Settling The Employment Credit Score

More Consumer Protections

Today's post is about SB13-018, Permissible Use of Credit Information By Employers sponsored by Sen. Ulibarri and Rep. Fischer. 

This session I seem to be drawn toward bills that enhance consumer protections. My series of posts concerning HB13-1046, Social Media Privacy Protections, can be found here. Between the two of them a common thread is their Senate sponsor Jessie Ulibarri. A freshman to the legislature, he's really come out of the gate swingin' bills co-sponsored by more experienced House Democrats Angela Williams and Randy Fischer. Both are expected to be signed into law by the Governor. 

Back to SB18. This is a bill designed to prohibit employers using consumer credit checks to screen potential new hires or their existing employees. That sounds a bit odd, right? Have you ever heard of that happening? In truth, and this is proven by employment records*, about 1 in 7 people are turned down from being hired because the employer ran a credit check on them and didn't like what they found. According the primary source of the argument in favor of the bill, a Demos study on the topic, 1 in 4 people report that their credit scores have been checked as a condition for employment. 

The thrust for why SB18 exists can be found in the executive summary of the Demos study that the sponsors refer to during testimony. 

1. Credit scores to not reflect a person's integrity or work ethic as an employee.
2. Credit scores are commonly ruined by uncontrolled forces: the recent economic crash, bouts of unemployment, unexpected medical costs and associated crushing medical debt, divorce, identity theft, military separation, student debt, and even residential relocation.
3. Race. Blacks and Latinos have on average worse credit scores than Whites. 
4. For all of the above, using credit scores to evaluate workers becomes a discriminatory practice and effectively perpetuates an individual's bad credit score ie. Being unemployed leads to bad credit which prevents one from being hired, which continues unemployment and a bad credit score.

In Committee

SB18 was heard in the House Business, Labor, Economic and Workforce Development committee March 7th (full audio recording is here). It had previously survived the Senate side of things where it had been introduced and substantially amended to exclude certain employers from the credit check prohibition. They included employers that dealt with Defense, National Security, Intelligence, or Space Agencies of the federal government. 

Also from the Senate, and this is the big one, an employer may require an employee credit check if they are a bank or financial institution, if they are required to by law, or if the credit check is "substantially related to the employee's current or potential job and the employer has a bona fide purpose for the information".

All that aside things went smoothly enough for Rep. Fischer in the House committee. Republican Reps. Brian DelGrosso and Libby Szabo were critical of the bill. They repeatedly (and redundantly) asked Fischer to explain why the hiring tool of credit checks should be taken away from employers, to which he referenced the Demos report findings of basically "credit scores have not been found to accurately predict an individual's work integrity". 

Democrat Rep. Millie Hamner expressed personal offense at the notion of credit checks being used to prevent individuals from finding work in today's tough economic times. Naturally enough, and perhaps too frequently nowadays, the battle lines seemed to be drawn along party lines, D vs. R. As the discussion played out Fischer was able to assuage many of the concerns from DelGrosso and at least acknowledge Szabo's (although her's were noticeably more aggressive). 

The major amendment that came from committee was one excluding state or local law enforcement agencies from the ban on using credit score checks. SB18 successfully passed on to House second readings (CoW) where it's been put on hold for the time being.

Field Trip

March 7th was a day I made it down to the capitol! Which is always better because you get to experience it in person. In committee you can feel the tension or jubilation in the room, see members sweat over a crucial vote, watch body language of sparring opponents/proponents. It's exciting stuff! So here are a few pictures. 

Above is a photo I took from the Senate committee lobby. In the immediate foreground is a Sergeant At Arms. They are the stewards of the capitol. If you're wearing a hat in committee they will ask you to remove it. If you're somewhere you shouldn't be they'll excuse you. And allegedly, if you're walking down the center isle of the Senate or House chambers they will tackle you to the ground. (Center isle is for elected folks only). 

Take a moment to notice how packed the place is. Among them: senators, lobbyists, stakeholders, students, and many others planning to testify or observe committees. The committee rooms are behind the doors lining the hall on the left and right.   

This is the House Business committee SB18 was heard in. The room itself (LSB-A) is actually situated in the old capitol museum across the street from the capitol building. If it weren't for my phone's camera settings you'd be able to see the gorgeous capitol outside those windows. The committee chair sits in center of the half ringed desk, flanked by fellow committee members.  Sponsors of the bill being heard, and those giving testimony, sit at the desk facing the committee members. Audience members sit in the back. In the photo the committee is about to commence. Rep. Fischer, sponsor of SB18, is off to the side talking with folks and preparing notes.

From left to right we have Representatives: (R) DelGrosso, (R) Holbert, (D) Rosenthal, (D) Exum, committee staff person, empty chair of Chair (D) Williams, vice chair (D) Kraft-Tharp, (D) Ryden, (D) Hamner, (R) Navarro, walking to her seat (R) Szabo, (R) Nordberg.  


*Several years ago a law was passed that required employers to send formal notices to potential hires (and the Department of Labor) that they were passed up because of their credit score numbers. 

