During and since that evening, accusations have occurred that attempt to blame or distract.  This is my effort to tell the sad, sad saga of SB 2, how it got closer than ever but ultimately still came up short.  It didn’t go down in flames, but instead imploded from the pressure of House leadership’s determination to avoid bringing it to a vote before the full House of Representative.  Everyone knew that had a vote been taken, the bill would have passed.  So the House leaders made certain no vote could occur.

The story of SB 2 begins on the first day of the 2012 legislative session, January 11.  This is the day the bill was introduced and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.  A hearing before that committee took place on February 15.  It lasted all afternoon and into the early evening.  From there the bill was referred to the Finance and then Appropriations Committee.  SB 2 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee until mid-April.  It passed out of this committee on the same date as the budget package.  It wasn’t considered on the Senate floor until the week after the budget package was passed.  The second reading debate on the budget took place on the same day as the culmination of the conference committee on the budget.  It took all morning.  As a member of the JBC, I was pretty busy this entire time.

One of the things that kept me busy was attempting to recruit a Republican member of the House to sponsor the bill in that chamber.  Several House Republicans were supportive of the bill, but only a couple gave any serious thought to being the lead sponsor.  A suggestion was made that waiting until after the candidate nominating process was further along might be helpful to their decision.  Otherwise, it was easy to see an incumbent being threatened with a primary election challenge, and this made a willing sponsor all the more difficult.  And while we patiently waited, lawyers active with the Colorado Bar Association spent several weeks analyzing SB 2 and recommending amendments.

VIDEO:  My Final Comments on SB 2 Third Reading Debate

SB 2 passed the Senate on a vote of 23 to 12 on April 26, a Thursday.  It was not introduced in the House until the following Tuesday, May 1.  House leadership was responsible for this delay.  The hearing before the House Judiciary Committee took place on Thursday May 3, and the bill passed on a vote of 7 to 6.  The next day, the House Finance Committee also approved the bill on a vote of 7 to 6.  The bill was next referred to the House Appropriations Committee, which heard the bill on the afternoon of Tuesday, May 8.  Before acting on SB 2, the House Appropriations Committee spent the afternoon debating several House Bills in what can only be described as a filibuster.  Because only two days remained in the regular legislative session, there was not time to comply with the constitutionally required process for passing legislation, which requires at minimum 3 days.  House Bills needed to pass the House on third reading by Tuesday to have any hope of meeting the deadline, meaning the House Bills heard in the House Appropriations Committee that afternoon were already dead.  But the committee spent hours debating them anyway.

Finally SB 2 was passed out of House Appropriations Committee on a vote of 7 to 6.  It was late in the afternoon, and the House was called back to order to resume floor work after the committee meeting had ended.  But the report from the House Appropriations Committee that indicated SB 2 had passed out of committee was not read across the desk in the House chamber.  Until that occurred, SB 2 was not on the calendar for consideration.  The House took up a resolution regarding civility in the legislature, an annual gesture of late to remind legislators to be nice to one another.  The resolution had languished on the calendar for several weeks, but this was the time chosen to bring it up.  The use of this resolution as a stall tactic was particularly ironic.

VIDEO:  Tense Negotiations Over House Calendar & Procedure

Upon completion of the debate of HJR 1020 (the civility resolution), House Majority Leader Amy Stephens moved to take up General Orders, second reading debate on bills.  Because the Appropriations Committee had not yet reported the passage of SB 2, it was not on the General Orders calendar, and instead it would have to be taken up on a Special Orders calendar, but that couldn’t happen until the committee report had been read across the desk.  When Rep. Stephens move to proceed to General Orders, Rep. Mark Ferrandino objected, forcing a vote on the Majority Leader’s motion.  This was most unusual, as normally the Majority Leader controls the calendar.  What happened next was even more irregular, because the Majority Leader lost this move on a vote of 32 to 32, with one Democratic member absent from the chamber.  The failure of the Majority Leader’s procedural motion sent shock waves through the House.

Assistant Majority Leader Mark Waller then repeated the motion to proceed to General Orders, and Rep. Ferrandino again objected.  A recorded vote was taken and this time the motion failed 31 to 34.  All members were present, and now two of the three Republican members who had supported SB 2 in committee were voting with the Democrats to defy the floor leaders’ procedural motions.  This was tantamount to mutiny.

