Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Date:01/19/2006
ATTENDANCE
Time:01:34 PM to 06:30 PM
Boyd
*
Clapp
X
Place:HCR 0112
Decker
X
Gardner
X
This Meeting was called to order by
Hefley
*
Representative Carroll T.
Jahn
X
Judd
X
This Report was prepared by
McGihon
X
Jennifer Moe
Witwer
X
Carroll M.
X
Carroll T.
X
X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call
Bills Addressed: Action Taken:
HB06-1027
HB06-1110
HB06-1066
HB06-1015
HB06-1028
HB06-1077		Amended, Referred to the Committee of the Whole
Laid Over
Laid Over
Referred to the Committee of the Whole
Amended, Referred to Appropriations
Referred to the Committee of the Whole


01:34 PM -- House Bill 06-1027

Representative T. Carroll called the committee to order. He welcomed those in attendance and discussed some guidelines for testimony.

Representative Lindstrom, prime sponsor, summarized the provisions of HB 06-1027, which clarifies that municipal court marshals and public transit officers are peace officers and, thus, are required to receive training from the Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (P.O.S.T.). Under the bill's provisions, reserve officer training can no longer substitute for peace officer training. Representative Lindstrom described the duties of municipal court marshals and public transit officers.

The following people testified on the bill:

01:42 PM -- Mr. John Kammerzell, representing the P.O.S.T. Board, spoke in favor of the bill. He described some discussions of the board and the legislature that lead to the bill, and responded to questions from the committee.

01:44 PM -- Chief Ron Sloan, representing the P.O.S.T. Board and the Arvada Police Department, spoke in favor of the bill. He spoke about the parties and the process involved that decided upon the changes proposed by the bill. He responded to questions from the committee regarding the number of municipal court marshals in rural areas affected by this bill.



01:47 PM -- Ms. Peg Ackerman, representing the County Sheriffs of Colorado, spoke in favor of the bill and offered to answer questions.


01:48 PM

The chairman closed the public testimony portion of the hearing, and the committee began considering amendments. Amendment L.002 (Attachment A) was distributed to the committee.
BILL:HB06-1027
TIME: 01:52:33 PM
MOVED:Boyd
MOTION:Move Amendment L.002 (Attachment A). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:McGihon
VOTE
Boyd
Clapp
Decker
Gardner
Hefley
Jahn
Judd
McGihon
Witwer
Carroll M.
Carroll T.
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection
BILL:HB06-1027
TIME: 01:53:41 PM
MOVED:Carroll M.
MOTION:Refer HB 06-1027, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole. The motion carried unanimously.
SECONDED:Boyd
VOTE
Boyd
Yes
Clapp
Yes
Decker
Yes
Gardner
Yes
Hefley
Yes
Jahn
Yes
Judd
Yes
McGihon
Yes
Witwer
Yes
Carroll M.
Yes
Carroll T.
Yes
Final YES: 11 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


01:54 PM -- House Bill 06-1110

Representative Clapp, prime sponsor, discussed HB 06-1110. She explained that, under the provisions of the bill, courts would be able to encourage but could not require parents who are involved in a divorce or separation to attend parenting education classes. The bill also requires that medical or mental health data obtained as part of a proceeding for the allocation of parental responsibilities be kept confidential, unless the court is requested and grants a motion to open the data for public inspection. She explained that the legislature never intended to require minor children to participate in education classes or to make sensitive information public to anyone who wants to see it, both of which have occurred. Committee members were provided with a letter from Mr. Robert Grossaint regarding his experience with a mandated divorce counseling class in Adams County (Attachment B). Representative Clapp distributed Amendments L.001 (Attachment C), L.002 (Attachment D), L.003 (Attachment E), L.004 (Attachment F), and L.005 (Attachment G). She explained how the education programs are also being used as a stall tactic in divorce proceedings. Some committee members expressed concern that the bill eliminates the court's ability to ever order participation in the education classes, and discussion ensued regarding this issue.

