Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Date:02/24/2005
ATTENDANCE
Time:01:35 PM to 07:03 PM
Boyd
*
Brophy
X
Place:SupCt
Decker
X
Harvey
X
This Meeting was called to order by
Hefley
E
Representative Carroll T.
Jahn
X
Judd
X
This Report was prepared by
Kerr
X
Jennifer Moe
McGihon
*
Carroll M.
X
Carroll T.
X
X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call
Bills Addressed: Action Taken:
HB05-1171 (Testimony)
SB05-016
HB05-1260
HB05-1171 (Final action)
HB05-1270 (Final action only)
HB05-1212
HB05-1172		Witness Testimony Only
Referred to the Committee of the Whole
Postponed Indefinitely
Amended, Referred to the Committee of the Whole
Amended, Referred to the Committee of the Whole
Postponed Indefinitely
Amended, Referred to the Committee of the Whole


01:35 PM -- House Bill 05-1171 (Testimony)

The committee came to order. The chairman asked witnesses to limit their testimony and refrain from reading it. Representative Jahn, the prime sponsor of HB 05-1171, Concerning the Appointment of Individuals by the Court in Domestic Relations Proceedings to Assist in the Resolution of Issues Related to Children, described the current practice of courts appointing parent coordinators in domestic relations proceedings and summarized the bill's provisions.

The following people testified on the bill:

01:41 PM -- Ms. Sue Waters, representing herself, spoke in support of the bill. She described how a parent coordinator assists the parties in post-decree proceedings.










01:42 PM -- Ms. Beth Hensun, representing the Family Law Section of the Colorado Bar Association, spoke in support of the bill. She reiterated the bill's provisions. She described the duties of parent coordinators in domestic relations proceedings as well as the powers not extended to them under the bill. Committee members were provided with Amendments L.001 (Attachment A), L.002 (Attachment B), and L.003 (Attachment C). The chairman granted permission for persons to speak about amendments before they were formally moved by the committee (see below for action by the committee). Ms. Hensun responded to questions from the committee regarding the qualifications of parent coordinators and the term "arbitrator." The bill sponsor clarified that both parties must agree to the appointment of a parent coordinator.

01:58 PM -- Magistrate Diane Dupree, representing herself, spoke in support of the bill. She described the court's current practices with regard to parenting coordinators, spoke to the decision-maker provision in the bill, described typical decision-making disputes in cases she hears (attending a banquet, paying for a recital, picking up the child from practice, cutting hair, getting a tattoo, discipline, etc.). She answered questions from the committee regarding what would happen in cases where the parents refused to agree to something, and the types of court decisions influenced by guardian ad litems versus parent coordinators.

02:13 PM -- Ms. Joan Havens, representing herself, spoke in opposition to the bill. She described her experience in the 18th Judicial District with guardian ad litems and parenting coordinators. She expressed concern that the parents involved in the process cannot pursue a civil lawsuit against a decision-maker under the bill's provisions, and was also concerned with the way in which court fees are split.

02:20 PM -- Mr. Michael Pagnozzi, representing himself, voiced his concerns with the immunity provision for decision-makers. He questioned whether it was necessary to standardize the courts' use of parenting coordinators through legislation, and suggested an evaluation of the special advocate system was in order. Representative Jahn noted that an amendment would remove the immunity provision and stated that legislation on this issue was requested by consumers and the courts in order to provide clarification.

02:26 PM -- Ms. Cheryl Burnsite, representing herself, spoke against the bill. She discussed her concerns, including the immunity provision for decision-makers and the lack of binding conflict of interest provisions or disclosure provisions regarding prior contact with a parent coordinator or decision-maker. She responded to questions from the committee.

02:30 PM -- Ms. Judy Schure, representing herself, expressed concern about the lack of accountability/checks and balances in the system (e.g., oversight of appointment of parent coordinators). She listed lines and sections of the bill to which she was particularly opposed.

02:34 PM -- Mr. Mike Baran, representing himself, spoke against the bill and provided the committee with a packet on court-appointed helpers (Attachment D).

02:40 PM -- Ms. Teresa Spahn, representing herself, spoke in favor of the bill and addressed issues raised in prior testimony. She described how the bill came forward and noted that it did not stem from a lawsuit.