Healthy Concern, Pt. 1

HB13-1068

On Site Inspections of Medicaid Providers

By Rep. Young and Sen. Roberts

Close Inspection

Compliance bills are ones advocated for by state departments that keep Colorado law aligned with federal law. 1068 is one of those. 

Inside the 2010 federal Affordable Care Act is a bit that gives state agencies that administer Medicaid the authority to check in on their providers without giving advance notice of the inspection visit. The Department of Health Care Policy and Finance is responsible for delivering Medicaid to Coloradoans, and they are the major actors behind 1068 and its intent to comply with federal law. 

Under current law the Department must provide 10 day advance notice of any inspection, audit, or on-site visits to a Medicaid provider. 

In Committee

1068 was routed to the House Public Health Care and Human Services Committee chaired by Rep. Primavera and vice chaired by Rep. Young (the sponsor of the bill). As Young explained, after the bill was introduced many stakeholders took issue with the language not being tight enough and having the potential to negatively affect them. Together, the Department and concerned parties worked together to re-draft the bill to a state agreeable to all. Completely altering a bill is called a strike below because it wipes clean everything below the enacting clause portion. 

The enacting clause

The introduced version of the bill can be found here, and the engrossed version can be found here.   

Witnesses lined up to testify in support of the bill as amended (the new version) included the Colorado Hospital Association, the Colorado Association of Medical Equipment Suppliers, former Representative Young (not to be confused with current Representative Young), and of course the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing. All of them were involved in remaking the bill. 

Although no party was terribly specific about the changes that were made, Rep. Young explained that most of the new language was borrowed from the federal version of the law. It includes specifics on categories of risk for providers, pre-enrollment and post enrollment site visits, and an important section that ensures inspectors will not be paid on commission for violations they uncover. 

Everyone harmonized on the bill. With few questions from committee members the strike below amendment passed unanimously, the bill passed to the committee of the whole unanimously which sent it to third readings, and earlier today 1068 passed the House third reading vote unanimously too. It's now off to the Senate where I predict smooth sailing clear to Hickenlooper's hands. 

More Ahead

1068 is not the only health care related bill this session. Among many more that I plan to keep track of are 

• 1115 which repeals the outdated program CoverColorado
• 008 which eliminates a waiting period in the CHP+ program
• 026 which updates the Michael Skolnik Medical Transparency Act
• 044 which deals with prepaid inpatient health plans
• 1175 which limits Medicaid expansion -- Postponed Indefinitely on 2/19/13 --
• 1196 which requires enhanced reporting by the Department
• 1199 regarding fee collection for nursing home providers -- Passed thirds in the House, now in the Senate --

Social Media Privacy Protection, Pt. 2

HB13-1046 by Rep. Williams and Sen. Ulibarri

Employee User Name Password Protection

 

Catching Up

We last left this bill as it was being introduced in January. The bill is essentially an employee protection mechanism designed to prevent employers from spying on social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc) by prohibiting the forced, or coerced, disclosure of login passwords. 

Committee Work

1046 arrived in the Business, Labor, Economic & Workforce Development committee chaired by its sponsor, Rep. Williams, on February 12th. You can check out the full audio recording of the hearing here, or read on for the summary. The bill survived, but many substantial amendments were added to it. While presenting her bill, Rep. Williams situated herself facing the committee and Rep. Kraft-Tharp (the Vice Chair) became acting Chair.

Of the concerned parties lined up to testify

1. The Colorado Dept. of Corrections 
2. The Colorado Dept. of Labor and Employment
3. The Colorado Defense Lawyers Association
4. The Colorado Association of Police Chiefs
5. The Employment Lawyers Association

All would support it if certain amendments were passed. 

The Dept. of Corrections wanted an exemption, arguing that being able to monitor their staff's social media was crucial for workplace safety in a dangerous prison environment. Things like inmate+staff relationships are prohibited, and the current best way to discover their existence is through social media.  The Association of Police Chiefs wanted the same exemption; both were granted it. 

Shaded text denotes an amendment

Another amendment was introduced by Williams which clarified that employees needn't add their coworkers or bosses to their social media contact list, nor ease their privacy settings to make their profiles more accessible. It passed as well.

Shaded text denotes an amendment

The final slice of the amendment pie came with a clarification that the Dept. of Labor and Employment is to be the sole enforcer of the legislation, and to be the one promulgating rules and penalties for it. Fines for employers found to be in violation of the law range from $1,000 to $5,000 in addition to anything else the department deems appropriate. After a bit of back and forth between committee members, it was unanimously approved.

Shaded text denotes an amendment

Par For Course

1046 is the norm for most agreeable bills. Stakeholders withhold their full support until changes they want are included as amendments. Occasionally differences are ironed out ahead of the hearing, but things evolve quickly in the General Assembly and digestion times are short. 

In this instance, law enforcement agencies became aware the bill existed, had their analysts look over it, and found that they needed to step in to prevent a major upset to their way of doing business. By making a strong but reasonable case for exemption they were able convince the committee of necessity without the sponsor feeling it would undermine the purpose of the bill. 

