Colorado LegiSource

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

Author: olls

  • Do-overs in the Legislative Process

    by Julie Pelegrin

    Editor’s note: This is the sixth in a series of articles on the legislative rules that LegiSource is reposting during 2020-2021. This article was originally posted April 8, 2016, and has been edited as appropriate.

    A recent LegiSource article explained the rules for reconsideration that allow a committee of reference or the House or the Senate to reconsider the vote taken on a motion. But there are other routes a legislator may take to get a committee or the House or the Senate to take a second look at a bill or amendment.

    Amendments to the Committee of the Whole Report
    The most commonly used process for changing an action is an amendment to the committee of the whole report. Of course, this process only applies to actions taken on second reading in the House or the Senate.

    The second reading of bills is a two-step process. First, the House or the Senate passes a motion to sit as the committee of the whole. Considering bills as a committee that includes all of the Representatives or Senators allows the legislators to act under different rules than would apply if they were taking action formally as the House or the Senate. For example, while acting as the committee of the whole, debate cannot be limited, motions cannot be reconsidered, a decision of the chair of the committee of the whole cannot be challenged, and votes are not recorded.

    The committee of the whole adopts or rejects committee of reference reports and floor amendments to bills, generally debates the bills, and finally adopts, rejects, or refers each bill on a voice or standing vote. Once the committee of the whole has considered all of the bills on the calendar, or as many as it has time for, the majority leader moves that the committee of the whole “rise and report.”

    At this point, the House goes back to doing business as the House and the Senate goes back to doing business as the Senate, because they cannot complete the second reading process without a formal, recorded vote on the bills. This vote occurs when the House or the Senate votes on the committee of the whole report, which includes all of the amendments the committee adopted and all of the bills the committee considered. And, like any other committee report, the report of the committee of the whole can be amended.

    A legislator may offer an amendment to the committee of the whole report to change any action that the committee took – for example, to say that an amendment or bill that the committee passed, did not pass; or an amendment or bill that the committee rejected, did pass. All votes on amendments to the committee of the whole report are recorded. Once it has considered all amendments to the report, the House or the Senate finishes second reading by adopting or rejecting the entire committee of the whole report, as amended if any amendments passed.

    Under the Senate rules, a Senator can offer an amendment to the committee of the whole report to show that an amendment that was not offered in the committee of the whole did pass. Under the House rules, the committee must have actually considered an amendment for it to be the subject of an amendment to the committee of the whole report.

    Why would the House or the Senate adopt an amendment to the committee of the whole report to change something it just did? Since the votes taken in the committee of the whole are not recorded, a legislator may want an official count of the number of legislators voting for or against an amendment or a bill. Also, in the committee of the whole an amendment or bill passes with the approval of a majority of those present and voting. An amendment to the committee of the whole report and final adoption of the report requires the approval of a majority of those elected to the body: 33 in the House and 18 in the Senate.

    Referring bills from 2nd reading back to a committee of reference
    Sometimes, while debating a bill in the committee of the whole, a member will argue that a particular amendment under debate is so technical or substantive that it requires consideration by a committee of reference whose members have special expertise in the subject area. Or the committee of the whole may adopt an amendment that changes the fiscal impact of the bill. In this case, a legislator may move to refer the bill back to a committee of reference – usually the committee that originally considered the bill or the appropriations committee.

    Usually, a bill will be referred back to a committee before it is amended by the committee of the whole, but sometimes the committee of the whole will have already adopted the committee of reference report or other amendments. It is up to the legislators to decide whether the bill is referred back to the committee of reference unamended or as amended by the committee of the whole. In either case, the committee of reference may adopt a second committee of reference report that further amends the bill or changes the amendments adopted by the first committee of reference.

    Referring bills from 3rd reading back to 2nd reading in the House or to a committee of reference in the House or the Senate
    Under House rules, if a member tries to offer a substantive amendment to a bill on third reading, the proper motion is to refer the bill back to second reading for consideration of the substantive amendment. When the committee of the whole considers the bill this time, it will be considering the bill as introduced in the House with any amendments adopted on second reading enrolled into the bill – the engrossed version if it’s a House bill or the revised version if it’s a Senate bill. If the committee of the whole amends the bill on the second consideration, there will be a second engrossed or revised version of the bill.