All told, there were five consecutive procedural motions to proceed with General Orders that were rejected by the House.  Republican Reps. B.J. Nikkel, Don Beezley and Laura Bradford all voted with the Democrats at various times to block the floor leaders’ ability to control the calendar.  The atmosphere in the House chamber was highly charged and tensions were running high.  And the third floor gallery above the House chamber, where the public may watch the proceedings, was full of SB 2 supporters, many wearing red One Colorado t-shirts.  Most had been at the Capitol all afternoon and had sat through the tedious stall tactics in the House Appropriations Committee.  They were growing restless and were well aware of what was now happening on the House floor.

After five failed attempts to control their calendar, the floor leaders negotiated an agreement with Rep. Ferrandino.  In exchange for reading the House Appropriations Committee report across the desk, he would allow them to proceed to General Orders.  SB 2 would not be on the General Orders calendar, because having just been read across the desk it would have to be taken up in Special Orders, but because it was the next to last day of session, Senate Bills in either of these calendars had to pass second reading before midnight.  By allowing the House to proceed to General Orders, Rep. Ferrandino was making sure the House could get all its work done.  But the House leaders had other plans.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider General Orders, and the committee launched into a full blown filibuster.  Each bill on the General Orders calendar was debated ad nauseum, and the tenor of the debate grew more preposterous with each passing minute.  A bill regarding trans fats in school cafeteria food became the subject of a debate that last over an hour, with a series of ridiculous amendments offered only to cause delay.  The clock was ticking, it was well past dinner time, and tense negotiations were taking place in the anterooms adjoining the House chamber.

By 9:00 pm the House Democrats had had enough.  Rep. Claire Levy was recognized during debate of a juvenile crime bill, and she made a motion for the committee to “rise and report.”  This was yet another mutinous act, as normally only the Majority Leader makes this motion at the completion of second reading debates.  And the motion to “rise and report” is not subject to debate.  Upon the making of this motion, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, immediately put the committee into recess and walked off.  He did not call for a vote on this non-debatable motion, and instead left the committee in recess for over two hours.

What happened next was a descent into a chaotic and at times ugly scene.  People milled about as leaders of both parties had arguments off to the sides of the chamber.  With a non-debatable motion on the floor and the committee in recess, Assistant Majority Leader Mark Waller engaged in what might be described as part debate, part press conference with Rep. Ferrandino and the numerous members of the news media gathered at the press table in the front corner of the chamber.  With the committee in recess, the microphones were all turned off, but visitors in the gallery could hear much of what was being shouted to the crowd of reporters.  The crowd of reporters and TV cameras pressed to this front corner of the chamber.  Several shouting matches took place as some members left the floor.  Other invited visitors onto the floor, and the chamber became quite crowded.

At approximately 11:00 pm, after two hours of recess and several different impromptu press conferences at the press table, an agreement was made to call it a night.  Speaker McNulty came onto the floor and address the media.  Speaking uncharacteristically softly, it was hard for the people in the gallery to hear what he was saying, but his body language made clear he was halting the process, and he kept telling reporters an “impasse” had been reached.  Reporters were firing off tough questions, but the Speaker walked off.  At this point the audience in the gallery erupted into a chorus of “Boo” and then began loudly chanting “Shame on You” for a minute or two.  The State Patrol was ordered to evict the occupants of the gallery and close it to the public.  This sort of disturbance in the gallery hadn’t happened for decades.

VIDEO:  Audience Erupts, Rep. Ferrandino Interviewed

After the gallery was cleared by the State Patrol, the committee was brought out of recess, Rep. Levy withdrew her motion to rise and report, Rep. Stephens then made a motion to rise and report and this motion was declared passed.  The Committee of the Whole reported that it had spent all evening and had passed only 4 bills on second reading.  Its report was adopted and the House adjourned for the night.

