Author: olls

  • Happy Thanksgiving


    Happy Thanksgiving from the Office of Legislative Legal Services

  • Legislative Council Approves 34 Interim Committee Bills for Introduction in 2018 – Part 2 (of 2)

    The Legislative Council met November 15, 2017, to review and approve bills recommended by interim study committees during the 2017 interim. In reviewing the bills, the Legislative Council considered whether each bill fit within the recommending committee’s study charge. At the meeting, the Legislative Council approved all of the bills summarized last week in Part 1 of this two-part series.

    Following are summaries of the bills recommended by the remaining 2017 interim committees. Except where noted, the Legislative Council approved all of the bills for introduction during the 2018 regular legislative session.

    Early Childhood and School Readiness Legislative Commission

    The Early Childhood and School Readiness Legislative Commission met four times over the interim. Kristina Mueller with the Office of Early Childhood in the Colorado Department of Human Services staffed the commission. The commission requested five bills, and at its final meeting on November 1, the committee voted to recommend four of those bills to the Legislative Council:

    Bill A: Concerning alignment of early childhood quality improvement programs with the Colorado Shines Quality Rating and Improvement System.

    The bill amends the application and eligibility requirements for the Colorado School Readiness Quality Improvement Program and the Infant and Toddler Quality and Availability Grant Program to align with the Colorado Shines Quality Rating and Improvement System, streamlining administration of the programs. The bill also removes obsolete language from the statutes, including references to early childhood and education councils that were never established.

    Bill B: Concerning substitute child care providers.

    The bill creates a license within the Colorado Department of Human Services for a substitute placement agency that places, facilitates, or arranges placement of substitute child care providers in licensed facilities that provide less than 24-hour care. The State Board of Human Services is directed to establish rules for substitute child care providers and substitute placement agencies. At a minimum, those rules must require the substitute child care provider to submit to a fingerprint-based criminal history records check and demonstrate that he or she has the training and certification for the license type and position in which he or she is placed.

    Bill C: Concerning the extension of the repeal of the Early Childhood and School Readiness Legislative Commission.

    The bill extends the commission’s repeal date by five years to July 1, 2023.

    Bill D: Concerning eligibility of kindergarten students funded through early childhood at-risk enhancement positions.

    If a school district chooses to use an early childhood at-risk enhancement (ECARE) position to enroll a child in the school district’s full-day kindergarten program, the child enrolled through the ECARE position must meet at least one of the eligibility requirements of the Colorado preschool program.

    To review the bills recommended by the Early Childhood and School Readiness Legislative Commission and for questions concerning the legislation, please contact Brita Darling.

    Legislative Oversight Committee concerning the Treatment of Persons with Mental Health Disorders in the Criminal Justice System

    The Legislative Oversight Committee concerning the Treatment of Person with Mental Health Disorders in the Criminal Justice System met three times over the 2017 interim. In addition to the legislative oversight committee meetings, the task force associated with this committee met five times. At its final meeting on November 1, 2017, the committee recommended four bills to the Legislative Council. The Legislative Council approved all of the bills except Bill C:

    Bill A: Concerning competency to proceed for juveniles involved in the juvenile justice system.

    This bill establishes a juvenile-specific definition of “competent to proceed” and “incompetent to proceed” for juveniles involved in the juvenile justice system, as well as specific definitions for “developmental disability”, “mental capacity”, and “mental disability” when used in this context. The bill clarifies the procedures for establishing incompetency, as well as for establishing the restoration of competency.

    Bill B: Concerning the repeal date for the transfer of money from community corrections to the housing assistance for persons transitioning from the criminal or juvenile justice system cash fund.

    In 2017, the general assembly enacted a provision requiring, at the end of the 2016-17 fiscal year, the state treasurer to transfer unexpended and unencumbered money appropriated for community corrections programs to a new fund to assist persons transitioning from the criminal or juvenile justice systems. The act repealed the provision in 2018. The bill eliminates the repeal of the provision so that the transfer occurs at the end of each state fiscal year.

    Bill C: Concerning measures to ease the rental application process for prospective tenants, and, in connection therewith, requiring landlords to disclose their tenant eligibility criteria before accepting rental applications or application fees.

