Author: olls

Colorado’s $tate Budget Process

It’s Spring and for the Colorado General Assembly that means just one thing: The annual Long Appropriations Bill or “Long Bill” is due to be introduced. Introduction—and passage—of the Long Bill completes an extensive and collaborative effort on the part of legislators, legislative staff, executive 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 early fall, the 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.

Executive departments then submit the approved budget requests to the General Assembly’s Joint Budget Committee (JBC) by November 1. The judicial department also submits its budget requests at this time. The JBC staff review these requests and prepare written briefings and oral presentations to the JBC. Starting in November, the JBC schedules hearings with each department 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. The JBC does not accept public testimony during budget hearings, but they may allow public testimony in other hearings.

During the legislative session, JBC analysts present department budget requests at JBC meetings and make recommendations regarding budget amounts, funding sources, and possible legislation needed to facilitate the Long Bill. Departments often ask the JBC to reconsider its actions regarding specific budget decisions. Throughout the first half of the legislative session, the JBC meets almost daily to review, adjust, and reset legislative department budget line items.

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

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, 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 the 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 parties can meet in their 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 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; he or she 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 all of these bills, many of which have been languishing in those committees awaiting passage of the Long Bill. The General Assembly typically 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.

For a more comprehensive and detailed explanation of Colorado’s budget process, please visit the Joint Budget Committee Staff homepage to review their information on the budget process and budget documents.

During the 2018 Legislative Session, the Long Appropriations Bill is scheduled to be introduced in the House of Representatives on Monday, March 26, 2018. The deadline for the Long Bill to pass both houses is Friday, April 6, 2018, and the deadline for adoption of the conference committee report and final passage of the Long Bill is April 13, 2018.

March 23, 2018
The 411 on Executive Session under the Colorado Open Meetings Law
by Bob Lackner

You are the chairman for a legislative committee, and the committee’s next hearing starts in 15 minutes. The committee will be discussing a new report that you expect may embarrass employees of a particular state agency. To avoid this type of embarrassment, it would be better if the committee could meet in executive session so the committee can talk about the issue in a “safe space” without the media or any professional malcontents being present. You read the Open Meetings Law when you started chairing the committee, and you’re sure that the fine print of the law includes a list of reasons for which you can close the meeting. Specifically you’re hoping it includes a general catch-all for sensitive matters that would make the state look bad if disclosed. But you also seem to recall that there are specific procedures to follow when going into executive session. You reach for the phone for a quick consult with your legislative staff…

This article aims to provide a basic understanding of the requirements for meeting in executive session under the Colorado Open Meetings Law (OML) and enable legislators and legislative staff to successfully navigate the requirements for executive sessions.

First, it’s important to note that the OML begins with an over-arching statement of policy: “It is declared to be … the policy of this state that the formation of public policy is public business and may not be conducted in secret.” Next, the OML declares that all meetings of “two or more members of any state public body at which any public business is discussed or at which any formal action is taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times.” The General Assembly and its committees are specifically included in the definition of “state public body.”

The OML allows a legislative committee to go into executive session, that is, to conduct a closed session, only to discuss topics that are specified in the statute. Only members of the committee and staff—and in some cases outside counsel—may be present in an executive session. Before the committee can go into executive session, the committee chair must announce to the public—in open session—the “topic for discussion in the executive session,” including specific citation to the OML provision authorizing the committee to meet in executive session, and identify “the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the executive session is authorized…”. Going into executive session requires the affirmative vote of 2/3 of the entire membership of the committee after the chair makes the announcement. The committee may hold an executive session only at a regular or special meeting. Presumably this means the committee is not permitted to hold a spontaneous get together to go into executive session.

These are the specific grounds for which the statute authorizes a legislative committee to meet in executive session:
- Discussions regarding the purchase of property for public purposes or the sale of property at competitive bidding if premature disclosure of the information would give an unfair competitive or bargaining advantage to a person whose personal, private interest is adverse to the general interest;
- Conferences with an attorney representing the General Assembly, the legislative committee, or a legislator concerning disputes involving the General Assembly, the committee or the legislator that are the subject of pending or imminent court action, concerning specific claims or grievances, or for purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions;
- Matters required to be kept confidential by federal law or rules, state statutes, or in accordance with any joint legislative rule pertaining to lobbying practices;
- Specialized details of security arrangements or investigations; and
- Determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations with employees or employee organizations; developing strategy for receiving reports on the progress of such negotiations, and instructing negotiators.
The OML additionally permits a legislative committee that is acting as a search committee to go into executive session to consider certain appointments or employment matters, but establishing job search goals and the time frame for appointing an agency’s chief executive officer must take place at an open meeting.

This list states the only reasons for which a legislative committee may meet in an executive session. (There are other reasons on the list that apply to state public bodies that are not associated with the General Assembly.) If the topic of the discussion is not on the list, the legislative committee cannot hold an executive session to discuss it. There is no general catch-all for a legislative committee to meet in executive session to avoid a public discussion that could make the state, a state agency, or a state employee look bad. And no catch-all for sensitive matters that decision makers simply want to be able to discuss in secret. As stated above, under the OML, the default position is that the discussion of public business should be conducted in the open.

The OML prohibits a legislative committee from adopting a proposed policy, position, resolution, rule, or regulation or otherwise taking formal action at an executive session. If the discussion during executive session leads to an official action, the committee will complete its discussion in executive session, then go back into the open meeting, make a motion, and vote to take the action.

When a legislative committee goes into executive session, the committee staff turns off the official digital recorder and turns off the internet streaming technology. But under the OML, the committee’s discussions in an executive session must be electronically recorded. The electronic recording must reflect the specific citation to the provision of the OML that authorizes the body to meet in an executive session and the actual contents of the discussion during the session. The minutes of a meeting during which an executive session is held must reflect the topic of the discussion of the executive session.

A person who feels that a legislative committee improperly held an executive session may sue for a copy of the record of the executive session under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). If this happens, the court will privately review the recording of the executive session. If it finds that the legislative committee discussed matters that are not included in the list of reasons to hold an executive session or took formal action while in the executive session, the court will declare the part of the record that applies to those issues or actions to be open and available for public review.

The public cannot inspect, and the members of the legislative committee are not supposed to disclose, any part of the record of an executive session and the record is not subject to discovery in a trial unless 1) the legislative committee consents; or 2) the legislative committee fails to comply with the OML, resulting in disclosure of the record in accordance with CORA.

