Legislative staffer Joy Huse delivered the news to the Joint Budget Committee, saying the driving factor in the overpayments was non-compliance with a requirement that in exchange for the benefits, recipients agree to actively seek work by making at least five job inquiries per week.

It is up to the individual recipient to retain records of those job searches although recipients need not submit  proof to the Department of Labor and Employment. The department  says it has no practical way of tracking the information, according to Huse.

Sen. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs said the multimillion-dollar figure is too high to ignore.

“That’s a lot of money being paid out without enough accountability,” said Lambert. “If the department’s not checking on this, who is?”

Rep. Max Tyler, D-Golden said the possibility of overpayments is a refrain he’s heard from the public.

“I hear an awful lot from folks that are concerned about people who are just sort of lying around on unemployment and not seeking work,” said Tyler.

Tyler asked what it would take in terms of extra funding for the department to be able to track the job searching and at what point it would be financially worthwhile.

“I’m wondering where the break-even point for that  might be. I think it would be a good thing to look at and useful to know.”

The department will deliver its responses to the committee next week.

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 anticipated jobs, slated for the solar energy industry, are predicated on a study by Environment Colorado and the Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association that claims a 23 percent increase in solar-industry jobs for Colorado based on national trends and Colorado’s current position as sixth in the nation for providing solar-related jobs.

Senate Democrats suggested last week in a news release that the findings indicate that “Colorado’s aggressive renewable energy standard and many other of the state’s clean energy policies are working.”

The report entitled “National Solar Jobs Census 2010: A Review of the U.S. Solar Workforce,” is a departure from standard formats that depend on economic forecasts, and instead based its findings on employment history and projections from the industry.

Rep. Max Tyler, D-Golden, credits both the sun, and Democratic-sponsored legislation, for the estimated 5,300 new jobs predicted for Colorado in 2011.

“With 300 days of sunshine and an innovative workforce, it just made sense to sponsor strong renewable energy legislation. It’s exciting to see the fruits of that labor right in my district with people getting hired on to work in this blossoming industry,” said Tyler, who sponsored House Bill 1001 which mandates a 30 percent renewable-energy standard for public utilities to generate power by 2020.

Yet, Republican Rep. Frank McNulty, of Highlands Ranch, dismisses the Democratic enthusiasm over the study’s findings in light of legislation that Republican lawmakers have denounced as “job killing,” passed by majority Democrats during a session that some members of the business community labeled “the worst session ever” for businesses.

“This is a typical argument from the Democrat side where they kill tens of thousands of jobs throughout Colorado and then claim a small increase of jobs.  It just doesn’t make sense,” said McNulty.

The Colorado Union of Taxpayers, or CUT, formed in 1976, has been issuing its annual scorecard for years, rating legislators on the degree to which they are “taxpayer friendly” based on criteria developed by CUT to measure whether a legislator favors lower taxes and less government. Given the slate issues perennially touted by CUT, its ranking typically favor Republicans and are waved off by many Democrats.

This year’s rankings were determined by examining up-or-down votes by lawmakers on 25 key bills offered during the 2010 legislative session that were chosen by CUT, including what had been labeled the “dirty dozen” by minority Republicans–a package of budget-balancing measures that eliminated or suspended certain tax exemptions or credits for businesses.

Leading the pack of those who found favor with the group’s criteria once again were Republican lawmakers; Sens. Bill Cadman, of Colorado Springs, Keith King, also of Colorado Springs, Senate Minority leader Mike Kopp, of Littleton, Scott Renfroe, of Greeley, Mark Scheffel, of Parker, and Dave Schultheis, of Colorado Springs, along with Colorado Springs Rep. Kent Lambert in the House–all of whom earned perfect scores of 100 percent.

Rep.Wes McKinley, D-Walsh, with a score of 50 percent, was the top-ranked Democrat in the CUT standings, followed by Rep. Kathleen Curry, the only unaffiliated member of the legislature, who received a score of 28 percent.

Democratic JBC chair Jack Pommer of Boulder earned the distinction of coming in dead last with a score of 4.00, slightly edging out Rep. Max Tyler, D-Golden, for the bottom spot.

Tyler. who earned a 4.17 percent rating from CUT, said he is unconcerned by the failing grade from the group and will continue to vote for what he says is the best interests of his constituents.

“This is a free country, they can do that,” Tyler said.  “I believe that my job is to represent the people in my district and I am in constant contact with them, I hear from them a lot, I talk to them a lot, and I think I represent my district quite well.”

The measures signed into law by Gov. Bill Ritter scale back mandatory late fees that had been imposed on non-motorized vehicles under a sweeping transportation measure enacted last year. That law–called  FASTER, or “Funding Advancements for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery”–raises $250 million a year through wide-ranging fee hikes on Colorado motorists.

The newly revised late fees on trailers are now capped at a modest $10, rather than the $25-$100 late fee that had been in effect since last year.

After hearing from his rural southwestern Colorado constituents who were reeling from sticker shock after being hit with late fees in addition to the higher registration fee collected under FASTER, Sen. Bruce Whitehead, D-Hesperus, said he decided to do something about it.

