Colorado LegiSource

An informational and educational resource for the Colorado General Assembly by the Office of Legislative Legal Services.

Year: 2017

  • Capitol Visitor Services: The Public Face for Legislative Council Staff

    by Gwynne Middleton

    While state capitol regulars may be most familiar with the nonpartisan Legislative Council Staff (LCS) for its hardworking crew who staff legislative committees, constituents are more likely to interact with LCS’s constituent services staff who assist legislators in responding to constituent questions, concerns, and requests for information, and their public relations team, Visitor Services.

    Colorado State Capitol/Credit: Ashley Athey

    Housed on the ground floor of the capitol building, Visitor Services specializes in making the Colorado legislature approachable for the general public, welcoming visitors from as far away as Australia and as close as Cap Hill through their public tour programming. With approximately 70,000 people taking official tours each year, Visitor Services’ docents offer an insider’s look at the architecture and history of one of the most memorable public buildings in the state.

    Recently I had the opportunity to connect with the Visitor Services’ Assistant Manager, Erika Osterberg, and pick her brain about the many ways the capitol tour serves as a bridge between the legislature and the public they are committed to serving. Below you’ll find our conversation, edited for length and clarity.

    How does the capitol tour help LCS fulfill its mission?
    Our mission is to inspire and educate the public about our historic statehouse and the work of our General Assembly. While our work is a bit different than that of our colleagues in LCS, we share a deep pride and commitment to service as ambassadors to the capitol and the state of Colorado. Providing accurate, nonpartisan, and unbiased information in a professional manner is a responsibility we take very seriously and something we require each guide to honor.

    What does a typical tour look like, and what elements of the tour are unique to Colorado?
    Our public tours last about one hour and include a brief historical overview of our state; information about the architecture, construction, and materials that make up the capitol; capitol artwork; and the legislative process.  All public tours also offer an opportunity for visitors to make a trip up to the dome observation area to enjoy our incredible 360-degree view of the Front Range, downtown Denver, and the plains to the east.

    For groups with reservations, we offer this tour by default but can also build into their schedule a docent-led tour of Mr. Brown’s Attic Museum. Additionally, during the legislative session, we help coordinate a “legislative tour,” where groups can spend time observing work on the floor and learn in greater detail about the work of the General Assembly.  These tours are primarily designed for student groups, and Visitor Services leads these tours alongside staff from House and Senate Services.

    We have a very gifted team of guides comprised of volunteers and part-time work-study students from the University of Colorado at Denver and Metropolitan State University of Denver, as well as five full-time temporary college student “summer guides” who work from May-August and whose enthusiasm and love for this building is extraordinary.

    We see and hear many wonderful compliments about our knowledgeable and friendly staff who bring this building to life for so many visitors.  While in many ways the beauty of this building speaks for itself, touring with a guide gives one a deeper appreciation of the history and impact of the capitol and the work that happens here.

    Why do you think offering this tour to the public matters?
    In addition to educating the public about the rich history and heritage of Colorado, we recognize our unique opportunity in helping them better understand the legislative process and the importance of public participation in state government.

    Many visitors—both local and international— are surprised to learn that the public is welcome to observe work on the floor or that they may testify in committee, for example. We see it as an important responsibility to demystify work that some people find intimidating in its complexity.

    Ms. Osterberg’s insights into Visitor Services’ tour programming highlight the long-term value of welcoming people from all walks of life to the capitol. Opportunities to witness the House of Representatives or Senate in action from the galleries of their respective chambers and to stroll through the hallowed halls of this historic building may make visitors feel more invested in following the state legislative process because of their newly informed connection to this physical landmark that represents Colorado and its citizens.

    Free public tours start on the first floor of the capitol and occur Monday through Friday, on the hour every hour between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Groups with fewer than 10 members may join these tours and should arrive at least 20 minutes early because the tours are popular and often reach the 30-person limit before the tour begins. If visiting with more than 10 people, be sure to make a reservation via Visitor Services’ online booking form. These reservations can be made up to one calendar year in advance.

    For those who are unable to participate in an official tour of the building, the Capitol Building Advisory Committee, in conjunction with LCS’s Visitor Services, is currently working through a proposal to develop an audio tour that visitors can complete at their own pace. For more information about this proposed audio tour option, contact Visitor Services.

     

  • Mother May I? No. You May Not.

    By Jery Payne

    Imagine you are a judge who is hearing a case. The case involves a 16-year-old applying for his first driver’s license. He fulfilled all the requirements to receive a driver’s license, but the clerk at the DMV counter refused to issue one. The clerk didn’t explain the refusal other than to point out that Colorado law says the following:

    42-2-104. Licenses issued – denied. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this article, the department may license the following persons in the manner prescribed in this article:

    (c) Any person sixteen years of age or older who has not reached his or her twenty-first birthday, as a minor driver.

    The statute that authorizes the issuance of licenses says that the clerk “may” issue licenses. “May” is understood to mean that the clerk is authorized, but not required, to issue the licenses. “Therefore,” the clerk explains, “I don’t have to issue the license. Bye, now.”

    It turns out that the applicant had been dating the clerk’s daughter, but they had recently broken up. You suspect the clerk is punishing the applicant.

    As the judge, what do you do? The clerk’s explanation is more or less a correct understanding of the statute. The word “may” gives authority but does not normally impose a duty. Yet the clerk’s decision is clearly an abuse of authority. Do you apply the statute as written? Or do you hold that the statute requires the clerk to issue the license? Do you interpret “may” to mean “shall”?

    Now, imagine you are the drafter writing this statute, and you only have the words “shall” and “may” in your drafter’s toolbox. The goal is to grant authority to the DMV to issue licenses, but you realize you might not want to use the word “shall” because one of the goals is to make sure the DMV also has the ability to deny licenses to unqualified applicants.

    Another approach may be to focus on the applicant: “A person shall submit the following.” At first this seems to make sense, but then you realize that the law now requires people to submit the appropriate paperwork even if they don’t want a driver’s license. So this doesn’t quite work.

    A third approach may be to focus on the applicant’s age: “An applicant shall be at least sixteen years of age.” At first, this also makes sense, but then you realize that you have just given people a duty to be a certain age. The applicant can’t control his or her age, so saying he or she has a duty to be at least sixteen years of age is a little weird. And this approach has caused quite a few problems. What you really want to say is that an applicant needs to be a certain age to be licensed. Therefore, these approaches that use “shall” don’t quite work.

