Date: 02/12/2015

Final
BILL SUMMARY for HB15-1101

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Votes: View--> Action Taken:
Adopt amendment L.004 (Attachment B). The motion p
Postpone House Bill 15-1101 indefinitely. The moti
Refer House Bill 15-1101, as amended, to the Commi		Pass Without Objection
PASS
FAIL



01:34 PM -- HB15-1101

The committee was called to order. A quorum was present. Representatives Lawrence and Fields, prime sponsors, presented House Bill 15-1101, concerning making the records of certain state legal defense attorney agencies subject to the Colorado Open Records Act. Representative Lawrence explained why the bill is necessary, and the effect of the bill. Representative Fields provided input regarding her support for the legislation. Representative Lawrence responded to questions regarding her supposition that the Office of the State Public Defender (SPD) issues a "blanket denial" when faced with information requests. Representatives Fields and Lawrence discussed SPD's requirements in the area of open records. Representative Fields responded to questions regarding why SPD and the Office of the Alternative Defense Counsel (ADC) are singled out in the bill for open records purposes, as opposed to other offices within the Judicial Branch.


01:49 PM

Discussion ensued regarding the impact of the bill on indigent persons accused of crimes. Representative Lawrence responded to questions regarding the willingness of the SPD to divulge information on its hiring practices.


01:56 PM

The following persons testified regarding House Bill 15-1101:

01:56 PM -- Mr. Doug Wilson, representing SPD, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Wilson discussed the intent of the bill, and the issues that led to the bill's introduction. In particular, he discussed requests for information about the costs of the James Holmes case. He discussed certain court decisions pertaining to the Judicial Branch's refusal to divulge information to those requesting it, and the impact of these decisions on the bill. Mr. Wilson explained how the bill would allow numerous parties to file Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) requests with his office, driving up the office's workload and costs.


02:12 PM

Mr. Wilson discussed his office's mission, and the information that his office routinely discloses. Mr. Wilson responded to questions regarding the reluctance of SPD to divulge information not relating to individual cases in which it is involved, and the budget information that the office makes public. Mr. Wilson explained how members of the public avail themselves of SPD's budget information.


02:26 PM

Discussion ensued regarding the budget information aggregated by SPD for reporting to the General Assembly, and the response SPD gives members of the public when they request cost information for its participation in death penalty cases. Discussion followed regarding which portions of the information managed by SPD should be available to the public. Mr. Wilson responded to questions regarding his position on potential legislation that would require all state agencies to divulge death penalty-related expenses. Mr. Wilson responded to further questions regarding information requests that might breach the lawyer-client relationship.


02:41 PM

Discussion ensued regarding ways that the SPD's budget could be more carefully monitored by the public. Mr. Wilson responded to questions regarding the fiscal impact of the bill, and the hypothetical death penalty cost legislation discussed earlier.

02:52 PM -- Mr. Gerald Pratt, representing the Colorado Bar Association, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Pratt discussed court and ethics rules that limit the divulgence of certain information within the attorney-client privilege, and explained how HB 15-1101 might reveal information not subject to disclosure. He discussed a potential breach of the separation of powers by the bill, and cited a court case that discusses the attorney-client privilege. Mr. Pratt also discussed the potential fiscal impact of the bill. Mr. Pratt responded to questions regarding the judiciary's directives pertaining to its open records, and whether the Judicial Branch is currently amending those rules.

03:00 PM -- Mr. John Gleason, representing the Colorado Bar Association and the SPD, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Gleason differentiated between the attorney-client privilege and work product, and discussed his experiences in determining what is shielded from public disclosure. He discussed the potential for the bill to change the way that SPD and ADC conduct their business. Mr. Gleason responded to questions regarding his relationship with SPD, and the disclosure requirements applicable to this relationship.

03:10 PM -- Ms. Denise Maes, representing the ACLU, testified in opposition to HB 15-1101. Ms. Maes questioned why only one side of the court adversaries within the Judicial Branch are within the scope of the bill, and the potential for the bill to result in unintended consequences. Ms. Maes responded to questions about the bill's level of transparency.

03:16 PM -- Ms. Linda Weinerman, representing the Office of the Child's Representative, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Weinerman spoke of the work of the Rule 38 Subcommittee within the Judicial Branch, and branch's exploration of issues relating to information disclosure. She discussed the balance that the branch seeks to find between transparency and keeping certain information confidential. Ms. Weinerman responded to questions regarding the current mission of the Rule 38 Subcommittee and the role of the General Assembly in judicial rulemaking.

03:26 PM -- Ms. Bert Nieslanik, representing the ADC, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Nieslanik explained how her office handles information inquiries, and discussed the potential effect of the bill on her office's workload.

03:29 PM -- Ms. Lindy Frolich, representing the ADC, testified in opposition to HB 15-1101. Ms. Frolich explained the differences between her office and the SPD, and discussed the potential for the bill to generate litigation. Ms. Frolich questioned why her office is identified in the bill, since her office is not often subject to CORA requests. She explained how her office would handle requests lodged under the bill, and discussed the potential for CORA requests to her office to greatly expand under the bill.