    The bill requires a landlord to provide each prospective tenant with written notice of the landlord’s tenant selection criteria and the grounds upon which a rental application may be denied before accepting an application or collecting an application fee. The notice must also state the amount of the application fee, which must be uniform for all applicants. The bill further defines a violation of these requirements as a deceptive trade practice.

    Bill D: Concerning incentives to provide inmates with needed services.

    The bill requires the department of corrections to institute an incentive plan to contract for more mental health professionals in difficult-to-serve geographic areas if the number of inmates who need a treatment or service in the area exceeds the number of available spaces by 20 percent.

    To review the bills recommended by the Legislative Oversight Committee concerning the Treatment of Persons with Mental Health Disorders in the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Systems, please visit the committee’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Jane Ritter, Jeremiah Barry, or Duane Gall.

    Opioid and Other Substance Use Disorders Interim Study Committee

    The Opioid and Other Substance Use Disorders Interim Study Committee met six times over the interim and heard from state agencies, state officials, and stakeholders representing all aspects of the substance use disorder crisis. The committee also created several task forces that met separately to address specific issues in this area. The committee requested the drafting of six bills and voted to advance all six bills to Legislative Council. Legislative Council approved all six bills:

    Bill A: Concerning measures to prevent opioid misuse in Colorado.

    This bill specifies several measures to address opioid misuse, including:

    • Establishing the opioid and other substance use disorders study interim committee as a statutory committee to continue its work until July 1, 2020, when the committee will automatically repeal;
    • Specifying that school-based health care centers may apply for grants from the school-based health center grant program to expand behavioral health services to include treatment for opioid and other substance use disorders;
    • Directing the department of health care policy and financing, starting July 1, 2018, to award grants to organizations to operate a substance abuse screening, brief intervention, and referral program; and
    • Directing the center for research into substance use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery to develop and implement continuing medical education activities to assist prescribers of pain medication in safely and effectively managing patients with chronic pain.

    Bill B: Concerning clinical practice measures for safer opioid prescribing.

    With regard to prescribing opioids to patients, the bill:

    • Restricts the number of opioid pills that a health care practitioner (specifically, physicians, physician assistants, advanced practice nurses, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists, and veterinarians), may prescribe for an initial prescription to a 7-day supply and one refill for a 7-day supply, with certain exceptions; and
    • Clarifies that a health care practitioner may electronically prescribe opioids.

    With regard to the prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP), the bill:

    • Requires health care practitioners to query the PDMP before prescribing the first refill prescription for an opioid except under specified circumstances;
    • Requires practitioners to indicate their specialty or practice area upon the initial query of the PDMP; and
    • Requires the department of public health and environment to report to the general assembly its results from studies regarding PDMP integration methods and health care provider report cards.

    Bill C: Concerning measures to address the opioid crisis in Colorado, and, in connection therewith, providing immunity for individuals who provide clean syringes through a clean syringe exchange program, creating a supervised injection facility pilot program, allowing school districts to develop policies for the supply and administration of opiate antagonists, and requiring the commission on criminal and juvenile justice to study certain topics related to sentencing for opioid-related offenses.

    The bill:

    • Specifies that hospitals may be used as clean syringe exchange sites;
    • Provides civil immunity for participants of a clean syringe exchange program;
    • Creates a supervised injection facility pilot program in the city and county of Denver and provides civil and criminal immunity for the approved supervised injection facility;
    • Allows school districts and nonpublic schools to develop a policy by which schools are allowed to obtain a supply of opiate antagonists and school employees are trained to administer opiate antagonists to individuals at risk of experiencing a drug overdose; and
    • Requires the commission on criminal and juvenile justice to study certain topics related to sentencing for opioid-related offenses.

    Bill D: Concerning modifications to the Colorado health service corps program administered by the department of public health and environment to expand the availability of behavioral health care providers in shortage areas in the state.

    This bill modifies the Colorado health service corps program administered by the primary care office in the department of public health and environment as follows:

    • For purposes of determining health professional shortage areas in the state, allows the primary care office, under guidance adopted by the state board of health, to use state-specific methods, rather than federal guidelines, to develop and administer state-designated health professional shortage areas;
    • Allows behavioral health care providers (specifically, licensed and certified addiction counselors, licensed professional counselors, licensed clinical social workers, licensed marriage and family therapists, clinical psychologists, advanced practice nurses, and physicians certified or trained in addiction medicine, pain management, or psychiatry) and candidates for licensure as behavioral health care providers to participate in the loan repayment program on the condition of committing to provide behavioral health care services in health professional shortage areas for a specified period;
    • Establishes a scholarship program to help defray the education and training costs associated with obtaining certification as an addiction counselor or with progressing to a higher level of certification; and
    • Adds two substance use disorder-focused members to the advisory council that reviews program applications.

