A December 3 Associated Press article about the Colorado state auditor's November 2007 report on the Colorado Secretary of State's office bore the misleading headline “Auditors: Election worker broke the rules but not the law.” In fact, as Colorado Media Matters noted in an item about similar articles published December 4 by the Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post, the audit found that the elections division worker, Dan Kopelman, “does appear to have violated state statute” in that he “owned and operated a partisan political business while employed with the Department of State.” Online versions of the AP article, by Steven K. Paulson, were published by The Gazette of Colorado Springs, the Greeley Tribune, and the Post.

The AP reported that Secretary of State Mike Coffman (R) “called the audit a vindication of his internal investigation that found no criminal violations” and quoted him as saying of Kopelman's activity, “It was a misjudgment, but not misconduct.” The AP did not report, as the Post and the News did, respectively, that Kopelman is a “former Coffman campaign worker” and a “political ally of Coffman.”

The AP also did not provide any comment from Coffman explaining how Kopelman's activities -- which, according to the audit, appeared to have violated state statute -- did not amount to “misconduct.”

From the December 3 Associated Press article “Auditors: Election worker broke the rules but not the law”:

DENVER (AP) -- A worker in the secretary of state's office broke conflict-of-interest rules when he set up a political Web site, but there was no evidence he sold voter information in violation of state laws, state auditors said Monday.

Auditors also said Secretary of State Mike Coffman failed to properly supervise his employees and said they found four other workers in his office who failed to disclose outside employment or business ownership as required by state personnel rules.

Coffman told state lawmakers he set up a new policy preventing election workers on his staff from partisan activity and will require employees to file conflict of interest reports twice a year.

He called the audit a vindication of his internal investigation that found no criminal violations. An ethics group questioned why the employee was transferred to work on a new, more sensitive voter database Coffman plans to use in elections next year.

“The question is whether that's disciplinary action enough,” said Chantell Taylor, director of Ethics Watch, a nonprofit organization that called for the investigation of the complaints.

Coffman also defended the employee, Dan Kopelman, who was transferred to a new project and had his pay reduced.

“The fact is, he was cleared of this. I need his expertise. It was a misjudgment, but not misconduct,” Coffman said.

Auditors said they found serious problems with the state's current voter registration database, including 3,533 individuals with two voter registrations on the list for the November general election. Auditors said seven of them cast two ballots in the election.

They also found eight felons who voted in the November election in violation of state law, and 380 people still on the rolls more than three months after they died, though auditors found no evidence votes were cast in their names.

The audit's findings on Kopelman are contained in a section titled “Conflicts of Interest”:

During the audit of Colorado's Help America Vote Act implementation, allegations were made concerning a conflict of interest related to the outside employment of an employee of the Department of State's Elections Division. The Secretary of State requested the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) review this issue to determine whether any state laws or personnel rules had been violated. The audit work conducted in response to this request was performed by the OSA, and the findings and recommendations resulting from that work are reported in this chapter.

Office of the State Auditor staff reviewed the personnel and business records, emails, and other documentation related to the employee's term of employment with the Department of State. We also conducted interviews with the employee and other management and staff of the Department. To provide greater assurance about the adequacy and comprehensiveness of the policies and practices of the Department of State relative to the outside employment of its staff, we expanded our review. Specifically, we evaluated whether other Department employees were engaged in outside business activities and whether these activities were being conducted in accordance with statutes and personnel rules. We found the following:

• The conduct of the employee for whom the initial allegations were made does appear to have violated state statute [Section 24-50-117, C.R.S.] and State Personnel Board Rules [Rules 1-13 and 1-14]. Specifically, the employee owned and operated a partisan political business while employed with the Department of State. The employee's ownership and operation of this business appears to “raise criticism and the appearance of a conflict of interest” particularly given the job responsibilities for which this individual was assigned within the Elections Division. Furthermore, the employee engaged in outside employment/business ownership without advance written approval from the appointing authority. [emphasis in original]