The House gave preliminary approval Thursday to a bill that would impede the sale of the Trinidad State Nursing Home, The Pueblo Chieftain reports.

An amendment was attached that would delay the sale until April 30, 2011, to allow Las Animas County and the city of Trinidad to mount a ballot initiative seeking money to take over its operation, something county commissioners say they intend to do.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

Colorado State Fair leaders had mixed and confused reactions Thursday about the proposed legislation to operate a horse track and video lottery games on Pueblo expo grounds, The Pueblo Chieftain reports.

General Manager Chris Wiseman explained the issue with the Fair’s Board of Authority, which met at the Fairgrounds for its monthly meeting.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Debi Brazzale, COLORADO NEWS AGENCY

A panel of lawmakers Thursday narrowly approved a measure that could put more money in the pockets of people who experience a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in Colorado.

House Bill 1152, sponsored by Democratic RepresentativeJerry Frangas of Denver, makes significant changes to the laws governing civil remedies for ADA violations.  Current law allows for a fine of $50, but no more than $500, when a violation occurs.   Frangas’ bill allows for statutory damages up to $4000 or actual damages, whichever is greater.

Democratic House Judiciary Chairwoman, Claire Levy of Boulder, recognizes that the difference between imposing a fine and awarding civil damages is a significant leap in the approach to dealing with ADA violations; that leap is also the source for the significant pushback the measure has received, especially from small businesses.

“It’s not just bringing a fine forward and compensating for inflation,” said Levy.  “It really does bring an entirely new concept into law of compensatory damages.  The amount could be substantial.”

Representing small businesses, Tony Gagliardi of the Colorado branch of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, believes that raising the financial bar may lead to unwarranted and perhaps fraudulent lawsuits.

“Small (business) owners across the country are finding themselves victims to an abuse by the ADA by overzealous litigators,” said Gagliardi, adding that many businesses have had to shut their doors because they could not afford to defend themselves against fraudulent claims.

Gagliardi believes that the solution to more compliance is through educating businesses on ADA requirements.

“The best way we can preserve the intention of the ADA is to inform small business owners of a potential ADA violation and allow a business owner sufficient time to update their facility,” concluded Gagliardi.

One Democratic panel member, Rep. Lois Court of Denver, voted in favor of the bill, but still had some reservations, questioning the unintended consequences of increasing the dollar amount recovered and whether or not business owners would suffer.

“If a group of people decided they were angry and everyone of them filed a claim–if it was 50 bucks that would be different, but now it’s $4000.”  Court noted.  “When it was only 50 bucks it wasn’t so attractive and now that it’s $4000, that could be a lot more attractive.”

Rep. Sue Ryden of Aurora disagreed with her Democratic colleague, positing that $4000 wasn’t really all that attractive to either a plaintiff or an attorney.

“How much lawyering does [$4000] get you?” asked Ryden.

The lone Democratic panel member to vote against the measure with the Republican panel members, Rep Daniel Kagan of Denver, relied on his experience as an attorney to determine his vote.

“I don’t mean to be cynical—but I can’t help it.  I used to be a plaintiff’s lawyer,” said Kagan. “ Is there anything to prevent a lawyer form being informed that there is some kind of a violation and once that violation is discovered, that lawyer then quickly gets on the phone and contacts 25 people?”

Frangas, undeterred by the apprehensions expressed by other committee members, remained confident that his bill is the right thing to do for ADA violations.

“You don’t want to limit the ability of people to recover for damages,” said Frangas. “I don’t see people lining up trying to ‘work this.’”

The measure already passed muster with the committee once before, but was referred back to committee by the full house for reconsideration.  It re-passed, 6-5, and returns to the House floor.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Debi Brazzale, COLORADO NEWS AGENCY

Lawmakers Wednesday debated and approved in committee a measure that would make it more difficult for citizens to amend the state constitution— but only if those same voters approve the measure in November.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 3, which has bipartisan sponsorship–Democratic Senator Abel Tapia of Pueblo and Republican Al White of Hayden, is being touted by Tapia as the “new and improved” Referendum O,  a previous ballot measure which failed by about two percent of the vote in 2008. Tapia said that SCR3 is much less complicated and was crafted with the added benefit of hindsight.

