House Committee on State, Veterans, & Military Affairs (04/27/2010)

Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON STATE, VETERANS, & MILITARY AFFAIRS

Date:	04/27/2010	ATTENDANCE

Time:	01:39 PM to 07:05 PM	Casso	X
		Court	X
Place:	HCR 0112	DelGrosso	*
		Hullinghorst	*
This Meeting was called to order by		McCann	X
	Representative Todd	Miklosi	X
		Murray	X
This Report was prepared by		Nikkel	X
	Bo Pogue	Waller	X
		Labuda	X
		Todd	X
		X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call

Bills Addressed:		Action Taken:
HB10-1408 HB10-1401 HJR10-1022 HB10-1409		Amended, Referred to the Committee of the Whole Amended, Referred to the Committee of the Whole Referred to the Committee of the Whole Amended, Referred to Appropriations

01:39 PM

The committee was called to order. A quorum was present.

01:40 PM -- House Bill 10-1408

Representative Weissmann, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 10-1408, concerning the repeal of statutory directions concerning Congressional districts. Testimony was heard on the bill at the committee's April 22nd meeting. Representative Weissmann discussed the competitiveness of the state's Congressional districts, and the guidelines that courts must follow when considering redistricting outside of those in state statute. Representative Weissmann discussed the difference between reapportionment and redistricting, and responded to questions regarding how decisions on reapportionment and redistricting differ. Discussion ensued regarding the politicization of redistricting in both the legislature and the judicial branch.

01:51 PM

Discussion continued regarding the politicization of redistricting, and how the court ruled on the Congressional district boundaries during the last round of redistricting. Discussion ensued regarding redistricting legislation that was run in 2009. Representative Miklosi provided background on the process that resulted in passage of legislation providing guidelines to the courts when considering redistricting, and the effect of this legislation.

02:03 PM

Discussion continued regarding the process by which redistricting legislation was passed in 2003, and the importance of providing guidelines in statute for the courts to consider during its redistricting determinations. Representative Court discussed the definition of gerrymander, and spoke against providing instructions to the courts through statute. Discussion followed regarding the relative importance of criteria to be considered by the courts during redistricting, and the enumeration of these criteria. Discussion returned to the process that took place in considering redistricting legislation in 2003, and how that process compares to consideration of House Bill 10-1408.

02:13 PM

Discussion returned to the politicization of the redistricting process in the judiciary, and the court's determinations during the last round of redistricting. Discussion turned to the impartiality of the judiciary in general, and the roles of the courts and the legislature in redistricting. Discussion returned to the impartiality of Colorado's judiciary.

02:24 PM

Discussion ensued regarding the criteria in state law to be considered by the courts in making redistricting determinations, which would be stricken by House Bill 10-1408, and the political advantage inherent in this list of criteria. Representative Weissmann responded to questions regarding his objections to the criteria list, and the ordering of such list. Discussion followed regarding the importance of considering district competitiveness when districts consider redistricting.

02:34 PM

Discussion continued regarding the criteria to be considered by courts when making redistricting determinations.

02:35 PM

The following persons testified regarding House Bill 10-1408:

02:36 PM -- Mr. Wayne Williams, representing El Paso County, provided further testimony regarding the bill. Mr. Williams discussed the importance of not splitting communities of interest in redistricting to the people of El Paso County, and the role of the judiciary in the redistricting process. Mr. Williams next discussed the importance of providing statutory guidelines to the courts to consider when making redistricting determinations, and the position of Colorado Counties, Incorporated on House Bill 10-1408. Mr. Williams then discussed instances of gerrymandering, and urged the committee to hold its vote on the bill. Mr. Williams discussed the process by which judges are appointed.

02:47 PM

Discussion continued regarding the judicial appointment process. Mr. Williams discussed the redistricting process in Colorado prior to 2001 as compared to 2001, and urged the committee to amend House Bill 10-1408 to address certain concerns. Mr. Williams responded to questions regarding the importance of compactness as a redistricting criterion, his opinion of ranking criteria for the courts to consider, and the potential for El Paso County to be split in a future round of redistricting. Mr. Williams responded to questions regarding the splitting up of El Paso County during previous redistricting efforts.