    At the third reading stage, the House or Senate may also vote to refer the bill back to a committee of reference. In this case, the committee of reference will consider the engrossed or revised version and any amendments that the committee of reference adopts will be to the engrossed or revised version. The committee of reference may then move the bill to the committee of the whole for consideration on second reading – again. But the committee of reference cannot move the bill directly to third reading because House Rule 25 (j)(3) and Senate Rule 22 (f) only allow a committee of reference to refer a bill to another committee of reference or to the committee of the whole or to postpone the bill indefinitely.

  • Addition by Division or How to Create a Judicial District in Colorado

    by Conrad Imel

    Recently, the General Assembly created a twenty-third judicial district in Colorado. But can the General Assembly just make a new judicial district? Even though the judicial department is a separate branch of the government, the state constitution says it can. In this article we’ll look at the General Assembly’s role in creating and changing judicial districts and the recent change that it made.

    Judicial districts are responsible for operating district courts within the district.[1] District courts are the courts of general jurisdiction in Colorado. They hear civil cases involving any dollar amount, criminal matters, and domestic relations cases. District courts also hear cases involving probate and minors, such as adoption, dependency and neglect, and juvenile delinquency; except in Denver, which has a separate probate court and juvenile court to handle these cases.

    Judicial districts weren’t created by the legislature to administer courts; they are required by the state constitution. Article VI, section 10 of the Colorado Constitution declares that “[t]he state shall be divided into judicial districts” and authorizes the General Assembly to change the number and boundaries of judicial districts with a two-thirds vote of the members of each chamber. Presently, state courts are divided into 22 judicial districts. Some districts contain multiple counties while others consist of a single county. Click here to see a map of Colorado’s judicial districts.

    Colorado’s constitution initially provided for four judicial districts with one judge each. Five years later, in 1881, the General Assembly added three new judicial districts, bringing the total number of districts to seven. The General Assembly regularly increased the number of judicial districts over the next 82 years, culminating with the creation of the 22nd Judicial District in 1963. It wouldn’t add another district for nearly 60 years.

    In 2020, the General Assembly passed House Bill 20-1026, creating a twenty-third judicial district that will begin operations on January 7, 2025. Currently, the 18th Judicial District consists of Arapahoe, Douglas, Elbert, and Lincoln counties. Beginning in 2025, three of the four counties, Douglas, Elbert, and Lincoln, will leave the 18th Judicial District and become the new 23rd Judicial District, served by eight judges. HB 20-1026 decreases the number of judges in the 18th Judicial District by seven, from 24 to 17. The bill easily satisfied the constitution’s two-thirds vote requirement, receiving just two “no” votes in the House and one in the Senate.

    For a legislator, creating a new judicial district isn’t as simple as sponsoring a bill and getting two-thirds of your colleagues to agree to it. The state constitution includes a few requirements for judicial districts and judges that the bill sponsor (and bill drafter!) need to keep in mind. First, article VI, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution requires that each judicial district have an elected district attorney, and section 1-4-204, C.R.S., provides that district attorneys are elected at a general election (held in even-numbered years). Any bill establishing a new judicial district will need to account for a district attorney election and the time it takes the newly elected district attorney to assume the office.

    Additionally, the Colorado Constitution requires a district judge to reside in the judicial district in which the judge serves and prohibits abolishing a judge’s office until the end of the judge’s term. A judge may be required to change districts, though, so long as the judge resides in the new district. To comply with these constitutional provisions and ensure that both the new and continuing judicial districts have the proper number of judges who reside in their respective districts, the bill sponsor needs to carefully consider the date the new district will begin operations and account for where the judges of the existing district reside.

    It may not happen as often as it used to, but as long as two-thirds of the members agree, the General Assembly can change the state’s judicial districts. Even if the legislature waits another 50 years to do it again, it will need to be mindful of when the new district begins operations to avoid any constitutional issues.

     

    [1] Judicial districts also operate county courts, except for Denver County Court, which is operated by the City and County of Denver and is, in effect, a combined municipal and county court.

  • The Four Ws and One H of Reconsideration of a Previous Vote

    by Sharon Eubanks

    Editor’s note: This is the fifth in a series of articles on the legislative rules that LegiSource is reposting during 2020-2021. This article was originally posted April 11, 2016, and has been edited as appropriate.

    The definition of “reconsider” pretty much sums up what reconsideration is all about – “to consider again, especially with a view to change a decision or action.” In the legislative arena, “reconsideration” is the mechanism in the rules that enables a committee of reference or the House or the Senate to consider changing an action it has already taken.

