CSU budget wishes dashed

DENVER - The CSU System could see millions less than suggested by the Colorado Commission on Higher Education if the state's budget committee decides to adopt Gov. Bill Ritter's higher education budget proposal.

Ritter has proposed more than $34 million of higher education's general fund to be allocated to CSU's different institutions throughout the state.

The Colorado Commission on Higher Education more than doubled that, with a request of $71.8 million.

A Colorado State University spokeswoman said the CCHE requests the same budget submitted by CSU.

This year, CSU requested an additional $27 million in funding for mandated costs such as salaries, benefits and facilities management and an additional $37 million to help reach the university's stretch goals, including adding more faculty and increasing access for low-income and minority students.

"This proposed budget is based on reaching those goals and does not take into account unforeseen economic challenges," said Michele McKinney, CSU's Denver-based spokeswoman.

"We outline the budget in order for the Legislature to make informed decisions about what the university will fund with an increase in state support and tuition revenue."

The Colorado Community College System, which includes Front Range Community College, will see a $7.7 million difference if the budget goes toward Ritter's proposal.

"It seems that there is a huge disconnect between what the governor requested and the commission requested," Boulder Rep. Jack Pommer said at Thursday's Joint Budget Committee briefing on higher education funding.

Ritter proposes spending $2.89 billion on all higher education in Colorado, up from $2.77 billion last year. While that represents an increase, it's much smaller than the one higher education got in the previous year.

Legislators and higher education officials have been bracing for a negative forecast for many months. CSU interim President Tony Frank recently eliminated three administrative positions, planning to tuck the $500,000 saved in salaries into a savings fund to "weather bad times."

With the upcoming expiration of Referendum C in 2010, a pause of the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights, higher education will likely take a hit in state funding.

Taxpayer dollars are one of many funding sources for CSU, but they represent a significant portion of the university's approximately $750 million annual budget.

But for now, administrators will have to wait for the final decision from state legislators to see how grim, or good, the outlook for higher education will be next year.

"CSU expects this ebb and flow to occur while budgets are being planned. It's part of the natural course," McKinney said.

School tax hikes OK for now, court says

Well this story's off to a good start. "School tax hikes OK." What tax hikes? Nobody's taxes are going up. In school districts where voters decided the district should keep the revenue it gets from its existing tax rate, district will keep the revenue. In fact, while no one's tax rate is going up, in some districts the tax rate is going down.

The headline is more like a political sound bite than the start of a news story.

By Berny Morson, Rocky Mountain News, Ed Sealover, Rocky Mountain News

A law that funnels more tax money to schools is still in force for now, allowing local school districts to raise taxes in 2009, the state Supreme Court said Friday.

What district is raising taxes? In a lot of districts taxes won't to down, but not cutting taxes isn't the same as raising them. And in each case the voters in the district voted to let the district keep the money.

But the court refused to say whether the law is constitutional, and it gave no hint when that decision will come.

The 2007 law would raise an estimated $1.7 billion for schools over 11 years by blocking a scheduled decline in property taxes.

Opponents filed suit, saying it's an unconstitutional tax increase because it wasn't approved by voters under Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.

Except that it was approved by voters under Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. And it only applies to districts where voters approved it. If the Rocky really doesn't understand this, I with it would explain why it doesn't apply to districts where voters didn't approve a TABOR exemption.

In a two-page order, the judges lifted an injunction by Denver District Judge Christina Habas, who held the law unconstitutional. The unsigned Supreme Court order allows the 178 school districts to set tax rates, which are due at the state education department by Dec. 15.

The education department earlier this week asked the court to rule in the case by Friday so the school districts could meet the deadline. The court heard oral arguments in September.

The law is backed by Gov. Bill Ritter and most Democrats in the legislature.

Most Republican lawmakers oppose it.

Both sides warned against viewing the Friday order as hinting at which way the court will rule.

Evan Dreyer, Ritter's spokesman, said, "This is a very specific, very narrow order.

"We're not reading the tea leaves at all," said Education Department spokesman Mark Stevens.

Richard Westfall, the attorney for groups and individuals who brought the suit, said that if the judges had wanted to rule on the constitutional issue, they would have done so.

"It seems to me they have not yet decided it," Westfall said.

This is possible. I misunderstood where the Court was in the process. I thought the Court was very close to issuing its opinion, but just hadn't finished the formal document. In that case, it would make sense to let the districts certify their mill levies one way or the other - either using the formula under the new rule (if the law is constitutional) or under the old rule (if it's unconstitutional).

If the court is actually a long way from handing down its opinion, then I guess it could let the school districts certify their mill levies either way and sort everything out later.

The order itself says the court, in lifting the lower court injunction, intended to "preserve the status quo as it existed under (the 2007 law) until this court issues its final decision in this matter."

But several lawmakers read the order as upholding the law.

Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said the court wouldn't tell school districts to set tax rates one way, then tell them to do something different in a few weeks.

I didn't say they wouldn't do that, I said I didn't think they would do that. Notwithstanding my last comment, it does seem like there would be better alternatives than having districts certify a mill levy that's not going to stand. Maybe the court could have pushed back the certification date.

"It just seems like an odd thing to do," he said. Pommer was the main House sponsor of the 2007 law.

Pommer, the vice chairman of the Joint Budget Committee, said the order makes it likely the Legislature will have more money to work with next year.

When districts get less money from local taxes, the state has to give them more money from state coffers. If the Court rules the law unconstitutional, the state will probably have to give more money to schools. That means less money for other state services. I guess the like is accurate, but it's sort of the reverse of what I said.

The reporter asked me if we were cutting money out of the budget so we could give it to districts if the Court ruled against the 2007 law. I said "no," because we almost always work according to current law. The 2007 law is current, since the Court hasn't ruled it unconstitutional.

We work according to current law because it's the the most practical thing to do. A lot of people sue the state for a lot of reasons. We would have a hard time doing anything if we acted as though all of those people were doing to win in court.

But, he added, "It's not like it's a total relief. It could be a cruel joke."

Sen. Josh Penry, R-Fruita, a vocal opponent of the 2007 law, said the order demonstrates the court's partisan bias.

"I've always assumed that this court would place its loyalty to the Democratic governor ahead of its fidelity to the constitution," Penry said. "This Supreme Court is the most partisan branch of government in Colorado."

Or maybe the Court hasn't decided. Or maybe the law is just constitutional. Keep in mind, conservatives spend most of their time calling courts "activist." They usually say that when courts overturn something the legislative branch has approved. Or approve something the legislative branch has denied. Conservatives call that "activist" because the court is putting its opinion in place of the "will of the people" as expressed by representatives they elected to the legislature (or Congress).

In this case, if the Court rules the law is constitutional, it will be letting the will of the people, as expressed by their elected representatives, stand. If the Court rules the law unconstitutional, it will be "activist" by "legislating from the bench" and replacing a duly passed law with its own opinion.

That puts conservatives in an awkward spot. If they win this case, they'll have to applaud the court for being activist. It they lose, they'll have to attack the court for failing to be activist.

If you had a job, we'd tell you where to buy your holiday gifts

These two stories are from the Colorado Springs Gazette.

