Pat Steadman :: State Senator SD 31

I have to admit I’m not really that into gadgets. I hate my iPhone and could care less about the iPad (I do love my iPod, however – gotta have music for the treadmill). Hooking up computer equipment and making things work has never been something I cared to learn. But for all my dispassion about equipment, I have to admit a bit of a dependency.

I’ve grown to enjoy Facebook and Twitter, although I’m told I need to Tweet more often. The internet is invaluable and is the first place I look to do research. You can waste an eternity on YouTube if you start searching and watching and letting it draw you in. And of course, I’d be lost without email. So you might expect me to be better at connecting all these gadgets and getting the best use of them.

A terrible thing happened this weekend. I’ve been having exchange server problems (long story, still not resolved). So I let a friend try to change the settings on my iPhone. The result was the loss of my calendar and contacts. The contact list had been recently backed up, so I think I only lost the people I’d met in the past week or so. But the loss of the calendar is devastating. To make matters worse, as we installed the new solution we deleted what little remained of my calendar on my desktop. I’m now working from a completely blank slate.

Solutions are at hand! I now have Mobile Me as the magical connection between desktop, internet and iPhone. New contacts and appointments can be entered at any one of those places and instantly shared among all three. I’m probably the last person on Earth, or at least in Colorado, to learn about this, but tragedy forces us to change. Who needs an exchange server (whatever that is) when Mobile Me will do it all for a modest fee?

So here’s where you come in: Did I have an appointment with you? Do you know where I’m supposed to be for breakfast, lunch or dinner? Am I speaking at your event? If you have time on my calendar, please do me a favor and remind me about it. And please be patient if I flake out on scheduled appointments or have to change something because I’m soon to be double-booked. I’m a mess! My digital dependency caught me without proper back-up, and I’m going to be paying the price.

Here’s a post that doesn’t parse through policy issues or seek to educate about the decisions I’m asked to make each day.  Instead, I thought I’d just give a quick run-down of what the week has been like.  With no holiday this week, it’s been four days of steady work at the Capitol, and numerous important issue competing for my attention.  Glad tomorrow is Friday!

On Monday I attended a memorial for an old friend’s grandmother who passed away at the ripe old age of 101.  It was great to see the family again and reconnect with people I hadn’t seen in many years.  My friend introduced me to everyone as “Senator Steadman” and seemed to enjoy my newfound notoriety.  His parents and relatives haven’t changed a bit and were as gracious as ever, if not more so. 

On Wednesday I learned of another passing, this time a prominent gay man in Denver who’s activism and contributions have been known to me for two decades.  He was part of that older generation of gay men that often lived quiet, almost invisible lives.  I’m not sure of his exact age, but I hope to make it to his funeral service tomorrow to pay my respects.  Unlike many in his generation, Jim was out and active and always advocating for equality.  I remember well his role as an outsider in the 1992 campaign against Amendment 2 – one of many occasions when he taught me a thing or two.

On Tuesday we worked late into the evening hearing testimony and debating SB 1 in the Senate Finance Committee.  This is the bill sponsored by Senate President Brandon Shaffer (D-Longmont) and Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry (R-Grand Junction) that repairs our state’s troubled Public Employees Retirement Association.  The bill asks public employees, the government entities they work for, and PERA retirees to all chip in to make the pension plan solvent and sound for the future.  It wasn’t an easy vote, as the bill trims cost of living increases to retirement benefits and takes more out of employees’ paychecks in the future.  I feel a strong sense of responsibility to ensure this pension remains viable and solvent for future generations of public employees, so I co-sponsored the bill and was one of 5 senators to vote for it on Tuesday evening.  I made an amendment to the bill to make slight improvements to the cost of living impacts and the minimum age of retirement for teachers – an amendment that had been tediously negotiated by Sens. Shaffer and Penry and the coalition of stakeholders that have spent countless hours working on this bill.  At this point we think we have a final product and that the bill will pass without further substantive changes.  We’ll debate it on the Senate floor tomorrow morning.