    A legislative body has a right to reconsider a vote on an action previously taken by the body, subject to certain limits. When a body reconsiders its vote, that original vote is canceled completely, as though it had never been taken, and the body immediately votes again upon the question reconsidered.

    Closely related to reconsideration is giving notice of intent to reconsider, which provides notice of a member’s intent to reconsider, at some point in the future, a prior vote on an action. The effect of giving notice of intent to reconsider is to suspend all action on the subject of the motion until either the reconsideration is acted on or the time to act on the reconsideration has expired. However, giving notice of intent to reconsider does not necessarily mean that reconsideration will actually occur.

    Senate Rule 18 and House Rule 35 govern reconsideration and notice of intent to reconsider in Colorado legislative proceedings on the floor and in committees of reference.

    What can be reconsidered? Any action that the House or Senate takes when conducting business as a body and any action that a House or Senate committee of reference takes may be reconsidered by the acting body. But reconsideration is not allowed for an action that the House takes while sitting as the Committee of the Whole (COW).

    The Senate does not have a similar rule expressly prohibiting reconsideration of an action of the COW, but there are some practical problems in applying the reconsideration rules when the Senate is sitting as the COW. For example, how would the chair determine if the person moving for reconsideration voted on the “prevailing side” (see explanation of who can request reconsideration, below) when votes in the COW are taken viva voce? However, at least once recently, a Senator made a motion to reconsider an action of the COW and the motion was considered without objection. Nonetheless, generally it has been the Senate’s practice to not permit reconsideration during the COW.

    Who can request reconsideration?  In both the House and the Senate, only a member who voted on the prevailing side of an action, whether taken on the floor or in committee, may make a motion to reconsider that action. Sometimes a member will switch his or her vote at the last moment to the prevailing side to preserve the option of subsequently moving to reconsider the action.

    Only a House member who has voted on the prevailing side of an action of the House may give notice of intent to reconsider that action. And, while only a Senator who voted on the prevailing side may give notice of intent to reconsider a committee action, any Senator, regardless of how he or she voted, may give notice of intent to reconsider an action of the Senate.

    How does reconsideration occur? Reconsideration occurs after a member makes a motion to reconsider a House or Senate floor or committee action and the motion is approved. In the Senate, a majority of the members elected to the Senate or a majority of the members of a committee of reference, whichever body took the action at issue, must approve the motion to reconsider. In the House, two-thirds of the members elected to the House or two-thirds of the members of a House committee, as applicable, must approve a motion to reconsider unless a member makes the motion during the last two days of session. In that situation, only a majority of members must approve a motion to reconsider.

    To prevent the abuse of motions to reconsider, if a motion to reconsider is lost or, upon reconsideration, the original action is affirmed, the same Senate action cannot be reconsidered a second time unless the motion is approved by unanimous consent of the Senate or a Senate committee, as appropriate. If a motion to reconsider is defeated or the original action is affirmed by the House or a House committee, no further motion to reconsider the same action is allowed.

    Senate members of committees of reference may give notice of intent to reconsider. In this case, the measure affected by the notice must be held until the next regularly scheduled committee meeting. But giving notice to reconsider is out of order if holding the measure will cause it to miss a deadline for passage out of committee and the deadline isn’t extended. In contrast, members of House committees of reference cannot give notice of intent to reconsider a committee action.

    When can reconsideration occur? A member must make a motion to reconsider an action of a House or Senate committee either at the meeting at which the action is taken or at the next meeting of the committee.

    A Senator must make a motion to reconsider, or give notice of intent to reconsider, an action of the Senate on the same day that the action is taken or on either of the next two days of actual session. A Representative must make a motion to reconsider, or give notice of intent to reconsider, an action of the House before adjournment of the legislative day on which the action is taken.  If notice is timely given, the House member then has until noon on the next day of actual session to make a motion to reconsider the action.

    But, it’s important to remember that a body can reconsider an action only if the measure on which the action was taken is still before the body and the action is still capable of being changed. So, a committee member can’t make a motion to reconsider a committee action on a measure if the committee report has already been signed by the chair and delivered to the House or Senate front desk. And a member can’t move to reconsider a third reading vote if the measure has already been introduced in the second house or delivered to and acted upon by the Governor.

