Colorado LegiSource

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

Author: olls

  • Legislature Passes the Laws – But Executive Branch Used to Write Them

    by Julie Pelegrin

    Newly elected legislators are often (pleasantly) surprised to find that they do not have to write their own bills. The Office of Legislative Legal Services – a nonpartisan legislative staff agency – provides expert legislative drafting services to help legislators put their policy ideas into statutory language. But this was not always the case. For over 90 years, Colorado’s legislation was written by employees of the executive branch.

    From the first Legislative Assembly of the Colorado Territory in 1861 until 1917, it’s not clear who was writing the legislation. There is no mention of bill drafting services in the statutes or anywhere else that we can find. Presumably, every legislator wrote his or her own bills, although some may have sought help from private attorneys or the Attorney General. The first mention we find of a bill drafting office is in the 1917-18 biennial report of Colorado Attorney General (AG) Leslie E. Hubbard. He reports that he formed a division within the Attorney General’s office to assist legislators in writing bills. His motivation: To avoid the introduction of bills with “patent inaccuracies, conflicts and constitutional objections” and so reduce the amount of litigation against the state.

    2012 Colorado Revised Statutes/Photo by Ashley ZimmermanIt appears this informal division of the AG’s office continued to operate until 1927. That year, the General Assembly officially created a legislative reference office (LRO) within the Attorney General’s office with the passage of S.B. No. 200. The LRO consisted of one attorney who served as director of the office and at least one stenographer. The Attorney General appointed the LRO director, with the consent of the Governor. S.B. No. 200 also authorized the Supreme Court Librarian to assign library employees to work with the LRO during the legislative session.

    From the beginning, the employees of the LRO were nonpartisan – appointed without reference to party affiliation, solely on the ground of fitness. The director of the LRO had to be an attorney licensed to practice law for at least five years before appointment. And all bill requests were confidential; neither the director nor any employee of the LRO could reveal to anyone outside the office the contents or nature of a bill request without the requesting legislator’s consent. Also, the director and the LRO employees were prohibited from lobbying in favor of or against any type of legislation.

    The LRO had several duties including: Maintaining bill files and information relating to bills; accumulating data and statistics concerning the practical operation of Colorado’s statutes and those of other states; studying the statutes to find ways to reduce the number and bulk of the statutes; and working with the legislative reference bureaus in other states.

    Most importantly, at a legislator’s or the Governor’s request, the LRO was required to draft bills, resolutions, and amendments; advise the legislature or the Governor as to the constitutionality or probable effect of proposed legislation; prepare summaries of existing laws and compilations of laws in other states; and research proposed legislation.

    Although employees of the executive branch were drafting legislation for the legislative branch, the separation-of-powers implications did not seem to cause any concern – at least not until 1968. That year, Senator Bill Armstrong and Representative Star Burton Caywood introduced and passed S.B. 1, concerning the administrative reorganization of state government. This was a massive bill, the product of at least two years of interim committee meetings and planning. The act significantly restructured state government, reducing the sprawling mass of executive branch agencies and offices to just 17 state executive departments.

    S.B. 1 also moved the LRO out of the Attorney General’s office and into the legislative department, renaming it the Legislative Drafting Office (LDO). And the bill created the Legislative Drafting Committee, a bipartisan committee consisting of the three members of leadership in each house and one additional minority party member appointed from each house.

    The new LDO had a director, appointed by the legislative drafting committee without regard to party affiliation, who had to be an attorney. The director could appoint additional attorneys and clerical personnel as necessary to staff the office. The duties of the new LDO were essentially the same as the old LRO, except the attorneys in the LDO could no longer advise the Governor as to whether to sign a bill.

    In 1969, the General Assembly passed S.B. 396, which, among other things, renamed the legislative drafting committee the Committee on Legal Services and changed the membership to consist of eight legislators and the Attorney General – but it remained a bipartisan committee. The General Assembly removed the Attorney General from the committee in 1973 and expanded the membership to 10 legislators in 1985.

    Finally, in 1988, the General Assembly passed House Bill 1329, which combined the LDO and the Office of the Revisor of Statutes into what we now know as the Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS). The duties of the OLLS did not change significantly from those exercised by the LDO, but, with the addition of the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, the OLLS is also responsible for revising, codifying, and publishing the statutes.front-door-of-office-1

    Several things about the OLLS have not changed as it has evolved from the executive branch into the legislative branch. Bill and amendment requests and communications between OLLS staff and legislators are all still confidential. The OLLS is still nonpartisan and is still charged with providing legal services. And, finally, the mission of the OLLS continues to be providing “the best technical advice and information … available to the General Assembly, agencies of state government, and the people of this state.”

  • Art at the Capitol: By and For Coloradans

    By Gwynne Middleton

    If you’ve wandered the halls of the state Capitol basement recently, you’ve likely noticed visual art exhibits in the rotunda. Curious about these rotating art displays, I gumshoed my way to a conversation with Ruth Bruno, the liaison for Creative Colorado Industries, Inc.’s Creative Capitol program, to learn more about its role in showcasing Colorado artists at the Capitol.

    The brainchild of Colorado Creative Industries, Inc. (CCI), a division of the Colorado Office of Economic Development & International Trade, the Creative Capitol program started in 2008 to combat the dearth of new public art hung at the Capitol. Since Capitol public art projects are usually tied to the state’s Capitol Construction funds and 2008 was far from a banner year for the state’s budget, public art was not a top priority when it came to new Capitol Construction requests. With no new public art projects to manage, CCI started Creative Capitol to provide consistent access to art for Capitol visitors and staff. Funds for this program come from the CCI budget, avoiding a financial burden for the state during both fat and lean years.

    Bristlecone pine in the Mt. Goliath grove on Mt. Evans//"The Ancient One" by Jao van de Lagemaat
    “The Ancient One” by Jao van de Lagemaat // Bristlecone pine in the Mt. Goliath grove on Mt. Evans

    When asked how the Capitol and the general public benefit from the Creative Capitol program, Bruno explained that anyone who visits the Capitol to partake in the historic architecture and permanent art installations gets the added benefit of enjoying current works created by Colorado artists. For Bruno, providing this pro bono loaned artwork in our Capitol shows that the state not only champions art and arts programming but arts and arts programming by and for Coloradans: “[S]howcasing and supporting Colorado artists is one of the key goals of [CCI]. Artists benefit from the exposure and by having a place to show their art, and CCI benefits because we can highlight the work we do to the general public and also to Capitol staff and legislators.” This promotion of talented Front Range, as well as rural and mountain, artists reflects the artistic diversity in the Centennial State and offers legislators and other public officials an insiders’ perspective on the state they know and love.

