Location: HCR 0112
4. Overview of Statutory Revision Committee
COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY REVISION COMMITTEE
| Votes: View--> | Action Taken: |
| <none> | <none> |
09:10 AM -- 4a. Overview of Statutory Revision Committee
Kate Meyer, Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS), testified before the Committee. She introduced the Committee's staff, each of whom represents various subject matter teams within OLLS:
Government Team: Represented by Kate Meyer
Business Team: Represented by Kristen Forrestal
Law Team: Represented by Jane Ritter and Jessica Wigent
Publications Team: Represented by Patty Amundson
09:12 AM -- 4b. Update on COLS meeting to select nonvoting SRC members
Ms. Meyer noted that two attorneys-at-law would be appointed to the Committee by the Committee on Legal Services at its September 29th meeting.
09:12 AM -- 4c. Briefing on materials provided in meeting packet
Ms. Meyer provided an overview of the materials provided to the Committee, which included:
- A copy of HB 16-1077, the bill from the 2016 session that recreated the Statutory Revision Committee
- A printout of the information available on the Statutory Revision Committee website
- A flowchart for the proposed receipt and processing of bill ideas
- A copy of a Legisource article, written by Jennifer Gilroy, Revisor of Statutes, which details the types of issues addressed in the annual Revisor's Bill
Ms. Meyer noted that there is no bright line division between the Revisor's Bill and the work done by the Committee, and she foresees that, when appropriate, some issues brought to the Committee will be referred to the Revisor for inclusion in the Revisor's Bill. In addition, when the Revisor receives ideas that are too substantive or policy-oriented to include the Revisor's Bill, Ms. Gilroy and her staff may be referring those issues to the Statutory Revision Committee.
- A copy of the 1985 annual report issued by the first iteration of the Statutory Revision Committee.
Ms. Meyer explained that the report includes a helpful narrative that sets forth a snapshot of the bills the Committee recommended, as well as the Committee's statistics that year--that they received 80 bill ideas but only introduced 12 bills-- along with description of bills the committee seriously considered but ultimately didn't recommend be drafted for various reasons.
09:15 AM -- 4d. Publicizing the SRC
According to Ms. Meyer, OLLS will continue to be a useful source of material. All five bill ideas presented to the Committee today originated from various work conducted by the OLLS this summer, and as staff continue to annotate cases, draft and research bills, and conduct rule review, it's highly likely that staff will continue to discover issues to bring before the Committee.
Ms. Meyer also shared that information about the Committee will be broadcast across OLLS's Twitter account, on its website, and that a notice will be printed in the hard copies of the 2016 Colorado Revised Statutes notifying readers that they can reach out to Statutory Revision Committee staff via email if they believe they have found a defect or anachronism in the law. In addition, Ms. Meyer inquired with the Colorado Bar Association about running an ad or an article to announce the Committee and its work and notified the legislative liaisons for the executive branch agencies about the Committee's existence.
Ms. Meyer discussed the need for the Committee to engage in an ongoing dialogue with the legal community and public at large to perform its work.
Senator Holbert then suggested reaching out to the Open Media Foundation, which manages the Colorado Channel, to do a visual or text description and invitation to the public to refer ideas to Committee.
Chairperson Moreno suggested an advertisement in the 2017 Digest of Bills.
Ms. Meyer also noted that the Committee is statutorily required to solicit ideas from jurists, public officials, the American Law Institute, the Colorado Bar Association, the American Bar Association, and other learned bodies and the public in general.
Chairperson Moreno said it would also be helpful to continue to receive OLLS reports on judicial decisions, especially those that recommend the legislature make changes to the law.
Ms. Meyer noted that Michele Brown, of the OLLS Publications Department, and Jennifer Gilroy, Revisor of Statutes, keep track of statutes that have been declared unconstitutional.
09:21 AM -- 4e. Proposed process for handling bill ideas; and 4f. Statutory Charge
Kristen Forrestal, OLLS, explained the Committee's charge: To engage in an ongoing examination of the statutes for the purpose of discovering defects and anachronisms in the law and to recommend needed reforms. Ms. Forrestal reiterated that staff had reached out to lobbyists for the Colorado Bar Association and the Denver Bar Association about advertising in their respective publications to alert lawyers that if they find an issue they should share it with OLLS staff. She then drew attention to a specific part of the Committee's charge: That proposed bills should be limited only to those that streamline, reduce, or repeal provisions of the statutes.
Ms. Forrestal then presented the flowchart detailing how issues brought to the Committee are received and processed. She anticipated receiving many requests and asked a question of the Committee: Were the members comfortable with OLLS staff making the determination about whether or not the issue was within the Committee's charge?
Senator Steadman agreed it was appropriate responsibility for OLLS staff to handle requests. He added that if staff determined a request did not fit the Committee's charge, the interested person could lobby individual legislator's to take up the issue in a bill of their own.
Ms. Forrestal agreed and confirmed that the OLLS staff would make the initial decision about whether an issue was appropriate for the Committee.
Senator Holbert shared a copy of the amendment he offered on HB 16-1077, which created the requirement that the Committee should only consider bills that reduce, streamline, or repeal. He then posed a question to the Committee: What exactly were the parameters of this requirement? He said that the net effect of the Committee should be to remove duplicated and obsolete provisions. He opened for discussion the Committee's role as gatekeeper. SenHolbertAmendmenttoHB1077.pdf
Ms. Meyer responded that staff was eager for guidance from the Committee about this very issue--whether it was a matter of counting words added in statute (in small caps) versus words repealed (in strike type) and finding a net negative, or whether that was a too literal reading.