“The intent was to bring something very simple—something that people can understand, and get behind,” said Tapia as he presented the resolution to the Senate State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee.

Currently, for a citizen’s initiated measure amending either the constitution or state statutes, the law requires a certain number of signatures from registered voters–five percent of the total number of voters who voted in the most recent Secretary of State’s race.

Referendum O asked to raise the number of signatures required to eight percent, and required that those signatures come from each congressional district rather than from the state at-large.  The current proposal leaves the requirement at five percent, requires signatures from each congressional district, and adds a provision that if a measure asks to amend the constitution it must receive at least sixty percent of the vote in the election to pass.

Sen. David Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs, questioned whether or not the enhanced requirements would disenfranchise citizens from the initiative process who may not have financial resources that larger more prosperous individuals would have in order to overcome the additional hurdles.

“We don’t want to make this a rich person’s process,” said Schultheis. “I think everyone needs to have an equal opportunity.”

Sen. Bob Bacon, D-Fort Collins, agrees that everyone should have an equal opportunity, but maintains that the higher bar encourages citizens to look at amending laws before looking at the constitution.

“I think the constitution should have a higher standard than just statutes,” said Bacon.

Schultheis said that he could not support the resolution because he believes that the motivation behind the referendum is an attempt to prevent citizens from enacting measures such as the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rghts (TABOR).

“I’m convinced in my own mind that this is an end-run to undo TABOR,“ Schultheis asserted.  “I don’t feel that it’s right to take away this right to tell people “yeah you have the right to petition the government but were going to make it so tough on you that you really don’t have the right.”

Fellow GOP committee member Bill Cadman of Colorado Springs also said he opposes the resolution arguing that it dilutes the right of the people to petition government when they disapprove of legislative action or lack of action.

“They’re more afraid of what we do to them than what they do to each other,”  said Cadman. “This is their power, their authority.”

Democratic Chairman Rollie Heath of Boulder couldn’t help but point out the irony that he found in the results of focus groups asked to express their opinion on making it more difficult to amend the constitution.

“When Eight-nine percent of Colorado Springs thinks we need to do this, and only seventy-nine percent of Boulder [thinks we should pass this], it’s an overwhelming statement,” said Heath.

The resolution passed in committee with a 3-2 vote—a simple majority vote—but it must receive a super majority vote of two-thirds in both the house and senate before it can be put on the ballot.  Concurrent resolutions are not sent to the governor for signature.

Tapia said he ultimately believes that the will of the people will not be thwarted because “the bottom line is the electors are going to have the final say on this bill.”

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Todd Engdahl, EDUCATION NEWS COLORADO

After quickly working through a big stack of amendments, the Senate Education Committee Thursday afternoon voted 8-0 to approve Senate Bill 10-003, the complex measure that would allow state colleges and universities to raise tuition 9 percent a year – and allow the Colorado Commission on Higher Education to approve larger increases.

A key amendment added by the committee would end the new tuition system after five years. That was a condition sought by the Ritter administration.

Another amendment would require the CCHE to act within 90 days on an institution’s request for a tuition increase of more than 9 percent. The amendment also allows a college to submit a revised application if the first one was rejected by the commission.

The committee heard testimony on the bill Wednesdaybut ran out of time to act on the bill so had to deal with amendments and vote on Thursday.

In addition to the tuition provisions, SB 10-003 would give state colleges and universities  various other types of financial flexibility. It’s being pushed as a necessary but interim fix to the fresh financial challenges facing the state system starting in 2011-12.

A commission appointed by Gov. Bill Ritter is studying longer-term proposals for funding and structuring public higher education.

The bill has been in the works since last summer but has gone through two major revisions before it even came up on Senate Ed’s agenda. The version passed ThursdaY represents a compromise among the administration, college presidents and other interests.

One witness who testified Wednesday, state Controller David McDermott, raised concerns about some bill provisions that would free colleges from various state financial rules and procedures.

None of the amendments adopted Thursday dealt with any of those parts of the bill.

