by Julie Pelegrin

Consistently throughout the history of the world, two events have never failed to occur on a daily basis: sunrise and sunset. Having covered regulatory “sunrise” last week, it’s only fitting that we now discuss regulatory “sunset.” Before the General Assembly begins regulating a profession or occupation, it requires a study to ensure that the regulation will be in the public interest. Similarly, once regulatory bodies and functions are created, the General Assembly requires periodic review to ensure that they continue to serve the public interest.

The law requires all advisory boards and the regulatory divisions, boards, and agencies, and some functions, in the Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) to repeal based on a schedule specified in the statute. In the common vernacular, this schedule of repeals is called a “sunset” provision, i.e., the sun sets on the agency, board, or function, and it ceases operating. According to DORA’s website, the term “sunset” in reference to this process was actually coined in Colorado in the 1970s. The Colorado Office of Policy, Research and Regulator Reform (COPRRR) within DORA handles the sunset process.

How does it work?

When a new advisory board is created in any department or a new division, board, agency, or function is created within DORA, the new entity or function is scheduled for repeal within 10 years. Approximately two years before that repeal date, COPRRR begins the review process, which includes research, writing, legislation, and rule-making.

Generally, the review process focuses on two issues: 1) Is there a public need for the entity or function; and 2) Is the regulation that the entity or function imposes the least restrictive, consistent with the public interest?

COPRRR must consider several factors in answering these questions. In addition to specifically looking at public safety and interest protections and the necessary level of regulation, the factors include:

• The entity’s efficiency;
• The degree to which the entity actually works with and represents the interests of the public and not just the regulated occupation;
• How the regulations impact the economy and competition within the regulated occupation;
• Whether the requirements for entering the occupation encourage affirmative action;
• Whether the regulation takes into account prior criminal history and whether it uses this information to protect the public or to protect the occupation; and
• Whether administrative and statutory changes are necessary to improve the entity’s operations and better serve the public interest.

In completing the research, COPRRR will collect data; review the pertinent literature, statutes, and rules; and solicit information from and meet one-on-one or in small groups with a wide variety of public and private interested persons. The COPRRR website includes an online comment form that anyone can use to provide input.

When the research is completed, the reviewer writes a sunset report, which must be submitted to the Office of Legislative Legal Services by October 15 of the year before the entity or function is scheduled to repeal. The report generally consists of background information and recommendations for statutory and regulatory changes. The report also recommends whether the entity or function should continue or be allowed to repeal. A division, board, agency or function may be continued for up to 15 years before the next review; an advisory board may be continued indefinitely. If the COPRRR recommends significant statutory or administrative changes, it is more likely to recommend a shorter continuation time to review whether the changes are effective.

The OLLS drafts a bill to implement the statutory recommendations made in the sunset report. The Speaker of the House, in even-numbered years, or the President of the Senate, in odd-numbered years, selects a committee of reference to review the sunset report and the bill draft.

The committee of reference holds a public hearing on the drafted—but not yet introduced—bill and the COPRRR’s report. These hearings usually occur in January soon after the legislative session starts, but may occur before session starts. At the hearing, personnel from the COPRRR present, and the committee typically takes public testimony on, the report and the bill draft. The committee may adopt amendments to the bill draft before deciding whether to approve the bill draft for introduction. The committee must base its decisions concerning the bill on the same factors that the COPRRR considered in making its recommendations.

If the committee approves the bill draft for introduction, the committee chair assigns at least one legislator—who may or may not be a member of the committee—to sponsor the bill. If it’s a House committee of reference that approves introduction of the bill, the bill starts in the House, and the Senate President assigns one or two Senators to be Senate sponsors. If a Senate committee of reference approves introduction of the bill, the bill starts in the Senate, and the Speaker of the House assigns one or two Representatives to be House sponsors. Sunset bills do not count against a legislator’s five-bill limit, but a legislator cannot be the prime sponsor of more than two sunset bills regarding divisions, boards, agencies or functions in a single legislative session.

When a sunset bill is introduced, it must be assigned to the same committee of reference that held the initial sunset hearing on the bill draft. After introduction, sunset bills are like any other bill; they may be amended and they must pass both houses and be approved by the Governor before they can become law. While the bill as drafted must reflect the recommendations in the sunset report, the General Assembly may amend the bill in any manner that fits within the single subject stated in the bill title.

