SB207 would establish a registration process within the Department of Regulatory Agencies for roofing contractors and roofers. The bill also calls for training, liability coverage, and prescribed contract requirements.  Additionally, the measure would also prohibit a roofing company from absorbing a customer’s co-payment with their insurance carrier.

Tochtrop said the measure targets fraud and unscrupulous profiteering when nature has its way with rooftops, such as during one of Colorado’s notorious hail storms.

“This is a consumer-protection bill,” said Tochtrop. “Currently, anyone with shingles in the back of their pickup truck can say they are a roofer.”

Tochtrop says the roofing industry came to her asking to be regulated.

“Our industry is broken,” said Kirk Tiley, speaking for the Colorado Roofers Association.  “There’ s an uneven playing field between contractors when consumers don’t trust us as an industry.”

Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R- Broomfield, said he couldn’t support the bill’s premise that the oversight was needed and a matter of statewide concern.

“Far too many occupations need to get permission from the state to offer services. Roofing shouldn’t be the next one,” said Mitchell.

The measure is headed next to the Senate Appropriations Committee for its 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.

Senate Bill 38, by Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, would have repealed the executive order “before its impact becomes unaffordable,” according to Mitchell. In the current fiscal climate there is zero wiggle room for increasing salaries for state employees, but Mitchell said he believes that one of the goals of  unionization  is to secure higher salaries down the road.

“It threatens to create problems,” said Mitchell. “Nothing was broken and nothing needed to be fixed when the governor signed the order. When the economy improves, the inclination will be to ask for more money for state employees who are already on average 10 percent above their counterparts in other states.”

Speaking in support of SB38 was David Ohmart, a state employee, who started a group called Colorado LOSES—Lousy Options Steal Employees’ Salaries—as a counterweight to the state employees’ union Colorado WINS, or Colorado Workers for Innovations and New Solutions. Colorado WINS was formed shortly after the executive order. Ohmart told the committee that it is his understanding that less than 1,000 of the state’s 31,000 employees have opted to join WINS, indicating that most employees would be indifferent to a repeal of the order.

Sen. Bob Bacon, D-Fort Collins, and Sen. Betty Boyd, D-Lakewood both said that repealing the order through legislation would only create ill will among state employees toward Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, who could do what he wants anyway by vetoing the bill.

“Ultimately its up to the governor.  It’s really in the governor’s court, regardless of what we do,” said Bacon.

Said Boyd, “I’m not comfortable tying the hands of the governor.”

Mitchell responded that the question of whether or not state employees needed the help of an organization such as WINS to pressure the state to protect their interests resides with lawmakers.

“It should be shaped by the legislature and those who elect us to public office,” said Mitchell. “Public policy should be determined by what’s in the public’s best interest, not by a group that wants to expand the state budget.”

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 GOP’s Sen. Shawn Mitchell, of Broomfield, is calling for a scaling back increased portfolio standards for the use of renewable energy by public utilities, imposed by the legislature last year, and Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, is proposing that the costs of providing alternative energy be reflected on utility bills.

Mitchell’s Senate Bill 71, introduced last week,  says that alternative energy sources should comprise 10 percent of power generation—a standard first approved by state voters in 2004 under Amendment 37.  The new legislation ramps down last year’s House bill 10-1001, passed by a Democratically controlled legislature that increased the percentage to 30 percent by the year 2020. The bill was signed into law by then Gov. Bill Ritter. The 2011 General Assembly is split between GOP control in the House of Representatives and continue Democratic control in the Senate.

Mitchell said he believes the voters approved the 10 percent requirement in good faith and that the legislature imposed its own agenda without regard for the voters’ intent.

“Voters approved a substantial move toward alternative energy as a reasonable step to see if it’s practical and cost-effective,” said Mitchell. “This green fantasy of pushing it up to 20 and then 30 percent slaps voters in the face. It punishes voters by replacing a modest experiment with an extreme one.”

However that debate shapes up, Renfroe says he believes consumers have a right to know what the costs are to rely ever more on alternative forms of energy.  His Senate Bill 30 would require providers to specify the costs by energy type on a consumer’s bill statement.

“It’s important for people to have information about what energy is costing them,” said Renfroe. “People should always have that level of transparency. We all want energy efficiency, but we need to know the cost to make those decisions.”

However, Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Aspen, said rolling back the requirement from 30 percent would be a step backward for the state.

“This is a sector of the economy demonstrating growth, new jobs and investment,” said Schwartz.  “Our leadership on renewable energy development has brought Colorado national and international attention. This bill is backwards thinking.”

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.

Pinnacol, an autonomous organization originally chartered by the legislature, is mandated by Colorado law to be the workers compensation insurance provider “of last resort,” meaning, if a company cannot acquire workers comp insurance from other providers in the marketplace, then Pinnacol must provide a policy.

A recent KMGH Channel 7 report showed Pinnacol executives taking a lavish retreat to Pebble Beach, Fla, following previous disclosures about high salaries that have drawn scrutiny and criticism that Pinnacol execs were living the high life.  For Sen. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, the performance audit confirmed that the company’s policies regarding pay and  travel are in need of much tighter controls.

“I think most recently people may have been looking at the travel and expense policies,” Carroll said. “I think we all knew there were reasons to be concerned about potential conflicts of interest and some high-level spending, I didn’t expect up to 75 percent non-compliance.  That’s very high.  As you heard in the audit, it borders on abuse, a term I’ve never seen in the time I’ve been on audit committee.”

As noted in the summary of the performance audit, 60 travel expense reports were tested, and 45 “did not comply with one or more of Pinnacol’s own travel and entertainment expense policies.”

For Republican Sen. Shawn Mitchell, of Broomfield, however, the performance audit was hardly even necessary.

“We’re here because (Senate President) Brandon Shaffer tried to grab half-a-billion dollars from Pinnacol last year,” Mitchell said.  “Pinnacol successfully opposed that effort, and the state is going to harass and inflict pain on Pinnacol to the full extent of its ability.”

Mitchell was referring to the 2009 legislative session, when Pinnacol became the proverbial political football as a cash-starved state looked for sources of revenue.  Because the company had previously been a government entity, legislation was offered in 2009 that would have allowed lawmakers to draw down some $500 million from the company’s reserves, something Mitchell today characterized as “legalized larceny.”

Mitchell called the performance audit a “financial and operational strip-search of Pinnacol,” stressing that the state doesn’t direct or provide oversight to Pinnacol’s operations.

Carroll has long been one of the most vocal critics of the company, and said that employers all across Colorado should be concerned with various findings in the audits, especially what Carroll characterized as Pinnacol’s potential “double- or triple-dipping” when rating employers’ risk factors, thereby incorrectly charging higher premiums.

While in 2009 the topic was whether the state might appropriate funds from the quasi-governmental company, in early 2010, Pinnacol floated the idea of paying a multi-million premium to the state in order to “buy” its complete independence from the state.

Carroll said the idea of privatization is a non-starter for her, given the findings of the audits.

“We had multiple findings about unfair rates and discriminatory rates.  If that’s the current status-quo, and to basically go and remove the rest of the oversight, for the businesses that have no other choice for where they go (to buy coverage), that would be really bad news.”

The two audits released by the committee were the performance audit and the financial statements audit.  The financial statements audit of the company is a regular, annual audit required by law.  The performance audit was an additional audit requested by lawmakers, and is not required by law as is the financial statements audit.

House Bill 1238, sponsored by Democratic Senator Gail Schwartz of Aspen, would create wildlife crossing zones—similar to construction zones—where fines for speeding can be doubled.  The proposal limits the designated zones to 100 miles of roadway and sets forth criteria needed to create the crossing zones.   The house measure was vigorously debated on the Senate floor.

Schwartz said that in the last 2 years the number of animals killed on our roads has gone up by 75 percent, and human fatalities due to vehicle collisions with animals have doubled.

“This is a safety bill that protects the public,” said Schwartz.  “We have waited too long in Colorado to address this problem of slaughtering animals and killing people on the roadways as a result of not having adequate protections.”

GOP senator Mike Kopp of Littleton, recently elected minority leader after Sen. Josh Penry stepped down from the post, doesn’t believe that doubling fines solves the problem of animal-related accidents, and that other solutions, such as signage, can help to curtail accidents.

