Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Date:02/26/2015
ATTENDANCE
Time:01:51 PM to 07:17 PM
Buckner
X
Court
X
Place:SupCt
Dore
X
Foote
X
This Meeting was called to order by
Lawrence
X
Representative Kagan
Lundeen
X
Neville P.
X
This Report was prepared by
Pettersen
X
Bo Pogue
Salazar
X
Van Winkle
X
Willett
X
Lee
X
Kagan
X
X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call
Bills Addressed: Action Taken:
HB15-1041
HB15-1025
HB15-1197		Postponed Indefinitely
Postponed Indefinitely
Amended, Referred to the Committee of the Whole


01:48 PM -- HB15-1041

The committee was called to order. A quorum was present. Representatives Ransom and Humphrey, prime sponsors, presented House Bill 15-1041, concerning the protection of human life beginning at conception. Representatives Ransom and Humphrey discussed the merits of the legislation.


01:54 PM

The following persons testified regarding HB 15-1041:

01:54 PM -- Ms. Christy Rodriguez, representing the Colorado Campaign for Life, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Rodriguez discussed her experience in obtaining an abortion, and spoke to the merits of the legislation.

02:01 PM -- Mr. Rick Theilen, representing Life Choices, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Theilen discussed the work of his organization, and discussed the stages of development of the human fetus. He compared the value of the unborn to those of the old or infirm. He read a statement from a doctor about human development.










02:05 PM -- Ms. Lisa Koets, representing Life Choices, testified in support of HB 15-1041. Ms. Koets discussed the decisions she faced when she was pregnant, and the effect having an abortion had on her life. She discussed the factors that determine the traits of a child, and read a passage authored by the plaintiff in the Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court case.

02:09 PM -- Ms. Kathy Roberts, representing Life Choices, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Roberts discussed her pregnancy and subsequent abortion, and the impact the incident had on her life. Mr. Theilen responded to questions regarding the penalties imposed by the bill. Ms. Koets responded to questions regarding outlawing abortion in cases of rape or incest. Ms. Roberts weighed in on these questions.

02:18 PM -- Ms. Constance Snow, representing Students for Life, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Snow compared the anti-abortion movement to the abolitionist movement, as well as other historic episodes of oppression. She said protecting the pre-born is a duty. Ms. Snow responded to questions regarding the potential for women who have miscarriages to be investigated for the possible commission of a felony under the bill.

02:26 PM -- Mr. Ed Hanks, representing Colorado Right to Life, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Hanks discussed the abolition movement, and the rights of human beings. He appealed to the values of the Democrats on the committee.

02:32 PM -- Ms. Leslie Hanks, representing American Right to Life, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Hanks read a resolution in opposition to abortion. Mr. Hanks and Ms. Hanks agreed that a ban on abortion should allow for no exceptions. Mr. Hanks and Ms. Hanks provided their positions on certain types of contraception.

02:41 PM -- Ms. Kira Combs, representing herself, testified in support of HB 15-1041. Ms. Combs discussed the pressure her mother experienced to abort her, and explained why she is pro-life.

02:44 PM -- Mr. Scott Horack, representing himself, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Horack compared historical instances of oppression to abortion, and discussed the right to life. He discussed the propagandistic elements associated with abortion, and his work praying in front of abortion clinics. Mr. Horack discussed current technology associated with the nature of life.

02:52 PM -- Ms. Gina Glockner, representing the Colorado Women's Bar Association, testified in opposition to HB 15-1041. Ms. Glockner explained how the bill would work contrary to the best interests of women, discussed the bill's potential unconstitutionality, and discussed the penalties that would be imposed under the bill. Ms. Glockner responded to questions regarding earlier testimony that compared abortion to slavery.

02:58 PM -- Ms. Corrine Rivera-Fowler, representing the Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Rivera-Fowler explained how the bill abridges self-determination, and discussed the opinion of the public in Colorado on abortion bans. She discussed pregnancy and abortion in minority communities.

03:03 PM -- Ms. Karen Middleton, representing NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Middleton read the testimony of Dr. Jennifer Hyer (Attachment A).

15HouseJud0226AttachA.pdf15HouseJud0226AttachA.pdf







03:07 PM -- Mr. Stephen Meswarb, representing the ACLU of Colorado and the Vote No on 67 campaign, testified in opposition to the bill. Committee members received a list of organizations that were against Amendment 67 (Attachment B). Mr. Meswarb discussed the effect of the bill, and public opinion in Colorado on abortion bans.