Wednesday was an interesting day of committee hearings.  In the Senate Education Committee we passed a bill that expands a loan forgiveness program so more students can go to nursing school.  We need more nurses, especially as we work to expand access to health care coverage.  Here’s a to career in nursing!  In the Judiciary Committee that afternoon we passed a bill to help prevent financial exploitation of seniors and at-risk adults.  We then took up a difficult and emotional debate about education services for juveniles that are being held in county jails pending trial on “direct filed” charges, more commonly known as being tried as an adult.  These kids are inbetween systems while they are held pending trial.  They’re entitled to a presumption of innocence until found guilty, and they’re entitled to an education, but there’s no current method of providing that education in the county jail.  Advocates from the criminal justice community that often disagree all testified in favor of the bill, but the school districts the bill asks to take responsibility for these kids viewed the bill as an unfunded mandate.  This is one of those tough issues where disagreement is warranted and everyone is right.  When asked to pick sides, I chose the juvenile, their presumption of innocence and their right to a public education. 

Thursday was actually a lighter schedule and a chance to catch up.  I spent a lot of time on the phone.  We voted on third reading and final passage for about a dozen bills this morning.   As bills pass the Senate each senator has the opportunity to add their name as a co-sponsor of the bill.  I co-sponsored a bill to eliminate the scheduled repeal date for the Office of the Child’s Representative, and a bill to remove gambling facilities from the scope of “regional tourism facilities” that could be constructed under a tax increment financing measure passed last year.  A lot of people have complained to me about that regional tourism TIF bill, and the last thing I want to see tax incentives pay for is a race track or a casino.  The rest of Thursday was spent in oversight hearings, on the phone, reading, and preparing amendments for bills that will hit the Senate floor tomorrow morning.

On Friday morning we’ll be debating the PERA bill on the Senate floor (SB 1), as well as the Medical Marijuana bill that regulates the doctor-patient relationship (SB 109).  I’m fairly pleased with how SB 109 emerged from committee earlier this week – a number of amendments made important improvements to the bill that were necessary before I would vote for it.  I’ve drafted some amendments to the bill that I plan to offer during the floor debate, and if all goes well, I’m planning to vote for the bill.  However, I know that amendments will be offered that would cause me to oppose the bill because they conflict with the language voters added to our state constitution.   It should be an interesting debate.

Each of these bills will be vigorously debated in the legislature. Each of these tax credits or tax exemptions has a constituency that has come to rely on the tax break they provide. Those interests will be lobbying fast and furious to keep their little slice of heaven and avoid taxation. Hanging in the balance will be the many state programs and services that can’t be funded without these additional revenues. If any of these bills fail to pass, further cuts to the budget will be the result.

The Governor’s proposal puts some of these credits and exemptions on a time out, bringing them back in a few years when the economy will have presumably recovered and we can again afford the economic incentives that tax credits offer. Some are to be eliminated forever. The proposal impacts many different sectors of the economy, from agriculture to manufacturing to conservation and consumers. All these interests are being asked to chip in.

One proposal you’re likely to hear a fair amount about is the soda and candy tax, HB 1191. Currently, food items are not subject to the 2.9% state sales tax. Some cities tax groceries, but the state does not. Gov. Ritter has proposed removing soda pop and candy bars from the class of groceries exempt from state sales tax. This is not a tax rate increase, it merely applies the existing tax to something that today is considered exempt. As proposed this would be a permanent change and not a temporary measure to bring in revenues for a short period of years. Approximately $18 million in additional sales tax revenue is anticipated from this change.

Is it fair to ask consumers to pay sales tax on candy and pop? To answer this question, I consider the original intention of making groceries exempt from sales tax. This exemption permits people to meet a basic need and feed their families without a tax burden. Sure, many other basic necessities of life are subject to some form of taxation, but the public policy behind this particular exemption was to avoid situations where a child may go hungry because state sales tax kept her parents from buying enough food for the family. So if that’s the rationale for the exemption, does it make sense to include candy and soda within it? I think not.

I’m comfortable eliminating this exemption. No one needs to put Pepsi or M&Ms on their dinner table. We aren’t making it more expensive to provide nutritious meals to children. We’re trying to close a massive shortfall in the state budget, and HB 1191 asks consumers with a sweet tooth to shoulder part of that burden.

True confession: I have a great fondness for ice cream. It’s probably my favorite sweet treat. The Governor’s proposal has a fairly tight definition of “candy,” and it clearly doesn’t apply to ice cream, cakes, cookies or pie. Some might argue this change to the sales tax exemption will fight cavities or obesity, but truth be told, consumers with a sweet tooth will still have plenty of tax-free options.

That’s another reason why I support HB 1191: consumers have more options than state budget writers. Taxing soda and candy provides the state with $18 million that won’t need to be cut from our schools, prisons or health care. This is a fairly easy choice.