“I had heard from a number of constituents that the late fees were a problem for them, especially those who don’t use their trailers on a regular basis, and they seemed very concerned,” said Whitehead.  “I wanted to reduce the impact of the fees for a lot of my constituents.”

Republican Sen. Bill Cadman, of Colorado Springs, co-sponsored Senate Bill 198 with Whitehead after seeing his own measure–it would have given county clerks discretion over whether to impose a late fee at all–shot down in committee by majority Democrats.

Whitehead said that he had at one point considered a more far-reaching approach as well.

“I initially thought about taking the late fees clear down to zero dollars, but it was brought to my attention that in the previous law, prior to FASTER, there was the option for the county clerks to charge $10 and so since the counties had been charging the $10, we didn’t want to take that revenue away from the counties,” said Whitehead.

The $10 late fee for non-motorized trailers applies to trailers that are between 2,000 and 16,000 pounds, and for any size camper or multipurpose trailer.  Trailers above 16,ooo pounds are typically commercially hauled behind a semi and are subject to the higher fees.

For trailers weighing less than 2,000 pounds. a separate measure with the same late fee provisions ran in the House and was signed by the governor as well. It was was sponsored by Democratic newcomer Rep. Max Tyler, of Golden.

Both measures became effective today with the revised fees applying to trailers whose registration deadline is after July 1, 2010.  For owners whose registration expired before July 1, they will have to cough-up the higher late fees.

The bill, House Bill 1050, sponsored by Rep. Max Tyler, D-Golden, originally would have set up the registry in the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment but was amended to allow any entity that exchanges medical information to voluntarily maintain the forms online.   Under the updated version of the bill, the health department only will be required to provide on its website a link to downloadable end-of-life directive forms.

Most lawmakers were supportive of the measure, but one GOP lawmaker, Rep. David Balmer, R-Centennial, had concerns about any medical records being held by the state, electronic or otherwise. Balmer also said he is not so sure that the legislature should approve any programs at the moment that may further burden an already-strained state budget.

“Right now we don’t need to be creating potential future programs that will cost money,” said Balmer.

Balmer said his primary worry is having medical information available online, and he said he prefers that records stay with medical professionals.

“Medical records online are just like any other kind of records online—they can be hacked into,” Balmer said. “If the Pentagon can be hacked into, anything can be hacked into.”

Tyler, an information management consultant for businesses, said the medical information would remain secure if it were to go online.

“I can assure you that this a very high security model,” Tyler said.

The stricken requirement for the online registry through the Department of Health and Environment would have been funded by gifts, grants and donations, an increasingly popular mechanism for getting a program approved that might otherwise be rejected because of limited state funds.

On a related note,  House Bill 1178, which would require transparency regarding the sources of gifts, grants, and donations, also received House approval today. The measure, sponsored by Rep. Amy Stephens, R-Monument, also offers a way to determine whether or not a given program has indeed been funded.  If the program does not receive funding, then under the bill the legislature would have to give its approval before the program could be paid for out of the state’s coffers.

The proposal by Rep. Lois Court, D-Denver, would be paid for voluntarily by those who choose to check a box on their state income-tax returns, and it would help finance state House and Senate candidates who also demonstrate they can raise individual contributions of their own through their campaigns.

“Most people are concerned about the role of money in elections and we want to start the conversation,” said Sen. Morgan Carroll, an Aurora Democrat who is sponsoring the bill in the Senate. “If we don’t like the role of money and special interests, then let’s do something about it.”

Its backers say House Bill 1156 takes a shot at leveling the playing field for candidates who voluntarily decide to forego special-interest, corporate and union money in favor of  individual, grassroots contributions, which then would be matched 2-1 with public money under the proposal.

“Public financing is the only way to keep our republic intact,” says newcomer Rep. Max Tyler, D-Golden, who was appointed to his seat after former representative Gwyn Green resigned and has not yet had to campaign for his seat.

Tyler, who has signed onto the bill as a co-sponsor, thinks that the bill is even more important in light of this week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision relaxing restraints on corporate and union campaign giving in federal elections. The decision says that corporations will be treated the same as individuals in their campaign donations.

“Public financing might be a way to make sure that people are in charge of our government instead of big corporations with lots of money,” said Tyler.

Court, the House sponsor, now wonders what if any effect the new court decision might have on her bill since the decision has sparked a lawsuit over voluntary contributions.

“If we pass it and find that it is just a moot point, then it doesn’t make sense to do it,” said Court, who will be talking to the drafter of the bill to determine how to proceed from here.

Proposals to open the door to publicly financed campaigns long have divided the two major parties. Capitol Republicans say that, rather than clean up campaigns, publicly financed candidacies actually would distort elections. Campaign contributions reflect real-world support for a candidate rather; subsidies, they say, mask it–or the lack of it.

“Candidates should garner their own support and not depend on a public lottery system,” said one GOP lawmaker, Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R—Broomfield. He also said public funding forces taxpayers to fund candidates they don’t believe in.

“People shouldn’t have to pay for political contests that support messages that they don’t agree with,” Mitchell said.