Picture this: A Colorado governor, fuming after reading a steady stream of negative headlines about the lavish spending of a well-heeled statewide organization, successfully leans on that organization’s board of directors. Coolly, it cans the offending CEO.

Industry officials howl. But the firing sticks.

The CEO in question? No, not Pinnacol’s Kenneth Ross. It was Thomas A. Levin, helmsman of nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield in the early 1990s. And the governor? It was Roy Romer.

The boardroom showdown of governor vs. CEO drew headlines for months in Denver’s major dailies — yes, there were two then. More than anything, the showdown underscored Romer’s willingness to use the power of his elective pulpit to send management sinners packing.

Point made.

Fast forward to 2011. Ken Ross and his predecessors have enviably managed Pinnacol Assurance, the state’s quasi-governmental worker’s compensation authority. The organization, once nearly broke, enjoys coffers so flush that Democrats at Colorado’s Capitol last year attempted a raid in part to stem the state’s own budget crisis. The attempt fails, but Pinnacol does not survive unscathed.

Unfortunately for Pinnacol, the current CEO happens to possess the Tom Levin gene: When the going gets tough, the tough go shopping. Pebble Beach? Check. French-cooking school? Check.

Denver’s TV news has been awash this week in coverage of the Pinnacol overspending. Senate President Brandon Shaffer called Friday for Ross’ head. This morning, so did The Denver Post.

There is a difference, however, between 1993 and 2011.

Then, the board of Blue Cross was stacked with well-meaning corporate execs with big reputations and long resumes. One of them, prominent Denver banker LaRae Orullian, was confident in her judgment of Levin’s ability.

“I don’t think there’s ever been a time when Mr. Levin lost the support of the board,” she said then. “We still felt he was the best in the business.”

So why did she vote to fire him?

“We knew we couldn’t keep him.”

Unlike Blue Cross of the 1990s, Pinnacol’s board of 2011 is much less known. The most recognizable name is that of a local auto dealer whose back-of-the-vehicle nameplate graces many a vehicle.

A list of the board members, including the start of their board tenure as well as their day jobs, appears below.

This board appears to be much more insular, as well. As this morning’s Denver Post editorial noted, four happened to travel on the same Pebble Beach junket that drew all the negative coverage. Surely, The Post noted, these members won’t race to fire Ross.

But still, you have to wonder:

– Despite some of its members’ shared culpability, will this board nevertheless send the head sinner packing?

– Will the incoming governor, John Hickenlooper, as Roy Romer before him, use the power of his elective pulpit to force a decision?

– Or does this test of wills end in more political standoffs, as they did during the Bill Ritter years?

Stand by, Colorado.

Don Knox edits State Bill Colorado and Law Week Colorado. He is a former business editor of The Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News.

PINNACOL’S BOARD

Gary O. Johnson, chair, joined the board in 2003. He is president of Strategic Insurance Consultants Inc., a company that helps independent agents merge with or purchase other insurance agencies.

Holman F. Carter, employee representative, joined Pinnacol’s board in 2010. He is president and business agent of the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1001 and a member of the Colorado AFL-CIO executive council.

Ryan Hettich, employer representative, joined the board in 2006. Hettich is the owner of a Colorado Springs-based company in the business of retail dry-cleaning, textile restoration, and commercial real estate holdings.

Robert J. (R.J.) Jolly, employer farm and ranch representative, has been a member of Pinnacol’s board since 2003. Jolly is co-owner and manager of Barbara Jolly and Sons Ranch LLC, primarily a cattle ranching enterprise.

Debra E. Lovejoy, employee representative, joined the board in 2003. She is vice president of Employer’s Resources of Colorado Inc., which provides outsourced human resources services to Colorado businesses.

Robert C. McDaniel, finance/investment representative, joined Pinnacol’s board in 2010. He is the managing director of Metrix Advisors LLC, a management consulting focused on advising companies operating in heavily regulated business environments.

Paul Suss, employer representative, joined the board in 2004. He is president of Suss Buick Pontiac GMC, a family owned and operated automobile dealership.

Richard Rivera, employer representative, joined Pinnacol’s board in 2010. He is the president of Emergi-Medical Care Center in Pueblo and owner of HealthTrac Walk-In Clinic in Canon City

Nonie Rivale Willisch, employee representative, joined the board in 2010. Since 1998, she has sold workers’ compensation and commercial insurance for CRS Insurance Brokerage Inc. in Denver, focusing on the construction industry.