    At the same time, the word “may” can lead to a case such as the one imagined with the power-hungry clerk denying licensure to a qualified applicant. The word “may” doesn’t quite capture the goal, which is both for the DMV to issue licensees to qualified applicants and to make sure that applicants are qualified before being issued a license.

    If neither “shall” nor “may” quite captures the intention, then you face a conundrum. Go back and read the statute. It is actually quite clever in how it communicates the intention with words that don’t quite work.

    This is where the word “must” helps. Add this word to your toolbox. First, start with the DMV’s duty to issue licenses: “The department shall issue driver’s licenses to qualified applicants.” Now it is clear that the department has a duty to treat everybody fairly. Then, add a requirement (but not a duty) that the applicant meet the desired standards: “To be qualified, the applicant must be at least sixteen years of age.” The word “must” communicates a requirement, which is what the statute is trying to get at.

    This is why the General Assembly added the word “must” to the drafter’s toolbox. “Must” doesn’t mean a person has a duty; it means something is necessary, and this, it seems to me, is exactly what the legislature meant when it enacted this statute.

    Duprey v. Anderson is an actual case where a statutory “may” put the court in another type of conundrum. The case dealt with the purging of voter rolls. The statute provided for voter rolls to be purged of the names of people who didn’t vote in the last election. It also said that the county clerk “may” mail notices to purged voters.

    Upon the purging of the names of registered electors who failed to vote in the preceding general election, the county clerk may mail postal cards to all such purged electors informing them that their names have been purged from the registration books of the county clerk for failure to vote at such general election.

    The court faced the choice of declaring the statute unconstitutional or interpreting the “may” to mean “shall.”

    Here’s why the constitution requires notice: Without notice, the person probably wouldn’t know that voting again means reregistering. The person could show up on election day and, because the person isn’t registered, be denied the ability to vote. The constitutional requirement of due process requires the government to give notice to a person when it acts in a way that may affect his or her rights. Otherwise, the person will not know to take steps necessary to avoid the loss of a right.

    Unfortunately, the statute in this case used “may.” The statute allowed the clerk to decide not to send the notice, so it didn’t actually require the person be notified. To avoid the constitutional issue, the court chose to interpret the word “may” to mean “shall.”

    Using the word “may” normally means that the affected person or entity is authorized to do something. It grants discretion. It shouldn’t be used for something that is necessary. Both the driver’s license and voter roll statutes used “may” for a requirement.

    When working on a bill, the word “may” sometimes makes the stakeholders happy, but it might also put a court or state agency in a quandary. The court or agency might end up, in essence, rewriting the statute to make it work, and this can lead to unanticipated results.

    So what’s the takeaway from these two examples? If the intent of a statute is to require a person or entity to do something, the statute should not use the word “may.” If the statute imposes a duty, it should use the word “shall”; if it imposes a requirement, it should use the word “must”; and if it simply authorizes an action, it should use the word “may.” The drafter has good reason for suggesting the bill use “must” or “shall” instead of “may.”

  • The FAQs of Responding to CORA Requests

    By Kate Meyer

    Odds are, if you spend any time in the Capitol as a legislator or staff member, you’ll be the recipient of a “Colorado Open Records Act” (CORA) request at some point. In fact, given the recent uptick in CORA requests—and no sign that this trend is abating anytime soon—you may even have multiple requests to deal with (if you haven’t already!).

    This article addresses issues and answers questions that frequently arise for legislators and legislative staff in responding to a CORA request. Specifically, we’ll talk about deadlines associated with requests, tips for finding records, and other considerations you may find helpful. [Note: In addition to CORA, this article refers to the policies of the Colorado General Assembly regarding public records requests. The policies are included in the “Legislative Policies Related to Public Records and E Mail”, dated November 2013 (“the Policies”) and are available through the “Open Records Requests & Policy” link at the bottom of the Colorado General Assembly website.]

    Deadlines

    I’ve received a CORA request; what do I do and when do I need to do it? The first thing a legislator or legislative staff person should do is contact the Office of Legislative Legal Services, and he or she should do so as soon as possible. As you will see below, time matters in responding to CORA requests. The OLLS staff will work with legislators and legislative staff to prepare a response. Legisource previously covered the nuts-and-bolts of being CORA’d. Please refer to that article, and the Policies, for a broad overview of the process … and keep in mind that CORA imposes strict deadlines to provide public records to requestors. Generally, upon receiving a CORA request, recipients have three business days to respond.

    This CORA request is dated more than three days ago, but I only just opened the email/got the letter/found out about it from OLLS; what is my deadline to respond? According to subsection II.C.5 of the Policies, the CORA clock starts ticking when the recipient actually receives the request or, in the case of a request to a legislator that is also sent to the Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS), the earlier of when the legislator actually receives the request or when the OLLS notifies the legislator of the request and confirms that the legislator is aware of it. So, how does this work in real life?

    Example 1: If a CORA request arrives on August 1st (i.e., during the interim) via United States mail to a legislator’s office at the Capitol, and the legislator doesn’t open it until he or she is in the office on September 1st, the period of time in which to respond commences on September 1st, and a response is due three business days later on September 4th.

    Example 2: If the same CORA request from Example #1 is also sent to the OLLS, the OLLS receives its copy on August 1st and promptly leaves a message for the legislator to whom it is addressed. The legislator and the OLLS actually discuss the request on August 4th, and that’s the day from which the response deadline is calculated. The response will be due three business days later on August 7th.

    Ack! I need some time to get to my records to determine whether I have any to produce. Despite the stringent deadlines that attach to any CORA request, there is some wiggle room (up to seven additional business days) for recipients when “extenuating circumstances” exist. Even so, the recipient must provide written notice to the requestor that he or she is invoking an extenuating-circumstances extension within the initial three-day response window.

    Ok, but what constitutes “extenuating circumstances”? Subsection II.D.3 of the Policies states that extenuating circumstances exist when a request is submitted during the legislative interim and the recipient legislator’s office is closed. CORA itself provides that extenuating circumstances apply when an agency can’t fulfill a broadly stated request encompassing a large volume of records because, in the case of the general assembly or its staff or service agencies, the general assembly is in session (section 24-72-203 (3)(b)(II)(B), C.R.S.).

    Of course, “extenuating circumstances” do not exist when the CORA request is merely inconvenient. Because someone may file a CORA request at any time and the turnaround period is so short, CORA requests can be incredibly inopportune. Although “[r]esponding to applications for inspection of public records need not take priority over the previously scheduled work activities of the custodian or the custodian’s designee,” (Policies, subsection II.D.2.a) CORA recipients must take their duties under the law seriously.