15HouseJud0226AttachB.pdf15HouseJud0226AttachB.pdf

03:10 PM -- Ms. Andrea Shpall, representing the Anti-Defamation League, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Shpall explained that the bill would be unconstitutional, and does not contain enough exceptions to the ban on abortion. She discussed the abridgement of religious freedom by the bill. Ms. Shpall discussed the prohibitions in the bill. Discussion ensued regarding the civil rights aspects of the abortion debate, and earlier testimony comparing abortion to slavery and the Holocaust.

03:18 PM -- Ms. Amanda Henderson, representing the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Henderson explained how the bill would abridge religious freedom, as well as personal freedoms. Ms. Henderson discussed the membership of her organization. Ms. Henderson responded to questions regarding the alliance's position on when life begins, as well as other issues associated with abortion.

03:22 PM -- Mr. Kevin Paul, representing Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Paul discussed potential constitutional issues associated with the bill, as well as other issues of jurisprudence. He discussed the potential for the bill to nullify eligibility for certain federal funding sources, and abridgements of doctor-patient relationships. Discussion ensued regarding the process by which certain contraceptives prevent pregnancy. Mr. Paul responded to questions regarding jurisprudence surrounding the concept of viability.


03:30 PM

No amendments were offered to HB 15-1041. The committee recessed.
























03:41 PM

The committee returned to order. Representatives Humphrey and Ransom presented closing remarks in support of HB 15-1041, and addressed earlier testimony. Various committee members provided their positions on the bill.
BILL:HB15-1041
TIME: 03:51:14 PM
MOVED:Neville P.
MOTION:Refer House Bill 15-1041 to the Committee on Appropriations. The motion failed on a vote of 6-7.
SECONDED:Van Winkle
VOTE
Buckner
No
Court
No
Dore
Yes
Foote
No
Lawrence
Yes
Lundeen
Yes
Neville P.
Yes
Pettersen
No
Salazar
No
Van Winkle
Yes
Willett
Yes
Lee
No
Kagan
No
YES: 6 NO: 7 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL





















BILL:HB15-1041
TIME: 03:53:39 PM
MOVED:Court
MOTION:Postpone House Bill 15-1041 indefinitely. The motion passed on a vote of 7-6.
SECONDED:Buckner
VOTE
Buckner
Yes
Court
Yes
Dore
No
Foote
Yes
Lawrence
No
Lundeen
No
Neville P.
No
Pettersen
Yes
Salazar
Yes
Van Winkle
No
Willett
No
Lee
Yes
Kagan
Yes
Final YES: 7 NO: 6 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


03:56 PM -- HB15-1025

The committee recessed.


04:06 PM

The committee returned to order. Representative Kagan updated the committee on the status of House Bill 15-1025, concerning competency to proceed for juveniles involved in the juvenile justice system. The committee took testimony on the bill at its January 29 meeting. Committee members received a preamended version of the bill, as amended by amendment L.020 (Attachment C). Representative Rosenthal presented the bill, and recapped the effect of the legislation, and discussed the effect of amendment L.020 (Attachment D). Representative Rosenthal responded to questions regarding the effect of amendment L.020, and the position of the Colorado District Attorneys' Council on the amendment. The following persons testified regarding the bill:

15HouseJud0226AttachC.pdf15HouseJud0226AttachC.pdf 15HouseJud0226AttachD.pdf15HouseJud0226AttachD.pdf











04:15 PM -- Ms. Karen Knickerbocker, representing the Colorado Office of the Public Defender, testified in support of the bill as amended. Ms. Knickerbocker explained that the premise of the bill is that children are different than adults, and discussed the life-altering decisions juveniles face when they enter the juvenile justice system. Ms. Knickerbocker discussed the process undertaken once the issue of juvenile competency is raised, and discussed the types of treatment available to adjudicated juveniles. Ms. Knickerbocker responded to questions regarding the duty of defense attorneys to raise the issue of competency for juveniles under the bill, and the potential for the number of times this issue is raised in court to increase under the bill.


04:27 PM
Discussion continued regarding the frequency with which the issue of competency might be raised under the bill, and the bearing of the seriousness of the crime on the issue of competency.