Focus on the Family eliminating 202 jobs

BILL REED
THE GAZETTE

Because of a weak economy and cash-strapped donors, Focus on the Family said it is eliminating 202 jobs, the deepest cuts in the 32-year history of the Colorado Springs-based Christian nonprofit.

Focus expects this holiday season - normally the most lucrative time of the year for nonprofits - to be even more painful to the bottom line.

But for those who still have a job and will be buying holiday presents, the Dobson gang is going to tell you where to spend your money.

Focus puts retailers on a naughty and nice list for Christmas

MARK BARNA
THE GAZETTE

Focus on the Family wants shoppers to know which retailers are naughty and which ones are nice - at least when it comes to holiday lingo.

On Thursday the Colorado Springs-based ministry's political action arm launched its second-annual holiday campaign by posting an online shoppers guide with three categories: "Christmas-friendly" retailers, "Christmas-negligent" retailers and "Christmas-offensive" retailers.

The "friendly" retailers are so designated because they prominently use "Merry Christmas" and other Christmas-specific references in their catalogs and in-store promotions. Those on the Christmas-offensive list use secular phrases such as "happy holidays" and have "apparently abandoned" the use of the word "Christmas," Focus said. Christmas-negligent companies "marginalize" their message by using "Christmas" in some cases and "holidays" in others.

The Focus shopping guide is another weapon in the growing battle against what social conservatives several years ago labeled the "War on Christmas" - the notion that Christmas is being secularized, in part by retailers trying not to offend non-Christians by using terms like "holiday season," "winter season," "shopping season" and "holiday trees."

A group that considers the holiday season "the most lucrative time of the year" would, of course, assume that retailers define Christmas.

Some of the tactics have paid off.

In 2005, Sears, Kmart, Walmart and Target received threats of a boycott from Christian groups for their "holiday season" advertising. The companies soon adopted the Christmas-friendly language.

Governor's small-biz initiative questioned

By Tim Hoover
The Denver Post

Gov. Bill Ritter on Thursday announced initiatives intended to help Colorado businesses weather hard times, but one proposal left lawmakers scratching their heads.

Addressing the legislature's Joint Budget Committee, Ritter said he wanted to spend $12 million on economic-development proposals, though $7 million of that would not be available until July 2010 — and only if the governor's revenue projections are accurate.

Ritter said the recession has taken a toll on states across the country, with 24 reporting budget shortfalls in the current fiscal year. Colorado is facing a $100 million shortfall in the current budget year, which ends in June.

"States are cutting their budgets, laying off employees and reducing public services," Ritter said. "Fortunately, Colorado seems to be weathering the storm better than many other states."

Ritter's proposed budget, while not giving state employees performance increases, still requests $42.9 million for cost-of-living pay increases, representing a 2.5 percent average pay hike. It also calls for hiring 900 new employees, the bulk of whom are needed for growth in prisons and social services, according to Ritter's staff.

Of the nearly $5 million available for economic development before 2010, Ritter proposed using about $2.5 million for an "access to capital" program for small businesses. He said the money might be put into a loan program.

That explanation brought questions from skeptical members of the Joint Budget Committee.

Sen. Abel Tapia, D-Pueblo, said the money would not be of much help to businesses and questioned whether it could be better spent elsewhere.

"For $2.5 million, that's like one company, possibly," said Tapia, who owns an engineering business. "We have bridges that are falling apart, we have roads that need to be repaired, people on the disability waiting lists.

"There's a lot of things we need in our state that we're not getting to."

Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, agreed, saying, "I just find it incredulous that $2.5 million is going to solve anything."

"Incredulous" is a little harsh, but I really can't see how $2.5 million is going to guarantee a significant number of bank loans or otherwise free up credit. I wouldn't care, except that the state government has an important role in maintaining the state's economy -- by doing things like supporting education and building and maintaining the infrastructure -- and proposals like this district us from what we should be doing.

Don Elliman, executive director of the Colorado Office of Economic Development, admitted officials didn't have specific details
on how the money might be spent. He said administration officials needed several weeks to come up with more information but were looking at a program to educate small businesses on how to access more capital, such as via government programs.

Despite Ritter's remarks, Elliman said the money would not be going "to a loan pool somewhere."

"We're not talking about trying to bail out a bunch of banks," Elliman said. "If we can't touch a far greater universe than 150 or 200 companies, then we shouldn't spend a dime of that money in that behalf."

Tony Gagliardi, Colorado director of the National Federation of Independent Business, said the organization welcomed the Ritter plan.

"Our feeling is the governor is recognizing that small business is the economic engine (of the state)," he said.

But House Republicans said the state would be better served by Ritter easing regulations on the oil and gas industry. House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker, mocked Ritter's small-business proposal.

"I think they (Ritter's office) are just trying to make it look like they're doing something," he said. "It's $2.5 million in PR for the governor. It's not going to do a single thing to create a new job."

State's economic decline creates roadblock for lawmakers pushing to pass Jessica's Law

By MIKE SACCONE
Saturday, November 15, 2008

Low revenue forecasts and the state’s economic decline could hamstring a push by Western Slope Republican politicians to institute tougher minimum sentences and more oversight of sex offenders.

Lawmakers on the Joint Budget Committee said legislation supported by incoming Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, and other Republican lawmakers to implement mandatory minimum sentences for child molesters from Jessica’s Law probably will command a steep price tag.

Sen.-elect Al White, R-Hayden, said the merits of implementing Jessica’s Law aside, the measure’s sponsors can expect a “hugely expensive” price tag to accompany their legislation.

White said any bill that increases mandatory prison sentences is sure to drive a multimillion-dollar price tag for the costs of building new prison beds as well as the ongoing expenses of housing and guarding inmates.

Under state law, anyone convicted of sexually assaulting a child could face anywhere from two years up to life in prison.

Under Jessica’s Law, someone convicted of sexually assaulting a child 16 years old or younger would have a mandatory minimum 25-year prison term, according to the Colorado Legislative Council.

Penry and Rep. Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, pushed during the 2007 legislative session to implement mandatory 15-year minimum sentences for sex offenders, but the bill failed to clear the House Judiciary Committee.

McNulty said the bill’s price tag of more than $13 million in its first year contributed to the bill’s defeat.

Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said he likes the idea of cracking down on sex offenders, but the lawmakers behind bringing Jessica’s Law to Colorado need to figure out a way to fund their proposal.

“A lot of people have great ideas for spending money, but they don’t come up with ideas for what you cut,” said Pommer, who sits on the budget panel. “I hope if somebody is going to pitch this, they come and say, ‘This is what we want to cut.’ ”

He said lawmakers finding a funding stream is especially important with the economic downturn sapping the state’s tax revenue.

Colorado is one of eight states, including Wyoming, that have not implemented some form of Jessica’s Law.

Penry said if he and his colleagues encounter a fiscal stumbling block, they plan to push to implement Jessica’s Law, even if it takes more than one session.

“The fight to enact Jessica’s Law will be a marathon and not a sprint. … I don’t have any illusion that it will happen quickly or immediately,” Penry said. “It will probably be a multiyear fight to get it enacted, but it’s an issue we have to keep pushing because it’s the right thing to do.”

Penry said having public sentiment on the side of enacting tougher sanctions for sex offenders will help.

Rep.-elect Laura Bradford, R-Collbran, who made bringing Jessica’s Law to Colorado an issue during her campaign this year, said she plans to support the coalition in any way she can.