“You don’t have to raise the penalties to double the amount in order to forestall some of these unfortunate incidents,” said Kopp. “This is just an excuse to create a new pool of fine revenue and our motorists in the state deserve better.”

Sen. Bruce Whitehead, D-Hesperus, whose district encompasses areas that would likely be subject to the measure, agreed with Kopp, and would like to see the issue studied more before the zones are created.  A previous version of the bill had called for such a study.  Whitehead believes the public will become aggravated and annoyed when faced with paying more in fines.

“In my mind this is like a construction zone with double fines but the difference is construction zones go away. Wildlife zones will always be there, and there will be double fines, and they will be speed traps,” said Whitehead.

Whitehead suggested that in addition to increased signage,  more fences should be erected to keep the wildlife from entering roadways.

“Controlling the wildlife instead of controlling the people is probably a better approach,” said Whitehead.

Sen. Lois Tochtrop, D-Thornton, insisted that the measure is not about the fines and the revenue collected, but about saving lives, especially of those who may be unaware of Colorado’s wildlife population.

“This isn’t about doubling fines, this is about saving lives.  Tourists are not aware of where wildlife crossings are.  This is an awareness measure.  said Tochtrop. “I don’t think anybody wants to see an elk go through their front windshield.

Sen. Shawn Mitchell, a Republican from Broomfield, suggested that the wildlife are perhaps equally unaware.

“Wildlife don’t conveniently stay in the marked crosswalk, they don’t conveniently go to where the signs are that say this is where a wildlife crossing is,” said Mitchell.    “There are lots of day-to-day risks on the road that we can’t always chase with more and more severe penalties.”

Schwartz remained steadfast in her support of the measure and the increased safety it is intended to provide.

“I don’t want the blood of our citizens and visitors on my hands. A modest reduction in speed could save a life,” said Schwartz.

The crowd reached just under 2,000, as estimated by a member of the Colorado State Patrol.  An additional 6,000 people were following the event via live streaming on the Internet.  The rally was organized by Brian T. Campbell, and the group, “Hear Us Now.”

Numerous speakers gave the crowd plenty of opportunities to cheer and to express disapproval, with calls to action, and listing grievances such as higher taxes and expanded governmental roles.

Broomfield Sen. Shawn Mitchell, a Republican, spoke of the upcoming November election and called upon the crowd to vote their conscience rather than by political party.

“This is not about a party,” said Mitchell.  “I don’t want my rights kicked by a donkey but I don’t want my rights trampled by an elephant, either.”

For Mitchell, the rally was all about personal responsibility, personal freedom, and limited government values that he says aren’t always reflected in state policies, and he strongly encouraged the crowd to rise up against what he characterized as a socialist approach in Colorado.

“When it comes to turning Colorado into a social welfare state, we’re not the party of no–we’re the party of hell no,” said Mitchell.

Amanda Teresi, president of “Liberty on the Rocks“, a national social-networking organization, used her time at the podium to exhort the crowd to remain civicly engaged. Her speech was peppered with frequent and thunderous applause.

“It is important that we do our best to remain aware of what is going on here at the Capitol and what is going on in Washington,” said Teresi.  “Within the document that freed our country from tyranny lies an important message that we must often consider. It is the declaration that we are the defenders of our Constitution and of our liberty and that if we wish to retain our freedom, it is up to us to do so.”

Besides Mitchell, a number of other state legislators were on hand to weigh in on the rally although some Democratic lawmakers declined comment for this story.

Democratic Rep. Wes McKinley, of Walsh, said he firmly supports the folks attending the rally and respects their right to be there.

“I think it’s great that people can assemble and express their views,” said Mckinley, adding that, in his estimation,  “The message is not that bad.”

Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, expressed his strong support  for the prevalent theme at the rally—that of lower taxes, less government, and activism.

“This is a great day to take back our country,” said Renfroe. “ People are fed up with what’s happening with our state. They’re increasing fees and taxes everywhere, and (the citizens) have had enough.  It’s time for us to band together and go back to what our founding fathers stood for.”

Among those who attended the rally, most said they came to participate, but some were there just to see firsthand what’s been dubbed the “tea party” movement.  Shelby from Denver and Michael from Boulder were among those who came to take it all in, but also came with a sign stating their support for the recently enacted federal health care legislation, a position at odds with the tenets of the movement.