    The Capitol staff’s response to these art exhibits has been overwhelmingly positive, with numerous requests for more art to improve the quality of their offices. Since 2014, Creative Capitol has been able to meet popular demand, expanding their venture beyond the Capitol basement rotunda, with works now hung in the Lieutenant Governor’s office and the Legislative Council offices, as well as in the nearby Legislative Services Building in the Joint Budget Committee Room on the third floor and in the Committee Hearing Rooms A and B on the first floor.

    If you’re in the Capitol in the next three months, be sure to stroll through the basement rotunda to view, “The Clear Creek Watershed through the Photographer’s Eye”, the newest local artist exhibit on display. A testament to the rare natural beauty of our home state, the high-quality images in this exhibit were chosen from entries in the Clear Creek Land Conservancy Annual Photography Contest, a competition calling for photographs taken in Colorado’s Clear Creek drainage basin that highlight the awe-inspiring natural areas running from the mouth of Clear Creek Canyon in Golden to the start of Clear Creek at the Continental Divide.

    For more information on Creative Capitol’s prior exhibits, click here.

  • Summary of 2016 Interim Committee Recommendations – Part 2 (of 2)

    by Kate Meyer

    The Legislative Council met October 14th, 2016, to review and approve bills recommended by interim study committees during the 2016 interim. The merits of each bill were not under consideration at this hearing; rather, the standard of review used by Legislative Council is whether the bills fit within the committees’ charges.

    Of the bills that LegiSource summarized in Part 1 of this two-part series, every bill was approved by the Legislative Council except Bills “A” and “E” of the Committee on Cost-benefit Analysis of Legalized Marijuana in Colorado.

    Below is a summary of the bills recommended by the remaining 2016 interim committees. Except where noted, the Legislative Council determined that the recommended bills fit within their respective committee charges and were passed out of Legislative Council.

    Legislative Oversight Committee for the Continuing Examination of the Treatment of Persons with Mental Illness in the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Systems

    The Legislative Oversight Committee for the Continuing Examination of the Treatment of Persons with Mental Illness in the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Systems is a statutorily created committee that meets both during the year and the interim.  It met four times in 2016.  This committee is unique in that it has an advisory task force, also created in statute.

    The task force is directed to examine the identification, diagnosis, and treatment of persons with mental illness who are involved in the criminal and juvenile justice systems. This includes the examination of liability, safety, and cost as they relate to these issues. The task force met monthly throughout the year and reported its findings to the legislative committee. In 2016, the task force updated the oversight committee on the following topics:

    • Housing for a person with a mental illness after his or her release from the criminal or juvenile justice system;
    • Medication consistency, delivery, and availability; and
    • Juvenile competency and restoration services.

    The committee is responsible for overseeing the task force and recommending legislative changes, either on its own or at the suggestion of the task force. At its meeting on Aug. 22, 2016, the committee voted to draft six bills, two of which were not recommended to the Legislative Council. That left these four bills:

    Bill A allows different state agencies to accept public or private money to provide ongoing, permanent staff assistance for the task force.

    Bill B increases medication consistency for persons with mental illness who are involved at some capacity with the criminal or juvenile justice systems. This would involve the use of an agreed upon medication formulary, use of a pharmaceutical-cooperative purchasing entity for cost savings, and the development of processes by which basic patient-specific medication and treatment information can be shared between mental health and justice providers.

    Bill C is related to increasing access to competency restoration services for juveniles and adults, including establishing the Office of Behavioral Health in the Department of Human Services as the entity responsible for the oversight of restoration education and the coordination of competency restoration services.

    Bill D provides vouchers and additional housing resources for individuals with mental illnesses who are being released from incarceration.

    For the full text of the above bills, please visit the MICJS Legislative Oversight Committee’s website by clicking here. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Jane Ritter.

    Transportation Legislation Review Committee

    The Transportation Legislation Review Committee toured south-central Colorado from Alamosa to Antonito. Several projects were visited, including one where a steel grate covers a hole in a bridge. The committee also learned about the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad.

    The TLRC met twice during the interim at the Capitol. On both occasions, the committee heard from regulators, stakeholders, and other experts on a variety of transportation-related issues. The committee voted to draft six bills, but Representative Jon Becker withdrew one of his requests in order to allow every bill to be heard. The committee approved the following five bills:

    Bill A requires the TLRC to meet five times before November 15, 2017, once in each geographic quadrant of the state and once in the Denver metropolitan area. The meeting must make available the 2016 research study of changes to the state transportation commission districts since the boundaries of the districts were last redrawn in 1991 and offer opportunities to the public to express opinions regarding whether the districts should be modified. The committee may consider the availability of remote testimony from a single geographic quadrant of the state or from the Denver metropolitan area.

    Bill B increases the minimum weight for classification as a commercial vehicle for equipment purposes from 10,001 pounds to 16,001 pounds unless the vehicle is registered for use in interstate commerce. With respect to those vehicles used in commerce between 10,001 and 16,000 pounds, the chief of the Colorado state patrol may adopt rules to annually inspect these vehicles; enforce all requirements for the securing of loads in commercial vehicles; and enforce all requirements for the use of coupling devices.

    Bill C, which did not pass out of Legislative Council, concerned infrastructure funding. Specifically, the bill would have:

    • Authorized new transportation revenue anticipation notes (TRANs) after the final payments of principal and interest on TRANs authorized by voters in 1999 are made;
    • Repealed a requirement that the state treasurer make conditional transfers of a specified percentage of total general fund revenues from the general fund to the capital construction fund and the highway users tax fund (HUTF) for state fiscal years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20;
    • Required the state transportation commission to submit a ballot question to the voters of the state at the November 2017 statewide election, which, if approved, would authorize the executive director to issue additional TRANs in a maximum principal amount of $3.5 billion and with a maximum repayment cost of $5.5 billion once; required the proceeds to be used only for the 42 projects that are on the current priority list when the question is submitted to the electors; and specified additional transportation project contract award process requirements and limitations for a project to be funded; and
    • Required 5% of state sales and use tax net revenue to be credited to the HUTF, paid from the HUTF to the state highway fund for use for payment of the notes and state transportation projects.