    Finding records

    How should I assess whether I have responsive records? First, read the language of the request carefully. Many requests are limited to certain dates, names, terms, topics, and types of records. A legislator responding to a CORA request should keep in mind the request’s parameters. Start by using the request itself to identify appropriate search terms. Often, certain records are specified or terms are provided. If not, reassess: Is the request sufficiently specific to enable the legislator to comply? If so, proceed, making reasonably diligent and good faith efforts to devise search terms to unearth any responsive records. If not, the requestor will need to be contacted to clarify his or her submission.

    So, do I just need to check through my emails? No, not necessarily. CORA and the Policies broadly define “public records” to include many types of records. Only if the request is explicitly limited to emails should the legislator confine his or her review to emails. If the CORA request seeks records in broad-based categories such as “all correspondence/records/documents” or “any communications,” the type of records covered by those broad categories is not limited to emails but could be any type of correspondence—written letters or memoranda, hand-written notes, etc.

    Reviewing and retrieving my records will take me a few hours because I potentially have quite a few records to produce. In that case, please STOP! If responding to a CORA request will require more than one hour, the requestor must pay a fee deposit based on the estimated time required to retrieve any potentially relevant records before the legislator proceeds with retrieving and reviewing the records. A legislator who anticipates that it will require more than one hour to respond to a request, should provide the OLLS an estimate of the number of records that may be responsive to the request. The OLLS will use this figure to calculate the estimated search-and-retrieval fee deposit the requestor must pay within 30 days. Only when this timely payment is received will the legislator proceed with actually assembling the requested records. If payment is not received within the 30-day period, the CORA request is deemed closed and no further action is required.

    The requestor must be notified of the requirement for payment of the search-and-retrieval fee deposit estimate within three business days after receipt of the request unless extenuating circumstances exist—see #3 in Deadlines, above.

    Because the fee deposit is based on an estimate, the actual number of records located and the corresponding time spent retrieving and reviewing those records in order to respond to the CORA request may fall below or exceed that preliminary estimate. If it falls below the estimate, the overage paid by the requestor is refunded to him or her. If it exceeds the estimate, the requestor must pay a supplemental fee to cover the amount of time the legislator estimates will be necessary to retrieve the remaining volume of records.

    Do I have to produce my personal records that contain a term or otherwise appear to fall within the scope of the CORA request? Not necessarily; it’s the nature of the record, and not the platform on which it is created or stored, that is determinative. The mere fact that a document is created during one’s tenure as a legislator does not render it a public record. CORA defines “public records” as writings “made, maintained, or kept by the state, any agency, … or political subdivision of the state … for use in the exercise of functions required or authorized by law or administrative rule or involving the receipt or expenditure of public funds.” Further, the Colorado Supreme Court has observed that the definition of “public records” in CORA is intended to preserve a balance between private and public interests. Accordingly, the scope of CORA’s “public records” definition limits the type of documents covered by CORA to those that relate to the performance of public functions or the receipt and expenditure of public funds. The Supreme Court found that “CORA was not intended to cover information held by a government official in his private capacity.”

    On the other hand, a public record is a public record regardless of the medium. So if a legislator uses a personal email account to conduct public business (e.g., relating to the performance of official functions), the records pertaining to that public business are still “public records” and must be disclosed if CORA’d.

    Is my constituent correspondence subject to disclosure under CORA? Potentially, yes. CORA’s definition of “public records” explicitly exempts a constituent communication that clearly implies by its nature or content that the constituent expects that it is confidential or is communicated to request assistance or information relating to a personal or private matter that affects the constituent and that is not publicly known. So other constituent correspondence (e.g., an email urging that a legislator vote for or against a particular bill) would not appear to meet this exemption. If a legislator has constituent correspondence that falls within the definition of “public records,” the OLLS will assist in redacting the constituent’s personal information before the document is released.

    Any other lifelines I can use? In addition to the OLLS, legislators may want to use their own staff members (aides, interns) for assistance in responding to a CORA request. Aides and interns are often tech-savvy and are familiar with the types, locations, and amount of records in a legislator’s custody. And legislators may want to apprise their caucus’s leaders or staff about CORA requests so that a caucus can track and assist with responses if it so desires.

    Other Considerations

    The requestor didn’t specify a reason for the request/I suspect the request is ill-intentioned. CORA does not require a requestor to explain why a request is submitted or for what purpose or in what manner any documents produced in response will be used. A record is subject to inspection or not; the impetus for the request is irrelevant.

    The request I’ve received is very, very broad; doesn’t the request need to be limited in some way? There is no requirement that a request contain any parameters; in fact, requests are often couched in expansive terms. For example, requestors can state that they are seeking “all records” that include a certain term (e.g., “energy” or “House Bill xxxx” or “the Jane Doe Lobbying Firm”), and they do not otherwise narrow the scope of the request. This approach can be deliberate (if a requestor isn’t certain what records may exist and thus wants to cast a wide net) or inadvertent (if a requestor doesn’t anticipate the large volume of records that a custodian may have in his or her possession that may contain the sought-after term). So long as the request is “sufficiently specific to enable the custodian to locate the information requested with reasonable effort” (Policies, subsection II.C.1.), that’s all that matters.

    Once I’ve been CORA’d, may I continue to discard records in accordance with my usual records retention process? No, at least not with respect to any records that may be included within the scope of the CORA request. Treat a CORA request like a litigation hold under which a person is obligated to preserve records for a certain amount of time in anticipation of future potential use. Once the CORA request has completely concluded, a legislator may proceed with document disposal pursuant to his or her written records retention and disposal policy. (For more information on developing such policies, please refer to Subsection IV of the Policies and consult with the OLLS.)

    Whew! Responding to that CORA request seemingly took forever; how can I reduce the amount of time the next one takes? A legislator can mitigate the time spent responding to requests by creating (and abiding by) a written records retention policy that establishes how long the legislator keeps various types of records, the frequency with which he or she disposes of records, etc. On one hand, the fewer records in existence, the lower the volume of records that a legislator may have to review and therefore potentially less time he or she will spend searching for, retrieving, and reviewing them. Alternatively, a legislator may feel it necessary, in order to adequately complete his or her legislative duties, to maintain records for significant lengths of time. The Policies contain a number of guidelines and recommendations regarding records categorization, retention, and deletion; a legislator may also consult with the OLLS. If a legislator decides to establish a written records retention policy that could affect the documents produced in response to a specific CORA request, the policy must be in place before the request was received.

