Status:  HB10-1025 has passed through the House and is currently awaiting a hearing in Senate Health & Human Services Committee.

HB10-1027:  Medicaid Hospice Life Expectancy

Status:  HB10-1027 has passed through the House Health & Human Services Committee and is currently awaiting a hearing in House Appropriations Committee.

HB10-1073:  Colorado 2-1-1 Checkoff

Rep. Roberts (Prime Sponsor) and Sen. Sandoval (Senate Sponsor):  This bill would allow for the addition of a line to the Colorado State Individual Income Tax Return Form, whereby individual taxpayers may make a voluntary contribution benefiting the Colorado 2-1-1 First Call for Help Fund.

Status:  HB10-1073 passed out of House Finance Committee on January 20th and is awaiting hearing in House Appropriations Committee.

HB10-1105:  Probate Code Compensation and Costs

Status:  HB10-1105 has passed through the House and is awaiting hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

HB10-1122:  Medical Orders Scope of Treatment

Status:  HB10-1122 has passed through the House and is awaiting hearing in the Senate Health & Human Services Committee

HB10-1142:  Direct Care Provider Career Path Program

Status:  HB10-1142 has been Postponed Indefinitely in House Health & Human Services Committee

HB10-1154:  Mandates Analysis Leg Council Moratorium

Status:  HB10-1154 has been Postponed Indefinitely in House State, Veterans & Military Affairs.

HJR10-1015:  SW CO Access Denver TV Broadcasts

Status:  HJR10-1015 is awaiting introduction on the House Floor.

SB10-027:  Fine Illegal Surface Water Diversions

Status:  SB10-027 has passed through the Senate and the House Agriculture, Livestock & Natural Resources.  The bill is awaiting 2nd reading on the House Floor.

SB10-082:  Repeal S Ute Env Commn Term Limits

Status:  SB10-027 has passed through the Senate and the House Health & Human Services Committee.  The bill is awaiting 2nd reading on the House Floor.

SJM10-001:  2-1-1 Telephone Service

Status:  SJM10-001 has been introduced in the Senate and is awaiting hearing on the Senate Floor.

- Signed by Governor on March 18th, 2009

HB09-1099:  CO Youth Advisory Council

-  Signed by Governor on April 3rd, 2009

HB09-1122:  Age Limit Youthful Offender System

-  Signed by Governor on April 2nd, 2009

HB09-1232:  Med Orders For Scope of Treatment

-  Postponed Indefinitely in House Health & Human Services Committee on February 20th, 2009

HB09-1241:  Probate Code Omnibus

-  Signed by Governor on April 22nd, 2009

HB09-1252:  Expand Health Access Pilot San Luis Valley

-  Signed by Governor on June 2nd, 2009

HJR09-1017:  Hospice Palliative Care Interim Study

- Approved by both Chambers on May 6th, 2009

SB09-043:  San Juan/ Pueblo Community College Merger

-  Signed by Governor on May 20th, 2009

SB09-047:  Crime Victim Services Advisory Board

- Signed by Governor on April 16th, 2009

SB09-106:  Water Supply Reserve Account Extension

-  Signed by Governor on June 2nd, 2009

SB09-124:  Extend Ag Energy-Related Projects

-  Signed by Governor on May 15, 2009

SJR09-026:  Colorado American Indian Heritage

-  Approved by both chambers on March 30th, 2009

SJR09-049:  Earth Day Recognition

-  Approved by both chambers on April 22nd, 2009

SJR09-054:  Mental Health Month

- Approved by both chambers on March 4th, 2009

*If you would like more information on any of the bills that I have sponsored, please go to http://www.leg.state.co.us/ or contact me at one of the following:

District Office

P.O. Box 3373

Durango, CO 81302

(970) 259-1589

State Capitol

200 E. Colfax Ave., Room 271

Denver, CO 80203

During Session:  (303) 866-2914

Email:  staterepellenroberts@gmail.com

- Signed by Governor on March 20th, 2008

HB08-1144:  Sunset Health Care Credentials App

HB08-1153:  Probate Code Fiduciary Oversight

- Signed by Governor on April 17th, 2008

HB08-1157:  Youth Advisory Council

- Signed by Governor May 22nd, 2008

- Official Youth Council Website

HB08-1215:  Sunset Community Contracted Health care

- Signed by Governor on March 26th, 2008

HB08- 1217:  Sexual Assault Victim Protections

-  Signed by Governor on March 31st, 2008

HB08-1264:  Elec Read-Only Access to Court Records

- Signed by Governor on May 27th, 2008

HB08-1383:  Nursing License Inactive Statues

- Signed by Governor on June 2nd, 2008

HJR08-1016:  FCC Let SW Colorado Get Denver TV Stations

- Approved by both chambers on April 18th, 2008

HJR08-1017:  National Women’s History Museum

-  Approved by both chambers on March 28th, 2008

SB08-109:  Patient Information Report Requirements

-  Postponed Indefinitely in Senate Health & Human Services Committee on February 8th, 2008

SB08-113:  Continue Uniform Health Care Credentials

-  Postponed Indefinitely in House Health & Human Services Committee on March 11th, 2008

SB08-156:  Warrants Drawn On Wildlife Cash Fund

- Signed by Governor on May 22nd, 2008

*If you would like more information on any of the bills that I have sponsored, please go to http://www.leg.state.co.us/ or contact me at one of the following:

District Office

P.O. Box 3373

Durango, CO 81302

(970) 259-1589

State Capitol

200 E. Colfax Ave., Room 271

Denver, CO 80203

During Session:  (303) 866-2914

Email:  staterepellenroberts@gmail.com

- Signed by Governor on March 3rd, 2007

HB07-1105:  Korean War Veteran Special License Plate

- Signed by Governor on April 9th, 2007

HB07-1108:  Smoking Ban Clarify Cigar Bar Exemption

-Postponed Indefinitely in Senate State, Veterans & Military Affairs on March 21st, 2007

HB07-1219:  Health Care Special Districts

- Signed by Governor on May 24th, 2007

HB07-1252:  Oil & Gas Surface Owners & Operators

- Signed by Governor on May 29th, 2007

HB07-1294:  Limited Name Check EMT Certification

- Signed by Governor on April 26th, 2007

SB07-078:  Restore Mandatory Offer Hospice Care

- Signed by Governor on April 11th, 2007

SB07-198:  Severance Tax Coalbed Methane Seepage

- Signed by Governor on May 31, 2007

SB07-224:  At-risk Adult Protection Teams

- Signed by Governor on May 22nd, 2007

SJR07-024:  Budget Cuts American Indian Fed Programs

-Approved by both Houses on March 27th, 2007

*If you would like more information on any of the bills that I have sponsored, please go to http://www.leg.state.co.us/ or contact me at one of the following:

District Office

P.O. Box 3373

Durango, CO 81302

(970) 259-1589

State Capitol

200 E. Colfax Ave., Room 271

Denver, CO 80203

During Session:  (303) 866-2914

Email:  staterepellenroberts@gmail.com

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.