    Bill D amends the definition of “autocycle” to explicitly exclude motorcycles, clarifies that the driver and each passenger in an autocycle ride in either a fully or partly enclosed seating area, and eliminates the requirements that an autocycle be equipped with airbags and a hardtop enclosure. The bill also amends the definitions of “motor vehicle” used in the safety belt and child restraint laws to clarify that those laws apply to autocycles.

    Bill E prohibits a local government from imposing inspection requirements for underground petroleum storage tanks or charging inspection fees for the inspection of underground petroleum storage tanks.

    For the full text of the above bills, please visit the TLRC’s website by clicking here. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Jason Gelender or Jery Payne.

    2016 Interim Study Committee on Communication between the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing and Medicaid Clients

    The Interim Study Committee on Communications Between the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing and Medicaid Clients was charged with studying the following policy areas:

    • The current form and content of letters that are sent to Medicaid clients by the department and the frequency of those letters; and
    • Whether the letters can be simplified and the content made clearer so as to improve the information that is communicated to Medicaid clients.

    The committee met four times over the interim and heard testimony from state agencies, county Medicaid administrators, Medicaid clients, and advocates concerning Medicaid client correspondence. The committee’s work culminated in its approval of the following four bill drafts at its final meeting on September 29:

    Bill A clarifies that a Medicaid recipient filing an appeal need not make an affirmative request in order for Medicaid benefits to continue during the appeal. Yet the form and electronic appeals filing process should include a method for the appellant to indicate if they do not want continuing benefits. The department must send a notice to the appellant confirming the continuation of benefits. In addition, the bill requires the form and electronic appeals process to include a check box or other method for requesting a county conference or reasonable accommodation during the appeals process. Finally, the appeal filing website must allow an appellant to submit sufficient supporting documents with the appeal form.

    Bill B requires the administrative law judge hearing Medicaid appeals concerning the termination or reduction of an existing benefit to conduct a review of the legal sufficiency of the notice of action from which the appellant is appealing. If the notice is legally insufficient, the appellant may ask the judge to set aside the order or may waive the defense of insufficient notice and proceed to a hearing on the merits.

    Bill C directs the office of the state auditor to conduct or cause to be conducted a performance audit of client communications sent to clients of applicants in Colorado Medicaid programs affecting or concerning eligibility for program benefits or services. The auditor is planned for the 2020 and 2023 calendar years and thereafter at the auditor’s discretion. The bill sets forth the audit requirements and requires the findings, conclusions, and recommendations resulting from the audit to be submitted to certain committees of the general assembly.

    Bill D requires the department to engage in an ongoing process to create, test, and improve Medicaid client communications that concern eligibility for or the denial, reduction, suspension, or termination of a Medicaid benefit. Among other requirements included in the bill, the department ensures that client communications are accurate, readable, and understandable, clearly conveying the purpose of the letter or notice and the specific action or actions that a client must take. In certain types of notices, the department must explain the basis for the action, and, if relevant, specific information relating to household composition, income sources and amounts, and assets. To the extent practicable, the department shall test new or significantly revised client communications against the requirements in the bill with Medicaid clients, advocacy organizations, and county representatives prior to implementation. As part of testing, the department solicits feedback from a workgroup it establishes. The department prioritizes the improvement of client communications that affect clients with disabilities, seniors, and other vulnerable populations. Finally, the department will annually report on improvements.

    To review the bills considered by the 2016 Interim Study Committee on Communication between the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing and Medicaid Clients, please visit the committee’s website by clicking here. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Brita Darling.

  • Summary of 2016 Interim Committee Recommendations – Part 1 (of 2)

    by Kate Meyer

    The Legislative Council is meeting October 14th, 2016, to review and approve bills recommended by interim study committees during the 2016 interim.

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

    • The Committee on Cost-benefit Analysis of Legalized Marijuana in Colorado,
    • The Water Resources Review Committee,
    • The Wildfire Matters Review Committee, and
    • The Police Officers’ and Firefighters’ Pension Reform Commission.

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

    Committee on Cost-benefit Analysis of Legalized Marijuana in Colorado

    The Committee on Cost-benefit Analysis of Legalized Marijuana in Colorado (Marijuana Analysis Committee) met three times during the 2016 interim. At its bill request meeting on August 17, 2016, it requested 10 bill drafts be prepared; however, the committee was only allotted five bills.

    Before the September 21, 2016, meeting to vote on the bills, Sen. Holbert withdrew his request regarding local zoning authority (Bill 1). When the meeting to vote on bills started, the committee was down to nine bills. At that meeting, Rep. Willett withdrew his request to create a standing statutory interim marijuana committee (Bill 4); Rep. Singer withdrew his request to separate alcohol and drug related DUI crimes to better collect statistics regarding drug related DUIs and provide appropriate sanctions for drug related DUIs (Bill 5); and Sen. Aguilar withdrew both her request to create local government authority for marijuana consumption clubs (Bill 7) and her request to define the term “assist” for purposes of assisting another in growing marijuana under Amendment 64 (Bill 9). Thus, the Marijuana Analysis Committee was left with 5 bills.

    The Marijuana Analysis Committee voted 5-0 to move the five remaining bills to Legislative Council. Those bills are:

    Bill A: The bill requires the public school capital construction assistance board, when evaluating applications for financial assistance under the “Building Excellent Schools Today Act” (BEST), to consider the extent to which retail marijuana excise tax revenue credited to the public school capital construction assistance fund is derived from each county of the state. The bill also defines the term “technology” to give high priority to BEST applications for projects that are designed to incorporate technology into the educational environment. This technology covers hardware, devices, or equipment necessary for individual student learning and classroom instruction, including access to electronic instructional materials, or necessary for professional use by a classroom teacher.

    Bill B: The bill creates the grey and black market marijuana enforcement grant program (grant program) in the division of local government in the department of local affairs (division). The grant program awards grants to reimburse local governments, in part or in full, for training, education, law enforcement, and prosecution costs associated with grey and black marijuana markets. A rural local government with limited law enforcement resources has priority in receiving grants. The general assembly may appropriate money from the marijuana tax cash fund or the proposition AA refund account to the division for the grant program. The division shall adopt policies and procedures for the administration of the grant program, including rules related to the application process and the grant award criteria. The division shall include information regarding the effectiveness of the grant program in its SMART presentation beginning in November 2019.