    A Senator’s motion to reconsider the action taken on a measure already transmitted to the House, but not yet introduced, must be accompanied by a motion asking the House to return the measure to the Senate. If a House member makes a motion to reconsider, the chief clerk of the House is directed to request the return of the relevant measure if it has already been transmitted to the Senate or the Governor. But if the measure’s been introduced in the Senate or acted upon by the Governor, the measure can’t be returned to the House.

    Why would someone request reconsideration? In many situations, a motion to reconsider is used when a member, for whatever reason, doesn’t vote the way he or she intended to vote or a member is absent during the recorded vote on a measure. With reconsideration, the original vote is wiped away and replaced with the second vote. When controversial issues and close votes are involved, a motion to immediately reconsider a vote can be used to lock in that vote since unanimous consent is required for a subsequent motion to reconsider after the first motion to reconsider is lost or, upon reconsideration, the original action is affirmed. On the flip side, giving notice of intent to reconsider a vote can be used as a delay tactic to slow a measure’s progress through the legislative process or to allow time to try to convince enough members to change their votes and thereby change the action taken. Once notice is given, all action on a measure is suspended and the Secretary of the Senate or the Chief Clerk of the House, as applicable, holds the measure until the time for reconsideration has expired. In the Senate, giving notice of intent to reconsider can be used to delay a floor action up to three days and a committee action until the conclusion of the next regularly scheduled committee meeting. Giving notice of intent to reconsider can delay an action taken by the House until noon on the next day of actual session after the action is taken.

    For more information on reconsideration, check out the September 29, 2011, Legisource article, which discusses actual legislative situations that involved reconsideration.

  • Legislative Ethics – Conflict of Interest

    “A member who has a personal or private interest in any measure or bill proposed or pending before the general assembly, shall disclose the fact to the house of which he is a member, and shall not vote thereon.” Article V, section 43 of the Colorado Constitution, effective August 1, 1876.

    Legislative ethics principles have been included in the state’s constitution and been an integral part of legislative proceedings from the earliest days of statehood. The legislature expanded on these ethical principles and codified the standard of conduct expected for all persons involved with government in House Bill 88-1209. The ethical principles specific to the General Assembly listed in the bill and now codified as section 24-18-107, C.R.S., provide guidance to legislators when determining whether a conflict of interest exists and instructions on disclosing such an interest according to the applicable chamber’s rules.  It also states that a failure to disclose does not constitute a breach of the public trust of legislative office.

    According to Joint Rule 42, a legislator is considered to have a personal, private, or financial interest in a pending bill, measure, or question if the passage or failure of the legislation will result in the legislator deriving a direct financial or pecuniary benefit that is greater than any benefit derived by or shared by other persons in the legislator’s profession, occupation, industry, or region. Joint Rule 42, like section 24-18-107, C.R.S., provides that a legislator is not considered to have such an interest in legislation if the interest arises from legislation affecting the entire membership of a class to which the legislator belongs. House Rule 21(c), and Senate Rules 17(c) and 41 discuss voting, disclosing, and excusing oneself from a vote.

    Seems easy enough. Here are some hypothetical situations for your consideration:

    Situation #1. The General Assembly is considering a bill that would provide comprehensive state assistance to promote biotechnological research within the state as well as related commercial applications. The assistance includes tax benefits, the establishment of a special state fund, and a new grant program. You are a member of the General Assembly and your spouse is a well-known and well-recognized research scientist who heads a special institute for biotechnological research at one of our state’s leading research universities. The bill would direct state financial assistance to a variety of public and private entities, but significant resources would be particularly directed to the institute headed by your spouse. It is likely the benefits from the bill would increase the institute’s budget and your spouse’s national profile and income.

    May you vote on the legislation?  

    1. Since the legislation only benefits your spouse, there is no problem voting on the legislation.
    2. With sluggish economic growth, the legislation is vital for creating jobs and members need to put aside their private qualms about ethics and enact good programs.
    3. The legislation would appear to distribute benefits to many private and public entities across the state. You can vote on the legislation because all persons with an interest in the legislation amount to one big class of persons.
    4. By virtue of your spouse’s position, you have a personal, private, or financial interest in the legislation necessitating your abstention from voting on the bill.

    The correct answer is 4. Under Joint Rule 42, the relevant inquiry is whether you, as a member, will benefit from or be disadvantaged by the legislation more than any other member of your profession, occupation, industry, or region. Because of the special position your spouse holds and the extra benefits that the bill directs to the institute generally and to your spouse more specifically, there is a reasonable likelihood that your immediate household will benefit from the legislation more than others in your profession, occupation, industry, or region. This gives you a personal, private, or financial interest in the legislation necessitating your abstention from voting on the bill.