Rep. B.J. Nikkel, a Republican from Loveland, said she understands the sentiments permeating the crowd and summed up in words what many in the crowd expressed with handmade signs.

“I can sympathize that these people are at their wits’ end, upset over the state and federal government overtaxing them with a burden that they are unable to bear, especially during these difficult economic times,” said Nikkel.

“If this is a new use, it could be questionable,” said Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, a member of the Senate Transportation and Energy Committee, where the measure was heard.

House Bill 1276, said its sponsor, Broomfield Republican Sen. Shawn Mitchell, clarifies that a former rail right-of-way sold for the purpose of public passenger rail service—such as RTD’s–won’t revert to the original land owners instead.

“There’s a glitch—a hang-up—with a federal regulator that may or may not recognize the transfer of ownership from the prior owner to RTD,” said Mitchell.

Millions of dollars have been spent by RTD to acquire almost 70 miles of former railroad rights-of -way in anticipation of installing light-rail service. Tourist rail services are not addressed in the measure.

Some of the rights-of-way are federal land grants dating to when railroads first came into being. Federal law says that if the right-of-way is abandoned, it reverts to the federal government.  The Colorado Constitution says that these abandoned rights-of-way are a “public highway,” and RTD use would qualify.

State statute, however, does not make such a provision and technically would allow such rights-of-way to return to the property owner.

Renfroe told the panel that his reservations about the bill stem from a similar circumstance in his district. A defunct rail line once used for hauling sugar beets was being eyed by local governments hoping to convert it into a bike path, but the line goes through farmland, and the affected farmers wanted their land back.

“If we’re taking a rail line that was the property of a citizen at one time that was condemned and then taken from them, and now we’re not using it for that original purpose, shouldn’t we go back to that property owner before we put it to a new use?” asked Renfroe.

The bill will now go to the full Senate for consideration as early as Monday.

“This will protect our children and will keep our children alive, and will keep or children safe,” Williams said, asking her colleagues to support the measure.

Senate Bill 110 would make it a primary offense – something an officer could pull a vehicle over for—for children under 8 that are not properly belted into a booster seat.   Current law says that children under 6 of a certain height and weight must be a in a car seat, but it is a secondary offense, meaning that an officer would have to pull you over for some other reason to ticket you for the seat-belt offense.

Republican Sen. Shawn Mitchell, of Broomfield–who noted he has seven children–said mandating boosters for children up to 8 years-old usurps the authority of the majority of parents who care about their kids safety.

“Our lawmaking is descending into terminal silliness,” said Mitchell. “I would wager that I have buckled more car seats and changed more diapers than most of you in this chamber–I know something about child safety, something about parental commitment and something about loving and taking care of my children.”

That largely GOP argument also picked up the endorsement of the chamber’s top Democrat. Senator Majority Leader John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, a former law enforcement officer, said making the booster seat a primary offense overlooks practical considerations such as determining a child’s age, which makes it difficult to enforce.  Law enforcement groups have said they support the bill to the extent that it eliminates the weight and height criteria leaving only an age requirement, but Morse maintains the enforcement problem is still the same.

“The argument is not whether or not children should be in a car seat,” Morse said. “The argument is whether or not we should use the enforcement power of the police. It still doesn’t make it easier to enforce, and it still doesn’t make it the right thing to do.”

Children’s Hospital in Denver reports that over the past 10 years, 9,000 6-to-8-year-old children were injured in car accidents.  Of those, only six were in a car seat.  The most common injuries included spinal fractures, contusions, skull fractures and internal bleeding.

Williams’ bill failed on an initial vote but was revived by a procedural move that will allow it to be heard again next week, when Williams said she anticipates having a majority vote.

The proposal passed, but only after a lively discussion on whether men or women ultimately get the short end of the stick from the insurance industry.

“The disparity in the cost of health insurance between men and women is unacceptable, and correcting this inequity should be one of our top priorities,” said Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, who introduced House Bill 1008 in the Senate alongside Sen. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora.

Flying in from Washington D.C. to testify for the bill before the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, Lisa Codispoti from the National Women’s Law Center said the bill is needed because of the tenuous status of  national health reform, a pending version of which also would ban gender-based rating for health coverage.