State budget constrained by the faltering economy

editorial

The governor's proposed economic stimulus package is a mere $12 million, but we're glad to see more focus on a green economy.

By The Denver Post

Article Last Updated: 11/13/2008 07:26:14 PM MST

Colorado's upcoming budget is sure to be lean, and even Gov. Bill Ritter's efforts to stimulate the state economy underscore how few options the state really has.

Ritter presented his budget request for the fiscal year that begins July 1 to the legislature's Joint Budget Committee on Thursday. He showcased a $12 million economic stimulus package that totaled a mere 0.15 percent of the $7.9 billion in proposed general fund
spending.

We commented on Ritter's overall budget last Sunday. In focusing today on the economic stimulus portion, we're happy to see $2.5 million targeted to "establishing New Energy Economy job-training programs that would be run by community colleges and private
businesses."

Such efforts focus on Colorado's strength in attracting new energy jobs, based on both its abundance of wind and sunshine as well
as the fertile minds of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden. As a current example, the governor cited Vestas working closely with the community college in Pueblo to train skilled workers for its advanced wind power manufacturing.

Ritter's second high-priority program — $2.5 million to "create an 'access to capital' initiative to enhance the availability of credit for small businesses" encountered more skepticism from the budget panel. Both Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, and Sen.-elect Al White, R-Winter Park, questioned whether so modest a sum would add anything to the $700 billion federal bailout designed to revitalize the
nation's credit markets.

For his part, Ritter noted that the proposal was still being drafted and promised much more detail before the legislature would actually be asked to authorize such funds. We share the skepticism voiced by White and Pommer but note that federal programs are often surrounded by a blizzard of paperwork. If the targeted $2.5 million can seed community college programs to help small businesses navigate that bureaucratic maze, it would be well spent.

Meanwhile, we're happy to see the job creation efforts. That includes a round of seven regional job fairs, an open house Thursday at
the state's 63 Colorado Workforce Centers and a Ritter-led trade mission that will depart for China and Japan Saturday.

Beyond such ongoing efforts, it's clear that any hopes for a major job-creation effort depend on Congress' willingness to finance an
expansion of transportation projects, water supplies, sewage treatment and other infrastructure needs, as we discussed in an Oct. 25
editorial. Ritter noted the state has identified a number of projects that already have passed environmental reviews and can go to bid if and when extra federal funds arrive. Given Colorado's tight revenue picture and constitutional requirement for a balanced budget, being poised to capitalize on any new federal grants is a wise move.

Free up cash for disabled in need

When state lawmakers convene in January, they must find a better way to fund services for a neglected part of our society.

The Denver Post

It's a curiosity that while Colorado voters have transformed the state's political power structure from Republican to Democratic in the last four years, they neglected last week to dismantle the Taxpayers Bill of Rights that has so bedeviled basic government services.

It's possible that the ballot was so long people just started voting "no" to get it over with.  But it's a stretch to suggest that Amendment 59 gave voters a chance to dismantle TABOR. 

For one thing, backers nicknamed Amendment 59 "SAFE:" Savings Account for Education.  That doesn't jump out as a plan for dismantling TABOR. Most of the campaign for 59 emphasized education, not dismantling TABOR.

Even the message on education was mixed.  It set up a savings account for education, but eliminated the constitutional requirement that the legislature increase education spending by at least the rate of inflation each year. 

The plan was mind-numbingly complicated and I doubt many people even took the time to read through the ballot question, let alone do enough research to really understand it..

An unfortunate reality of that move is that Colorado children and adults with disabilities remain tragically underserved.

Voters actually rejected two ballot initiatives that could have helped. Amendment 51 would have raised the state sales tax from 2.9
percent to 3.1 percent to pay for services that should be available now to 10,000 children and adults on a years-long waiting list for help.

Amendment 59 would have gutted provisions in TABOR that now prevent our elected state lawmakers from crafting a budget that also
could have helped double the disability budget of $185 million. Had voters approved 59, many of the restrictions on Colorado's budget would have been lifted.

We did not endorse Amendment 51, largely because we think the general budget should serve the disabled and not a special, earmarked tax raised during uncertain and difficult economic times.

This is just strange.  And irritating.  If the Post really wants to make sure the state serves people with disabilities, what better way could there be than to have a "special, earmarked tax" to pay for it?  The state would be able to pay for the services, and they wouldn't be competing with everything else in the General Fund -- things like other health care, education, courts and public safety.

It wouldn't be the first earmarked tax.  We've earmarked tax revenue for all kinds of things, like water projects, schools, highways, services for senior citizens, and construction projects.  Sure it limits our fiscal flexibility, but all of the other earmarks limit our flexibility to pay for disability services.  I don't see the moral argument for holding the line on earmarking revenue just before reserving some for developmentally disabled people.

So, now is the time to start fighting for that money.

We hope when state lawmakers convene in January, they can find a solution. Thousands of families have been waiting for help for their
children with disabilities. In some families, one parent has to stay home to care for adult children with disabilities. With the state's
help, those citizens will get the services they need to become more self-sufficient.

The Post was bold enough to tell voters to vote against funding for disability services, but now it's too timid to suggest what existing state service we should cut to pay for the services.  It's easy to suggest spending more on something, but it's hard to suggest spending less on something else to free up the money.

Should we cut financial aid for college students?  Amendment 58 would have eliminated a tax loophole that lets oil and gas companies avoid paying millions of dollars in taxes.  The money would have helped more Coloradans afford college.  The Post told people to vote against that issue too.  Why?  Aren't the oil companies profitable enough?  Do Coloradans have a duty to subsidize the production of oil and gas for people in California and Illinois?  Or do colleges students just use financial aid to buy beer?

I served on a developmental disabilities interim committee two years ago.  One of the real horrors of those hearings was the naivete of parents who were so sure a small increase in the sales tax would get them the services they need.  One mother told us how hard it was to become a prisoner in her own home, constantly caring for a child who, if left alone, would use his teeth to rip off his own skin.  Another described her fear of dying before finding care for her 40-year-old disabled son.  They were absolutely convinced that people who heard their stories would vote for a 2/10ths of a cent sales tax increase to offer them help.

Having been on the Referendum C speakers bureau I had doubts.  Debating that issue around the Front Range I heard all kinds of excuses for opposing taxes.   Shortly after Katrina, one man said taxes just pay for things like disaster relief in places like New Orleans, which just "enables helplessness."  Helplessness in facing a hurricane? 

That's extreme.  Most radical tax-cutters couch their comments in sensible-sounding blather.  "We should eliminate government waste and inefficiency first."  "It would be better to re-prioritize our current spending."  "Surely in a $7 billion budget we can find money for this, without raising taxes."  Or, like the Post, "it's not the money we oppose, it's the method."

Gov. Bill Ritter is to be applauded for his effort to free up some money. His proposed budget allots nearly $6 million to assist 295
people now on the waiting list. But that effort, as well-intentioned as it is, would serve less than 3 percent of the disabled who qualify for
services and who continue to wait in line.

As we said in advance of Election Day, it is a disgrace that our budget for the developmentally disabled and their families excludes
nearly half the disabled population.

