In a November 4 front-page editorial, The Denver Post made misleading or unsubstantiated claims regarding executive order D 028 07, “Authorizing Partnership Agreements with State Employees,” that Gov. Bill Ritter (D) announced on November 2. Headlined “A Colorado promise broken,” the editorial was published next to an article, “Ritter's big gamble,” that addressed some elements of the order that the editorial misrepresented -- including the misleading claim that the executive order will “forc[e] collective bargaining” on state workers, and the unsubstantiated claim that the plan will “drive up the cost of doing business in Colorado.”

Similarly, during an interview for a November 4 report on the Post's editorial, KDVR's Fox 31's News at Nine O'Clock uncritically aired Post editorial page editor Dan Haley making the unsubstantiated claim that the executive order “will drive up the cost of doing business in state government.”

From the editorial “A Colorado promise broken,” published on the front page of the November 4 edition of The Denver Post:

When Coloradans elected Bill Ritter as governor, they thought they were getting a modern-day version of Roy Romer, a pro-business Democrat. Instead, they got Jimmy Hoffa.

Ritter campaigned under the guise of a moderate “new Democrat” but now we know he's simply a toady to labor bosses and the old vestiges of his party -- a bag man for unions and special interests.

The governor on Friday unveiled his plan to drive up the cost of doing business in Colorado by forcing collective bargaining on thousands of state employees.

We're concerned this may be the beginning of the end of Ritter as governor.

By pandering to unions, and the ever-shrinking 7.7 percent of the electorate that belong to unions, he's broken his “Colorado Promise” to voters. His promise to usher in a new era of collaborative government -- where business and labor, Democrats and Republicans, would all be at the table -- was nothing more than a sham.

It's unconscionable for the governor of a state that's limped through lean budget years to knowingly drive up the cost of government. And for what? Political payback to unions?

He's even doing an end-run on the legislature, controlled by his own party. Instead of introducing a bill in the legislature that could be debated and fine-tuned -- the collaborative process he promised -- Ritter junked what has worked for Colorado for decades with the flick of a pen. He didn't even have the guts to stand before the public and announce his plan. Instead, he sent out a press release late Friday afternoon when he hoped no one was looking.

[...]

Experts say collective bargaining can add as much as 30 percent to the cost of doing business. Tell us, how does that make sense for a state that can hardly pay its bills and plans to come to voters as soon as 2009 with its hand out? [emphases added]

The Post's editorial did not indicate which "[e]xperts" found that collective bargaining “can add as much as 30 percent to the cost of doing business.” Furthermore, while the Post editorial claimed that the executive order will “forc[e] collective bargaining on thousands of state employees,” the newspaper's November 4 news article noted that the executive order does not grant traditional collective bargaining rights. Similarly, Ritter's press release accompanying the executive order explicitly noted: “This order does not require employees to join an employee organization, nor does it require them to pay dues or agency fees if they do not join.”

The executive order itself, in fact, contains a section -- Determination of Representation -- outlining the procedures under which state employees have the option but not the requirement to petition and then vote to accept or reject an employee organization as their exclusive representative.

The executive order also explicitly prohibits state personnel from pressuring employees to become members of an employee organization:

Neither the Director of the Division of Labor nor any management or supervisory employee may encourage or discourage membership in any Employee Organization nor encourage or discourage exclusive representation of employees by any Employee Organization.

Further, the editorial omitted that, as the article reported, the executive order bars employee organizations from striking and obtaining binding arbitration, and any fiscal impacts of partnership agreements reached under the executive order are not binding on either the governor or on the legislature. According to the article:

The executive order did not give state employees the powers of traditional collective bargaining -- it contains a no-strike policy and specifies the new “partnership agreements” will not result in binding arbitration.

But workers now will have the right to collectively negotiate on matters of workplace safety, training and efficiency. Employees -- represented by the union of their choice -- can bargain on any “issues of mutual concern,” including wages, health care and staffing.

