Democratic Senate President Brandon Shaffer, of Longmont, in a prepared statement said there’s still work to be done to turn the economy around before champagne corks can be popped.

“It’s encouraging to see Colorado’s economy continue to improve, but we need to keep working to create jobs and strengthen the economy,” said Shaffer.

Rep. Larry Liston, R-Colorado Springs, chair of the House Economic and Business Development Committee, agreed that more can be done to complement encouraging indications of economic recovery.

“We are by no means out of the woods. Unemployment is still far too high, and unnecessary regulatory burdens are too heavy for small businesses,” said Liston.

Added Republican Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman, of Colorado Springs:

“While there is good news in the budget forecast, this new revenue does not solve our structural budget problems or give us the excuse to avert hard decisions for the 2012 session.”

Democratic House Minority Leader Mark Ferrandino, of Denver, said the revenue forecast is “good news” and that he is seizing the moment as an opportunity for lawmakers to persevere with creating jobs

“Along with the recent decline in the state jobless rate, this new sign of a more robust economy is beginning to look like a trend,”  said Ferandino.   “It’s too soon to declare victory over the Great Recession. Now is definitely not the time to ease up on our economic development and job creation efforts.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

In order to receive the preferences, which amount to a 5-percent competitive advantage in bidding, companies must demonstrate that at least 90 percent of those employed under the contract are Colorado residents or at least live in Colorado. The contractors employing those workers also must provide them health and retirement benefits under the legislation. If it is a construction project, an opportunity to participate in a U.S. Department of Labor-approved apprentice program must be included.

The pending Senate Bill 1, to be sponsored by Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Arvada, and touted at Wednesday’s news conference by Senate President Brandon Shaffer, D- Longmont, should resonate with Coloradans, says Hudak.

“When I knock on doors and speak with my constituents, they tell me they want us to work together to create jobs and improve the economy,” said Hudak in a prepared statement. ”HIRE Colorado will do just that, leveraging public funds to create jobs right here in our own state.”

Shaffer, in his remarks, said he knows Republican lawmakers want the same outcome—job creation—and that he is confident the two parties can come to agreement on the bill.

However, Rep. B.J. Nikkel, R-Loveland, said the bill may contain too many pitfalls.

“It’s easy to say this is a jobs bill, but the devil’s always in the details,” said Nikkel.

Republican House Speaker Frank McNulty, of Highlands Ranch, also said the legislation may prove to be a hard sell despite its honest intentions.

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

That’s because the only Democratic challengers in Districts 3, 4 and 6, now held by Republicans, are all state legislators.  They are, respectively, Rep. Sal Pace, of Pueblo, Senate President Brandon Shaffer, of Longmont, and Rep. Joe Miklosi, of Denver.

None of them is willing, as of this writing, to give up his seat to campaign, although Pace just surrendered his post as House minority leader.

Abandoning your seat to campaign for a higher job is a time-honored tradition, and the three Democrats will probably be under increasingly heavy pressure to do so.

There are three good reasons to leave early.  First, sessions are time-consuming.  On the floor you have to sit through endless discussions on meaningless resolutions, as well as on legitimate bills. Equally tedious committee meetings will have you checking your watch, wondering if you can make it to a scheduled campaign event miles away.

If you skip the floor sessions or committees, the Republicans really won’t care—one less vote against them—but they’ll righteously publicize your absenteeism anyway.

Second, you have to vote on tough bills you’d just as soon vote “present” on, like Barack Obama in the Illinois State Senate.  But “present” isn’t an option in Colorado.  And it’s not just bills.  GOP leaders will dream up bogus, no-chance floor amendments primarily for the purpose of forcing you to take awkward, recorded positions on issues you’d like to duck.

Third, and most important, you cannot legally raise money from lobbyists, or their clients, while the legislature is in session, even if you’re seeking another office. The 2012 session is expected to start Jan. 11 and end May 9, meaning you’ll have just six weeks to raise money for the primary election on June 26—the earliest ever.  You may not have a primary, and you can spend primary money on the general election, but you’ll have little time to raise it.

Let’s start with Republican Terry Considine.  Appointed to the state Senate in 1987 and elected to it the next year, he decided to run for the U.S. Senate in 1992.  He resigned his state Senate seat the opening day of the 1992 session to campaign.

Then there was Democratic state Sen. Penfield Tate.  He wanted to run for mayor of Denver in 2003 while keeping his day job.  But less than a month into the 2003 session he changed his mind, resigning from the Senate.