So in advance of election day the Post said that Colorado's lack of funding for the developmentally disabled is as "disgrace," while telling people to vote against a tiny tax increase to pay for the services.

We embraced 59, because it would have allowed the state to  keep tax revenue surpluses instead of rebating them to taxpayers,
allowing the state to create a rainy day fund and address the kinds of shameful shortfalls in basic services that we see lacking for the
disabled.

The developmentally disabled include children and adults with autism, Down syndrome, cerebral palsy and mental retardation. The
services in question include residential care; physical therapy; medical equipment and treatment; help with personal hygiene; day care;
job training in those cases it is appropriate; transportation; counseling and more.

The problem of not caring for those in our society who cannot care for themselves is a moral one. The problem our state's lawmakers
face is a fiscal one. TABOR's formulas restrict state spending beyond what has proven reasonable.

And I suspect the problem the Post is facing is an embarrassing one. They told people to vote against the tiny tax increase to help people with disabilities, the proposal failed, and families of people with disabilities are asking the Post "what now?" 

Ritter's budget already is hamstrung on badly needed services, such as roads and bridges and funding for high education.

We hope lawmakers can at least adopt the little extra he seeks for the disabled, and find a better way to serve them.

So after all of that talk about a "moral" problem and the "disgrace" of our "shameful shortfall" in spending,the Post is only asking for enough money to serve 295 people?  Out of the 10,000 people it says need services?   We've added a lot more than $6 million to the DD budget over the past few years and I'm sure we'll pass the Governor's request. 

Wind-power industry expects record year

Denver Business Journal
Wednesday, October 22, 2008

The wind power industry installed nearly 1,400 megawatts worth of turbines in the United States during the third quarter of 2008, and the year-end total is expected to be the fourth consecutive annual record for installations.

But work in 2009 is expected to slow due to the nation’s economic climate.

That’s according to the third-quarter report issued Wednesday from the American Wind Energy Association, based in Washington, D.C.

Still, the wind power manufacturing sector is growing in the United States — led by Danish company Vestas and its plans to expand its blade factor in Windsor as well as build new plants in Brighton and Pueblo. Vestas is spending more than $600 million and is expected to create about 2,500 jobs in the state.

In 2007, the industry installed 5,249 megawatts of power. It installed 1,389 megawatts in the third quarter of 2008. The year-end total is expected to be about 7,500 megawatts, enough electricity to power about 2.2 million homes, the association said.

AWEA’s report said eight new manufacturing facilities opened this year for turbine components. Nine existing plants are expanding, and it’s been announced that 19 new plants will be built. With the new plants, AWEA said the share of “Made in the U.S.A” parts in wind turbines has risen from about 30 percent in 2005 to 50 percent today.

The new facilities will create an estimated 9,000 jobs, the association said.

Because of the late extension of the wind production tax credit by one year, part of the federal bailout package, and the evolving financial crisis, new construction starts for wind farms are expected to slow in 2009, the association said.

Hopefuls eye size of government, budgets

By Rachel Carter
Longmont Times-Call LONGMONT — Catherine Jarrett wants smaller government, while Jack Pommer says he will work to make sure government does more with less.

Jarrett, a Republican, is challenging incumbent Democrat Pommer for the Colorado House District 11 seat, which covers portions of west and north Longmont.

Pommer first won the seat in 2002, then ran unopposed in 2004. Jarrett decided to challenge him in 2006 and again this year because she wanted to give voters a choice and not allow Pommer to run unopposed.

During the Times-Call election forum Wednesday night, Jarrett looked back at recent legislation she claims has caused big government to get bigger and infringe on individuals’ rights and responsibilities.

“The main purpose of government is to keep an orderly society so people can take responsibility for their own lives,” she said. “I’m concerned that government is taking over responsibilities that are rightfully ours.” Jarrett pointed to recent laws that, she argued, increased local property taxes by freezing mill levies and will increase costs for patients because health-care companies now have more reporting requirements. She said another bill abolished the St. Vrain Valley School District’s abstinence-based sex education program.

“You have a choice: either bigger government or people like me for smaller government,” Jarrett said.

Pommer said that during his time in the state House, he helped make preschool available to thousands more Colorado children and helped lay the groundwork for full-day kindergarten.

He also touted a bill that requires public utilities to get 20 percent of their energy from renewable resources, a move that not only helps the state with energy sustainability but has brought green manufacturing to the state and created jobs in rural parts of Colorado.

Pommer said he now wants to find better ways to provide state services. Rather than throwing more money at health care and prisons, he said, state lawmakers should focus on creating preventive programs that keep people out of hospitals and prisons, or keep people from returning. “I want Colorado to do more with less,” he said.

Business taxes, computer spam top new Colo. laws

By Steven K. Paulson
The Associated Press
DENVER — About 30,000 small businesses will be off the hook for business personal property taxes as an exemption is increased from $2,500 to $7,000 over the next five years, under a new state law taking effect Tuesday.

Insurance brokers will be required to tell their customers how much commission they make on each policy they sell, under a measure from Broomfield Democratic Rep. Dianne Primavera that’s another new law going into effect today.

Those new laws are among 175 passed this year by lawmakers that have a provision that allows 90 days for voters to challenge them, an option never exercised.

House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, D-Denver, said many of the new laws are aimed at helping families. “We’re making energy more renewable, child care more affordable and the insurance industry more accountable,” Romanoff said.

Among the new laws:

• A measure that increases the odds of catching e-mail spammers by providing state enforcement authority similar to federal authority against unwanted e-mails. Colorado consumers will now be able to take complaints to local authorities.
  
• A new law that allows 900,000 more Coloradans to participate in the burgeoning renewable energy market by allowing them to generate homegrown energy from wind turbines and rooftop solar panels and still stay on the grid. That measure, carried in the Senate by Longmont Democrat Brandon Shaffer, also gives customers credit when their meter runs backward from their production of wind and solar power.
• A bill from Boulder Democratic Sen. Ron Tupa that’s designed to lower the cost of textbooks, helping students and parents save hundreds of dollars each year, requiring publishers to list updates.
  
• Lawmakers also passed a bill that requires insurance companies to pay double damages if they don’t pay what they owe when they owe it.
  

Republicans also claimed credit for their new laws, including one that requires the state to determine whether it is in the best interest of taxpayers to bid on a toll highway when it is offered for sale or for lease.

Another GOP measure, from Berthoud Rep. Kevin Lundberg, establishes a pine beetle-mitigation fund within the Colorado State Forest Service to remove the bark beetle and start to clear infested wood, using only voluntary contributions from the public.

“In these tough economic times, the people of Colorado need real solutions to challenges, not expensive proposals that burden taxpayers’ budgets,” said House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker. “Our economy can’t take more taxes and fees or strict mandates that hurt our business climate.”

Legislators representing parts of Boulder, southwest Weld and southern Larimer counties sponsored more than 30 of the 175 new laws taking effect today, including:

• Silverthorne Democratic Sen. Dan Gibbs’ measure requiring the State Board of Education and the State Charter School Institute to enact rules making sure beverages sold or dispensed in schools meet minimum health and nutrition standards.
  