1046 moves on to the Appropriations Committee March 1st along with 14 other bills. In Appropriations, the deal is usually this: if a bill will cost the state even slightly more money than exists in current revenue streams it will likely die. 1046 is projected to expend $23,064 from the Employment Support Fund each fiscal year. However, since fines range from $1,000-$5,000 per infringement, and there is no sure way to predict how many infringements there will be, 1046 has the possibility of generating revenue by fining more than it costs to administer. Here is the official document breaking down the numbers, called the Fiscal Note.

New Features

Guides

New to the site are a series of guides to aid in understanding the fundamentals of the General Assembly. 

Here is a summary of the general process.

Here is a guide to understanding committees of reference. 

Coming soon will be a page on lobbyists and a page on state finances. In the meantime enjoy the read!

Afterschool Activity

A Pair Of Bills

HB13-1047 by Rep. Sue Schafer, "Extracurricular Participation Across School Districts"

and 

HB13-1095 by Rep. Amy Stephens, "Homeschool Students' Participation in Activities"

 

Briefly

These two bills were heard in Monday's Education committee (2/4/13). The committee is composed of 13 members: 7 Democrats, 6 Republicans. The chair is Democrat Rep. Millie Hamner. 

I like both of these bills because they demonstrate how expertly legislation can be made and passed. The sponsors did everything right: when drafting the bills they consulted with primary stakeholders, before bringing it before the committee it was evident that each committee member had been brought into the fold to see if they had problems with the bills and how those could be resolved, it was bipartisan featuring a strong Republican and Democrat harmonizing, and finally the presentation of the bills was professional and to the point. 

Clarifying Law

During testimony by the Colorado High School Activities Association (CHSAA), the primary force behind the bill, we discovered that due to ambiguities in decade old law, high schools across the state were operating student draw to their after-school activities on somewhat shaky ground. 

For homeschool students, parents could simply choose a public school for their child to participate in after-school activities without talking with the administration of that school. For public school students whose school didn't offer the activity they desired, the student could go to another school within the district that did offer it, but again without consulting that school. Most importantly though, there was a loophole which made possible "coach chasing" where athletic students of a particular high school could opt in to another high school's activities because they wanted to play under a different, more successful coach.  Combined with an ambiguous clause that might require homeschool students to enroll in courses to participate in after-school activities, there is a growing public perception of unfairness according to Rep. Stephens. That's what the two bills meant to fix by clearly stating that parents must consult with schools when their students mean to opt in to after-school activities. The decision cannot be solely made by the parents.

In Support

1047 and 1095 brought the same groups of stakeholders to the table. In fact, the bills were meant to be joined into one but due to the constitutional provision that each bill must be single-subject, they could not. CHSAA strongly supported both, as did representatives of Academy School District 20 and Cherry Creek School District. All parties explained the frustrating nature of current law and that the bills were need to solidify what they had been practicing for the previous 10 years.

In discussion with the committee members it was clarified that homeschool students that opt in to after-school activities do not bump other students off the list to participate, and, that the bills would clarify they do not need to take courses at the high school of their choice in order to participate in the activities. 

The Vote

Both bills passed the committee with near unanimous votes. Rep. Chris Holbert did not get onboard for 1047 because he had received some emails disparaging the idea of schools being involved in the discussions with parents. 

They're headed for the Committee of the Whole with minor amendments attached. I predict they will fare just fine there and be in the Senate by next week.   

Academic Freedoms From Seattle

HB13-1089 by Rep. Stephen Humphrey, "Academic Freedoms Act"

 

The Bill

Many times, legislators identify something going on in schools that they believe should be improved. Rep. Moreno wants to expand the school meals program, Rep. Fields wants to improve school attendance, and Rep. Humphrey wants to allows teachers to foster classroom debate about established scientific knowledge solely on the topics of global warming, evolution, and human cloning. 

His bill would create the Academic Freedoms Act, an effort to help both k-12 and Higher Ed students develop critical thinking skills. From the bill:
 

TEACHERS TO FIND MORE EFFECTIVE WAYS TO PRESENT SCIENCE CURRICULUM WHERE IT ADDRESSES SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES.

PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITIES AND ADMINISTRATORS MUST PERMIT TEACHERS TO HELP STUDENTS UNDERSTAND, ANALYZE, CRITIQUE, AND REVIEW IN AN OBJECTIVE MANNER THE SCIENTIFIC STRENGTHS AND SCIENTIFIC WEAKNESSES OF EXISTING SCIENTIFIC THEORIES COVERED IN A GIVEN COURSE.

Also extremely important is this passage:
 

THE STATE BOARD, ANY LOCAL BOARD OF EDUCATION,  SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR, OR TEACHER IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL MUST NOT PROHIBIT ANY PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER IN THIS STATE FROM HELPING STUDENTS UNDERSTAND, ANALYZE, CRITIQUE, AND REVIEW IN AN OBJECTIVE MANNER THE SCIENTIFIC STRENGTHS AND SCIENTIFIC WEAKNESSES OF EXISTING SCIENTIFIC THEORIES COVERED IN A GIVEN COURSE.

