The bill was an idea brought to me by a knowledgeable Durango constituent, Charlie Speno, who after many years of working in the field of care of the elderly and disabled, was made keenly aware of the workforce challenges for nurse aide paraprofessionals.

CNAs are those who provide the direct care to the elderly and disabled and are critically needed in the daily lives of these folks and their families.  The very high rate of turnover in CNAs affects the state and its citizens in a number of ways.  The state spends a lot of its budget in the area of Medicaid services and the costs of training new nurse aides at such a rapid rate contributes to the state’s budget challenges.

HB 1142 was written to revive an expired pilot program and created a statewide direct provider career path that would be offered in educational institutions, such as community colleges.  While the bill didn’t require an employer to pay additional wages for further training, it was anticipated that the new skills acquired would make the CNA more valuable and more interested in staying in his or her job.

Once introduced, HB 1142 went through a fiscal analysis to determine what it would cost the state to implement the bill, if passed.  In this case, the affected state agencies each saw new duties that they’d have to take on if the bill passed, so they reported projected costs to the fiscal analyst.  In the end, the bill was estimated to cost over $100,000 a year and the addition of 3 new state employees to oversee the program.

I worked with the state agencies to see if there was a way to rewrite the bill to eliminate the costs, but I was unsuccessful in reaching an agreement with them.  Despite valuing the same goal that we had, as can often happen in policymaking, it was the “how to get there” that became the wall too high to climb.

In the current economic climate, I couldn’t proceed with those costs attached to the bill.  I pulled the bill by making a motion in the first committee hearing to postpone the bill indefinitely.  The health and human services committee members shared my disappointment that the bill couldn’t go forward this year, but seemed appreciative that I recognized that fact on my own, rather than asking them to pass it as drafted.

My plan is not to give up on the idea or the goal, but, instead to bring together the various stakeholders, including, but not limited to, the state agencies who opposed the bill or attached fiscal impacts to it to work with me to come up with a better, less costly proposal.  This’ll be a project I work on with the stakeholders and supporters of the concept once this session has adjourned.

Helping to provide high quality and affordable care of the elderly and disabled is a responsibility that, like other states, Colorado has assumed over the years.  We have long waiting lists for people who are eligible for services, but Colorado doesn’t have the money to provide those services.

If  those who provide direct care services see their jobs as more financially rewarding and personally satisfying, they’ll likely reverse the current trend and continue to stay in and advance in their jobs.  Given the large number of baby boomers headed into their golden years and our state’s economy in a seriously weakened condition, the sooner we address these challenges, the better.

My father was a dairy farmer when I was born.  He loved cows, whole milk and butter.  He claimed to even love the smell of cow manure.  Dad lived by the “cowboy ethics”, even after his farming days were done.    One of these recognized principles is, “Do what has to be done.”  Another is, “Always finish what you start.” Great advice, but following these principles this week was a real challenge for reasons I’ll explain below.

The Joint Budget Committee, a six member legislative committee, typically presents to the full legislature a package of bills to true up the budget that we passed the year before, but had only economic predictions to go by when we adjourned in May.

These bills are called the supplementals because, in good economic years, there’s often new funding requests submitted for our consideration.  This year, though, with less revenue than had been forecasted, we were considering negative supplementals, or in plain English, we had to make more cuts rather than approving new requests.

The Joint Budget Committee is a bipartisan group, but when the governor is from the same party as the legislative majority, the supplemental process is more of a formality than a true debate.  The minority party has only two ways to object to the proposals running on greased skids and that’s to vote no or to try to amend the bills.

This week, we were faced with cutting state agency expenses and some of us tried to nudge our fellow members to do what has to be done.  That is, we asked them to consider reducing the number of state employees, hopefully through retirements or resignations, by an additional 1.6% from the minimal or no reductions proposed in the bills.

We asked this by proposing amendments to the bills.  We expressed no malice toward any single agency of state government, but suggested all agencies would reduce personnel by the same small percentage, as implemented by the agency heads.  We felt this needed to be done, given the shortfall and the reality of the world outside of state government.

After hours of debate, only one of the amendments passed, the one that cut the Department of Agriculture.  Amendments for all of the other departments failed.  This wasn’t an accident, but political payback for not going along with the proposed package.  At the end of a long day, the only department to take a reduction would be the one most rural legislators feel a particular kinship to, that is, the Department of Agriculture.

At the last minute, the Agriculture committee chairman tried to reverse this result because only the agency under his committee would be reduced.  However, when the vote came to reverse that proposed additional cut, those who had supported it not knowing it would be the only accepted, were on the horns of a dilemma.