04:34 PM -- Mr. Hal Sargent, representing the Colorado District Attorney's Council, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Sargent discussed the civil nature of the juvenile justice system, and addressed earlier testimony about services available to juveniles involved in the justice system. Discussion ensued regarding the adversarial aspects of the juvenile justice system, and the long-term consequences of juvenile adjudication of sex offenses. Mr. Sargent discussed the definition of mental competency. Mr. Sargent responded to a question from the committee about which adults are present during court proceedings in the juvenile justice system.
BILL:HB15-1025
TIME: 04:51:59 PM
MOVED:Kagan
MOTION:Adopt amendment L.020 (Attachment D). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:Lee
VOTE
Buckner
Court
Dore
Foote
Lawrence
Lundeen
Neville P.
Pettersen
Salazar
Van Winkle
Willett
Lee
Kagan
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection












04:53 PM

Representative Rosenthal provided closing remarks in support of HB 15-1025. Discussion ensued regarding the purpose of the juvenile justice system, and the potential for the bill to delay the delivery of services to juveniles in the system. Various committee members provided closing remarks in support of the bill.
BILL:HB15-1025
TIME: 04:57:41 PM
MOVED:Salazar
MOTION:Refer House Bill 15-1025, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. The motion failed on a vote of 6-7.
SECONDED:Pettersen
VOTE
Buckner
Yes
Court
Yes
Dore
No
Foote
No
Lawrence
No
Lundeen
No
Neville P.
No
Pettersen
Yes
Salazar
Yes
Van Winkle
No
Willett
No
Lee
Yes
Kagan
Yes
YES: 6 NO: 7 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL





















BILL:HB15-1025
TIME: 05:15:50 PM
MOVED:Dore
MOTION:Postpone House Bill 15-1025 indefinitely. The motion passed on a vote of 7-6.
SECONDED:Van Winkle
VOTE
Buckner
No
Court
No
Dore
Yes
Foote
Yes
Lawrence
Yes
Lundeen
Yes
Neville P.
Yes
Pettersen
No
Salazar
No
Van Winkle
Yes
Willett
Yes
Lee
No
Kagan
No
Final YES: 7 NO: 6 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


05:16 PM -- HB15-1197

The committee recessed.


05:28 PM

The committee returned to order. Representative Tate, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 15-1197, concerning limitations on indemnity obligations in public construction contracts. Representative Tate read a statement in support of the bill. Committee members received copies of the statement (Attachment E). Representative Tate responded to questions regarding the ease with which general contractors can attain liability insurance, and a hypothetical situation where a contractor may have a duty to defend.

15HouseJud0226AttachE.pdf15HouseJud0226AttachE.pdf

05:40 PM

Representative Tate responded to questions regarding whether individual companies are responsible for paying expenses based on indemnity of public contracts, or whether public entities are responsible.









05:43 PM

The following persons testified regarding HB 15-1197:

05:43 PM -- Ms. Marilen Reimer, representing ACEC, testified in support of the bill. Committee members received a packet of information in support of the legislation (Attachment F). Ms. Reimer explained how the bill would equalize indemnity laws between private sector and public sector contracts, and discussed the due process and fairness aspects of the bill. Ms. Reimer responded to questions regarding the duty to defend on the part of general contractors, while other parties are not subject to this duty. Ms. Reimer responded to further questions regarding the reasonableness of placing indemnity clauses in contracts of some parties and not others.

15HouseJud0226AttachF.pdf15HouseJud0226AttachF.pdf

05:52 PM -- Ms. Helga Grunerud, representing the Hispanic Contractors of Colorado, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Grunerud explained how small companies are required to defend public entities in lawsuits under current law. Ms. Grunerud responded to questions regarding certain companies not bidding on certain public contracts based on this requirement.

05:56 PM -- Ms. Deanne Durfee, representing the Denver City Attorney and the Special District Association, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Durfee expressed concerns about the determination of the duty to defend or indemnify at the time of adjudication under the bill, and the potential for taxpayers to be burdened with the costs of the duty to defend, driving up the costs of public projects. Ms. Durfee responded to questions regarding a forthcoming amendment, and the potential for including the allocation of costs associated with liability during contract negotiations. Ms. Durfee responded to questions regarding the potential for removing the duty to defend for contractors to reduce public construction contract costs, and the potential for further amending the bill. Ms. Durfee responded to questions regarding requiring contractors to indemnify public entities for problems caused by the public entity.


06:08 PM

Ms. Durfee responded to questions regarding whether imposing a duty to defend on a professional services contract constitutes an adhesion contract, and whether duty to defend clauses are removed from contracts executed by Denver. Ms. Durfee responded to questions regarding the potential impact of the bill on the city's contract negotiations.

06:13 PM -- Mr. Andy Karsian, representing the Department of Transportation and Colorado Counties, Inc., testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Karsian expressed concern with a provision in a forthcoming amendment that would require public contracts to go before a dispute resolution board under certain circumstances. Mr. Karsian responded to questions regarding the duty to defend in Department of Transportation contracts, and the impact of the bill on the department. Discussion returned to the department's concerns about the impact of the bill on contract mediation. Discussion ensued regarding the potential for further amending a forthcoming amendment to address the department's concerns.









