The Colorado Independent » Legislature

In the Matter of The Rocky, Douglas Bruce and Anonymous Sources

Cara Degette — Thu, 01 May 2008 15:27:54 +0000

No criminal charges. No witnesses. A classic “he said, she said.” Leadership would not corroborate. What is the difference between The Rocky Mountain News’ approach to stories involving anonymous sexual harassment charges against Rep. Michael Garcia and Rep. Douglas Bruce? The answer: less than three months.At its Web site on Tuesday afternoon The Rocky published a story with exceedingly sketchy information involving the latest kerfuffle involving Bruce, the Republican from Colorado Springs who has caused numerous headaches since he was appointed to a vacancy in the House in December.

According to various versions of The Rocky’s report, Bruce has been either “ordered” or “instructed” to stay away from an unnamed woman working at the state Capitol who lodged a harassment complaint against him. (The harassment complaint was later identified as “sexual” in nature).

The story, by reporter Lynn Bartels, originally noted that Bruce “was handed a letter by House Speaker Andrew Romanoff. Bruce’s face turned red when he read the letter, and then met briefly with Romanoff in his office.”

The red-faced reference has since been inexplicably removed from the newspaper’s Web site. In addition, there is no indication of what Bruce might have, or have not, done. No corroborating witnesses. No comment from Bruce, or from the legislative leadership. No word of criminal charges. Just that “other lawmakers confirmed that a complaint had been filed and that Bruce had been told to have no contact with the woman.” (Those lawmakers were not identified.)

The story is salacious enough — after all, everyone else is talking about it, and the great pile-on of the boorish Bruce is all the rage these days.

But it wasn’t even three months ago when Bartels’ boss, Rocky Publisher and Editor John Temple indignantly weighed in on how his publication would never, ever stoop to such lowbrow tactics. Specifically, he was referring to another lawmaker, former Rep. Michael Garcia — in a scenario that virtually mirrors the goods, if you will, that they’ve so far got against Bruce.

In Garcia’s case: Anonymous charges of sexual harassment. No criminal charges. No corroborating witnesses, no confirmation or comment from leadership.

The Rocky did not initially run the Garcia piece — which was also being pursued by Bartels. Ultimately Garcia, an Aurora Democrat accused of exposing himself to a female lobbyist, resigned (and the Rocky finally did report the news).

Temple subsequently weighed in, in a Feb. 2 column offering up what he called a “Cautionary tale for the Web era” and explaining why they simply would not stoop to gutter reporting tactics, er, “lower standards” — in other words why they got scooped by The Denver Post and the blog FacetheState.

This is from Temple’s Feb. 2 column, explaining the paper’s decision not to publish in the case of Garcia:

“I knew the woman had told her story to the speaker of the House,” Temple wrote. “She had done the right thing, gone to a person in authority who could do something about her concerns.
“But she hadn’t filed a criminal complaint. There were no witnesses. Other women were said to have had similar experiences. But we couldn’t find them. And a prosecutor hadn’t evaluated the case and determined that there was cause to file charges, so no independent party had concluded there were grounds to believe she was a sex assault victim. (The Rocky doesn’t report the names of sex assault victims in criminal cases.)
“The story was a case of ‘he said, she said,’ I told Lynn. Without witnesses or other women or a prosecutor or confirmation from the House speaker, we would do nothing with the story except continue to investigate it — unless the woman was willing to put her name to the allegations.
“Our policy on anonymous sources is clear:
“The Rocky Mountain News discourages the use of anonymous sources. Their use threatens the credibility of the newspaper because the reader has no way to judge whether the source is reliable and/or whether the source is using the newspaper for his or her own end.
“When considering whether to grant an exception to our rejection of anonymity, journalists should ask whether the information from the source is crucial to the story, whether it is informational or accusatory and whether it is fact or opinion.
“The News does not use anonymous sources for opinion or accusatory material, or for incidental elements.
“It was clear that we were dealing with accusatory material and couldn’t publish it.

One can only conclude, after reading The Rocky story about Bruce this week, that the newspaper’s policy on anonymously sourced stories has changed radically. We’ll look forward to Temple’s upcoming explanation of the change in the guidelines.

