Colorado Public Radio reports that Gov. Jared Polis fired two members of his Executive Clemency Advisory Board, Azra Taslimi and Hannah Seigel Proff, after they spoke publicly to The New York Times about the board twice rejecting Tina Peters’ clemency request. Polis says the issue was confidentiality and the disclosure of private votes, not the fact that the two advisory officials disagreed with him.
That is the official line. And maybe every comma in it is technically defensible. Clemency is supposed to be confidential. Advisory board votes are supposed to stay private. If members disclosed deliberations they agreed to keep confidential, that matters.
But come on. When advisors reject the governor’s big political mercy move, speak publicly about it, and then get bounced, normal Coloradans are allowed to smell smoke. This is not a “free Tina” piece or a “bury Tina” piece. This is about power, opacity, and the increasingly royal aroma coming off Colorado’s executive machinery.
The Bullet Point Brief
- CPR says Polis dismissed Taslimi and Proff 48 days after commuting Peters’ sentence, citing confidentiality concerns after their comments to The New York Times. The timing is doing a lot of cardio here.
- The two former board members said the clemency board reviewed Peters’ request twice and rejected it both times. Polis overruled the advisory board anyway, which he has the authority to do. But then the obvious question follows: what exactly is the point of the advisory process if advice can be ignored, dissent gets punished, and everyone is told this is principled leadership?
- Polis’ letter said board members must meet the highest standard of confidentiality in clemency matters. Fair. Clemency is serious business, not a group text with legal stationery.
- Proff called the firing hypocritical because Polis had cited free speech concerns when shortening Peters’ sentence, then removed board members after they spoke publicly about what they saw as a flawed process. That is the kind of irony you do not need a law degree to smell.
- CPR reports Peters’ case was unusual, according to Taslimi, because Peters had not exhausted her legal options, was appealing her conviction, and the board members said they did not see a waiver. Again, these are their claims. But if true, that makes the public-trust problem even worse.
My Bottom Line
This is a Polis palace-management problem now.
The governor wants to be seen as the libertarian-ish transparency wizard, the guy above the grubby machinery, the thoughtful adult in a fleece vest explaining democracy from a Substack perch. Then the machine gets embarrassed, and suddenly it is executive velvet rope and shut-your-mouth governance.
Nobody should pretend process does not matter. It does. Confidentiality in clemency protects applicants, victims, witnesses, and honest deliberation. If the board becomes a leak factory every time members dislike an outcome, the process collapses into political theater. Colorado already has enough political theater to qualify for a Broadway district.
But public trust matters too, and this looks poisonous. Polis overruled the board in one of the most politically radioactive cases in Colorado, then fired two advisors after they told the public the board rejected the request. Maybe that is all clean on paper. But “clean on paper” is not the same as trustworthy.
The insult is the arrogance. Colorado’s ruling class demands faith in institutions while treating institutional dissent like a bad Yelp review from a fired intern. They want the public to believe the adults have it handled, even as the whole thing looks like a closed-door knife fight with better stationery.
This is not about rehabilitating Tina Peters. It is about whether Colorado’s clemency process is serious, consistent, and worthy of trust, or whether it becomes another palace hallway where the governor’s narrative gets protected first and the public gets lectured later.
Source: Colorado Public Radio