    Bill C: The bill directs the department of education, by July 1, 2017, to create and maintain a resource bank for public schools to use without charge. The resource bank consists of materials and curricula pertaining to marijuana use; and upon request of a public school, to provide technical assistance in designing age-appropriate curricula on marijuana use. The bill authorizes the costs to be paid from the marijuana tax cash fund.

    Bill D: The bill adds acute stress disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder to the list of debilitating medical conditions treatable by medical marijuana.

    Bill E: The bill makes it a level 2 drug misdemeanor for a person not licensed to sell medical or retail marijuana to advertise for the sale of marijuana or marijuana concentrate.

    To view the bill and resolutions considered by the WMRC, please visit the committee’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Michael Dohr or Jerry Barry.

    Water Resources Review Committee

    The Water Resources Review Committee (WRRC) met 5 times over the interim, including meetings in Alamosa, Grand Junction, and Steamboat Springs. The WRRC heard presentations on a variety of water issues, including Colorado River compact compliance, rising groundwater in the South Platte River basin, Colorado’s Water Plan, and lead in drinking water.

    At its final hearing on September 20, 2016, the WRRC considered four bills and one resolution. After amending two of the four bills and the resolution, the committee voted to recommend all five measures to the Legislative Council. The measures are:

    Joint Resolution A: Aquatic nuisance species, which include such pests as zebra and quagga mussels, have negative effects on fisheries, water ecosystems, and water storage and distribution systems. The primary overland vector for the spread of these species is watercraft conveyances (boats and their trailers). A variety of state and federal agencies perform inspection and decontamination services to limit the spread of these species, depending on the jurisdiction of the particular body of water, though state agencies performed the bulk of the 3 million inspections and nearly 50,000 decontaminations performed in the past 8 years. This resolution encourages various federal agencies to provide funding to implement the State of Colorado Zebra and Quagga Mussel Management Plan.

    Bill A: Over time, reservoirs tend to fill up with sediments and consequently lose their storage capacity. The bill appropriates $5 million from the Colorado water conservation board construction fund to the Colorado water conservation board to make loans and grants to enable the recipients to dredge existing reservoirs located in the South Platte River basin to restore the reservoirs’ full decreed storage capacity.

    Bill B: Numerous irrigation districts have been formed under the 1921 irrigation district law, which has seldom been amended. The bill updates the law by removing inconsistencies and updating antiquated provisions; clarifying the definition of landowners entitled to receive water, vote in district elections, and serve on the board of directors; increasing dollar figures and, in subsequent years, adjusting for inflation; defining “agricultural land”; revising election procedures; clarifying how irrigation district assessments are collected and held; and modernizing procedures for selling surplus property. The bill also clarifies that water acquired in excess of an irrigation district’s own needs can be leased for all beneficial purposes, rather than only for domestic, agricultural, power, and mechanical purposes, and that the provisions of the 1921 irrigation district law are in addition to powers conferred on irrigation districts in other statutes.

    Bill C: After the passage of House Bill 13-1044 in 2013, the water quality control commission developed standards for the use of graywater, which is wastewater from laundry, baths, sinks, and showers. To facilitate scientific research on graywater use and collection conducted by institutions of higher education, the Bill C creates a scientific research exemption from the commission’s graywater standards.

    Bill D: Some of the statutes concerning the state engineer date back to 1889 and read like it, too. The bill updates the language of the statutes concerning the state engineer and the state engineer’s department to conform to modern drafting conventions. The bill also restructures the fee that the state engineer may charge for rating certain types of water infrastructure from $25 per day to a flat fee of $75; increases the amount of time for filing comments on a substitute water supply plan from 30 days to 35 days after the state engineer mails notice of the plan; and repeals outdated requirements concerning certain fees, oath of office, and certain state engineer duties.

    The bills and resolutions considered by the WRRC can be accessed on the committee’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Tom Morris or  Jennifer Berman.

    Wildfire Matters Review Committee

    The Wildfire Matters Review Committee (WMRC) conducted two field tours (one in southern Colorado and the other along the I-70 Corridor) and met twice at the state capitol during the 2016 interim. On those trips and at those hearings, the committee heard from a diverse array of persons and entities affected by wildfire in the state. Issues discussed included wildfire prevention and suppression; forest health, air quality, and watershed protection; biomass utilization and the wood products industry; emergency response coordination; and the financial and other costs wildfire has on communities in Colorado.

    On September 19th, 2016, the WMRC voted to recommend the following:

    Bill A: Under current law, the borrower in a reverse mortgage transaction is relieved of the obligation to occupy the subject property as a principal residence if the borrower is temporarily absent for up to 60 days or, if the property is adequately secured, up to one year. Bill A adds a third exception to the principal-residence requirement to cover situations in which a natural disaster or other serious incident beyond the borrower’s control renders the property uninhabitable. The maximum time allowable for a temporary absence under these circumstances is five years.

    Resolution A expresses the General Assembly’s support for the continued research, development, and application of biochar (a solid material obtained when organic matter is heated in an oxygen-limited environment) from Colorado’s forests. The resolution discusses the environmental and economic benefits of utilizing biochar as a reforestation and fire prevention tool in state forests. The resolution also highlights the current uses of biochar and the support of the General Assembly in continuing research of its uses, including fuel load removal and reforestation processes.

    Memorial A concerns the need for Congress to fund catastrophic wildfire response costs outside of federal forest management agencies’ normal budgets. This memorial is similar to former years’ memorials asking Congress to appropriately fund the rising costs of wildland firefighting and address the issue of “fire borrowing”, which occurs when agencies take funds away from forest health and fire prevention activities to help pay the costs to fight current wildfires.

    To view the bill and resolutions considered by the WMRC, please visit the committee’s website. For questions concerning the legislation, please contact Bob Lackner or Kate Meyer.

