who is reportedly dropping from the race early next week, raised $330,000, followed by Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier, who took in $140,000 through June.

Buck’s withdrawal could come just a week after reports former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton plans to enter the race for the Republican nomination with the backing of National Republican Senatorial Committee officials.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter. And we’re hiring.