Source: Pinnacol website

Even while Pinnacol Assurance is being criticized for its lavish spending habits and lawmakers are calling for its leaders to resign, the insurance carrier continues to send its employees to an expensive French culinary school in Denver, 9Wants to Know has learned.

More than 100 of Pinnacol’s employees have learned to cook at Mise en Place, at a cost of more than $10,000, in the last year.

Separately, Senate President Brandon Shaffer is calling for the resignation of Pinnacol CEO Ken Ross and board members who traveled in 2010 on an expensive retreat to Pebble Beach, Calif.

Today, The Denver Post, in an editorial, made a similar call. The Post said:

We wrote last May that Ross’ “erratic behavior” — which included the infamous 7News video of Ross shoving the TV station’s reporter, Tony Kovaleski — left us to wonder whether he should keep his job. The evidence is now conclusive. It’s time for Ross to step down

.

According to 9News:

Costs included $15,000 in air fare, $39,659 in golf and spa services, $131,000 in room charges, recreation and room charges for the delegates, $46,259 for restaurants and lounges and $35,800 in retail, transportation and miscellaneous charges and 8,091 in tours and dine-around charges.

Pinnacol Assurance said it released the records Thursday to comply with a court order directing the documents be delivered to KMGH-TV and made public.

Despite Californians rejection of a ballot initiative last week that would have legalized marijuana for adults in the state, Colorado activists are moving forward with a legalization effort of their own.

Some of the top names in the national legalization movement met in Denver over the weekend to discuss the prospects of legalizing marijuana after the failed attempt in California. Also on Saturday, activists met with students at the University of Colorado at Boulder to energize their efforts in drumming up support for legalization.

Mason Tvert of Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation, a pro-legalization group, believes Colorado will now become a main focal point for efforts to legalize marijuana. Tvert’s group is planning to run an initiative on the 2012 Colorado ballot that would legalize marijuana.

Tvert said he was upset that the legalization ballot initiative failed in California. However, he believes the initiative was a “massive net gain” because it sparked a major national debate.

Tvert added that Colorado is a much different state than California and credited his group’s efforts with helping convince many people that marijuana is a safer drug than alcohol. Additionally, Los Angeles banned almost all medical marijuana dispensaries, while Denver grandfathered in approximately 200 medical marijuana centers.

“The most important thing is that Colorado isn’t California,” Tvert said. “It’s a different political climate, also has a different climate in regards to marijuana.”

Tvert believes that having Democrat John Hickenlooper as governor will be better for the legalization effort than Gov. Bill Owens, the Republican who was in charge when SAFER previously tried, and failed, with a legalization ballot initiative in 2006. However, Hickenlooper has generally dodged questions about marijuana and has stopped far short of advocating for the drug’s legalization.

“Ultimately all we can ask is that he doesn’t obstruct the progress for the state,” Tvert said. “He should leave it to the voters and work on behalf of whatever they decide.”

Some voters in parts of Colorado decided last week that they don’t want medical marijuana around them. Approximately 20 cities and municipalities voted to ban dispensaries, while nine municipalities voted to allow them.

Brian Vicente of Sensible Colorado, a pro-marijuana activist group, didn’t see the dispensary bans as being a serious blow to the pro-legalization effort.

“The more people vote on marijuana, the more the support rises because they’re forced to think about it,” he said.

Tvert and Vicente are working together to craft a legalization ballot initiative for 2012. Meanwhile, another pro-legalization group — Cannabis Therapy Institute (CTI) — is going forward with its own legalization initiative for 2012. Although the groups share similar goals, they disagree on one main issue — how much marijuana should be able to be taxed.

Laura Kriho of CTI believes any legalization initiative should only allow the sales tax to be charged on marijuana.

Meanwhile, Tvert’s initiative would likely cap any possible excise tax on an ounce of marijuana at $50. Tvert believes banning an excise tax on marijuana would be “a nail in the coffin” for the measure.

Vicente hopes that the two groups will be able to reach some agreement and work together. He believes the public sentiment is swinging in favor of legalization.

A Rasmussen poll released in May found that 49 percent of Colorado voters support legalizing marijuana. The pro-legalization poll numbers are significantly higher than when Colorado voters rejected a ballot initiative to legalize marijuana on a 61-38 percent vote in 2006.

