Rule could limit information

Change to Colorado conflict-of-interest edict decreases the listings elected officials must share

A little-noticed rule change recently approved by the Colorado secretary of state inserted a gap in a law designed to expose conflicts of interest for top elected officials.

Colorado’s Sunshine Law requires state lawmakers, statewide elected officials and candidates to list “all offices, directorships and fiduciary relationships” on a personal financial disclosure form.

But in October, Secretary of State Wayne Williams approved a caveat that allows candidates and elected officials to avoid disclosing memberships on boards or committees if they do not receive compensation or individually control how money is spent.

The change comes ahead of the 2018 election, and it may serve as a precursor to more modifications to ethics laws in the coming legislative session.

In a recent interview, Williams said the new rule is meant to clarify a part of the law that creates significant confusion and it aligns with how his office interprets the law’s intent — to highlight potential financial conflicts of interest.

“It’s talking about what you have financial conflict with, not what you might think or do or everything you’re involved in,” the Republican said. “Things that you may have a financial stake in — that’s what this is. It’s not an ‘interest disclosure’ or a ‘things I like’ disclosure.”

The law requires a list of information about the financial holdings of elected officials and candidates, as well as those of their spouses and minor children. But the line that requires disclosure of all offices and directorships does not link the requirement to a financial interest. Moreover, most members of a board of directors do not hold sole financial control of an organization’s funds, decreasing the likelihood that they will need to disclose that affiliation.

The new disclosure rule applies to members of the General Assembly; statewide officials including the governor, secretary of state, attorney general, treasurer; judges and district attorneys; members of the state board of education and University of Colorado board of regents; and the Public Utilities Commission.

Asked if the new rule reduces government transparency, Williams dismissed the suggestion.

“If you are on your kid’s Girl Scout troop cookie board, and you’re not getting paid for it and you’re not doing anything that poses a financial conflict of interest, there’s no reason to disclose that,” said Williams, who helped lead a successful effort in 2017 to

improve access to government electronic records.

In 2015, Senate President Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs, ran into this issue when his disclosure form did not list him as a member of the board of directors for the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative-leaning political group.

Questioned on the issue, the secretary of state’s office first suggested the law does not differentiate between paid and unpaid positions, indicating both would need to be disclosed. But later, the office reversed its stance because Cadman was not a paid board member. Cadman, who left office in 2017, said he would disclose the board membership regardless.

The law allows elected officials and candidates to provide “additional information” as desired.

Jeff Roberts, the executive director of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, said “the more information the better as far as the public is concerned.”

“It doesn’t have to be a financial conflict of interest to be of interest to the public,” he said.