    Situation #2. You are the owner of several apartment buildings and other rental properties in your community. A bill has been introduced that would lengthen the period of time available to a tenant to pay past-due rent.

    May you vote on the legislation?

    1. YES. But only if you vote “for” the bill. Since the bill favors tenants and you are a property owner, no one would think it improper for you to support the bill.
    2. YES. Because the governing legal requirements specify that a conflict of interest situation does not arise from legislation affecting the entire membership of a class. Here, the relevant class is the entire group of rental property owners across the state. Because you are a member of this class, you do not have an improper conflict-of-interest situation and, accordingly, may vote on the legislation.
    3. NO. Because landlords are so distrusted in the community, it would be better to abstain than to call public attention to your outside real estate interests.
    4. NO. Existing law already affords tenants sufficient time within which to cure any default.

    The correct answer is 2. Section 24-18-107 (3), C.R.S., and Joint Rule 42 explicitly state that a conflict-of-interest situation does not arise from legislation that affects the entire membership of a class. Under this same principle, teachers who are members of the General Assembly may vote on education bills and attorneys who are members of the General Assembly may vote on bills affecting tort liability and evidentiary matters. Here, the relevant class is the entire group of rental property owners across the state. Assuming you will not benefit from, or be disadvantaged by, the legislation any more than any other owner of these properties statewide, an improper conflict-of-interest situation is not present. You would be permitted to vote on the legislation.

     See also “Reducing Conflicts Over Conflicts (of Interest)”, posted April 27, 2017.

    Click here for other LegiSource articles regarding ethics.

  • One Thing’s for Certain – Things are Uncertain

    by Patti Dahlberg

    The Executive Committee of the Legislative Council sent out a joint release on December 21, 2020, announcing the plan to delay the 2021 legislative session due to safety concerns. The state is still under a declared statewide public health disaster emergency order, and the December COVID infection numbers are expected to remain high into January. According to the release, the plan is for the 73rd General Assembly to convene on Wednesday, January 13, as required by the Colorado Constitution and take care of any necessary business, including the swearing in of newly elected legislators. The General Assembly will then temporarily adjourn until, tentatively, mid-February when, hopefully, COVID infection rates will be lower and legislative work can continue in a more normal manner.

    What does this mean for legislators?

    No one really knows for sure. Last session, the General Assembly temporarily adjourned for six weeks only to reconvene long enough to take care of the state’s budget and other miscellaneous bills that were considered necessary. Many bills introduced as part of the normal legislative session or that had substantial fiscal impacts were “Postponed Indefinitely” or “Deemed Lost” by the end of the 2020 session. The General Assembly had to drastically shift gears upon reconvening to prioritize the passage of the budget-balancing bills needed to adjust for the revised forecasts of significant revenue loss and balance the state’s budget.

    This year is a little different in that the legislative session has not yet started, and legislators should have a better idea of the budget they will be working with for the 2021-22 fiscal year, hopefully eliminating unpleasant budget issues halfway through session. In addition, the General Assembly convened for a special legislative session in early December to pass legislation deemed necessary to help the state and its citizens weather the economic hardships of the pandemic. Having provided some relief with these bills, legislators may now have the opportunity to consider other needed legislation.

    Also, this year the temporary adjournment will be at the beginning of session. This allows the Executive Committee to adjust deadlines and clarify expectations for the bulk of the legislative session.

    Although the December bill request deadlines are behind us, there is still time for legislators who have not yet requested their last two bills to submit those requests by the Tuesday, January 19 bill request deadline. Because of the delayed start, all of the filing dates for bills have been delayed until later in the year. The Executive Committee of the Legislative Council issued a joint letter on Wednesday, December 23, 2020, explaining the new filing and introduction deadlines. The new filing deadlines are:

    Although the deadlines have been delayed, legislators still need to designate the order in which they would like their bills introduced. To be able to introduce all of the five bills allowed by rule, a legislator needs to choose one bill to be the first bill introduced, two bills to designate as early bills, and two bills to designate as regular bills. The bills, as designated, need to meet the applicable filing dates.

    This session, the plan is to have all the prefile (or first) bills and the early bills filed before the session reconvenes and ready to be introduced (read across the desk) on the first day back in session (tentatively February 16). The bills will be assigned to committees as they are being read across the desk and, with the potential for 300 bills to be introduced within a couple of days, committee work will truly begin in earnest.