06:25 PM -- Mr. Mark Radtke, representing the Colorado Municipal League, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Radtke discussed the prevalence of the use of duty to defend clauses in public contracts. Mr. Radtke responded to questions regarding how public entities use these clauses for contract negotiation purposes.

06:28 PM -- Mr. Bill Seafoorce, representing himself, testified in support of HB 15-1197. Mr. Seafoorce explained that the bill institutes fairness in the design component of construction contracts, and discussed the nature of alternative dispute resolution in a forthcoming amendment. Mr. Seafoorce responded to questions regarding the inability of professional services contractors to obtain liability insurance.

06:34 PM -- Mr. Phil Cardi, representing himself, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Cardi explained how public entities are losing good engineering firms for its projects under current law, and discussed the alternative dispute resolution process contemplated under amendment L.001 (Attachment G). Mr. Cardi responded to questions regarding the frequency with which firms will not sign contracts containing duty to defend clauses, and the prevalence of the problem to be solved by the bill.

15HouseJud0226AttachG.pdf15HouseJud0226AttachG.pdf

06:40 PM -- Mr. Ed Hayes, representing himself, made himself available to answer questions.

06:42 PM -- Ms. Lisa Goodbee, representing Goodbee and Associates, testified in support of HB 15-1197. Ms. Goodbee discussed the use of duty to defend clauses in contracts to which she has been a party, and the placement of small firms in a disadvantageous position by such clauses.

06:44 PM -- Ms. Melissa Rosas, representing Apex Design, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Rosas explained the process by which she negotiates away duty to defend clauses in contracts.

06:46 PM -- Mr. Robert Refvem, representing Felsburg, Holt, and Ullevig, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Refvem discussed the percentage of public entities that include duty to defend clauses in contracts. Mr. Refvem rebutted previous testimony.

06:49 PM -- Ms. Linda Purcell, representing herself and AIA Colorado, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Purcell discussed some recent contracts she has been involved with that contained duty to defend contracts, and explained the multi-tiered aspect public works contracts.

06:55 PM -- Mr. Bill Green, representing himself, testified in support of HB 15-1197. Mr. Green discussed the work of his engineering firm, and the risks associated with signing a contract containing a duty to defend clause. He explained that municipalities are shifting risks using these clauses.

06:59 PM -- Mr. Kevin Heronimus, representing AIA Colorado, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Heronimus explained how the bill may cause utilities to bypass certain professional services contractors, resulting in the loss of value.











07:01 PM -- Ms. Cathy Rosset, representing AIA Colorado, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Rosset discussed the number of firms that are subject to building contracts with duty to defend clauses, and the proper indemnification process for municipalities. Ms. Rosset responded to questions regarding the number of member firms in AIA Colorado.

07:03 PM -- Mr. Nikolaus Remus, representing DCA Architects and Engineers and the American Institute of Architects, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Remus discussed a contract containing a duty to defend that his firm was asked to sign, and the liability exposure that would have resulted had they signed it. He explained that his firm has been wrongly named in lawsuits in the past, and explained that duty to defend clauses are unfair. Mr. Remus responded to questions regarding the potential for certain parties to be named in negligence lawsuits. Discussion ensued on this point.

07:08 PM -- Mr. David Sprunt, representing the American Society of Landscape Architects, testified in support of HB 15-1197. Mr. Sprunt discussed the work of the society's member firms, and explained that the bill would level the playing field among contractors. He explained that the bill is fair and provides for due process.
BILL:HB15-1197
TIME: 07:12:31 PM
MOVED:Willett
MOTION:Adopt amendment L.001 (Attachment G). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:Salazar
VOTE
Buckner
Court
Dore
Foote
Lawrence
Lundeen
Neville P.
Pettersen
Salazar
Van Winkle
Willett
Lee
Kagan
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection
















07:12 PM

Representative Tate provided closing remarks in support of HB 15-1197.
BILL:HB15-1197
TIME: 07:13:27 PM
MOVED:Salazar
MOTION:Refer House Bill 15-1197, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed on a vote of 13-0.
SECONDED:Dore
VOTE
Buckner
Yes
Court
Yes
Dore
Yes
Foote
Yes
Lawrence
Yes
Lundeen
Yes
Neville P.
Yes
Pettersen
Yes
Salazar
Yes
Van Winkle
Yes
Willett
Yes
Lee
Yes
Kagan
Yes
Final YES: 13 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


07:17 PM

The committee adjourned.