Armed with this information, legislators and legislative staff should now be better prepared to appropriately meet in executive session in compliance with the OML.
March 15, 2018
Federal District Court Writes Final Chapter to Endrew F. Case

by Julie Pelegrin

When last we talked about children with disabilities and their education, the United States Supreme Court had just handed down its decision in the case of Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. School Dist. RE-1. The Court found for Endrew (he goes by Drew) and his parents by interpreting the federal “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act” (IDEA) to require that each child with a disability must receive educational services that are reasonably designed to enable the child to make “progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”

As you may recall, IDEA requires each state to provide a “free, appropriate public education” (FAPE) to each child with a disability. Before the Supreme Court’s decision in Drew’s case, when a court was deciding whether a child was receiving a FAPE, it would consider whether the services provided to the child were providing “some educational benefit.” Specifically, the standard was whether the child was making “merely more than de minimis” progress as a result of the educational services provided by the state.

In the last LegiSource article on this topic, we concluded our explanation of the Supreme Court’s ruling by wondering how the federal district court would apply the Supreme Court’s new standard to Drew’s case. Would the judge find that the services Douglas County Schools (DCS) was offering would have enabled Drew to make progress appropriate to his circumstances?

Now we know. And the answer is—no.

On February 12 of this year, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado ruled that DCS had failed to provide Drew with a FAPE because the individualized education program (IEP) that it provided for him was not reasonably designed to enable him to make progress appropriate to his circumstances.

When it first heard the case, the district court found that the services DCS was providing caused Drew to make at least some educational progress from year to year. And the Tenth Circuit court of appeals agreed, concluding that it was “without question a close case,” but there were sufficient indications of Drew’s past progress to find that the school district was making more than minimal progress. So DCS met the standard that applied at that point.

But when the federal district court applied the new, more rigorous standard required by the U.S. Supreme Court, it found the IEP that DCS prepared for Drew was not sufficient. The IEP proposed in April of 2010 was based largely on the services provided in earlier years during which Drew had made only just minimal progress. As such, these same services could not be expected to help him make the higher level of progress that he could achieve, given his circumstances. The court also found that DCS had not developed a formal plan to properly address Drew’s behaviors that were disrupting his access to educational progress, which suggested the IEP proposed in April 2010 was not reasonably designed to enable Drew to make progress.

So what does this decision mean for Drew and his parents? The district court ordered DCS to reimburse them for all of the tuition they have paid since Drew enrolled in Firefly Autism House in 2010, for the costs incurred in transporting him to the school, and for their reasonable attorney fees and costs in pursuing the case. The family will file a brief tallying up what they think the full amount should be, and DCS will have the chance to respond. In a recent Denver Post article, the family’s attorney estimated the final judgment would be in the seven figures.

In our previous article, we also questioned how much of a difference the new standard would make and whether it would drive real changes in the level of services that schools provide to children with disabilities. The Supreme Court really didn’t answer the question of whether a school has to provide very expensive services to enable a student to make the most progress or whether less expensive services that result in good progress are sufficient. And deciding how much progress is appropriate in light of a child’s circumstances is not clear-cut.

So far, there have been two reported cases decided using the new standard of “progress appropriate in light of a child’s circumstances.” In Board of Education of Albuquerque Public Schools v. Maez, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico found that Albuquerque Public Schools (APS) created an IEP for the student, known as “MM”, that was reasonably calculated to enable him to make appropriate educational progress.

But, in Paris School District v. A.H., the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas found that the Paris School District (PSD) failed to provide the student—AH—a “free, appropriate public education.”

In both cases, the students had significant disabilities related to autism, and in MM’s case other “global developmental delays.” Not surprisingly, the analysis in each case is based very heavily on the facts and the circumstances that are specific to each student.

In MM’s case, his IEP included services that had enabled him to make progress in the previous school year. It did not provide exactly the educational program that his parents wanted, but the court found that the choice of “educational methodology is reserved for the school district.” The court also wasn’t swayed by the fact that MM made more progress when he received private, in-home clinical services. In general, the court agreed with the school district that, although MM made more progress receiving personal at-home care, this fact did not mean that the IEP that APS offered was inappropriate or unreasonable. The court specifically stated, “While [MM’s] parents may have wanted more for their son, the law did not require APS to do more than it did for MM.”

In AH’s case, several evaluations indicated that AH needed physical, occupational, and speech therapies, but the school district failed to provide these therapies. Also, because of AH’s behavioral issues, the school district removed her from the regular classroom, placed her in an “alternative learning environment,” and ultimately refused to provide her any special education services. The alternative learning environment was a single room with eight other students and a teacher who not only wasn’t highly qualified in the core academic subjects, he didn’t have any significant training in teaching children with disabilities.

The court found that, by not addressing any of AH’s behaviors, the school district failed to meet even the test for enabling the student to make “more than de minimus” progress, much less progress appropriate to her circumstances.

While these cases may give some indication as to how courts will apply the new standard, the outcome in each case arguably would have been the same under the old standard. It’s likely that the new standard will make a difference only in the cases like Drew’s where it’s a very close call; the student is making a little bit, but not much, progress. In these cases, the new standard will make it more likely that a court will require a school district to provide a higher level of educational services.

March 8, 2018
Legislative Ethics – Legislative Immunity
by Jason Gelender and Patti Dahlberg

Under article V, section 16 of the Colorado constitution, legislators cannot be “questioned” for any speech or debate in either house or in any committee. Referred to as “legislative immunity,” this privilege is designed to preserve the integrity of the legislative process and protect the legislative branch from intimidation. Courts have interpreted it broadly to grant legislators immunity from civil lawsuits and state criminal prosecution, but not federal criminal prosecution, and a privilege against being compelled to testify or produce documents in legal proceedings with respect to matters that fall within the “sphere of legitimate legislative activity.”

The “sphere of legitimate legislative activity” includes actions taken during official legislative proceedings conducted in accordance with constitutional procedural requirements and other activities that are integral to the legislative (i.e., lawmaking) function. It does not include actions taken outside of official legislative proceedings that are not integral to the legislative function, such as town hall meetings or publishing newsletters. Courts have considered these actions more political than legislative because they are undertaken to stay in touch with constituents and help legislators get reelected.

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

Situation #1. During heated floor debate on a controversial bill that would repeal all state restrictions on private swimming pools near busy intersections, a legislator who opposes the bill claims that the bill sponsor is only carrying the bill because a Colorado-based swimming pool manufacturer bribed him.