• A measure from Boulder Democratic Rep. Claire Levy and Broomfield Republican Sen. Shawn Mitchell allowing the Regional Transportation District to issue tax-exempt private activity bonds to finance transportation facilities that’ll be owned or used by private entities.
• Larimer County Republican Sen. Steve Johnson’s measure to make a special state license plate available to vehicle owners who invest in energy-efficiency home improvements. Levy carried the bill in the House.
• Boulder Democratic Rep. Jack Pommer’s measure creating an experimental “navigator” program to assist individuals and families on waiting lists for government developmental disabilities programs.
• Louisville Democratic Rep. Paul Weissmann’s measure requiring certification and background checks of substitute workers providing temporary care in state-licensed family child-care homes.
• Boulder Democratic Rep. Alice Madden’s measure to eliminate charges for an estimated 13,665 kindergarten-through-secondnd grade students whose families now pay reduced prices for those children’s lunches under the federal National School Lunch Act program’s family eligibility guidelines.
• Mead Republican Rep. Glenn Vaad’s measure repealing a previous state law requiring the governor to consider appointing an applicant with expertise in aviation or mass transportation to the 11-member Colorado Transportation Commission.
• Berthoud Republican Rep. Kevin Lundberg’s measure requiring the state Department of Labor and Employment, in DOLA’s quarterly electronic news publication, to notify employers of federal laws against hiring or continuing to employ illegal aliens. That notice also is to include information about the federal Electronic Verification Program.
• Longmont Democratic Sen. Brandon Shaffer’s measure making Colorado National Guard members eligible for in-state college tuition assistance even if they haven’t lived here the full 12 months that previously was necessary to qualify for that stipend.
• Boulder Democratic Sen. Ron Tupa’s measure reducing the blood-alcohol-content level, from 0.10 to 0.08, at which someone can be charged with “boating under the influence.”
• Broomfield Democratic Rep. Dianne Primavera’s measure repealing a previous state law that had required the Department of Revenue to establish fees for parking placards for persons with disabilities. The courts had held that earlier law violated the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.
  

Times-Call staff writer John Fryar contributed to this report.

House Democrats take on CSAP tests

Bill would drop some writing, math and science sections
May 1, 2008By Joe Hanel | Herald Denver Bureau
DENVER - Democrats pushed through a major rollback of standardized testing Wednesday, voting for a bill to eliminate all writing tests from the Colorado Student Assessment Program as well as some reading, math and science tests.

The Federal NCLB law requires a lot of tests -- the bill eliminates that tests that aren't required by federal law. That will save us $10 million a year and the bill puts that money back into real education two ways:preventing high school students from dropping out ongoing education for teachers

Rep. Judy Solano, D-Brighton, advanced two bills to cut back the CSAP. House Bill 1357, which the House gave its initial approval, pares back the CSAP to the minimum standard required by the federal No Child Left Behind law. That means eliminating all writing tests, the reading and math tests in grades nine and 10, and the 10th-grade science test.

Solano's other bill, HB 1186, prohibits schools from punishing students who skip the CSAP test. The House gave it final approval Wednesday, sending it to Gov. Bill Ritter for his signature.

But Solano's first bill has put her at odds with the sponsors of Ritter's major education-reform plan, which he calls the Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids, or CAP4K.

Which is odd because one of the two key arguments for CAP4K is that are current standards are wrong and have to be rewritten. The CSAPs test how well kids have learned the state standards. If the state standards are wrong, why not (at least) eliminate the CSAPs that aren't required by federal law.

(The second arguement for CAP4K is weird. It's that when kids in Colorado aren't learning, it's because we don't test them enough).

"CAP4K will rebuild the entire house. House Bill 1357 repaints the front door," said Rep. Rob Witwer, R-Genesee, one of the sponsors of the CAP4K bill, Senate Bill 212.

"CAP4K will end CSAP as we know it, but in its place will put relevant, timely assessments," Witwer said.

So we've been slavishly following state standards that turn out to be irrelevant and untimely. How many students, parents, teachers, schools and communities have been harassed, threatened and insulted over their CSAP results? Now we're admitting the CSAPs test the wrong things.

Officials from Ritter's Department of Education testified against Solano's bill at a hearing several weeks ago.

"The governor will have to decide if these two bills can mesh," Solano said.

CSAP's critics say the results aren't useful because grades come in too late to help individual students. The CAP4K bill will tie the new tests to new curriculum standards that will focus on college preparation.

But they'll be developed by the same people who came up with the CSAPs.

But Solano found many allies among fellow Democrats who dislike standardized tests in general when she pushed ahead with HB 1357 on Wednesday.

Rep. Mike Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs, sang an anti-CSAP song to the tune of "On Top of Old Smoky."

"Don't think about thinking - it's not on the test," Merrifield sang.

Colorado's obsession with testing has robbed the passion from teaching and the love of learning from students, said Merrifield, a retired teacher.Rep. Ray Rose, R-Montrose, led the defense of CSAPs for Republicans.

Critics are wrong when they say schools "teach to the test," Rose said."We teach to children the knowledge they need, and then we test them to see if they've absorbed that information," he said.

Well, not really. The Dept. of Education, which wrote the standards, now says those standards are bad.

Earlier in the morning, the House gave final approval to Solano's other bill, HB 1186.

It prevents schools from punishing students who skip the CSAP. Solano said schools have withheld credits or permission to join school activities.

But schools still will be penalized when students skip, a fact that irritated Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder.

"What this preserves is the true idiocy of the school-accountability system," Pommer said. "The teacher gets penalized, the school gets penalized, but there's no penalty for the individual student."

We would never pass a law saying if you get caught speeding we fine someone else. But our so-called "school accountability" law says students don't have to take the CSAP but, if they don't, we subtract points from the results of the students who did take the test. What sense does that make?

Without the penalty, three Southwest Colorado schools would have had higher scores on last year's School Accountability Reports. Florida Mesa Elementary in Durango and Dolores Middle School would have gone from average to high, and Pleasant View Elementary north of Cortez would have gone from low to average.

Think about that. Under stand a federal law a school can get shut down if it doesn't do well on the CSAPs. There are schools all across the state that have lost points because students, with their parents permission, chose not take the test.

Additional votes on both the CAP4K bill and Solano's CSAP bill are scheduled for today.

New rules blamed for cuts in oil, gas drilling

Gargi Chakrabarty
Friday, April 18, 2008

As much as $1 billion in oil and gas investment is bypassing Colorado because of what the industry perceives as interference from Gov. Bill Ritter's administration, state legislators told the Rocky Mountain News this week.

Sen. Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, said several energy companies have told him they are cutting back on new investment that amounts to up to $1 billion. Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, said he has heard similar complaints from energy lobbyists, but he puts the amount at $500 million.

Oil & Gas lobbyists tell Josh Penry they're broke and starving, Penry tells the newspapers and they print it. Since the oil & gas industry started complaining about having to follow some rules, they've consistently increased the number of wells they're drilling here.

The companies say the Ritter administration's overhaul of drilling rules is not only turning Colorado into an uncertain regulatory climate but also increasing the cost of doing business.

"It's clear that the energy sector is significantly scaling back new investment in Colorado," Penry said. "There's tremendous uncertainty regarding where the new rules are headed, or what they mean. The sooner the certainty can be established, the better it is for Colorado."

Clear? What's clear is that they're drilling here more and more. It would be nice if the reporter would ask for some evidence rather than just assuming it's "clear."