The following people testified on the bill:

02:10 PM -- Ms. Marie Moses, representing the Family Law Section of the Colorado Bar Association, spoke against the bill. She spoke to her experience as an attorney and explained why the education programs are an important part of divorce or separation proceedings for her clients. She indicated that, as presently written, the statutes are not intended to mandate participation in such programs. In response to questions, she explained how the classes began from pilot programs and that each judicial district decides on the classes it will use. She was unaware of any follow-up studies that quantify the effectiveness of the programs, but indicated that her clients have told her how they have implemented some of the techniques learned in the class. She indicated that the classes are probably most beneficial at the onset of a divorce or separation proceeding, but are also useful after a court issues its final order. She stated that she reads the bill to prohibit a judge from ever ordering someone to participate in the parenting education classes.

02:22 PM -- Ms. Nancy Osborn Nicholas, representing the Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence, spoke in favor of the bill's provision to keep medical and mental health records confidential. She indicated that while she supports the concept of the education classes and finds them useful for parties who are separating, she has concerns with the bill's language concerning the classes. She explained how the education classes can help a victim of domestic violence. She stated that she has been told that some victims end up attending classes with the other party, and that some had even been required to attend the same class. In response to questions, Ms. Nicholas clarified that there is a choice of dates on which to attend classes, and that a person can find out who will be in their class. Representative Clapp clarified that parties cannot always find out who will be attending a class that they are considering attending, citing complaints from persons in Arapahoe and Jefferson counties. Several committee members expressed concern that an abuser could use the information to locate and potentially harm the victim. Other members noted that it is difficult to require the separation of the parties in education classes in rural areas.


02:37 PM

The chairman closed the public testimony portion of the hearing, and the committee began considering amendments. The chairman noted that all five amendments add language to the same place in the bill (page 2, line 13). The bill was laid over to a future date so that the amendments could be re-drafted.










02:42 PM -- House Bill 06-1066

Representative Boyd, prime sponsor, summarized the provisions of HB 06-1066. The bill extends existing protections for consumers under the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to private child support collectors. She explained that the process and structure for collecting child support differs for private collectors. Among other things, the bill sets forth 12 prohibited practices that have been grounds for complaints in other states. The bill is intended to preempt the occurrence of these practices in Colorado. The sponsor distributed Amendment L.002 (Attachment H).

The following people testified on the bill:

02:50 PM -- Mr. Darryll Grubbs, representing the Child Support Enforcement Council, distributed his written testimony (Attachment I) and spoke against the bill. He described the services that private child support collection agencies provide to custodial parents. He expressed support for the sponsor's efforts to discourage fraudulent and deceptive practices for private agencies, and agreed that disclosure regarding contract information is important. However, he asked that any new regulatory guidelines be crafted so they do not cripple the agencies economically or put undue burden on them, stating that some provisions in the bill could become onerous to the agencies, such as the requirement for a cap on contingency fees. He responded to questions from the committee.

03:04 PM -- Mr. Eric Rosenkoetter, representing SupportKids, spoke against the bill. He described how SupportKids (a large, national private child support collection agency) collects child support from obligators for its clients. He affirmed the need for clear contracts and fee amounts, making payments through a state disbursement agency, and disallowing private agencies to charge fees based on collection amounts attributable to state agencies. He spoke in opposition to several provisions in the bill, including the cap on contingency fees, some conflicting provisions concerning the contingency fee, and some of the termination provisions. He also responded to questions from the committee.

03:30 PM -- Ms. Pam Hennessey, representing the Colorado Center for Law and Policy, spoke in favor of the bill. She agreed that private agencies serve a valuable role in collecting child support, but expressed concern about the agencies' ability to adequately strike a balance between their business goals and their mission. Among other concerns, she believes it is unfair for the private agencies to collect a contingency fee based on an amount that could be collected from other agencies, including state agencies. She explained that when a check is sent, it does not break out the total amount into subtotals for current support, support arrears, or child support debt. She responded to issues raised by previous witnesses and answered questions from the committee.

03:54 PM -- Ms. Laura Udis, representing the Consumer Credit Unit of the Attorney General's (AG) office, spoke in favor of the bill and the protections it will provide. The unit enforces the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and licenses child support collection agencies. In response to earlier discussion, she indicated that attorneys are subject to the state's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, but do not need to be licensed with the AG's office to collect child support debt because they are registered with the Colorado Supreme Court. She added that while the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not cover collection of child support, private child support collection agencies are covered under Colorado law, although the Colorado act mostly protects debtors, not creditors (in this case, the custodial parent). She clarified what is and is not covered under current state law for collection agencies.

Representative McGihon distributed an article regarding private child support collection agencies (Attachment J).