  • Bill Requests – Fact or Fiction?

    by Patti Dahlberg

    Editor’s note: This article was originally posted on October 15, 2015. It has been updated for this posting.

    The 2018 legislative session is only a month or so away, which means the bill drafting season is quickly heating up. This seems like a good time to address a few items regarding bills and bill requests that may have perhaps gotten a little “lost in translation” here and there over the years. . .

    The legislator who submits the first bill request on a subject gets first ‘dibs’ on bill requests in that subject area and can prevent other legislators from submitting a similar bill request.
    The Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS) records each bill request into a bill tracking system as a legislator submits it and then assigns the request to a drafter according to the subject of the request. The OLLS attempts to assign seemingly similar bill requests to the same drafter. This helps in identifying potentially duplicate bill requests, which in turn helps the office to avoid duplicating bill drafting efforts by different drafters. If the OLLS identifies potential bill duplicates, the drafter will also try to notify the affected sponsors so that sponsors can decide whether they wish to introduce duplicate bills. But the office will not refuse a bill request on the grounds that it may be the same as another legislator’s request.

    Because of confidentiality concerns, the sponsors of the duplicate bill requests will need to agree to allow the drafter to share some information about their bill requests before this notification process can take place. See also “What happens when one bill is just like another?”, posted on December 1, 2016, for more information on duplicate bill requests.

    When a legislator submits a bill request, he or she is also “pulling a bill title” or otherwise deciding on the bill’s title.
    The OLLS considers the information it receives at the time of the bill request submission to be a starting point for the bill drafting process. This information enables the OLLS to describe the subject of the bill request in order to enter it into the bill tracking database, assign a tracking number, and assign a drafter based on the subject matter. Practicality dictates that the bill request will be referred to in some manner during the drafting process, but it is important for all to understand that whatever a bill is referred to during drafting is not the bill’s title. A bill’s title is the official, legal title of the bill when it is introduced, which must be a single subject. The drafter and bill sponsor will decide the bill’s title during the drafting process to ensure that the title accurately reflects the contents of the introduced bill. See also “Keeping a Bill Title Constitutional and Informative”, posted March 13, 2014, for more details.

    Being a joint prime sponsor on a bill will only count as half a bill request.
    Joint prime (or co-prime) sponsorship occurs when two legislators in the same house decide to jointly and equally sponsor a bill as it moves through the legislative process in that house. On the bill itself, joint prime sponsorship is indicated by the word “and” between the first two names listed on the bill. The rules concerning joint prime sponsorship are similar in the House (House Rule 27A) and Senate (Senate Rule 24A) and both state:

    (3) For purposes of any limitations on the number of bills that a member may request or introduce, bills with joint prime sponsors shall be counted as being requested and sponsored by both the prime sponsor and the joint prime sponsor. If either the prime sponsor or the joint prime sponsor has already requested or introduced the total number of bills authorized within any bill limitation, such sponsor shall obtain permission from the delayed bill committee to exceed such limits prior to requesting or introducing such a bill. (Emphasis added)

    In other words, the joint prime sponsored bill counts as one of each legislator’s five bill requests. For additional information regarding joint prime sponsorship, see “To Prime or to Joint Prime”, posted December 22, 2011 and “Bill Sponsor Basics and New Rules on Joint Prime Sponsorship of Bills”, posted on December 22, 2016.

    Are there any facts regarding bill requests?

    As a matter of fact, yes!

    • The first bill request deadline is December 1. The second bill request deadline is the seventh day of session, usually falling on the first Tuesday of the session calendar.
    • Joint Rule 24(b)(1)(A) limits legislators to five bill requests each session. These five bill requests are in addition to any appropriation, committee-approved, or sunset bill requests that a legislator may choose to carry. A legislator may also ask permission from the House or Senate Committee on Delayed Bills to submit additional bill requests or to waive a bill request deadline.
    • To request the five bills allowed by rule, a legislator must meet the bill request deadlines listed in Joint Rule 23(a)(1)—submitting three requests by the December deadline and two requests by the January deadline for a total of five bill requests.
    • Because Joint Rule 24(b)(1)(A) allows a legislator to submit only two bill requests after the December deadline, legislators are encouraged to submit more than three bill requests before that deadline. Submitting more than three requests by Dec. 1 may allow a legislator the flexibility to replace a bill request if he or she later withdraws a request. If a legislator only submits one request by the December deadline, then he or she forfeits the other two of the three “early” requests.
    • If a legislator has requested more than five bills before the first bill request deadline, the OLLS will contact that legislator early in December to have him or her identify the five bill requests that the legislator wants the OLLS to continue drafting. Bill drafting will stop on any bill request not designated as one of the legislator’s first five bills until the legislator receives delayed bill authorization for introduction of the bill.

    For additional information on making and keeping bill requests, see “Bill Requests – Making and keeping the five allowed by rule”, posted September 1, 2011. Please disregard any references in the article to specific session dates.

  • Sharon Eubanks Takes the Reins at OLLS

    We are happy to announce that the Executive Committee appointed Sharon Eubanks Director of the Office of Legislative Legal Services. Sharon has served the office and the General Assembly in many capacities during her 31 years with the OLLS, applying her cleverness to serve the General Assembly. As of October 4, she broke new ground as the first woman to lead the OLLS.

    Sharon started her career with the OLLS on September 1, 1986, as a legislative attorney drafting in the areas of finance, education, and local government. She quickly rose to the position of assistant team leader and, in 1996, was appointed the team leader of the Government team, supervising four attorneys and three legislative editors working in the areas of taxation, government finance, state and local government, infrastructure, elections, and school finance.

    When the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights (TABOR) passed in 1992, Doug Brown, Director of the OLLS at the time, knew he would need in expert in all things TABOR. Knowing Sharon’s already considerable expertise in tax issues and her analytical turn of mind, Doug called on Sharon to lead both the office and legislators in understanding and implementing TABOR. Today, she is recognized both within and outside the capitol as one of the leading TABOR experts in the state.

    In the late 1990s, Sharon partnered with Debbie Haskins to oversee the rule review process in the office. Additionally, Sharon served as the OLLS liaison to the Joint Budget Committee for several years, assisting the committee with legal questions arising through the budget process, overseeing drafting of JBC bills, and reviewing long bill footnotes.

    Since April 1, 2004, Sharon has served as Deputy Director, covering a myriad of duties and projects. One of her most important duties has been serving as the OLLS Director’s designee on the Title Board, working with designees of the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to set titles for citizen initiatives. She has overseen and worked with outside counsel on litigation involving the General Assembly and individual legislators, including, most notably, writing interrogatories on behalf of the General Assembly and several briefs to the Colorado Supreme Court to determine whether transportation revenue anticipation notes are subject to prior voter approval under TABOR. (They are.)