The proposed rules were prompted by mounting complaints from residents living near rigs about noise, odor and adverse impacts on health, environment and wildlife. Some rules are scheduled to go into effect July 1.

"We'd be disappointed to see a company reducing their investment in Colorado," said Dave Neslin, acting director of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission - the state agency writing the rules.

State officials and environmental groups supporting the proposed rules were skeptical that investment was being cut down because of regulatory reasons. Rather, Colorado's weak gas prices - the result of pipeline constraints - is the probable reason, they said.

With the oil and gas companies pleading poverty and complaining about how unfairly they're treated, when all they really want to do is offer us low-priced energy, it's easy to forget that they're actually for-profit corporations. If prices are low, they'd rather not sell us energy.

EnCana Oil and Gas has said the new regulatory hurdles caused them to bypass Colorado while deciding where to spend $500 million in additional investment. The money went to Texas and Wyoming, they told the Rocky.

But on its Web site, EnCana touts the Piceance Basin in Garfield County as its "fastest- growing and highest potential resource play in the U.S."

Also, in a 2007 report, EnCana said: "Natural gas per unit production and mineral taxes in the U.S. decreased $0.15 per Mcf - or 31 percent in 2007 compared to 2006 - mainly as a result of lower natural gas prices in the U.S. Rockies and a reduction in the severance and ad valorem effective tax rate for Colorado properties."

EnCana spokesman Doug Hock said the company hedges production; hence, lower prices don't impact investment strategy. Moreover, the newly built Rockies pipeline is pushing up prices.

"Regulatory climate is part of business. You can't separate those two," Hock said. "We looked at this jurisdiction versus others and chose to allocate the majority of investment elsewhere."

Pioneer Natural Resources says its budget this year is $100 million less than last year because of additional (proposed) rules and related costs.

But Neslin took issue. "In an investor presentation dated April 2008, Pioneer said profits are going to increase due to operations in the Raton basin," he said. "It's hard to reconcile that with a statement that they are reducing operations in Colorado."

EnCana and Pioneer are among 600 companies operating in Colorado. Their decision comes as the energy industry continues its boom, with requests for drilling permits already more than 400 ahead of last year and on track to break the 2007 record of nearly 6,400 drilling applications.

"I can guarantee the oil and gas is not going anywhere," said Mike Chiropolos with Boulder- based Western Resource Advocates. "Somebody will come along and be willing and excited about developing that oil and gas in compliance with new rules, and who can turn a profit."

Romer said he believed companies were changing their investment strategy, but it was a temporary phenomenon.

New pipelines, coupled with appropriate changes in the proposed rules, will return Colorado among the top oil and gas investment destinations - as ranked by the Fraser Institute in December, Romer said.

chakrabartyg@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2976

Some rethink budget rules

Larger joint committee, more input and more time among the ideas

By John Ingold
The Denver Post

Article Last Updated: 04/14/2008 12:00:49 AM MDT

Bills may propose changes this year, but JBC members say lawmakers will get plenty of chances to have their say.

The annual roller derby that is the state budget's trip through the legislature is over for the year.

Both chambers late last week gave final approval to the budget, sending it to Gov. Bill Ritter for his signature.

And after three weeks of party strategy meetings, lengthy and combustible floor fights over 151 proposed amendments, pounding-on- the-lectern rhetoric and general partisan fisticuffs, here is what the legislature has to show for it: $2.4 million shuffled around in the budget from where it had been originally.

In a $17.6 billion budget, that shuffled money is a mere .014 percent. A number of lawmakers wonder whether there is a better way.

"I think it's time we upgrade the budget, Colorado budget 2.0," said Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma. ". . . When you're talking about spending $18 billion, there is no reason 100 legislators shouldn't be able to amend, vote and debate the budget in a more open manner."

Gardner is among a handful of legislators who say they intend to introduce before the end of the session proposed rule changes to how Colorado crafts its budget. A number of lawmakers plan to meet over the summer to talk about bigger changes.

"Every year when we get to this point, we hear these things where some of the other 94 members seem to think it's an easy process," said Sen. John Morse, a Colorado Springs Democrat who is one of the six members of the legislature's Joint Budget Committee. ". . . It's not as easy as you think."

The Joint Budget Committee, or JBC, spends months putting together the budget, which then hits the floor of either the House or Senate in March. Within two weeks, both chambers need to have argued, amended and passed the budget.

Because the House and the Senate have to pass the same version of the bill, a conference committee — made up of the JBC members — is appointed to resolve differences. In conference committee, the JBC members often take off amendments, then send it back for final approval.

This year, the House passed four amendments, and the Senate added 12 more, though some of those took off House amendments. By the time the budget emerged from the conference committee, only six of the amendments remained.

Gardner suggests expanding the JBC to 10 members, as well as switching to biennial budgeting. Rep. Kathleen Curry, D-Gunnison, said she intends to introduce a rule change that would give the legislature more time to review and debate the budget.

Curry is also looking at allowing other legislative committees to review portions of the budget and make advisory votes on it. Gardner and Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon, D-Denver, are considering similar ideas.

"I don't think the process is set up to allow for up-front engagement that is more meaningful than trying to put amendments on after decisions have been made," Curry said.

JBC members, though, said lawmakers have the opportunity to attend any of their meetings, all of which are public, and make suggestions.

JBC member Sen. Steve Johnson, R-Larimer County, said some tension around the process will likely always exist.

"It is the one bill we have to pass," he said. "No one gets everything they like."

John Ingold: 303-954-1068 or jingold@denverpost.com

Every member of the legislature is welcome to join every JBC budget briefing and hearing, ask questions, and participate in the debate. Every member of the legislature can amend the budget.

When the JBC holds hearings on departments, members of the committees that oversee those departments can get paid a per diem for attending.

After the briefings and hearings, the JBC visits every committee to brief the members on the budget.

When the JBC wants to adjust the budget in a way that requires a change in law, the members have to carry a bill that goes through the usual committees. That, by the way, can be agonizing. A committee that's concerned with just one portion of the budget can fight to prevent budget cuts without worrying about balancing the overall budget.

Colorado's budget is limited. There are a lot of good ideas that can't get money. It's always disappointing when something you think is important can't get funded. It happens at least as much to members of the JBC as it does to any other legislator. They hear about every item that needs money and hear a lot of good arguments in favor of them.

Some members choose not to participate in the budget process, and some argue for cutting the budget without knowing what's in it. Then when something they want doesn't get funded, or gets cut, they howl and demand changes to the process. But changing the process won't make any more money available and it won't guarantee that every legislator will get the money he or she wants for his or her district.

Lawmakers boost early childhood education

By CHARLES ASHBY
CHIEFTAIN DENVER BUREAU

DENVER - Changes lawmakers made last year in school financing allowed this year's Legislature to increase funding for preschool and daylong kindergarten programs, according to the state lawmakers who annually carry the bill.

Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder and a member of the Joint Budget Committee, said last year's freeze on property tax mill levies is allowing the Legislature to do something it's never been able to do before in a large way - fund early childhood dev- elopment.

"I think we're actually making a significant change that will help students learn better," Pommer said. "Over the years, we've done all this stuff that was supposed to help reduce the (achievement) gap to try to help students learn better, and most of it has been a bunch of nonsense."