Meanwhile, it remains to be seen what will come of the latest complaint against the embattled Rep. Bruce — a legendary bachelor who — yes it’s true — has long been known to routinely lob inappropriate and offensive comments at women and men, government officials, staffers and even his own supporters.

Among other things, he’s called fellow politicians “corrupt socialists,” threatened to drop his pants in city council meetings and printed up business cards identifying his occupation as “terrorist.”

Cara DeGette is the editor of Colorado Confidential and a longtime Colorado-based journalist. E-mail her at cdegette@aol.com

What Happened Under Doug Bruce’s Golden Dome Yesterday?

Cara Degette — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:41:18 +0000

Let’s review. What happened besides Rep. Douglas Bruce leveling his latest effrontery at Mexican migrant workers as “illiterate peasants?” Well, there was that mob of TV and print reporters who proceeded to chase him around the building, asking him to Please! Please! elaborate. Oh, and a couple other minor little things, like efforts to strengthen consumer rights, protect tenants against slumlords and make health care affordable.But who wants to cover that stuff, when Mr. Bruce is around to drop another Bomb?
When Bruce, the famously acerbic author of Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, was running for the state Senate eight years ago, Mike Feeley, the then-Senate Minority Leader, offered up this prediction: A Bruce under the Golden Dome could single-handedly bring basic government operations to a screeching halt.

“He has no impulse control, he can’t sit quietly and listen to anyone else’s opinion,” Feeley said. “If your 4-year-old acted like Doug Bruce does, you’d correct him.
“He will be a disgrace and embarrassment, even more than [former El Paso County state senator] Charlie Duke was. Charlie could at least shut up.”

Among other things, Duke, a Colorado Springs lawmaker who served in the 1990s, reported hearing the cackling of the devil “forcing its puppets to do its bidding” from the ceiling of the senate chambers — which would be enough to shut anyone up.
Back in 2000, Bruce narrowly lost his campaign for the state Senate to Ron May. Late last year he was appointed by 44 Republicans to an open seat in the House of Representatives after May left office early and Bill Cadman ascended to the Senate. And Feeley’s prediction of long ago, is, to a degree, coming true. Since January Bruce has done nothing but generate headlines for kicking people and calling them names.
As we’ve noted, there’s nothing really new in that department. Over the years, Bruce has described various officials as “cockroaches,” “dim bulbs,” “biased and prejudiced,” “armchair critics who don’t know squat” and even “pathological liars.” He has called his own supporters stupid morons. And, the media just can’t resist his nasty quips and jabs.
But surely, the 99 other lawmakers, plus Gov. Bill Ritter and a legion of agency heads and Capitol staff, as well as other state elected officials, would far prefer the media to focus on issues of substance.
For example, staffers at the Capitol on Monday sent out alerts announcing progress on numerous fronts:

