Colorado LegiSource

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

Month: October 2017

  • 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.