    Bill E: Concerning treatment for individuals with substance use disorders, and, in connection therewith, adding residential and inpatient treatment to the Colorado medical assistance program.

    The bill adds residential and inpatient substance use disorder services to the Colorado medical assistance program and limits participation in the program to persons who meet nationally recognized, evidence-based level of care criteria for residential and inpatient treatment. The benefit will not take effect unless Colorado receives federal authorization and secures federal matching dollars for the benefit. If the benefit is implemented, managed care organizations shall reprioritize the use of money allocated from the state marijuana tax cash fund to assist in providing treatment, including residential and inpatient treatment, to persons who are not otherwise covered by public or private insurance.

    Bill F: Concerning payment issues relating to substance use disorders.

    With respect to individual and group health benefit plans, the bill:

    • Requires the plans to provide coverage without prior authorization for a five-day supply of buprenorphine for a first request within a 12-month period;
    • If a plan covers physical therapy, acupuncture, or chiropractic services, requires the plan to cover those services with the same dollar limits, deductible, copayments, or coinsurance provisions as those applicable to primary care services;
    • Prohibits carriers from taking adverse action against a provider or from providing financial incentives or disincentives to a provider solely on the results of a patient feedback survey relating to satisfaction with pain treatment;
    • Clarifies that an “urgent prior authorization request” to a carrier includes a request for authorization of medication-assisted treatment for substance use disorders; and
    • Prohibits carriers from requiring a covered person to undergo a step-therapy protocol using a prescription drug containing an opioid.

    For both the medical assistance program and private health benefit plans, the bill permits a pharmacist who has entered into a collaborative pharmacy practice agreement with one or more physicians to administer injectable medication-assisted treatment for substance use disorders and to receive an enhanced dispensing fee for the administration.

    With respect to the medical assistance program, the bill requires the medical services board to authorize reimbursement for a ready-to-use version of intranasal naloxone hydrochloride without prior authorization. The bill also prohibits a requirement that a person undergo a step-therapy protocol using a prescription drug containing an opioid.

    The bill requires the Colorado department of health care policy and financing and the Colorado department of human services office of behavioral health to establish rules to standardize utilization management authority timelines for the nonpharmaceutical components of medication-assisted treatment for substance use disorders.

    To review the bills recommended by the Opioid and Other Substance Use Disorders Interim Study Committee, please visit the committee’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Kristen Forrestal, Yelana Love, Christy Chase, or Brita Darling.

    Sales and Use Tax Simplification Task Force

    The Sales and Use Tax Simplification Task Force held four meetings during the 2017 interim. Briefings and presentations were made by the Colorado Department of Revenue, the Colorado Municipal League, Colorado Counties, Inc., members of the business community, the Special District Association, the Colorado Tax Auditors Coalition, the Office of the State Auditor, the Council on State Taxation, the Tax Foundation, Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board, Inc., the Statewide Internet Portal Authority, various software providers, and members of the public on a wide range of subjects, including:

    • The current Colorado sales and use tax system;
    • Other states’ efforts to simplify their sales and use tax system;
    • Pending federal legislation impacting sales and use tax simplification;
    • Work being done by various software providers; and
    • Updates on the Colorado Municipal League’s standardized definitions project

    At its final meeting on November 1, 2017, the legislative members of the task force unanimously recommended one bill to the Legislative Council:

    Bill A: Concerning a requirement that the department of revenue issue a request for information for an electronic sales and use tax simplification system.

    The bill requires the Department of Revenue (DOR) to issue a request for information regarding the potential to contract for an electronic sales and use tax simplification system. The system would be available for use by the state and local governments, at their discretion, and would provide:

    • Accurate address location information;
    • A single application process for sales tax licenses;
    • A uniform sales and use tax remittance form;
    • A single point of remittance for sales and use tax; and
    • A taxability or exemption matrix.

    The information provided must identify initial costs and ongoing annual costs, as well as methods for payment by different public or private entities. The DOR is required to notify the task force when it has issued the request for information. The task force is required to meet within 90 days after receiving this notification to consider information received and determine its next steps.