As a result, the annual School Finance Act not only includes a $216 million increase in the aid the state sends directly to schools next year, from $3.1 billion in this year's budget, but it also will be able to add another $49 million to pay for more preschool and all-day kindergarten programs, Pommer said.

"The one thing that everybody involved in education knows is that some kids don't show up for first grade ready to learn," he said. "The way you get around that is by making sure that kids who need it have access to high-quality preschool and full-day kindergarten."

The bill, which cleared the House Education Committee on Thursday and heads to the House Appropriations Committee next week, also includes:

Increasing the statewide base per-pupil funding by 2.2 percent to match inflation, plus 1 percent as required by Amendment 23 approved by voters in 2000.

Provides additional funding for kindergarten, holding harmless those school districts that don't choose to implement all-day programs, to add 22,000 more students. Creates a grant program to build or renovate school buildings that want to add full-day kindergarten classroom space.

Adds $2 million in grants to special education programs.

Increases the number of preschool slots statewide by 300, bringing the total to 20,160.

Pommer said that while the increase in kindergarten money isn't enough to offer the class to all children, it does help school districts increase the number of at-risk students in the program.

"We're letting districts decide how they want to use it," he said. "Some districts are going to offer it in schools where they feel like there's a particular need, some are going to use it to reduce the tuition in their existing programs, and others will probably come up with ideas we haven't thought of."

Pommer said the long-term goal is to increase funding to early education programs by $100 million over the next six years.

Sen. Sue Windels, D-Arvada and a retired kindergarten teacher, said focusing on early childhood education is the best way to address the state's high dropout rate, close the so-called achievement gap between white students and minorities and get more students into college .

She said the facts are clear that teaching children early in life helps them learn more as they get older.

"The solution is in preschool and in full-day kindergarten," said Windels, chairwoman of the Senate Education Committee. "I've tried every year to add a few more preschool slots for at-risk kids . . . and it is an exciting day, an exciting year that we are finally going to be able to offer preschool (and kindergarten) to every at-risk child who wants to go."

Philosophical split obvious in partisan budget feud

By Alan Gathright, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Friday, April 4, 2008

The debate that led up to Senate approval of the $17.6 billion state budget Thursday revolved around a philosophical split between Republicans and Democrats on government spending.

A philosophical split? Or petty Dick Wadhams politics? I'm sitting in the Appropriations Committee right now where Republicans have sponsored bills spending more than $3 million. Just one morning. The fact is they've been voting to spend money all year, just as always. I've supported some of the bills and opposed others, just as always.

When the Republicans were in charge, they spent up to the 6% limit. There's no philosophical split, just politics.

Republicans called it "reckless" excess to add 1,334 state workers while the economy is tanking.

They were still fuming at the governor's office and majority Democrats for killing a "meager" $30 million "rainy day" fund proposal.

Of course they knew we were already working, with them, to build a rainy day fund with far more money in it -- more than $150 million.

"It's like adding 1,300 new state workers to the deck of the Titanic and we're heading for an iceberg and we're telling them to hold on as we turn up the steam," said Sen. Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs.

"But maybe we can offer them slushies after we hit," he added.

Democrats called it a frugal, smart budget that "invested" in vital programs - top-notch universities to crank out world- class workers and solar-power subsidies to spur the "new energy economy." Such spending, they said, will help Colorado power through choppy economic waters.

Democrats said the state still has a $283 million emergency reserve - four percent of the general fund, which both parties have tried to increase for years.

Republicans questioned why Democrats could not simply "reduce" the growth of spending below the maximum 6 percent limit.

We could have killed all if the bills they're sponsoring that spend money, but they would have complained about that too.

GOP lawmakers said Dems want to take the easy way out - tapping billions from the anticipated windfall from the state's oil-and-gas boom.

The Republicans have been working with us on that without complaining. And they've been insisting that some of the windfall get spent in their districts rather than go into the rainy day fund. Even if the Republicans didn't bring that up, the reporter could have mentioned it.

Senators voted 21-14, with only one Republican joining majority Democrats, to pass the spending plan.

When Democrats were in the minority, we voted for the budget even when he hated some of the things in it. Those budgets have a lot of cuts to important services because the Republicans had recklessly cut taxes. We could have all voted "no" and let the Republicans take all of the criticism for those cuts, but we chose to work with them and share the responsibility.

A conference committee will iron out differences between House and Senate versions before the bill goes to the governor.

Budget needs a solid reserve

The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 04/03/2008 10:18:34 PM MDT
The term "tempest in a teapot" well describes the partisan spat in the Colorado Senate on Thursday about whether to divert a mere $30 million in a $17.6 billion state budget to strengthen reserve funds that guard against a future economic downturn.

Unfortunately, the Post only pays attention to the tempests in teapots. That keeps people who read the paper from knowing what really happens in the legislature. It apparently keeps the editorial writers from knowing too, or they would realize that $17.6 billion is the total state budget, including federal money and cash funds. We can't use the federal money or fees for a rainy day fund, so it's misleading to use that number here.

After enough fulsome rhetoric to fill Folsom Field, the Senate voted 21-14 to reject the proposed spending cuts. Majority Democrats, some of whom initially supported the cuts, closed ranks after Gov. Bill Ritter said an upcoming bill earmarking federal mineral leasing revenues would provide a more substantial reserve.

In our view, that mineral leasing bill is a fine idea — but no substitute for a responsible fiscal reserve. Here's why:

• The budget passed for the fiscal year that begins July 1 is the fourth prepared under the five-year timeout from the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights that voters approved in 2005. By law, that budget now contains just a 4 percent reserve, $300.8 million. That's woefully inadequate to guard against the kind of severe budget cuts triggered by the 2001-03 recession. The state urgently needs to at least double its reserve to the 8 percent level that would have been phased in by a bill that passed the House 64-1 last year only to die in the Senate.

So we should cut $300 million out of the budget this year to avoid possibly having to cut $300 million out of the budget in some future year? It's good to have money in reserve, but hard cut our already-bare-bones budget and watch people suffer for it.

And the severe budget cuts in 2003 and 2004 were more the result of the permanent tax cuts the state made in 1999 and 2000 than from the recession.

• Against those budgetary goals, the proposed $30 million in additional reserves was more useful for its symbolism than its effect. That sum is a piffling 0.4 percent of the current general fund obligations facing the state, which total $7.8 billion. Far from protecting citizens from a "rainy day," such a Lilliputian reserve would dissolve with the morning dew.

So they do understand the difference between the $17.6 billion total budget and the $7.8 billion general fund. I guess the accurate number wasn't dramatic enough for the lead paragraph.

I didn't like the Senate's $30 million plan, but notice how the editorialists play with the numbers here. Their "piffling 0.4%" is Lilliputian compared to the general fund, but they don't mention that it would have been added to the existing $300 million reserve which is 4% of the GF by itself.

Then there's the state education fund. It's solvent today because we fixed a law last year that had been bankrupting it. That means during the next recession the increases in school spending required by Amendment 23 won't have the same devastating affect on the general fund that they did during the last recession.

Back then, the ed fund was broke because the Republicans running the legislature spent it dry, despite opposing Amendment 23 when it was on the ballot.