    These changes to the filing deadlines mean that legislators will have more time than usual to draft and prioritize all five of their bill requests before those requests must be filed with the House and Senate. Because of the delay in the session, legislators can take a little more time to work with drafters and stakeholders to get their bills crafted early enough to enable fiscal analysts to draft fiscal notes even before the bills are filed for introduction.

    The Executive Committee is still determining how to adjust the remaining session deadlines – i.e., first house committee passage and final passage, second house committee passage and final passage, introduction and passage of the Long Bill, and many others – to keep session work moving along. Once that information is determined it will be announced.

    What we know for sure is that things are uncertain during a pandemic. Many bills were left on the side of the road last year due to extreme time constraints, budget reductions, and a shortened legislative session. And of course, until the declared disaster is lifted, everything is subject to change.

    For more information regarding bill order, see “Got Bill Requests? Next Step is the Bill Order”. But please disregard any deadlines included in the article.

  • Happy New Year

    Happy New Year!

    We wish you a happy and healthy 2021.

  • A Holiday Message

    Wishing you a safe and happy holiday season!

    Pictured: The 2018 Capitol Tree

  • Barney Ford: From Slavery to Successful Businessman

    by Ashley Athey

    If you take a drive up I-70 and visit Breckenridge, just off the main street you’ll see a little yellow Victorian house surrounded by modern restaurants and art museums. Step inside and you’ll be transported back in time to when Barney Ford was alive. But who was he? And why was he so important to our state’s history?

    Barney Ford was born into slavery in Virginia in 1822. His mother, Phoebe, prayed for her son to escape, and at the age of 17 Barney escaped his enslavement via the Underground Railroad and made it to Chicago.

    It was in Chicago that Barney met and married Julia Lyon (or Lyoni), who helped him pick out his middle and last names—as an enslaved person, he didn’t have them—and he chose Lancelot Ford. He worked as a barber and helped support the Underground Railroad and abolitionist efforts. But he dreamed of going west to California, and in 1851 the Fords set out together, traveling via ship from New York because traveling across the country as a former enslaved man was unsafe. When their ship stopped in Nicaragua, Barney and Julia went ashore and they fell in love with the area. Together they built a successful hotel and restaurant and stayed there for many years until a local civil war destroyed their businesses. The Fords left Nicaragua and, in 1860, moved to Colorado.

    Barney Ford was one of the first people to find and put a claim on the gold deposits in the land above Breckenridge, but Colorado law forbade a Black man from owning mining claims or homesteads. After being chased away and threatened in the middle of the night, Ford opened up a barbershop on Blake Street in Denver. Barney Ford was a savvy and intelligent businessman, and he ran many other successful businesses in Denver, including the People’s Restaurant and the Inter-Ocean Hotel. He even opened a second Inter-Ocean Hotel in Wyoming.

    In 1880, Ford returned to Breckenridge and opened Ford’s Chop House, making him the first Black business owner in the town. He built a five-room house in Breckenridge for his family, and he built it without a key room – a kitchen! Instead, his family ate food from the restaurant.

    In Denver, Ford was active in politics and fighting for the rights of Black men and women. He fought for their right to vote, their right to receive an education, and their civil rights. He helped other formerly enslaved individuals receive an education. And, in 1864, he was part of a contingent of Black pioneers who fought against statehood for Colorado because the amendment for statehood excluded voting rights for Black men. Ford taught evening classes to the community about the principles of democracy, and along with Henry O. Wagoner, his brother-in-law and a well-known Black abolitionist and journalist from Chicago, opened up a school for African American children.

    Barney Lancelot Ford died in 1902 in Denver at the age of 80. Ford was inducted into the Colorado Business Hall of Fame and the Colorado Black Hall of Fame, and he was honored with a stained glass portrait in the House Chamber of the Colorado State Capitol building. While many of the buildings he once owned have been torn down, both the original site of the People’s Restaurant at 1514 Blake Street in Denver and his Victorian cottage on Washington Street in Breckenridge still stand. The little yellow Victorian cottage is now the Barney Ford Museum, which visitors can tour daily.