    To review the bill recommended by the Sales and Use Tax Simplification Task Force, please visit the task force’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Esther van Mourik.

    Water Resources Review Committee

    The Water Resources Review Committee (WRRC) met eight times over the 2017 interim, including one meeting in Steamboat Springs, and toured the San Miguel river basin in southwestern Colorado. The WRRC heard presentations on a variety of water issues, including various basin-specific issues, proposed water infrastructure projects, Colorado River compact compliance, rising groundwater in the South Platte River basin, Colorado’s Water Plan, and the use of reclaimed water.

    At its final hearing on October 31, 2017, the WRRC considered 11 bills, recommending five of them to the Legislative Council.

    Bill A: Concerning the ability of operators of sand and gravel mines to use water incidental to sand and gravel mining operations to mitigate the impacts of mining.

    Current law requires operators of sand and gravel open mines that expose groundwater to the atmosphere to obtain a well permit and either: A replacement plan approved by the ground water commission for designated groundwater; or a plan for augmentation approved by the water court or a plan of substitute supply approved by the state engineer for tributary groundwater. The bill specifies that the replacement plan or the plan of substitute supply and the permit may authorize uses of water incidental to open mining for sand and gravel, including specifically, among other things, the mitigation of impacts from mining and dewatering.

    Bill B: Concerning the financing of the division of parks and wildlife’s aquatic nuisance species program, and, in connection therewith, creating an aquatic nuisance species stamp for the operation of motorboats and sailboats in waters of the state, increasing penalties related to the introduction of aquatic nuisance species into the waters of the state, and combining two separate funds related to the aquatic nuisance species program into one fund.

    The main focus of the bill is to create an aquatic nuisance species stamp that motorboat and sailboat owners must purchase each year to help fund the division of parks and wildlife’s efforts to detect, prevent, control, and eradicate aquatic nuisance species. The bill also increases existing penalties and adds new penalties for violations of the laws related to the detection, prevention, control, and eradication of aquatic nuisance species.

    Bill C: Concerning the allowable uses of reclaimed domestic wastewater, and, in connection therewith, allowing reclaimed domestic wastewater to be used for marijuana cultivation.

    The bill codifies rules promulgated by the water quality control commission (commission) of the department of public health and environment concerning allowable uses of reclaimed domestic wastewater, which is wastewater that has been treated for subsequent reuses other than drinking water. The bill also adds marijuana cultivation as an allowable use for reclaimed domestic wastewater and authorizes the division of administration in the department of public health and environment to grant variances for uses of reclaimed domestic wastewater.

    Bill D: Concerning the allowable uses of reclaimed domestic wastewater, and, in connection therewith, allowing reclaimed domestic wastewater to be used for industrial hemp cultivation.

    This bill makes changes that are largely analogous to those made in Bill C, but with regard to authorizing the use of reclaimed domestic wastewater for industrial hemp cultivation.

    Bill E: Concerning an expansion of the duration for which the Colorado water resources and power development authority may make a loan under the authority’s revolving loan programs.

    Pursuant to the federal clean water act and the federal “Safe Water Drinking Act”, the Colorado water resources and power development authority (authority) makes loans under its water pollution control revolving fund and its drinking water revolving fund. Under state law, the duration of a water pollution control loan made by the authority must not exceed 20 years after project completion; however, the federal clean water act now allows for loans up to the lesser of 30 years or the projected useful life of the project, as determined by the state. The bill removes the 20-year limitation on water pollution control loans and authorizes the authority to make loans in compliance with the clean water act and the “Safe Water Drinking Act”.

    To review the bills recommended by the Water Resources Review Committee, please visit the committee’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Jennifer Berman or Thomas Morris.

  • 2017 Interim Committees Recommending 35 Bills – Part 1 (of 2)

    As required in Joint Rule 24 (b)(1)(D), the Legislative Council is meeting November 15, 2017, to review and approve bills recommended by interim study committees during the 2017 interim. Approved interim committee bills do not count against the five-bill limit for the prime sponsors of the bills.

    All of the interim and statutory committees that met during the 2017 interim are listed here—there were several. One of the committees—the Legislative Interim Committee on School Finance—has been meeting, but has not recommended any bills at this point. This committee is exempt from the requirement of submitting its recommended bills to the Legislative Council, so it may yet prepare and introduce bills for the 2018 legislative session.