Does legislative immunity protect the legislator who made the accusation of bribery from liability in a civil lawsuit for defamation filed by the bill sponsor?
1. NO, because the legislator accused the bill sponsor of bribery, a crime that is a felony, legislative immunity does not apply.
2. NO, because the purpose of legislative immunity is to protect the General Assembly from intimidation by the executive and judicial branches of government and private parties, it does not apply to a statement made or other action taken by a legislator against another legislator.
3. YES, because a legislator who takes bribes directly impacts the integrity of the legislative process, it is important to allow other legislators to “blow the whistle” without fear of legal repercussions if they think that another legislator is taking a bribe, even if the charge later proves to be false.
4. YES, because the legislator made the claim during an official legislative proceeding while acting as a lawmaker, legislative immunity protects the legislator from liability in a civil lawsuit for defamation filed by the bill sponsor.
The correct answer is d. Because the legislator made the claim during an official legislative proceeding while acting as a lawmaker, legislative immunity protects the legislator from liability in a civil lawsuit for defamation filed by the bill sponsor. However, while this is technically correct in the context of potential liability in a civil lawsuit, a legitimate question exists as to whether the legislator’s claim is, in fact, ethical. The question and answer are illustrative of the tension between what is legal and what is ethical that legislators often face in the course of their legislative activities.

Situation #2. During heated floor debate on a controversial bill that would repeal all state restrictions on private swimming pools near busy intersections, a legislator who opposes the bill claims that the bill sponsor is only carrying the bill because a Colorado-based swimming pool manufacturer bribed him.

Assuming that the accusation of bribery is true, does legislative immunity prevent criminal prosecution of the accused legislator?
1. NO, legislative immunity does not protect a legislator from criminal prosecution. It only protects a legislator from being a defendant in a civil lawsuit or from otherwise being questioned as part of a civil proceeding.
2. NO, legislative immunity does not prevent criminal prosecution of the legislator. Prosecution for bribery does not require a protected inquiry into a legislator’s motives for the legislative acts of sponsoring or voting on a bill because the alleged crime occurred when the legislator accepted money in exchange for a promise to sponsor the bill and could be proven even if the legislator had not actually sponsored the bill.
3. YES, the purpose of legislative immunity is to prevent intimidation of legislators through, among other things, questioning of their motives for taking legislative actions. Because sponsorship of legislation is a legitimate legislative function that is within the “sphere of legitimate legislative activity,” a legislator’s improper motivation for sponsoring legislation cannot form the basis of a criminal prosecution of the legislator.
4. NO, because a legislator’s compensation is prescribed by law in accordance with article V, section 6 of the Colorado Constitution and such compensation does not include bribes. Taking a bribe as compensation for what is normally a legislative act of sponsoring legislation makes the sponsorship of the legislation violate a constitutional rule of procedure that governs the legislative process and therefore places the sponsorship outside of the protected “sphere of legitimate legislative activity.”
The correct answer is b. Legislative immunity does not prevent criminal prosecution of the legislator.

Although sponsoring legislation falls within the “sphere of legitimate legislative activity,” the United States Supreme Court has found that “[t]aking a bribe is, obviously, no part of the legislative process or function; it is not a legislative act (U.S. v. Brewster, 92 S. Ct. 2531, 2544 (1972)). In this hypothetical, because a successful bribery prosecution requires only proof that the accused legislator accepted money in exchange for a promise, fulfilled or unfulfilled, to sponsor a bill, and does not require examination of the legislator’s legislative act of actually sponsoring the legislation, legislative immunity does not prevent criminal prosecution of the legislator.

Situation #3. The CEO of a privately held swimming pool company testifies during a meeting of a special Interim Committee on Swimming Pools Near Busy Intersections that imposing a statewide ban on these pools will drive swimming pool companies out of Colorado and severely damage Colorado’s economy. In response, a legislator on the committee who supports a statewide ban on all swimming pools calls the CEO a “greedy child-killing liar” who is concerned only about the bottom line and says that “you don’t even care that swimming pools near busy intersection pose a clear safety hazard to children!” The CEO sues the legislator for defamation.

Does legislative immunity prevent the legislator from being found liable for defamation?
1. NO, because interim committees are study committees rather than committees of reference and only have the power to act regarding proposed legislation that has not yet been introduced and assigned a bill number, the legislator’s allegedly defamatory statements were not made within the “sphere of legitimate legislative activity.”
2. NO, because the legislator’s allegedly defamatory statements were so outrageous that the “outrageous conduct” exception to legislative immunity applies.
3. YES, because the interim committee meeting at which the legislator made the allegedly defamatory statements was an official legislative proceeding. The legislator was acting within the “sphere of legitimate legislative activity” and cannot be found liable for the statement in a civil lawsuit.
4. YES, because the allegedly defamatory statements were made in the context of a discussion about public policy options that could reasonably expect to lead to legislation being proposed, they fall within the “sphere of legitimate legislative activity.”
The correct answer is c. The interim committee meeting at which the legislator made the allegedly defamatory statements was an official legislative proceeding and, therefore, within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity. Statements made during a legislative committee meeting almost always fall within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity, and legislative immunity protects a legislator who makes such a statement from being held liable for the statement in a civil lawsuit.

And, in case you were wondering, there is no “outrageous conduct” exception to legislative immunity.

Situation #4. The CEO of a privately held swimming pool company testifies during a meeting of a special Interim Committee on Swimming Pools Near Busy Intersections that imposing a statewide ban on these pools will drive swimming pool companies out of Colorado and severely damage Colorado’s economy. In response, a legislator on the committee who supports a statewide ban on all swimming pools calls the CEO a “greedy child-killing liar” who is concerned only about the bottom line and says that “you don’t even care that swimming pool near busy intersection pose a safety hazard to children!” The CEO sues the legislator for defamation. Following the completion of the Interim Committee on Swimming Pools Near Busy Intersections’ meetings, the committee, with the assistance of Legislative Council Staff, issues a written final report that quotes as part of a summary of proceedings the allegedly defamatory statements made by the legislator. The CEO then amends his defamation complaint to include both the other legislators who served on the committee and the legislative staff who prepared the report as defendants.

Does legislative immunity prevent the legislators and legislative staff from being found liable for defamation?
1. NO, although the legislator who made the allegedly defamatory statements is entitled to legislative immunity because the statements were made during an official legislative proceeding, the other legislators and legislative staff are not entitled to legislative immunity because they republished the statements outside of the meeting.
2. YES, because the republication of the allegedly defamatory statements occurred in an official legislative report it falls within the “sphere of legitimate legislative activity.” And legislative privilege applies to legislative staff to the same extent it applies to legislators.
3. YES and NO. Because the republication of the allegedly defamatory statements occurred in an official legislative report, it falls within the “sphere of legitimate legislative activity” and the legislators cannot be found liable for defamation. But the legislative staff may be found liable for defamation because legislative immunity only protects legislators.
4. NO, legislative immunity does not protect the other legislators and staff from being found liable for defamation. But under the law of defamation itself, the other legislators and legislative staff cannot be found liable for defamation because only the person who originally makes an allegedly defamatory statement may be held liable for the statement
The correct answer is b. Republication of the allegedly defamatory statements occurred in an official legislative report. The preparation, adoption, and publication of the official report of a legislative interim committee falls within the “sphere of legitimate legislative activity.” Consequently, legislative immunity protects both the legislators and the staffers from being found liable for defamation for actions taken in preparing, adopting, and publishing the report.