Click here to read the full text of HB 1191: http://bit.ly/5q1cUh

One thing that Sen. Chris Romer and I agree about is that the upcoming debates over medical marijuana “have the potential to suck all the oxygen out of the building.”  I know he’s spent an inordinate amount of time working on dispensary regulations, and I commend him for taking on the issue.  It’s not the most important topic on the agenda for the 2010 legislative session, but it is likely the biggest distraction from the more pressing tasks of balancing the state budget, turning around our sputtering economy and getting people back to work.  We should deal with the topic, act decisively, and move on.

So what do I think needs to be done?  I’ve studied the issue as well, and I’ve discovered that it is much more complex than simply deciding whether dispensaries have a place in our communities and our economy.  The policy implications of medical use of a substance that federal law declares illegal are extensive and touch upon a great number of fields of law.  The legislature is unlikely to resolve most of those ambiguities anytime soon, but there are some things we can and should do this year.

First, I should state for the record that I voted for Amendment 20 and support medical use.  I wasn’t thrilled about putting this into the state constitution, but at the time I agreed that it needed to be out of reach of legislative tinkering.  Now the imperfections of the amendment’s wording are coming back to haunt us.

Amendment 20 gives patients a right to possess and use medical marijuana, and it protects the ability of doctors to recommend it.  But nothing in the amendment addresses the question of where patients are supposed to get their “medicine.”  Patients and caregivers are permitted to cultivate a certain number of plants, but for those who lack a green thumb, the amendment is silent about suppliers.  This missing detail is the one of the primary causes of the current controversy.

I believe that there is a role for dispensaries and growers as caregivers, provided they abide by the limits set forth in the constitution.  If we accept the premise that medical marijuana patients have “debilitating medical conditions” (and I understand the perception that this premise is being thrown out the window by the current state of affairs), then I think it’s unreasonable to expect patients to grow their own supply of medicine.  A caregiver needs to step in.

I would like to see medical marijuana cultivation become a legitimate industry in our state.  Growers should be licensed and regulated, and their product should be subject to a voter-approved excise tax.  I have a few good ideas about what we should do with that tax revenue, but those ideas are negotiable.  We shouldn’t permit this industry to come out of the shadows and thrive while foregoing the opportunity to capture new tax revenue from this new economic activity.  An excise tax would aid in the regulation of growers and retailers and help ensure that marijuana is not being illegally imported into our state or exported to neighboring states.  This also assures patients greater quality control over the product they consume.  And while I’m on the subject of quality control and consumption, I think it’s imperative that we address the food safety issues posed by “edibles,” including labeling requirements.

Like growers, retail outlets should also be licensed and regulated.  They should be subject to local zoning ordinances like any other business.  I don’t want to see local governments zone growers or dispensaries out of their jurisdiction, but they should have the ability to have some control over where they are located.  I’m not sure the Denver City Council struck the right balance, but I think it was their decision to make.

I’m not a big fan of disqualifying people from working in certain fields because of their criminal history, and frankly a medical marijuana dispensary might be just the place for someone with a rap sheet to find gainful employment.  I’d prefer to let dispensary owners decide whom to hire and not limit their options.  Few people want “clerk at medical marijuana dispensary” to be listed as employment experience on their resume.  I’m not convinced there’s a need for this degree of regulation.

But there is a need to tighten up the laws that apply to doctors who recommend medical marijuana.  They shouldn’t be on the payroll of dispensaries or growers, nor should they have any financial dealings with these suppliers.  They’re supposed to be practicing medicine, and not the ticket-taker at the admission gate to legal recreational use.  I generally support Sen. Chris Romer’s proposal to define the term “bona fide physician-patient relationship” that is used in the constitutional amendment, and to require recommending physicians to be in good standing with the state licensing authority and the DEA.  There are perceived abuses in this area that the legislature can and should address.

Will my vision for medical marijuana regulation come to pass?  It’s hard to say.  The legislature has more pressing issues at hand, and getting this right won’t be easy.  There are those in the medical marijuana movement who are their own worst enemies and aren’t helping to create a political environment in which the legislature can deal with this issue and move on.  The lobbying efforts by the various camps have barely begun and it’s difficult to predict where the legislature will land when the dust settles (or should I say when the smoke clears?).  There’s going to be a dust-up, that’s for sure.  There are people already promising litigation, and they have Amendment 20 to back up their claims.