Next up: Democratic Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald, of Golden, whose case most parallels Shaffer’s today.  She intended to run in 2008 for Congress from the 2nd District, which was being vacated by now-Sen. Mark Udall.  To give herself plenty of time to campaign, she resigned her Senate seat in November 2007.  Dan Gibbs was elected to her Senate seat and Peter Groff succeeded her as Senate president.

Finally we get to Democratic state Sen. Chris Romer, of Denver.  He wanted to be mayor of Denver and everybody knew it.  But he ran for a second four-year term in 2010 anyway, won the election—and resigned less than a month later, six weeks before the 2011 session began.

So you see what you’re supposed to do. . .

Hey, why are you tugging at my sleeve?  You say that all those candidates who resigned early ended up losing?

So they did!  Considine won the GOP Senate nomination in 1992, but was wiped out in the general election by Ben Nighthorse Campbell, then a Democrat.

Tate was one of six mayoral candidates who ended up losing to John Hickenlooper in May 2003.

Fitz-Gerald was wiped out in the 2nd District Democratic primary by Jared Polis, of Boulder, who spent $5 million of  his own money.  He won the general and was re-elected in 2010.

Chris Romer was obliterated by Michael Hancock in the recent Denver mayoral election.

Hmmm.  Maybe it’s not smart or even necessary to resign early after all.  Democratic U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, of the 1st District, didn’t leave her legislative seat in 1996 (although she gave up her post as minority leader, just as Pace has done).  Freshman U.S. Reps. Cory Gardner, of the 4th District and Scott Tipton, of the 3rd, both Republicans, completed their terms in the Colorado House in 2010.

Miklosi says he’s not leaving early because, “I made a commitment to the voters” to serve out the term.  Will he change his mind if former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, or someone else, emerges to challenge him in a primary? Republican Mike Coffman’s 6th District, after all, is seen by Democrats as the most vulnerable under the current map.

Meanwhile, state GOP chair Ryan Call is delighted that the three Democratic challengers aren’t quitting the legislature.  “The people of Colorado would do well to see them in action again, especially in an election year,” he said.  The GOP will play “a proactive role” in citing issues on which they might be vulnerable.

Longtime Rocky Mountain News political columnist Peter Blake now writes Thursdays for the Colorado News Agency. Contact him at pblake0705@comcast.net You may re-publish his work at no charge and without further permission; please give full credit to Peter Blake and www.ColoradoNewsAgency.com

Senate President Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, who requested the audit, says he wants reassurance that online schooling—utilized by students in rural school districts with limited course offerings as well as by students with unique circumstances—is functioning well.

In a letter distributed Monday to committee members, who must approve requests before they are given to the auditor,  Shaffer sought, “an emergency audit to be performed of full-time online K-12 education programs receiving General Fund support.” Shaffer’s letter cited a Department of Education report of “exceedingly high student failure rates,” lack of accountability and oversight of the program, and districts that accept the funding with “little or no plan for retention or educational successes.”

“In an economic climate where the state of Colorado is forced to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from its education budgets, we must ensure that every dollar of taxpayer money is spent efficiently and effectively,” said Shaffer.

Among the three panel members voting against the audit request were Rep. Cindy Acree, R-Aurora, and Rep. Jim Kerr, R-Littleton.

Kerr said the suddenness of the  request raised red flags he couldn’t ignore.

“Why this, why now?” asks Kerr. “An eleventh-hour emergency audit request—and there is no such thing as an emergency audit—by someone, who is running for Congress, and who already has access to the information he is seeking, amounts to political grandstanding.”

Acree said she, too, questions the urgency as well as the need for an audit.

“The same issues that present themselves in online K-12 education are there in the brick-and-mortar schools,” said Acree. “This seems like an effort to undermine educational choices and is using the resources of the auditor’s office to do so.”

Yet, the State Auditor’s Office said the request will receive the same treatment that every audit receives. There will be an eight-hour review looking into the merits of the request, the findings of which will be presented to the committee in November, with a vote at that time on whether to approve a full audit.

“This will be handled just like any other audit, like any other request,” said spokeswoman Jenny Atchley.

Shaffer, who was not present at today’s meeting, said in his letter the urgency of his request  is related to the task lawmakers will have as they begin to make budgeting decisions in January.

In a prepared statement after the meeting, Shaffer said his military experience and a desire for educational success helped shape his decision.

“When I was in the Navy, I was taught you get what you inspect, not what you expect. I’ve requested this audit to ensure we’re getting the best education for our children and the most effective use of taxpayer dollars.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

House Bill 10-1119 , dubbed the SMART Government Act, requires each state agency to present, on an annual basis, the department’s strategic plan to the relevant committee of reference of the General Assembly. It  was sponsored last year by Rep. Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver, and Democratic Senate President Brandon Shaffer, of Longmont, but first takes effect with the start of the 2012 session in January.