    This week’s article summarizes the bills recommended by the following committees:

    • County Courthouse and County Jail Funding and Overcrowding Solutions Interim Study Committee
    • Police Officers’ and Firefighters’ Pension Reform Commission
    • Sentencing in the Criminal Justice System Interim Study Committee
    • Transportation Legislation Review Committee
    • Wildfire Matters Review Committee
    • Young and Beginning Farmers Interim Study Committee

    Next week, LegiSource will summarize the remaining committees’ recommended bills and report on the actions taken by Legislative Council.

    County Courthouse and County Jail Funding and Overcrowding Solutions Interim Study Committee

    The County Courthouse and County Jail Funding and Overcrowding Solutions Interim Study Committee met five times over the 2017 interim. At the October 23, 2017, meeting, the committee considered and voted on each of the eleven bill drafts and one resolution draft that it had requested at the previous meeting. A majority of the committee members recommended only the following three bills and one resolution for consideration by the Legislative Council:

    Bill A: Concerning the provision of financial assistance to counties for county facilities.

    Current law tasks the underfunded courthouse facility cash fund commission with evaluating grant applications and issuing grants to counties for underfunded courthouse facilities through master planning services, matching funds, or leverage-grant funding opportunities, or for addressing emergency needs due to the imminent closure of a court facility.

    The bill changes the name of the commission and the fund and expands the commission’s responsibilities to include jails in addition to court facilities. Additionally, the bill allows the commission to issue grants for up to 50% of a county’s annual voter-approved debt service on any county-approved financing of the construction or remodeling costs of a court or jail facility. The bill also creates a low-interest loan program, which the commission will administer, whereby counties may apply for low-interest loans to finance the capital construction or remodeling costs of a court or jail facility.

    Bill B: Concerning the amount that the department of corrections is required to reimburse a county or city and county for the confinement and maintenance in a local jail of any person who is sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a correctional facility.

    Under current law, the General Assembly establishes in the annual general appropriations bill the amount that the department of corrections must reimburse a county or city and county for a portion of the costs incurred in confining and maintaining in a local jail a person who is sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a correctional facility. The bill establishes this amount in statute as $108.78 per day.

    Bill C: Concerning a program to facilitate conducting judicial proceedings via networking technology.

    The bill directs the division of criminal justice within the department of public safety, in consultation with the office of the state court administrator, to operate a program that implements telephonic or internet-based networking software to enable county courts and district courts to conduct judicial procedures with remote participants. The bill sets forth a timeline by which the division must first solicit requests for proposals from prospective software vendors and then select and contract with one or more software vendors for the purposes of the program.

    Resolution A: Concerning the Medicaid eligibility of individuals being held in a correctional facility but who have not been convicted of a crime.

    The resolution acknowledges House Resolution 165, introduced in the United States House of Representatives on January 3, 2017, which would remove limitations on Medicaid benefits and other federal benefits for individuals in custody pending disposition charges. In the resolution, the members of the General Assembly strongly urge the United States Congress to amend the law concerning Medicaid eligibility of incarcerated individuals so that persons who are detained in state and local facilities but have not been convicted of a crime retain their Medicaid eligibility until conviction.

    To review the bills and resolution recommended by the County Courthouse and County Jail Funding and Overcrowding Solutions Interim Study Committee, please visit the committee’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Richard Sweetman.

    Police Officers’ and Firefighters’ Pension Reform Commission

    The Police Officers’ and Firefighters’ Pension Reform Commission met once during the 2017 interim for an annual briefing from the Fire and Police Pension Association (FPPA) and to consider two bills recommended by the FPPA Board of Directors (Board) for introduction during the 2018 legislative session. Based on the Board’s recommendations, the commission recommended the following two bills:

    Bill A: Concerning the statewide standard health history form that members of the fire and police pension association complete when commencing employment.

    Every member of the FPPA, at the commencement of employment, must complete a health history on a statewide standard health history form (form). The bill clarifies several aspects of the form. Specifically, the bill specifies that all newly hired members are required to fill out the form; clarifies that the employer must require newly hired members to complete and file the form; authorizes the Board to adopt an electronic format for completing and filing the form; and specifies that a member who omits or conceals, rather than fraudulently conceals, a material fact concerning his or her health history on the form may be disqualified from receiving disability or survivor benefits.