Californians rejected the legalization of marijuana on a 56-to-44-percent vote.

More than 20 candidates running for office in Colorado are in favor of legalizing marijuana for adults, according to a report released yesterday.

Meanwhile, nearly 10 candidates oppose legalization, and the majority didn’t respond to a survey issued by the social welfare lobbying arm of Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER), a pro-marijuana legalization group.

Mason Tvert’s SAFER asked every Colorado candidate up for election next month whether they agree with the following policy statement: “Marijuana should be regulated in a manner similar to alcohol, and adults twenty-one (21) years of age and older should NOT be subject to criminal penalties for private use and possession of up to one (1) ounce of marijuana.” SAFER is planning on putting a pro-legalization measure on the 2012 ballot.

The majority of candidates — including most incumbents — failed or refused to respond to the one-question survey despite having more than a month to do so, according to Tvert.

“They think that they don’t need to explain where they stand on the issue, and that’s unfortunate because voters deserve to know,” said Tvert.

Tvert was equally upset yesterday with Democrat Denver Mayor and Colorado gubernatorial candidate John Hickenlooper for helping open a brewpub but not supporting the legalization of marijuana, which Tvert believes is safer than alcohol. Tvert is angry that Hickenlooper hasn’t discussed why he opposes the legalization of marijuana. Hickenlooper’s campaign declined comment to the Denver Daily News.

“I think that he’s a coward,” Tvert said of Hickenlooper. “Quite frankly, I think he is scared to elaborate on his position because he has become a career politician.”

Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes is also against legalizing marijuana. When asked about the possibility of generating tax revenue through the regulated sale of marijuana, Maes compared it to prostituting one’s daughter to generate revenue, according to SAFER.

However, Hickenlooper’s main opponent in the gubernatorial race, third-party candidate Tom Tancredo, is in favor of legalization. Tvert thinks Tancredo’s pro-legalization stance could help him on Election Day.

“He’s set himself aside by being a major candidate who is vocal about his support for this, and I think that could result in a lot of younger voters and non-traditional voters heading to the polls to vote in support of a candidate who shares their view on the issue,” said Tvert.

The candidates who responded to SAFER’s survey and said they are in favor, and against, legalizing marijuana came from all of the major political parties. The survey found:

State Senate candidates in favor of legalization:

» Gloria Stultz, Democrat running in District 2;

» Claudette Konola, Democrat running in District 7;

» Gary Storck, Democrat running in District 13;

» Jeanne Nicholson, Democrat running in District 16;

» Doug Smith, Republican running in District 31;

» Pat Steadman, Democrat running District 31;

» Derec Shuler, Republican running in District 34.

State Senate candidates not in favor of legalization;

» Katherine Facchiniello, Democrat running in District 30;

» Chris Romer, Democrat running in District 32;

State House candidates in favor of legalization:

» Jeanne Labuda, Democrat running in District 1;

» Mark Ferrandino, Democrat running in District 2;

» Marc Goddard, Libertarian running in District 4;

» Rick Nevin, Republican running in District 4;

» Therese-Marie O’Sullivan, Republican running in District 8;

» Joe Miklosi, Democrat running in District 9;

» Bo Shaffer, Libertarian running in District 12;

» Larry Liston, Republican running in District 17;

» Pete Lee, Democrat running in District 18;

» Jonathan Dooley, Democrat running in District 21;

» G.T. “Bud” Martin, Libertarian running in District 27;

» Debbie Benefield, Democrat running in District 29;

» Tom Janich, Republican running in District 31;

» Carol Levine, Democrat running in District 39;

» Carole Partin, Democrat running in District 47;

» Mike Kien, Libertarian running in District 57;

» Luke Korkowski, Republican running in District 61;

State House candidates not in favor of legalization:

» Robert Houdeshell, Republican running in District 13;

» Robert Ramirez, Republican running in District 29;

» Rhonda Fields, Democrat running in District 42;

» Sally Mounier, Republican running in District 42;

» Gary Semro, Democrat running in District 43;

» Steve Ivanice, Democrat running in District 57;

» J. Paul Brown, Republican running in District 59.

The eyes of Colorado’s growing medical marijuana community are set on California’s upcoming ballot initiative that would legalize marijuana for adults.