                        Police Officers’ and Firefighters’ Pension Reform Commission

    The Police Officers’ and Firefighters’ Pension Reform Commission met once during the 2016 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 2017 legislative session. Based on the Board’s recommendations, the commission approved the following two bills:

    Bill A: To assist FPPA employers in establishing a deferred compensation plan, the Board is currently authorized to develop a master deferred compensation plan document for use by employers to establish individual plans. The bill authorizes the Board to develop a multi-employer deferred compensation plan document to allow employers to join a multi-employer plan.

    Bill B: Current law specifies that an employer in a statewide pension plan administered by the FPPA may modify its status in the plan through a vote of the members of the plan. In some cases, a modification must be approved by 65% of the members employed by the employer, and in other cases, a modification must be approved by 65% of the members employed by the employers who vote in the election for the modification. The bill creates a uniform approval standard by requiring that any modifications be approved by 65% of the members employed by the employer who vote in the election for the plan modification.

    Both of the bills that the commission considered are available for review on the commission’s website. For questions concerning the FPPA, contact Nicole Myers.

  • Race-conscious Admissions Policy OK’d for Achieving Diversity

    by Julie Pelegrin

    Earlier this summer, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, holding that the admissions policy at the University of Texas at Austin (UT) is constitutional. The issue? The admissions policy includes race among the many factors that the UT considers in its holistic review of applicants.

    But wait – isn’t it illegal for an institution of higher education to base admission decisions on an applicant’s race? Isn’t that discrimination? Prohibited by the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment? While it is discrimination of a sort, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, it isn’t unconstitutional.

    Why?

    Strict Scrutiny Test
    The first thing to know is how a court decides whether a law or a government policy violates the equal protection clause. If a law applies differently to a group of persons based on their race, the law creates a suspect class. For this type of discrimination to be lawful, the government must demonstrate that treating people differently because of their race will accomplish a compelling state interest. And it must show that its consideration of race is narrowly tailored to accomplish this compelling state interest. This is called a “strict scrutiny” test.

    So the first question is: What is UT’s interest in having a race-conscious admissions policy, and is it compelling?

    It’s helpful to know how UT considers race in admissions. UT’s admissions policy is a unique hybrid. By Texas statute, 75% of the student positions for each freshman class at UT are automatically filled by students who graduated within the top ten percent of their high school classes. For the remaining 25%, UT uses a “holistic review” admissions process based on an applicant’s academic index (AI) – a combination of the candidate’s SAT score and high school GPA – and an applicant’s personal achievement index (PAI). The PAI consists of points assigned based on the applicant’s essay, leadership and work experience, extracurricular activities, community service, and other “special characteristics,” one of which can be race or ethnicity. An admissions officer combines an applicant’s AI index and PAI index and, if the applicant’s combined index is higher than a set cut-off score, the applicant receives an admissions offer. So race is really considered as a factor of a factor.

    Compelling State Interest: Diversity Within the Student Body
    UT claims it has a compelling interest in giving its students the educational benefits that come from learning in a diverse student body. In earlier cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that diversity in the student body may be a compelling state interest. Justice Powell in the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke decision said that, while using a quota system to admit a certain number of students of a certain race is unconstitutional, some consideration of race for the purpose of achieving a diverse student body could be constitutional.

    Then in 2003, in Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice O’Connor, writing for the Court, confirmed that the University of Michigan Law School had a compelling interest in attaining a diverse student body and deferred to the Law School’s claim that a diverse student body is essential to achieving its educational mission. In recognizing the importance of diversity, the Court didn’t mean just racial and ethnic diversity. The level of diversity that justifies a compelling state interest must include a wide range of qualifications and characteristics; race or ethnicity should be only one element of diversity.

    In the Fisher case, Justice Kennedy, speaking for the majority of the Court, found that UT met the standard for proving a compelling interest by articulating a clear goal that the institution expects to achieve in obtaining student diversity: An educational environment that fosters cross-racial understanding, provides enlightened discussion and learning, and prepares students to function as leaders in a diverse workforce and society. UT conducted a study that showed that its previous admissions policy, which did not include consideration of race, did not achieve a level of student body diversity that was sufficient to meet the goal.

    Race Consideration Narrowly Tailored to Achieving Student Body Diversity
    After finding a compelling state interest, the next question is whether the way in which UT considers race is narrowly tailored to achieve student body diversity. UT had to show that its consideration of race in admissions was designed to and did increase diversity without having extraneous effects such as unduly burdening a non-favored race.

    The Court found that UT’s use of race in admissions is narrowly tailored to achieving student body diversity because it is effective – after UT started using the race-conscious admissions policy, enrollment of African-American students and Hispanic students increased by 94% and 54% respectively. But, race actually made a difference in only a small number of admissions, so the plan was also narrowly tailored. Also, UT had tried other race-neutral means of achieving student body diversity that had not been successful.

    The Court also held that, to ensure that UT’s race-conscious admissions policy continues to be narrowly tailored, UT must continually study the data on admissions and student-body demographics to ensure effectiveness. And UT must discontinue considering race in student admissions as soon as it is no longer needed to achieve diversity in the student body.

    Colorado’s Perspective
    While it is constitutional to consider race to achieve a diverse student body, many states have passed laws that prohibit any consideration of race in higher education admissions. In 2008, Colorado voters rejected Amendment 46, which would have amended the state constitution to prevent the government from giving any preferential treatment to a person on the basis of race, including in the context of higher education admissions.

    At this time, it appears the University of Colorado is the only public institution of higher education in Colorado that considers an applicant’s race in making admissions decisions. The University of Colorado uses a holistic review process similar to that used by UT, which includes limited consideration of race to achieve a diverse student body.

  • Bribery (Don’t Do It!)

    by Bob Lackner

    Arguably, the worst offense a public official can be accused of is the crime of bribery — essentially offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting something of value for the purpose of influencing an official in the discharge of his or her public duties. The crime violates a basic notion inherent in a healthy democracy: That a public servant’s sole motivation is the promotion of the public interest — not the securing of private gain. Although it is fortunate that, in Colorado, accusations of bribery against public officials are rare, every public official should have a basic understanding of the nature of the crime to avoid even coming close to what would constitute criminal behavior.