Health Care Reform Finally Takes the Stage

admin — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:50:58 +0000

Where there’s a will, there’s a way – but when it comes to the will to reform health care in Colorado, there’s a long way to go.With millions of Americans and almost 800,000 Coloradans lacking health care coverage, citizens, politicians, health care professionals and advocates agree reform is needed, but building a consensus about what comprehensive reform should look seems farther down the road.
With January’s Blue Ribbon Commission report, 2008 was touted as the year health care reform would move into the spotlight. But in this last month of the legislative session, reform is coming in mostly smaller, bit parts.
The largest hurdles to reforming Colorado’s health care system – determining the amount and source of additional funding necessary– won’t be resolved this year.
The most viable fix, according to some health care advocates, could come from Senate Bill 217, which, if passed, would require every uninsured Coloradan to buy private insurance coverage while the state solicits proposals from insurance companies to make low-cost coverage plans available to uninsured residents. The bill also contains a clause that would ask voters for additional funding if necessary.
SB 217, also dubbed the “Centennial care choices” plan, includes language acknowledging the efforts of the state’s Blue Ribbon Commission, but goes on to state plainly, “While comprehensive health care reform is a laudable goal, this state lacks the financial resources to fully solve all the problems facing this state’s health care system.” But, it continues, that doesn’t mean Colorado can’t get started.
“A short term solution for this state is better than no solution at all,” said Rep. Anne McGihon, one of the bill’s sponsors and chair of the Health and Human Services Committee.
Gary VanderArk, a neurosurgeon and patient advocate, said he thinks SB 217 is an important part of health care reform in Colorado and sees the necessary political will this year in the state Legislature and in Gov. Bill Ritter to pass the bill and other reforms.
Ritter spokesman Evan Dreyer said he didn’t know if Ritter has taken a position on SB 217, which was introduced in the state Senate March 28.
“We do have the team that can make this happen,” VanderArk said at a recent discussion on health care and business at the University of Denver that public radio station KCFR 1340 plans to broadcast next week.
About half of the 200 people in the audience applauded this plan, but there were also detractors.
Barry Keene, vice president for Health Care for All Colorado, an advocacy group that objects to SB 217, said it does nothing to curb administrative inefficiencies and puts taxpayer money in the pockets of for-profit companies.
“I don’t believe Senate Bill 217 is a panacea,” Keene said.
Others in attendance said they resented being told they had to purchase health insurance.
The high cost of health care – $30 billion in Colorado last year, according to the Blue Ribbon Commission – is also a point of contention, with some saying excess money is spent on administrative costs while others point to unnecessary procedures.
McGihon said that uninsured and underinsured residents don’t have access to preventive care and wait until they become “the sickest of the sick” to go to emergency rooms, thus putting a greater strain on the state’s entire health care system.
“Universal health care will save money. We don’t have to put more money into the system to cover everybody. There’s more than enough money in the health care system to do that. By having universal coverage we will save money,” VanderArk said.
But Kaiser Permanente President Donna Lynne said duplicated and unnecessary medical procedures as well as a race between health care providers to obtain the newest technology account for a lot of unnecessary medical costs.
“Most people will say everyone ought to have health care … the question is who’s going to pay for this? It’s overly simplistic to say there’s enough money in the system,” Lynne said.
The debate over health care reform also comes down to whether Coloradans view health care as a right or product.
Fabrizio Siracusa, who moved to the United States from Italy, said he spent his first seven years in this country without health insurance because he could barely cover the cost of rent and car payments.
“I hear a lot about health care being treated as a consumer product. I don’t know anybody who goes to the doctor because they want to,” Siracusa said.
But former Gov. Dick Lamm pointed out that a majority of Coloradans are relatively happy with their health insurance.
“Eighty-three percent of us just generally are saying, `We’re satisfied and we don’t want to give up anything.’ So the dynamics of this issue are just awful because there’s got to be some sense of stewardship for our fellow citizens,” Lamm said.
Which makes the political landscape tricky.
“I wouldn’t say that there have been set backs. Clearly health care and the cost of health care are on the minds of Coloradans this legislative session … there has been some agreement that before we take an extremely expensive health care plan to the people of this state we have to do a couple of things,” Dreyer said.
Educating the public about the specifics of the health care crisis tops the list for Dreyer and many health care advocates, as well as addressing the issues that drive the cost and quality of health care.
“This is one of those massive, monumental issues that does not get fixed in a single legislative session or a single bill,” Dreyer said.

Former Douglas Bruce Supporter: ‘We Were Wrong’

Cara Degette — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 19:49:24 +0000

Dan Lanotte is one of the 44 El Paso County Republicans who picked Douglas Bruce to fill an open seat in the State House of Representatives. Lanotte doesn’t have a photo of himself handy to share, but in a recent interview he was articulate with his words: “We were wrong,” Lanotte says simply, of sending Bruce to Denver.

“I will take full responsibility for my actions in aiding in the selection of Bruce to fill the vacant House District 15 seat,” Lanotte has noted. “However, having taken that responsibility, I now readily accept that there is a better choice.”