Last week’s GOP letter from Republican Senate Minority Leader Mike Kopp, of Littleton, and Sen. Kent Lambert, of Colorado Springs, was written in anticipation of the opportunity afforded by the law for legislative face time with executive-branch departments that some lawmakers contend are oversized and inefficient.

“Both Senate and House Republican leadership plan to give added emphasis to questions asked of agency heads regarding the agency’s operations, rule-making activities, and program priorities,” reads the letter.

Lambert says the letter was sent to give agencies a heads-up that Republicans intend to dig deeper than agencies may be anticipating.

“We want to be a little more probing, and this letter serves as fair warning that we’re taking these oversight meetings seriously,” said Lambert. “We need dialogue with state agencies to ensure transparency on the internal business practices of government.”

Yet, the purpose of the SMART Government Act, says Ferrandino,  is to engage lawmakers—who sit on committees of reference as policy experts—in oversight, not political posturing.

“I’m worried that what they’re saying is that they intend to focus on pet political issues—their own political agenda,” said Ferrandino. “A narrow perspective loses the bigger perspective of the intent of the SMART Government Act and doesn’t gain the conversation that needs to be conducted.”

Ferrandino asserts that the Republicans, in their stated intent,  are venturing beyond the scope of the SMART Government ACT for political gain, compromising the spirit of the oversight meetings.  Operations, rule making, and programs are not included in the act says Ferrandino.

“The conversation needs to be about how they are doing in terms of achieving goals they have set for themselves and how they are measuring up rather than nit-picking about what they are doing at a policy level,” said Ferrandino. “If we do this for political reasons–from either side of the aisle– we’re doing a disservice.”

Meanwhile, Lambert maintains that he and his colleagues are merely building on a trend and that the added scrutiny will produce even better results.

“We want to keep the momentum going for what’s already been started with this bipartisan effort,” said Lambert. “We simply want to find out: Do we have to do things this way, or can we perhaps find a better way to do things?”

Copies of the letter were sent to Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, Senate and House leadership, and Joint Budget Committee members.

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

The 3-3 split, during today’s Executive Committee of the General Assembly, fell along party lines with support for TABOR among Republicans and opposition to TABOR coming from the committee’s Democrats. Democrats hold a majority in the Senate while Republicans control the House, so the parties are equally represented on the committee.

Critics of TABOR, approved by voters nearly two decades ago, recently filed suit against the policy, contending it is unconstitutional. It is often cited as a primary cause of budgetary woes by some even as it is revered by others who view TABOR as a necessary limit on government spending. Under TABOR, voters must approve any increase in taxes.

Senate President Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, said today’s vote was little more than political posturing reminiscent of Washington.

“This is precisely the type of political grandstanding Coloradans despise,” said Shaffer. “We need to focus on Colorado solutions, not Washington-style gridlock and partisanship.”

McNulty, who called for the vote in light of the pending lawsuit that has brought the debate to a boiling point, says that what Coloradans really want is embodied in TABOR.

“I’m disappointed that Democrats in the General Assembly would not support Coloradans’ right to vote on all tax increases,” said McNulty.  “The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights passed because Coloradans wanted to keep their government in check.”

Republican House Majority Leader Amy Stephens, of Monument, also said the vote is indicative of party differences and gave her side of the aisle a pat on the back for their fiscal constraint.

“For years, Democrats in the General Assembly worked to push through tax increase after tax increase, to pay for their big government agenda,” said Stephens. “That time has come to an end thanks to House Republicans.”

Yet, Democratic Senate Majority Leader John Morse, of Colorado Springs, who also happens to be a plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging TABOR, said what Coloradans really want is jobs and for the parties to set aside their differences.

“The people of Colorado want us to focus on creating jobs and getting people back to work, not fight over petty ideological differences,” said Morse. “They want real solutions that involve cooperation and collaboration.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

There’s no reason he should spend days poring over dozens of outrageously greedy maps and listening to tedious testimony while the lawyers drive their clients toward bankruptcy by running up their billable hours.

All he has to do is force the parties, before the trial starts, to use baseball’s arbitration system. It worked 10 years ago, although it was employed belatedly.

Redistricting is in court because, for at least the fourth decade in a row, the Colorado legislature failed in a task that the state constitution says it must undertake only once every 10 years.