    Bill B: Concerning employer entry into the fire and police pension association defined benefit system.

    Current law allows an employer that is affiliated with the FPPA and that provides a money purchase plan for its employees to apply to the Board to cover some or all existing members of the money purchase plan under either the statewide hybrid plan or the statewide defined benefit plan, both of which are part of the defined benefit system (system). Current law requires the employer to apply to the Board separately for each plan. In addition, the employer may apply to cover only existing employees under the statewide hybrid plan or the statewide defined benefit plan.

    The bill allows an employer that provides a money purchase plan to apply to the Board, with a single application, to cover some or all of the existing members of its money purchase plan in the system. In addition, the bill allows an employer that provides a money purchase plan to apply to the Board to cover all new employees hired on or after a date certain and who are members of the FPPA to participate as a group in either the statewide hybrid plan or the statewide defined benefit plan through the system. The bill eliminates certain statutory requirements in connection with an employer’s participation in the system and repeals the separate application process for entry into the statewide defined benefit plan.

    To review the bills recommended by Police Officers’ and Firefighters’ Pension Reform Commission, please visit the committee’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Nicole Myers.

    Sentencing in the Criminal Justice System Interim Study Committee

    The sentencing in the Criminal Justice System Interim Study Committee met seven times over the interim and at those meetings heard from over 60 witnesses on a wide range of topics related criminal sentencing. At its bill request meeting, the committee voted to authorize the drafting of a whopping 19 bills. During the bill-drafting period, three of the requests were withdrawn. When the committee met to vote on the bill drafts, it considered 12 of the remaining 16 bills, withdrawing four more bills. Of those 12 bills, the committee voted to recommend five bills to the Legislative Council:

    Bill A: Concerning granting judicial discretion to sentence a defendant to an indeterminate or determinate sentence for a sexual offense, and, in connection therewith, requiring the criteria and basis for the sentencing decision to be articulated on the public record.

    Currently, a court must sentence certain sex offenders to an indeterminate sentence, up to the remainder of the sex offender’s life. The bill allows the court to choose either the indeterminate sentence or a determinate sentence in those cases. The bill addresses the factors related to punishment and treatment that a court must consider when deciding between an indeterminate and a determinate sentence. The court must specify its reasons on the record for the type of sentence it imposes.

    Bill B: Concerning clarification of sentences for habitual criminal.

    The bill repeals the provision that requires a court to sentence a person who has been convicted of two prior felonies within 10 years of the commission of another felony to the department of corrections for a term of three times the maximum of the presumptive range for the level of felony last committed.

    Under current law, a court must sentence a person convicted of a felony who has been convicted of three prior felonies to four times the maximum of the presumptive range of the last felony. The bill changes the provision so that it applies only to a person who is convicted of one of a list of felonies and has three prior convictions relating to the listed felonies. It requires the court to sentence the person to between two and three times the maximum of the presumptive range for the felony for which he or she is being sentenced, unless the court finds that the case is exceptional and involves extenuating circumstances. If the court finds extenuating circumstances, it may sentence the person to a lesser term, to community corrections, or to probation, but the court must notify the state court administrator of the extenuating circumstances justifying such a sentence. A person sentenced as a habitual offender is eligible for parole after he or she has served 75% of the sentence imposed, less any earned time granted.

    Bill C: Concerning the extension of the repeal of the Colorado commission on criminal and juvenile justice.

    Current law repeals the Colorado commission on criminal and juvenile justice, effective July 1, 2018. The bill extends the repeal date to July 1, 2028.

    Bill D: Concerning lowering the period of mandatory parole from five years to three years for certain felony offenses.

    Under current law, the length of a mandatory parole sentence for a class 2 or 3 felony is five years. The bill reduces the length of mandatory parole for a class 2 or 3 felony to three years.

    Bill E: Concerning requiring the Colorado commission on criminal and juvenile justice to contract for a study of effective criminal sentencing practices.

    The bill directs the Colorado commission on criminal and juvenile justice (commission) to contract for a study of the most effective criminal sentencing practices available. The commission must establish an advisory committee to review the study and make recommendations regarding changes to the Colorado sentencing scheme based on the study.