Lanotte has thrown his support to Mark Waller, who is challenging Bruce in the primary. Among other activities, Bruce, a former county commissioner and author of Colorado’s 1992 Taxpayer Bill of Rights, showed up several days late to the Legislature, ostensibly to be able to run for four terms instead of three. His first day, he kicked a news photographer in the knee during prayer and became the first lawmaker in the history of Colorado to be censured for his action. He later refused to vote on a resolution to honor war veterans and was promptly removed by his own party leader from serving on the House Veterans and Military Affairs Committee.
At the county assembly last month, Republican Mark Waller, an attorney, grabbed more support than the beleaguered incumbent, giving him top line on the primary ballot.
Bruce responded by printing up derogatory fliers, demanding, “Where was Waller?,” suggesting that Waller, an Air Force officer reservist, had not voted to Bruce’s satisfaction in past elections. In his latest dustup, Bruce recently distributed the fliers to his colleagues at the Capitol on the day that Waller was visiting.
House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker, told the Colorado Springs Gazette that he wasn’t sure if any rules had been broken. “We don’t know whether it’s an infraction or not because nobody else would be dumb enough to do it,” May said of Bruce’s actions.
That last part really irks former Bruce supporters like Lanotte, himself a career Navy veteran who was on the appointment committee that picked Bruce last December. For the record, when Waller wasn’t voting in 2006, he was serving in Iraq, prosecuting insurgents in Iraqi courts with Iraqi judges.
Lanotte spent time this week talking with Colorado Confidential about his initial support for Bruce and his decision to throw his support behind Waller:

Lanotte: “My concern with Mr. Bruce is, while I agree with almost everything that he proposes and his stances on many legislative platforms, what I disagree with is his inability to work with others.
“If I had tried to go through my career with the attitude that Mr. Bruce has toward others, I would have started out as seaman and been a seaman for 30 years. You have to have some form of cooperation — at least give folks the idea that you want to work with him — and I just don’t see that with Mr. Bruce. As an individual I get along with Mr. Bruce – there’s not a lot of rancor — but we disagree with the methodology on how to get a point across. You’ve got to pick your battles.”

CoCo: Yet Mr. Bruce’s combative reputation was known long before his selection to the state House. So why are you surprised?
Lanotte: “I thought it would improve his demeanor. I’ve had other discussions with members of the vacancy board, and I really and truly thought that Mr. Bruce would be able to work with other Republicans, and we haven’t seen that since he’s been in the Legislature.
“Quite frankly, some of us thought he might be able to go up to the Legislature and take a leadership role in getting a more conservative agenda going. Obviously that didn’t happen. We were wrong.”
“You have to be able to work in a cohesive fashion with others, though I will say this: I do honestly and truly believe that Doug Bruce was targeted by the Democrats. They saw him as an easy target, and they went after him very successfully. This is where I fault the legislative Republican leadership. There was no rallying around Doug Bruce, and that was a problem within the Republican leadership. There should have been some effort to do that.”

CoCo: If he’s been targeted, as you say, then why have you decided to throw your support behind Mark Waller?
Lanotte: “It’s fairly simple: Mark Waller has proven he’s got the ability to work with others, especially in an environment that he’s not used to.
“In Iraq he was prosecuting bad guys before an Iraqi judge — that takes a certain amount of communicative skills. To be honest with you, there is very little difference in the viewpoint from Mark Waller with Doug Bruce on the issues, but it goes back to the communications issue – being able to work well with others.
“It’s my understanding that none of Doug Bruce’s bills are even under consideration. The House leadership seem to be reluctant – I’ll be nice about this — to even consider anything he’ll put forward. I think that’s a shame that El Paso County has a representative who cannot be a voice in the Legislature, and I honestly think Mark Waller can.”

Cara DeGette is a senior fellow at Colorado Confidential and a columnist and contributing editor at The Colorado Springs Independent. E-mail her at cdegette@coloradoconfidential.com

Mark Waller Kicks Douglas Bruce Down a Line

Cara Degette — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 17:13:06 +0000

Amid an enthusiastic crowd of party activists, Mark Waller, the Republican who is challenging beleaguered state Rep. Douglas Bruce, captured more votes at El Paso County’s GOP assembly this morning, giving Waller top line ballot placement. Bruce, the high-profile author of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights who was appointed to fill out a vacancy in Colorado Springs’ House District 15 just three months ago, received 43 percent of the votes cast by about 245 assembly-goers from HD15, which includes much of central-east Colorado Springs. Waller, an attorney and political newcomer, received 57 percent of the vote, according to an attendee and Waller supporter.
The source, who asked not to be identified, estimated that about 20 supporters joined Waller on stage, including Colorado Springs state Reps. Larry Liston and Bob Gardner, who gave a speech supporting Bruce’s challenger.
The controversial Bruce, whose foray into the state capitol in January launched with a kick to the knee of a newspaper photographer and who was subsequent censured by his House colleagues, took the stage alone. During today’s stump speech, Bruce included a quip joking that his parole officer had allowed him to show up to the well-attended event, at the Phil Long Expo Center in northern Colorado Springs, with an ankle bracelet. He also brought a bucket of candy to hand out to assembly-goers.