02:45 PM

The chairman closed the public testimony portion of the hearing, and the committee began considering amendments.
BILL:HB05-1171
TIME: 02:46:23 PM
MOVED:Jahn
MOTION:Move Amendment L.001 (Attachment A). The motion was withdrawn following discussion.
SECONDED:Decker
VOTE
Boyd
Brophy
Decker
Harvey
Hefley
Excused
Jahn
Judd
Kerr
McGihon
Carroll M.
Carroll T.
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: TIE



























BILL:HB05-1171
TIME: 02:49:36 PM
MOVED:Jahn
MOTION:Move Amendment L.002 (Attachment B). Following discussion, the motion was withdrawn.
SECONDED:Decker
VOTE
Boyd
Brophy
Decker
Harvey
Hefley
Excused
Jahn
Judd
Kerr
McGihon
Carroll M.
Carroll T.
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: TIE
BILL:HB05-1171
TIME: 02:51:09 PM
MOVED:Jahn
MOTION:Move Amendment L.003 (Attachment C). The motion carried on a vote of 9-1-1.
SECONDED:Boyd
VOTE
Boyd
Yes
Brophy
Yes
Decker
Yes
Harvey
Yes
Hefley
Excused
Jahn
Yes
Judd
Yes
Kerr
Yes
McGihon
No
Carroll M.
Yes
Carroll T.
Yes
Not Final YES: 9 NO: 1 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS











02:55 PM

Ms. Julie Pelegrin, Office of Legislative Legal Services, explained Amendment L.001, which creates language to conform with HB 05-1172 based on whether either or both of the bills pass. The chairman announced that HB 05-1171 would lay over until later in the calendar.


02:59 PM -- Senate Bill 05-016

Representative Vigil, the prime sponsor of SB 05-016, Concerning the Manner in Which Surplus Property is Handled by the Division of Correctional Industries in the Department of Corrections, stated that this was a Legislative Audit Committee bill and explained how the audit committee evaluates a department's compliance with current statutes and makes recommendations. The committee members were provided with talking points on the bill (Attachment E). He then summarized the bill's provisions and explained why the bill comports with the audit committee's findings and recommendations.

The following people testified on the bill:

03:05 PM -- Ms. Heather Sanchez, representing the Office of the State Auditor, responded to questions from the committee.

































03:05 PM

The chairman closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. No amendments were offered by the committee or the bill sponsor.
BILL:SB05-016
TIME: 03:06:25 PM
MOVED:Judd
MOTION:Refer SB 05-016 to the Committee of the Whole. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0-1.
SECONDED:Carroll M.
VOTE
Boyd
Yes
Brophy
Yes
Decker
Yes
Harvey
Yes
Hefley
Excused
Jahn
Yes
Judd
Yes
Kerr
Yes
McGihon
Yes
Carroll M.
Yes
Carroll T.
Yes
Final YES: 10 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


03:07 PM -- House Bill 05-1260

Representative Crane, the prime sponsor of HB 05-1260, Concerning Prohibiting the Performance of an Abortion After the Fetus is Viable, summarized the bill's provisions and explained why he was bringing the bill forward. He responded to questions from the committee regarding the definition of viability outside of the mother's womb and when viability might begin during the mother's pregnancy.

The following people testified on the bill:

03:20 PM -- Mr. Kevin Paul, representing Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, spoke in opposition to the bill. He asked the committee to consider the constitutionality of the legislation in light of U.S. Supreme Court rulings and a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling regarding the definition of viability and who determines viability of a fetus. In essence, says Mr. Paul, the courts have held that viability is a difficult concept to define and it cannot be done in terms of stage of pregnancy. Additionally, determining viability is a medical decision that must be left in the hands of doctors. He responded to questions from the committee regarding his reading of the bill and language that would meet the courts' criteria.









03:32 PM -- Mr. Michael Lawrence, representing himself, spoke in support of the bill. He stated that the bill does not take away a doctor's discretion to determine viability. He also noted that the definition of viability in HB 05-1260 is identical to that in a federal act but differs from the language in Roe v. Wade to which the previous witness was referring. He stated that the bill's medical exemption language is identical to the court's language in other rulings. He added that the bill only addresses certain late-term abortions, affecting an estimated 46 women in Colorado per year. He answered questions from the committee including what might constitute probable cause in the course of prosecuting a violation of this legislation, what proof might be used for such a violation, and why a doctor would be prosecuted for a violation instead of the woman who had the late-term abortion.


