The fur continued to fly this week over Secretary of State Mike Coffman’s new personnel rules. After one of his election workers, Dan Kopelman, was found to be operating a partisan web site against state regulations, Coffman issued new staff regulations governing outside partisan activities. The rules prohibit any workers in the elections department from endorsing or working for any partisan candidate or cause, contributing to any political causes, or holding any partisan office.

When the new regulations were announced last week, Coffman also promised to hold himself to the same standard, saying that as the head of the department he must lead by example. But the new rules have only sparked new attacks from two separate watchdog groups.

When Coffman provided the keynote address at a Mesa County Republican Party luncheon in Grand Junction last week, the progressive organization ProgressNowAction immediately cried foul.

“Coffman’s do as I say, not as I do policy reeks of hypocrisy,” charged Michael Huttner, the group’s executive director.

Coffman’s office fired back immediately, calling Huttner’s allegations of hypocrisy a “blatant lie.”

“It’s an elaborate cut and paste job,” said Coffman spokesman Jonathan Tee, referring to Huttner’s press release in which he accuses Coffman of stating that he would not work for a political party.

Tee referred to Coffman’s original May 17 press release, which attributed Coffman with the statement, “I believe it is important for the Secretary of State, as the state’s chief elections official, to be held to the same high standards, so I will adhere to the same restrictions regarding endorsing or contributing to partisan candidates, statewide referendums and ballot initiatives.”

Tee noted that Huttner’s release cut off the last half of that sentence after the word “standards,” so as to imply that Coffman had pledged to remove himself from politics altogether.

“The Secretary is certainly not going to walk away from the fact that he’s a Republican,” Tee said, noting that the office by definition is a partisan elected seat and that the luncheon Coffman attended was not in support of any particular candidate or cause. “That’s very different from working specifically for a candidate. If there is a Republican group that is hosting a function to specifically support a candidate, he will not attend.”

Tee added that the Mesa County event was far from the only Republican gathering Coffman has recently been to, and said it definitely won’t be the last. He also attended a similar event in Larimer County this week.

From another side, Tee also had to fend off accusations from the non-partisan group Colorado Citizens for Ethics in Government (CCEG) that the new rules violate constitutional precedent and infringe on the free speech rights of his employees by prohibiting them from contributing to political causes.

“In a hasty attempt to prevent political fall-out from the allegations facing his office, Secretary Coffman imposed a new policy on his staff that is blatantly unconstitutional,” CCEG director Chantell Taylor commented.

She cited the Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo, 1976, which found that states could not restrict state employees from partaking in politics, as Coffman’s new regulations do.

Tee once again responded quickly, citing two Supreme Court cases of his own that uphold the state’s right to restrict political activity of its workers — United States Civil Service Commission Workers v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 1973, and United States v. National Treasury Employees Union, 1995.

“She’s just picking and choosing the Supreme Court cases that support her statements, and ignoring others,” Tee said.

He added that Coffman had run the new regulations by Colorado Attorney General John Suthers before implementing them to make sure they were acceptable, and had actually loosened the restrictions from their initial form. Originally, Tee said, the new restrictions were to be placed on everyone who works for the Secretary of State, but after speaking with Suthers, Coffman decided that the rules would only be appropriate for elections workers.

Tee also criticized Taylor for moving from a slogan of “too little, too late,” which is how she characterized the new personnel rules last week, to a standpoint of unconstitutionality this week.

“Last week they were ‘too little, too late.’ Now it’s too strict. So I’m really confused,” Tee said. “Taylor is really starting to show her partisan colors. [Their press release] shows that she will say anything — even the exact opposite of what she said a few days ago — if she thinks it will get her a headline.”

Taylor blasted Tee’s statement as “spin,” and said it wasn’t the rules that had been too little, too late, but the enforcement of the rules that were already in place.

“We’re not calling them too strict. We’re calling them unconstitutional,” Taylor explained, and added, “If Secretary Coffman takes a position that he wants to impinge on the rights of his employees, then I don’t think that’s exercising good judgment.”

Taylor called on Coffman to repeal the new rules and concentrate on enforcing the rules that had already been in place, which she says already prohibit state employees from engaging in outside activities that are “incompatible” with their positions. Kopelman, for instance, was found by Coffman to be in violation of that rule, and was demoted and received a pay cut.

Taylor also criticized Coffman for being “willing to sacrifice the constitutional freedoms of his staff in an effort to redeem his now-tarnished political image.”