The Vince Carroll headline August 11, “Time to Yank Hickenlooper’s Free Pass,” was a clarion call to all Colorado media, if not Carroll’s own paper.  And since that time, the Denver Post’s Karen Crummy has authored two thoughtful, serious examinations of Mayor Hickenlooper.  Given Crummy’s groundbreaking work on the Cory Voorhis scandal, it’s little wonder that she’s probably becoming the darling of conservatives and former RMN readers with pieces like, “Hickenlooper’s Business Acumen Was Called Into Question in ’90’s,” and now, “Hickenlooper Founded Fund that Supports Far-Left Groups, but Continued Support Unknown.”  But even with the publishing of the two articles, a revoking of the Mayor’s free pass is far from over, and indeed, a great deal of the past and the press has to be re-examined to see where and how to go forward while covering Mr. Hickenlooper, both through the remainder of this election cycle, and going forward no matter what the outcome in November.

First, let’s start by examining some of what the non-mainstream press has generated on Mr. Hickenlooper over the years.

On August 28th, 2008, CompleteColorado.com published a spreadsheet showing that the Mayor may have cherry-picked statistics when discussing a potential initiative that would have required the city to impound  more cars.  The article by CompleteColorado.com starts off referencing an article by the Denver Post, titled, “Mayor Calls Impound Initiative Too Costly.”  But as the spreadsheet obtained by Complete points out, the projections actually pointed to millions in new profit for the city.  Bottom-line lesson:  Citizens and media must be extra-vigilent in requiring Mayor Hickenlooper to cite his sources when using statistics to make a case, and then they must check those sources to be sure that the statistics are being used in full context.  (Also, note in the story that then-spokeswoman Sue Cobb did not directly refute CompleteColorado’s thesis that the Mayor had cherry-picked his statistics.)

On March 31, 2010, CompleteColorado.com published a story providing substantial evidence that the Mayor offered distinctly different versions of “when he knew” about the problem of roving gangs attacking whites and hispanics in LoDo during the summer of 2009.  That the Mayor offered differing versions of “when he knew” is by no means inconsequential: it goes to the very heart of how well he manages and prioritizes public safety, especially as it relates to the police department.  Lesson number one:  citizens and the media should be extra-vigilent in examining and re-examining the Mayor’s words ON RADIO, especially since these words are never “crawled” by Google.  Furthermore, it would be helpful if the Denver Post took the time to understand this issue and get unambiguous answers from Mayor Hickenlooper, rather than only publishing a milquetoast editorial that simply labeled the public-safety response as “weak.” However, because we are the authors of the original story, no one understands the THREE SEPARATE WAYS in which the Mayor told different versions of “when he knew.” Therefore, an open-invitation will stand to the Mayor’s office asking him to clarify this issue with us, provided the full conversation can be recorded in some fashion.  Keep in mind, the last time Hickenlooper appeared on 630 KHOW’s “Caplis and Silverman” show, his ONLY CONDITION was that the LoDo beatings and response be “off the table.”

In April of this year, a revived FaceTheState.com (FTS) published a long-overdue analysis of cost overruns for the new Denver Justice Center and jail.  Money quote:  ”The price tag in 2005: $378 million. The current tab: $444 million.”  While FTS and CompleteColorado.com run on fairly limited budgets, surely other media outlets have the deep pockets required to commission a thorough fiscal audit of how this cost overrun happened?

In a changing media world, the Mayor continues to behave as though bloggers and/or trackers or “new media” don’t exist.  Instead, at campaign events that are not publicized as PRIVATE, the Mayor insists on kicking out Republican blogger Kelly Maher of WhoSaidYouSaid.com.  Despite the Mayor’s saying that he desires a “statewide conversation,” he certainly doesn’t want to talk to this blonde blogger.  Again, in August, at an event that was not labeled or advertised as PRIVATE, the Mayor and his staff continued to deny Maher access to his “public” meetings.  By no means are we saying that the Mayor owes each and every blogger an interview whenever they demand it, but that’s not even the situation in the last clip offered.  Maher is simply wanting to take video of the proceedings.  So why should the Mayor deny this?  If he is recorded enough on the campaign trail, evenutally, he’s going to say some potentially embarrassing things, like, “Taxes are about as low as they can go,” a statement that as of this publishing, has yet to receive any scrutiny from the mainstream media, other than the Caplis and Silverman show.