     

    For more information on Barney Ford and his contributions to Colorado’s history, visit:

    https://www.coloradovirtuallibrary.org/digital-colorado/colorado-histories/beginnings/barney-ford-from-slavery-to-success/

    https://coloradoencyclopedia.org/article/barney-ford

    https://www.historycolorado.org/story/collections-library/2017/02/08/barney-ford-african-american-pioneer

  • Colorado Court of Appeals Clarifies Executive Session Notice Requirements

    by Jason Gelender

    The Colorado Open Meetings Law (OML), sections 24-6-401 to 402, C.R.S., declares that it is “a matter of statewide concern and the policy of this state that the formation of public policy is public business and may not be conducted in secret.” The OML also declares that “[a]ll meetings of two or more members of any state public body” or of “a quorum or three or more members of any local public body, whichever is fewer, at which any public business is discussed or at which any formal action may be taken are … public meetings open to the public at all times.”

    However, the OML includes an exception to the general open meetings requirement, allowing state and local public bodies to consider specified types of matters in a closed “executive session” if certain requirements are met. The OML has substantially similar notice of executive session requirements for both state and local public bodies. It requires a state or local public body to identify the particular matters to be discussed in an executive session “in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the executive session is authorized.”

    During four public meetings held in 2016, the Basalt town council went into executive sessions to discuss matters related to four topics for which the OML allows executive session discussion: property interests, receipt of legal advice on specific legal questions, determination of negotiating positions, and addressing of personnel matters. In its required public notices of the executive sessions (notices), the town council simply cited the appropriate statutory authority and generic purposes (e.g., receiving legal advice) for the executive sessions without providing any information about what property interests, legal advice, negotiations, or personnel matters would be discussed.

    Plaintiff Theodore Guy applied to the district court for an order declaring that the notices failed to adequately identify the particular matters to be discussed as required by the OML and requiring disclosure of the records of the executive sessions. The district court granted plaintiff the requested relief with respect to the matters relating to property interests and negotiations but concluded that the notices were not required to include any specific information about the legal and personnel matters because of the nature of the attorney-client privilege and the subject employee’s privacy interests. Guy appealed.

    In Guy v. Whitsitt, the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the district court and held that the notices had not provided adequate notice of the legal and personnel matters. With respect to the legal matters, the court of appeals concluded that it was possible, without compromising the purpose of the executive session, and therefore legally required, for the notices to have identified at least the subject matter of the legal matters to be discussed because the attorney-client privilege does not ordinarily prevent mere identification of the subject matter of an attorney-client communication. With respect to the personnel matters, the court of appeals concluded that the notices were required to at least identify the subject employee because: (1) a public employee has a narrower expectation of privacy than other citizens; and (2) the town’s argument that disclosure could violate the terms of its employment contract with the employee was not relevant because a town may not, by contract, evade its statutory obligations.

    The upshot of this decision is that it is now clear that when a public body (e.g. a legislative committee) gives notice that it intends to consider a matter in an executive session, the OML requires that it do more than simply cite the applicable statutory authority and generically state an authorized purpose such as “receiving legal advice” or “addressing a personnel matter.” The public body must instead at least identify the person who is the subject of a personnel matter or the “subject matter” about which it is receiving legal advice.

    For more general information about the OML and executive sessions, please see the Legisource article “The 411 on Executive Session under the Colorado Open Meetings Law.“

  • Colorado’s $tate Budget Process

    by Carolyn Kampman, Kate Watkins, and Patti Dahlberg

    Editor’s note: This article was originally posted on March 23, 2018, and has been edited as appropriate.

    Most people associate the state budget process with a couple of long weeks during the legislative session. True, the annual General Appropriations Bill or “Long Bill” must be introduced and passed between the 76th and 94th days of session per the legislative rules, but that is only part of the state’s annual budget story. The annual passage of the Long Bill marks the completion of an extensive and collaborative effort on the part of legislators, legislative staff, executive and judicial branch departments, and the governor’s office to pass a balanced budget for the citizens of Colorado.

    Each year, Colorado’s budget process begins long before the legislative session convenes. In the summer, most executive branch departments submit budget proposals to the Governor’s Office of State Planning and Budgeting (OSPB). The OSPB reviews the proposals and makes adjustments based on the governor’s priorities and the anticipated amount of money available.

    These executive departments then submit the approved budget requests to the General Assembly’s Joint Budget Committee (JBC) by November 1. The eight judicial agencies and the executive branch departments that are overseen by an elected official (the Attorney General, the State Treasurer, and the Secretary of State) also submit their budget requests to the JBC by November 1. The JBC staff review these requests and prepare written briefings that they present to the JBC in November and December. The JBC conducts formal public hearings with each department a week or two after the JBC staff briefing to discuss department budget priorities, operations, effectiveness, and future planning.

