The proposal, House Bill 1293, would repeal  a measure passed last year that created a new tax on software used by businesses.  The software tax was part of a package of mostly Democratic-led bills that were dubbed “the dirty dozen” by Republicans because of the way they eliminated tax credits and exemptions previously granted to businesses.

The unusual ease with which the bill will move through both is chambers is due to a deal struck between both parties during intensive negotiations over next year’s budget. The measure has bipartisan sponsorship, with Stephens, Rep. Carole Murray, R-Castle Rock, and Sens. Cheri Jahn, D-Wheat Ridge and Linda Newell, D-Englewood.

Democratic Senate Majority Leader John Morse, of Colorado Springs, says HB 1293 is not ideal but a necessary evil.

“I hate having to do this but it’s part of the deal,” said Morse. “This is another $24 million or so that will come out of schools next year.”

Opponents of the tax say it has added administrative costs for employers across the state and ultimately has assessed an extra cost for companies that employ people in Colorado, according to a news release sent out by House Republicans.

Stephens says the tax has had a chilling effect on business endeavors.

“Colorado proudly touts its leadership in entrepreneurship and innovation, but it is quickly becoming known as a leader in the wrong space—taxation,” said Stephens.  “Colorado should be leading in innovation and solutions to encourage new business, not aggressive and confusing tax laws that shutter the doors for new business.”

Morse counters that businesses may end up feeling the pinch.

“Businesses will end up suffering because of an uneducated workforce,” Morse said. “During times of economic crisis, we simply don’t have the luxury of funding credits and exemptions.”

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.

A measure introduced last week in the General Assembly would require the state to treat private colleges and universities in Colorado the same as public ones when subsidizing students’ tuition through the Colorado Opportunity Fund.

House Bill 1168, by Rep. Carole Murray, R-Castle Rock, and Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, would raise tuition stipends given to students at private universities to the same level as the stipends granted students at state schools like Colorado State University and the University of Colorado. Currently, students attending qualifying private higher-ed institutions, such as the University of Denver or Regis University, receive only 50 percent of the amount granted to students at public colleges and universities.

The Colorado Opportunity Fund, put in place in 2004, was devised as a way to redirect some of the state’s higher-ed funding directly to students in the form of stipends that they apply to their tuition at eligible colleges of their choice.  Students who are eligible for in-state tuition are given a stipend that is distributed evenly across the board per credit hour and deducted from their tuition bill.

Spence says it’s a matter of treating all Colorado college students the same.

“It’s an issue of fairness,” said Spence. “College students at private schools add as much value as students at state schools.”

Rep. Beth McCann, D- Denver, said making alterations to the COF may be premature if her measure, House Bill 1184, which forms a study committee to explore funding possibilities for higher ed, gets the go-ahead. The committee would be comprised of legislators, members from public and private education communities; and representatives from the business community.

“We need to take a comprehensive look at how higher education is funded,” said McCann. “We’re not providing adequate funding as it is for our public colleges and universities. Before we make any changes … we need to step back and see where we’re at.”

Both measures will first be heard in the House Education Committee.

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.

Thirteen of the Senate’s 21 ruling Democrats as well as eight of the House’s majority Democrats joined all Republicans voting in both chambers on Wednesday to send the groundbreaking proposal to Gov. Bill Ritter, who endorsed it earlier this year.

“The Democratic party and the CEA usually agree on issues,” said Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Arvada, who is vice chair of the Senate Education Committee and the only one of its members to have voted against the bill. “Damage has been done, trust has been lost– how much is hard to know right now.”

The bill’s passage, which came despite concerted opposition from the 40,000-member union, also has some GOP lawmakers now wondering if the CEA’s clout as one of the perennial heavyweights of state politics may be ebbing.

Senate Bill 191 provides sweeping reforms regarding the evaluation and retention of K-12 teachers, changing the way they achieve and hold onto tenure. Among its other provisions, the bill says teachers who receive unsatisfactory ratings twice in a row could lose their tenured status and possibly their jobs. The measure meanwhile is expected to keep Colorado in the running for federal Race to the Top education dollars, awarded to states showing the most innovative education reforms, including enhancing teacher proficiency.

Its bipartisan sponsors, Democrat Michael Johnston, of Denver, and Republican Nancy Spence, of Centennial, in the Senate along with Democrat Christine Scanlan, of Dillon, and Republican Carole Murray, of Castle Rock, in the House, have deftly  handled its journey through the legislative process. They’ve had to navigate their way around the CEA, Colorado’s largest union, which bitterly opposed the bill with a PR blitz and a lobbying campaign that has mustered hundreds of teachers at a time at the State Capitol.

Johnston, who downplays talk of a wedge between his party and the union, says he knew he would be stepping into controversy when he first approached the CEA last December with his outline for tenure reform, proposing sweeping change on a priority the CEA views as non-negotiable—protection of teacher tenure.