By failing to complete second reading debates on the next to last night of the session, the House made it impossible for dozens of bills to pass.  Included on the list of collateral damage of this debacle on the House floor were bills appropriating funds for water resource infrastructure projects at reservoirs across the state, helping control unemployment premium increases for employers, authorizing new business entities, setting a per se standard for driving while impaired by marijuana, authorizing civil unions, and many others.  All died upon adjournment of the House that evening due to abuses of the legislative process.  House leadership went to extreme lengths to avoid bringing SB 2 to the floor and in the process damaged the integrity of the legislative process.  No rules were broken, but the institution was dishonored and a disgusting spectacle overtook the people’s House.  It was a scene I don’t think I can ever forget, and I never want to see repeated.

All of this to avoid the passage of one bill…

A Special Session to deal with the aftermath of this debacle will begin on Monday, May 14.  The agenda includes Civil Unions, as well as a handful of the bills that were unfortunate enough to be caught in the crossfire Tuesday night.

The press coverage of this story has been cursory, but the editorial response fairly stern.  Here’s a small sampling:

Editorial: Will McNulty Do the Right Thing?

McNulty a Political Lightning Rod

Speaker’s Decision May Echo In Fall

Editorial: If Civil Unions Stall, Call Special Session

SB 104 – Funding for Drug Treatment

• This bill consolidated three different sources of state funding for community-based drug treatment for offenders in the criminal justice system.  By consolidating the funds, we simplified the administration and made distribution of the funds more efficient.  New data collection requirements will add accountability and drive future evidence-based reforms.  SB 104 was lost in the debacle on the House floor Tuesday night, as House leadership sacrificed dozens of bills to prevent SB 2 Civil Unions from being brought up for debate.  But the next day, the responsible adults in the Senate resurrected this bill by attaching its provisions to an omnibus criminal proceedings bill, HB 1310.

SB 145 – State Trust Land Revenues for Public Schools

• Initiated by the Joint Budget Committee (JBC), this bill capped the ”sweep” of state trust land revenues at the amount we budgeted for the FY 2011-12 school finance act.  This allowed $18.5 million in earnings from state trust lands to be deposited in the “permanent fund,” an inter-generational trust that benefits public schools in our state.  This trust is inviolate, which means the principal can never be spent.  Interest earnings from the trust are used to support public school funding, and by growing the permanent fund we ensure that interest earnings will grow as well.  A little wonkish, perhaps, but a really good thing that hasn’t happened for several years.

SB 149 – Local Government Pension Plan Modifications

• This bill passed in April and should be signed into law in the coming weeks.  I sponsored this bill at the request of the Adams County employee pension plan, which is facing some financial challenges.  Once this bill is signed, the board of directors will be making some difficult decisions, hopefully in collaboration with affected employees.  For more on SB 149, click here.

SB 163 – Study of Drug Sentencing Reforms

• The bill I co-sponsored with Sen. Shawn Mitchell (R-Broomfield) generated a fair amount of controversy.  It proposed the reduction of criminal penalties for possessing small quantities of illegal drugs and reinvestment of savings from the prison budget in drug treatment.  The bill was amended to punt the issue over to the Commission on Criminal & Juvenile Justice with a directive that they study this issue and incorporate these reforms in a proposal for a new sentencing scheme for drug offenders.  This bill also died on the House calendar during the Civil Unions debacle and was rescued the next day by attaching its provisions to HB 1310 (just like SB 104).

SB 168 – Modify Timing of Fund Transfers & Reserve Increases Required When SB 09-228 “Trigger” is Hit

• Another JBC-initiated bill to address technical, complex and necessary changes to a major bill from the 2009 session, SB 09-228.  This bill directed increased funding to a “Rainy Day” reserve, transportation and capital construction projects, but it delayed these increases until a “trigger” was reached as determined by certain economic indicators.  When the economy has sufficiently recovered, SB 09-228 requires increased savings and increased investment in infrastructure.  Current projections call for that trigger to be reached as early as next year.  But the timing of the increases and transfers were too soon after the trigger was hit, leaving not enough time to plan and budget.  Gov. Hickenlooper asked the JBC to work to fix this, and SB 168 is the result.

HB 1028 – Continue Severance Tax Revenues for Low-Income Energy Assistance Program

• Reauthorizes the use of severance tax revenues for LEAP, Energy Outreach Colorado and weatherization programs for another 5 years.  Rep. Cheri Gerou (R-Evergreen) was the House sponsor of this bill.