Here’s a rundown of the bill’s major provisions:

• Starting in the 2011-12 school year, college boards would have the power to set tuition rates as they chose, but raises higher than 9 percent for resident undergraduates would have to be approved by CCHE.

• To get CCHE approval, a school would have to provide a four-year financial and accountability plan detailing the amount of the increase, how access and affordability would be maintained for low- and middle-income students, details on how the school is implementing flexibility in fiscal rules and how the school is ensuring levels of services and academic quality.

(These two provisions pretty much mirror the Ritter administration position as developed by the CCHE and the Higher Education Strategic Planning Steering Committee.)

• No later than next Nov. 10, colleges would have to give the CCHE and the Joint Budget Committee plans for how they would handle a possible 50 percent cut in state support in 2011-12.

• The CCHE would continue to determine the amount of state financial aid each institution receives, but individual colleges would have more flexibility to allocate that aid among their students. The state auditor would review access and affordability during its biennial reviews of state colleges and universities. (Supporters of the bill argue that recent increases in federal financial aid cover low-income students but that colleges need more flexibility to provide aid to middle-income students.)

• Colleges and universities would be allowed to set their own financial rules, be exempt from state central purchasing requirements, manage their own debts and contracts, receive additional freedom to manage construction projects and real estate transactions and greater flexibility in rehiring retired employees than is allowed in state government overall. (College presidents have been pushing for these financial flexibility provisions for more than a year, although they repeatedly stress that such flexibility alone won’t solve all of the system’s financial challenges. This is the part of the bill that McDermott questions.)

• The higher education strategic plan now being developed by an appointed committee and four advisory panels would have to be submitted by next Dec. 15.

• CU would be given greater flexibility to enroll more foreign students (who generally are full-pay students), and the Colorado School of Mines also would receive some special flexibility provisions, including total freedom to set tuition.

Higher education funding, which unlike some other state programs isn’t protected by any requirements of the state constitution or federal law, has taken major funding hits during both recessions in the last decade.

Total higher education revenue for this school year, last year and for 2010-11 is stable at just under $2 billion a year. For next year the state is providing just under $600 million. College and university budgets have been maintained only with federal stimulus money (which runs out after 2010-11) and tuition increases.

Senate Majority Leader John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, has warned that state budget challenges in 2011-12 could force a $300 million cut in aid to higher ed.

• Past Education News Colorado stories about higher education and the financial crisis

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

The case of a surgical technician exposing 6,000 patients in Colorado to Hepatitis C while feeding her drug addiction has prompted legislators to consider requiring surgical staff to register with the state, the Associated Press reports.

The House Health and Human Services Committee heard testimony Thursday on two bills designed to increase oversight of the medical staffers. The bills’ sponsors say more oversight could have prevented Kristen Diane Parker from injecting herself with painkillers and leaving behind the dirty needles to be reused on patients.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

Gov. Bill Ritter on Thursday signed the $18.2 billion state budget, a plan that relies on cuts to schools and the repeal of many business tax breaks, The Durango Herald reports.

“It’s been a very, very difficult budget year, and there’s no saying anything other than that,” Ritter said.