The process shouldn’t have been that hard.  The census determined that the state was again authorized seven districts; all lawmakers had to do was tweak their boundaries so that all had equal populations. A 10-member, bipartisan Joint Select Committee on Redistricting was created to expedite the task.

But of course its negotiations broke down in a flurry of mutual recriminations. Democrats accused the Republicans, who now hold a 4-3 edge in Congress, of trying to grab another seat.  Republicans said the Democrats were drawing maps that would enable Senate President Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, to get elected to Congress.  You can assume both accusations were right.

After negotiations collapsed, the Democrats filed a lawsuit in Denver District Court May 10.  The Republicans followed with their own suit a few hours later.  The cases have been consolidated, and trial is set to begin Oct. 11.

Is there a better way? According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 42 states authorize the legislature to do the job; seven use independent commissions and one, Iowa, uses its legislative staffers.

Says the NCSL dryly in its summary: “Reformers often mistakenly assume that commissions will be less partisan than legislatures when conducting redistricting, but that depends largely on the design of the board or commission.”

So true.  We need look no further than our own Reapportionment Commission, which handles legislative redistricting but not congressional.  It was created by a 1974 initiative ramrodded by Colorado Common Cause.  The big selling point: during the 1972 legislative session, lawmakers had spent 90 of their  150 days (no 120-day limit then) debating reapportionment, mostly behind closed doors (no sunshine law yet either).

Their political survival consumed much more of their time and passions than mere public issues.

The commission’s 11 members are picked by legislative leaders, the governor and chief justice and must meet bipartisan standards. But that hardly makes it free from politics. In the early 1990s law professor Gene Nichol, a liberal Democrat from Boulder, changed his affiliation to unaffiliated in order to wangle an appointment to the commission. He got it. When that job ended, he re-registered as a Democrat and ran, unsuccessfully, for the U.S. Senate.

State Sen. Morgan Carroll, a member of the select committee on congressional redistricting, thinks a commission would work better. So does Jenny Flanagan, head of Colorado Common Cause, which is contemplating another initiative.

Iowa has a unique system in that it lets its nonpartisan legislative staff draw the redistricting boundaries.  As explained by Denver attorney Tom Downey in a 2004 op-ed in the Rocky Mountain News, the plan may not take incumbency or political strategies into consideration. The legislature may vote the staff’s plan up or down, but not change it.  If lawmakers reject a second plan, it can follow the normal legislative process.

This year, even though Iowa lost one of its five districts, the legislature speedily approved the plan—even though a couple of incumbents were thrown into the same district..

It might work in Colorado too.  Our Legislative Council has an excellent reputation for nonpartisan competence. But since none of the proposed changes could take effect until the 2021 redistricting, Denver District Judge Robert Hyatt, who’s handling the current case, should insist on baseball arbitration.

When a player and his club can’t agree on a contract, each side submits a proposed salary to an arbitration panel.  The panel isn’t allowed to split the difference; it must choose one side or the other.  This keeps both sides from overreaching.

Hyatt could insist that the Republicans and Democrats submit only one map each, observing the basic rules that have been in place since the Carstens vs. Lamm decision of 1982: Denver must not be divided, and the Western Slope and eastern plains should stay as intact as possible.

After dithering for a long time in the 2001-2002 trial, Denver District Judge John Coughlin finally demanded each side produce one map and he would choose.

The Republicans complained later that the Democratic map he ended up choosing was submitted after the deadline, but the GOP won the new 7th District anyway and ended up with a 5-2 margin after the 2002 election.

Later in the decade the Democrats controlled five of the seven seats.  That proves the parties should spend more time honing their philosophies and wooing voters than fighting over district shapes.

Veteran Colorado political columnist Peter Blake now writes Thursdays for the Colorado News Agency. Contact him at pblake0705@comcast.net You may re-publish his work at no charge and without further permission; please give full credit to Peter Blake and www.ColoradoNewsAgency.com

Longstanding legislative protocol assures every proposed measure a fair hearing, usually meaning a public committee presentation, where citizens and other stakeholders can express their views before lawmakers vote whether to move a bill forward in the legislative process.  Some lawmakers contend that this tradition was not honored in the last few days of the session.

A stack of House bills, ready to be heard in the Senate, and a smaller stack of Senate bills waiting to be heard in the House, died on the calendar Tuesday after the day’s adjournment gavel fell in both chambers, rendering the measures moot  since two full days are required for a bill to pass. The bills in question represented a variety of issues including the composition of the Oil and Gas Commission, business personal-property taxes, the registration of ATVs, enterprise zones, and a repeal of the Amazon tax.