At least two different Colorado pro-marijuana groups — Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER) and the Cannabis Therapy Institute (CTI) — have announced plans to place a marijuana-legalization initiative similar to California’s Proposition 19 on the 2012 ballot. The two groups yesterday staged events to bring attention to Proposition 19 and their own initiatives.

“With the election coming up in California, everybody is going to be asking what’s going on in Colorado,” said Laura Kriho of CTI, which yesterday announced a fundraising drive on Nov. 2 for their initiative. “I think if California legalizes it, I think there’s going to be a lot of places in the country that are going to want to legalize.”

Meanwhile, SAFER offshoot Women’s Marijuana Movement (WMM) yesterday held a rally to show their support for Proposition 19 and to bring a different face to the marijuana legalization movement.

“We thought it would be a great idea to show support and that all different kinds of people believe in legalizing marijuana,” said Toni Fox of WMM.

SAFER and CTI are currently going forward with separate marijuana-legalization initiatives, though both groups said they look forward to working together. Although the groups share similar goals, they disagree on one main issue Ń how much marijuana should be able to be taxed.

Kriho believes any legalization initiative should only allow the sales tax to be charged on marijuana. Meanwhile, Tvert’s initiative would likely cap any possible excise tax on an ounce of marijuana at $50. Tvert believes banning an excise tax on marijuana would be “a nail in the coffin” for the measure.

California support

A majority of California voters has swung in favor of Proposition 19, according to a recent Field Poll. While a July survey found Proposition 19 trailing by 4 points, 49 percent of Californians now say they are inclined to vote “Yes” on the proposed marijuana legalization law, with 42 percent leaning toward voting “No,” according to Reuters. The margin of error on that poll is plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.

And while Kriho and Tvert expressed interest in the outcome of Proposition 19, the activists said they are moving forward with their initiatives regardless of what happens in California.

“Even though California has been around for so long with medical marijuana, Colorado is the first state in the country that has established a state regulated system,” said Tvert. “Whereas California started the race earlier, Colorado appears to be on the way towards finishing the race quicker.”

Poll

A Rasmussen poll released in May found that 49 percent of Colorado voters support legalizing marijuana. The pro-legalization poll numbers are significantly higher than when Colorado voters rejected a ballot initiative to legalize marijuana on a 61-38 percent vote in 2006.

“Without a doubt we believe Coloradans are ready to take the next step towards making marijuana legal for all adults,” said Tvert. “Enough people around the state recognize that this is a far safer substance than alcohol and it’s time we start treating it that way.”

Tvert doubts there will be enough funding to get more than one marijuana-legalization initiative on the 2012 ballot.

The days of scoring medical marijuana before the ink is dry on the doctor’s recommendation may be over in Colorado. Matt Cook, head of the Colorado Department of Revenue’s new Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division, released a memo Monday warning MMJ retailers not to sell pot to anyone whose doctor’s recommendation is less than 35 days old.

That’s the amount of time granted under Amendment 20 for the Colorado Department of Health and Environment to reject or approve a patient’s application. Theoretically, that’s also the amount of time the agency has to issue patient licenses, but as anyone who’s been through the process knows, it can take months for a license to arrive in the mail. In lieu of an official license, the doctor’s recommendation—along with proof that it was submitted to the CDPHE—can be used to legally buy, own and grow medical marijuana.

Before the passage of HB 1284, which imposed a myriad of new regulations on the state’s medical marijuana industry, new patients routinely shopped for pot as soon as the recommendation was signed and the application mailed to the state.

No more. Cook wrote that applicants could still be denied within the 35-day window, exposing any Medical Marijuana Center, or MMC, to criminal sanctions for selling to them.

From the memo:

A patient with application paperwork that is less than thirty-five days old may be denied a card by the CDPHE in the remaining portion of the thirty-five days. Therefore, it is the position of the (Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division) that if a MMC sells medical marijuana to persons having evidence of the proper filing of applications with the Patient Registry which are not dated at least thirty-five days prior to the sale, that MMC is doing so at its peril.

If MMCs sell medical marijuana to patients having evidence of the required applications being filed with the medical marijuana registry, but not dated at least thirty-five days prior to the date of the sale which are later denied by the CDPHE, or the patient has presented fraudulent documents, the MMC may face administrative and criminal sanctions as provided in law.

Read the entire memo here.