02:58 PM -- Ms. Christine Watson, representing the League of Women Voters, returned to provide further testimony on House Bill 10-1408, explaining the league's cautious stance on the bill. Ms. Watson discussed the league's position on keeping a statutory list of criteria for the courts to consider during redistricting, and the prioritization of this list. Ms. Watson discussed the league's preferred order of criteria priority. Ms. Watson responded to questions regarding the league's position on creating a redistricting criteria list prior to 2003, and the league's position on the legislation that created the current criteria list.

03:09 PM

Discussion continued regarding past positions of the League of Women Voters on certain redistricting-related issues. Discussion followed regarding the process that took place during the last round of redistricting. Mr. Williams provided background on this the last round of redistricting. Ms. Watson provided clarification on the league's position on the legislature providing redistricting guidelines to the judiciary. Ms. Watson responded to questions regarding the importance of district competitiveness.

03:16 PM -- Ms. Tina McDonald, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. McDonald discussed the political dynamics of her rural community, and how the redistricting criteria list serves rural interests.

03:19 PM -- Mr. Matt Arnold, representing himself and Clear the Bench Colorado, testified in opposition to House Bill 10-1408. Mr. Arnold discussed the partisanship of Colorado's courts, and the need for the legislature to provide guidance to the judiciary as it considers redistricting matters. Mr. Arnold also discussed the issues of gerrymandering and the competitiveness criteria. Mr. Arnold responded to questions regarding the actions of the Colorado Supreme Court pertaining to redistricting during the last effort. Mr. Arnold responded to further questions regarding lawsuits associated with that round of redistricting. Mr. Arnold responded to questions regarding the likelihood that the judiciary would consider past electoral performance in determining Congressional districts.

03:30 PM -- Mr. Scott Martinez, representing himself, testified in favor of the bill. Mr. Martinez discussed his role during the last round of redistricting. Mr. Martinez explained why factors considered in the reapportionment process are not used during redistricting. Discussion ensued regarding this point. Discussion followed regarding efforts to provide guidance to the judiciary in the service of urging the judiciary to act in a nonpartisan manner on redistricting issues.

03:42 PM

Discussion returned to the roles of the judiciary and legislature in the redistricting process.

03:43 PM -- Mr. Loren Avis, representing himself, testified in opposition to House Bill 10-1408. Mr. Avis discussed the potential for "judicial mischief" if the list of redistricting criteria is stricken. Mr. Avis responded to questions regarding the neutrality of these criteria.

03:46 PM -- Ms. Marty Neilson, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Neilson spoke against the court's activities during the last round of Congressional redistricting.

03:47 PM

The bill was laid over.

05:18 PM -- House Bill 10-1408

The committee returned to considering House Bill 10-1408. Discussion ensued regarding the effect of prepared amendment L.009 (Attachment A). Representative Todd read the amendment into the record. Representative Weissmann responded to questions regarding the fact that the amendment does not address political party affiliation, and the removal of prioritization from the criteria list. Representative Weissmann explained a portion of the criteria list in current law, and the lack of strict requirements in the amendment for the judiciary when considering redistricting matters. Discussion followed regarding the criteria the legislature must consider when drawing Congressional district boundaries.

05:30 PM

Discussion ensued regarding the potential for amending amendment L.009 to require the judiciary to consider certain factors during redistricting, rather than granting the judiciary discretion.


BILL:	HB10-1408
TIME:	05:19:07 PM
MOVED:	Todd
MOTION:	Moved prepared amendment L.009 (Attachment A). The motion passed on an 8-2-1 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Labuda
		VOTE
	Casso	Yes
	Court	Yes
	DelGrosso	Yes
	Hullinghorst	Yes
	McCann	Excused
	Miklosi	Yes
	Murray	Yes
	Nikkel	No
	Waller	No
	Labuda	Yes
	Todd	Yes