“I did not receive any [candy] because I was wearing a Waller button,” the source said, when asked what type of treats were being handed out.
“[Bruce's] number one campaign promise is ‘I will always tell the truth’, ” the source said. “Number two: ‘I will always respond to your correspondence and keep you informed.’ Number three: ‘I will never raise your taxes.’
“And that is a zero agenda,” opined the Waller supporter. “Why don’t you just promise to always show up dressed every day? It’s that fundamental.”

In an interview with Colorado Confidential earlier this week, Waller described himself as a fiscal and social conservative, but emphasized the need to “be able to communicate – we have to be able to get along with the other side.”
“We’re all fiscally and socially conservative here in El Paso County, but what it boils down to is being able to effectively communicate those ideas and those ideals and values,” he said.
The House District 15 vote was the first order of business today at the Republican assembly in one of Colorado’s most conservative strongholds. Fourth Judicial District Attorney John Newsome announced the results.
Cara DeGette is a senior fellow at Colorado Confidential and a columnist and contributing editor at The Colorado Springs Independent. E-mail her at cdegette@coloradoconfidential.com

The Irony Of The Bruce Anti-Tax Machine

Cara Degette — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:02:32 +0000

After another week of drubbing by the mainstream media over a $750 tax-paid tip that Rep. Douglas Bruce initially accepted for time he didn’t serve in office, it’s about time that someone should point out that the “nonprofit” that that lawmaker claims he’s donating his government paycheck to is an anti-tax group that that is devoted to dismantling government. In a nutshell, Bruce accepted a government check for $3,450 for January, which amounted to $750 too much because he opted to skip the first five days of the legislative session.
He told at least one reporter (he apparently is still speaking to at least one!) that he planned to give the $750 back — and also that he donates his government salary to a nonprofit group that he founded, called Active Citizens Together. The Colorado Springs Gazette delicately described the outfit as ” a charity … to educate people about their rights as property owners and taxpayers.”
During his three years as an elected commissioner in El Paso County, before being appointed to a vacant legislative seat, Bruce also claimed he donated his tax-paid $63,200 government salary to Active Citizens Together.
According to the group’s website, Active Citizens Together currently has three unpaid members of the Board of Directors. They include, Jeffrey L. Wright of Peyton, Colo., who is a longtime Bruce supporter; and Douglas Campbell and Frederic Holden, both of whom live in Arvada, north of Denver.
Active Citizens Together’s mailing address is Bruce’s longtime Colorado Springs postal box, and its Website lists the state representative’s home phone number as the key contact for the group.

In a general letter, to you, Colorado taxpayer, Rep. Bruce, as “Active Citizens Together,” asks, “Are you tired of feeling helpless to change big government’s bureaucratic policies? Would you like to learn more about your rights and powers as a citizen to benefit and protect you and your family? That is what Active Citizens Together (ACT) is all about.”

Active Citizens Together also advocates for jury nullification – that is, the notion that people on juries can determine not only whether someone on trial is guilty or innocent, but also whether or not the law that they are accused of breaking is legal. (Back in 2000, Bruce caused an uproar after he was called to jury duty in Colorado Springs and distributed a stack of leaflets claiming that that jurists need only follow their conscience — and not the law — when deciding a case. He, and 50 other potential jurors, were dismissed.
Among other stances, Active Citizens Together also backs privatizing everything from hospitals to utilities to libraries and parking garages, parks and recreation programs, public transit, job training programs and much, much more!
Since Active Citizens Together is a nonprofit, it’s unclear who else — besides you, the Colorado taxpayer — donates to Active Citizens Together by way of Rep. Bruce’s government salary.
Cara DeGette is a senior fellow at Colorado Confidential and a columnist and contributing editor at The Colorado Springs Independent. E-mail her at cdegette@coloradoconfidential.com