    The crime of bribery made its first appearance in Colorado law in the original state constitution, which went into effect on August 1, 1876. Section 40 of article V of the state constitution, the article that governs the Legislative Department, is entitled “Bribery and influence in general assembly”, and it states in relevant part:

    If any member of the general assembly shall give his vote or influence for or against any measure or proposition pending in such general assembly, or offer, promise, or assent so to do, upon condition that any other member will give or will promise or assent to give his vote or influence in favor of or against any other measure or proposition pending or proposed to be introduced in such general assembly, or in consideration that any other member hath given his vote or influence for or against any other measure or proposition in such general assembly, he shall be deemed guilty of bribery; and any member of the general assembly, or person elected thereto, who shall be guilty of either of such offenses shall be expelled, and shall not be thereafter eligible to the same general assembly; and, on conviction therefor in the civil courts, shall be liable to such further penalty as may be prescribed by law.

    Thus, as applied to a member of the General Assembly, this constitutional prohibition applies to the specific crime of “vote-trading,” whereby a legislator agrees to vote a certain way on the condition that another legislator votes in a particular way. (This practice is more informally referred to as “log-rolling.”) The inclusion of a prohibition on this practice in the section governing the legislative department reflects the deep distaste the framers of our state constitution had for the practice.

    This is especially true given that section 40 does not forbid (or even address) what we now think of as bribery; that is, offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting something of value for the purpose of influencing an official in the discharge of his or her public duties. This more conventional form of bribery is addressed and prohibited in section 6 of article XII of the state constitution, which applies to civil officers and members of the General Assembly. In relevant part, this section prohibits those individuals from soliciting or receiving, directly or indirectly, anything of value for their votes, official influence, or actions. Like the aforementioned log-rolling provision, this provision has been part of the state constitution since its adoption in August of 1876.

    Bribery is also among the many crimes addressed and prohibited in our state’s Criminal Code. Under section 18-8-302 (1)(b), C.R.S., which concerns “Bribery and Corrupt Influences,” a public servant (which includes a member of the General Assembly) commits bribery if he or she solicits or accepts any financial benefit upon any agreement or understanding that his or her vote, opinion, or other action as a public servant will be influenced. A person who offers or agrees to extend a benefit to a public servant with the intent to influence the public servant’s action in his or her official capacity commits the crime as well. (See section 18-8-302 (1) (a), C.R.S.)

    Bribery is a class 3 felony, which means that a person convicted of the crime faces a prison sentence of four to 12 years. (See section 18-1.3-401 (1) (a) (V) (A), C.R.S.)

    Other criminal offenses in the Colorado Criminal Code relating to bribery include:

    • Compensation for official past behavior (when a public servant accepts any benefit as compensation for taking official action in favor of another);
    • Trading in public office (accepting a benefit in exchange for appointing someone to public office);
    • Directing a bidder or contractor to deal with a particular person in connection with obtaining goods or services in bidding on a contract; and
    • Failing to disclose a conflict of interest when the public servant owns a substantial interest in a private entity participating in the transaction.

    In McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), the United States Supreme Court stated that “[t]he basic compact underlying representative government assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act appropriately on their concerns…”. (For an in-depth discussion of the case, see this recent Legisource post) Ethical and conscientious legislators know the appropriate actions to take on behalf of their constituents and others with interests in public policy. They are also aware of those actions that may subject the legislators to criminal prosecution for engaging in bribery or related offenses that harm the public trust at the heart of representative government.

  • Colorado General Assembly’s New Website is Live!

    by Darren Thornberry and Ashley Zimmerman

    Readers likely remember Y2K and all the digital drama as “the year 2000” arrived. Who recalls staying up late that New Year’s Eve to see if you still had electricity? The Internet Age was dawning, which was exciting and challenging for state governments trying to harness the rapidly changing technology for the benefit of their citizens. It was then, about 16 years ago, that the Colorado General Assembly website blinked to life, and it has been a touchstone of invaluable information for Coloradans ever since.

    Not unlike the Colorado capitol building, the website has recently been under construction (behind the scenes) and now debuts as the definitive online hub for the Colorado General Assembly, chock full of user-friendly features. There’s a new web address – leg.colorado.gov. Bookmark it now – and start your tour here.

    agencies-drop-down-menu

    Our new homepage, showing an example of one of the available drop-down menus.

    The new website is replete with tools to help make your interaction with the state legislature more enjoyable and more informative. Let’s look at the highlights!

    Find My Legislator: On the homepage, click on “Find My Legislator”, which will take you to a map of the state. Here, you can enter your address or zip code and find and contact your representative or senator.

    findmylegislator

    Book a Tour: Online booking of a capitol tour is made easy with an icon on the homepage that leads to a quick and simple form. Just fill out the form and click send!

    book-a-tour

    Find a Bill: See all bills or browse by subject. There are two ways to access this information from the homepage. The easiest way is to click on the large “Find A Bill” icon right in the middle of the page. Or, you can hover the cursor over “Bills” in the top toolbar, which shows a drop down menu to access legislation. You can also find the most accessed bills on this page. This is one of the most requested new features on the website, and we think you’ll find it very helpful!

    mostaccessedbills

    Ballot Blue Book: The blue books with information concerning the ballot initiatives for the past five years, including the text of the measures, are available as .pdf documents. The blue book provides voters with the text, title, and a fair and impartial analysis of each initiated or referred constitutional amendment, law, or question on the ballot.

    bluebook

    In addition to these four front-and-center features, the General Assembly’s new website has reorganized a vast cache of information and presented it as a menu at the top of the home page with drop-down submenus as applicable. It’s never been easier to see the state budget, sign up for remote testimony at a committee hearing, browse state law, contact an agency in the legislative branch, or watch or listen to the legislative session live as it happens.

    A few of these features on the new website include:

    Committees: On the top toolbar of the homepage, hover over “Committees” to show a submenu for “Committees”, where you can find information and lists of the existing House and Senate committees, and “Remote Testimony”, where you can sign-up to remotely testify on a bill. On each committee’s page, you will find a list of the committee members, their meeting schedule, and, for meetings that have already occurred, a list of the hearing items, any actions taken, and links to related documents including the committee summary that shows how the members voted on motions.

    The House of Representatives and Senate: To find information on either the House of Representatives or the Senate and to locate their daily calendars during the legislative session, on the homepage hover over “Agencies” in the top toolbar, then click on either “House of Representatives” or “Senate”. This will bring you to the individual page for that house, where you can find general information about the house, the rules of the house, and the daily calendar and links to listen to live audio when that house is in session.

