Responding to the results of a survey of over 700 youths across Colorado, COYAC has identified teen suicide as its number one priority.  Not satisfied with just calling attention to the issue, these youths want to see positive change which can only be measured by a lowering of the number of teens who commit suicide.

This is a very heavy topic for teenagers to choose to tackle as the youth advisory council to Colorado’s legislature.  It takes considerable courage and foresight on their part to devote their time and energy to this effort.  None of that escaped the attention of the legislators who listened to members of COYAC testify about their research and reasons, many of them personal, for choosing to shine a light on this very troublesome issue that touches Colorado’s students, their friends, families, schools and communities.

The COYAC members worked with a legislative drafter to write a resolution raising awareness of teen suicide in Colorado and they’re proposing the formation of a working group to develop strategies and possible teacher training to spot the warning signs of a teen contemplating suicide.  I’m one of four legislators who are non-voting members of the COYAC and this bipartisan team is the prime sponsors of the resolution.

The resolution, which can be read at www.leg.state.co.us, was presented by COYAC in the House Education Committee and passed unanimously.  A few days later, the resolution was passed unanimously by the full House after lengthy supportive discussion by the legislators.  Next procedural steps for the resolution will include being heard in the Senate Education Committee and then on to the Senate floor.

I sponsored the original legislation setting up the COYAC in 2008 with the participation of youths from Southwest Colorado who helped in the bill drafting and testifying in support of setting up Colorado’s own state level youth advisory council.  Several years have passed since COYAC’s start and many students have graduated from COYAC and are out in the bigger world beyond high school.  Each year, I’ve had the privilege and inspiration of working with the COYAC members.

When COYAC was beginning, I remember a student asking then Governor Ritter in a meeting we had with him, if he, a former city youth council member, felt that COYAC would really make a difference.  He replied that it would be a function of how much kids are willing to participate in the political process. He said they needed to be more than a “hood ornament” for the Legislature.  They’ve met that challenge in spades.

COYAC’s weighed in with the state legislators since 2008 on issues important to Colorado’s youths.  As meaty as education reform, environmental concerns, and teen health are, addressing teen suicide is the most serious and ambitious yet.

The student members from COYAC’s first year of existence and every year since would join me in being very proud of the work of their successors in bringing the youth perspective and concern into the Capitol, particularly on the incredibly complex challenge of reducing teen suicide that we all, as a state, must face.

While the need to be business friendly is easy to identify, accomplishing that is another matter.  Every governor and legislature in the country is saying the same thing, all hoping to retain existing businesses and add new businesses who might be looking to move their location.

It will be an interesting session as we see bills coming forward that claim to bring us to a better business climate, but, undoubtedly, will approach the same goal in very different ways.

Hearing from my constituents as to how proposed bills will impact their businesses is very important. Getting in touch with me quickly is also very important.

An example of a bill that passed last year, with no debate or points of contention at the time of voting that I was aware of, was the regular review bill for the public utilities commission, known as the PUC.  Unfortunately, slid into the section related to the towing industry was an amendment that imposed a new bonding requirement for tow truck operators, who already carry liability insurance, often for coverage to $1 million.

Unfortunately, only after the bill had passed and been signed into law by the governor did I find out there was a serious problem because of this amendment.

This new cost of doing business with the added bonding requirement was sufficiently high enough to put many of the towing businesses in my district at risk of closing or laying off employees.  I learned of this hardship when one of my constituents, a Bayfield tow truck operator, took the time to get in touch with me through an appropriately very unhappy email.  I also heard from tow operators from Montrose to Cortez and, after word spread of a bill I’m now carrying, from Grand Junction to Mead.

As many of us have learned the hard way, when there’s an accident, either minor or major or a vehicle is off the road stuck in snow or mud, the tow truck operator is a critical part of the clean up, literally.

Since the bill was law by the time I heard about the harmful part, I could only attempt to change it this session, which I am doing.  My bill will get rid of the bonding requirement for smaller counties and reduce the amount of the bond required in the urban areas.  The PUC has been very responsive to the concerns raised by my constituents and me and has provided guidance and support in fixing this situation.

There’s opposition to my bill, ironically from within the ranks of the towing operators as the amendment to last year’s bill was proposed by some of the larger urban towing operations.

Debate on last year’s amendment and consideration of the impacts on towing operators across the state should have happened a year ago, but better late than never.

If we’re serious about being a business friendly state, we can start by fixing our mistakes and this would be a good start.  The bill is set to be heard in the Senate transportation committee on January 31st.

Since the legislature meets only 4 months a year, 100 legislators arrive in Denver each January with our own ideas of how the state can do a better job serving its citizens. We’ve been in touch with our constituents over the interim and have heard about their experiences with state government.  Usually, the bulk of what we hear is what’s not working well and that motivates us to seek change, whatever form that might take.

Not all of these legislative ideas are good ones, but the debate and voting process within the legislature, especially under split political party control, weeds out some of the least workable ideas.

Bureaucracies are not known for seeking change and that often leads to considerable tension when the legislators return to Denver with their ideas for improvement.

With term limits and election turnover keeping legislators’ time at the Capitol fairly brief, I’ve wondered if some state agencies cope with this tension by internally deciding that if they just wait it out, the particular legislators with the new ideas will be gone soon enough and they really won’t have to change after all.

Other legislators also felt too much of a disconnect between the legislative and executive branches as it relates to serving our same citizens.  Two years ago, a bill passed with strong bipartisan support, called the “State Measurement for Accountable, Responsive, and Transparent (SMART) Government Act.”  That’s a pretty fancy and optimistic title for a piece of legislation, but I voted for it as I saw it as hopefully encouraging a more productive way to bring the legislative and executive branches of government in alignment on the goals of serving our mutual constituents.

It’s standard practice that the agencies report annually to the legislative committees charged with oversight of those agencies.  Under the new approach fully in place this year, though, there are a lot more specifics to be provided by the agencies to the legislators.  With the more detailed agency plans and strategies, the goal is that legislative oversight of the executive branch will be more interactive and informed than in the past.

This kind of strategic planning often occurs in the private sector, whether a large corporation or a small mom and pop business, but it’s new in state government, at least as it relates to the legislature on a year to year basis.

A fair question is whether this more intensive process of meetings and reporting by the agencies will create the desired accountability and productivity or whether it will only mean lots more meetings and reports earlier each January.

Colorado’s employees are a great asset to our state and a number of them have been also frustrated with the difficulties in making positive change occur. A clearer focus on performance results and not defaulting to the status quo is what businesses are doing across our country. A greater emphasis on this approach in the delivery of state government services should bring the accountability and effectiveness that citizens have been crying out for.

Winter on Red Mountain Pass