Do we say nice try, retreat and vote for the reversal of the earlier vote or do we stand on the principle that you do what has to be done?  The second ethic, finish what you start, came to mind. My father would expect as much.  Most of us stood our ground and voted against the reversal.  Regardless, the final vote came out to repeal the earlier action.

The Department of Agriculture won’t have that 1.6% additional reduction nor should it be the lone agency asked to do so.  Yet, I’m particularly proud of the House members whose livelihoods are in agriculture who stood firm, ready to take the budgetary hits we know are still before us.  That’s leadership that my dad, and theirs, would be proud of.

Probably the most significant bill I voted on, in terms of long term and fiscal impacts, was the proposal dealing with the state pension plan.  Senate Bill 1 proposes a way to close the gap between the future assets and liabilities of the pension fund known as PERA.  SB 1 had already been through the Senate and arrived in the House Finance Committee this past week.  We’d already been briefed by the PERA management on the proposal since returning for the 2010 session, so I’d heard much of the details before the bill got to us.

Everyone acknowledges that the pension fund will go broke, if left unattended.  This obviously has drastic consequences to the retirement benefits for current and future state retirees.  Southwest Colorado has a lot of retirees generally and a number of them are PERA members, so I knew it was important to attend the two PERA membership meetings in Durango this fall.  There, PERA management came to solicit input from PERA members about which direction to head in to deal with the shortfall facing the fund.

At the late August meeting, people agreed that action needed to be taken, but none knew the full range of options or how serious the problem might be.  By the time of the October meeting, the PERA board had assessed the landscape and was proposing a solution that none would like, but they felt would fairly meet the goal of having sufficient assets in a 30 year window of time to meet future obligations.

Clearly, SB 1 isn’t perfect and does have something for everyone to dislike.  But, it’s a solid proposal that meets the goal and doesn’t place the burden of increased payments into the fund solely on the backs of current and future state employees. That’s important if we are to be able to continue to keep and attract high caliber teachers and state employees.  I voted for the proposal in the Finance Committee as well as on the House floor. We’ve got to get PERA on solid footing and, as the daughter of a long time public school teacher, I know how important those retirement benefits were to my parents once my dad retired.

Another bill that created a lot of interest in the district is the rafting bill, House Bill 1188.  This bill proposes to strike a new balance between the commercial rafting industry and private landowners along the river banks.  The impetus for the bill is a battle that has erupted on the Taylor River, near Gunnison, where a landowner has shut down local rafting companies by putting a low bridge in the way of safe passage.

River running is a favorite activity for my family and me.  My kids grew up with lots of time spent camping along various rivers, knowing that each day of a river trip means adventure, hard work, and a chance to appreciate all that a river and its ecosystem has to offer.  We’ve also always been aware of and respected the rights of private property owners as we head downriver.

After hearing from constituents and following the legislators’ debate about the bill, looking at court cases and the history of Colorado river usage, and carefully considering the wording, I can’t support it, in its current form.

In particular, I don’t agree with separating the rights of the boaters into two categories, commercial and non-commercial. I also feel the expansion of the right to use the river to compel landowners to accommodate those who want to portage on riverfront property was not defined sufficiently to give adequate protection to landowners.  Well intentioned, but the bill needs some amendments.

House Bill 1154 would have given legislators nonpartisan, non-special interest driven, data about legislation that proposes a new health insurance mandate.  Colorado currently has over 50 mandates that affect the cost of health insurance in the small group and individual insurance markets.  Few disagree that the mandates cost people with private insurance something; where the bigger debate is, how much.

New mandates have been proposed each year that I’ve been at the legislature. Some I have voted for and some I’ve voted against.  Each time, I’ve been lobbied heavily by special interests who either support or oppose the bill.  Each time, I’ve been flooded with input from opposing sides that simultaneously argue the essential need of the mandate or the allegedly sky high costs associated with adding the coverage to everyone’s policies.

Back in 2003, recognizing the challenges facing legislators trying to make good policy decisions, a bipartisan team carried a bill that provided a review process that all new mandate bills would have to go through.  The review was to done by a special commission known as the Mandates Commission.  The bill passed, but this review requirement was promptly ignored by those it was intended to help, that is, the legislators.

Rep. Curry, a close friend who represents a similarly large and rural area of the state, contacted me this fall to brainstorm about how we could receive better information about proposed health insurance bills before we voted on them.  I admire Rep. Curry for many reasons, but certainly for her consistent dedication to representing her district well.  She approaches her job in a notably professional, not political, manner.