If the committee does not approve introduction of the bill or the sunset bill does not pass, then the repeal takes effect in July or September of the year after the COPRRR issues its report. An advisory board ceases operations immediately upon the repeal date. But the repeal of a division, board, agency, or function actually starts a one-year wind-up period. The entity or function continues to operate just to finish its business until the following July or September when the entity ceases to exist or the function ceases to operate. A license issued or renewed during this wind-up year, and any other outstanding licenses, expire when the entity or function actually ceases.

Think of the wind-up year as the twilight. At the end of the year, the regulatory sun finally drops below the horizon, and everything goes dark. After that, only the General Assembly can make the sun rise again on that piece of government.

by Jery Payne

You’re sitting in your office with your cup of joe or grande ristretto caffe latte—depending on your style—reading the newspaper when in walks a lobbyist, who says “I want to talk to you about bank robbing.” As you take a drink, she continues, “The bank­-robbers association believe their occupation needs to be licensed.”

After the coffee is wiped up, you manage to ask her, “They have an association?”

“Yes,” she replies, “they play an important part in the economy, and licensing is very important to avoid poor quality, which can be dangerous. The banks support licensing.”

“The banks?”

“Yes,” she adds, “The banks suffer the most from poor­-quality testing of bank security.”

“Ah, I thought you meant actual thieves.”

“No, silly. Legal bank robbers: the people who try to circumvent physical and electronic security measures.”

After a long talk, you agree that licensing legal bank robbers may be the best way to help Colorado banks. Before you put in a bill request, however, you may want to find out if the proponents have obtained a sunrise report from the Department of Regulatory Agencies. It might save you some trouble.

Section 24‑34‑104.1 sets the basic requirements necessary to propose “the regulation of any unregulated professional or occupational group.” This section requires such a proposal to be submitted by December 1 to the Department of Regulatory Agencies for analysis. The proposal must be signed either by ten members of the occupation or by ten other people. The proposal must contain the following:

• A description of the group proposed for regulation, including a list of organizations representing practitioners in Colorado, and an estimate of the number of practitioners;
• A description of the problem and why regulation is necessary;
• The reasons why the specific form of regulation is proposed;
• The public benefit of the regulation;
• The cost of the regulation; and
• If the proposal seeks to disqualify a person based on criminal history, a description of the disqualifications and how the disqualifications serve public safety or commercial or consumer interests.

If the proposal is in order, the department should analyze the proposed regulation and send the analysis to the proponents and the General Assembly by October 15 of the following year. If the department finds that the lack of regulation “poses an imminent threat to public health, safety, or welfare,” the department will promptly notify the proponents and the Legislative Council, which will hold a hearing on the matter. If the Legislative Council at the hearing agrees there is an imminent threat, the department may forego the analysis, and a legislator may introduce legislation without having the report.

If the matter is not so dire, the department will evaluate and analyze the proposal and make a recommendation in a report based on whether:

• Unregulated practice concretely harms or risks public health, safety, or welfare;
• Regulating occupational competence is needed and beneficial;
• The public can be protected in a more cost‑effective manner; and
• Disqualifications based on criminal history serve public safety or commercial or consumer interests.

Once you have the report, you may introduce the bill within two regular legislative sessions.

The department may decline to conduct the analysis if it already did the analysis within the last three years and no new information has been submitted that would change the department’s mind.

If the department doesn’t do a new analysis, it will reissue the previous report. This means you have a report and may introduce a bill within the next two regular legislative session.

Now I bet I know what a lot of you are thinking: “What exactly does ‘regulating’ mean?” The Office of Legislative Legal Services thinks it means legislation concerning a job that hasn’t previously been the specific subject of legislation. The Governor’s Office, however, has said that it means only licensing, registration, and certification. The Governor’s Office reasoned that most occupations are subject to some laws; therefore, the sunrise statute cannot apply to all laws specific to an occupation. Yet this reading is hard to square with the actual language of the statutory section, which requires proponents of the regulation to state “the reasons why certification, registration, licensure, or other type of regulation is being proposed …” So “regulation” appears to be more than certification, registration, or licensure.