    All JBC budget briefings, hearings, and other meetings are open to the public, broadcast over the internet, and recorded and archived. [Please note that due to the current public health emergency, JBC meetings are open to the public through audio broadcast only.] The JBC does not accept public testimony during budget hearings, but they may allow public testimony in other hearings. The JBC encourages other legislators to participate in briefings and hearings. In addition, the JBC meets with each committee of reference during the first month of the legislative session to discuss department budget requests.

    From December through mid-February, the Capital Development Committee (CDC) and the Joint Technology Committee (JTC) review capital construction and information technology project requests and priorities from OSPB and hold hearings with departments on their requests. The CDC and JTC prioritize requests, finalize recommendations, and notify the JBC. The JBC ultimately reviews these recommendations and incorporates them into the proposed Long Bill.

    From January through March, JBC analysts present department budget requests at JBC meetings and make recommendations regarding budget amounts, funding sources, and possible legislation needed to implement certain budget actions. The JBC votes on each department’s budget request and then invites departments to submit “comeback” requests to ask the JBC to reconsider specific budget decisions. Throughout the first half of the legislative session, the JBC meets almost daily to review, adjust, and reset line item appropriations to each department. Economic forecasts and other reports, department budget requests, and budget recommendations from the governor’s office help the JBC and its staff develop a “balanced budget” proposal, which includes the Long Bill and legislation included with the Long Bill, as well as bills introduced by other legislators. To do this, the JBC picks a budget forecast in March, either the Legislative Council staff’s or the OSPB’s, to budget to.

    Introduction of the Long Bill alternates between the House of Representatives, in even years, and the Senate, in odd years. The bill is typically 300+ pages and often the JBC introduces several additional bills as part of a “long bill budget package.” This is necessary because, under the state constitution (Article V, Section 32), the Long Bill can only include appropriations; it cannot include substantive changes to the statutes. So, if the JBC makes budgeting decisions that require a change to a statute, they have to introduce a separate bill to accomplish that change. For example, if the JBC decides to appropriate a certain amount for a program, but wants to improve the efficiency with which the money is distributed, the committee will introduce a bill to change the statutory distribution method.

    Once the Long Bill and any associated bills are introduced, all work in that chamber revolves around passing those bills. Committee of reference meetings and other floor work is minimized so that the legislators can meet in their party caucuses to listen to JBC presentations on the Long Bill, ask questions, and discuss amendments to the bill. It usually takes about one week for the Long Bill and its associated bills to pass each chamber. Because the second chamber almost always amends the Long Bill, a third week is required for a conference committee, which is traditionally composed of the JBC members, to meet and recommend a report that resolves the differences between the two chambers. Each chamber must then adopt the report and readopt the final version of the bill.

    After the Long Bill passes both chambers it goes to the governor to sign into law. The governor can exercise the line-item veto to veto an entire appropriation; the governor cannot use the line-item veto to increase or decrease an amount. If there are vetoes, the bill returns to the General Assembly to consider the vetoes and possibly override one or more of them.

    Once the Long Bill passes both chambers, the funding for existing programs and services is finalized and the General Assembly knows how much money is available for bills to create new programs or offer additional services. The House and Senate appropriations committees start meeting in earnest to pass or postpone indefinitely (PI) bills, many of which have been languishing in those committees awaiting passage of the Long Bill. The General Assembly tries to ensure that the total amount appropriated through the Long Bill and all enacted bills that fund new programs or services does not exceed the amount of revenue that the state is expecting to have available in the coming fiscal year.

    A more comprehensive explanation of Colorado’s budget process is available on the Joint Budget Committee Staff homepage through the budget process and budget documents links.

    Last Spring, Legislative Council staff, in conjunction with JBC staff, launched a new webpage dedicated to the state budget and the state budget process, “Explore the Colorado State Budget“. In addition to explaining the budget process and timelines, this new webpage also illustrates the state’s operating budget, budget sources, major funding requirements, state revenue sources, TABOR’s interaction with the state budget, and other budget resources and considerations. This new webpage is updated, as needed, with pertinent budget details.

    For more background on the Joint Budget Committee and Colorado’s budget process, please see “Joint Budget Committee to Write State’s Budget for the 58th Time”, posted October 26, 2017.