    To review the bills recommended by the Criminal Justice System Interim Study Committee, please visit the committee’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Mike Dohr or Jeremiah Barry.

    Transportation Legislation Review Committee

    Members of the TLRC tour the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, October 2017 / Photo: Ashley Athey

    The Transportation Legislation Review Committee (TLRC) was busy this year fulfilling its duty to review transportation projects and operations and making legislative recommendations to the general assembly. This interim, fulfilling its duties entailed meeting with local government officials and experts in the fields of traffic and transportation and visiting completed and ongoing transportation projects in Pueblo, Colorado Springs, Gunnison, Montrose, Glenwood Springs, Craig, Sterling, Fort Morgan, and many other places over the course of the interim.

    The TLRC approved four bills for drafting, and, at its meeting November 2, voted to recommend two of those bills to the Legislative Council:

    Bill A: Concerning a requirement that education to prevent human trafficking be included in the training to obtain a commercial driver’s license.

    This bill requires that the training to obtain a commercial driver’s license include education to prevent human trafficking. In designing the training, the Department of Revenue will collaborate with organizations that specialize in recognizing and preventing human trafficking and other state agencies. The department must publish information about human trafficking for commercial driver’s license holders and trainees.

    Bill B: Concerning the creation of a program to authorize private providers to register commercial vehicles as Class A personal property.

    This bill directs the Department of Revenue to create a program through which private venders may register interstate commercial vehicles with the state. The program would include collecting any taxes or fees associated with the registration. To qualify, a private provider must be approved by the department, use appropriate software approved by the department, and submit evidence of financial responsibility. The department may deny, suspend, or revoke the authority to be a provider if the provider violates the law, makes a material misstatement in an application, or fails to perform.

    To review the bills recommended by the TLRC, please visit the committee’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Jery Payne.

    Wildfire Matters Review Committee

    The Wildfire Matters Review Committee held three hearings during the 2017 interim. At its hearings, the Committee received witness testimony and information on such issues as current state and county efforts to mitigate wildfires, available state monetary resources to coordinate fires, prescribed fire and mechanical forest treatment issues, air quality, insurance, current fire suppression efforts in Summit County and in the state of California, an examination of Utah’s wildfire program and related budget process, biochar technologies, fire prediction technology, and the Colorado Recovery and Resiliency Collaborative.

    At its last meeting on October 27, 2017, the committee recommended two bills and one joint memorial to the Legislative Council:

    Bill A: Concerning the wildfire matters review committee, and, in connection therewith, deferring the date on which the committee is scheduled to repeal.

    This bill extends the date on which the committee is scheduled to expire from July 1, 2018, to September 1, 2025. This bill also deletes some obsolete statutory provisions under which the committee was directed to consider codifying a Colorado wildland and prescribed fire advisory commission, an entity previously created by executive order.

    Bill B: Concerning statutory provisions enacted to promote the extinguishment of unattended fires.

    This bill changes the penalty assessed by the counties for leaving a campfire unattended from a class 2 petty offense to a class 3 misdemeanor and makes the same change with respect to an unattended campfire on property under the control of the state divisions of parks and wildlife. This bill also repeals some obsolete notice provisions concerning unattended campfires.

    Memorial A: Concerning the need for Congress to fund catastrophic wildfire response costs outside of federal forest management agencies’ normal budgets.

    This joint memorial urges congressional funding of catastrophic wildfire response costs outside of federal forest management agencies’ normal budgets.

    To review the bills and memorial recommended by the Wildfire Matters Review Committee, please visit the committee’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Bob Lackner.

    Young and Beginning Farmers Interim Study Committee

    The Young and Beginning Farmers Interim Study Committee met twice during the 2017 interim, hearing extensive testimony on the problems facing young and beginning farmers and ranchers, especially the difficulties young farmers and ranchers face when trying to gain meaningful work experience. The committee requested the drafting of six bills for consideration and recommended one of those bills to the Legislative Council:

    Bill A: Concerning the creation of the agricultural workforce development program.

    The bill requires the Commissioner of Agriculture to create, by rule, the Agricultural Workforce Development Program. The legislation is modeled after an existing Colorado Department of Labor program for innovative industries. The Agricultural Workforce Development Program will provide incentives to agricultural businesses that hire interns. A qualified agricultural business may be reimbursed up to 50% of the actual cost of hiring a qualified intern. The rules creating the program must specify criteria to qualify agricultural businesses and interns. Internships must include at least 130 hours of work experience and cannot exceed six months in duration. The program is subject to appropriation and is scheduled to repeal on July 1, 2024.