The two points. First, every school authority must allow teachers to, as it's understood, "teach the controversy". Second, no authority can stop a teacher from doing so. This effectively directs what a teacher may or may not do, something that is the sole responsibility of the locally elected school board. 

In Committee

1089 was assigned to the House Education committee composed on 13 members. 7 members are Democrats, 6 are Republican, and the Chair is Democrat Rep. Millie Hamner. As the usual flow of committees go, Rep. Humphrey made a short case for the bill he was sponsoring. What made this a less than convivial encounter was the initial questioning by Democratic members before the witness testimony phase even began. 

Rep. Fields began by asking what the consequences were if a teacher failed to create an environment of debate on these science topics. Humphrey responded that the bill had no enforcement, only encouragement for teacher to do so. Rep. Court then explained that teachers are already encouraged to do exactly what the bill is asking; why is the bill necessary then? Humphrey offered an explanation that sometimes students are afraid to ask their teacher about the controversies surrounding the subjects of global warming, evolution, and cloning, and that his bill was needed to allow students to complain to higher authorities if debate-friendly environments were not made. Other Democrats on the committee echoed their colleagues in asking why the bill would only apply to science courses and not English, Math, or History.

The witness testimony phase of the hearing began by Humphrey allowing opponents to his bill speak first. Jane Urschel of the Colorado Association of School Boards, known as CASB, simply stated that the bill violated article 9, section 15 of the Colorado Constitution by taking away the rights of local school boards to dictate what goes on in classrooms. Up next was Karen Wick of the Colorado Education Association, essentially the teacher's union. CEA represents over 38,000 school district employees. She elaborated on what Urschel said but went into depth explaining how school boards pull together experts to craft school curriculum. According to her, 1089 would severely confuse that process and undermine academic standards already in place. 

Here something telling of a freshman legislator occurred; Rep. Landgraf found the notion of subject experts dictating what schools do and do not teach to be putting children in a box and asked how that would be good for education. The Chair of the committee actually had to pause things at that point and explain to Landgraf that that's how curriculum is determined in Colorado.    

Finally in the opposition camp was Katie Navin of Colorado Alliance for Environmental Education, a non-profit that influences the teaching of environmental issues in schools. Her main contention with 1089 was that it asked teachers to "explore the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories", arguing that evolution and global warming are facts, not theories. Rep. Chris Holbert expressed his belief that global warming is a hoax that he doesn't believe in. 

The first in line to support the bill was Scott Horak of the Christian Outdoorsman. I strongly encourage you to listen to what can only be described as a 10 minute pseudo-scientific rant beginning at the 1 hour 37 minute mark of the audio recording.   

Origin Of The Matter

By now you might have an inclination where this bill is headed. Where it came from, though, is surprising. After Horak concluded his remarks, another witness, Joshua Youngkin of the Discovery Institute, revealed that it was his Seattle, Washington based organization that wrote the language of the bill and brought it to Rep. Stephen Humphrey to pass in the Colorado Legislature. A quick review of the Discovery Institute reveals it to be a strange think-tank falsifying the work of Charles Darwin and advocating the intelligent design of the universe. 

Insisting that the language of the bill was "bulletproof", Youngkin explained the bill was designed to give students the ability to discuss the "question of climate change" and allow them to review information in an objective manner and make up their own minds. He explained to Rep. Buckner that textbook theories of evolution are not true and that current scientific education is only teaching one side of the controversy. Most interesting of all, Youngkin stated that the bill gives teachers the right to teach as they see fit, and, goes on to actually quote Charles Darwin, "...a fair result can only be obtained by carefully balancing the arguments and facts on both sides of the question".  

To The Vote

This bill came down to a cordial party line vote.  7 to 6, all the Democrats against and all the Republicans for, 1089 was PI'ed (postponed indefinitely, killed).

Afterthoughts 

Did Humphrey reach out to the Discovery Institute or did they track him down? How frequently do out of state interests have a driving role in Colorado lawmaking? Youngkin mentioned that the Discovery Institute managed to pass a similar bill to 1089 in Louisiana back in 2008. 

Is it concerning that freshman legislators sitting on the Education committee demonstrate a poor understanding of the fundamental framework for curriculum building? The Democratic party swept the House in recent elections- is this bill symptomatic of why the Republican party lost its previous majority hold? This session is witnessing a strong Republican "tacking to the right" of their legislative agenda, one that I predict will continue the trend of failing initial committee hearings.

Comparative Experience

Take A Look

This year's General Assembly composition is markedly different from the last. Democrats control the House with a tidy majority but still outnumber Republicans as they previously did in the Senate. Remember the basic differences between each chamber: in the House, there are 65 members each with 2 year terms; in the Senate, there are 35 members each with 4 year terms. All House members were up for re-election in 2012, only some Senate members were.

In The House

The following graphs compare the party composition of each chamber. Pay special attention to the staggering number of freshman (brand new members) in the House. 42% of both Democrat and Republican representatives are new to the legislature. While freshman are not unfamiliar with the process, they might be so with the plethora of issues that come before them. Unlike a senior member who has seen, for example, the numerous ways severance taxes are targeted to meet the needs of different stakeholders, a freshman might not have the same level of complex knowledge on the subject. They might have less informed opinions that can only be enhanced through years of experience, and they might not have the "political capital" necessary to achieve success with their own agendas.