The plan uses “shared sacrifice” to get to a balanced budget, which is required by the state constitution, Ritter said.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Todd Engdahl, EDUCATION NEWS COLORADO
The Senate Thursday gave preliminary approval to the Senate Bill 10-191, the educator effectiveness bill, after more than six hours of debate on a blizzard of amendments.
A focus of the debate was on whether the bill offers sufficient due-process protections to teachers who receive unsatisfactory evaluations and who would revert to probationary status because of consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations.
Critics of the bill also tried to amend its provisions requiring mutual consent of principals and teachers for placement in schools.
Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Westminster and a former teacher and State Board of Education member, led the charge to tone the bill down, but her amendments were repeatedly rebuffed on voice and standing votes by the coalition of Democrats and Republicans who are backing the bill.
On major points, the measure passed little changed from the heavily amended version passed by the Senate Education Committee.
The bill is expected to be up for a final Senate vote Friday. If passed it will move next week to the House, where the due-process debate will be rekindled and some members may be more skeptical than their Senate colleagues. Still, supporters feel they have a reasonable chance of passage in the House.
The bill is a complex one – and it was made more complicated in places by Thursday’s amendments.
Sponsored by a bipartisan team of senators and representatives, the major provisions of the bill would create new teacher and principal evaluation systems and tie evaluations to gaining – and losing – non-probationary status.
The bill is similar to legislation being discussed in other states and is part of a national push for reforms in educator evaluations. Although some observers feel passing the bill could help Colorado’s bid for round two of Race to the Top, that aspect has played little role in legislative debates.
Under amendments added by Senate Education, the system wouldn’t fully go into effect until 2014-15, after a lengthy process of development by the Governor’s Educator Effectiveness Council, issuance of rules by the State Board of Education, legislative review and two years of development and testing.
(The council was created by a governor’s executive order in January and assigned to develop definitions of teacher and principal effectiveness, study other issues of educator effectiveness and make recommendations to the legislature. SB 10-191 basically retains that role for the council but adds specific policy guidelines for evaluation and tenure and creates larger roles for the state board and the legislature. The council has met twice and already is working on effectiveness definitions.)
The bill would require annual teacher and principal evaluations (more frequently than generally is done now) and tying 50 percent of the evaluations to student academic growth. The state Department of Education would assist school districts in developing a variety of student assessments in addition the annual statewide CSAP tests. (The CSAPS, scheduled to be replaced in a few years, don’t cover all grades or all subjects, requiring additional kinds of tests if all teachers are to be evaluated based partly on student growth.)
The bill also would require that tenure be earned after three consecutive years of effectiveness as determined by evaluations. Tenured teachers could be returned to probation if they didn’t have good evaluations for two years.
The bill also would require the mutual consent for placement of teachers in specific schools and establishes procedures for handling teachers who aren’t placed. It also specifies that evaluations can be considered when layoffs are made, in addition to seniority.
A Senate Ed amendment would create an appeal right for non-probationary teachers who receive unsatisfactory evaluations, although the bill’s sponsors intend that detailed appeal procedures would be left up to district-union contract negotiations. (Appeal rights were the subject of several unsuccessful amendments Thursday.)
The bill also includes external factors that could be considered in evaluations, such as student mobility, the percentage of at-risk students in a school and numbers of special education students. Also defeated Thursday was an amendment that would have made “lack of parental involvement” one of those mitigating evaluation factors.
Once state standards for evaluation are in place, local school districts would be required to “meet or exceed” those standards in their evaluation systems.
The bill estimates about $240,000 in administrative costs for each of the next two years, to be funded by “gifts, grants and donations.”
While the bill has broad support among education reform groups, the state Board of Education, Commissioner Dwight Jones and Gov. Bill Ritter, the Colorado Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, is strongly opposed.
CEA has expressed a strong preference for a different process for changing the current system. Once definitions of effectiveness are created, then a new evaluation system should be set up and tested. Only after that, the CEA believes, should the decision be made about how to use the evaluation system in probation, school placement and layoff decisions.
The union also has raised concerns about the potential costs of effective and fair new evaluation systems, both for the state and for school districts.
CEA has kept its lines of communication open, however, and was behind some of the unsuccessful amendments proposed on the Senate floor Thursday.
As with several other key education proposals, legislators are racing the clock with SB 10-191, because they must adjourn no later than May 12.

In other coverage:

The Denver Post: Colorado’s Senate on Thursday night passed a controversial teacher reform bill after rejecting a number of amendments that would have eliminated many of the legislation’s core concepts. The bill, which has the support of Gov. Bill Ritter, now is expected to face a tougher challenge in the House.

Associated Press: A proposal to hold teachers and principals accountable for the performance of their students passed its first vote in the state Senate Thursday despite worries that it doesn’t do enough to protect the rights of teachers. A handful of Democrats joined with minority Republicans to reject attempts to give teachers greater ability to challenge bad evaluations and to allow lack of parental involvement to be factored into evaluations. “There is no doubt that change is always hard for adults. There is no doubt that the status quo is even worse for kids,” said Sen. Michael Johnston, a Denver Democrat who has spearheaded the bill.