    For several years, Sharon has also been one of the office’s experts on ethics issues. Over the years she has helped staff House and Senate committees on ethics. In addition, she has presented many programs—within the office and for the National Conference of State Legislatures—on the ethical duties of legislative staff and the attorney-client relationship between staff and the legislative institution.

    Sharon is also one of the office’s foremost experts on the legislative rules. During the term of our previous Director, Dan Cartin, Sharon was the liaison to the Senate to assist with rule issues that arose during floor work and, upon request, to consult with leadership. This experience will be especially helpful in her role as Director.

    Sharon brings many strengths to her role as director in addition to her years of experience with the office. Sharon is thoughtful, meticulous, hard-working, solidly nonpartisan, and fiercely committed to serving and protecting the General Assembly. She is also helpful and supportive to both legislators and her colleagues, having served as a mentor to many attorneys in the office. Above all, Sharon is dedicated to ensuring that the OLLS continues to provide excellent work products and the highest possible level of service to the General Assembly.

    As the OLLS nears its fiftieth anniversary, we are confident that Sharon will provide the same high-quality leadership we have enjoyed since 1968, guaranteeing that we remain the best legislative legal services office in the nation.

     

  • Joint Budget Committee to Write State’s Budget for the 58th Time

    Joint Budget Committee to Write State’s Budget for the 58th Time

    By Jessica Wigent

    This week LegiSource publishes its final installment in the series on statutory committees that oversee the legislative staff agencies. The series so far has addressed the history and duties of the Legislative Council, the Audit Committee, and the Committee on Legal Services. We close the series by looking at the Joint Budget Committee.

    The evolution of what would become the Joint Budget Committee, or JBC, began in 1955, when then-Representative Palmer Burch, a member of the joint subcommittee on Appropriations, took the reins of the budget from the governor to the legislature. This was the first, as John Straayer describes in his book The Colorado General Assembly, “legislative effort to develop budgetary expertise independent of … the executive branch.” It turned out well: The budget passed that year, with zero (!) amendments, and was signed into law. The next year, the General Assembly, impressed with the subcommittee’s efforts, approved an appropriation to hire outside staff to work specifically on the budget. And finally, in 1959, the JBC was officially created.

    With great power comes great responsibility

    You won’t find the word “budget” in the constitution Colorado adopted in 1876, but passing the state’s budget is possibly the most important duty of the General Assembly. The budget is a reflection of the state’s priorities—legislators have to balance it, and they have to pass it. And for that to happen, they depend on the JBC.

    As Bob Ewegen, a statehouse reporter for the Denver Post in the 1970s, wrote in the introduction to Budgeting is the Answer, there are no monuments to budget committees, because “the complex and intricate mechanisms which govern society may engage men’s minds–but seldom stir their souls.” And yet the JBC’s invention and development was and has been not only innovative but integral to the success of the state.

    Considered by many to be the most powerful committee in the General Assembly, the JBC is also the smallest.

    Former Senator Joe Shoemaker, the author of Budgeting, and a member of the JBC for 12 years, described why the size of the committee, just six members—three from the House and three from the Senate—is important:

    “Six was a good number to provide team spirit and camaraderie that helped us face the pressure and criticism bound to come with good budget making.”

    As described by the Senator, the JBC is a David-sized committee with a Goliath-sized task. The six members include the chairs of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, a logical choice as the work of those committees and the JBC is inextricably connected. The former deals with the funding requirements of newly introduced legislation and the latter the ongoing fiscal needs of the state. The other four JBC members—one majority and one minority member from each house—are appointed by their respective majority or minority leader. In the Senate (see Senate Rule 21), the appointees are first elected by their respective party caucus.

    A condensed version of the members’ very busy terms includes: Public hearings of budget requests in the fall before the legislative session begins; writing the budget in more public hearings, line by line, for each department and institution, each line of which requires a vote; sending the bill to the appropriations committees, the party caucuses, and finally the floors of the House and Senate, where it’s 99.9% likely to be amended, which means after its passage in both houses, the JBC must meet as the conference committee to navigate the changes made to the budget in each house and how to patch it up.

    More than just number$

    For more than half a century, the various members of the JBC have been, according to Shoemaker, “pioneering in the complex, often dreadfully dry, but intensely important saga of governmental budgeting.”

    Among their innovations and accomplishments—the name of the budget itself: The “Long Bill”, a not-wildly-creative-yet-accurate description for a document hundreds of pages long that when combined with the previous years’ budgets reflects a comprehensive history of the priorities of the state. If you’ve ever contemplated its many pages, you’ll notice that it contains line items, not just lists of numbers, and that headnotes and footnotes spell out the legislative intent of the funds appropriated. These notes are the answers to the question JBC members ask department heads and agency administrators: “What’s the money for?”

    Members of the JBC also developed the idea of budgeting for an FTE, or a full-time-equivalent position, as opposed to appropriating money in the abstract for new hires, as well as the performance budget, the first of which was presented in 1974, which allows the JBC to take into account a department’s or institution’s performance goals and up-to-date reporting on their budgeted and actual expenditures.

    The JBC’s innovations have proven that, for a budget to serve the people, it must be more than a collection of numbers and dollar signs.

    With the help of their small, but talented staff, whose dedication the Senator called “contagious” (in a good way!), the members of the JBC are statutorily required to:

    • Study the management, operations, programs, and fiscal needs of state government;
    • Hold hearings to review budget requests of each state agency and institution;
    • Review performance plans and performance evaluations of departments, considering each department’s responsibilities, goals and objectives, and, when appropriate, prioritize requests for new funding that are intended to enhance productivity, improve efficiency, reduce costs, and eliminate waste;
    • Estimate the amount of revenue expected from existing and proposed taxes;
    • Study, “from time to time,” the state’s financial condition, fiscal organization, and budgeting; and accounting, reporting, personnel, and purchasing procedures; and
    • Work with the capital development committee concerning new methods of financing the state’s ongoing capital construction, capital renewal, and controlled maintenance needs.

    And while the hatchet that once hung behind the JBC members as they questioned administrators, and which more recently was mounted to a piece of wood in the middle of the dais in the Committee’s room, may have been retired, Senator Shoemaker seemed to think it was an imperfect metaphor anyway. He described the work of the JBC as “not the result of thoughtless chopping … [but of] a carefully considered form of fiscal surgery.”