Republican Senate Minority Leader Mike Kopp, of Littleton, filed a protest last week with Democratic Senate President Brandon Schaffer, of Longmont, contending the actions of the majority party, which controls the calendar, were uncalled for.

“….the issue here is not the substance of these bills but the principle that they deserved a fair hearing in this body.  Not affording  them  a hearing and floor consideration was an act of disrespect not only for the sponsors of those bills but disrespect for their constituents and the legislative process itself,” Kopp wrote.

Kopp and Schaffer later came to an understanding, according to GOP staffers, that solicited a public apology and a rescinding of the publication of the protest in the Senate Journal. Schaffer said his actions fell short of his own values.

“I pride myself on the fairness with which we conduct business here in the senate chamber,” said Schaffer. “I offended several of my Republican senators, in particular, when we adjourned last night and I wanted to come up to the microphone and say I apologize. I shouldn’t have done that–we should have had committee hearings on those (bills), and so I apologize.”

Schaffer went on  with a subtle jab at the Republican-led House, which had let two Senate bills linger on the calendar Tuesday, although those bills were heard in House committees Wednesday despite their non-viability procedurally.

Kopp asserted in his protest statement that the House bills may well have passed muster had they been allowed to move forward Tuesday in the three remaining hours Tuesday evening.

“Ironically, among these twelve bills, there were three Democrat co-sponsors whose bills were killed by this abrupt adjournment,” said Kopp. “All but one of those bills passed with bipartisan support, and one was unanimous.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

Senate Bill 271, sponsored by Democratic Senate President Brandon Shaffer, of Longmont, would require companies, usually web-based, that take orders for flowers, charge a fee, and then have them delivered by local florists, to disclose where they are from and other identifying factors.

Shaffer says the measure protects local businesses from out-of-town companies that charge a fee to the consumer who may be unaware that they can have the same delivery of flowers without the surcharge. Many of the web-based flower services the bill is aimed at, said Shaffer,  do not have enough identifying information on their websites for consumers.

“It’s a problem when someone wants to buy locally from a Main Street florist, and they’re not,” said Shaffer.

Sen. Mark Scheffel, R- Parker, who voted against the measure when it was heard earlier this week in the Senate Judiciary Committee, says the market will weed out any bad actors and that in this case, the consumers are savvy enough to choose who they want to do business with.

“Why would we impose the full power of the legislature upon the sale of flowers?” asked Scheffel. “I would assume that people shop around and they order from whom they trust the best and look for the right price—that’s how the market works.”

Yet, Shaffer maintains that erring on the side of caution in this instance is better for everyone, the consumer and the business.

“We’re trying to create transparency and help out the local businesses out there,” said Shaffer.

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

Senate Bill 1, sponsored by Sen. Bob Bacon, D-Fort Collins, creates a “knowledge-based economy fund” by scooping up any cash that exceeds revenue forecasts for the state budget through a prescribed formula and funneling those dollars to the knowledge fund.

Democratic Senate President Brandon Shaffer, of Longmont, touted SB 1 in his opening speech on the first day of the 2011 legislative session in January.

The single vote against the measure today when it was heard in the Senate Education Committee came from  Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, who said the conditions under which the transfer of funds would occur—a projection of anticipated revenue—is not the right approach. The transfer should occur after the forecast has been realized, said Renfroe.

“We’d be spending money that might not actually be there,” said Renfroe. “We should wait until we know what the actual number is and then make the transfer.”

The second bill of the two bills considered by the education committee, Senate Bill 109, sponsored by Shaffer, takes a different approach, appealing directly to taxpayers. It would add an additional check-off box on tax forms, allowing taxpayers an opportunity to donate a portion of their refund to early-childhood education.

Shaffer said the checked box on a taxpayer’s return would represent an early investment for the future.

“We need to find innovative ways to support the education of our kids,” said Shaffer.  “If we invest in kids’ education in their early years, we expand their future opportunity. Right now funding is limited, and giving Coloradans this opportunity to support schools is a smart way to do more for Colorado kids.”

The check-off would join a list of current tax-checkoffs on state income tax forms but would, under SB109, get top billing, a spot currently obtained on a first-come-first-served basis.

“We need to begin to make the statement that early education is important,” said Bacon.

Sen. Nancy Spence said she agrees with Bacon but has reservations about picking winners and losers for the check-off list.

“Certainly, we all have our favorites, and preschool would be an important item, but not necessarily more important than any other item on the list,” said Spence.

Both measures are now on their way to the Senate Finance Committee for consideration.

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.