“These are big changes and big changes are always hard,” said Johnston. “My negotiations with the CEA have been very warm and they’ve been very honest and up front. I think from the outside it has looked a lot more contentious than it was from the inside.”

Republicans were more blunt.

“Tenure has been a bottom line issue for teachers unions forever,” said Spence, a veteran sponsor of wide-ranging education-reform proposals in both chambers and under both Democratic and Republican legislative majorities. “The CEA is nothing but a labor union—let’s admit that.  Their interest is in protecting their membership.”

Spence, who has locked horns with the CEA for years, said she believes that the passage of bipartisan sanctioned tenure reform will have an effect on the unions’s longstanding relationship with the Democratic party.

“This bill is such a threat to the core of what CEA stands for.  I’m sure this has been a humiliation to the folks at CEA … in a Democratic-led legislature with a Democratic governor, to lose an issue that represents their heart and soul,” said Spence.  “I think this bill transcends CEA power.”

Hudak said she finds it odd that the reform is happening under Democratic leadership.

“When the Republicans had control of the House, Senate and governor’s office they didn’t try and change tenure,” said Hudak.  “If the Republicans didn’t want to take it on I can’t see why the Democrats would be willing to do that and jeopardize our best friends, the CEA.”

Murray, a former teacher and wife of a public school principal, said that she believes that the Democratic lawmakers who support the measure are doing so because of the federal Race to the Top dollars that may become available with passage of SB191 and that the Democratic holdouts on the bill are staunch union supporters.

“The strongest advocates for the CEA are the legislators who are former teachers and members of the Democratic caucus that are pro-union,” said Murray. “I also think that Race to the Top put this issue over the top.”

Because the measure has the support of the Colorado Department of Education and groups such as the Colorado Association of School Executives, Murray said she believes it’s just a matter of time before the CEA will be forced to recognize that it will not be able to have as much sway over the Democratic party.

“It’s just one of those things whose time has come,” said Murray.

Johnston counters that he is optimistic about the future relationship with Democratic lawmakers and the CEA despite the bruising that has occurred.

“It’s a disagreement that will take some collaboration and healing,” he said. “I think what’s going to happen is that we’re all going to realize that we disagreed on this issue but on all the big issues that are coming we’re going to be absolute partners.”

Senate Bill 191 has pitted teachers against teachers while also straining relationships between historical allies over the bill’s overhaul of teacher and administrator evaluations.

The House Education Committee heard testimony on SB 191 for well over 10 hours, with raw emotions rising to the surface at times. The bipartisan measure, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Christine Scanlan of  Dillon and Republican Rep. Carole Murray of Castle Rock in the House and Sen. Michael Johnston, D-Denver, and Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, in the Senate, has sent shock waves through the education community with its sweeping reform of how teachers are evaluated for retention.

Proponents say the measure is needed in part to keep Colorado in the running for federal Race to the Top education dollars. The funding is awarded to states showing the most innovative education reforms, including enhancing teacher proficiency.

Testimony began with two different teacher unions—one supporting and the other opposing the measure. The American Federation of Teachers said it welcomed the reforms while the Colorado Education Association, longtime allies with many Democratic lawmakers, rejected the reforms.

“The CEA rejects reform that is being done to teachers and not with them,” said CEA President Beverly Ingle.

Democratic chairman Rep. Michael Merrifield, of Colorado Springs, and several other Democratic panel members were solid in their support of the CEA’s position and expressed that solidarity throughout the evening.

“The angst doesn’t need to be here,” said Merrifield. “We have a bill here that says we’re going to get this done come hell or high water.”

Meanwhile, the Colorado Association of School Boards, the Colorado Association of School Executives, and the Department of Education all threw their support behind the measure, making for terse exchanges with the Democratic panel members opposing SB191.

Jane Urschel , speaking for CASB,  said that SB191 is a new opportunity for the advancement of K-12 education in Colorado and urged the panel to embrace the opportunity.

“It’s in your hands to create a new moment in Colorado’s history.   You are the only leaders who can reform aspects of earning tenure,” said Urschal.

Merrifield shot back at Urschel, citing her testimony on a previous bill that he sponsored asking for mandated arts curriculum in public schools, saying that she was being hypocritical by now supporting a bill that mandates the implementation of an evaluation system.

“You were very angry and self-righteous back then about an unfunded mandate,” said Merrifield.

CASE Deputy Executive Director Bruce Caughey said that he regretted the animosity created by the bill but said that the reforms were necessary and inevitable.

“I can’t think of a more important topic to be having a robust conversation about,” said Caughey. “I am sad about the divisive politics in this bill that we are fighting about.”

The measure passed 7-6 despite the  “40,000 times no” vote cast by Democratic Rep.Cherylin Peniston of Westminster–a reference to the approximate statewide membership of the CEA.  The bill must first pass muster with the House Appropriations committee before it can be considered by the full house.