Top Dem Leader Resigns Amid Sex Allegation

Cara Degette — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:06:53 +0000

“State Representative Michael Garcia is resigning, effective immediately. He will release a statement later today.”
4:30 P.M. UPDATE; Garcia has issued a statement, claiming the conduct between himself and the “other party” was “consensual,” though inappropriate given his position. “As a result, I have made the difficult decision to resign,” Garcia wrote. More after the jump.
Garcia was not at the Capitol today, and his name has already been removed from the voting board.
The news comes the day after a story surfaced that Garcia, 34, the House Assistant Majority Leader from Aurora, had been accused by an unnamed lobbyist of exposing himself to her while drinking and playing pool at the Lancer Lounge, a watering hole in Denver’s Capitol Hill neighborhood. According to the report, Garcia exposed himself to the woman and asked, “Wouldn’t this be real nice inside of you?”
The story was first published by the conservative blog FaceTheState and appeared on the front page of today’s Denver Post. According to sources, the incident occurred after a Jan. 7 fundraiser. A lobbyist complained to House Speaker Andrew Romanoff after hearing similar stories of Garcia’s alleged past lewd behavior from other female lobbyists.
Garcia, a seven-year state representative who was planning a run for the state Senate this year, recently became engaged, to another lobbyist.
Yet another lobbyist, who asked to remain unnamed, said late Thursday that she had no direct knowledge of the incident, but that the news wasn’t a complete surprise.
“He’s notorious for hitting on lobbyists,” the woman told Colorado Confidential.
It is unclear whether the woman who complained to Romanoff has filed a police report over the Jan. 7 incident, or whether a criminal investigation will be launched.
In the House, Garcia served on the Appropriations and Finance committees, and on the Legislative Council.

1 P.M. UPDATE: The House Majority Office provided a timeline for replacing Garcia. Still no statement from Garcia or from Speaker Andrew Romanoff. See below for the notification sent out from the House Majority Office.

1 p.m. UPDATE FROM KATIE REINISCH, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, HOUSE MAJORITY OFFICE
Next week, the House Majority will caucus to elect a new Assistant Majority Leader.
Bills that are sponsored by Garcia will soon be assigned by the Speaker to another lawmaker.
Per the usual rules, a vacancy committee will be convened in Aurora to select a new Representative soon. The Colorado Democratic Party will have more information.
I expect, but cannot promise, to see two more statements today: one from Garcia and one from Speaker Romanoff. I have no idea what time these will be released.

4:30 P.M. UPDATE
Still no statement from Speaker Romanoff: Through the law firm Reilly Pozner & Connelly, Garcia has issued the following statement:

“Initial press reports are highly inaccurate regarding my alleged conduct,” the statement says. “The other party and I engaged in consensual conduct that was inappropriate given my position in the legislature and the fact that the other party is a lobbyist.
“I do not want this incident to be a barrier to the work of the state of Colorado. Time is precious, and elected officials need to focus on health, fiscal, education and safety issues. The interests of the state are greater than my own.
“As a result, I have made the difficult decision to resign. I apologize for any hardship this has caused my constituents, friends, family and colleagues.”

‘Colorado Matters’ to Air Segment on Capitol Press Credential Flap

Wendy Norris — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:30:00 +0000

Restrictions to Media Access at State Capitol
Joe Hanel, who covers the state capitol for the Durango Herald, and Wendy Norris, managing editor of Colorado Confidential, talk with Dan Meyers about efforts to limit which reporters get on the floor of the state House and Senate.

The Colorado Public Radio program airs on Tuesday, Jan. 22 at 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. MST.
Listen live to the streaming audio clip or download the program archive here after 11 a.m. MST.