“Women and men of Colorado should not have to wait on Congress to remedy this harmful and discriminatory practice,” said Codispoti.

Skeptics of the legislation, however, have noted that women in key age groups simply are more expensive to insure given their health-care needs, and disparities in rates reflect that reality.

Under questioning by the committee’s Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, Codispoti acknowledged that there is  indeed a statistical difference between men’s and women’s health-care needs. However, she said the statistics are not fair to the individual.

“It is true that women throughout their lifetime do use more health care services than men, but what we find troubling about gender rating is that it makes an assumption that because you belong to a particular group that you will use more health care services,” Codispoti said. She also said rates charged to women varied greatly from state to state and policy to policy.

Sen. David Schultheis, R-Colorado Springs, said that dynamic also reflects market realities.

“We should allow the free market to find the price based on it’s own criteria … this is not the Soviet Union here,” said Schultheis.

Schultheis contended the bill would discriminate in reverse.

“What you’re doing is discriminating against men, and that’s not fair.  Why should men have to pay a higher premium when on balance they require less health care  … over their lifetime?” asked Schultheis.

Carroll contered that in a truly merit-based system, being gender-blind is more fair because it leaves it up to claims history and health status and that to add anything beyond that is a gender surcharge.

“Under this bill anyone that uses more will pay more and anyone that uses less will pay less,” said Carroll.

Erin Benett, the Colorado organizer of 9 to 5, the National Organization of Working Women, said the status quo is flat unfair.

“No one should be able to charge a person more for a product simply because of gender. Being a woman is not a pre-existing condition,” said Bennett.

Mitchell pressed Benett on her premise that gender should not be a factor in determining the price of an insurance product.

“Should auto insurance companies be allowed to charge more for boys than girls?” asked Mitchell, in reference to the much higher rates that are applied to the policies of teen-age male drivers than to teen-age female drivers.

Mitchell nevertheless was the lone Republican joining the Democrats on the committee in voting for the bill, saying that he will now consider introducing a bill that prohibits gender discrimination for auto insurance and that he anticipates their support.  The other two men on the committee, both Republicans, voted against the bill.

“It’s a rare day when the Public Defender’s Office and the attorney general appear together to support a bill,” Republican Attorney General John Suthers said at a news conference showcasing the legislation.

The bill creates a distinction between possession of drugs and distribution of drugs by reducing sentences for possession, and it focuses on treatment rather than incarceration for those drug offenders who are primarily addicts.

The primary sponsors of the bill, Rep. Mark Waller, R-Colorado Springs, and Sens. Pat Steadman, D-Denver, and Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, based the bill upon recommendations from the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, whose members hail from different quarters of the criminal justice system.  The premise of the bill that emerged out of the recommendations is that jailing non-violent drug offenders is not the best use of public-safety dollars.

“It’s time to switch our focus from being tough on crime to being smart on crime,” said Waller.  “This bill is about how we can get the best bang for our public-safety dollars.”

Steadman said the state could save money and lives by being smarter.

“Incarceration is really not the right answer.  The real problem with most prisoners is addiction,” said Steadman. “We need to be smarter with public resources by not simply warehousing drug addicts.”

Christie Donner, Executive Director of the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, said the measure will have far-reaching benefts for children whose parents are incarcerated.

“This change in approach will interrupt the cycle of addiction and involvement in the criminal justice system,” said Donner.  “Families, especially the children, of those caught up in addiction and the criminal justice system, will benefit the most when the cycle is interrupted.”

The sponsors of the bill and its supporters in the criminal justice community say that using state resources for treatment leading to recovery will cut down on recidivism and save the state money in the long run. They say that could help prevent many crimes from being committed in the first place, such as burglary when a criminal is motivated by drug use.

Mesa Count District Attorney Pete Hautzinger implemented a treatment program for methamphetamine addicts in Mesa County, and he said there was a dramatic decline in felonies after the program was put in place.

“If we can get the drug addict ‘unaddicted’ we can prevent all sorts of other crimes,” said Hautzinger.

Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, who is another of the bill’s sponsors and chairs the House Judiciary Committee, where the bill will be vetted first, said she hopes the proposal will be a real turning point in how crime and criminal sentencing are approached.

“I hope this is a beginning of a whole new attitude,” said Levy.