Medical marijuana advocates are concerned that proposed new regulations for the industry will result in patient tracking, scaring patients away from wanting to be a part of the system.

The Cannabis Therapy Institute is asking advocates to oppose the draft rules by the Colorado Department of Revenue because they say it will lead to fear.

The rules, released at the end of August, consist of 92 pages of proposed regulations. Much of it will become the basis for permanent regulations for the burgeoning medical marijuana industry in Colorado, and perhaps set a template for states across the nation.

But while state regulators say they are only developing “protections,” patients and advocates are arguing that the rules would violate constitutional rights to privacy as a patient.

“Caregivers reluctantly gave up their constitutional right to provide medicine to their patients, and now they are faced with volumes of new regulations and thousands of dollars more in costs to bring their ‘centers’ into compliance,” states an e-mail to supporters from the Cannabis Therapy Institute, referring to Medical Marijuana Centers, or dispensaries.

One of the draft rules calls for dispensaries to use surveillance cameras to record every transaction and processing step, known as seed-to-sale monitoring, says the Cannabis Therapy Institute, which has reviewed the entire proposal several times since it was released at the end of August at a Department of Revenue workgroup meeting on medical marijuana regulation.

Dispensaries would also be required to link their point-of-sale systems with their video surveillance systems, and patients would be required to place their medical marijuana registry cards and driver’s license in a space on the counter so that the cameras could capture it. Advocates fear this move will lead to patient tracking and privacy violations.

Matt Cook, head of the Colorado Department of Revenue’s Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division, explains the Web-based tracking system as necessary for enforcement. The system will be able to tell if a patient has visited multiple dispensaries, seeking to have multiple primary caregivers. Under Colorado law, a patient is technically only allowed to have one primary caregiver. Dispensaries will then be encouraged to turn the patient away.

“They have begun writing the hundreds of pages of regulations, which are forcing these formerly legal business owners out of business,” says the Cannabis Therapy Institute.

The advocacy group for medical marijuana patients also believes the Web-based tracking system will scare people away from registering.

“If patients have to swipe a card and get into a government database every time they buy medicine, no patient will want to be part of the program,” states the Cannabis Therapy Institute.

Cook, however, sees the issue as being about enforcement and fairness.

“This is all about a level playing field and putting some protections in place,” he said.

Local pot advocates believe it is “ridiculous” that Facebook has blocked a marijuana legalization campaign from displaying the image of a pot leaf in ads on the social-networking site. Facebook has censored the Just Say Now campaign from using pot images in its advertising. The campaign aims to draw support for legalization efforts in several states, including a ballot initiative scheduled for 2012 in Colorado.

Facebook censored the ads on Aug. 16 without explanation. When later asked by reporters, Facebook said the pot leaf violated Facebook’s policy against advertising smoking products.

Pot advocates, however, say Facebook needs to get its priorities straight. They believe marijuana is a less dangerous substance than products such as alcohol and tobacco.

“Facebook prides itself on being ahead of the times, but when it comes to marijuana, they’re behind the times,” said local marijuana advocate Mason Tvert, executive director of Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER). “They certainly would have no problems with images of alcohol. So, it’s unfortunate they’re unwilling to show an image of a safer substance.”

Tvert led two successful legalization campaigns in Denver, legalizing the simple possession of marijuana for adults in the city. He attempted a statewide initiative in 2006, but the initiative failed.

Colorado pot advocates are gearing up for a legalization ballot initiative in 2012. They expect to receive the support of the Just Say Now campaign.

Wayward Bill Chengelis, chairman of the U.S. Marijuana Party of Colorado, said it is reasonable to believe that following the 2012 elections, Colorado will have legalized marijuana, and it won’t be solely regulated to medicinal use.

“It’s not far fetched as it sounds,” said Chengelis. “In 2006 we voted to legalize adult use and lost at 43 percent. However, the demographics changed, are changing, and you could be part of the change.”

At last weekend’s Cannabis Festiva festival at Dick’s Sporting Goods Park, Chengelis proposed the Cannabis Habitation Colorado movement. He is asking all “cannabis lovers” to relocate to Colorado.

“We want to turn colorful Colorado into cannabis culture Colorado,” said Chengelis, who says he has received 50 commitments from out-of-state cannabis lovers.

“We can control one geographic area in America,” added Chengelis. “Cannabis Habitation Colorado. We will have legal pot in Colorado by the year 2012.”