03:36 PM -- Ms. Maureen Cain, representing the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Cain discussed the disparate impact the bill would have on rich and poor defendants, and the process by which an individual accesses state budget information. She discussed the SPD budget in particular, and the factors driving its growth. Ms. Cain responded to questions regarding the disparate impact based on wealth status referenced earlier.

03:42 PM -- Mr. George Brauchler, representing the Eighteenth Judicial District, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Brauchler explained the purpose of CORA, and discussed the reasons for SPD and ADC being singled out by HB 15-1101. He explained why the bill does not breach attorney-client privilege or work product rules, and discussed budget disclosure requirements for those who represent the indigent at the federal level. Mr. Brauchler discussed the fiscal impact of the bill, and his office's efforts to comply with record requests. Mr. Brauchler addressed earlier testimony about the potential impact of the bill on indigent defendants, and trends in both workloads and budgets at the ADC and SPD.


03:55 PM

Mr. Brauchler discussed the efforts of his office to disclose budget information, and further discussed the budgets for ADC and SPD. Mr. Brauchler addressed earlier testimony concerning a potential breach of attorney-client privilege by the bill, and hypothetical legislation that would compel all agencies to divulge budget information about capital offense cases. Mr. Brauchler responded to further questions regarding the exclusion of SPD from CORA, and his office's compliance with records requests.


04:07 PM

Mr. Brauchler responded to questions regarding the budget information that SPD and ADC divulge to the General Assembly. Discussion returned to the process by which the Eighteenth Judicial District complies with information requests.

04:13 PM -- Mr. Stan Garnett, representing the Twentieth Judicial District, testified in support of the bill. Committee members received Mr. Garnett's prepared remarks (Attachment A). Mr. Garnett discussed the importance of making transparent the budgets of SPD and ADC, and the budget disclosures undertaken by his office. He discussed budget issues faced by prosecutors. Discussion ensued regarding the under-funding of district attorneys' offices. Mr. Garnett responded to questions regarding the budget information that the SPD currently divulges, and the reasons why prosecutors would like access to SPD and ADC budget information. Discussion ensued regarding the information currently disclosed about SPD's budget, and his office's source of funding.

15HouseJud0212AttachA.pdf15HouseJud0212AttachA.pdf

04:27 PM -- Mr. Dan May, representing the Fourth Judicial District, testified in support of HB 15-1101. Mr. May discussed the merits of CORA, and explained the General Assembly's role in determining which state agencies should be subject to the act. Mr. May discussed the importance of CORA to transparency, and the level of SPD budget detail available to the public.

04:33 PM -- Mr. Don Fymbo, representing the Colorado Justice Project, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Fymbo discussed the costs for litigating the James Holmes trial, and the need for transparency in the process. Mr. Fymbo discussed the need for the General Assembly to exercise fiscal restraint in the judicial process.

04:39 PM -- Mr. Steven Zansberg, representing the Colorado Press Association and the Colorado Broadcasters' Association, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Zansberg discussed the right for the public to know how tax money is spent, and registered some reservations about certain provisions in the introduced bill. Mr. Zansberg clarified his testimony about the inclusion of costs associated with specific court cases within the scope of the bill.

04:46 PM -- Mr. David Blake, representing the Department of Law, testified in support of the bill. He discussed the merits of government transparency, and addressed earlier testimony from the bill's opponents. Mr. Blake responded to questions regarding the similarities between the attorneys employed in his office and those employed by SPD and ADC, and the types of budget information that these offices should be required to divulge. Mr. Blake responded to further questions regarding why two state offices are targeted by the bill, and the relationship between the SPD and Department of Law. Mr. Blake addressed earlier testimony about the creation of disparities by the bill based on wealth.


04:57 PM

Representative Lawrence explained the effect of prepared amendment L.004 (Attachment B). Representative Kagan explained how the amendment exposes a flaw in the bill.

15HouseJud0212AttachB.pdf15HouseJud0212AttachB.pdf
BILL:HB15-1101
TIME: 04:59:54 PM
MOVED:Lawrence
MOTION:Adopt amendment L.004 (Attachment B). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:Lee
VOTE
Buckner
Carver
Court
Dore
Foote
Lawrence
Lundeen
Pettersen
Salazar
Van Winkle
Willett
Lee
Kagan
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:HB15-1101
TIME: 05:02:04 PM
MOVED:Van Winkle
MOTION:Refer House Bill 15-1101, as amended, to the Committee on Finance. The motion failed on a vote of 6-7.
SECONDED:Lawrence
VOTE
Buckner
No
Carver
Yes
Court
No
Dore
Yes
Foote
No
Lawrence
Yes
Lundeen
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


05:16 PM

 Representatives Lawrence and Fields provided closing remarks in support of the bill. Various committee members provided their positions on the bill.
BILL:HB15-1101
TIME: 05:16:18 PM
MOVED:Kagan
MOTION:Postpone House Bill 15-1101 indefinitely. The motion passed on a vote of 7-6.
SECONDED:Lee
VOTE
Buckner
Yes
Carver
No
Court
Yes
Dore
No
Foote
Yes
Lawrence
No
Lundeen
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