Not Final YES: 8 NO: 2 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

05:32 PM


BILL:	HB10-1408
TIME:	05:32:55 PM
MOVED:	Court
MOTION:	Moved to refer House Bill 10-1408, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation. The motion passed on a 7-3-1 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Hullinghorst
		VOTE
	Casso	Yes
	Court	Yes
	DelGrosso	No
	Hullinghorst	Yes
	McCann	Excused
	Miklosi	Yes
	Murray	Yes
	Nikkel	No
	Waller	No
	Labuda	Yes
	Todd	Yes

Final YES: 7 NO: 3 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

03:59 PM -- House Bill 10-1401

Representative Ferrandino, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 10-1401, concerning the management of information technology in state agencies. Representative Ferrandino discussed the need for the legislation, and explained the effect of a pair of forthcoming amendments. Representative Ferrandino defined certain acronyms used in the bill and amendments.

04:06 PM

The following persons testified regarding House Bill 10-1401:

04:07 PM -- Mr. John Conley, representing the Statewide Internet Portal Authority (SIPA), testified in favor of the bill. Committee members received copies of SIPA's 2010 business plan (a copy of the plan is on file with Legislative Council Staff). Mr. Conley provided background on SIPA and its duties. Mr. Conley responded to questions regarding the source of funding for SIPA. Discussion ensued regarding the benefits of the services provided by SIPA. Mr. Conley then discussed the recent consolidation of Colorado's state government websites. Mr. Conley responded to questions regarding collaboration between SIPA and the State Auditor's Office on the bill and amendments. Discussion followed regarding the manner in which services are provided by SIPA.

04:17 PM

Discussion ensued regarding the timing of performance audits under forthcoming amendments. Mr. Conley clarified his position on the bill. Representative Ferrandino responded to questions regarding the importance of establishing a performance audit deadline for SIPA in February 2011. Discussion ensued regarding the potential for moving back the performance audit deadline.

04:28 PM -- Ms. Roxy Huber, representing the Colorado Department of Revenue, testified regarding the bill, speaking to the value of SIPA. Ms. Huber discussed the impact of the timing of SIPA performance audits on the department's work.

04:29 PM


BILL:	HB10-1401
TIME:	04:29:30 PM
MOVED:	Todd
MOTION:	Moved prepared amendment L.004 (Attachment B), as amended by prepared amendment L.005. The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Labuda
		VOTE
	Casso
	Court
	DelGrosso
	Hullinghorst
	McCann
	Miklosi
	Murray
	Nikkel
	Waller
	Labuda
	Todd

Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	HB10-1401
TIME:	04:29:45 PM
MOVED:	Labuda
MOTION:	Moved prepared amendment L.005 (Attachment C), as amended. The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Todd
		VOTE
	Casso
	Court
	DelGrosso
	Hullinghorst
	McCann
	Miklosi
	Murray
	Nikkel
	Waller
	Labuda
	Todd

Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	HB10-1401
TIME:	04:30:50 PM
MOVED:	Court
MOTION:	Moved to amend prepared amendment L.005, page 1, line 6, strike "February" and substitute "May". The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Labuda
		VOTE
	Casso
	Court
	DelGrosso
	Hullinghorst
	McCann
	Miklosi
	Murray
	Nikkel
	Waller
	Labuda
	Todd

Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	HB10-1401
TIME:	04:31:37 PM
MOVED:	Todd
MOTION:	Moved to refer House Bill 10-1401, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. The motion passed on an 11-0 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Labuda
		VOTE
	Casso	Yes
	Court	Yes
	DelGrosso	Yes
	Hullinghorst	Yes
	McCann	Yes
	Miklosi	Yes
	Murray	Yes
	Nikkel	Yes
	Waller	Yes
	Labuda	Yes
	Todd	Yes

Final YES: 11 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

04:32 PM -- House Joint Resolution 10-1022

Representatives Baumgardner and Tipton, prime sponsors, presented House Joint Resolution 10-1022, concerning modification of the federal "Hatch Act of 1939" for certain government employees in rural areas whose positions preclude them from running for partisan political office. Representative Tipton explained how he became acquainted with the issues addressed by the resolution, and discussed the effect of the resolution. Representative Baumgardner provided further background on the resolution. Representative Tipton explained the resolution's characterization of the use of federal money by certain rural officials as "arm's length" use.

