In a February 11 editorial critical of Colorado's recently approved “ethics in government” ballot measure, Amendment 41, The Gazette of Colorado Springs stated that the amendment's “wording was so clumsy that it's now being interpreted as barring the children of public employees from accepting college scholarships.” The Gazette, however, ignored an Associated Press article it had published one day earlier reporting that a judge had “approv[ed] an agreement” allowing government employees' families to “accept scholarships from the Boettcher Foundation.”

Amendment 41, which voters passed on November 7, 2006, changed the Colorado Constitution to prohibit elected officials, government employees, and their spouses or children from accepting monetary or nonmonetary gifts worth more than $50 in a given year if the donor did not receive “lawful consideration of equal or greater value in return” for the gift.

As The Gazette editorialized on February 11, “It's a shame that Amendment 41's first casualties are the innocent children of public employees who will be denied scholarships.” But according to the AP article published in the February 10 edition of The Gazette (an online version appeared February 9):

Families of government employees can still accept scholarships from the Boettcher Foundation despite strict new ethics rules, a judge ruled Friday in approving an agreement that settled one of three lawsuits seeking to clarify the law.

Attorney General John Suthers and the Boettcher Foundation had agreed the group's scholarships are not barred under Amendment 41and Denver District Court Judge Christina Habas accepted the deal, dismissing the rest of the foundation's lawsuit. The ruling cleared up at least some of the confusion surrounding Amendment 41, a voter-passed constitutional amendment that bars legislators and government employees from accepting gifts worth more than $50.

Some scholarship foundations and state officials worried the amendment inadvertently banned financial aid to the families of state employees.

[...]

A suit by another financial aid group, the Daniels Fund, was still pending but Jason Dunn, assistant attorney general, said he hoped to have a similar resolution in that case by next week.

Amendment 41 states that government employees and their families can accept things of value if they have to give something “of equal or greater value” in return. Dunn said the Boettcher scholarship students meet that requirement because they must maintain a minimum grade-point average, carry a full course load and use the scholarships in Colorado, giving up the right to attend schools elsewhere.

Students who qualify for the Daniels Fund are also required to work 10 hours a week in addition to other requirements, he said.

Jenny Flanagan, executive director of Colorado Common Cause, which backed the amendment, said the law distinguishes between competitive scholarships and those given to the children of government officials because of their position.

“This is something we've said all along and we're glad to see some progress,” Flanagan said.

Similarly, the Rocky Mountain News reported on February 10, “Full-ride Boettcher Foundation scholarships are exempt from Amendment 41, a judge ruled Friday in the first court clarification of the controversial gift-ban law. The decision, which was supported by the Colorado attorney general's office, offers peace of mind to dozens of top students who feared the law made them ineligible for the prestigious awards.” The News further reported, “Deputy Attorney General Jason Dunn hopes other scholarships which impose performance or other standards on the recipient also will be immune from Amendment 41.”

From The Gazette's January 11 “Our View” editorial, “Told ya so: Careless voting comes with consequences”:

We strongly urged a no vote on Amendment 41, a socalled good-government measure approved by voters last fall, so now we get to gloat -- and ruminate once again on the folly of engraving overly prescriptive minutia in the state's constitution. Only a few months after the measure won overwhelming support at the polls, the law of unintended consequences is already catching up to it, sparking a debate at the Legislature about what steps might be taken to temper the law's unpleasant side effects. The measure was sold to the public as a way to curb lobbying abuses and influence peddling at the state capitol, by tightening restrictions on gifts to public officials. But just as ham-handed attempts at campaign finance reform have backfired at the federal level, by creating even more vicious and unaccountable campaigns, Amendment 41 is backfiring on its backers.

Its wording was so clumsy that it's now being interpreted as barring the children of public employees from accepting college scholarships. Universities are worried because it could bar faculty from accepting financial awards that accompany academic prizes. The $50 gift limit is creating unnecessary headaches for legislators and lobbyists alike. No doubt, these are just the first of many unintended consequences. And last week brought a third legal challenge to the measure.