If you want to read more about legislative privilege and immunity, check out “A Look at the Limits of Legislative Immunity.”

Want to learn more about legislative ethics? Take the Legislative Ethics Tutorial.
February 23, 2018
A Word of Praise for the Sergeants-at-arms

by Darren Thornberry

Hang around either chamber of the Colorado General Assembly at, say, 10 a.m. on a weekday and you’ll notice something striking. Amidst the speaking, the voting, the throng of lobbyists, the visitors along the walls, and the fast pace of the legislature at work, there are a few people actually making sense of the chaos. You’ll see them in their green (House) and maroon (Senate) jackets, delivering documents to legislators, keeping the aisles clear, ensuring appropriate decorum is upheld, and maintaining the security of the chambers. In the afternoons, they provide security for committee meetings, and throughout the day they also enforce parking laws on the capitol grounds. They are the security officers, or sergeants-at-arms, of the Colorado General Assembly, and they’re heavily relied upon to keep the wheels of the legislature turning.

So why are they called sergeants?
Karl Kurtz, formerly with the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), looked into this question some years back in an article for NCSL’s The Thicket in which he looked up the etymology of “sergeant at arms.” He wrote that dictionaries agree that “sergeant” is derived from the Latin, serviens, meaning serving or servant. He further explored the online Britannica Encyclopedia and found the following definition:

an officer of a legislative body, court of law, or other organization who preserves order and executes commands. In feudal England a sergeant at arms was an armed officer of a lord and was often one of a special body required to be in immediate attendance on the king’s person, to arrest traitors and other offenders. Through this function, the title of sergeant at arms eventually came to denote certain court, parliamentary, and city officials with ceremonial (and ostensibly disciplinary) functions. Each house of the British Parliament has a sergeant at arms, as does each house of the U.S. …

The sergeants have been present in the chambers of the Colorado state house since the first legislative session of the territory. Here in fact is the page from the legislative manual of 1861 that lists the names of the sergeants for both the Council and the Representatives:

Records from that year show that Mr. Kingsbury and Mr. Elmer were paid “in addition to their regular compensation, the sum of three dollars per day.”

In 1877, the book of general laws of the newly founded state of Colorado, page 487, reads:

That until otherwise provided by law, the officers and employees of the respective houses of the general assembly of Colorado shall be as follows, to wit: Of the senate—a secretary, assistant secretary, sergeant-at-arms, assistant sergeant-at-arms, engrossing clerk, assistant engrossing clerk, enrolling clerk, messenger, door keeper, chaplain, janitor, and two pages. Of the house of representatives—a chief clerk, assistant clerk, sergeant-at-arms, assistant sergeant-at-arms, engrossing clerk, assistant engrossing clerk, enrolling clerk, messenger, door keeper, chaplain, janitor, and four pages. (Emphasis added)

We call them ‘the enforcers,’ but the House Sergeants have always been the most accommodating group of individuals you could meet. They are people- and service-oriented, and are willing to do most anything to help anyone. There really isn’t much that the House Sergeants don’t do. – Marilyn Eddins, Chief Clerk, House of Representatives

So what is the role of a sergeant-at-arms in modern times? Consider House Rule 44: Other Officers and Employees:

(a) The sergeant-at-arms shall attend the House during its sittings, shall maintain order in the House chamber and the approaches thereto at all times…

(b) The sergeant-at-arms shall supervise the assistant sergeant-at-arms in the performance of their duties.

(b.5) The sergeant-at-arms and the assistant sergeants-at-arms shall be selected without reference to party affiliation and solely on the basis of ability to perform the duties of their positions.

Were a ne’er do well to actually enter the chamber, the sergeants, as peace officers, have the authority to arrest them on the spot. They also have the authority to track down and return to the chambers any missing legislator. If that sounds far-fetched, I give you Senate Rule 20: Call of the Senate:

(a) Any five Senators may demand a call of the Senate, and require absent Senators to be sent for… and those for whose absence no excuse or an insufficient excuse is made, shall be sent for and taken into custody by the sergeant-at-arms…

In the House, it’s Rule 19: Call of the House requires 10 members to initiate. In addition, both houses have rules regarding executive or secret sessions and the role that the sergeants play in securing the chambers as well as their duty to keep silent regarding such proceedings. (House Rule 17 and Senate Rule 27.)

Embed from Getty Images

Ninety-four years after statehood, in 1973, the role of the sergeants as peace officers was statutorily codified in section 2-2-402, Colorado Revised Statutes, as follows:

2-2-402. Chief security officers. (1) Each house of the general assembly may appoint a chief security officer to ensure the orderly operation of each house and committees thereof. Such chief security officers shall perform the duties of the house employing them and shall be under the direction of one or more members or officers of such house as may be designated in the rules of each house.

(2) Such chief security officers are hereby designated to be peace officers and shall have jurisdiction to act as such in the performance of their duties anywhere within the state.

(3) Each house may adopt rules regarding the organization, supervision, and operations of its security staff, prescribing the qualifications, training, and duties of its security officers and all other matters relating to the performance of their responsibilities.

The Senate Sergeants are a wonderful group of people who do their daily tasks with professionalism and a smile. They provide a sense of order and decorum to the chamber while enforcing the rules and procedures of the chamber. The pragmatic tasks they perform on a daily basis in the chamber as well as in the Senate Committee rooms makes the Senate the well-oiled machine that it is. We could not do it without them. – Kevin Grantham, Senate President

While the sergeants-at-arms don’t get loose-lipped about the things they’ve seen over the years, stories abound. There’s the one about finding a missing member in a dentist chair in Ft. Collins and returning him to the House chamber to vote. On another occasion, a legislator said to have been in Pueblo was returned by the state patrol, upon the request of the sergeant-at-arms, to participate in a House vote. There are rumors, too, about sergeants having to dissuade legislators from slipping out of windows on Sine Die (the last day of the legislative session)! Regardless of what hijinks are occurring and how fast-paced the work might be, the sergeants-at-arms do their work with the utmost professionalism, and a friendlier cadre cannot be found on the capitol grounds.

Author’s Note: My thanks to Theresa Holst and Molly Otto.

February 15, 2018
Who’s Afraid of the Origination Clause?

by Nicole Myers

Senators, has this ever happened to you? You have a great idea for a bill to create a tax credit. It will provide assistance or incentives to deserving Coloradans who satisfy the criteria to claim it. You submit your bill request to the OLLS at your earliest opportunity, and within a day or two, an OLLS attorney calls you to discuss your request. But before you can even explain your great idea, the attorney respectfully tells you that because your bill creates a tax credit, it is considered revenue raising and therefore should start in the House of Representatives.

