Amendment 41, also known as the Ethics in Government Initiative, is back in action leaving UCD professors wondering if it is really necessary.
     The amendment requires that no state employee, including university employees, may receive gifts from any person totaling more than $50 in value in any calendar year. Colorado voters passed the amendment in 2006.
     Earlier this month, the Denver District Court imposed an injunction on the amendment after a group of plaintiffs, including one state university professor, brought suit against it, maintaining that Amendment 41 would chill their First Amendment rights.
     Of particular concern to university employees was that they would no longer be able to attend academic conferences because without any help to pay for their transportation, lodging, and food, they would not be able to afford it. They also argued that a scholarship awarded to their children based on past merit would no longer be allowed.
     Because Amendment 41 also applies to state employees’ spouses and children, the plaintiffs asserted that they might be forced to choose between their current jobs and education for their children, according to Colorado Supreme Court documents.
     Here at UCD, professors clearly have mixed feelings about the issue.
     “I can understand the need for things to be open and documented when money is involved,” said English instructor Sarah Olivier. “But with teacher’s compensation and funding being so low, I think it’s a shame that any legislation would prevent teachers from getting more money.”
     UCD professor Maryann Hoffmann noted that by working as an auditor for the Federal Reserve before she signed on as a teacher she was not allowed under any circumstances to accept gifts.

11

     “The limitations set by Amendment 41 don’t surprise me,” Hoffmann said. ”However, I do feel that clarification is in order. I’m not sure how they can hold people to standards when they don’t know clearly what those standards are.”
     Part of the plaintiff’s challenge to Amendment 41 was that the standards it sets are vague and uncertain. The Supreme Court, however, declined to rule on the merits of Amendment 41 when it overturned the injunction against it, ruling instead that the district court had lacked the jurisdiction to impose the injunction. The Supreme Court ruled that the amendment could not be challenged because it has not yet been applied.
     This means that the controversial amendment is likely to be back in court again soon. As controversial as the amendment may be, some professors haven’t paid much attention to it.
     UCD professor Michelle Comstock was indifferent to the amendment, saying, “I don’t know much about Amendment 41. Once I get my book published, I might get up to speed on what laws I might be breaking.”