Jay, what one change above all would you lobby for at the state Capitol affecting the coroner’s office?
As a fortunate circumstance, I know a fair number of those in the Colorado General Assembly by first name. They welcome, and trust my input.
As I enter this office, I am certain that I will see several areas that are in need of reform, but I have identified two of them immediately.
First, I would lobby vigorously against the idea that Coroners must be Forensic Pathologists.
Currently, there is a strong move afoot by the Coroners who are physicians to require that Coroners in Colorado all be physicians. Beyond the obvious self-dealing aspects of that push, there are grave dangers associated with such a direction.
The wise folks who set up Colorado’s governmental structure in the 1800s set up a scheme where an administrator decision-maker could hire medical personnel, investigative personnel and others to support his overarching task. The Coroner supervises three areas of function in his office, legal, investigative, and medical. The seal of the Colorado Coroners Association recognizes that the Coroner has medico-legal functions.
Currently, there are only eight Coroners who are also Forensic Pathologists (FP). That leaves the remaining of the 64 Colorado county Coroners to be selected from the best administrators that their county can provide.
There are only about four hundred Forensic Pathologists in the nation. They are all gainfully engaged where they are. In Colorado, we have 17 Forensic Pathologists. Subtract from that number those who are fully employed as Coroners now, that leaves only 9 to draw from. Those who lobby for having Coroners in Colorado mandated as FPs would have 56 vacancies occur overnight (tossing overboard many experienced and fully qualified Coroners), with only 9 FPs to replace them. This would paralyze the Coroner’s offices in almost every county in the state.
Especially given the sad situation that has developed in the Arapahoe County Coroner’s office, it makes no sense to put a narrowly-focused technician in charge of this office.
It is easy to debunk this move of the physician-coroners in Colorado by suggesting to them that the Legislature should decree that all Coroners must be highly-trained investigators, or lawyers. They would recoil in horror that any other of the three branches of responsibility should rule over them. This would demonstrate the root of the problem.
In Colorado, Art. 16-2.5-104 declares the Coroner to be a peace officer. Further, Art. 13-10-604 and 605 requires the Coroner to assume the duties of the Sheriff, if he is incarcerated, or unable to fulfill his duties. In these days of increasing violence, this provision actually might be more reasonable than in years before. I have been a prosecutor, and have spent many hours riding with law enforcement officers. I understand criminal law, and procedure. I can assume the duties of the Sheriff seamlessly, without dropping the ball. Now, imagine a doctor, any doctor, attempting to carry out these duties.
Secondly, I would lobby vigorously against the proposition being advanced by some Coroners that they should be appointed rather than elected.
If there ever was a time when we can see the danger of appointed office-holders it is today.
The Presidents of the United States, in the last few decades, have created departments, and appointed over them “czars”. Our current President has appointed 32 “czars”. None of these people were exposed to even so much as a single congressional hearing regarding their suitability for such office. Each of these people make far-reaching policy decisions that affect our daily lives in dramatic fashion. None of these people are subject to public accountability which comes from the election process.
Here in Colorado, the Supreme Court has been filled with appointed office-holders who have never been exposed to the prospect of public approval. It can be argued that the members of such a court should never be swayed by public opinion, and appointment is a way to avoid that trap. However, the court (minus Justice Mullarkey who just announced her retirement) had for several years seen itself as a body who were empowered to make laws, and to dismiss laws that they did not favor. As a single example of a larger problem, we can see what has happened to TABOR. The “taxpayer’s bill of rights” was established by a grass-roots movement in Colorado by citizens who were simply tired of out-of-control taxation and spending. But in a series of decisions, the Supreme Court has chipped-away at the significant provisions of that law until it has finally become an empty shell. The dissents filed by Justice Eid in each of those most recent cases is instructive as to how TABOR has been finally, and completely, gutted.
Now, there is a grass-roots movement to dismiss those justices who are up for retention this year, called “Clear the Bench”. It has gained such popularity and momentum that Justice Mullarkey privately cited this group’s actions as her reason for resigning in the last few weeks.
If the Supreme Court justices were elected (using the Texas model), this problem would not have arisen in Colorado.
The bottom-line for us to see is simple. When an office is elected, the people have the opportunity to hold the office-holder to account at the end of each term. In appointed positions, once the appointing authority has exercised his discretion, there is no public accountability to follow.