Now hold on just a minute. You are a State Senator! Why is an OLLS attorney telling you that your bill, which was your idea, should start in the House? What’s with this revenue-raising thing…did the OLLS make this up? And, how can a tax credit, which is revenue reducing, be considered a bill that raises revenue?

Senators, your OLLS attorney gave you this unhappy news because Section 31 of article V of the state constitution requires that “[a]ll bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of representatives, but the senate may propose amendments, as in the case of other bills.” This requirement is known as the “Origination Clause” and was likely modeled after a similar provision in the United States constitution.

You may be wondering why the Colorado and United States Constitutions require bills that raise revenue to originate in the House of Representatives. The right to introduce money bills is an ancient privilege of the House of Commons, the lower house of the British Parliament. This privilege was awarded the lower house in the belief that the House of Lords, a permanent, hereditary body created by the king, would be more subject to influence by the crown than the House of Commons, a temporary elective body. They thought it was more dangerous to let the Lords impose new taxes; better to leave that to the body elected by the people.

A substantial number of state constitutions and the United State constitution maintain the privilege of the “lower” house to introduce money bills. While the limitation regarding revenue-raising bills is a remnant of Parliament’s struggles with the Crown, in modern times it expresses a preference for keeping the power to tax as close as possible to those subject to the tax. The House of Representatives, deemed the “lower” house, is presumed to more directly represent the people both because lower houses are customarily larger than their corresponding upper chamber and their membership is usually subject to election more frequently.

There are many Colorado cases in which the court has assessed the constitutionality of bills under the Origination Clause, and there have been various interpretations of the phrase “bills for raising revenue” as stated in both the Colorado and United States Constitutions. In Colorado, the courts have determined that a bill for raising revenue “is one which provides for the levy and collection of taxes for the purpose of paying the officers and of defraying the expenses of government.” The courts have also held that “[a] bill designed to accomplish some purpose other than raising revenue, is not a revenue-raising measure. Merely because as an incident, to its main purpose, it may contain provisions, the enforcement of which produces a revenue does not make it a revenue measure.”

If you are thinking “but the General Assembly can’t pass a bill for the levy and collection of taxes for any purpose,” you are one step ahead of me. Today, the accountability to taxpayers for tax increases that the Origination Clause provides is largely superseded by the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights. TABOR requires voter approval for any legislation that increases taxes, so now the voters directly decide whether taxes should be increased. (Interestingly, a bill that includes a referendum clause asking voters to increase or decrease state general fund revenue is considered a bill for raising revenue, even though voter approval is required.) So why are OLLS attorneys still bothering you with e-mails or phone messages about revenue-raising bills?

The Colorado Attorney General’s Office has issued several opinions regarding bills for raising revenue. One of these opinions states that a bill that would have the obvious effect of decreasing collected revenues is still a bill for raising revenue.[1] The Attorney General’s Office determined through its research that bills for raising revenue “means bills which provide for the levy and collection of taxes. A bill levying taxes may cause a tax to decrease as well as increase. Accordingly, art. V (section) 31 precludes the senate from introducing measures that decrease state taxes”. For this reason, the OLLS advises members of the General Assembly that a bill that affects the amount of general fund revenue collected by the state is considered a revenue-raising bill and should be introduced first in the House. Bills that fall into this category include income tax credits, income tax exemptions, bills to decrease any state tax, and bills that seek voter approval for an increase or decrease in any state tax or approval for the creation of a new state tax. Bills that are not deemed to affect the amount of general fund revenue collected by the state and therefore can be introduced in the Senate include bills that delegate authority to local governments to levy local property taxes, bills that appropriate money from the general fund, and bills that create, increase, or decrease a fee or toll as compensation for the use of government facilities or for services provided by the government.[2]

Although the OLLS does its best to advise Senators of the provisions of section 31 of article V of the state constitution, Senators have started many revenue-raising bills in the Senate. There is now precedent for these bills being enacted after starting in the Senate, and these bills are presumed to be constitutional. To our knowledge, no one has challenged any of these revenue-raising bills in court based on a violation of the Origination Clause; therefore, the OLLS does not know whether a court would give more weight to the constitutional provisions of the Origination Clause or the presumption of constitutionality afforded every measure enacted by the General Assembly. Regardless, it is interesting to note that one Speaker of the House within recent memory, to protect the House’s authority to introduce revenue-raising bills, refused to introduce in the House any Senate bill that was revenue raising. While a Senator may decide that he or she is not going to let the Origination Clause stop him or her from introducing a Senate Bill that affects the overall amount of revenue coming into the state general fund, the House of Representatives may use the Origination Clause to prevent the bill from proceeding in the House.

As all Colorado State Senators and Representatives know, the OLLS will never tell a member of the General Assembly that he or she cannot introduce a bill for any reason. So if you are a Senator and are ever advised that your bill is revenue raising and, pursuant section 31 of article V of the state constitution, should start in the House, it is just the OLLS reminding you of the requirements of the Origination Clause. We do this in an effort to protect the constitutionality of your bill, maintain the authority of the House of Representatives to introduce revenue-raising bills, and preserve the integrity of the laws and traditions that govern the legislative process in Colorado. We leave it to you to determine whether to be afraid!

[1] For a list of specific Attorney General Opinions discussing article V (section) 31, please see section 8.1.5 of the OLLS Drafting Manual.

[2] For a more thorough discussion of bills that are and are not considered revenue raising, please see sections 8.1 and 8.2 of the OLLS drafting manual.

February 8, 2018
Tribute, Resolution, or Memorial – Making the Right Choice
By Patti Dahlberg

When legislators wish to show support for individuals or groups, make public statements about issues or concerns, or ask Congress to take action on a matter, they can request a tribute, resolution, or memorial to get the job done. Legislators decide what they wish to do, and the legislative rules direct them how to get it done.

This handy guide sums up these rules for making the right choice. For example, if a legislator wants to congratulate someone, a tribute is the way to go. It is an appropriate and efficient way to send congratulations to people or organizations or to recognize service to the state. In fact, whenever a legislator wishes to “officially” congratulate, recognize, express appreciation, commemorate, or even create a day of recognition, the rules pretty much scream “tribute”.

Tributes

Tributes are non-legislative actions and DO NOT require introduction, calendaring, or floor action. Tributes are a very efficient and effective way for legislators to show support for individuals or groups. Legislators are not limited in the number of tributes they may request, but they do need permission from the Speaker of the House or the President of the Senate depending on the house of origin) before the tribute can be issued. The tribute’s content is unique to each request and is designed to fit the needs of each requestor — it can be short and created fairly quickly, or it can be longer and more detailed (based on information provided by the legislator). Tributes are easier to present to an individual or a group as they can be scheduled around the recipient’s and legislator’s calendars rather than the legislative calendar. In addition, they can go on the road—the legislator can conveniently award them anywhere and any time.