Colorado Confidential Founder Responds To Baseless Claim

Cara Degette — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:08:23 +0000

The founder and CEO of Colorado Confidential’s parent company is challenging a reporter who has publicly claimed that this news organization has direct links to the Democratic Party apparatus to either provide some “proof” — or back off.The latest development comes amid a controversy over how credentials are issued at Colorado’s Capitol – specifically which reporters and news organizations are allowed full access to cover the General Assembly in policy issues that impact all Coloradans.
This year, with the approval of legislative leaders, a handful of reporters who routinely work at the Capitol formed a new ad-hoc organization, the Colorado Capitol Press Association, to advise government leaders of which news organizations should be recognized as legitimate and which should not. Their motivation, they said, was a concern over the possibility that political activists posing as journalists may seek access to the House and Senate floors.
In the past, legislative leaders have accepted the recommendations of the Colorado Press Association, which has for many years accredited Colorado news groups. The move this year, by the five reporters who represent traditional media, including three print publications, radio and television, has been widely criticized by many journalists and journalism scholars – as, among other things, a solution in search of a problem.
Colorado Confidential first detailed the unfolding controversy on Jan. 9 (that story can be read here and here – with a follow-up story on the issue that can be read here).
Ultimately, the speaker of the House and the Senate president determine who is allowed on the floors of their respective chambers. However, so far the CCPA has recommended that two online Colorado news groups – including Colorado Confidential and State Bill Colorado — not be recognized as legitimate news organizations. At the time, one member of the committee said a majority of the group determined that Colorado Confidential is too closely affiliated with a “political organization.”
Last Wednesday, the weekly newspaper Fort Collins NOW also followed up on the evolving controversy. In the story, reporter Charles Ashby, who covers the Capitol for the Pueblo Chieftain and is a member of the CCPA, was quoted claiming – inaccurately - that Colorado Confidential, an online news group, coordinates coverage with the Democratic Party machine.

“It is our understanding that they are coordinating with Democrats, and other Democratic efforts, like [watchdog group] Media Matters for instance,” Ashby was quoted saying.
Ashby was subsequently contacted by this reporter. Specifically, he was asked to provide any written or oral documentation – or any other proof – to back up his assertion.
“I’m probably not the best person to ask,” Ashby said. Rather, he claimed, “someone else” on the five-member Colorado Capitol Press Association had been “assured that ColoradoConfidential.com was working in concert with the Democratic Party.”
Asked to identify that committee member, Ashby responded: “I’m not at liberty to divulge that. It came to me as an off-the-record [source of] information.”

In other words, Ashby refused to substantiate his published claim with any documentation or other verification.
Many lawyers would term Ashby’s position as a violation of the fundamental principles of due process – an assertion based on anonymous information of dubious reliability that provides no accountability, and thus, no opportunity to rebut it or explain it. Many serious journalists would dismiss such unsubstantiated posturing as bunk.
Colorado Confidential subsequently contacted, or attempted to contact, the four other members of the Colorado Capitol Press Association to determine who had provided Ashby with any documentation or information that would verify his claim.
Joe Hanel, the Durango Herald’s Capitol-based reporter, who has been identified as the Colorado Capitol Press Association’s official spokesman, said he did not possess any such “proof.” Hanel was initially the reporter who informed Colorado Confidential of the advisory group’s decision of a non-recommendation.
At that time, Hanel cited three foundations who donate money to Colorado Confidential’s nonprofit umbrella organization – the Washington-based Center for Independent Media – as the deciding factors. Those organizations cited were the Gill Foundation, the Service Employees International Union and the Open Society Institute. The foundations often provide funding to progressive causes and candidates -

Gene Amole: The Subtle Snub That Spoke Volumes

Cara Degette — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:01:31 +0000

The wall at the Denver Press Club is filled with framed caricatures honoring the (mostly) men and women who have chronicled and defined the people and events that have built and sustained Colorado. Rocky Mountain News reporter John Ensslin recalls the day one of those men — Gene Amole — shared the story about why his caricature depicts him in the form of an old radio microphone.“It was a subtle little dig at the fact that he was a radio journalist — a subset, a lower form if you will,” said Ensslin, who is currently the president of the Colorado chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists and also a past president of the Denver Press Club. “That was back in the 1950s.”
“That’s true,” confirmed Amole’s daughter, Tustin Amole. “Early on, the Press Club didn’t admit broadcasters — only print journalists could become members.”
In many ways, the tribute to this trailblazer in Colorado journalism — complete with the subtle snub — exemplifies a long history of debate, anxiety and sometimes distrust in an ever-evolving industry whose latest incarnation happens to be the Internet.
A half-century ago, broadcasters — who often went on the air and simply recited the stories that had appeared in that day’s newspapers — were often treated as the red-headed stepchildren of journalism.
They were not invited to the grownups table until the 1960s or even 1970s — long after Gene Amole became the first broadcaster in Denver to win, in 1958, a prestigious Peabody award for a public affairs program called Panorama. The show, aired live, was a sort of forebear to 60 Minutes, said Tustin Amole, herself a former longtime Rocky Mountain News reporter who has for the past 8