03:53 PM

 The chairman closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. No amendments were offered by the committee or the bill sponsor. The bill sponsor made closing comments on the bill and committee members also commented.
BILL:HB05-1260
TIME: 03:57:59 PM
MOVED:Brophy
MOTION:Refer HB 05-1260 to the Committee of the Whole. The motion failed on a vote of 4-6-1.
SECONDED:Harvey
VOTE
Boyd
No
Brophy
Yes
Decker
Yes
Harvey
Yes
Hefley
Excused
Jahn
No
Judd
No
Kerr
Yes
McGihon
No
Carroll M.
No
Carroll T.
No
Not Final YES: 4 NO: 6 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL
















BILL:HB05-1260
TIME: 03:58:55 PM
MOVED:Judd
MOTION:Postpone indefinitely HB 05-1260. The motion carried on a vote of 6-4-1.
SECONDED:Boyd
VOTE
Boyd
Yes
Brophy
No
Decker
No
Harvey
No
Hefley
Excused
Jahn
Yes
Judd
Yes
Kerr
No
McGihon
Yes
Carroll M.
Yes
Carroll T.
Yes
Final YES: 6 NO: 4 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


































04:00 PM -- House Bill 05-1171 (Final action)

The committee returned to consideration of amendments to HB 05-1171. Representative Jahn stated that further amendments to the bill need to be done on the floor, and Representative McGihon discussed several provisions that will be addressed in time for second reading. Other committee members stated their positions on the bill.
BILL:HB05-1171
TIME: 04:05:20 PM
MOVED:McGihon
MOTION:Refer HB 05-1171, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0-1.
SECONDED:Carroll M.
VOTE
Boyd
Yes
Brophy
Yes
Decker
Yes
Harvey
Yes
Hefley
Excused
Jahn
Yes
Judd
Yes
Kerr
Yes
McGihon
Yes
Carroll M.
Yes
Carroll T.
Yes
Final YES: 10 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

























04:07 PM -- House Bill 05-1270 (Final action)

Representative Cadman, the prime sponsor of HB 05-1270, Concerning the Broadcast of an Amber Alert in the Case of an Abducted Fetus, returned to the table to discuss amendments to the bill. Committee members were provided with Amendment L.003 (Attachment F).
BILL:HB05-1270
TIME: 04:07:26 PM
MOVED:Carroll T.
MOTION:Move Amendment L.003 (Attachment F). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:Decker
VOTE
Boyd
Brophy
Decker
Harvey
Hefley
Excused
Jahn
Judd
Kerr
McGihon
Carroll M.
Carroll T.
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection

























BILL:HB05-1270
TIME: 04:08:41 PM
MOVED:Jahn
MOTION:Refer HB 05-1270, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0-1.
SECONDED:Decker
VOTE
Boyd
Yes
Brophy
Yes
Decker
Yes
Harvey
Yes
Hefley
Excused
Jahn
Yes
Judd
Yes
Kerr
Yes
McGihon
Yes
Carroll M.
Yes
Carroll T.
Yes
Final YES: 10 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


04:09 PM -- House Bill 05-1212

Representative McFadyen, the prime sponsor of HB 05-1212, Concerning a Prohibition on the Imprisonment of Certain Inmates in Colorado, explained why she was bringing the bill forward and why she believes it is a problem to accept out-of-state inmates in Colorado's private prisons. Committee members were provided with a Department of Corrections (DOC) news release from the 1999 riot at Crowley County Correctional Facility (Attachment G), a memorandum prepared by Joint Budget Committee staff regarding FY 2004-05 supplemental appropriations to the DOC for the riot at Crowley County (Attachment H), and a 2004 news article about Colorado inmates who are gang leaders and were transferred to a private prison in Texas, then Mississippi (Attachment I). She answered questions from the committee regarding the purpose of the bill and the impact of the bill on private prisons.

The following people testified on the bill:

04:31 PM -- Four individuals came to the table together. Mr. Matt Heimerich, representing Crowley County and Colorado Counties Incorporated, spoke in opposition to the bill. He spoke about the economic impact of private prisons on counties, including property taxes and sales taxes.

04:36 PM -- Mr. Tobe Allumbaugh, representing Crowley County, spoke in opposition to the bill. He reiterated the economic impact of the private prisons on rural areas.










04:38 PM -- Mr. Scott King, representing Huerfano County, spoke in opposition to the bill. He spoke about the economic impact of the private prison on his county, including goods manufactured by inmates that distributed to the community.

04:39 PM -- Mr. Bill Long, representing Bent County, spoke in opposition to the bill. He described the process of opening the first private prison in Colorado, and the service that private prisons provides to the state during tight budget years.