Tributes are personalized and look special. They are printed in a special font, on special paper, and placed in a special folder or, if preferred (and at a slight cost), in a frame for display. Tributes are signed by the Speaker or the President or, in the case of joint tributes, both.

House Tributes:
- The House will not issue a tribute unless the Speaker of the House has given her permission;
- The Chief Clerk of the House maintains copies of each tribute issued for two years.
Under House Rule 26A, a request should be a tribute if it pertains to any of the following:
- Offering congratulations for significant public achievement;
- Recognizing meritorious individual achievement;
- Expressing appreciation for service to the state or the General Assembly;
- Recognizing an individual’s service in the military (except in the case of recognizing an individual who died while serving, which can be done by House Resolution or Joint Resolution, see House Rule 26 (a)(2)(C));
- Extending greetings to prominent visitors to the state;
- Recognizing or commemorating any individual, organization, or group for a significant event or accomplishment;
- Congratulating the members of an academic or athletic organization for achieving a specific historical, scientific, educational, or athletic goal, such as winning a league, state, or national title, competition, or championship; or
- Designating a specified day for observing any of the achievements, events, service, or accomplishments set forth above.
Senate Tributes:
- The Senate will not issue a tribute unless the President of the Senate has given his permission;
- Tributes are printed in the journal by title on the day following the issuance;
- A list of all tributes requested in the Senate is available for inspection in the office of the Secretary of the Senate.
Under Senate Rule 30A, a request should be a tribute if it pertains to any of the following:
- Offering congratulations for significant public achievements;
- Recognizing meritorious individual achievement;
- Expressing appreciation for service to the state or the General Assembly;
- Recognizing an individual’s service in the military; or
- Extending greetings to prominent visitors to the state.
The House and the Senate Rules state that a request should be a Memorial Tribute or a Joint Memorial Tribute if it expresses sentiment on the death of a person who has not served as a member of the General Assembly (except for the House exceptions listed above regarding military, law enforcement, and firefighting personnel who died while serving) or, in the Senate, meets the exceptions allowed under the rules for Senate Memorials and Joint Memorials. (Senate Rule 30 (d).)

All requests for tributes must be made to the staff designated by the Chief Clerk of the House or the Secretary of the Senate.

Resolutions

Resolutions are non-statutory actions but DO require introduction, calendaring, and floor action.

House Resolutions:
- Representatives are limited to a total of two resolutions or joint resolutions, unless they receive special permission.
- Resolutions and joint resolutions must be introduced prior to the last thirty legislative days as required in Joint Rule 23 (g).
- Upon introduction, they are read into the record by title only and copies are printed.
- At the discretion of the Speaker, they can either be laid over for one day before being acted on or referred to a committee of reference.
- No action is taken on the resolution or joint until it is printed.
Under House Rule 26, a request can be a House Joint Resolution if it pertains to:
- Transacting the business of both the House and the Senate;
- Establishing committees comprised of members of both houses;
- Recognizing an individual member of the armed forces of this country who has died while serving in the armed forces or an individual member of a police, sheriff, or fire department who has died while performing duties for the department; or
- Expressing the will of both houses on a matter not mentioned in House Rule 26A (i.e., not a tribute).
In addition, but only in the House, pursuant to House Rule 26 (a)(3.5)(A):
- Up to six resolutions recognizing or commemorating an individual, organization, or group for a significant event or accomplishment (i.e., which would normally have to be addressed through tributes) may be approved by the Speaker after consultation with the Majority Leader; and
- Up to four resolutions recognizing or commemorating an individual, organization, or group for a significant event or accomplishment (i.e., which normally would have to be addressed through tributes) may be approved by the Speaker after consultation with the Minority Leader.
Senate Resolutions:
- Senators are limited to a total of three resolutions or joint resolutions, unless they receive special permission.
- Resolutions and joint resolutions must be introduced prior to the last thirty legislative days as required in Joint Rule 23 (g).
- Upon introduction, they are printed in the journal by title only and copies are printed.
- At the discretion of the President, they can be acted on immediately, laid over, or referred to a committee of reference.
- Resolutions and joint resolutions determined by the Majority Leader to be noncontroversial can be placed on the consent calendar.
Under Senate Rule 30, a request can be a Senate Joint Resolution if it pertains to:
- Transacting the business of both the House and the Senate;
- Establishing investigating committees comprised of members of both houses; or
- Expressing the will of both houses on a matter not mentioned in Senate Rule 30A (i.e., not a tribute).
Any of the above can be a House Resolution or Senate Resolution if it pertains to similar matters as listed for the joint resolutions, but does not require concurrence of the other chamber or relates solely to the will of one chamber.

All requests for resolutions and memorials must be submitted to the Office of Legislative Legal Services. In 2018, the deadline for requesting resolutions and memorials is Friday, April 6, and the deadline for introducing resolutions is Monday, April 9.

Memorials

Memorials are non-statutory actions but DO require introduction, calendaring, and floor action.

House Memorials:
- At the discretion of the Speaker, a former member of the House may be admitted to the House floor to address House members regarding the person being memorialized.
- The House shall stand in recess to hear an address by a former member.
Under House Rule 26, the request is a House or House Joint Memorial ifit expresses sentiment on the death of a person who served as a member of the General Assembly.

Senate Memorials:
- At the discretion of the President, a former member of the Senate may be admitted to the Senate floor to address Senate members regarding a memorial expressing sentiment on the death of a person who served as a member of the Senate.
Under Senate Rule 30, the request is a Senate or Senate Joint Memorial if:
- It expresses sentiment on the death of a person or persons who served as members of the General Assembly, present or former elected State officials, present or former justices of the Colorado Supreme Court, members of Congress, elected officials of other states or of the United States, or foreign dignitaries; or
- It memorializes the U.S. Congress on any matter.
All requests for resolutions and memorials must be submitted to the Office of Legislative Legal Services. In 2018, the deadline for requesting resolutions and memorials is Friday, April 6, and the deadline for introducing resolutions is Monday, April 9.
February 1, 2018
What’s with All the Extra Changes in My Bill?

by Bethanie Pack

Sometimes a seemingly quick fix in a bill, such as changing just a few words or extending a repeal date, results in a draft that was longer than anticipated with more changes than originally asked for.

Why?

Under the Revisor of Statutes’ authority granted in sections 2-2-802 and 2-5-103 C.R.S., the Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS) makes several on-going, non-substantive changes to modernize, maintain consistency, and improve the readability of the statutes. Drafters add these changes to bills prospectively, as the opportunity arises, rather than making a global revision change in the database, because making all these changes at once would 1) introduce a lot of opportunity for error; 2) potentially and unintentionally change the law substantively in some scenarios; and 3) take a ton of additional time to proofread the accuracy of all of the changes.

