LATEST SUBMISSIONS

No more ‘Mr. Nice Guv’

Monday, November 12 at 10:45 AM

This Speakout has not been edited.

By Mark Hillman

So, it appears the honeymoon is over for Governor Ritter, the business community, and even some of his strongest backers in the media.

(I know, a “three-way” honeymoon isn’t a pleasant image, but you know what they say about politics and strange bedfellows.)

The spat that initially fissured over a union organizing bill last spring erupted into an all-out, yelling-and-screaming, lamp-throwing, talk-to-my-lawyer divorce when Ritter played a little too cute in his latest dance with organized labor.

Last spring’s bill, you will recall, would have made it easier for labor bosses to “twist” arms to coerce workers to join unions or lose their jobs. Legislative Democrats lined up unanimously to do the bidding of their union pals, but heat from the business community emboldened Ritter to dig out his lightly-used veto pen.

Since then, the governor has been bending over backward to make it up to Big Labor. Late last Friday, those efforts came to fruition in a so-called “partnership agreement” between Ritter and state-employee unions.

State employees — already protected by a civil service code so anachronistic that the last three governors have tried unsuccessfully to change it — can now choose a labor union to carry their water to the governor.

Given the pull organized labor has with this administration and the Democratic legislature, you have to wonder if these “partnership agreements” aren’t entirely too much formality. A simple e-mail seems to do the trick just fine these days.

The irony for a governor who basks in ceremony and symbolism — just try opening a new wind farm without him — is that he tried to slide this landmark labor deal under the door late last week just as newsrooms were emptying for the weekend. No big announcement with photo ops of Ritter arm-and-arm with union bosses on the steps of the state capitol. An otherwise inconspicuous e-mail press release heralded this development.

Business leaders and legislative Republicans, spoiling for a redux of last year’s labor debacle, were not only caught flat-footed, but they also questioned why Ritter chose to implement the plan via executive order rather than through the legislature, where it would most surely pass.

The “official” answer from the Ritter administration is that state employees operate under the executive branch. Tell that to the legislature that’s responsible for approving the state budget.

The unofficial answer is that Ritter would rather weather what he hopes will be a brief firestorm following his executive order than to face the prolonged agony of being portrayed as a union waterboy for weeks or months while a bill winds through the legislative process.

The same governor who vetoed last spring’s labor bill because it lacked compromise and because the debate accompanying it was “overheated,” now avoids any meaningful dialogue whatsoever, including input from business leaders who once believed his business-friendly campaign mantra.

Whatever the case, it seems that Bill Ritter has concluded that the most expedient means to an end is the route that most restricts the opportunity for public dissent. No more “Mr. Nice Guv.”

That’s the way he instituted a $114 million-a-year property tax increase — despite clear constitutional language that requires a public vote on any “tax policy change directly causing a net revenue gain.” Incidentally, for anyone who still fantasizes that Ritter is business-friendly, $63 million of that tax increase comes from non-residential (read: business) property owners.

Until now, anyone who pointed out Ritter’s various inadequacies — his dearth of legislative experience, his severely limited breadth on issues beyond criminal justice, and his general lack of preparation to lead a state government — was met with, “Well, yeah, but he’s such a nice guy.”

Now, Colorado can see that when forced to choose between doing what’s best for the state’s economy and throwing political plums to his labor overlords, Ritter knows where his loyalty must rest.

Perhaps from this point forward we can finally discuss Bill Ritter’s merits, not just his pleasing personality.

Mark Hillman is a former majority leader of the Colorado Senate. To read more or comment, visit www.markhillman.com.

READER COMMENTS

I knew my vote would be wasted if I didn't vote for Ritter.I voted against him anyway.

Why?Because any Law Enforcement official that would over and over charge illegals committing crimes with, Agricultural Trespass and not enforce the laws should not be running a State .He also has no business experience.He also was a D. A. they are used to telling people what to do without working with others.

So pretty boy ain't so pretty anymore?

Life is like a box of chocolates,you never know what your gonna get.

Politicians are like a box of chocolates you never know what your gonna get.

Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on November 15, 2007 07:08 AM

I didn't vote for the Governor, and I doubt that I'll have any reason to rethink that decision.

Posted by Jim in Erie on November 15, 2007 05:57 AM

The honeymoon is over, Ritter's first "moral" budget is already in Chapter II--totally bankrupt and requiring a series of massive tax hikes--to bail out his butt. Ritter put the potential tax receipts of the energy-rich Vermillion out of bounds, hecan't wipe his but without instructions from a Blue Ribbion Commission, he goes green without any cost-benefit analysis offered to those who will pick up his tab and to top it all off, he invited the union camel to stick its head into the tent!

A classic one-termer, this clown needs to join Homer Simpson full-time at the power plant.

Posted by Hank on November 14, 2007 01:31 PM