We investigated the current mandate review process, spoke at length with those responsible for that process, and learned who was making it unworkable.  Legislators, or more specifically, past and present leadership who had ignored requiring timely reviews before a bill is voted on.  Coincidentally, this refusal to use the mandates commission happened yet again this past week on a bill mandating coverage for oral chemotherapy drugs.

So, Rep. Curry and I set out to create a better review process to get solid facts to legislators, one dedicated to finding existing data, including the impact of similar mandates in other states, and moving the review process to the nonpartisan research arm of the legislative branch that already provides us with cost information to the state for all bills.

We met with the legislative research director to ask what would make a workable process and, incorporating his feedback, we were thankful that he was willing to take on the task.

The bill also proposed a one year time out from adding new mandates while any federal health care reform takes shape, so Colorado knows what it’s dealing with from the national level.  The proposed moratorium was spun into all sorts of tales in and out of the Capitol and likely will be used against Rep. Curry and me in our futures.  But, on principle, we agreed that it wouldn’t be fair to the many constituents and small businesses in our area who fear even higher premiums next year and urged us to carry the bill, if we removed that from the bill.

The bill died in committee, voted against by legislators who it was intended to help make better policy decisions, especially in these tough economic times.  Having heard of the likely fate of our bill, my first statement to the committee in presenting the bill was, “Why fear knowledge?”  Disturbingly, I never got an answer to that question.

Somewhere after my normal bedtime and still in the committee hearing that had started at 1:30 that afternoon, I noticed that going to bed would be a welcome relief from mentally processing witness testimony and voting on complicated tax legislation.  Little did I realize that we were still five hours or more away from that dream.

The majority party sets the calendar and determines when and how bills will be heard.  In this case, they decided to cram 12 complex and controversial bills through in a single evening.  The second half of the bill package was eventually postponed a day when someone came to their senses and decided to call it a night at 2:30am.

It’s no secret to anyone following the state’s economy that, like every Coloradan, we’re facing serious budget challenges.  State revenue is severely impacted by the recession so action is needed by the legislature to trim the budget, just as most families and businesses are doing now, too.

That said, it was very troubling that the dozen bills that have large impact on many sectors of our economy were set on very short notice.  There was little opportunity for citizens, especially those from the far flung corners of the state, to arrange to come in and testify on the bills.

To be fair to those in power, though, there is a press to get this year’s budget shortfall dealt with because all signs indicate that once we get to work on next year’s budget in late March, things will be even more severe in terms of the additional budget cuts that’ll be needed.

The critical points for me that were being debated in this round of budget cutting through tax increases focus on whether it’s the public or private sector that must shoulder most of the current budget shortfall.  There’s also always the overarching question as to whether a proposal is a tax increase or not, subject to TABOR’s requirement of being put to a vote of the people, and people argue for hours on each individual bill.

A shortage of time to make tough decisions, though, is not justification for ignoring good process and constitutional mandates, whether they involve funding K-12 under Amendment 23 or not raising taxes without a vote of the people as required by TABOR.

I didn’t support any of the proposed tax changes, although I fully acknowledge the need for an equal amount of cuts to be made in state government.  Listening to the testimony, I was convinced that adding more tax burden on the business sector, whether it is taking away an existing credit, exemption or adding a newly imposed tax, is short term gain only.  Colorado’s economic recovery depends on people having jobs.  We should go back to the drawing board and follow the medical creed of first do no harm.  We shouldn’t pass legislation that will jeopardize those fortunate enough to have a job today.

Unfortunately in our lengthy hearings, whenever a legislator or a citizen witness pushed back on the proposed tax package, the response was a harsh bark of “What would you cut instead?”  My suggestion is, let’s not just throw that question out there as a conversation stopper, but ask it and mean it.  Time for all hands on deck, if only the ship’s captain and crew will allow it.

HB10-1189, HB10-1190, HB10-1191, HB10-1192, HB10-1193, HB10-1194, HB10-1195, HB10-1196, HB10-1197, HB10-1198, HB10-1199, HB10-1200.

Last week was a textbook example of a time for necessary confrontation.  Given the press and controversy around House Bill 1067, which, if passed, would have dramatically cut the amount of state reimbursement for Native American tuition waivers at Fort Lewis College, I’d like to give you my view of what happened in the thankfully short life that this bill had.

I’m not in the same party as the bill sponsor or the governor’s administration, but I also have a lot of good bills that I want to see survive the legislative session.  Therefore, I don’t pick a fight just for the sake of fighting with the other side.