    Whichever metaphor suits your view of the Joint Budget Committee, you’re in luck—the Committee will begin holding a series of (many) meetings on Monday, November 13, 2017, to hear the governor’s budget request and the briefings from the state’s agencies, departments, and institutions.

     

    An earlier version of this article misspelled the name of Representative Palmer Burch. We regret and have corrected the error.

  • OLLS Says Good-bye to Long-time Employee Debbie Haskins

    Sadly, the Office of Legislative Legal Services recently lost one of our own. Debbie Haskins passed away unexpectedly Saturday, October 7, from heart failure. Debbie served Colorado legislators for 34 years, practically her entire professional career. She took great pride and satisfaction in her service as nonpartisan legislative staff, helping literally hundreds of legislators achieve their legislative goals and serve the people of Colorado.

    On October 1, 1983, Debbie began her career with the Office as a legislative attorney drafting bills. She developed great expertise in the areas of human services, criminal law, tort reform, and Medicaid. She was our go-to person for LGBT rights issues, state government organization issues, procedures for executive agency rules, and various family and children’s issues.

    For a time during the ’90’s, Debbie was the supervising team leader for the group of attorneys and legislative editors drafting in the areas of criminal law, human services, public health, and civil law. And for the last seven years—in addition to drafting bills—she served as one of the office’s assistant directors, overseeing the rule review process, staffing the Committee on Legal Services, overseeing training for new employees and out-of-cycle training for new legislators, editing and maintaining the office’s drafting manual, and covering a myriad of other activities and details that helped keep our office running.

    Debbie was a trusted colleague. She had been with the office the longest of anyone currently working here, and her memory, experience, wisdom, and bulging filing cabinets were invaluable assets that she shared generously. More than that, she was a friend. She was always available to talk with you about rules, about drafting issues you were running into, or about other challenges you were encountering. She had a quick smile and an easy, infectious laugh, and she enjoyed being helpful.

    Debbie enjoyed being helpful outside the office as well. She was an active member of her church, serving on many committees and singing in the choir. And she was an indefatigable supporter of the Girl Scouts, serving as a troop leader, a chaperone on international trips, and a mentor for girls who were working on their Girl Scout Gold Award. For several years, she put in countless hours preparing for and helping host the annual Girl Scout Day at the Capitol.

    And Debbie wasn’t just helpful in Colorado. She was helpful across the country. There are many legislative staff across the country who had the pleasure of working with Debbie through her active involvement with the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). In 2009-10, Debbie served as vice chair and in 2010-11 she served as chair of the Legal Services Staff Section (now known as the Research, Legal, Editorial, and Committee Staff (RELACS) association), an NCSL-sponsored organization of legislative staff throughout the United States. In addition, she served on several RELACS association committees, including serving several years on the program committee, helping to assure that RELACS provided the highest quality professional development possible at national NCSL meetings.

    Debbie was also well known for teaching many of those professional development programs, both in-person at national meetings and through webinars. Most recently, she participated on a panel discussing The Drafting Manual as a Tool for Statutory Interpretation presented at the RELACS professional development seminar in September. While perhaps not the most exciting topic to non-legislative staffers, our drafting manual was very important to Debbie since she had diligently edited and updated it for decades.

    For her work with NCSL, Debbie received the Legal Services Staff Section Chair Award in 2011. And in 2012 she received the Legislative Staff Achievement Award for her long and distinguished career with the Colorado General Assembly.

    Clearly, Debbie was a valued, respected, and beloved member of the Capitol Community, well known and greatly appreciated by legislators, lobbyists, and staff from all of the legislative staff agencies. We will deeply miss her positive presence in the months and years to come, but she leaves to us a model of hard work and dedication to nonpartisan service that we will do well to follow.

     

  • The Committee on Legal Services

    by Patti Dahlberg

    This week LegiSource continues its series on the statutory committees that oversee the legislative staff agencies. So far the series has looked at the Legislative Council and the Audit Committee. This week, we review the history and duties of the Committee on Legal Services.

    The Committee on Legal Services is one of four joint “standing” or year-round legislative committees of the Colorado General Assembly charged with the oversight of a legislative staff agency.  The Committee on Legal Services has oversight responsibilities regarding review of executive branch agency rules, legislation review, publication of the Colorado Revised Statutes, and the general operations of the Office of Legislative Legal Services. In addition, the Committee also introduces several key statutorily required bills related to its oversight responsibilities and key responsibilities regarding state government.

    The Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS) and the Committee on Legal Services (Committee) were created in 1968 in Senate Bill 1 – an act “Concerning the Administrative Reorganization of State Government.” Section 178 of the bill established a Legislative Drafting Office as part of the legislative department “in order to promote the careful consideration of bills before their presentation to the general assembly by making the best technical advice and information readily available to legislators . . .”.  Prior to this date, employees of the attorney general’s office in the executive branch drafted the bills. Although renamed, repealed, and reenacted, the OLLS and its purpose remains the same. [Section 2-3-501, Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.)]

    The General Assembly created the Committee, originally called the Legislative Drafting Committee, to supervise and direct the operation of the newly created drafting office. Again, there was a new name, some new wording, but still the same purpose. See also, “Legislature Passes the Laws – But Executive Branch Used to Write Them” (November 3, 2016) and “Revisor of Statutes Ensures Access to Colorado’s Laws” (November 17, 2016).

    Committee basics. Pursuant to section 2-3-502, C.R.S., the Committee consists of 10 members of the Colorado General Assembly. Committee members include the chairs of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, or their respective designees, four members appointed from the House of Representatives, and four members appointed from the Senate. There must be two members appointed from each major political party, and at least one member from each party in each chamber must be an attorney, if there is an attorney in that party and chamber. The Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, and the minority leaders of each chamber, appoint the Committee members from their respective parties and chambers, subject to the approval of a majority of the members in each respective chamber,  within the first 10 days after a first regular session convenes. The Committee selects its own chair and vice-chair. The Committee may meet as often as necessary, but is required to meet at least twice in each calendar year.