The legislature, however, gives up none of its authority to set the state budget, which means lawmakers could toss out any agreement that costs money. And the governor is not bound to include such agreements in his annual budget proposal. [emphases added]

In a section on the Limitations on Scope of Partnership Agreements, the executive order states that partnership agreements do not supersede the normal budgeting process:

Nothing in any Partnership Agreement may diminish the Governor's discretion to prepare his proposed budget, including setting the amount allocated to total employee compensation in that proposed budget. Neither this Executive Order nor any Partnership Agreement negotiated hereunder may expand the authority of the Office of the Governor, the Department of Personnel and Administration, or the Department of Labor and Employment beyond that authorized by the Colorado Constitution or the Colorado Revised Statutes. Furthermore, nothing in this Executive Order shall diminish nor shall any Partnership Agreement usurp department heads', college and university presidents', and higher education governing boards' responsibility and accountability for the actual operation and management of the state personnel system for their respective departments, colleges, or universities, as provided for by Colo. Const. art. VIII, § 5 and C.R.S. § 24-50-101(d). Moreover, a Partnership Agreement may not include a requirement or agreement that the Executive Branch or any department negotiate with respect to any of the following matters: (1) matters constitutionally and statutorily delegated to the State Personnel Board; (2) the statutory function of any department or agency; or (3) matters related to the Public Employees' Retirement Association.

The text of the executive order also makes clear that it bars employee organizations from engaging in any “disruptive measure” against the state or its agencies:

F. No Strike or Work Stoppage

Partnership Agreements negotiated pursuant to this Executive Order shall contain an agreement not to strike. Moreover, it shall be a violation of this Executive Order for any Certified Employee Organization to engage in or threaten a strike, work stoppage, work slowdown, sickout, or other similar disruptive measure against the State of Colorado or any of its agencies. In the event of a violation of this provision by a Certified Employee Organization, that organization may be decertified by the Director of the Division of Labor and shall not be entitled to payroll deductions of any membership dues.

Similar to the Post's editorial, Haley did not substantiate his claim during the Fox 31 interview that Ritter's executive order “will drive up the cost of doing business in state government, and that's not good for Colorado.” Moreover, no on-camera interviewer asked him to back up his assertion:

From the November 4 broadcast of KDVR Fox 31's News at Nine O'Clock:

DEBORAH TAKAHARA (anchor): It's all but unprecedented here in Colorado, a front-page editorial blasting a sitting governor.

LELAND VITTERT (anchor): It compares Governor Ritter to notorious union boss Jimmy Hoffa because he signed an executive order giving state employees union-like rights, and here it is: front page of The Denver Post above the fold on the left side. A scathing editorial accusing Ritter of breaking campaign promises, being in bed with big labor, and even running the state like a dictator. We asked the governor to talk with us about it; he sent a spokesman. The Denver Post sent their editorial page editor.

[begin video clip]

VITTER: Jimmy Hoffa was a notorious union boss; he was a Teamster; he was corrupt and ultimately killed. Isn't this a little personal?

HALEY: I think it is personal, but it's also a way of getting attention on an issue that we think is important.

EVAN DREYER (Ritter communications director): The actions of any lawmaker are certainly ripe for fair comment and criticism. But the type of rhetoric, the type of misrepresentations in that piece I think are over the top.

VITTERT: It comes down the rights of state workers, like those who fix roads. Should they be able to enjoy union-like rights?

DREYER: This is not about big labor. This is not about --

VITTERT: What's it about?

DREYER: -- busting the budget. This is about employees, and it's about providing more efficient and effective services to the people of this state.

VITTERT: But Ritter's executive order signed late Friday afternoon unilaterally changes the way state government interacts with its employees.

HALEY: It will drive up the cost of doing business in state government, and that's not good for Colorado. And it's not good for the governor.

VITTERT: And the editorial went farther, saying, “A governor with such early promise has squandered his future in order to keep his backroom promises to a few union bosses.” Has this become war?

VITTERT (to Haley): It sounds an awful lot like accusing him of something being very close to corrupt. Are you?

HALEY: No, I'm not accusing the governor of being corrupt at all, and I believe the governor when he says that this, he believes this is the right thing to do. We believe it's not the right thing to do.

VITTERT (to Dreyer): It is not often to have a front page, above-the-fold editorial.

DREYER: It's very unusual, but I think it speaks to the depths of the publisher's opposition.

[end video clip]

VITTERT: And while the publisher decides what goes on the front page, the governor gets the last word in this one. The governor's office says that executive order is just that: an order.