One of the main reasons there are so many freshman this session is that House district lines (each representative's area that may vote for them) were redrawn as a result of the census. Many members also lost primary election battles within their own party, or were simply defeated by a newcomer of the opposing party. Term limits forced 8 members, 4 democrat 4 republican, out of the House. Democrat Nancy Todd made a successful run to the Senate, as did Republican David Balmer. That left a vacuum of 6 available seats to freshman.

In The Senate

The Senate in a much different story than the House. Here, some senators were not up for re-election in 2012 because their terms are staggered from one another (Senate seat X goes up for election in 2008, 2012, 2016 etc; Senate seat Y goes up in 2006, 2010, 2014, etc).  Because terms are 4 years long, with a maximum limit of 2 terms, the tenure of these members is more stable than in the House. Whereas representatives must run for re-election every 2 years, senators must only run every 4 (and really for re-election only once before they aren't allowed to do so again).

As a result, you'll notice more senior members with fewer freshman. Often, members like John Kefalas will transition from the House to the Senate by running for the vacated Senate seat. Kefalas ran for the seat formerly held by fellow Democrat Bob Bacon for two terms. Bacon could not run again because he was term limited. You'll notice there are some senators with more than 8 years of experience- that's because they were formerly representatives.

Does It Matter?

Yes. Members with more legislative experience are able to pull more political weight. They know how things get done, whose toes not to tread on, how to conduct a tight committee, how to use procedure to their advantage, and how to manage the pressure placed on them by constituents and stakeholders. Most importantly, senior members usually have good relationships with lobbyists and know the 'power players' of the game. Freshman still need to learn the ropes and may be susceptible to outside interests. More on that in a future post!  

Not quite... Pt. 1

Bills That Went Nowhere

We're now entering our third week of session and already the "bill body count" is beginning to pile up. Here's a quick compilation of what hasn't flown so far, you'll notice they are all Republican bills. With a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, that doesn't come as a surprise.

SB13-020 "Business Fiscal Impacts" by Sen. Ted Harvey.

This bill would have created a five day window for businesses to comment to the appropriate committee on the fiscal impacts of upcoming legislation. The immediate problem with the bill, as expressed by Democrats during its hearing, was that businesses would need to track legislation themselves and submit feedback on whether it would help or hurt them- but would that data be reliable, and how could it be verified? 

Most businesses however are in associations, and associations hire lobbyists to do just what the bill wanted. The lobby group keeps tabs on legislation to keep their clients safe. What Sen. Harvey proposed is already being done. On top of that, anyone can already testify before a committee to state whether a bill would help or hurt them. 

SB13-022 "County treasurer becoming the public trustee" by Sen. Lambert and Rep. Scott.

Remember my post on this one? I'll go into more depth on what happened to the bill, but it was pronounced "postponed indefinitely!" (dead) Thursday January 24th. For now, public trustees in second class counties will still be appointed by the governor. 

SB13-024 "Prohibit discrimination of labor union participation" by Sen. Hill. 

The bill would have simply made it illegal to require an employee to join specific labor unions. It was a classic Republican anti-union bill, now defeated by historically pro-union Democrats.

SB13-035 "Prohibit red light camera vehicle identification" by Sen. Renfroe and Rep. Humphrey.

It would have repealed the authority for local municipalities to use 'speed cameras' to catch a photo of drivers running red lights. What's important to note is that 'red light photo' tickets make up substantial portions of revenue for localities.

2012 'Red Light Photo Ticket' Revenues

HB13-1028 "Vehicle special license plate limit" by Rep. Scott and Rep. Priola.

Not even with Democrat Rep. Randy Fischer's support did this bill make it through its first committee. The bill would have limited those non-generic license plates we have in Colorado to 96 varieties. Currently there are 85. The reason it's popular is because the plates generate money, almost $100,000 per variety per year in extra registration fees that go to the highway fund. Police don't like the plates because it can be difficult to keep track of them all and spot the ones from Colorado from the ones that aren't. Rep. Fischer has been vocally opposed to the expansion of plate varieties because they must be legislatively created, something he and many other lawmakers from both parties believe is a waste of the General Assembly's time.   

HB13-1069 "Small business fiscal impact statements" by Rep. Navarro-Ratzlaff.

Very similar to SB13-020 by Ted Harvey, this bill would have required the legislative analysts that put together fiscal impact statements (the document recording how much money is at stake with each bill) to analyze how each bill would affect small businesses in Colorado, defined as 50 employees or less.