    To review the bill recommended by the Young and Beginning Farmers Interim Study Committee, please visit the committee’s website.  For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Kip Kolkmeier.

     

    Edit 11-13-2017: The summary for Bill A of the County Courthouse and County Jail Funding and Overcrowding Solutions Interim Study Committee was incorrect and has been updated.

  • Sharon Eubanks Takes the Reins at OLLS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

    By Jessica Wigent

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

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

    With great power comes great responsibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    More than just number$

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

  • The Committee on Legal Services

    by Patti Dahlberg

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

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

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

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

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

    The Committee has the following statutory duties:

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

    by Julie Pelegrin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

    By Darren Thornberry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • What’s so Special about a Special Session?

    by Julie Pelegrin

    Editor’s note: This article was originally posted on May 10, 2012, and has been updated with information pertaining to the upcoming special session commencing October 2, 2017.

    The Governor recently issued an executive order calling the General Assembly into a legislative special session.  At this point, many legislators and other people may be wondering what, exactly, is a special session and how does it work?

    The most obvious things that are different about a special legislative session are: 1) The General Assembly is in session even though the regular, 120-day legislative session has ended, and they can remain in session as long as they choose to do so; and 2) The General Assembly is limited to addressing only certain subjects while meeting in special session.

    Governor’s Authority: Section 9 of Article IV of the constitution authorizes the Governor to convene the General Assembly “on extraordinary occasions” by a proclamation, known as “the call,” that specifies the purposes for which the General Assembly is to convene. The only business the General Assembly may transact during the special session is the business the Governor specifically identifies in the call. The Governor decides what is an extraordinary occasion and sets the agenda of issues that the General Assembly may consider. The Governor’s call also sets the date and time at which the special session must begin.

    The Governor’s recent call directs the General Assembly to convene in special session at 10:00 a.m. on October 2, 2017. The only item identified by the Governor that the General Assembly may consider when they convene is clarification of statutory provisions enacted in Senate Bill 17-267 to “codify that retail marijuana sales are subject to sales taxes levied by certain special districts and other limited purpose governmental entities.”

    Agenda Items: The Governor sets the agenda items, but the Colorado Supreme Court has held that he cannot prescribe the specific form of legislation; he cannot describe the agenda items so narrowly that the General Assembly is forced, in the words of the Court, “to do the bidding of the governor, or not act at all.” (640 P.2d 1151 (Colo. 1982)). The General Assembly decides whether to enact legislation to address the agenda items and, if enacted, how the legislation will address the agenda items.

    It is the advice of the office that the question of whether a bill or resolution fits within the agenda items is a substantive, not a procedural, question and cannot be decided by a ruling of the chair of a committee or by a ruling of the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Similar to deciding whether a bill is constitutional, the Senate and the House of Representatives decide whether a bill fits within the agenda items when they vote on the bill or resolution.

    Timing:  While the General Assembly must convene on the date and time specified in the call, the General Assembly need not pass, nor even consider, any legislation while in special session, and the General Assembly decides how long the session will last. The Governor may not set a date by which the General Assembly must adjourn.

    General Assembly’s Authority: During a special session, the General Assembly retains its full plenary authority, other than being limited to considering only the agenda items. The General Assembly may convene and, after establishing the presence of a quorum, immediately adjourn. The General Assembly may consider but refuse to pass any legislation during a special session, or it may pass one or more bills that address one or more of the agenda items on the Governor’s call. The Governor has no authority to either force the General Assembly to stay in session or force the General Assembly to adjourn.

    Rules and Procedure: Although the agenda is limited, a special session operates under the same constitutional requirements and legislative rules, other than the deadline schedule, that apply during a regular session. Each bill must have a single subject; each introduced bill must be assigned to a committee and receive consideration and a vote on the merits; and the vote on second reading and the vote on third reading must occur on different calendar days, so it still takes at least three days to pass a bill. All of the legislative rules with regard to committees and the operations of the Senate and the House that apply in a regular legislative session also apply in a special legislation session.

    If you have additional questions about how the General Assembly operates during a special session, please consult the special session FAQ memo available on the Office of Legislative Legal Services website.