Another problem with the interpretation of the Governor’s Office is that it conflates the regulation of an occupation with general‑purpose laws. For example, the law forbids bankers to steal, but the law doesn’t actually mention bankers. It applies to everybody regardless of whether they are a banker, so it is a general‑purpose law that incidentally a banker must obey when doing business. But a law that specifically requires bankers to keep a log of transactions is a law regulating bankers. A law that sets a standard or requirement for someone because of the person’s occupation is the regulation of an occupation. The mere fact that an occupation is subject to a general‑purpose law does not mean it is a regulated occupation; but a new law that would create a requirement specific to the occupation should be subject to the sunrise process.

Nevertheless, the governor may veto the bill because it does not follow his office’s interpretation. Ignore the reading of the Governor’s Office at your own risk.

So before using a bill request to help bankers get better security testing, it makes sense to ask if the proponents have followed the sunrise process.

by Patti Dahlberg

With the 2020 Legislative Session just around the corner, it seems like a good time to review a few bill basics on bill sponsorship, bill summaries, and the different versions of a bill.

Prime Sponsors. Each bill must have at least one prime sponsor in each chamber. The prime sponsor in the second chamber may be added after the bill’s introduction in the first chamber but must be designated before the bill passes on third reading in the first chamber. Prime sponsors are responsible for explaining the bill and its purpose in committee hearings and in subsequent floor discussions regarding the bill. Prime sponsors are the first names in the list of the bill’s sponsors for each chamber. If the bill started in the Senate it will have a Senate number and Senate sponsorship will be listed on the bill first, with the Senate prime sponsor listed in bold type. Before this Senate bill can pass from the Senate to the House it must have a Representative who has agreed to be the “prime” sponsor in the House. This second house prime sponsor thus agrees to explain the bill and its purpose in committee hearings and in subsequent floor discussions in the second chamber. See also “Bill Sponsor Basics: and New Rules on Joint Prime Sponsorship of Bills”, December 22, 2016.

Sponsors or cosponsors. Other legislators may want to show support for a bill by having their names listed on it, but not take on the responsibility of carrying the bill. If a legislator adds his or her name to the bill before the bill’s introduction, he or she is a “sponsor” of the bill. If a legislator adds his or her name after the bill’s introduction, he or she is a “cosponsor” of the bill. The level of sponsorship is identical, the terms merely indicate whether the legislator’s name was added before or after introduction. See also “Bill Sponsor Basics: A Quick Pre-session Review”, December 27, 2012.

Bill sponsorship must be verified or verifiable.  A legislator cannot simply add another legislator’s name to a bill. The legislator whose name is to be added to the bill must either personally contact staff to make that request or do so in writing.  Legislator A can alert staff that Legislator B wishes to be added as a sponsor to his or her bill but Legislator A should remind Legislator B that he or she will also need to confirm this wish with staff in order for it to go into effect. The House and Senate front desk staff have forms for legislators to use when updating sponsor information after the bill’s introduction. See also “Bill Sponsor Basics: A Quick Pre-session Review”, December 27, 2012.

Joint Prime Sponsors. If a bill is joint prime sponsored, the two joint prime sponsors will be listed first, in bold type, and with an “and” between the names.  Joint prime sponsorship indicates that both sponsors agree to jointly and equally sponsor a bill through that chamber’s legislative process. If the joint prime sponsorship is in the first chamber the bill counts against the five-bill limit for both of the joint prime sponsors. A first chamber joint prime sponsor can be added before or after the bill is introduced. If the joint prime sponsor is added before a bill’s introduction and already has five bill requests, he or she will need to seek delayed bill authorization from the Committee on Delayed Bills to be added to that bill. Prime or joint prime sponsorship in the second house does not count against a legislator’s five-bill limit. See also “Bill Sponsor Basics: and New Rules on Joint Prime Sponsorship of Bills”, December 22, 2016 and “To Prime or to Joint Prime”, December 22, 2011.

Bill Summaries. Every introduced bill and concurrent resolution has a bill summary. This summary is written in plain language and is intended to be a succinct, clear, and accurate synopsis of the major points of the bill. Bill drafters generally avoid including legalistic and technical terms unless these terms are necessary to avoid confusing or misleading the reader. The summary is not a rewrite of the entire bill and generally does not include detailed information, but should provide a clear idea of what the bill is doing. The only way for a reader to be certain of the details in the bill is to read the full bill. The bill summary appearing on the bill just before the language of the bill applies to the introduced version of the bill and remains unchanged on the bill as it moves through the legislative process, in spite of any amendments passed. For some bills, the original bill summary will continue to be an accurate summary of the bill through enactment, but the reader should not trust that the printed bill summary is accurate after the first committee hearing. If a bill is amended in the first chamber in such a way that the bill summary is no longer accurate, the drafter will update the bill summary and an electronic version will be available on that bill’s webpage on the General Assembly’s website.