HB 1089 – Ballot Titles for Referred & Initiated Measures

• Requires state ballot questions to clearly state whether the measure amends the constitution or changes statute, and requires the question on the ballot to be posed as:  Yes/For   or    No/Against.  Trying to make this as easy to understand as possible…  Rep. Lois Court (D-Denver) was the House sponsor.  For more on HB 1089, click here.

HB 1125 – Animal Impound Costs & Procedures

• It took two years of trying, but this year we succeeded with a bill to streamline and standardize the court procedures that occur when animal welfare officers impound an animal due to cruelty or neglect.  The Denver Dumb Friends League and other animal shelters requested changes to the current law to expedite the process and make it easier for owners to pay impound costs or for animals to be adopted.  This helps local law enforcement, shelters and owners while providing due process that sometimes got lost, especially in jurisdictions that don’t see many of these cases.  Rep. Robert Ramirez (R-Westminster) was the House sponsor.  For more on HB 1125, click here.

HB 1143 -Increase State Funding to Counties for Election Costs

• The state reimburses County Clerks’ offices for a portion of the cost of including state ballot issues in their elections.  The amount per ballot cast depends on the size of the county, and that amount hasn’t increased in many years.  HB  1143 increases the amount per ballot cast by $0.10 (ten cents).  That costs the state just under a quarter of a million dollars.  Clerks love this bill.  Rep. Mark Ferrandino (D-Denver) was the House sponsor.

HB 1263 – Reduce Employment Barriers for Persons with Criminal Records

• Recidivism rates in Colorado continue to be a problem.  We’re making progress, but many offenders still get caught in the “revolving doors” at the entrance to our prison system.  Not being able to find and keep a job after release from incarceration is a major contributor to committing new offenses and going back to prison.  This topic is of great interest to me, as I see opportunities to save taxpayers’ money, help people get back on their feet, and promote public safety by reducing repeat offenses.  HB 1263 sets out policies for how and when the State of Colorado will use criminal history information to evaluate job applicants for employment with state agencies.  It also provides guidance to occupational licensing boards for whether to deny or revoke a license due to a criminal conviction.  Helping people get jobs with the State or obtain licenses to practice a trade or profession helps us all.  Rep. Claire Levy (D-Boulder) was the House sponsor.

HB 1273 – Expand Child Care Tax Credit to Hospital-Based Facility Schools

• There is an income tax credit given to people who make donations to certain nonprofit child care centers.  Last year I worked with Sen. Mike Johnston (D-Denver) and Sen. Evie Hudak (D-Westminster) on legislation to phase-in the restored availability of this tax credit, as it had been suspended for budgetary reasons.  This year I carried a bill started by Rep. Dan Pabon (D-Denver) to expand the list of qualified child care centers to include hospital-based facility schools like the Kunsberg School at National Jewish Hospital.

HB 1281 – Pilot Programs for Innovative Reforms to Medicaid Reimbursement

• This is a fairly simple bill to authorize some very complicated pilot programs.  It’s a new, collaborative approach to development new payment methodologies for medical providers that serve Medicaid clients.  It allows proposals for budget-neutral systems of changing the incentives for how health care is paid for in Colorado.  Right now, many Medicaid clients are in “fee-for-service” systems where providers make more money when they provide more services.  Pilot programs under this bill could use “global payments” and other innovative ideas to shift towards payments for keeping clients healthy.  This will take time to develop and approve, but it marks a shift in how our system is structured and should produce better outcomes and contain costs.  Rep. Dave Young (D-Greeley) and Rep. Cheri Gerou (R-Evergreen) teamed up to sponsor the bill in the House, and Sen. Ellen Roberts (R-Durango) helped me in the Senate.

HB 1315 – Funding & Mission of Colorado Energy Office

• Last year I sponsored a JBC bill to change the allocation of revenues from the tax on casino gambling.  The bill allowed more of those dollars to reach the general fund, which helped balance the budget, but it also took away the main source of state funding for the Clean Energy Fund in the Governor’s Energy Office.  Gov. Hickenlooper asked for that funding to be restored, and HB 1315 was the bipartisan, compromise approach to expanding the mission of the office and giving it two new sources of funding.  The Clean & Renewable Energy Fund now receives general fund revenue, and a new Innovative Energy Fund receives severance tax revenue.  This latter fund is new and focuses on cleaner and more efficient uses of traditional energy sources as well as new technologies.  House sponsor Rep. Jon Becker (R-Ft. Morgan) sought to create a balanced portfolio of energy policy development and incentives, and I was happy to help undo one of the cuts we made last year.