Renewable or Not, Pt. 2

Bill Number: SB13-003

Bill Title: Coal Mine Methane Gas Capture

Sponsors: Senator Randy Baumgardner and Representative Don Coram

Picking up where we left off, last year's bill to make the capture of coal mine methane a renewable, clean energy resource was preparing to enter the Senate side of things. After clearing the Republican controlled House, 1160 went to the Senate Local Government committee, controlled by Democrats. The bill was changed substantially in transition between the House and Senate:    

1. A Strike Below was used, which deleted everything in the House version of 1160 that was below the Enacting Clause. Basically, it wiped the bill back to a clean slate.
2. Starting over it defined CMM in section 123 of the RES to be absolutely a part of the "biogenically in geologic strata as a result of human intervention."
3. It added a new category to section 124 for "Greenhouse gas mitigation projects", CMM capture being included in it.  Part of the project status is producing clean energy.
4. Making the capture and energy production a part of section 124, it would be eligible for financial incentive from the state as part of the RES.
5. A compromise was struck to make each kilowatt hour of energy from CMM equivalent to 75% of a renewable kilowatt of energy under the RES. So only 3/4ths the financial benefit of what solar power receives.
6. Finally, mines that produce 90,000 cubic feet or less of CMM will be exempt from the sales tax of it.

Again, the same proponents supported and the same opponents opposed the bill as in the House committee. And again, some Democrats unsuccessfully tried an amendment that would force every part of the bill into section 123. Even though they outnumbered Republicans 3-2 one of their own, then Senator Joyce Foster, sided against them. 1160 passed with the above changes on to the Senate Committee of the Whole. 

The reason HB12-1160 did not become law is because leadership in the Senate killed it. By repeatedly postponing the third reading of the bill (when every senator votes on it), and eventually scheduling it for a date after the General Assembly ended for the year, 1160 was deemed lost. Scheduling like that is a legitimate maneuver for the Senate to prevent legislation from moving on.  

This year

Former representative, now senator, Randy Baumgardner is back this session to try again with SB13-003. His support in the House is fellow Republican Don Coram. The 2013 version of the bill is much of what the previous Senate version of 1160 was:

1. Make CMM capture a "Greenhouse gas mitigation project" in section 124 of the RES.
2. Each kilowatt-hour of energy generated from CMM is equivalent to a full kilowatt-hour for the purposes of compliance in the RES. (unlike the last try at 75% an hour equivalent). 

Now the big question is: with an even bolder, less compromising gamble on CMM this year, in combination with Democratic control in both houses and the executive, will this bill stand any chance of making it? Has Senator Baumgardner pulled together the necessary alliances? Has any new data surfaced which will make the move more appealing? 

SB13-003 hasn't been scheduled yet, but I'm eagerly anticipating it. More on that as it happens, stay tuned!

Renewable or Not, Pt. 1

Bill Number: SB13-003

Bill Title: Coal Mine Methane Gas Capture

Bill Sponsors: Senator Randy Baumgardner and Representative Don Coram

 

Making Methane Green

SB13-003 encapsulates everything I love about watching legislation be made. It's chock full of complex gray area issues where you can't really be certain, despite your political persuasion, who is right or wrong. Just when you think you've arrived at understanding, another layer of intrigue is peeled away. 

This bill would define the capture of methane from active and inactive coal mines in Colorado to be a greenhouse gas mitigation project and to be a clean energy source, verifiable as a carbon offset for climate protection. Facilities that capture the methane and sell it to electric utility companies will receive financial incentives from the state toward fulfilling the Renewable Energy Standard (RES).

Indeed the process is considered "green". One of the many ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to locate the sources of pollution, from a vehicle's tailpipe to rotting garbage, and either clean it up or turn it into energy. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, about five times stronger than carbon dioxide. You might have heard that stockyards emit tons of the stuff. What you might not have heard is that it comes from coal mining operations as well. 

When coal is mined from the earth the methane trapped in the seams is released. Ventilation is required for both active and inactive coal mines, with the possibility of fires and explosions if left ignored. Even mines that are decades old and considered inactive seep the greenhouse gas. Being able to capture that gas, in much the same way as methane is captured from landfills, is a viable method of turning a hazard into an asset. 

But all is not so simple. There are a few energy companies in Colorado that have looked into the technology of capturing methane from coal mines, but none have been very successful at it. Kickstarting new energy sources is not so easy, take wind and solar for example, both received ample government subsidies to get off the ground. Making coal mine methane (CMM) useful is also rare, only Pennsylvania and Germany have substantial facilities for doing so. 

The most crucial aspect of this bill is where exactly it will fit into law, specifically section 40.2.124 of the Colorado Revised Statues, the Colorado Renewable Energy Standard (RES) I mentioned earlier. 

Past Attempts

This isn't the first time efforts to capture CMM have been up for debate in the legislature. Last session, then Representative Randy Baumgardner, he is now a Senator, and Senator Gail Schwartz introduced HB12-1160. 

1160's first stop was in the House Agriculture, Livestock, and Natural Resources committee. Proponents of the bill, mostly energy companies, explained the ins and outs of why capturing methane is a win-win-win: it prevents a potent greenhouse gas from escaping to the atmosphere and exacerbating global warming, it provides a new source of clean energy, and it creates jobs. Who wouldn't love that? 

The Democrats in the committee, apparently. But not because they disagreed with all of the above. In fact they very much believed it would be great for Colorado's environment and businesses, but the sticking point came down to where it would be placed in state law. Like the current CMM bill this year (SB13-003), 1160 of last year would be written into section 124 of the RES. That section would specify CMM as an established renewable energy resource. 