    The Committee has the following statutory duties:

    • Supervision and direction of Office of Legislative Legal Services. Pursuant to section 2-3-502 (1), C.R.S., the Committee is to “supervise and direct operations of the Office of Legislative Legal Services.” One of six legislative staff agencies, the OLLS is the nonpartisan, in-house counsel for the Colorado General Assembly and drafts legislation and produces the statutes in addition to its other statutory duties. In its supervisory role, the Committee recommends to the Executive Committee the appointment of a director for the OLLS and approves the OLLS’s annual budget.
    • Overseeing the review of executive branch agency rules by the OLLS staff. Under section 24-4-103 (8)(c)(I), C.R.S., all rules adopted or amended by state agencies during a one-year period that begins November 1 and continues through the following October 31 automatically expire the following May 15 unless the General Assembly passes a specific bill to postpone this expiration date. A “rule” is a formal written statement of law that a state agency adopts to carry out statutory policies and administer programs. The General Assembly authorizes an agency to make rules and then reviews and, if necessary, invalidates any rules that are not within the agency’s statutory authority or that conflict with state law. The OLLS staff review each rule and bring any rule issue they cannot resolve with an agency to the Committee for a rule hearing. At the hearing, the Committee decides whether to recommend expiration or extension of the rule. The Committee annually sponsors the Rule Review Bill that contains the Committee’s rule recommendations. See also, “The Legislature’s Role in the Review of Administrative Rules” (September 1, 2011) and “Legislative Oversight of State Agency Rule-making” (September 4, 2014).
    • Overseeing Legislation Review. Pursuant to section 24-4-108 (7), C.R.S., the Committee has established procedures for the annual review of newly adopted legislation and its impact on agency rules. After the legislative session ends each year, the OLLS staff identifies legislation that affects rules or requires or permits agencies to adopt rules. The OLLS staff sends a letter to each principal department listing bills that affect that department’s rule-making authority. In addition, the OLLS staff is directed by section 24-4-103 (8)(e), C.R.S., to notify bill sponsors, co-sponsors, and committees of reference when the OLLS receives rules that implement newly enacted legislation. The OLLS staff sends these notices by e-mail.
    • Litigation involving the General Assembly or its members. Pursuant to section 2-3-1001, C.R.S., the Committee may retain legal counsel to represent the General Assembly as a whole, the House, the Senate, a legislative committee, an individual member of the General Assembly, or a legislative staff agency or employee of the General Assembly in all actions and legal proceedings that arise from the performance of  legislative duties.
    • Supervising the preparation, printing, and distribution of the Colorado Revised Statutes. The Revisor of Statutes must perform numerous duties related to revising and compiling the Colorado Revised Statutes and Session Laws, all under the supervision and direction of the Committee (sections 2-3-701 to 2-3-705, C.R.S.). Section 2-5-104, C.R.S., authorizes the Committee to introduce one or more Revisor’s Bills each year, which may address “amendments or repeals of obsolete, inoperative, imperfect, obscure, or doubtful laws as the Revisor of Statutes considers necessary to improve the clarity and certainty of the statutes.” The Committee also sponsors an annual bill to enact the legislation adopted at the previous legislative session as the statutory law of Colorado. The Committee must contract through a bidding process for the printing, binding, and packaging of softbound volumes of the Colorado Revised Statutes and Session Laws. In addition, as part of its publication responsibilities, the Committee is overseeing the implementation of the “Uniform Electronic Legal Material Act” (section 24-71.5-101, C.R.S., et. seq.) as it relates to the electronic publication of the statutes and other legal materials.

  • Audit Committee Created to Boost Oversight of Public Money

    by Julie Pelegrin

    This week LegiSource continues its series on the statutory committees that oversee the legislative staff agencies. Last week, the series looked at the Legislative Council. This week, we review the history and duties of the Audit Committee.

    By the 1960s, the Colorado General Assembly, like many other state legislatures, was starting to consider ways to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of state government. To that end, they created a legislative interim study committee that met each interim starting in 1961 and continuing through the early 1970s.  Each year, the committee took up different aspects of state government to study. By the end of the legislative interim, they published a report, which usually included findings and recommendations for constitutional and statutory changes.

    In the legislative interim of 1963, one of the study topics was the state auditing function. At that time, the State Auditor was a constitutional officer in the executive branch elected to a four-year term. The constitution prohibited both the state treasurer and the state auditor from running for consecutive terms, so it sometimes worked out that the same two persons would swap offices at each election. The State Auditor’s only constitutional duty in 1963 was to serve on the State Board of Equalization, which reviews valuations for property tax assessments and approves property tax manuals and appraisal procedures. The State Auditor’s two main statutory duties were conducting post-audits of all state agencies in Colorado and reviewing the audits made of local governments.

    At that time, state auditing occurred in three areas, all housed in the executive branch: Pre-auditing by the state controller’s office, post-auditing by the State Auditor, and internal auditing within each state agency. A post-audit consisted of determining whether:

    • Revenues were collected in compliance with the law;
    • Money was expended in accordance with legislative intent and sound financial practice;
    • The executive branch was carrying out only the activities authorized by the legislature; and
    • The assets of the state were safeguarded and used properly.

    The General Assembly received the findings and recommendations generated by the post-audits, but the post-audits were conducted by an executive branch official.

    By the 1960s, almost half of the states had adopted the position that the post-audit function should be housed in the legislative branch and conducted independent of the executive branch, because the legislative branch was considered to be the guardian of the public money.

    Based on their studies, the committee recommended that the General Assembly refer a constitutional amendment to the ballot to move the State Auditor and the functions of the State Auditor to the legislative branch “where the post-audit function properly belongs.” The recommended constitutional amendment created section 49 of article V of the Colorado Constitution, which authorizes the General Assembly to appoint a state auditor, without regard to political affiliation, who must be a certified public accountant. The State Auditor’s term would be five years, a person would be limited to serving no more than two consecutive terms, and the General Assembly would be able to remove the State Auditor from office for cause with the approval of 2/3 of the legislators in both houses.

    The committee also recommended that, regardless of whether the constitutional amendment was adopted, the General Assembly should create a joint legislative audit review committee to assist in carrying out the post-audit program in the state.

    In November of 1964, voters passed Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 3, adopting the committee’s recommended constitutional changes.[1] During the 1965 regular legislative session, the General Assembly adopted House Bill No. 1051. The bill enacted section 2-3-101, C.R.S., which created the Legislative Audit Committee consisting of eight members: Four appointed from each chamber, with two each appointed by the President and minority leader of the Senate and the Speaker and minority leader of the House of Representatives. All of the appointments must be approved by a majority vote of the legislators elected to the chamber from which the committee members are appointed, but an appointing authority may temporarily replace one of his or her appointments with a different legislator without the approval of the chamber.

    Legislative Audit Committee members are appointed every two years at the beginning of the first legislative session of each general assembly, and a legislator may be appointed to multiple terms on the committee so long as he or she remains in the General Assembly. The committee selects its chair and vice-chair from among the committee membership and sets its own rules of procedure. The committee may also appoint subcommittees to help it complete its duties, which may include legislators who are not members of the committee and other persons.