The Durango Herald: The state Senate approved major changes in the way schools hire and fire teachers Thursday. Teachers unions are opposed to Senate Bill 191, but a coalition of half a dozen Democrats and all 14 Republicans turned away attempts by other Democrats to give teachers more appeal rights. Sen. Bruce Whitehead, D-Hesperus, sided with the teachers critical of the bill and against the sponsors on the votes.

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS
Denver Public Schools officials yesterday defended a decision to ban employee travel to Arizona as being about both a protest of a tough new immigration law in the state and protecting staff from “harassment” and “discrimination.”
Superintendent Tom Boasberg yesterday announced that the district has banned all work-related travel to Arizona. He is also forming a committee to “consider other measures the district might take.”
“Ya hit ‘em in the pocketbooks,” former State Sen. Paul Sandoval said at an afternoon news conference at DPS’ headquarters.
School officials were unable yesterday to provide reporters with any financial figures or numbers of work-related trips the district makes to Arizona.
But in a school district that is 60-percent Latino, the general sentiment is that the district needs to send a message to Arizona that the school community is “outraged” at the new immigration law, said officials. The other concern is protecting employees from unintended consequences of the law, which requires local police in Arizona to investigate the identities and residential status of suspected undocumented immigrants when a “reasonable suspicion” exists.
Critics say the law will lead to racial profiling, harassment and discrimination — something DPS officials said they don’t want to put their employees through.
“This is really not a political issue at all, this is a prudent decision about the welfare and safety of our employees, and you can extrapolate that to our students as well,” said Andrea Mérida, a DPS Board of Education member representing District 2. “We have a responsibility to our employees to make sure that we provide safe atmospheres for them in the school, in the administration building, as well as wherever they’re going to be taking professional development. This is about health and safety for our employees.”
Boasberg, however, made it clear that there was more to the decision than just the “health and safety” of the district’s employees.
“Our community is deeply outraged by the Arizona law,” the superintendent said in a verbal statement at the beginning of the news conference yesterday. “I have heard clearly and passionately from our students, our parents, our teachers, our principals and our community members about their deep concern.”
“Our community deeply values the rich diversity of the Denver Public Schools and the dignity of each and every member of our community,” continued Boasberg. “We fear that this new law will encourage racial profiling and subject individuals to arbitrary stops and harassment based on their ethnic or racial status. This violates our basic values of human dignity, of non-discrimination, and of equal protection under the law for all.”

DPS criticized
Supporters of the Arizona law were quick to criticize Denver Public Schools officials yesterday, not so much for opposing the law, but for sending a political message. Critics said DPS officials should be focusing on turning around schools and serving students, not on sending political messages.
“Instead of imposing politically-motivated travel bans, perhaps Mr. Boasberg ought to focus on improving a school system that fails far too many kids each and every day,” Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, said in a statement yesterday.
Penry pointed out that DPS faces a dismal graduation rate of just over 50 percent.
“This is the problem with the immigration debate in America: too many people are trying to score cheap political points instead of focusing on fixing the border mess,” added Penry, who also serves as campaign manager for Republican U.S. Senate candidate Jane Norton.
Norton said in a statement yesterday, “The Arizona law was an inevitable consequence of the federal government’s failure to act over the last 30 years to secure all our borders … The Arizona legislature and governor decided to stand up and say ‘no more.’”
Gov. Bill Ritter, a Democrat, said yesterday he would veto a similar law if it were to make its way to his desk in Colorado. He added that he has no plans of restricting state travel to Arizona.
DPS officials made it clear yesterday that their employees are all verified for legal residential and work-eligibility status. But they say there is still reason to be concerned for the safety of their employees, even if they are legal residents.
“The concern about this law is its potential for arbitrary stops; arbitrary harassment; profiling of individuals based on their racial and ethnic status — and we don’t want to be in a position where our employees on work-travel are potentially subject to that type of arbitrary stop and harassment,” said Boasberg.