Mr. Heimerich answered questions from the committee regarding property tax paid to counties for state prisons, and how county functions and services would change if the private prisons were to close. Mr. Allumbaugh responded to a question about the adequacy of present staffing levels should another riot occur in the future. In response to further questions, Mr. Heimerich and Mr. Allumbaugh discussed the number of out-of-state prisoners at each of the private facilities and how many incidents in those facilities involve potential threats to the safety and welfare of the inmates, staff, or the surrounding community. Mr. Heimerich then responded to inquiries about consequences for inmates who participated in the riot.

04:48 PM -- Mr. Roger Cain, representing Huerfano County, signed up to testify in opposition to the bill but yielded his time to Representative McFadyen.

04:50 PM -- Mr. Frank Wallace, representing Bent County, spoke in opposition to the bill.

04:51 PM -- Mr. Josh Brown, representing Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), spoke in opposition to the bill. He described CCA's facilities in Colorado and in the United States, and stated that only two incidents in CCA's Colorado facilities involved out-of-state inmates. He also stated that all costs for damage to the facility were incurred by CCA, not Colorado. Mr. Brown noted that CCA has taken corrective action in response to the riot at Crowley. Mr. Brown responded to committee questions regarding changes in reimbursement rates and occupation rates. He also responded to a committee question regarding the terms under which other states send inmates to be housed in private facilities in Colorado.

05:09 PM -- Mr. Mike Harms, representing Morgan County, and Mr. Steve Treadway, representing the city of Brush, came to the table together in opposition to the bill. They echoed prior comments from county officials.

05:15 PM -- Mr. Nolin Renfrow and Mr. L.D. Hay, representing the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC), spoke in opposition to the bill. Mr. Renfrow affirmed prior testimony and provided a historical perspective on the use of private prisons in Colorado. He also stated that given current growth rates, the department projects that the 1,000 currently empty beds in the private facilities will be full within one year. In response to questions from the committee, Mr. Renfrow said that the DOC reviews and, at times, rejects the placement of out-of-state inmates in Colorado's private prison facilities. He also responded to questions regarding the bed shortage and the backlog, and the allegations of inappropriate relationships between staff and inmates at the Brush facility.











05:23 PM -- Sheriff Larry Kuntz, representing the Washington County Sheriff's Office, spoke in opposition to the bill.

05:26 PM -- Mr. Brian Dawe, representing Corrections USA, spoke in support of the bill. He described the human impact of private prisons as opposed to the financial impact.

05:35 PM -- Mr. Frank Smith, representing the Private Corrections Institute, spoke in support of the bill. Committee members were provided with the written testimony of Mr. Joshua Miller of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (Attachment J), Amendment L.001 (Attachment K), Amendment L.002 (Attachment L), and a 2003 report on CCA published by Grassroots Leadership (Attachment M). Mr. Smith described some problems associated with private prisons and CCA, and answered questions from the committee.

05:59 PM -- Mr. Joshua Miller, representing the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, spoke in favor of the bill. He played a short videotape for the committee regarding problems in private prisons across the country. He suggested that the problems CCA had at Crowley are indicative of a systemic problem and were not just an isolated incident. He answered questions from the committee regarding a cost/benefit analysis of placing inmates in private prisons, and whether there are unions for private prison employees.

Ms. Peg Ackerman, representing the County Sheriffs of Colorado, signed up to testify in support of the bill with an amendment but was no longer at the meeting.































06:12 PM

The chairman closed the public testimony portion of the hearing, and the committee began considering amendments.
BILL:HB05-1212
TIME: 06:13:06 PM
MOVED:Carroll T.
MOTION:Move Amendment L.001 (Attachment K). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:McGihon
VOTE
Boyd
Brophy
Decker
Harvey
Hefley
Excused
Jahn
Judd
Kerr
McGihon
Carroll M.
Carroll T.
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


























BILL:HB05-1212
TIME: 06:14:54 PM
MOVED:Carroll T.
MOTION:Move Amendment L.002 (Attachment L). The motion carried on a vote of 6-4-1.
SECONDED:Boyd
VOTE
Boyd
Yes
Brophy
No
Decker
No
Harvey
No
Hefley
Excused
Jahn
Yes
Judd
Yes
Kerr
No
McGihon
Yes
Carroll M.
Yes
Carroll T.
Yes
Not Final YES: 6 NO: 4 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

Prior to the vote, Representative Brophy asks whether the amendment fits under the title, and the chair ruled that it does.
BILL:HB05-1212
TIME: 06:19:48 PM
MOVED:Carroll T.
MOTION:Refer HB 05-1212, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. The motion failed on a vote of 2-8-1.
SECONDED:Carroll M.
VOTE
Boyd
No
Brophy
No
Decker
No
Harvey
No
Hefley
Excused
Jahn
No
Judd
No
Kerr
No
McGihon
No
Carroll M.
Yes
Carroll T.
Yes
Not Final YES: 2 NO: 8 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL

Prior to the vote, several committee members commented on the bill and their position on the legislation.