Some examples of these additional non-substantive changes a legislator may see in a bill include:

Short Titles and Standardized Language

This article shall be known and may be cited as The short title of this article 30 is the “Limited Gaming Act of 1991”.

Prior to Before its repeal, the department of regulatory agencies shall review the licensing functions of the secretary of state are scheduled for review in accordance with…

Formatting of Internal References

…the provisions of this article article 30.

…described in paragraph (a) of this subsection (1) subsection (1)(a) of this section as the…

Removing “C.R.S.” from a Section Number

…the provisions of section 24-5-101; C.R.S.;

“Which” to “That”

…the administration of similar laws which that may be in effect in other states or countries;

“Such” to “The”

…upon such the sheriff’s or peace officer’s request…

Gender Neutralization

…in the performance of his or her duties…

“Moneys” to “Money”

…shall invest the moneys money in the…

People First Language

Mental retardation Intellectual and developmental disabilities theory and rehabilitation…

…being a common drunkard person with an alcohol use disorder…

One might think that some of these changes are simple enough to just “find and replace” them all in the statutes. Two clicks and done. Right?

Unfortunately, it’s not that simple or easy.

A change may seem straightforward at first, such as gender neutralizing, where the drafter or the Revisor could just add “or she” to every place in the statutes where it says “he”. But, since the intent of these changes is to modernize and improve readability, it may be better to clarify the actor rather than just add “or she” to the statute. “He shall authorize…” becomes “The commissioner shall authorize…” rather than “He or she shall authorize…”. This obviously requires interpretation that a computer simply cannot do.

Because of this and the statutory directive to write in “plain, nontechnical language and in a clear and coherent manner using words with common and everyday meaning which are understandable to the average reader,” section 2-2-801 C.R.S., the OLLS continuously updates and modernizes the laws as they are amended for substantive purposes, which results in unanticipated additional changes in a bill.

Under most circumstances, the OLLS makes these changes in a bill as the opportunity arises. However, these changes cannot be made in uniform laws or compacts or when it would conflict with federal law.

So, with each extra, unanticipated change in a bill, the general assembly is doing its part in the slow but steady process of bringing the 20,000+ pages of statutes into the 21^st century.

January 26, 2018

Title 12 Recodification Project Moves Forward

by Thomas Morris

Progress Through 2017

In 2016, the General Assembly enacted S.B. 16-163, which directs the Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS) to study an organizational recodification of Title 12 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) governing the regulation of professions and occupations and to bring recommendations, including any legislative proposals to recodify the title, to the Committee on Legal Services (COLS). During the 2017 legislative session, in furtherance of the study recommendations, the General Assembly enacted 14 bills proposed by the COLS to relocate 21 articles to more appropriate titles in the C.R.S. (See the Title 12 Recodification Project’s website for links to these bills). The General Assembly also enacted a bill, H.B. 17-1006, to allow agencies that need to correct statutory citations in the code of Colorado regulations because of these relocations to do so without the notice, comment, and hearing that usually accompany rule making by submitting to the secretary of state a specific, written determination by the attorney general.

During the 2017 interim, the OLLS staff solicited feedback from stakeholders, drafted and distributed numerous relocation bills, and provided the COLS with updates regarding the project’s progress. During the COLS’s December meeting, the OLLS recommended, and the COLS approved, introducing for the 2018 legislative session 10 additional relocation bills. Nine of the relocation bills create a new Title 44 in the C.R.S. to which the bills will move current articles and parts in Titles 12 and 24 that are administered by the Department of Revenue. The tenth relocation bill relocates three articles and one part from Title 12 to other appropriate titles in the C.R.S.

Because of the complexity of the remainder of the project, which entails reorganizing and restructuring the articles administered by the Department of Regulatory Agencies (DoRA) that remain in Title 12 and the need for more stakeholder meetings and in-depth discussions with the department and the regulated community, the OLLS recommended, and the COLS approved, introducing a bill to extend the Title 12 Recodification Project for one additional year.

2018 Regular Session Legislation

Members of the COLS are sponsoring the Title 12 Recodification Project bills in the 2018 legislative session. With the exception of the bill to extend the project, the bills simply relocate a particular set of statutes from one location in the C.R.S. to another location with minor technical updates and do not make any substantive changes to the law. Half of the relocation bills and the project extension bill were introduced in the Senate and the other half of the relocation bills were introduced in the House of Representatives. Here’s a list of the 11 bills introduced so far this session.

Bill No	Prime Sponsors	Status as of 1/18/18	Subject	Law Being Relocated
SB18-030	Sens. Holbert & Kagan Reps. Foote & Willett	Senate second reading	Motor vehicle dealers	Article 6 of title 12
SB-18-031	Sen. Gardner; Rep. Foote	Senate Appropriations committee	Extends Title 12 Project
SB18-032	Sens. Gardner & Cooke; Reps. Foote & Herod	Senate second reading	Parental notification Firearms dealers Gun show background checks Unsworn declarations	Article 37.5 of title 12 Article 26 of title 12 Article 26.1 of title 12 Part 3 of article 55 of title 12
SB18-034	Sens. Cooke & Guzman Reps. Wist & Lee	Senate second reading	Limited gaming Tribal-state gaming compact	Article 47.1 of title 12 Article 47.2 of title 12
SB18-035	Sens. Gardner & Cooke Rep. Wist	Senate second reading	Gambling payment intercepts	Part 6 of article 35 of title 24
SB18-036	Sen. Kagan Rep. Wist	Senate second reading	Tobacco sales to minors	Part 5 of article 35 of title 24
HB18-1023	Rep. Herod Sen. Gardner	House Judiciary Committee hearing, 1/23/18 at 1:30 pm	Medical marijuana Retail marijuana	Article 43.3 of title 12 Article 43.4 of title 12
HB18-1024	Rep. Lee Sen. Kagan	House Judiciary Committee hearing, 1/23/18 at 1:30 pm	Racing	Article 60 of title 12
HB18-1025	Rep. Herod Sens. Gardner & Cooke	House Judiciary Committee hearing, 1/23/18 at 1:30 pm	Colorado Beer Code Colorado Liquor Code Special event permits	Article 46 of title 12 Article 47 of title 12 Article 48 of title 12
HB18-1026	Rep. Herod Sens. Gardner & Cooke	House Judiciary Committee hearing, 1/23/18 at 1:30 pm	Liquor enforcement division cash fund	Part 4 of article 35 of title 24
HB18-1027	Rep. Wist Sen. Kagan	House Judiciary Committee hearing, 1/23/18 at 1:30 pm	Lottery	Part 2 of article 35 of title 24

During the stakeholder process that the OLLS conducted during the 2017 interim, some interest was expressed in not only relocating but also reorganizing both the marijuana laws and the laws governing automobile dealers and power sports dealers. Staff have distributed draft bills to accomplish these reorganizations to stakeholders, but there was insufficient time to develop consensus on them before the beginning of the 2018 regular session. The OLLS therefore did not recommend the introduction of these bills to the COLS; if consensus is reached later there is still a possibility that one or both of these bills could be introduced in the 2018 regular session.