04:39 PM

The following persons testified regarding House Joint Resolution 10-1022:

04:39 PM -- Mr. Bernie Buescher, Secretary of State, testified in favor of the resolution. Mr. Buescher explained how distribution of federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) moneys to a local government invoked the Hatch Act, and provided background on the act. Mr. Buescher discussed the use of the term "arm's length" in the resolution. Discussion ensued regarding how an area is designated as rural for the purposes of the resolution.

04:46 PM -- Ms. Lila Herod, representing herself, testified in favor of House Joint Resolution 10-1022. Ms. Herod explained how the Hatch Act was invoked as a result of the use of HAVA dollars in her county, resulting in loss of her position at the Moffat County Clerk and Recorder's Office. Ms. Herod responded to questions regarding efforts on her part to seek other county employment, and the impact of her employment termination on certain employment benefits.

04:53 PM -- Mr. Kevin "KC" Hume, representing himself, testified in favor of the resolution. Mr. Hume discussed the impact of the Hatch Act on his candidacy for Moffat County coroner, and provided clarification regarding the term "arm's length." Discussion ensued regarding the upcoming Moffat County coroner's race.

04:59 PM -- Mr. John Ponikvar, representing himself, testified in favor of House Joint Resolution 10-1022. Mr. Ponikvar discussed his background, and the human resource needs of rural communities. Mr. Ponikvar also explained how the Hatch Act impacts public service in rural areas due to receipt of federal dollars by agencies with which individuals are employed. Mr. Ponikvar then discussed the need to create exceptions to the Hatch Act. Discussion ensued regarding the definition of rural by the resolution and pending federal legislation. Mr. John McKay, representing the Office of Legislative Legal Services, provided input regarding this issue.

05:10 PM

Discussion ensued regarding the impact of the Hatch Act on service in the nonprofit sector. Mr. Ponikvar discussed the impact of the Hatch Act on rural areas at the national level, and input by certain organizations representing rural interests on the issue. Discussion followed regarding expanding the scope of the resolution to include areas other than rural areas, and the limited pool of persons available for public service in rural areas.

05:16 PM

No amendments were offered to House Joint Resolution 10-1022.


BILL:	HJR 10-1022
TIME:	05:16:54 PM
MOVED:	Todd
MOTION:	Moved to refer House Joint Resolution 10-1022 to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. The motion passed on an 11-0 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Court
		VOTE
	Casso	Yes
	Court	Yes
	DelGrosso	Yes
	Hullinghorst	Yes
	McCann	Yes
	Miklosi	Yes
	Murray	Yes
	Nikkel	Yes
	Waller	Yes
	Labuda	Yes
	Todd	Yes

Final YES: 11 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

05:33 PM -- House Bill 10-1409

Representative Pommer, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 10-1409, concerning the process by which annual salary increases may be awarded to employees in the state personnel system based on performance, job core competencies, and years of service. Representative Pommer provided background on attempts to institute merit pay in state government, and explained the effect of the bill. Representative Pommer responded to questions regarding the bill's sponsorship. Discussion ensued regarding the impact of creating a progressive step system for performance pay on employee expectations and performance.

05:43 PM

Representative Pommer responded to questions regarding concerns raised in the fiscal note pertaining to the bill's potential for resulting in litigation, and movement from a performance pay system to a step system of pay. Representative Pommer responded to further questions regarding the percentage of state employees that are rated "satisfactory," and thus become eligible for an advance in the performance pay step system under the bill. Discussion ensued regarding incentives for exceptional job performance under the bill.

05:53 PM

Discussion continued regarding incentives for job performance excellence.

05:54 PM

The following persons testified regarding House Bill 10-1409:

05:54 PM -- Ms. Jennifer Okes, representing the Department of Personnel and Administration, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Okes discussed problems associated with the lack of a performance pay structure for state employees, and suggested that the bill may be premature. Ms. Okes further suggested engaging in further work to create a pay progression system, and discussed the fiscal impact of the bill. Ms. Okes also objected to using vacancy savings to fund the system created by the bill, and posed hypothetical situations where employees would have their pay reduced under the system. Ms. Okes addressed the potential constitutional equal pay issue created by the bill, and discussed the potential for overcompensating state employees as compared to the market when using a performance step system of pay.