    Publications: The new website contains a number of useful and informational resources, from state reports to the annual digest of bills. To find these resources, hover over “Publications” and then click on either “Find A Publication”, if you have one in mind, or “All Publications” to see them all.

    We encourage you to use the legislative agency pages for the House of Representatives, Senate, Legislative Council Staff, Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS), Joint Budget Committee Staff, and Office of the State Auditor. Each is a wonderful resource for getting to know that specific agency’s function, rules, publications, schedule, and more. On the OLLS page, of course, there’s a direct link to LegiSource – the very blog you’re reading now!

    agencies

    Stay connected to the General Assembly via the new website. Your feedback on it is welcome!

  • Why submit bill requests now?

    by Patti Dahlberg

    Although the Colorado General Assembly is only in session from January to May each year, General Assembly members know that being a bill-clipartlegislator requires year-round attention to legislative responsibilities. The first bill request deadline is still almost three months away (Thursday, December 1), but there are significant benefits to starting the bill drafting process as early as possible during the interim. (See Ask OLLS posting “The start of the legislative session is over 4 months away. Why should I bother to get my bill requests in now?”)

    Submitting bill requests early allows legislators, legislative staff, and stakeholders more time to research, consider, develop, and draft bills. And there are other benefits for legislators who can invest a little more time on bill drafting earlier in the fall.

    Time Management:
    There’s no way around it – bill request deadlines require legislators and staff to complete the bulk of the bill drafting before the convening date of the next session. A legislator can wait until the deadline to submit his or her bill requests and spend the four to five weeks immediately before session – including the holidays – in heavy drafting mode or try to shift a portion of the pre-session drafting demands to earlier in the interim and:

    • Reduce the time demands of drafting in December and January, allowing more time to prepare for session, meet with constituents and stakeholders, and tie up other personal matters before the session starts.
    • Save big on time and enjoy bill request flexibility by having a solid draft of a bill completed by November. (There is no need to finalize a bill until closer to the desired introduction date.)
    • Have the luxury of focusing on one or two bill requests at a time. Once a bill draft is close to being finished, the request can be set aside and the legislator and drafter can start work on another bill. This way, a legislator isn’t just trading a busy December for a busy September or October, but instead leveling the time demands of bill drafting over four to five months.
    • Allow legislative staff more time to assist in developing and drafting the legislation. Staff is more readily available to attend meetings, consult on drafting language, and, if needed, provide in-depth research before December.

    A lot can change between now and January and it may seem that drafting in September and October could be a waste of time. After all, a legislator may need to significantly change, update, or even withdraw a bill draft before introduction. But that’s okay, because it’s usually easier and faster to revise or rewrite an existing bill draft than to create it from scratch at the last minute. Even if a legislator finds that he or she must withdraw a bill request, he or she doesn’t lose the benefits of early drafting efforts.

    Decision-making:

    • Early interim bill drafting allows a legislator and the bill’s stakeholders more time to make informed decisions about the bill’s content. Early interim drafting may require legislators to set some internal production deadlines to keep the bill draft moving along, especially when working with larger groups of stakeholders and constituents.
    • With a bill draft in hand, even if it’s only an initial draft, a legislator is better equipped to know whether to introduce the bill, who to approach for second house sponsorship, and where the bill fits best in his or her bill introduction order.
    • Often it is impossible to determine if a bill request is identical or substantially similar to another legislator’s bill request until draft language is available. By having drafts completed earlier in the interim, staff can more easily identify duplicate bills and the legislator can decide whether to proceed or replace the request sooner. (See Ask OLLS posting “What happens if I make the same bill request as another legislator?”)
    • If a legislator has his or her bill drafted in the fall, he or she may authorize a fiscal analyst to provide an early estimate of how much the bill may cost. Knowing how expensive a bill may be before it’s introduced enables the legislator to consider changes before the bill is introduced and becomes public.
    • The ability to review drafts of bills before the December 1 deadline is one of the best reasons to use more of the interim to develop and draft bills. If a legislator must decide whether to withdraw and replace one or more bill requests, then it’s best to make that decision before the first bill request deadline when the rules allow greater flexibility in making and replacing bills.

    Bill Requests 2

  • VA Governor’s Bribery Conviction Turns on a Definition of Official Action

    by Bob Lackner

    During his four-year term in office, the former Governor of Virginia tried to assist a constituent who had bestowed extensive loans and gifts on the official, his wife, and their family. At what point does such assistance qualify as an “official act” necessary to sustain a conviction for violating federal law prohibiting bribery? This was the issue before the United States Supreme Court in the case of McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. ___ (2016).

    Background/Issues
    In November 2009, Robert McDonnell was elected Governor of Virginia. While in office, McDonnell and his wife Maureen and other family members received $175,000 in loans, gifts, and other benefits from Virginia businessman Jonnie Williams. Williams was chief executive officer of Star Scientific, a Virginia-based company that had developed and marketed a nutritional supplement named Anatabloc that was made from a compound found in tobacco. Star Scientific hoped to obtain federal approval of Anatabloc as an anti-inflammatory drug. An important step in that approval was initiating independent research studies on Anatabloc’s health benefits. Williams sought McDonnell’s assistance in obtaining these studies from Virginia’s public universities.

    The gifts and loans that Williams gave to the Governor and his family included $20,000 worth of designer clothing for Mrs. McDonnell, personal loans totaling $70,000, a $15,000 gift towards their daughter’s wedding, a Rolex watch for the Governor, and a $10,000 wedding gift to one of their daughters.

    In 2014, the federal government indicted Robert and Maureen McDonnell (by then out-of-office) on various bribery charges. To convict the McDonnells of bribery, the government was required to show that Governor McDonnell committed (or agreed to commit) an “official act” in exchange for the loans and gifts from Williams. After a trial, the jury convicted McDonnell of accepting bribes from Williams. Mrs. McDonnell was also convicted of most of the similar criminal charges against her.

    Governor McDonnell appealed his conviction to the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. He challenged the definition of “official action” in the jury instructions used at his trial on the ground that it deemed “virtually all of a public servant’s activities ‘official’, no matter how minor or innocuous.” The Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction. McDonnell appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court’s Analysis
    The issue before the Supreme Court was the proper interpretation of the term “official act” as used in the federal bribery statute, 18 USC §201. That statute makes it a federal crime for “a public official…directly or indirectly, corruptly” to demand, accept, or agree to accept “anything of value” in return for being “influenced in the performance of any official act.” An “official act” is defined as

    any decision, or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which at any time may be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit. [Sec. 201 (a) (3).]