Thus far, FaceTheState.com is the only outlet asking questions about the Mayor’s profiting from a complex tax deal involving conservation easements.  Once again, the Mayor (specifically, the Mayor’s campaign) handpicked his media, refusing to cooperate with FTS.

(For the record, the Mayor’s official City of Denver communications office, including Eric Brown and Sabrina D’Agosta, has always dealt politely, promptly, and professionally with CompleteColorado.com when we have made requests for information and comment.)

In June of this year, more questions about Mr. Hickenlooper’s governance came into question when the Denver Daily News published a report by yours truly, involving the possibility for the institution of a Denver “crash tax.”  Outside of two columns by Vince Carroll, and a small blog entry on “The Spot,” the Denver Post’s coverage of this potential tax (and the ramifications on non-Denverites, not to mention the ramifications on a Hickenlooper Governorship) was non-existent.  Then, again on the radio, the Mayor made comments suggesting that the crash tax was only proposed as a retaliation against the other fire districts in Colorado

Click here for the audio for this quote:

“…and it came as a response, several other suburban neighborhoods, fire districts, were charging, and it’s just the cost of what it, what it actually costs to have firefighters and a truck, first responders go out to the scene of an accident, when there has been someone negligent.  And certainly there are times when someone has a flat tire, it’s not their fault, you know that there’s an accident.  But in places where…I mean, the vast, vast majority of these accidents are people following too closely, switching lanes recklessly, they cause the accident, and yet all of the taxpayers, and not just in this case just Denver, but all of us are subsidizing that bad behavior.  This was a way to try and rectify it, you know, that seems to have caught a lot of people’s attention.  You know we don’t, I don’t think we’re terribly wed to it one way or the other.  I think if the other suburban neighbor– communities would, I mean if we all agreed lets none of us charge this and we’ll all take care of those accidents that happen in our communities with whoever the residents are, there’s no problem there.”

Hickenlooper’s response was either a desperate rambling, or more revealing.  Was the man-who-would be governor really suggesting that his modus operandi is governance by retribution?  Also, notice in the above quote, that on two separate occasions, the Mayor artfully “splits the quote,” (highlighted in blue).  Especially when you’re talking about something that could be embarrassing to your campaign as governor, the more you split the quote, the less likely you are to have the reporters in the 850 KOA newsroom pull the soundbite.

Now I ask that you stop for a moment and entertain this hypothetical:  What would you do if you looked into the Mayor’s calendar, and saw an appointment with Rod Blagojavech or Jack Abramoff?  That’s essentially what CompleteColorado.com uncovered in late July of this year.  Disgraced lawyer Willie Shepherd appears to be pedaling his influence with the Mayor, escorting companies directly into Hickenlooper’s office.  While Shepherd obviously isn’t as well known as Blago or Abramoff, it is fairly clear that his ethics are highly questionable, and that this man should have no influence over the Mayor of Denver, much less Colorado’s future governor.

One last piece of evidence regarding Hickenlooper’s free pass.  On May 24th, I requested a copy of all CORA (Colorado Open Records Act) requests applied to the Mayor’s office over the previous year.  From this PDF, you can see the response.  But here’s what I took away from the documents.  Your humble affiant has significantly out-requested the region’s paper of record, the Denver Post, by a score of 8-5.

There are those who will read this blog entry, and accuse me of being on some kind of Hickenlooper “witch hunt.”  Those individuals would be well apprised to examine CompleteColorado.com’s history of reporting, and note that we’ve taken on Republicans, too, and on more than one occasion.

As for going forward, here’s just a sampling of questions we’re eager to hear responses to as the Mayor continues to campaign.

• Will he overturn Governor Ritter’s executive order on labor?
• When did you know about the LoDo beatings? And if the answer is September, why did you allow the public to go without an alert?
• What are his feelings/thoughts about the Attorney General’s lawsuit against the federal health care bill?  Or Amendment 63?
• What are his opinions of  the Michael Bennet DPS financing deal?
• What are his opinions of TABOR versus other constitutional items like Amendment 23?
• What state Governor does Mr. Hickenlooper admire?  Either of Colorado, or elsewhere?

So this is where we stand at the present with Mayor Hickenlooper.  His “free pass” cannot be truly revoked because so much water has passed uncritically beneath the bridge.  Yet all of us as journalists and citizen-journalists are called to keep a sharp eye, a reasonable level of inquisitiveness, and the courage to press forward on issues with disregard as to what potential office a candidate MAY hold in the future.