Bill versions. Bills go through several steps during the legislative process, and every step a bill completes is “stamped” starting in the lower right margin on the front page of the bill. One glance at this “record” tells you where the bill has been and when the bill was amended. The version of the bill is indicated in the upper right side on the front page of the bill. If you are following a bill through the legislative process you will want to be certain that you have the correct bill version in front of you for each step. See also “Bill Versions Mark the Path from Introduction to Final Passage”, February 13, 2015.

By Julie Pelegrin

Closing in on the final gavel of the first regular session of the 72^nd General Assembly, our readers likely have a lot on their (tired) minds. So for our final posting of the session—and the final posting before LegiSource resumes July 11—we’re offering answers to some of the questions you may be asking.

Why is it called a filibuster?

We’ve heard the word “filibuster” used a lot during this session, and we’re all well aware of its definition: “An action such as a prolonged speech that obstructs progress in a legislative assembly while not technically contravening the required procedures.”[1] But what is the derivation of this word?

The Online Etymology Dictionary (Dictionary) says the word likely came from the Dutch word vrijbueterin the 1580s was rendered flibutor, and means “pirate” or “freebooter”. The word was used in reference to mainly French, Dutch, and English “adventurers” of the 17^th century, many of whom were infamous for ransacking the Spanish colonies in the West Indies.

By the mid-1800s, the English version—filibuster—referred to American adventurers who went down to Central America to foment and lead revolutions to overthrow the local governments. The Dictionary provides an interesting quote from Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, January 1853:

FILIBUSTERING is a term lately imported from the Spanish, yet destined, it would seem, to occupy an important place in our vocabulary. In its etymological import it is nearly synonymous with piracy. It is commonly employed, however, to denote an idea peculiar to the modern progress, and which may be defined as the right and practice of private war, or the claim of individuals to engage in foreign hostilities aside from, and even in opposition to the government with which they are in political membership.

With regard to the legislative process, the word is usually used as a verb, but it retains the sense of the original noun. The Dictionary suggests that when the word began to be used regularly in the 1860s to describe prolonged speeches to obstruct progress in the legislature, the definition was extended in this way “because obstructionist legislators ‘pirated’ debate or overthrew the usual order of authority.”

For an interesting explanation of the use of filibustering in the U.S. Senate and the development of the cloture rule, you might want to read this testimony by Sarah A. Binder. She was a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute when she testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administrations in 2010. Spoiler alert: She blames Aaron Burr for enabling filibustering in the U.S. Senate.

This has been a really busy session. How many bills were introduced?

While everyone has worked really hard this session, the number of introduced bills is actually less than the number introduced in most of the preceding four legislative sessions.

This year the House introduced 335 bills, which compares with:

• 441 introduced in 2018
• 374 introduced in 2017
• 467 introduced in 2016
• 392 introduced in 2015

The Senate introduced 263 bills this year, which compares with:

• 280 introduced in 2018
• 306 introduced in 2017
• 217 introduced in 2016
• 289 bills introduced in 2015

Although the Senate introduced fewer bills in 2016 than it did this year, the overall total for 2016 was 684. This year, it’s only 598.

Nearing the end of the 119^th legislative day, 511 of those 598 bills have been acted on. Of those bills: 109 were killed in committee, two lost on second reading, three lost on third reading, 202 are in the process of final enrolling, 39 are sitting on the Governor’s desk; and the Governor has already signed 155.

How long does the Governor have to act on a bill?

Under article IV, section 11 of the Colorado constitution, if the Governor receives a bill and there are more than 10 days left in the session, the Governor has 10 days to sign or veto the bill or the bill becomes law without his signature. If the Governor vetoes a bill, he must send it back to the House and the Senate with a letter explaining his reasons for vetoing the bill. The House and the Senate may then reconsider the bill and if two-thirds of the members elected to the House and two-thirds of the members elected to the Senate reapprove the bill, it becomes law despite the Governor’s veto.