Questions of job creation and job loss were brought up too. Energy companies in Colorado are mandated to meet a schedule of how much electricity sold comes from renewable sources. They are currently on track and exceeding the schedule of 12% renewable energy during 2011-2014. The mandate created the incentive for companies to invest in renewable resources and create jobs in those sectors. If CMM became a profitable resource, would it drain jobs from the other renewable sectors? Would companies pull 5% of their renewables from, say solar, and put them into CMM? Would this have regional consequences of job shifting, from the plains of wind to the western coal mines?

Overshadowing jobs, "Is CMM actually a renewable resource?" became the question of the hour in committee. In many ways it's not, testified the opponents of the bill, mostly resource and environmental advocates. Compared to wind or solar, energy sources that are limitless, CMM would eventually dry up. Renewable by definition means a source of energy that is not depleted by using it, but there is only so much methane trapped in coal seams. Additionally, human intervention (actually opening up the earth to mine the coal) unlocks the methane. In a way, it could be considered part of the coal itself. 

Section 124 only applies to established resources considered renewable. Essentially, 1160 would have classified CMM a renewable resource de facto, simply by placing it in that part of the law. 

Democrats proposed an alternative route. In committee, Representative Randy Fischer moved an amendment that would put the bill in section 123, not 124, of the RES because capturing methane from coal mines might still be considered experimental. Section 123 is for "new energy technologies", not established ones, and while still being promoted by the state it would not provide the same financial incentives to companies capturing CMM as it would in section 124. Rep. Fischer made a strong case for placing the bill in section 123 from the following snippet of that law:

In its consideration of generation acquisitions for electric utilities, the commission may give the fullest possible consideration to the cost-effective implementation of new energy technologies for the generation of electricity from methane produced biogenically in geologic strata as a result of human intervention. [my emphasis]

Biogenically means once from living organisms, which coal is and therefore which the methane by that coal is, and the human intervention is the process of mining. The definition seemed to fit. In voting though, Democrats favoring the amendment to shift things to section 123 were outnumbered by Republicans favoring section 124. The bill passed the House committee on went on to the Senate, but not before many important changes were made to it. More on that in the next post!
  

Trust In Public Trustees

HB13-1049 by Representative Ray Scott and Senator Kent Lambert

SB13-022 by Senator Kent Lambert and Representative Ray Scott 

HB13-1051 by Representative Dan Pabon and Senator Lucia Guzman

Background:

In one of the Denver Post's biggest stories of 2012, it was found that almost every county with a public trustee appointed or reappointed by Governor Hickenlooper was involved in the misuse of public money. I won't go into the nitty gritty, you can certainly click the link above to do that, but the scandal broke on the heels of increasing scrutiny of the appointment system. 

For about the past 100 years, Colorado has had a system of the Governor appointing the public trustees of first and second class counties, of which there are 11 in the state (64 counties total). The other 53 counties are third class and have their elected treasurer act as the public trustee.  

At this point you're probably wondering, what is a public trustee anyway? Are they important? 

Colorado is the only state in the country that has a system of public trustees. It arose during the late 1800s when a bad economy forced many mining operations to foreclose. In order to facilitate the transaction of foreclosed property in a way that protected the rights of the borrower, the position of public trustee was legislatively created. With extra relevance since 2008, public trustees administer foreclosures, deeds of trust, and collect taxes on accounts for land purchase contracts within their county. 

Since 2010

Three years ago the foreclosure fiasco in Colorado was raging. Public trustees handled much more business than usual which brought them into the spotlight of public awareness. At the same time, salaries were increased from $43,500 to $72,000 exclusively for the 10 second class appointed trustees. (Denver county was later made first class with their elected clerk and recorder acting as the public trustee). 

In 2012, Representative Ray Scott sponsored HB12-1329 which had the original intention of changing many second class counties, those with an appointed public trustee, to third class counties, those with the elected treasurer acting as public trustee. The affected counties would have been Mesa, Weld, and El Paso. 

The bill was seriously derailed though. Instead of altering the mechanism for appointment, it instead created an auditing system for all public trustees. Third class trustees are now to adopt an annual budget and present it for approval to the board of country commissioners, but appointed trustees (second class counties) are only required to submit individual annual audits. 

Back at it

Representative Scott is back this session with two bills, one sponsored in the House (HB13-1049), and one sponsored in the Senate (SB13-022), both again attempting to change second class public trustees to third class, which would do away with their being appointed by the Governor. 

While the bills seem redundant on one another, the House version only changes El Paso and Mesa counties to third class; the Senate version transforms all counties except Broomfield and Denver to third class and tinkers with the salary scale. Instead of the aforementioned $72,000, the treasurers acting as trustees would receive a treasurer salary plus $12,500 for having both duties.

Also in the works is HB13-1051 by Representative Dan Pabon and Senator Lucia Guzman, two of the more influential Democrats in the legislature. It's a bit more complicated. Denver is a first class county which means their elected clerk and recorder acts a the public trustee. Their bill would make the elected clerk of Denver an officer equivalent to a second class county and would have that first class trustee execute a surety bond of $25,000 to protect their performance. 