06:04 PM

Ms. Okes addressed the earlier question regarding the number of state employees that are graded as satisfactory. Ms. Okes responded to questions regarding employee evaluation training for supervisors, and discussed issues associated with employees being moved into supervisory roles. Discussion ensued regarding the applicability of the performance pay system created by the bill to the 2010-11 fiscal year.

06:14 PM

Discussion ensued regarding the state's current and projected payroll, and how House Bill 10-1409 will impact these costs. Ms. Okes responded to questions regarding the current evaluation system for state employees, and how House Bill 10-1409 will change this system. Ms. Okes responded to further questions regarding how employees who are members of employee representative organizations are compensated in comparison to employees who are not members. Ms. Okes explained how raises are paid based on performance under the current system, as compared to how performance raises are paid under the bill.

06:25 PM

Ms. Okes explained how state employee salaries compare to salaries in the marketplace, and discussed recommendations for salary increases from the Department of Personnel and Administration in recent years. Ms. Okes discussed the provisions in the bill that the department favors. Representative Pommer provided background regarding the state salary survey in recent years, which compares state employee compensation with private sector counterparts. Ms. Okes discussed the benefits of opening a dialogue on the state compensation system. Ms. Okes responded to questions regarding her assertion that the state compensation system is "broken and needs to be fixed."

06:35 PM -- Mr. John Hummel, representing Colorado WINS, testified in favor of House Bill 10-1409. Mr. Hummel discussed how the bill will improve the state's pay system and assist in compensating high-performing state employees. Mr. Hummel provided anecdotes pertaining to the lack of raises for employees in his agency, and the effect of this salary stagnation on the agency's personnel attrition.

06:39 PM -- Mr. Terry Campbell, representing the Association of Colorado State Patrol Professionals, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Campbell provided background on the deficiencies of the state's current merit pay system, and explained how the current system often results in new employees receiving higher salaries than long-time employees. Mr. Campbell discussed problems associated with movement of employees within salary ranges under the current system, which results in unequal treatment. Mr. Campbell provided examples of state patrol officers transferring to other jurisdictions and receiving large salary increases.

06:49 PM

Mr. Campbell responded to questions regarding the participation of his organization in the process of drafting House Bill 10-1409, as well as ongoing meetings among several organizations to address the state's pay structure. Representative Pommer provided input on this process. Mr. Campbell returned to discussing disparities between state employee starting pay and salaries for long-time employees. Mr. Campbell responded to questions regarding salary savings associated with hiring new employees.

06:59 PM

Representative Pommer responded to questions regarding required action by the General Assembly to fund the pay system created by House Bill 10-1409, and hiring incentives created by the current pay system.

07:02 PM

Representative Pommer explained the effect of prepared amendment L.001 (Attachment D).


BILL:	HB10-1409
TIME:	07:02:10 PM
MOVED:	Todd
MOTION:	Moved prepared amendment L.001 (Attachment D). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Court
		VOTE
	Casso
	Court
	DelGrosso
	Hullinghorst
	McCann
	Miklosi
	Murray
	Nikkel
	Waller
	Labuda
	Todd

Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection

07:03 PM

Representative Pommer provided closing remarks in support of House Bill 10-1409.


BILL:	HB10-1409
TIME:	07:04:01 PM
MOVED:	Todd
MOTION:	Moved to refer House Bill 10-1409, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations with a favorable recommendation. The motion passed on a 7-3-1 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Court
		VOTE
	Casso	Yes
	Court	Yes
	DelGrosso	Yes
	Hullinghorst	Yes
	McCann	Yes
	Miklosi	Excused
	Murray	No
	Nikkel	No
	Waller	No
	Labuda	Yes
	Todd	Yes

Final YES: 7 NO: 3 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

07:04 PM

The committee adjourned.