I’m sheparding through a couple of bills in the Senate yet, hoping they make it through before the close of the session.  One of these is the second version of the towing bill, which like the first bill that was killed earlier in the session, gets rid of the state’s bond requirement that was added last year.

I’m grateful that Sen. Steve King, of Grand Junction, and Rep. Don Coram, of Montrose, joined me in the effort of sponsoring this bill.  It’s an example of how Western Slope legislators often join forces and work hard together for the benefit of our region and the whole state.

The legislature meets for 120 days each January through May and, if a bill gets killed, there’s often the chance that it can be reworked and introduced a second time.  We did that in the case of the towing bond bill because it was that important to get it passed this year before a second year of putting some indisputably good towers, unable to get the bond because of personal credit history issues, out of work.

Many take for granted the difficult and often hazardous job of the tow truck operator who clears an accident scene or rescues stranded tourists and locals.  It’s only when no one is there to answer the call for help that we might realize the great value of the work they do, often in miserable weather and the middle of the night.

Fixing the problem the legislature caused last year by adding a bond requirement to the tow operators’ cost of doing business without adding any consumer protection will be personally significant on a few levels.  First, there’s the most urgent matter of getting people, some whom I’ve gotten to know through this issue, back to work.

There are towers who were able to get the bond, but only through borrowing money from friends, relatives or business colleagues to pay for it, and some who could afford it, but had not caused a single problem justifying a new requirement being placed on them.  So, secondly, we’re doing the right thing by reducing the cost of doing business in Colorado.

Another positive outcome of raising the issue of the tow bond problem is that there was a lesson for all legislators, including me, buried underneath this issue.  That is, in the year before, we’d not thought through enough the consequences of accepting a “solution” proposed by an industry group that represented only a part of those who work in the field.  It was a small amendment placed on a long bill that wasn’t even challenged at the time that made a huge negative impact on many Coloradans.

Mistakes and unintended consequences inevitably happen during the legislative process, but the question is whether legislators will recognize them as such and, even more importantly, will we take the time and energy to fix them?  Hopefully, at least in this case, the answer is yes.

The special session is to consider seven topics related to a number of bills that died on the House calendar as the clock ran out on our constitutional requirement that a session last no more than 120 days.

I was concerned earlier about the backlog of bills to be heard before the end of the session and I suggested in an earlier column that we work late into the nights, if need be.  We did work late some nights, but obviously, not enough.

Returning to the topic of the regular session, though, I had guessed that politics would rule the day.  That happened, yet we also did a lot of good work.  The budget bill and the school finance bill, the only two state constitutional “must do’s” each session, were passed with broad bipartisan support.  Because of a mildly improved economy, cautious optimism in the budget process and the politically divided legislature, we were prudent in crafting the next budget.

I’m very pleased with the session in terms of what I’d set out to work on this year.  My persistent harping in committee, on the Senate floor and through introduced and debated resolutions that we develop the necessary fiscal discipline to stop backfilling the budget by taking severance tax funds from local governments and water projects was mostly heeded this year.

It helped to be able to describe to legislators from areas unfamiliar with energy and water development just what happens on the ground in a district like mine when those monies are transferred away from their intended purpose.

Another goal I had was to work on reducing the costs of healthcare in Colorado and several bills I carried, aimed at doing that, were passed.  One addresses getting a better handle on Medicaid fraud in our system, another expands the use of assisted living facilities over nursing homes when appropriate, and the third encourages innovation in new payment methods that reward health value over volume.

All of these new healthcare efforts will need monitoring and follow up, but we’ve got a chance to bend the notorious cost curve in healthcare spending with healthier patients.  I aim to continue seriously pursuing these goals.

Last, but not least, is the passage of the bill eliminating the towing operator bond and improving the existing regulatory process in that industry.  If you’ve been following that saga, it’s proof that constituent contact does indeed make a difference and I’ve got some great people in my district to prove that.

We went through our share of trials and tribulations to get to this point, but with dedicated efforts from tow operators, certain fellow legislators and the governor’s administration, we ended up with a much better situation than what was in place at the end of last session.

I’ve enjoyed working with my Republican caucus; we exchange ideas, learn from each other and find that we share more common ground than not.  Getting to know my Democratic colleagues in the Senate better was another positive.

Now, on to the special session and home!

In particular, we debated allowing civil unions in Colorado, followed the next day by the resolution to send to the U.S. Congress, urging the adoption of meaningful religious exemptions allowed under the federal health care act.

The Senate Democratic majority decides the legislative calendar, so the timing of these legislative proposals back to back was purposeful and perplexing, given the lateness in the session and the political polarization they were bound to provoke.

To make two long stories short, I spoke and voted in favor of both of these bills, which, to a casual observer might be hard to understand since one is characterized as a liberal position while the other is conservative.

I’ve mentioned before the challenge of representing a very politically diverse district. On bills like these there’s no universal district position, no common sense measuring stick to use.  At these times, I turn to my own thoughts and principles, knowing that either choice in voting brings dissatisfied voters and future political consequences.  That’s the price I pay for voting my conscience and I accept that fact.

The foundation for my vote on both of these bills is shaped by my view of the U.S. Constitution, which I swore to uphold each time I’ve been elected.   While the Constitution doesn’t provide exact answers, its guiding principles are what I think of as I arrive at how I’ll vote on these difficult, divisive issues.

For me, voting for civil unions is an extension of the 14^th amendment of the Bill of Rights, providing for the government’s promise of equal protection of all citizens.  Equal protection means to be treated with justice, regardless of an individual’s personal characteristics.

The bill before us provided that no one of any faith would be required to perform a civil union and it’s a governmental, not religious, status, which is why it’s called a civil union.  Colorado’s state constitution doesn’t allow gay marriage and this bill recognizes that.

I believe equal protection means a couple, straight or gay, in a committed relationship, and may be raising a family, should be able to achieve a status recognized by the government that will provide certain rights and responsibilities.

On the next topic, while challenging to implement, the First Amendment’s right to religious freedom is clear that the government can not infringe upon this most personal and individual right.  The intersection of the new national health insurance mandate and religious faiths such as Christian Scientists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics and other religious traditions is complex and problematic.

Although I’m not a practicing Quaker, spanning hundreds of years, many in my family tree were and are.  Protecting religious freedom, even if inconvenient for national health care policy, is a basic, fundamental American principle.

We appropriately accommodate those who object to military service, those who refuse vaccinations for religious reasons, why are we not even trying to find a way to provide employers a means to sponsor health insurance that doesn’t violate their faith principles?

Supporting these controversial measures is tied together by my understanding and respect for the Constitution.  Reasonable people will disagree with me. I accept that, too.