A Ritter administration spokesman, however, says the governor is unlikely to embrace any of the GOP proposals and instead will work with the original transportation measure’s Democratic authors on more modest revisions to the late fees on vehicle registration.

Prior to the passage of the much-debated FASTER transportation measure by most ruling Democrats and one Republican in the 2009 legislature, the penalties for registering vehicles late were imposed solely at the discretion of county clerks and topped out at $10. When FASTER went into effect last July, it required a mandatory late fee of $25 per month of non-compliance—up to $100. The new penalties came atop FASTER’s hike in the cost of registering a vehicle in Colorado, averaging around $40 more for a passenger car.

“This is the largest outcry from my constituents that I have ever seen on any legislation passed,” said Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, who now is carrying one of the proposals to rescind the late fees. “It was not well thought out as a penalty.

So far, there are three measures in the Senate and one in the House addressing the late fees—Senate Bill 44 by Lundberg; Senate Bill 4, sponsored by Sen. Al White, R-Hayden; Senate Bill 57 by Sen. Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs; and House Bill 1102, by Rep. Carole Murray, R-Castle Rock.

SB 4 and SB 44 both repeal the late fees outright while Cadman’s bill addresses late fees on non-motorized vehicles such as trailers.  Murray’s House bill tinkers with how the fees are imposed on special mobile machinery such as heavy equipment vehicles used in construction.

Lundberg says the wording of his bill would allow for a broader revision of other provisions in the FASTER bill, and that would be fine by him.

“Transportation needs funding, but this … isn’t the way to go about it,” he said.

White, the only Republican to vote for the original measure after it was amended last February, believes that the late fees are not only unpopular but that they are not good policy due to the inequity that the fees promote. Some people have vehicles that are rarely driven, broken down or have unique situations. They are penalized simply for not registering a vehicle until they actually used it, says White.

“It’s a one-size-fits-all penalty and to me that’s an inequitable situation,” he said. White thinks the best remedy is to roll back the penalty to the way it was before FASTER, with the $10 fee at the discretion of the individual county clerks.

White, who sits on the Joint Budget Committee, also recalled that when the FASTER bill was being considered in the legislature last year, revenue from the late fees was not thought to be a significant consideration.

“Now, we know there is an almost $25 million gain that’ll be hard to ignore,” said White, who anticipates tremendous pushback from Democratic proponents of FASTER who might find it difficult to give up any dollars coming into the state during a time of decreased revenue.

Two of the Senate bills have been assigned to the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee by Senate President Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont. The panel is often called the “kill committee,” and Lundberg says he takes it as a sign neither his nor White’s bill has long to live.

According to his office, Ritter will work with the original sponsor of the FASTER legislation, Rep. Joe Rice, D-Littleton, who is expected to introduce legislation to exempt trailers and other non-motorized vehicles from the late fees.

The administration also continues to stand by the FASTER bill itself, a key provision of which raised some $250 million through a range of higher vehicle-registration fees.

“FASTER is a public safety issue,” said Ritter spokesman George Merritt. “It’s just not acceptable for people to be driving on unsafe bridges. FASTER was a landmark bill to solve that and to make sure that the public is safe.”

They were in a race against the clock to meet a Tuesday deadline to apply for a federal K-12 education grant  called “Race to the Top.” To compete for the federal grant, the state must show that it is ready to implement a plan to recruit, develop, reward and retain effective teachers and principals. The nationwide initiative by the Obama administration is intended to provide seed money to stimulate wide-ranging education reform.

Under the measure adopted by Colorado lawmakers, teachers and principals who graduate from an education licensure program in the state will have their performance tracked for three years after graduation, providing data to evaluate the effectiveness of their training.

Filed as Senate Bill 36, the proposal is sponsored by newcomer Sen. Michael Johnston, D-Denver, and a veteran lawmaker, Rep. Michael Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs.

The bill has enjoyed broad bipartisan support, handily sailing through both House and Senate Education Committees, and passing both chambers with only a handful of lawmakers voting in opposition.  Many lawmakers expressed their support for the tracking program; some of them have long been advocating for the kind of accountability this bill provides.

“It is so exciting for me that we are finally including higher-ed in the loop of accountability for the teachers that are working in our system,” said Rep. Carole Murray, R-Castle Rock.

The innovative nature of the program is not lost on lawmakers, who see Colorado as a leader in the effort.

“This bill is extremely important in terms of looking at being the jet-setters of the nation for education,” said Rep. Nancy Todd, D-Aurora.

One of the few lawmakers who voted against the bill, Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, offered his colleagues the reasoning behind his vote: the cost to taxpayers, not the merits of the program itself.

“Washington is drowning in a sea of red ink,” said Lundberg, questioning the potential $400 million that could be paid out to the state if the grant is won. “From whom will it come?” he asked.  “Our children.”

The bill is now on its way to Gov. Bill Ritter, who is expected to sign it into law today or Monday.