In closing I should also note for the record that I support de-criminalization of marijuana.  Federal law doesn’t leave that option open to the states, so that isn’t the debate we’ll be having.  But it would be so much easier.  Amendment 20 is cause for some serious brain damage (probably due to oxygen depletion!), and is a major distraction for state legislators, but as is often the case, the easy way out isn’t really an option, so deal with it we must.

On Thursday, January 14, Governor Bill Ritter, Jr. delivered his last “State of the State” address to a joint session of the Colorado General Assembly.  The speech is an annual tradition and gives the governor the opportunity to set forth his agenda for the legislative session.  I was impressed by Gov. Ritter’s speech this year – he certainly has gotten better at it after three years on the job.  More about the speech in a moment, but first I need to make mention of something you might not have known about the occasion. 

One of the quirky traditions surrounding the “State of the State” speech is the formation of a special committee of both representatives and senators whose job is to escort the governor into the chamber of the House of Representatives.  I was honored to have been appointed by the President of the Senate to be one of two senators on this escort committee.  We all assembled outside the governor’s office a little before 11:00 am, which is when the speech was scheduled to begin.  As the committee was assembling I was a little disappointed, however, to discover that we were all males.  Rep. Buffie McFadyen was appointed to the committee, but she never met up with us outside the governor’s office and instead watched the speech from her desk on the House floor.  I’m not sure why Rep. McFadyen didn’t join us, but without her the committee was four men: myself, Sen. Greg Brophy, Rep. Dennis Apuan and Rep. Kevin Priola. 

The gravity of this situation really hit me as we strode into the House chamber to a thunderous standing ovation (for the governor, of course, not the escort committee, but it was still a thrilling moment).  We paraded behind the governor to the front podium in the House chamber, where we met House Speaker Terrance Carroll and Senate President Brandon Shaffer.  Together, the leaders and the escort committee form the group that is seated in chairs behind the governor while he gives his speech.  Together, six men in dark suits formed the backdrop for the governor’s speech.  I doubt this is the image the governor wanted to project with his speech, and I know it was not intended by our leadership.   Indeed, Rep. McFadyen was supposed to be with us on the podium, and there was an empty chair between Rep. Priola and I.  But it looked bad, and it sent a signal no one intended to send.  Before leaving the podium at the conclusion of the speech I commented to the Speaker and the President that we had a problem because “only boys” were up on the stage.  I’ve since learned that the Women Legislators Caucus met and discussed this problem that same afternoon.  Together we’ll make sure it doesn’t happen again. 

Watching the governor deliver his “State of the State” speech while seated behind him, only a few feet away, was an experience I’ll never forget.  And I don’t think I’ve ever followed the speech quite as carefully as I did yesterday, although I’ve attended more than a dozen of these annual events.  Serving on the escort committee and being seated on the podium means you sit up straight, pay attention, smile when appropriate and clap loudly at each applause line.  I played my part as cast, and enjoyed every minute of it. 

The speech itself was quite good, excellent, in fact.  Governor Ritter spoke forcefully and honestly about the challenges facing our state.  His leadership was on display.  He largely avoided any partisan confrontations and stayed focused on the big picture.  I’ve been to many of these speeches before where pages are consumed by name-dropping and recitation of every bill expected to be introduced.  This year’s speech contained very little of that, and had a serious tone that called upon elected leaders “to serve with grace and compassion.”  It was noble and timely, thoughtfully constructed with just enough specifics and just the right length.  For the full text of the speech, click here:  http://bit.ly/790iJW 

Here’s are a few excerpts of parts I liked and that convey the message and tone:

Let’s stay focused on job creation, on doing what’s necessary for Colorado families and small businesses, on doing what’s right for the future of Colorado.
We cannot get distracted by partisan politics or the trivial pursuits that threaten to take us away from our core mission of economic recovery. It will not be enough to stay on the sidelines, to constantly criticize, to offer nothing but $10 solutions to billion-dollar problems. We have a higher responsibility, and if you are not at the table providing solutions, then you are part of the problem.

[ … ]

More urgently, Coloradans must unite against three of the most backward-thinking ballot measures this state has ever seen. Proposition 101 and Amendments 60 and 61 would shut down colleges and prisons, increase class sizes, put thousands of teachers out of work, and prevent the repair of unsafe roads and bridges.
If these measures pass, the state could never again support building another public school, library or rec center. The cynical game the proponents are playing with our future would quite literally destroy the safety net and wipe out any hope of creating a better future for our children.