Thirty Years Ago This Week in The Colorado Statesman: An advisory board, which consisted of four dozen office holders, journalists, business leaders, as well as the governor and chairmen of both the state Democratic and Republican Parties, proposed a model constitutional convention to be held in Denver.

The purpose of the “mock” convention was to evaluate Colorado’s Constitution and its application for not only the present, but the future as well. The simulated convention was the brainchild of Denver Post Editor David Hall, Denver attorney and political activist Gail Klapper and Marshall Kaplan, dean of the University of Colorado’s Graduate School of Public Affairs.

“We plan to use this as an educational vehicle and have statewide involvement,” Klapper said. “There are some very specific and historical pieces in the Constitution that are no longer that important to have.”

Besides a ban on dueling for elected officials, Klapper pointed to an item under Section XI which banned the state from appropriating funds to aid the 1976 Winter Olympic Games. Not only was the measure outdated, Klapper argued, but it might’ve been better addressed in statue rather than in the Constitution.

Aside from outdated amendments, Klapper said there were also broader questions which dealt with the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.

Colorado Springs developer Steve Schuck was asked to serve on the advisory board by Hall. “The Constitution should address principles, guidelines and philosophy, and not specific actions,” Schuck said. “There are major gains to be enjoyed by taking a deliberate look at this major document. It might need some modernization. Government is here to serve and not to direct.”

About a hundred attorneys from different Colorado law firms volunteered to analyze each article in the Constitution and in addition to their analyses, scholars from DU and CU’s law schools also contributed their expertise.

John Andrews, who headed The Independence Institute, was also heavily involved in the project but was wary of attempts to rewrite the state constitution, citing the outcomes when Michigan and Illinois rewrote their constitutions in the 1960s.

“Those are states that I would consider to be over-governed,” Andrews said. “A rewriting could lead to a larger government burden. I would be interested in knowing if some states have lessened government intrusion by rewriting their constitution, but that is not the trend of the late 20th century.”

Ten Years Ago: Yellow Cab employees, along with some of the company’s drivers, faced the possibility of a $5,000 fine and a year in jail after an investigation was opened by Colorado Secretary of State Mike Coffman.

The investigation stemmed from a complaint filed three months previously by the watchdog group Colorado Citizens for Ethics in Government (CCEG). The group alleged that Colorado Cab Company, which owned Yellow Cab, violated lobbying statutes by offering drivers a reduction in lease rates in exchange for phone calls to state legislators.

Chantell Taylor, the executive director of CCEG, commented, “There were violations. The questions is, how many?”

Yellow Cab representative Sean Duffy, of the public relations firm Kenney Group, called the complaint “without merit.” He noted that CCEG had filed only a single sworn affidavit from a Yellow Cab driver, Mengisteab Desta, who said he had been offered a lease rate adjustment worth between $50-$110 and was provided with a script of talking points to use with legislators.

Attorney Scott Gessler, in a response to CCEG’s complaint, included a rebuttal in the form of a sworn affidavit from Michael Rivera, the supervisor Desta accused of offering him the deal.

Rivera wrote that Desta approached him about opposing House Bill 07-1114 (which proposed lowering regulations for forming a cab company) and volunteered to make phone calls against the measure. Though Rivera offered a phone at the company headquarters for Desta to use to call legislators and put together “talking points,” he flat out denied offering drivers a lease rate adjustment.

Duffy agreed that the drivers were asked by the company to call lawmakers if they disagreed with the bill.

“The difference is that the drivers were certainly asked, would you advocate for your livelihood? But [CCEG is] saying they were paid lobbyists, and the company vigorously rejects that.”