So, what’s left?

Actually, the whole point of the project – to reorganize Title 12. If all of the 2018 legislation is enacted, the only laws left in Title 12 will be those administered by DoRA. But they will still be in their preexisting form – with lots of duplicative or nearly duplicative requirements scattered throughout Title 12 and without the benefit of one or more common provisions articles that would apply broadly throughout Title 12. Additionally, there are several laws administered by DoRA relating to professions and occupations that are codified outside of Title 12 (primarily in Title 24) that would benefit from being codified along with the rest of DoRA’s Title 12 authorities.

The plan is for the OLLS to conduct more stakeholder outreach during the 2018 interim, distribute draft reorganization bills, and try to reach consensus on those bills by November. The OLLS would then present its recommendations to the COLS for the introduction of the consensus Title 12 reorganization legislation for the 2019 regular session. Stay tuned!

January 18, 2018

Looking Back: What Were the Political Issues in 1918…er…1917?

by Julie Pelegrin and Nate Carr

The Second Regular Session of the Seventy-first General Assembly is underway. Based on recent media coverage and the opening day remarks by legislative leadership, we know that some of the anticipated hot topics are funding for roads and bridges, teacher shortages, addressing opioid addiction, affordable housing, health care, rural broadband access, and shoring up the Public Employees’ Retirement Association. And people are hoping to address all of these issues in a spirit of bipartisanship in order to find workable solutions.

We thought it would be interesting before we get too caught up in the 2018 session to look back and see what was happening in the 1918 session. What issues were our legislative forebears tackling one hundred years ago?

Turns out, in 1918, they weren’t tackling anything legislatively. Before voters amended the constitution in 1950, the General Assembly met regularly every other year in odd-numbered years. They met in even-numbered years only if the Governor called them in to special session, which Governor Julius C. Gunter did not do in 1918. Not that there wasn’t a lot going on in Colorado in 1918: the federal government broke ground on “World War I Army Hospital 21,” later renamed Fitzsimons Army Hospital; the Broadmoor resort opened in Colorado Springs; the Influenza Pandemic of 1918 started in Colorado in September, ultimately killing nearly 8,000 Coloradans; and World War I ended on November 11.

Not to be deterred, we decided to see what the General Assembly was considering 101 years ago, when they convened in 1917 for the Regular Session of the Twenty-first General Assembly.

In 1917, the Democrats controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate. They held the Senate with 18 Democrats to 17 Republicans and the House with 40 Democrats to 25 Republicans.

The Twenty-first General Assembly convened at “12 o’clock, noon” on Wednesday, January 3, 1917, as required in the constitution at the time. Lieutenant Governor Moses E. Lewis, whose term ended on January 9, 1917, gaveled the Senate to order. He was replaced by James A. Pulliam, who presided as Senate President for the remainder of the legislative session. We should explain that, under the constitution until 1974, the state’s Lieutenant Governor served as President of the Senate, voting only to break a tie.

Mr. Erlo E. Kennedy, Chief Clerk of the House, called the House of Representatives to order and, after the committee on credentials reported that the persons elected the previous November, as certified by the Secretary of State, were entitled to their seats as provided by statute, Representative Boon Best of Arlington, CO, was elected to preside as Speaker of the House of Representatives.[1] And yes, Speaker Best was a descendant of Daniel Boone. (See Presidents and Speakers of the Colorado General Assembly, Denver, Colorado, 2016 Edition.)

So, what were the hot topics of 1917?

Alcohol and marijuana were both on the list. On January 1, 1916, Colorado became a dry state (Colorado was leading the nation even then). Not surprisingly, in 1917, the General Assembly considered and passed a law to limit the purchase and sale of alcohol to licensed wholesalers and licensed manufacturers. The intent was to ensure that alcohol was used only as a “component part of some manufactured article, and that no article ordinarily used as a beverage will be manufactured therefrom.” The General Assembly also passed H.B. No. 263, carried by Rep. Andres Lucero from Saguache, to “declare unlawful the planting, cultivating, harvesting, drying, curing, or preparation for sale or gift of cannabis sativa,” also known as “mariguana”. The penalty was a fine of $10-$100, or up to 30 days in jail, or both.

In his state of the state address, Governor Gunter praised Colorado for its impressive growth in the 40 years since statehood. Population had grown from 60,000 to 1,000,000; assessed valuation had increased from less than $45,000,000 to more than $1,211,000,000; and the total production of the state—$20,000,000 in 1876—had increased several times over due to steel production, sugar output, livestock, minerals, and agriculture.

But there were issues to address. He cited an investigation of the public education system, which showed that the system

provides for no efficient control or supervision of the schools by any state or county agency; does not provide for equality of opportunity; does not place the burden of support of schools equally on all property; [and] favors the city and town at the expense of the country. 1917 Senate Journal, Tuesday, January 9, 1917, 7th Legislative Day, pg 86.

He asked for collaboration in making the school system more efficient and “to properly recognize by salary and otherwise, those giving their lives to this respected and useful calling,” i.e., teaching.

The Governor raised myriad other issues, including state highways (“investment now more than $22,000,000”), encouraging the legislators to work with the director of the department to further develop “this great asset of the state.” He encouraged the legislators to raise funding for buildings and equipment at the state institutions of higher education and to appropriate state money to enforce the minimum wage law for women and minors. He called for legislation to “rearrange” the judicial districts and to adopt for the state a “Budget System for the expenditure of all moneys required for maintaining the government and the institutions of the state.”

In all, the members of the General Assembly introduced 434 Senate bills and 587 House bills; passed 155 bills; and adjourned sine die on March 24, 1917, at noon. In his state of the state address in 1919, Colorado Governor Oliver H. Shoup recognized the 1917 session as “the shortest regular sitting in the history of the commonwealth, the most fruitful in a time of greatest peril in the life of the state.”

Less than a month after the 1917 session adjourned, on April 6, 1917, the United States declared war on Germany and entered World War I. So maybe it’s not so surprising that there were no special legislative sessions called during 1918.

[1] Actually, we have been unable to locate a copy of the House Journal for 1917. The order of business presented here is based on the procedures followed on the first day of the 1919 session as presented in the House Journal for 1919.

January 11, 2018

Author: olls

Tributes

House Tributes:

Senate Tributes:

Resolutions

House Resolutions:

Senate Resolutions:

Memorials

House Memorials:

Senate Memorials: