Joint Committee Committee on Legislative Council (09/01/2010)

Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Date:	09/01/2010	ATTENDANCE

Time:	09:02 AM to 02:18 PM	Balmer	X
		Boyd	*
Place:	LSB A	Cadman	X
		Ferrandino	X
This Meeting was called to order by		Gibbs	X
	Representative Carroll T.	Hodge	*
		Kerr A.	*
This Report was prepared by		Kopp	X
	Katey McGettrick	May	X
		McNulty	X
		Morse	X
		Scanlan	*
		Scheffel	X
		Spence	X
		Stephens	X
		Weissmann	X
		Shaffer B.	X
		Carroll T.	X
		X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call

Bills Addressed:		Action Taken:
Introductory Remarks Amendment P Amendment Q Amendment R Amendment P Initiative 92/Proposition 102 Staff Analysis Prop 101 Amendment 60 and 61 Witness Testimony Prop 101 Amendment 60 and 61 Amendments to Prop 101 Amendment 60 and 61 Amendment 62 Amendments to Amendment 61 Amendment 62 Amendment 61 Amendment Amendment 63		- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

09:04 AM -- Introductory Remarks

Mr. Mauer provided an overview of the Review of the 2010 Ballot Analysis Notebook, explaining the contents of the sections. He explained the role of the Legislative Council Staff in preparing the Blue Book and the role of the committee in approving the drafts. The committee votes on amendments to the final draft analysis of each measure, but does not vote to approve each measure. He also reviewed the procedures for the committee meeting. Please visit the Legislative Council website to view the final draft packets that were provided in the notebooks for the committee meeting: http://www.leg.state.co.us/LCS/Initiative%20Referendum/0910InitRefr.nsf/89FB842D0401C52087256CBC00650696

09:09 AM -- Amendment P

Geoff Johnson, Legislative Council Staff, presented the analysis of Amendment P, concerning the regulation of games and chance. Mr. Johnson provided background on bingo raffle licensing and how the amendment changes the process of licensing such raffles. He reviewed the argument for and the argument against the measure.

09:13 AM

The following person testified:

09:13 AM -- Representative Lambert discussed the argument for the measure. He stated that the analysis does not explain to voters that the measure was introduced at the request of the Office of the Secretary of State and offered language to amend the measure.

09:15 AM -- Amendment Q

David Beaujon, Legislative Council Staff, presented the analysis of Amendment Q, concerning the temporary location of the state seat of government. He reviewed the main provisions of the measure. He reviewed the arguments for and against the measure. No witnesses testified on the analysis.

09:17 AM

Representative Weissmann asked Mr. Beaujon why the statutory cite was not provided in the analysis, as recommended by the Governor's office in comments submitted on the final draft. Mr. Beaujon responded that it is not the practice of the Legislative Council Staff to provide statutory cites within the Blue Book.

09:17 AM -- Amendment R

Todd Herreid, Legislative Council Staff, presented the analysis of Amendment R, concerning exempting possessory interests in real property. He reviewed the arguments for and against the measure. No witnesses testified and no amendments were offered to the analysis.

09:21 AM -- Amendment P

The committee returned to the analysis of Amendment P to consider an amendment to the argument section from Representative Lambert. He requested that the committee consider amending the analysis to include his additional sentences pertaining to the Office of the Secretary of State in the argument for.

09:22 AM

Representative Weissmann stated that he did not feel that the proposed language was appropriate for the Blue Book, but rather should be included in the campaign promoting the measure.


BILL:	Amendment P
TIME:	09:22:53 AM
MOVED:	Cadman
MOTION:	Moved to amend the final draft analysis of Amendment P, page 1, line 28, after "Revenue.", add "THE LAST TWO SECRETARIES OF STATE, ONE REPUBLICAN AND ONE DEMOCRAT, HAVE BOTH REQUESTED THIS MOVE BECAUSE GAMING OVERSIGHT MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT THAT ALSO OVERSEES ELECTIONS AND COMMERCIAL BUSINESS LICENSING." The motion failed on a 9-9-0 vote.
SECONDED:	Balmer
		VOTE
	Balmer	Yes
	Boyd	No
	Cadman	Yes
	Ferrandino	Yes
	Gibbs	No
	Hodge	No
	Kerr A.	No
	Kopp	Yes
	May	No
	McNulty	Yes
	Morse	No
	Scanlan	Yes
	Scheffel	Yes
	Spence	Yes
	Stephens	Yes
	Weissmann	No
	Shaffer B.	No
	Carroll T.	No

Final YES: 9 NO: 9 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: TIE

09:24 AM -- Initiative 92/Proposition 102

Jessika Shipley, Legislative Council Staff, presented the analysis for Proposition 102. She reviewed the arguments for and against the measure. She also discussed the fiscal impact of the measure on the criminal justice system.

09:27 AM

The following people testified on the measure:

09:28 AM -- Mike Paul Donovan, a proponent of the measure, testified on the Blue Book analysis and distributed a handout (Attachment A). He directed the committee to his written comments submitted to the Legislative Council Staff. He stated the purpose of the initiative, discussing the issue of unsecured bonds. He provided an example illustrating his concern about unsecured bonds by sharing the story of a person accused of second degree murder who was released on an unsecured bond. He also addressed the amendment he would like offered to the analysis, which pertains to the fiscal impact. He disputed the accuracy of the data used in determining the impact, challenging the assumptions made in the calculation. He further stated that the analysis ignores the potential for cost savings that could be realized with the passage of Initiative 92/Proposition 102. Mr. Donovan also cited studies pertaining to potential cost savings. He concluded his remarks by discussing the potential societal impact of the measure.

09:37 AM

Representative May asked Mr. Donovan to clarify the amendment he would like the committee to consider. Mr. Donovan offered conceptual language that could be used to amend the fiscal impact section.

09:40 AM -- Sharon Winfree, representing Larimer County Pretrial Services, testified on the blue book analysis. She stated that she would like the fiscal impact section to remain as is, but noted that she believes that the estimate is conservative. She also addressed the concerns raised by Mr. Donovan's testimony, specifically his remarks on pretrial services. She concluded by asking that the committee not amend the final draft prepared by Legislative Council Staff.

09:43 AM -- Doug Wilson, the State Public Defender of Colorado, testified on the Blue Book analysis. He provided information to the committee on the types of programs offered in pretrial services. He stated that the fiscal impact is conservative. He discussed the factors driving the budget of the Office of the State Public Defender. Mr. Wilson also discussed previous testimony which stated that the measure may result in up to $ 20 million in cost savings.

09:48 AM -- Mary Ellen Pollack, representing herself, testified on the blue book analysis. She shared her experience as a bond agent and the responsibilities of her position. She responded to testimony provided by Mr. Wilson.


BILL:	Initiative 92/Proposition 102
TIME:	09:51:49 AM
MOVED:	May
MOTION:	Moved to amend the final draft analysis of Initiative 92/Proposition 102, page 3, Line 14, strike "small". The motion passed on a 16-2-0 vote.
SECONDED:	Ferrandino
		VOTE
	Balmer	Yes
	Boyd	Yes
	Cadman	Yes
	Ferrandino	Yes
	Gibbs	Yes
	Hodge	Yes
	Kerr A.	Yes
	Kopp	Yes
	May	Yes
	McNulty	Yes
	Morse	Yes
	Scanlan	Yes
	Scheffel	Yes
	Spence	Yes
	Stephens	Yes
	Weissmann	No
	Shaffer B.	No
	Carroll T.	Yes

Not Final YES: 16 NO: 2 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

09:55 AM -- Staff Analysis Prop 101 Amendment 60 and 61

Mike Mauer, Director, Legislative Council Staff, gave an overview of the analyses for Proposition 101, Amendment 60, and Amendment 61. He talked about a revised version of Proposition 101. Mr. Mauer also shared that staff included a section that discusses the combined fiscal impacts of the three measures to assist voters in understanding the measures' effects on the state and local governments.

10:04 AM

Jason Schrock, Legislative Council Staff, presented the analysis of Proposition 101, concerning income, vehicle, and telecommunication taxes and fees. He reviewed the arguments for and against the measure.

10:11 AM

Todd Herreid, Legislative Council Staff, presented the analysis of Amendment 60, concerning property taxes. He reviewed the arguments for and against the measure. Representative Balmer asked about the voting rights issue and limited liability companies. Mr. Herreid responded and a discussion ensued regarding voting rights.

10:21 AM

Chris Ward, Legislative Council Staff, presented the analysis of Amendment 61, concerning limits on state and local government borrowing. He reviewed the arguments for and against the measure.

10:24 AM

Representative Balmer asked whether the measure differentiates between long-term borrowing and short-term borrowing for cash-flow purposes. Mr. Ward said there is no differentiation and that the measure uses a broad definition of borrowing. Representative Scanlan asked about the number of school districts that use zero percent borrowing and why that is not in the argument against. Mr. Ward explained that the treasurer has decided to not offer the program this year so that was left out of the analysis. Representative Ferrandino stated that the treasurer came before the Joint Budget Committee in June saying the program would not be offered because of Amendment 61. He explained that if the amendment passes, the treasurer cannot offer the program, but if the amendment fails, the treasurer will possibly offer the program again.

10:28 AM -- Witness Testimony Prop 101 Amendment 60 and 61

10:28 AM -- Doug Campbell, representing himself and in support of Natalie Menten's suggested changes provided in the notebook, testified on the measures. He distributed a handout on the measures (Attachment B). Mr. Campbell objected to presenting the full impact of each measure in today's dollars because the measures are phased in over time. He continued his comments on the analysis, stating that the bullets in the beginning of the analysis should reflect the order in which the measure is written. He also expressed concern about Table 1 in the Proposition 101 analysis, stating that he believes it is confusing. He remarked on the length of the analysis, given that the measure itself is 250 words, he believes 12 pages is excessive. He also discussed the use of the word "effect" versus "impact." He suggested evening out the length of the arguments on both sides.

10:44 AM

Mr. Campbell next addressed the analysis of Amendment 60, suggesting that the arguments on both sides be of equal length and to delete most of the first paragraph of the analysis.

10:48 AM

Mr. Campbell last addressed the analysis of Amendment 61, suggesting the deletion of certain examples and Tables 1 and 2.

10:50 AM

In response to Mr. Campbell's testimony, Representative Stephens suggested placing the section discussing the interaction of the three measures in the back of the Blue Book rather than within each analysis. Mr. Campbell added that the combined impact only takes into account if all three measures pass and said there are nine possible combinations of what may happen. Representative Stephens stated that there is value in looking at all three passing, but suggested the combined impact be placed at the end of the blue book. Senator Kopp commented on the length of the arguments for and against. President Shaffer asked whether Mr. Campbell has information on population increases along with his data on government growth.

10:57 AM -- Mike Johnson and Dan Lynch, representing Kutak Rock, commented on the Amendment 61 analysis. Mr. Johnson addressed the language in the analysis regarding the effect of the measure on urban renewal authorities (page 5, lines 31 - 34) and conduit financing entities (page 3, lines 17 - 18). He recommended that these references be deleted.

11:06 AM

Representative May asked for clarification on their testimony. Mr. Lynch said Amendment 61 uses terms defined by the courts and Mr. Johnson asked that the Blue Book be silent on those issues that have been addressed by the courts. Representative Weissmann stated that since the measure is a constitutional amendment, borrowing would include everything. A discussion ensued regarding the scope of the measure. Mr. Ward explained that they took a plain language reading of the measure that states "shall not borrow".

11:13 AM -- Amendments to Prop 101 Amendment 60 and 61

Representative A. Kerr talked about adding language regarding inflation and population growth to the analysis of Amendment 61, on page 7, in the first argument for the measure. Senator Cadman asked about combining the measures, and adding the interactions in the back of the Blue Book. Mr. Herreid stated that staff was worried that some voters may not see it at the end of the Blue Book. Mr. Mauer talked about past measures that have been written with an interaction section and suggested placing it after the impact statement in each measure if the committee decided to move it. Representative Balmer commented about staff's role in writing the arguments. Mr. Mauer talked about the process staff follows when writing arguments.


BILL:	Amendments to Prop 101 Amendment 60 and 61
TIME:	11:29:59 AM
MOVED:	Cadman
MOTION:	Moved to place the interaction section of Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101 after the "Estimate of Fiscal Impact" section of each measure. The motion failed 7-10-1.
SECONDED:	Stephens
		VOTE
	Balmer	Yes
	Boyd	No
	Cadman	Yes
	Ferrandino	No
	Gibbs	No
	Hodge	No
	Kerr A.	No
	Kopp	Yes
	May	Yes
	McNulty	Excused
	Morse	No
	Scanlan	No
	Scheffel	Yes
	Spence	Yes
	Stephens	Yes
	Weissmann	No
	Shaffer B.	No
	Carroll T.	No

Final YES: 7 NO: 10 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	Amendments to Prop 101 Amendment 60 and 61
TIME:	11:35:01 AM
MOVED:	Stephens
MOTION:	Moved to place the interaction section of Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101 at the back of the Blue Book. The motion was withdrawn.
SECONDED:	Cadman
		VOTE
	Balmer
	Boyd
	Cadman
	Ferrandino
	Gibbs
	Hodge
	Kerr A.
	Kopp
	May
	McNulty
	Morse
	Scanlan
	Scheffel
	Spence
	Stephens
	Weissmann
	Shaffer B.
	Carroll T.

Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: WITHDRAWN

11:38 AM

Speaker Carroll laid the measures over until later in the day for consideration of additional amendments.

11:38 AM -- Amendment 62

Clare Pramuk, Legislative Council Staff, presented the analysis of Amendment 62, concerning the application of the term person. She reviewed the arguments for and against the measure.

11:42 AM -- Gaulberto Garcia Jones, representing Colorado Right to Life, commented on the analysis. He talked about the use of the term "human life" in the arguments for the measure and suggested using the term "human being" instead. He also talked about the term "fertilized egg."

11:47 AM -- Kevin Paul, representing No on 62, commented on the analysis. He talked about the arguments for the measure and the term "human life" versus "human being." Committee discussion ensued about the use of the term "human life" versus "human being."


BILL:	Amendment 62
TIME:	11:59:54 AM
MOVED:	Stephens
MOTION:	Moved to strike the use of the term "life" and substitute the term "being" with conforming amendments on page 2, lines 9-24. The motion failed 6-11-1.
SECONDED:	May
		VOTE
	Balmer	Yes
	Boyd	No
	Cadman	Yes
	Ferrandino	No
	Gibbs	No
	Hodge	No
	Kerr A.	No
	Kopp	Yes
	May	Yes
	McNulty	Excused
	Morse	No
	Scanlan	No
	Scheffel	Yes
	Spence	No
	Stephens	Yes
	Weissmann	No
	Shaffer B.	No
	Carroll T.	No

Final YES: 6 NO: 11 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL

12:05 PM

Representative Balmer asked about murder and civil cases when a fetus is killed. He said he would like to draft an amendment that would help voters understand Amendment 62 is not solely about abortion. Representative Stephens asked why the term "human life" was used in the argument for the measure rather than "human being" as requested by the proponents. A discussion ensued with staff regarding the process of writing the arguments with Mike Mauer, Director, Legislative Council Staff, weighing in on the discussion.

12:13 PM -- Lunch Break

The committee broke for lunch.

01:30 PM

The Speaker called the committee back to order. Elizabeth Burger, Legislative Council Staff, addressed the question about why staff used the term "human life" instead of "human being." She provided historical context on a similar analysis that staff prepared in 2008 for Amendment 48, in which the proponents requested that the term "human life" be used. She further noted that the proponents of Amendment 48 and Amendment 62 are the same people, which prompted staff to use the same terms from 2008.


BILL:	Amendment 62
TIME:	01:37:51 PM
MOVED:	May
MOTION:	Moved to strike the use of the term "life" and substitute the term "being" with conforming amendments on page 2, lines 9-24. The motion failed 7-11.
SECONDED:	Stephens
		VOTE
	Balmer	Yes
	Boyd	No
	Cadman	Yes
	Ferrandino	No
	Gibbs	No
	Hodge	No
	Kerr A.	No
	Kopp	Yes
	May	Yes
	McNulty	Yes
	Morse	No
	Scanlan	No
	Scheffel	Yes
	Spence	No
	Stephens	Yes
	Weissmann	No
	Shaffer B.	No
	Carroll T.	No

Final YES: 7 NO: 11 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	Amendment 62
TIME:	01:40:12 PM
MOVED:	Balmer
MOTION:	Moved prepared staff amendment, adding a fourth argument for the measure that states, "The measure may establish the basis to assert standing or recognition to unborn victims in criminal cases or to unborn plaintiffs in civil cases." (Attachment C). The motion failed 7-11.
SECONDED:	Stephens
		VOTE
	Balmer	Yes
	Boyd	No
	Cadman	Yes
	Ferrandino	No
	Gibbs	No
	Hodge	No
	Kerr A.	No
	Kopp	Yes
	May	Yes
	McNulty	Yes
	Morse	No
	Scanlan	No
	Scheffel	Yes
	Spence	No
	Stephens	Yes
	Weissmann	No
	Shaffer B.	No
	Carroll T.	No

Final YES: 7 NO: 11 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL

01:44 PM -- Amendments to Amendment 61

The committee returned to analysis of Amendment 61.


BILL:	Amendments to 61
TIME:	01:45:14 PM
MOVED:	Kerr A.
MOTION:	Moved to amend the revised version of the Amendment 61 final draft to strike the first sentence in the first argument for on page 7, lines 9-10. The motion passed 16-2.
SECONDED:	May
		VOTE
	Balmer	Yes
	Boyd	Yes
	Cadman	No
	Ferrandino	Yes
	Gibbs	Yes
	Hodge	Yes
	Kerr A.	Yes
	Kopp	Yes
	May	Yes
	McNulty	Yes
	Morse	Yes
	Scanlan	Yes
	Scheffel	Yes
	Spence	Yes
	Stephens	Yes
	Weissmann	No
	Shaffer B.	Yes
	Carroll T.	Yes

Final YES: 16 NO: 2 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


BILL:	Amendments to 61
TIME:	01:49:08 PM
MOVED:	Carroll T.
MOTION:	Moved to amend the revised version of the Amendment 61 final draft to strike "Urban renewal authorities and business improvement districts: downtown development projects like the 16th Street Mall in Denver" on page 5, lines 31-34. The motion passed 13-4-1.
SECONDED:	Kerr A.
		VOTE
	Balmer	Yes
	Boyd	Yes
	Cadman	No
	Ferrandino	Yes
	Gibbs	Yes
	Hodge	Yes
	Kerr A.	Yes
	Kopp	No
	May	Yes
	McNulty	Yes
	Morse	Yes
	Scanlan	Yes
	Scheffel	Yes
	Spence	Excused
	Stephens	No
	Weissmann	No
	Shaffer B.	Yes
	Carroll T.	Yes

Final YES: 13 NO: 4 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


BILL:	Amendments to 61
TIME:	01:52:12 PM
MOVED:	Carroll T.
MOTION:	Moved to amend the revised version of the Amendment 61 final draft to remove the language referring to the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority on page 3, lines 16-18 of the draft. The motion was withdrawn.
SECONDED:	May
		VOTE
	Balmer
	Boyd
	Cadman
	Ferrandino
	Gibbs
	Hodge
	Kerr A.
	Kopp
	May
	McNulty
	Morse
	Scanlan
	Scheffel
	Spence
	Stephens
	Weissmann
	Shaffer B.
	Carroll T.

Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: WITHDRAWN

01:58 PM -- Amendment 63

David Porter, Legislative Council Staff, presented the analysis of Amendment 63, concerning health care choice. He reviewed the arguments for and against the measure.

02:03 PM

Representative Balmer suggested mentioning under the third argument for the measure that the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects states' rights. Speaker Carroll commented on the 10th Amendment, noting the varied legal interpretations of the amendment and questioning its applicability to the analysis.

02:07 PM -- Edie Sonn, representing the Colorado Medical Society, commented on the analysis. She offered some changes to the analysis.


BILL:	Amendment 63
TIME:	02:12:18 PM
MOVED:	Balmer
MOTION:	Moved to amend the final draft, page 2, to add a fourth argument for stating, "This measure is a statement in support of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the rights of states and individuals." The motion failed 6-10-2.
SECONDED:	May
		VOTE
	Balmer	Yes
	Boyd	No
	Cadman	Yes
	Ferrandino	No
	Gibbs	No
	Hodge	No
	Kerr A.	No
	Kopp	Yes
	May	Yes
	McNulty	Excused
	Morse	No
	Scanlan	No
	Scheffel	Yes
	Spence	Excused
	Stephens	Yes
	Weissmann	No
	Shaffer B.	No
	Carroll T.	No

Final YES: 6 NO: 10 EXC: 2 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL

02:14 PM -- Amendment 61 Amendment

The committee returned to the analysis of Amendment 61 for consideration of an amendment.


BILL:	Amendment 61 Amendment
TIME:	02:14:50 PM
MOVED:	Carroll T.
MOTION:	Moved to adopt the prepared staff amendment, adding the language "It is unclear if borrowing on behalf of private entities is prohibited" to the third column on page 3, line 9, of the Final Draft (Attachment D). The motion failed 6-10-2.
SECONDED:	May
		VOTE
	Balmer	Yes
	Boyd	Yes
	Cadman	No
	Ferrandino	Yes
	Gibbs	Yes
	Hodge	Yes
	Kerr A.	Yes
	Kopp	No
	May	Yes
	McNulty	Excused
	Morse	Yes
	Scanlan	Yes
	Scheffel	No
	Spence	Excused
	Stephens	No
	Weissmann	No
	Shaffer B.	No
	Carroll T.	Yes

Final YES: 10 NO: 6 EXC: 2 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL

02:17 PM

Mike Mauer, Director, Legislative Council Staff, explained that staff will make technical changes.

02:18 PM

The committee adjourned.