Hurting service industry employees?
A spokesman for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s office said they are concerned about the impact a boycott may have on innocent service industry employees, many of which are minorities.
“In Arizona, both supporters and adversaries of SB 1070 have voiced opposition to the notion of potential boycotts as a legitimate course of action,” said Paul Senseman, spokesman for Brewer. “Instead, even opponents of the legislation have suggested legal challenges and ballot referrals as their appropriate next step. A travel boycott of Arizona would thoughtlessly discriminate against innocent service industry employees, including Native Americans and other populations.
Denver school officials acknowledge that human rights issues are at question all across the world — but they defended the decision to pick Arizona for the boycott.
“This is a unique situation of deep and intense concern to the Denver Public Schools because Arizona is a neighboring state, it is a place of travel for our employees, and also because of the outrage in our community, the potential for racial and ethnic profiling and the way that this law directly attacks our core values — our core values of dignity, our core values that we are a diverse and multi-ethnic community, and I think this law is unique in the degree to which it attacks and undermines those basic and deeply held values,” responded Boasberg when questioned by a reporter.
The Community Advisory Committee will be led by prominent Denver civil rights leader Nita Gonzales; Landri Taylor, executive director of the Urban League of Denver; and by Sandoval as well.
Meanwhile, DPS students today are planning walk-outs to protest the Arizona law. School officials encouraged students to stay in class, but the walk-outs are still scheduled to begin at noon today at Lincoln High School. Students will march to the Capitol.
On Saturday, hundreds of immigrant rights advocates are expected to gather at noon at Sunken Gardens Park in Denver to call for comprehensive federal immigration reform. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and fellow Democrats yesterday unveiled a “framework” for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. immigration laws.
Metro Organizations for People yesterday applauded Boasberg and other DPS officials for instituting the travel ban.
“We applaud Denver Public Schools, where many of our children attend, for taking leadership in condemning this unjust law,” said Karla Loaiza, MOP board chair and parent leader. “We urge other school districts to join DPS in defending basic civil rights in this country.”

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >

By Peter Marcus, DENVER DAILY NEWS
An opposition campaign was announced yesterday to a pro-life ballot question that would give human rights to embryos.
Protect Families Protect Choices says it will begin an “aggressive” campaign against Amendment 62, which was qualified by the Secretary of State’s office last month for the November 2010 ballot.
A similar effort failed in 2008 when it received only 27 percent of the vote. The initiative would effectively ban abortion in the State of Colorado.
“Here we go again,” said Leslie Durgin, lead organizer of the opposition campaign and vice president of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains. “Amendment 62 is bad policy, bad law and bad medicine.”
Proponents of the initiative are confident that they will have better success this year. Keith Mason, co-founder of Personhood USA, points out that this year proponents have slashed the term “fertilization” from the ballot question, instead using the phrase “biological development.” The amendment would read, “The term ‘person’ shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.”
Mason believes the new language will serve his campaign well. He adds that the campaign in 2008 will help boost numbers this year.
“I was very encouraged by the numbers last year,” Mason has told the Denver Daily News, pointing out that the Personhood campaign garnered 580,000 votes last year while a 2006 initiative to define marriage in the state constitution as between one man and one woman was backed by voters with only 630,000 votes.
“There’s only a 50,000-vote gap there. So, to me that was very encouraging,” he continued. “(2008) was a very different year, there was an unprecedented number of voters that came out, and so it was a crazy year as far as turnout, especially with a lot of liberal-leaning voters that turned out because of the Democratic National Convention (in Denver) and things like that. So, I think percentage-wise, in the number of votes that were received, I think what we’ll see is the percentage will climb this year.”
But Protect Families Protect Choices points out that 1.7 million Coloradans rejected the 2008 ballot question. They say every age group opposed the amendment, and opposition was high among men and women and nearly every demographic group.
Opponents do not believe the change in language will help Personhood supporters because it still “presents the same dangerous outcomes.”
“In 2008, voters learned that the ‘definition of a person’ amendment was an overt attempt to insert religion into law,” said Jeremy Shaver, executive director of the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado. We will fight once again to make sure Coloradans know the truth about Amendment 62.”

Stay ahead by signing up for State Bill E-News! >