HB 1353 – Mitigate Impacts of Proportional Reductions in Tier 2 Severance Tax Programs

• Another JBC-sponsored bill to fix a technical problem in a complex set of severance tax funding allocation statutes known as “Tier 2.”  The bill reallocates $1 million from Tier 1 to Tier 2 (for one year only) and changes the timing and manner of restrictions that are placed on the allocations in years such as this when revenues are projected to fall short of statutory allocations.  Another bill with budget wonk written all over it.

HB 1360 – Transfer $4 Million to Economic Development Fund

• The final bill to implement the Fiscal Year 2012-13 balanced budget.  The JBC agreed to sponsor this bill during our conference committee on the Long Bill.  The funds tranfers in HB 1360 are a compromise approach to a budget priority that was part of the Senate Democratic Caucus jobs agenda and Governor Hickenlooper’s economic development blueprint for Colorado.

Although the above list is long, these are just some of the highlights.  A list of all the bills I sponsored this year and their current status can be found here.  Governor Hickenlooper has until June 8 to sign or veto bills, and after that date they become law without his signature.

Colorado Senate’s budget debate includes circumcisions, ATMs at strip clubs

Posted:   04/18/2012 07:16:20 PM

In my first year in the Senate I’d vote for bills creating new license plates without thinking much about them.  I found them trivial, somewhat annoying, but I would vote for them.  But last year I had a change of heart.  The last license plate I voted for was one commemorating the anniversary of the Girl Scouts.  I wanted to vote against it but the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Betty Boyd, convinced me to vote for it because the Boy Scouts already had such a plate and we shouldn’t do one without the other.  But that was the last time I voted for a license plate.

Now if you’re thinking to yourself — I don’t recall ever seeing a Boy Scout license plate, or a Girl Scout one, for that matter, you’re starting to get my point.  But not only are the various special license plates often obscure, they are not often purchased.  If fact, in state warehouses and county clerk’s offices across the state, surplus inventory of many different license plate designs are sitting on shelves, gathering dust.  The Dept of Revenue recently changed their practices for ordering and stocking plate designs, but many of the older designs exist in quantities that will never be used.

This was brought to my attention about the same time the Girl Scout plate was pending thanks to a bill sponsored by Rep. Nancy Todd and Sen. Suzanne Williams.  This bill, HB 11-1236, extended the shelf life of about a dozen different license plates, all of which had provisions in their enabling legislation that said the plate was to be retired if it failed to meet a sales goal, usually of 3,000 plates.  The reason for the extension: back inventory was still sitting on shelves across the state.  Sadly, the 5-year extension granted by HB 1236 is likely to fail miserably, and these obscure, unpopular plates will still be gathering dust.  Although HB 1236 was supposed to help solve a problem, it did a better job of highlighting the problem.  I’ve been voting against all new license plates ever since.

But alas! the proliferation continues.  Legislators can’t seem to resist the urge to pass an easy bill that sounded fine at the time, but in all likelihood they may never see one of the license plates they’ve created on the streets.  Here’s a list of this year’s class of new license plates:

HB 12-1023   Fallen Heroes License Plate

HB 12-1131   Child Loss Awareness License Plate

HB 12-1153   Distinguished Flying Cross License Plate

HB 12-1162   Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield License Plate

HB 12-1275   Wildlife Sporting License Plate

HB 12-1295   Colorado Rockies Baseball License Plate (signed into law by the Governor on opening day!)

HB 12-1302   Flight For Life License Plate

SB 12-171   Conservation Recreation License Plate

Some of these have already been signed into law, while others are still pending in the legislative process.  But they’re all likely to pass and a new crop is likely to be introduced next year.  My response:  Just Say NO.