Keeping track

Both of Rep. Scott's bills are being heard later this month. 1049 will be heard in the House committee Local Government, then Appropriations on Wednesday, January 30th. 022 will be in the Senate committee State, Veterans, & Military affairs Wednesday, January 23rd. Because Rep. Scott is a Republican, and both of those committees are chaired by Democrats, I predict some interesting action on them. Rep. Pabon's bill 1051 has not be scheduled yet. 

Stay tuned!

Social Media Privacy Protection, Pt. 1

Bill Number: HB13-1046

Bill Title: Employee User Name Password Privacy Protection

 

Sponsored by: Representative Angela Williams and Senator Jessie Ulibarri 

 

Committee Assignment: Business, Labor, Economic, & Workforce Development

 

Some background

For the past few years, and especially during the past summer with notable stories in the news, employers have increased the practice of requiring employees and job applicants to give them access to their personal social media sites as part of routine background checks. 

Employers say it's necessary to see how people behave online, which could reflect their personality and risk level to the business, but opponents of the practice say it's a serious violation of privacy. 

In some instances the employer will look through Facebook or Twitter pages in the presence of the employee being scrutinized. In other cases, the employer demands the login information and digs through at their leisure, with or without the employee present. The level of investigation varies from checking recent status posts and pictures to reading every private message a person has ever sent or received. 

Hiring applicants are not excluded from this either. There are stories from across the country and across job sectors of people being rejected for a position because they refused to turn over their personal social media information. 

As the debate on the issue heats up, some states like Maryland and Illinois are reacting by passing legislation to prohibit employers from forcing, or even asking for, the surrender of usernames and passwords to log in. 

In Colorado

Social media privacy has become enough of an issue for our lawmakers to take action. Introduced in the House, HB13-1046 will prohibit employers from asking for, or threatening for, the login information of employees and current job applicants. Check out the exact bill language:

AN EMPLOYER MAY NOT REQUEST OR REQUIRE THAT AN EMPLOYEE OR APPLICANT DISCLOSE ANY USER NAME, PASSWORD, OR OTHER MEANS FOR ACCESSING THE EMPLOYEE'S OR APPLICANT'S PERSONAL ACCOUNT OR SERVICE THROUGH THE EMPLOYEE'S OR APPLICANT'S ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE.

There are limitations though. 

This bill will not prohibit an employer from browsing social media pages that are readily available to the public. If your privacy settings are loose, and compromising pictures or statements by you are there for all to read, it can still be considered a factor in stopping that promotion in the works or preventing your hire.

What's more, an employer may still launch an investigation against you if there's suspicion you're involved with "unauthorized downloading of proprietary information" or other illegal activities. Part of the investigation could involve surrendering social media login info. 

Although the bill allows an aggravated employee or hiring applicant to file a civil court action against an employer who violates this law, would a rejected applicant realistically take the time and spend the cash to protest their case in court? And what would be their chances against the legal team of a large business that turned them down?  

Tracking the bill

HB13-1046 has been assigned to the Business, Labor, Economic, & Workforce Development committee chaired by none other than Rep. Williams... the sponsor of the bill! When the chair of a committee hears their own legislation odds are good it will pass approvingly. 

I'll keep you updated as it moves along. Stay tuned!

Where Do Avalanches Belong? Pt. 2

Bill Number: HB13-1057

Bill Title: Retain Avalanche Information Center In The Department of Natural Resources

Sponsored by: Representative Diane Mitsch-Bush and Senator Jeanne Nicholson

Committee Hearing: House Appropriations

 

The House Appropriations committee is the second stop for this bill. Recall earlier that it's being sponsored by Representative Mitsch Bush in the House and successfully passed through the House committee Agriculture, Livestock & Natural Resources.

This morning’s hearing on the bill lasted about two minutes. Before Rep. Mitsch Bush was able to even describe1057 Rep. Sonnenberg moved to send it to its next stop, the Committee of the Whole.  

All this travel through committees might have you confused if you’re unfamiliar with the process. Now it’s off to a third committee called “the whole”? Let me take a moment to explain what that is.

After a piece of legislation survives the committee hearings in its current house, either the House or the Senate, it heads back to the originating body to be reported and deliberated by all the members at once. Having all the members of a house able to comment on the bill at once is called the Committee of the Whole, or CoW. It’s a chance for members who weren’t in the committees the bill traveled through to chime in or seriously argue against it, but it’s also a platform for adding amendments to the bill.

Amendments are tweaks and changes to the bill that might alter tiny details or reverse the entire intention. Often members opposed to a bill will offer an amendment that “de-fangs” the bill's enforcement measures, or one that even benefits their own legislative agenda. If a bill is sponsored by a member of the majority party in that house you can almost certainly bet nothing ill will befall it.

Back to our avalanche center bill. It’s headed to the CoW for debate tomorrow morning. Since it’s sponsored by Democrats, the House is controlled by Democrats, and nothing so far has impeded its progress, I would be very surprised if 1057 ran into trouble at this point. After the CoW it will be voted on by all the members Thursday morning.

More on that as it happens.