     

    The government argued that the term “official act” encompasses nearly any activity by a public official. The term specifically includes, therefore, arranging meetings, hosting events, and merely contacting other government officials concerning any subject, including a broad public policy issue such as Virginia economic development. The Governor had undertaken these acts on behalf of Williams.

    By contrast, the thrust of Governor McDonnell’s appeal was that the statutory context compels a more circumscribed reading of the statutory text, limiting “official acts” to those acts that “direct[] a particular resolution of a specific government decision” or that pressure another official to do so. Taking into account the statutory text, its precedents, and constitutional concerns raised by Governor McDonnell, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the government’s reading of the federal bribery statute and, in an opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, adopted a more restricted interpretation of “official act.”

    The Court held that an “official act” is a decision or action on a “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding, or controversy.” The “question or controversy” must involve a formal exercise of governmental power that is similar in nature to a lawsuit before a court, a determination before an agency, or a hearing before a committee. It must also be something specific and focused that is “pending” or “may by law be brought” before a public official. To qualify as an “official act,” the public official must make a decision or take an action on that “question or controversy” or agree to do so. That decision or action may include using his or her official position to exert pressure on another official to perform an “official act,” or to advise another official knowing or intending that the advice will form the basis for an “official act” by another official. Setting up a meeting, calling another public official, or organizing an event (or agreeing to do so)—without more—does not fit the definition of “official act.”

    In addition, the Supreme Court expressed concern that the government’s expansive interpretation of “official act” would raise significant constitutional concerns. The basic compact underlying representative government assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act appropriately on those constituents’ concerns. The Court found that the Government’s position would likely pose a chilling effect on the interactions of public officials with the people they serve and thus damage the ability of public officials to effectively perform their duties. The Court expressed a related concern that, under the government’s interpretation, the term “official act” is not defined with “sufficient definitiveness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited” or in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

    The Supreme Court agreed with McDonnell’s contention that his convictions must be vacated because the jury was improperly instructed on the meaning of “official act” as used in the governing statute. Because the jury was not correctly instructed on the meaning of this term, it may have convicted McDonnell for conduct that is actually lawful. These errors were not harmless. The Court noted that a more limited interpretation of the term “official act” would leave ample room for prosecuting corruption while comporting with the statutory text and its precedents in this area.
    Governor McDonnell’s conviction spurred some reforms to Virginia’s ethics laws in the next legislative session. Among the changes was the creation of a $100 annual limit on gifts lawmakers can accept from lobbyists, their clients, or others seeking to do business with the state.

    As with the Governor of Virginia, a Colorado public official could engage in conduct that results in a bribery conviction under federal law, and the McDonnell case would apply. Also, in Colorado the statutory standards of conduct forbid a member of the General Assembly from accepting a gift primarily given to reward the legislator for official action he or she has taken. See section 24-18-104 (1)(b)(II), C.R.S. The Colorado courts could apply the McDonnell case to augment the meaning of the key term “official action” as used in Colorado’s statutory standards of conduct in weighing the appropriateness by a legislator of accepting gifts.

  • Colorado LegiSource: Happily Blogging Since September 1, 2011!

    Five years ago today, Colorado LegiSource made its debut as the only known blog written by nonpartisan legislative staff for their legislators and the public. In the years since, we have posted at least one article almost weekly (okay – there have been a few weeks during the legislative sessions that we just couldn’t pull an article together). At this point we have about 172 subscribers and 819 twitter followers. For the last year, we averaged 1,937 views a month and for our entire five-year lifetime, we’ve racked up a total of 78,774 views. We may not have made eBiz’s top 15 most popular blogs list, but we’ve done okay!AwardOLLS

    We have also achieved some recognition along the way. In August 2015, the Colorado LegiSource received an NCSL Notable Documents Award. The Legislative Research Librarians staff section presents these awards annually to recognize excellence in documents that explore topics of interest to legislators and staff and present substantive material in an outstanding format. Also in 2015, the LegiSource article on “Educator Effectiveness and Senate Bill 10-191” was cited in an article on employment law issues published in the October edition of the Colorado Lawyer, a Colorado Bar Association publication.

    That first day we were anxious to get started. We posted three articles: “The Director’s Welcome,” by Dan Cartin; “The Legislature’s Role in the Review of Administrative Rules,” by Chuck Brackney; and “Bill Requests – Making and keeping the five allowed by rule,” by Patti Dahlberg.

    Our top five most viewed articles present an interesting mix.

    The most popular article in the last five years – with 14,893 views – is “Does Colorado Have a ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law?” In this article, Richard Sweetman explained that Colorado does not actually have a “stand your ground law” but it does have a “make my day law.” The difference? Both allow a person to use deadly force to protect himself or herself in certain situations, but Colorado’s law is generally limited to protecting against home invasions and does not include some of the presumptions that are common in “stand your ground” laws. You should read the article.

    The top five list also includes:

    “When Can a Local Government Override State Law? Home Rule Cities in Colorado,” also by Richard Sweetman, in second place with 7,283 views;

    “A New Look for the Colorado Revised Statutes On-Line,” by Revisor of Statutes Jennifer Gilroy, in third place with 1,676 views;

    “What is the difference between the session laws and the statutes?“, posted in “Ask OLLS”, in fourth place with 1,331 views; and

    “Powers, Duties, and Functions of Executive Branch Agencies (Type 1, type 2, and type 3 transfers),” by Rebecca Hausmann, rounding out the top five with 1,243 views.

    In the first article we published, Dan Cartin, director of the OLLS, described the LegiSource’s purposes as both informational and educational, applying the experience and expertise of the OLLS staff to help legislators and the public understand the issues in many areas, including:

    To this list, we’ve added fun and informative articles about the history of Colorado’s state government and of the state capitol.

    birthday cakeWe hope we’ve lived up to our purpose in the last five years; we hope that our readers have gained as much knowledge, understanding, and enjoyment in the reading as we have in the writing.

    Happy Birthday, Colorado LegiSource – here’s to the next five years!