If you’re curious, Sen. Mary Hodge is the other committed opponent of new license plates.  She’s been that way for several years.  And there is a separate, growing group of senators that feel the same way about putting new “check-offs” on the state income tax form.  These are the charities that taxpayers can make a voluntary contribution to while completing their tax form.  The form has 15 such options, which is all that space will permit without adding more pages to the form.  Because of this space limitation, in 2009 legislation was passed to create a waiting list for space on the form.  If a check-off fails to generate a certain threshold amount of donations (after a two-year grace period) they are removed from the form.  One or two fall off each year now, especially given the competition between the multitude of choices, so those waiting in the queue will someday appear on the form.  I have no idea how many charities are now in queue, but each bill that comes through proposing a new tax check-off is presented as simply be added to the end of the queue.  I’ve voted against a few of them because I didn’t think they were worthy, but for the most part I vote for these bills without thinking much about them.  I find them trivial, somewhat annoying, but I vote for them.  At least for now…

SB 163 is the next step in reforming our sentencing laws for drug offenders.  It follows in the footsteps of HB 10-1352, which was a bill sponsored by Sen. Mitchell and I in 2010.  Like HB 1352, we continue to focus on low-level drug offenses: possession of small quantities of drugs that are for personal use.  Research from 2010 allowed us to distinguish between small amounts for individual use and larger amounts that suggest a person is involved in distribution of illegal drugs.  SB 163 lowers the penalty for possession of these small amounts from a felony to a class 1 misdemeanor.  The penalty for possession of larger amounts – without the intent to distribute – is also lowered, but remains a felony.  Both changes will save money in Colorado’s prison budget.

The difference between a felony charge and a misdemeanor is significant.  It means prison is not a possibility.  It means the money that would have been spent on a prison bed is instead available for investment in community-based drug treatment programs.  It means that a person struggling with addiction may get the help they need.  The road to recovery is long and challenging, but a detour to prison and a felony conviction on one’s record only make it more daunting.  We can be smarter in our approach, and SB 163  is the next step in getting us there.

SB 163 is supported by the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition and the Independence Institute.  I’m certain that a broad coalition of additional advocacy organizations will throw their support behind the bill as it moves forward.  Stay tuned.

In the summer of 2009, shortly after my election to the Senate, I was appointed to the Drug Policy Task Force of CCJJ.  This group was created to advise the CCJJ on sentencing reforms specific to drug offenders.  I was one of three legislators appointed to the Task Force, along with treatment professionals, prosecutors, law enforcement and defense attorneys.  This Task Force has been one of the most active and prolific of all those created by CCJJ.

In 2010, I was the the Senate sponsor of HB 10-1352.  Rep. Mark Waller (R-Colorado Springs) and Sen. Shawn Mitchell (R-Broomfield) were co-sponsors of this CCJJ recommended legislation.  This bill began a new chapter in how addiction is viewed by our criminal code.  By recognizing addiction as a medical disorder, HB 1352 began a transformation in our law.  HB 1352 lowered sentences for many drug use and possession offenses, and allocated the resulting savings from the prison budget to community-based drug treatment.  The fiscal analysis for HB 1352 projected that over its first five years the bill would shift $55 million away from the Department of Corrections and instead invest these funds in addressing drug addiction.  This shift in resources will promote public safety, save money and save lives.

In 2011, we followed up with HB 11-1064 to create a presumption of parole for people in prison sentenced for drug offenses under the old law, pre-HB 1352.  The goal was to move low-level drug offenders out of prison and into community-based drug treatment programs funded through HB 1352.  Although there were only a few dozen people still in prison that were eligible for this presumption of parole, this was a fairness issue to attempt to apply HB 1352 retroactively.

Also in 2011, the Drug Policy Task Force recommended changes to the use of habitual offender sentencing laws for low-level drug possession.  The habitual offender law increases prison time for repeat offenders.  SB 11-096 made it inapplicable to drug possession offenses, shortening sentences and making it more likely that people with addictions will get treatment.  For someone with an untreated drug addiction, is it really surprising that they’ve committed multiple drug offenses?  Instead of harsh sentencing, SB 96 continued in the effort to save money and save lives.

SB 12-104 is an important next step.  It combines the savings from HB 1352, SB 03-318 (an earlier drug sentencing reform by Sen. Ken Gordon that also reallocated funding away from prisons in favor of treatment), and the revenue from the drug offender surcharge.  It makes these funds flow in a manner that is “efficient, effective and elegant,” to quote Gov. John Hickenlooper.  Instead of three different allocation processes, SB 104 efficiently combines these into one.  Instead of not knowing exactly how the dollars are being spent and whether treatment programs produce the results we want, SB 104 effectively gathers data to prove that we’re on the right track.  And SB 104 is elegant because it purposefully furthers an evidence-based approach to being smart on crime.  It should set the stage for further reforms.