If, however, the House and the Senate adjourn sine die before the Governor’s 10 days for action have passed, then the Governor has 30 days after sine die to act on the bill before it becomes law without his signature. And if he vetoes the bill, there is no opportunity for an override vote.

What does sine die mean? And how do you pronounce it?

The exact translation of the Latin term, “sine die”, is “without a day.” As applied, it means that the General Assembly adjourns without specifying the day on which they are returning. During the session, when each house adjourns at the end of a legislative day, the motion specifies the time and the date when the house will reconvene. On the last day of the session, however, the motion is to adjourn sine die – no return date specified.

As for how it’s pronounced, there seems to be a difference of opinion in the online dictionary electronic pronunciations. Check a variety of websites and you’ll hear sign-uh die-ee; sin-ay dee-ay; and even sign-die. Guess that’s what happens when the people who originally spoke the language have been dead for several centuries.

So when are they coming back?

Just because they adjourn sine die doesn’t mean they don’t know when they’ll be back. As our regular readers know, article V section 7 of the state constitution requires the General Assembly to convene in regular session by 10:00 a.m. no later than the second Wednesday of January each year. One of the last measures to pass each year is a joint resolution that establishes the convening date for the next regular legislative session. This year, Senate Joint Resolution 19-009 sets Wednesday, January 8, 2020, as the first day of the second regular session of the 72^nd General Assembly.

That said, the Office of Legislative Legal Services looks forward to welcoming everyone back next January … or sooner if the Governor calls a spec…. no, we’re not even going to put that in type.

---

[1] Definition from the Google Dictionary.

by Richard Sweetman

Duplicate bill requests occur every session, and the Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS) must handle each such scenario with diplomacy, tact, and confidentiality. Beginning with the 2019 session, the OLLS is taking a new approach to handle instances in which more than one legislator requests the same bill.

If an OLLS staff member determines that two bill requests are identical, nearly identical, or partial duplicates, the assigned drafter will do the following:

• First, determine whether the requests are identical, nearly identical, or partial duplicates or merely similar.
• If the drafter determines the two bill requests are merely similar, the drafter will continue drafting both requests without divulging any information to the requesting legislators regarding the existence of the two bill requests.
• If the bills are identical, nearly identical, or partial duplicates, the drafter will contact each requesting legislator and inform him or her that the OLLS believes his or her request may be a duplicate of another bill request that has been filed with the OLLS. In this conversation, the drafter may disclose whether the other requestor is from the Senate or the House of Representatives and whether the requestor is a member of the same party.
• The drafter will ask each requesting legislator for permission to disclose his or her identity to the other legislator who requested the bill. Note that the drafter is seeking the same permission from both legislators, and one legislator might give permission for such disclosure while the other legislator might not. If neither legislator gives permission to contact the other legislator, and both legislators indicate that they wish to continue with their bill requests, the drafter will continue to work on both requests without divulging any more information to either legislator about the other legislator’s request.
• If either legislator directs the drafter to disclose his or her identity to the other legislator, the drafter will do so. Once the disclosure is made, the drafter will leave it up to the legislators to determine how to resolve the duplicate bill situation. The drafter’s goal is to let the two legislators decide what they want to do without assuming the role of an intermediary.

In resolving a duplicate-bill-request situation, legislators may want to join efforts as prime sponsors in each house, or they may want to become joint prime sponsors in the same house, or one may become a prime sponsor and the other a sponsor, or one of them may kill his or her request. In some cases, both legislators will proceed with their bills and let the issue work itself out through the process.

Note that a drafter may need to modify the process in the case of a partial duplicate bill request. A partial duplicate occurs when one requested bill contains a duplicate portion of another requested bill. In this case, the drafter must not disclose the other contents of a bill that is only a partial duplicate. The bill sponsors may choose to work out which bill will contain the duplicate provision or choose to include it in both bills.

Sometimes it is difficult to determine whether two bill requests are truly duplicates. When in doubt, the OLLS will err on the side of caution by identifying a potential duplicate situation to the legislators who requested the bills.

If legislators have any questions about the new OLLS policy, they should contact the office and ask to speak to an attorney.

by Julie Pelegrin

Editor’s note: This article was originally posted on April 17, 2014. It has been updated for this posting.