    The Legislative Audit Committee must meet at least quarterly each year and has the following major duties:

    • Examining the qualifications and abilities, without regard to political affiliation, of persons who apply for the position of State Auditor and, after consulting with the executive committee, nominating the most qualified person or persons for the General Assembly to select as State Auditor;
    • Reviewing the State Auditor’s activities and post-audit reports of all departments, state institutions of higher education, agencies of state government, and other public agencies including local governments and submitting its recommendations to the General Assembly, the Governor, and other interested officials;
    • Reviewing the performance audits that the State Auditor is required to conduct;
    • Reviewing the enterprise designations of the auxiliary facilities of the state institutions of higher education and the enterprise designation of the student loan division to ensure compliance with the statute and with the constitution and to determine whether any of the designations should be allowed to expire; and
    • After receiving a report involving retaliation against a state employee for disclosing information concerning waste of public funds or mismanagement of a state agency, directing the auditor to investigate and determine whether a fiscal audit, performance audit, or management study of the issue is necessary. Based on the investigation report, the committee will direct the State Auditor to immediately conduct a special audit or a management study or it may direct the State Auditor to wait until the regularly scheduled audit.

    You can access the committee’s schedule and agenda, as well as recently released audits, through the Legislative Audit Committee page on the General Assembly website. The committee’s next meeting is scheduled for October 30.

    [1] Section 49 of Article V of the Colorado constitution was amended in 1974 to allow a person to serve unlimited consecutive terms as State Auditor.

  • Legislative Council Provides Crucial Oversight and Guidance to the General Assembly

    By Darren Thornberry

    Editor’s Note: Currently, there are four statutory committees whose duties include overseeing the operations of four of the legislative staff agencies. It appears that the General Assembly created each of these committees with the goal of increasing the effectiveness of the General Assembly, improving its ability to pass well-considered legislation, and improving its ability to provide independent oversight of the use of public money.

    Over the next four weeks, we will look at each of these committees – the Legislative Council, the Audit Committee, the Committee on Legal Services, and the Joint Budget Committee – why they were created, how they operate, and their current duties.

    The Colorado General Assembly’s Legislative Council is one of its most vital committees, at times mistaken for the state’s hard-working Legislative Council staff for which it provides oversight. The public might be more familiar with interim study committees, which often receive testimony from Colorado citizens on a variety of subjects, but the Legislative Council committee also takes up a number of important tasks.

    Colorado’s Legislative Council was statutorily created in the 1953 legislative session. At the time, legislatures usually met for much shorter sessions than they do today, which caused some legislators to feel that the body wasn’t functioning as well as it should or that its role was being usurped by governors while they were not in session. Echoing the sentiment of other state legislatures of the time, Colorado’s Legislative Council was seen as a means to help legislators address problems that would otherwise not be seeing legislative solutions. The Council was designed to meet during the legislative interim to study issues of interest and provide policy recommendations to the General Assembly.

    When it created the Legislative Council, the General Assembly immediately realized that it would need staff support. The first Legislative Council staff director came and went so fast that his name has all but been erased, but the second director, Shelby Harper, started in November 1953. With a single assistant and a $12,000 appropriation, the work of serving legislators began. Harper moved on to another career pursuit in the winter of 1957 and was succeeded by Lyle Kyle, who served as director until 1985. In the 1967 legislative session, the Legislative Council staff was comprised of enough people to staff, for the first time, the three busiest committees in each house: Judiciary, State Affairs, and Business Affairs.

    One of four statutory legislative committees that oversee legislative staff agencies, the Council is a joint standing committee, created in section 2-3-301 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Section 2-3-301 (1), C.R.S., reads in part:

    There is hereby created a legislative council, referred to in this part 3 as the ‘council’, which consists of an executive committee, six senators with majority party members appointed by the president of the senate and minority party members appointed by the minority leader of the senate, with the approval of a majority vote of the members elected to the senate, and six representatives with majority party members appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives and minority party members appointed by the minority leader of the house of representatives, with the approval of a majority vote of the members elected to the house of representatives.

    Today, within the Legislative Council, the Executive Committee consists of the President, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader of the House of Representatives. The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate alternately serve one-year terms as the chair and vice-chair of the Executive Committee. In 2017, President Kevin Grantham has served as chair. In 2018, Speaker Crisanta Duran will assume the chairmanship.

    The remaining members of the Council are appointed no later than 10 days after the first regular session of each General Assembly convenes. Membership on the Council terminates with the appointment of a member’s successor or upon the termination of a member’s term of office in the General Assembly, whichever occurs first. A member may be appointed to succeed himself or herself.

    In 2016, Senate Bill 16-156 changed the authority of the President, the Speaker, and the minority leaders to make temporary appointments. Now, any of these appointing authorities may temporarily appoint a member to replace a current committee member without the approval of a majority of the members elected to the applicable body.

    What Does the Committee Do?
    The Legislative Council meets quarterly (twice during session), to review and approve the Legislative Council staff budget and to review letters or bills that request creation of new interim study committees. The Council’s other important duties (2-3-303 C.R.S.) are to:

    • Approve bills recommended by interim legislative council committees or other committees created by statute or resolution, which operate during the interim, no later than October 15 in odd-numbered years and November 15 in even-numbered years;
    • Approve the Colorado Blue Book, which provides information on statewide measures and on the judges who are on the ballot for retention during an election;
    • At times, review modifications to state implementation plans relating to air quality;
    • Collect information concerning the government and general welfare of the state;
    • Consider important issues of public policy and questions of statewide interest;
    • Prepare for presentation to the members and various sessions of the general assembly such reports, bills, or otherwise, as the welfare of the state may require; and
    • Examine the effects of constitutional provisions and statutes and recommend desirable alterations.

    The Executive Committee of the Legislative Council meets separately, and its duties include oversight of the legislative service agencies and their directors, establishment of policies regarding legislative management and legislative procedures, and introduction of an annual legislative appropriation bill. The Executive Committee is responsible for approving the Legislative Council staff budget reviewed by the Legislative Council, along with the budget requests of the House and Senate and other legislative staff agencies. The Executive Committee also exercises legislative management functions when the General Assembly is not in session and may set the date for the convening of the next regular session of the General Assembly.

    The Legislative Council is scheduled to meet at 10 a.m. on November 15 in Committee Room 271 at the Colorado State Capitol to review interim committee legislation. At the time of this posting, the agenda has not been released.