<p>Since the amendment also bars “other things of value”, I wonder if it also would bar a second job? Surely a salary is a “thing of value;” a strict reading of this amendment (at least as posted here) would seem to forbid additional employment.</p>
<p>An update to the Colorado Case</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/government/article/0,2777,DRMN_23906_5329479,00.html[/url]”>http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/government/article/0,2777,DRMN_23906_5329479,00.html</a></p>
<p>From the Rocky Mtn News</p>
<p>Tarhunt:</p>
<p>I agree it’s so badly worded. About that bottle of wine, though… If someone comes with an expensive bottle, chances are that his/her portion of the meal would be of lesser value. ;)</p>
<p>Hat - Fair question about whether I voted for it or not. I am usually very leery about these kinds of initiatives and my inclination is usually to not support something like this. I was totally unaware of the scholarship issue. I don’t remember whether I voted for this or not, but suspect that I did since both the Democratic candidate for governor (Ritter) and the Republican candidate (Beauprez) both supported 41. </p>
<p>So it’s all my fault… :eek: !!!</p>
<p>I can’t say for sure if I voted for or against it, but I rarely vote for iniatives, so I’m HOPING I didn’t vote for this one!!</p>
<p>That update sure sounds like back pedeling to me - lots of pressure must have occured to have them attempt to ‘‘fix’’ it - what tics me off is that students - under the present interpretation - pay the piper just because their parent/guardian are government employees - not their fault at all - yet… I bet this gets fixed PDQ tho - for their sakes.</p>