04:11 PM -- Ms. Pat Ratliff, representing Colorado Counties, spoke in favor of the bill.






04:13 PM

The chairman closed the public testimony portion of the hearing and indicated that no action would be taken at this time on amendments or the bill. The bill was laid over to a future date.


04:14 PM -- House Bill 06-1015

Representative Terrance Carroll, prime sponsor, presented HB 06-1015, which enacts the 2005 Colorado Revised Statutes as the effective law for the state of Colorado. Committee members were provided with information about the Revisor's changes to the bill (Attachment K). There were no witnesses signed up to testify on the bill, and no amendments were offered.
BILL:HB06-1015
TIME: 04:16:10 PM
MOVED:McGihon
MOTION:Refer HB 06-1015 to the Committee of the Whole. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0-1.
SECONDED:Witwer
VOTE
Boyd
Yes
Clapp
Yes
Decker
Excused
Gardner
Yes
Hefley
Yes
Jahn
Yes
Judd
Yes
McGihon
Yes
Witwer
Yes
Carroll M.
Yes
Carroll T.
Yes
Final YES: 10 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


04:19 PM -- House Bill 06-1028

Representative Terrance Carroll, prime sponsor, discussed HB 06-1028. The bill seeks to increase the number of judges on the Colorado Court of Appeals and in Jefferson, Mesa, and Douglas counties. Representative Carroll answered questions from the committee. He explained the workload of the courts and how many judges they have. Committee members were provided with Amendment L.001 (Attachment L), which would add a judge in Weld county.

04:21 PM -- Mr. Gerry Marroney, representing the Judicial Branch, spoke in support of the bill. He responded to questions from the committee.

04:24 PM -- Ms. Cathryn Hazouri, representing the ACLU of Colorado, spoke in support of the bill as a means to provide access to the courts for civil cases.








04:26 PM -- Chief Judge Janice Davidson, representing the Colorado Court of Appeals, spoke in support of the bill. She noted several organizations that support the bill because of the county judge provisions. She indicated that criminal filings are up 71 percent over the last five years, and that it is the civil cases that suffer from delays. She also described ways the court has addressed the backlog.

04:29 PM -- Mr. Jeff Ruebel, representing the Colorado Defense Lawyers Association, spoke in support of the bill and echoed earlier comments regarding civil cases.

04:30 PM -- Mr. Tony Lombard, representing the Colorado District Attorneys' Council, spoke in support of the bill.

04:31 PM -- Mr. Jeff Weist, representing the Colorado Civil Justice League, spoke in support of the bill.


04:31 PM

The chairman closed the public testimony portion of the hearing, and the committee began considering amendments.
BILL:HB06-1028
TIME: 04:32:13 PM
MOVED:Carroll T.
MOTION:Move Amendment L.001 (Attachment L). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:Hefley
VOTE
Boyd
Clapp
Decker
Gardner
Hefley
Jahn
Judd
McGihon
Witwer
Carroll M.
Carroll T.
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection
BILL:HB06-1028
TIME: 04:33:10 PM
MOVED:Carroll T.
MOTION:Refer HB 06-1028, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. The motion carried unanimously.
SECONDED:Jahn
VOTE
Boyd
Yes
Clapp
Yes
Decker
Yes
Gardner
Yes
Hefley
Yes
Jahn
Yes
Judd
Yes
McGihon
Yes
Witwer
Yes
Carroll M.
Yes
Carroll T.
Yes
Final YES: 11 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


04:34 PM -- House Bill 06-1077

The committee recessed.


04:41 PM

The committee reconvened. Representative Garcia, prime sponsor, presented HB 06-1077 to the committee. He discussed some talking points for two sides of the debate about broad form indemnification, and indicated that the bill is good middle ground. Under the bill's provisions, broad form indemnification would be banned (i.e., any clause in a private construction contract that holds a person harmless for acts caused by his or her sole negligence cannot be enforced), although the bill expressly allows for broad form indemnification in certain private contracts. He clarified that the issue before the committee is about allowing broad form indemnification in the state of Colorado, not the merits of pro-rata liability. Committee members were provided with information from The Kyle Group about indemnification and the bill (Attachment M).