For related posts, see Criminal Justice Reform and Collateral Consequences.

If you live in Denver County you can locate your new precinct number here. This link will also tell you where your caucus will be meeting on March 6th at 7pm.

If you live in Arapahoe County you can locate your new precinct numbere here. This link will also tell you where your caucus will be meeting on March 6th at 7pm.

If you need additional help you can reach the Denver Democrats at 303-830-8242 or the Arapahoe Democrats at 303-338-1202.

In addition to the many who testified in favor of the bill, about ten people testified against the bill.  Most of these were representatives of certain religious organizations.  Yes, someone cited Leviticus.  But it is important to note that members of the clergy also testified in favor of SB 2, as diverse views were presented from diverse congregations.  Many community organizations sent representatives to offer their support, including the Colorado Bar Association, the ACLU, the Anti-Defamation League and the League of Women Voters.  Business leaders also offered their support.  Republican organizations such as Coloradans for Freedom and College Republicans brought a refreshing new perspective as they spoke out for Civil Unions.

SB 2 was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a vote of 5 to 2.  Sen. Ellen Roberts (R-Durango) joined the four Democratic women senators on the committee in voting in favor of the bill.

The very next day SB 2 was heard in the Senate Finance Committee, as Senate rules required the bill to be referred to this committee and that Thursday was the deadline for committee action on early bills.  The bill passed on a party-line vote of 4 to 3 and was then referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee.  I’m the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and there is a separate set of deadlines for all bills sent to this committee.  Bills in Appropriations have some impact on the state budget, and most bills referred here must wait until the annual budget bill is passed.  (You can read more about the fiscal impact by clicking here.)  SB 2 is likely to remain pending before this committee until the end of March or early April.  After it passes out of Appropriations SB 2 will be debated on the Senate floor, it will pass, and it will then be sent to the House.

In the meantime, support for SB 2 continues to build.  Senators are receiving cards and letters, emails and phone calls each day asking us to pass SB 2.  The list of newspapers editorializing in favor of SB 2 also continues to grow.  In addition to the Denver Post, we’ve seen positive editorial endorsements from the Durango Herald, the Greeley Tribune, the Fort Collins Coloradoan, and the Glenwood Springs Independent.  There are several other newspapers that endorsed the bill last year that I’m expecting to hear from in the coming weeks.

Momentum is on our side.  “The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.”  Stay tuned.

Click here to read the blog post I wrote about SB 2 on January 21, 2012.

Click here for the One Colorado website where you can join their efforts to pass Civil Unions in Colorado.

SB 149 is enabling legislation.  When certain circumstances are met, it allows counties that operate defined benefit pension plans to make modifications to their plans to shore up their financial position.  For some counties, their plan’s ratio of assets to liabilities is dangerously low.  Adjustments are necessary to ensure the plan can continue to pay benefits to retirees and that it will be there for current members when they retire at various times in the future.

Like PERA, these counties’ pension plan portfolios took a beating during the recent recession.  Simply increasing employee and employer contributions to the plans will not fix the problems, as contributions would have to increase by amounts neither could sustain.  Benefits need to be adjusted.  Unfortunately, the law in this area is quite complicated.  That’s why Adams County has asked me to sponsor SB 149 to provide clarity around situations where the actuarial needs of the plan must be addressed.

SB 149 is neither a silver bullet nor a magic wand.  The bill makes clear when the boards of the local pension plans may act to correct the path they’re on, but what changes each board adopts will be a local determination and is not specified by SB 149.  But for the very same reasons that SB 1 was sought by PERA two years ago, these local plans are now seeking SB 149.  As was the case with SB 1, there will likely be some shared sacrifices that must be made so that stability and solvency can be restored, affecting and benefitting workers and retirees today and in the future.

Five counties have plans that are controlled by the laws SB 149 amends: Adams, Arapahoe, El Paso, Pueblo and Weld.  They are all watching carefully as SB 149 moves through the legislative process.  Rep. Kevin Priola of Adams County is the House sponsor of the bill.