However, HB 1067 definitely had to do with Native Americans in my district which you can plainly see from the title of the bill.  It reads “Concerning a requirement that the state fund 100% of the cost of instruction for nonresident Native American students enrolled at Fort Lewis College”.  In talking with fellow legislators about the bill, many found the most striking and disturbing thing about it was the isolated way a proposed budget cut was being made to one college and to an obligation that remains unique in Colorado to Fort Lewis College’s establishment as an education institution.

Plain and simple, there was a 1911 contract between the State of Colorado and the federal government.  The deal was Colorado accepted the original Fort Lewis land and buildings for free, and in turn, committed to providing free tuition for the education of Native American students there.  In the 1970’s, Colorado tried to unilaterally change the terms of the tuition waiver and twice lost the case in court,

This year, HB 1067 again tried to change the terms of the waiver, but was also fatally flawed.  When you try to change the terms of a contract, you need at the table the parties who entered into it in the first place.  If changes are to be made, the federal government needs to be renegotiating the contract with Colorado.  The college is but a third party who receives the benefits and obligations of the contract.

What also generated the massive outcry was the reality that Fort Lewis could not possibly absorb a unilateral change of the contract amounting to a cut of the $1.8 million without severely impacting the education of all students at Fort Lewis (See Fiscal Note).  Remember that this cut would be in addition to the twice as large cut to Fort Lewis proposed in the regular budget process this year.

At no time did I view the bill as racially motivated and in the time I’ve known the bill sponsor, Rep. Karen Middleton, she has struck me as one very experienced in, and a great advocate for, higher education.  She didn’t know the history and importance of the Native American students at Ft. Lewis or the unique obligation taken on by the 1911 contract.   I appreciate her willingness to take in information that was new to her on short notice and committing to withdraw her bill.

While the information was new to Rep. Middleton, it wasn’t new to the Ritter administration.  In addition to the FLC officials meetings with them, I also met in December, nearly a month before the bill was introduced, to raise serious concerns about the proposed FLC cuts, including to the tuition waiver.

Thank you to everyone who called and wrote about their opposition to the bill and to the FLC students who were ready to head to the Capitol. Adding your voice to the democratic process matters very much indeed.

Despite the oppressive atmosphere already present in the Capitol, I’m looking forward to the session ahead.  This is the time to bring the ideas from home up to Denver to see if we can improve the functioning of state government.  I field phone calls, emails, letters and meet with a lot of people in the district during the interim and that input is very valuable to me once I’ve returned for a new legislative session.

My bills are being introduced and are starting along the path of being sent to a committee to be heard for the first time.  My first bill to be presented is to add the voluntary contribution check off box to the state income tax forms for the 2-1-1 call centers in Colorado (HB10-1073).

Adding the tax form check off is an efficient way to support this privately provided service.  It’s particularly important to the southwest corner of Colorado as currently we’re the only area in the state without the ability to call 2-1-1 to help people in need find assistance for such basics as food, clothing and shelter.  These are difficult times and, as our local United Way pointed out to me during the interim, this kind of help is needed now more than ever.

In addition to the bill work, we’re setting up my legislative office with my legislative aide and intern and going through the getting to know you stages of a new work team.  They’ll be a great help in responding to constituent concerns.

Understandably, I’ve heard from a number of constituents who are concerned about the governor’s proposed budget cuts to Fort Lewis College. I’ve been in a number of meetings about this, here and at home, and will do my best to educate legislators and other policy makers about the negative impacts such significant cuts would have, especially with such a short time frame to plan for them.

There are really two different cuts proposed to Fort Lewis. One is similar to cuts proposed for all state colleges and universities, although as proposed, ours is disproportionately higher than the other schools.

The second cut is a large reduction in state reimbursement for the tuition waivers for Native American students.  Fort Lewis College is rightfully proud of, and benefits greatly from, the cultural diversity that comes with its Native American students.  The tuition waiver for such students is a legal obligation that was taken on by the state long ago when it accepted the fort property set aside by the federal government for an Indian Reservation School, which later became Fort Lewis College.  While the proposed budget cut doesn’t eliminate the waiver for the Native American student, the practical impact of the significantly reduced reimbursement will negatively affect all of the college’s students and faculty.

With term limits, we have very few legislators who are familiar with the unique history and obligations of Fort Lewis College.  Unless they or family members attended Fort Lewis, most also don’t realize what an economic driver the college is to our area, especially important during the winter months and in a bad economy.

Our challenge, and the challenge extends to each person, business owner and the area’s elected officials who values Fort Lewis College for whatever reasons, is to make Governor Ritter, his department heads and the rest of the state legislators know that, while we’re prepared to do our part in the necessary state belt tightening, those cuts must be proportionately fair and meet the state’s longstanding legal obligations.