The following people testified on the bill:

04:46 PM -- Mr. Michael Williams, representing Denver Metro Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA), spoke in favor of the bill, saying it is important for the construction industry. He indicated that a number of groups worked together on the bill to forge a compromise on the issue of broad form indemnification. He noted that there is already insurance to address a situation where a general contractor was solely negligent, and in these cases, the general contractor will likely be sued by a number of parties. He responded to questions from the committee.







05:04 PM -- Mr. Randy Sewald, representing the Independent Electrical Contractors Association of Colorado, spoke in opposition to the bill as a compromise, because the burden of responsibility for indemnification would still rest on a subcontractor under its provisions. He answered questions from the committee.

05:11 PM -- Mr. Dave Harper, representing the Association of Builders and Contractors in Colorado, spoke in opposition to the bill and answered questions from the committee. He distributed a position paper on the bill (Attachment N).

05:15 PM -- Mr. R.J. Hicks, representing the Green Companies in Colorado, stated his opposition to the bill for many of the same reasons discussed by other witnesses.

05:16 PM -- Ms. Diane Hills, representing Diamond Excavating, spoke in opposition to the bill. She described a situation involving a subcontractor and broad form indemnification and responded to questions from the committee.

05:26 PM -- Mr. Mark Hamonz, representing ACEC, spoke in opposition to the bill. He distributed a fact sheet on the bill (Attachment O) and indicated that the bill does not go far enough to address problems associated with indemnification in construction contracts. He answered questions from the committee.

05:39 PM -- Ms. Theresa Wernimont, representing Colorado Construction Reform Coalition (CCRC), Colorado Sash and Door, and the American Subcontractors Association of Colorado (ASAC), spoke against the bill. She offered to respond to earlier questions from the committee. She clarified that broad form indemnification is not in law in Colorado but said the concept has been upheld by the courts. She said the bill will continue to allow for broad form indemnification while taking away the rights of subcontractors. Mr. Richard Forsberg from CCRC joined her at the table to respond to questions from the committee.

05:51 PM -- Ms. Jean Toro, representing the American Subcontractors Association, responded to questions from the committee regarding how the bill will make it worse for subcontractors, citing page 2, line 21 through page 3, line 15 of the bill. Ms. Wernimont spoke to other points, as addressed in Attachment M.

05:59 PM -- Mr. Rob Cooney, representing Preferred Painting, spoke in favor of the bill and responded to questions from the committee. He indicated that his insurance rates are minimally affected by broad form indemnification.

06:02 PM -- Mr. Bob Thompson, representing Lowe Enterprises and the National Association of Industrial Office and Parks (NAIOP), spoke in favor of the bill. He explained that the bill will protect his pension clients from exposure to liability.

06:05 PM -- Mr. Jeff D'Agosta, representing the Association of General Contractors in Colorado, spoke in favor of the bill and responded to questions from the committee.

06:10 PM -- Mr. Rick Richter, representing Western Pacific Insurance Network and the Colorado Association of Home Builders, spoke in favor of the bill. He cited construction defect litigation as the primary reason for the rise in insurance rates, not broad form indemnification. He described ways in which risk can be shifted in insurance contracts.










06:18 PM -- Mr. Williams returned to the table to answer questions regarding whether the bill actually bans broad form indemnification and why certain contracts are exempted from the ban.


06:25 PM

The chairman closed the public testimony portion of the hearing, and the committee began considering amendments. Committee members were provide with Amendment L.001 (Attachment P).
BILL:HB06-1077
TIME: 06:26:32 PM
MOVED:Clapp
MOTION:Refer HB 06-1077 to the Committee of the Whole. The motion carried on a vote of 7-4.
SECONDED:Gardner
VOTE
Boyd
Yes
Clapp
Yes
Decker
No
Gardner
Yes
Hefley
No
Jahn
Yes
Judd
No
McGihon
No
Witwer
Yes
Carroll M.
Yes
Carroll T.
Yes
Final YES: 7 NO: 4 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS
























BILL:HB06-1077
TIME: 06:26:32 PM
MOVED:Carroll M.
MOTION:Move Amendment L.001 (Attachment P). The chair ruled that the amendment did not fit under the title and pulled the amendment off the table.
SECONDED:Carroll T.
VOTE
Boyd
Clapp
Decker
Gardner
Hefley
Jahn
Judd
McGihon
Witwer
Carroll M.
Carroll T.
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: TIE


06:30 PM

The meeting adjourned.