Collateral Consequences are sanctions or disqualifications against people with criminal records that arise from the operation of laws and regulations, but they were not part of the sentence handed down at the time of conviction.  We normally think crime is punished by incarceration, fines, restitution, probation or parole.  But in addition to what the criminal code assigns to various convictions, a multitude of civil laws pile on more punishment.  Examples of collateral consequences include loss of professional and occupational licenses, restrictions on public housing, ineligibility for public benefit programs, loss of voting rights, restrictions as to firearms, the inability to adopt children or become a foster parent, and more.  Colorado law is replete with these additional consequences for people with criminal records.

Add to the extensive list of collateral consequences the fact that many employers and landlords won’t consider people with criminal records, and you can easily see how the deck is stacked against someone coming out of the criminal justice system.  Studies have shown that the biggest indicators of success after prison are stable employment and housing.  Without these supports, people released from prison are likely to be part of our unfortunately high recidivism rate.  We know that employment and housing contribute to success on parole, yet Colorado law places collateral consequences in the path of former offenders as they seek jobs and places to live.  It doesn’t make sense.

SB 105 is a response to this contradiction in Colorado law.  The bill is similar to one I introduced last year (SB 11-044), but it is more clearly written and includes additional new features.  The bill I introduced last year was based upon a model act written by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.  This model act was recommended because states across the country are looking for ways to provide  relief from collateral consequences.

SB 105 has several distinct features, all designed to help people who have been in trouble with the law put their life back together and successfully reintegrate into society.  First, the bill requires people to be notified about the existence of collateral consequences at several key stages of the criminal justice process.  Before someone accepts a plea bargain they should know that their guilty plea may cost them their license to practice their profession or other important benefits.  I think due process and effective assistance of counsel require such notice, but I’ve written this into SB 105.

SB 105 next creates the opportunity for a judge to grant relief from collateral consequences for people being sentenced to probation or direct sentenced to community corrections.  In these cases, the offender will remain in the community, so they’ll need employment and housing.  Giving the sentencing court the power to waive collateral consequences will increase the likelihood of success on probation, or stated differently, make it less likely that probation will be revoked and the person will be sent to prison.

Next, SB 105 creates a process for similar relief from collateral consequences for people released from prison after a certain amount of time has passed.  If they’ve completed their time in prison and on parole and they’ve stayed out of trouble, they can petition a court for a certificate of rehabilitation that grants relief from specified collateral consequences.  Again, this allows someone to gain back their license to practice their profession or take other steps to move forward with their life.  And again, the goal is success after incarceration.

Finally, SB 105 creates processes for removing certain things from your record, such as old arrests that never resulted in the filing of charges or old convictions for petty offenses and municipal ordinance violations.  These things turn up in criminal background checks, but after the passage of time have little relevance to whether someone should get a job interview or be rented an apartment.  Old records like these shouldn’t haunt people for the rest of their lives, and SB 105 makes it possible to put these things in the past behind you.

I believe this approach to people with criminal records makes sense and will improve people’s lives and their ability to support their families.  Each collateral consequence will be individually considered by a judge, and only those cases where someone can show they deserve a second chance will win relief.  SB 105 is limited in its scope and doesn’t apply to sex offenders or other violent crimes, and it probably won’t work for everyone.  But it’s a step in a progressive direction and it offers hope and relief to those who often find little of these things in today’s society.  It should reduce recidivism and the costs to taxpayers and victims that come from criminal offenses.

SB 105 is sponsored in the House by Rep. Claire Levy, my colleague from the Joint Budget Committee.  Working on the budget committee gives us an unique perspective on the importance of reducing recidivism and helping people successfully reintegrate after prison.  Instead of being a drain on the state budget we’d prefer to see former offenders become productive members of society.  It’s time for our laws to create pathways to success rather than impose burdens that lead to failure.  SB 105 will help get us there.

To learn more about Collateral Consequences and how people can get along despite them, visit the website for the Institute for People with Criminal Records.  You can also follow developments in this area of law through The Sentencing Project.  Finally, an article published in the New York University Law Review provides a good explanation of the problems caused by Collateral Consequences and recommendations for reforms.