We are more than half way through this legislative session and a legislator’s thoughts turn to…conference committees! Following is an overview of the conference committee process.

For a bill to go to the Governor, it must pass both the House and the Senate in exactly the same form. If the second house amends a bill, it cannot go to the Governor for signature unless the first house accepts, or “concurs in,” the second house amendments and readopts the bill or unless both houses form a conference committee to create a report that resolves the differences between the two versions.

There is a third option, but it can be risky. A legislator can move for the first house to adhere to its position (i.e., refuse to consider any changes to the bill proposed by the second house). At that point, the second house can choose to recede from its changes and adopt the version of the bill that the first house passed. However, the second house can also choose to adhere to its position (i.e. refuse to consider adopting the first house’s version of the bill). Most often, when the first house adheres to its position and refuses to discuss a compromise, the second house also adheres. If this happens, the bill is dead.

But, let’s assume that the bill sponsor moves to reject the second house amendments and request the formation of a conference committee. The conference committee consists of three persons appointed from each house: Two majority party members and one minority party member. The Speaker and the President will each appoint the two majority members from their respective houses, and the Minority Leaders will each appoint the minority members from their respective houses. In most cases, the bill sponsors in both houses are appointed to the conference committee, and the bill sponsors can submit their preferences for the other members they would like to see appointed to the conference committee from their respective houses.

The conference committee’s report can address any of the differences between the two versions of the bill. But, if the conference committee wants to address language that was not changed by the second house or address an issue that fits within the bill title, but was not included in either version of the bill, the bill sponsors must ask their respective chambers for permission “to go beyond the scope of the differences” between the two versions. The conference committee members can discuss changes that are outside the scope of the differences, but they cannot sign the committee report until both houses have granted the committee permission to go beyond the scope of the differences.

The date, time, and location for all conference committee meetings are printed in the House and Senate calendars. After agreeing on wording changes to resolve the differences, the committee may adopt the committee report conceptually or, if the bill drafter prepared the report in advance of the meeting, may adopt the committee report as written. For the report to pass, a majority of the conference committee members from each house (i.e. two House members and two Senate members) must approve the report. Following adoption of the report, the committee members who voted to approve the report sign it. A committee member who voted against the report and any committee member who missed the meeting may also choose to sign the report.

Once the report is signed and turned in to the front desk of the House and the Senate, the house that agreed to go to conference committee, usually the second house, acts first on the report. Usually, the second house adopts the report and readopts the bill as amended by the conference committee report. Then the first house also adopts the report and readopts the bill. At that point, the bill is enrolled and sent to the Governor.

However, either house may choose to adhere to its position, recede from its position, or reject the conference committee report and ask that a second conference committee be formed. Assuming both houses agree to a second conference committee, they will appoint the members of the second conference committee, which may be the same as the first conference committee, and the committee will meet again and attempt to come to another agreement. Only two conference committees can be appointed for a bill. If either house rejects the committee report of the second conference committee, one of the houses will have to recede and adopt the other house’s version, or the bill is dead.

This article describes how conference committees usually work. The OLLS has prepared charts for the House and Senate that explain the possible actions, in addition to adopting a conference committee report, that each house may take in resolving differences between the houses. If you are interested in reading the legislative rules on conference committees, you can find them at House Rule 36, Senate Rule 19, and Joint Rules 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.

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

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

Executive departments then submit the approved budget requests to the General Assembly’s Joint Budget Committee (JBC) by November 1. The judicial department also submits its budget requests at this time. The JBC staff review these requests and prepare written briefings and oral presentations to the JBC. Starting in November, the JBC schedules hearings with each department to discuss department budget priorities, operations, effectiveness, and future planning.

All JBC budget briefings, hearings, and other meetings are open to the public, broadcast over the internet, and recorded and archived. The JBC does not accept public testimony during budget hearings, but they may allow public testimony in other hearings.

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

Economic forecasts and other reports, department budget requests, and budget recommendations from the governor’s office help the JBC and its staff develop a “balanced budget” proposal, which includes the Long Bill and legislation included with the Long Bill, as well as bills introduced by other legislators. For more background on the JBC and Colorado’s budget process, please see “Joint Budget Committee to Write State’s Budget for the 58^th Time”, posted October 26, 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

 

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