BILL:HB05-1212
TIME: 06:25:31 PM
MOVED:Carroll T.
MOTION:Postpone indefinitely HB 05-1212. The motion carried on a vote of 8-2-1.
SECONDED:Judd
VOTE
Boyd
Yes
Brophy
Yes
Decker
Yes
Harvey
Yes
Hefley
Excused
Jahn
Yes
Judd
Yes
Kerr
Yes
McGihon
No
Carroll M.
No
Carroll T.
Yes
Final YES: 8 NO: 2 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


06:27 PM -- House Bill 05-1172

Representative Jahn, the prime sponsor of HB 05-1172, Concerning Court Appointments in Domestic Relations Cases Involving Children, explained why the bill was necessary and described some confusion with the current system. Committee members were provided with facts on the bill (Attachment N), Chief Justice Directive 04-08 (Attachment O), Amendment L.001 (Attachment P), and Amendment L.002 (Attachment Q). She then summarized the bill's provisions.

The following people testified on the bill:

06:34 PM -- Ms. Joan Havens, representing herself, spoke in opposition to the bill and stated her concerns with the current system.

06:37 PM -- Mr. Mike Baran, representing himself, spoke in opposition to the bill. He suggested adding the word "specific" to the bill on page 5, line 20, and to amend page 6, line 4.

06:44 PM -- Ms. Judy Schure, representing herself, spoke in opposition to the bill and expressed her concern with the legislation and Chief Justice Directive 04-08. Committee members were provided with information about the bill (Attachment R). Committee members commented.

06:50 PM -- Ms. Andi Leopoldus, representing Colorado Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), spoke in support of the bill. She noted that special advocates are volunteers and reiterated the confusion in the current system between special advocates and the CASA program.








The following people signed up to testify in opposition to the bill but were no longer present at the meeting:
Mr. Michael Pagnozzi, representing himself; and
Ms. Cheryl Burnsite, representing herself.

06:53 PM -- Ms. Teresa Spahn, representing herself, spoke in support of the bill and summarized the recommendations of the commission that studied special advocates and the CASA system.

06:57 PM -- Mr. Phil James, representing the Juvenile Law Section of the Colorado Bar Association, spoke in support of bill.

06:59 PM -- Ms. Marie Avery Moses, representing the Family Law Section of the Colorado Bar Association, spoke in support of the bill.

The following people signed up to testify in support of the bill but were no longer present at the meeting:
Ms. Cyndy Ciancio, representing herself; and
Ms. Michelle Adams, representing Denver CASA.


07:00 PM

The chairman closed the public testimony portion of the hearing, and the committee began considering amendments.
BILL:HB05-1172
TIME: 07:01:18 PM
MOVED:Jahn
MOTION:Move Amendment L.001 (Attachment P). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:Boyd
VOTE
Boyd
Brophy
Decker
Harvey
Hefley
Excused
Jahn
Judd
Kerr
McGihon
Carroll M.
Carroll T.
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection





BILL:HB05-1172
TIME: 07:01:38 PM
MOVED:Jahn
MOTION:Move Amendment L.002 (Attachment Q). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:Boyd
VOTE
Boyd
Brophy
Decker
Harvey
Hefley
Excused
Jahn
Judd
Kerr
McGihon
Carroll M.
Carroll T.
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection
BILL:HB05-1172
TIME: 07:02:29 PM
MOVED:Jahn
MOTION:Refer HB 05-1172, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0-2.
SECONDED:Judd
VOTE
Boyd
Yes
Brophy
Yes
Decker
Yes
Harvey
Excused
Hefley
Excused
Jahn
Yes
Judd
Yes
Kerr
Yes
McGihon
Yes
Carroll M.
Yes
Carroll T.
Yes
Final YES: 9 NO: 0 EXC: 2 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


07:03 PM

The meeting adjourned.