Senator Holbert said that he sees the committee serving its purpose by looking at conflicting or obsolete statutes (e.g. regulation of 8-track players).
Chairperson Moreno added that, as the sponsor of the revival of this Committee, his expectation of the scope of its work closely aligned with what Senator Holbert described: Removing provisions that no longer make sense and righting defects and anachronisms in the law. He continued that he believed it would be incumbent upon Committee members to exercise restraint. He also noted that the bipartisan composition of the Committee was important to him as the sponsor of HB 16-1077, because it would ensure that members would hold each other accountable.
Ms. Meyer offered an option to the Committee concerning its charge – that members would make a case-by-case determination on the issues presented to them. She added that for issues that were "close calls", the previous rendition of the Statutory Revision Committee included those issues in its annual report--using it as a vehicle to inform members of the General Assembly that while a certain proposed bill was outside the Committee's charge, it could be ideal for an individual legislator's bill.
Vice-Chairperson Dore asked if the Committee was starting from scratch.
Ms. Forrestal answered that while the Committee was, somewhat, staff has been compiling and soliciting ideas and issues since the passage of the bill.
Vice-Chairperson Dore asked if instead of getting a stack of issues to consider, that maybe they could be categorized in some way--by title or subject matter.
Ms. Forrestal answered that in the future, staff was hoping to get ideas from each department and that staff would introduce ideas to the Committee in this way.
Representative Arndt then asked what the process was in referring bills back to the General Assembly for consideration.
Ms. Meyer answered that each piece of legislation would need an affirmative vote of at least five voting members of the Committee.
Ms. Forrestal added that another question staff had for members was how the decision would be made to draft bills.
Representative Arndt then asked about whether there would be specific deadlines when bills would need to be voted on for introduction.
Ms. Meyer answered that, while the Committee is statutorily authorized to meet in the interim and during session, there is no limit on the pieces of legislation the Committee recommends. She did note that there was no permission in HB 16-1077 that allowed for a waiver of bill deadlines during session.
Senator Steadman agreed with the process of first voting on whether to request a bill draft, and then when a draft it presented, members vote again on whether or not to recommend the Committee introduce the legislation. He added that, in terms of the flowchart representing the process of hearing and deciding on bills, the chart lacked an area describing the process for when a Committee member wants to bring an issue to the group.
Ms. Forrestal agreed Senator's Steadman point was important and that the chart should be updated.
Senator Holbert then asked what would happen if the Committee was considering a bill that another legislator was working on in his/her own capacity, and who would take precedence?
Ms. Forrestal answered that the Committee's deliberation on bills was public and that the drafts legislators are developing with OLLS staff are confidential until they are introduced.
Senator Holbert asked if it would be permissible for OLLS staff to notify an individual legislator that they were working on similar bills.
Ms. Forrestal said that, in her work as a drafter, she would feel comfortable discussing with the individual member that the same issue was before the Statutory Revision Committee.
Senator Holbert asked if it would be possible for OLLS staff to alert Committee members that they were working on a draft of a bill that was already being taken up if the Committee could be somehow be informed that they may not need to pursue the bill.
Ms. Meyer answered that, due to confidentiality requirements, this would not be possible. She said that she would inform OLLS staff that it would be doing due diligence to keep informed of the Committee's work and to look for duplicative requests.
Ms. Forrestal added that drafters in the OLLS would let legislators who might be working on similar issues as the Committee know that they have the option to confer with Committee members.
Chairperson Moreno added that the legislator may very well do that because it would free up a bill title for the legislator.
Senator Steadman observed that it might be more likely that the issue the Committee is considering could possibly fit within another bill, without going beyond that bill's title, or that a bill sponsored by the Committee which does a discrete fix to the statutes might be the most likely way forward.
Ms. Meyer added that drafters would do their best to catch duplications on the front end and that if conflicts between a bill from the Committee and from a legislator were to arise, the Publications Team of the OLLS would find and address that conflict.
Chairperson Moreno next raised a question about sponsorship of bills--would both a House member of the Committee and Senate member of the Committee need to sponsor a bill.
Ms. Meyer responded that the provision of HB 16-1077 that dealt with this concern was tied in with the exemption on the 5-bill exemption limit provided for members--and that it was acceptable, though not necessary, for a member of the Committee to sponsor the bill in each house.
Senator Steadman shared that he agreed with Ms. Meyer's interpretation of the statute and that as a matter of practice, it would be wise to always have members of the Committee sponsor the Committee's bills. He added that on the Joint Budget Committee, all members who aren't prime sponsors of the bill are added a cosponsors. He suggested that the Committee pursue this strategy so that the General Assembly recognizes the work product as uncontroversial.
Ms. Meyer added that Committee members would be knowledgeable of the bill's contents and best suited to present the bill to the General Assembly.
In closing the discussion of this agenda item, Ms. Forrestal reiterated that OLLS staff would be preparing memos for the Committee and that the Committee would be voting on whether or not to staff should prepare bill drafts.
Senator Holbert asked about the five votes required to move the bill to the General Assembly--whether that would requirement would always be five members, even if not every member was present at the meeting to vote.
Ms. Meyer confirmed that five members must vote affirmatively, as is required in HB 16-1077.