• The Post has editorialized repeatedly in favor of the bill by Rep. Bernie Buescher, D-Grand Junction, Sen. Gail Schwartz, D-Snowmass Village, Sen. Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, and Rep. David Balmer, R-Centennial, to create a permanent endowment fund for higher education from an upcoming windfall from federal mineral leases. But that endowment fund won't generate much in earnings in its early years — and raiding the principal to support highways, health care or other needs would defeat the purpose of an endowment for higher education.

If the fund does rise to, say, $500 million by 2020, it may be possible to borrow from it to cushion against future recessions. But to avoid raiding the fund for pork-barrel spending, it should require a 60 percent legislative majority to tap the permanent fund — and all money borrowed should be repaid with interest within no more than five years.

While we will continue to campaign for a more responsible budget reserve for future years, we also understand that the six-member Joint Budget Committee that crafted the upcoming budget must work within the existing laws.

On balance, Sens. Moe Keller, Steve Johnson and John Morse and Reps. Bernie Buescher, Jack Pommer and Al White worked hard and wisely to write a responsible blueprint for Colorado's future.

OK, so it's a nice complement. Should I take back everything I set about the editorial? No. The last sentence or two doesn't make up for the rest. They admitted they were reacting to a "tempest in a teapot." They know the whole tempest was nothing more than a Dick Wadhams-written script to make Democrats look bad and set the stage for his scorched-earth campaign against us in the fall.

If the Post really wanted to write something sensible about the budget and a reserve, they could have asked us what our plan is. We could have debated the realistic scenarios for a drop in revenue. We could have discussed what parts of the budget really need protecting. We could have explained what we would cut and where we would fund money in a downturn.

They didn't do that. They never do. It's much easier for them to take the script Dick Wadhams writes for them, add some of their own words to it, and put it in print.

Charter schools likely to get more for renovation, construction

April 1, 2008 - 7:29PM
The annual battle over charter school funding began anew Tuesday with the release of a report by the Colorado League of Charter Schools saying that students in those institutions receive less funding than kids in traditional public schools.

Their annually-recycled dishonest lobbying campaign to get even more money than they already get. It would be nice if a newspaper would add up the amount of money charter schools get compared to public schools, rather than just reporting this nonsense every year.

Charter school opponents countered that those schools can take advantage of more grant funding than other schools but often don't. Still, they conceded that charters are likely to get twice their usual funding for facility renovations and construction this year.

The report said charter schools spend $480 out of the $6,369 they receive in per-pupil funding on operating expenses for facilities because, unlike traditional public schools, they must buy or fix up buildings not owned by the school districts where they operate. With operational costs subtracted, their per-pupil funding falls below the state minimum, the report said.

What about the charter schools that get free facilities from school districts? They never mention that, as a powerful special interest, they forced through a state law requiring school districts to give them any space the district has available.

They, and the newspapers, also leave out the fact that public schools don't get state money for buildings either. They have to go to the voters and, if the voters say no, the public schools have to live without the money.

(There is one exception. We settled a lawsuit filed by Colorado's poorest districts a decade or so ago, and the settlement requires us to pay a minimal amount of money to them so they can eliminate conditions that are dangerous to their students. Charter schools can apply for that money just like any public school. The private payoff to charter schools, on the other hand, is only for charter schools; no public school can ask for it).

When districts ask voters for building an maintenance money, the charter schools get it too. That's another requirement the charter lobbyists got the legislature to ram down the throats of school districts. Of course charter schools could ask the voters for money too, but they've never been willing to live by democratic rules. It's easier for them to lobby the legislature until it overrules local voters and takes away their ability to determine where their tax money goes.

As far as them having to "spend $480 out of the $6,369 they receive in per-pupil funding" on their buildings, that's misleading too. Every district along the Front Range has to spend $500 from each public school student's per pupil revenue on special education. Charter schools have weaseled their way out of that. A lot of charter schools also, by state law, get a share of the district's at-risk money even though they refuse to accept at-risk students.

Then, of course, there's the original lie that got charter schools responsibility-free, taxpayer money in the first place. They promised their schools would be better and less expensive than public schools and, specifically, that they would never need capital construction and maintenance money.

That promise lasted just long enough to dupe the legislature. They've never been better, or even as good, as public schools. But immediately after getting themselves written into state law, the demanded -- and got -- the same funding public schools get. Even that wasn't, and isn't, enough. Today they get more. And it's still not enough, which is why this article is in the paper. It's part of their relentless demands for more and more money.

The need to find affordable facilities also means charter schools can be illequipped to serve all students' needs. A full 39 percent of them don't have access to a gym, and only 28 percent of charters have kitchen facilities that meet federal standards, the report said.

Less than 1 percent of Colorado Department of Education facilities grants have gone to charter schools since 2000, though those schools serve roughly 7 percent of Colorado's public school students. Some school districts have included charters in bond issues on ballots, while others have not, league president Jim Griffin said.

What the charter school lobbyists, and the newspaper, is leaving out here -- knowingly -- is that those grants don't go to 99% of our public schools either. The state makes those grants because we were forced to by a lawsuit, and the grants only go to the poorest schools that are the most dangerous to students.

Most public schools in the state aren't greedy enough to even apply for the grants. They realize that the money only goes to schools that desperately need it. It's a good indication of how avaricious the charter lobby is that they would even try to take money away from those students.

The solution is to dedicate more funding to charter schools' capital needs, Griffin argued. He expects a provision in the 2008 School Finance Act to provide $10 million for that, rather than the usual $5 million, he said.

"We have to do what it takes to bring our charter schools up to the standards we expect in Colorado," said Yuma Republican Rep. Cory Gardner, noting one charter school in Granby serves lunch in a tent.

Update: During the debate over the school finance bill I offered an amendment that would have actually helped get a lunchroom for the charter school in Granby. I say "helped" because we can't tell charter schools how to spend their money. The Republicans the pro-charter Democrats supported the amendment and it was put into the bill. The charter school lobby was furious. They don't like to see a great unfairness poster issue like that go away. They also don't like distributing funds on a need basis.

Charter lobbyists got the Senate to strip the amendment out. They kept the money in the budget, exclusively for charter schools, but distributed across the board so it won't help any individual, low-income school fix anything.

When the bill came back to the House the charter lobby has gotten its legislators back in line. They said the Granby lunch-in-a-ten situation wasn't an issue anymore. And it won't me, until next year's school finance act when it will be ressurected as a glaring example of unfairness toward charter schools.

On a broader note, what do you think would be the response if a school district told people it could afford to open a new school, then opened it without a lunchroom and complained about students having to eat in a tent?

But House Education Committee Chairman Mike Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs, said the report twists the funding numbers.

All schools factor facility costs as a percentage of their per-pupil funding, and because some charter schools don't have a gym or cafeteria, they have less of a facility to maintain with that money, he said.

The School Finance Act does not contain any special allocation for the schools that house 93 percent of Colorado's public school students, nor do those schools have access to federal or private grant programs specified for charters, he said.

State's $17.6B budget passes House

All but one GOP representative votes against fiscal measure

March 28, 2008

By Joe Hanel | Herald Denver Bureau

DENVER - Representatives approved the state's $17.6 billion budget after partisan debate about the size of state government.

Every Republican but one voted against the budget Thursday morning.

Rep. Douglas Bruce, R-Colorado Springs, led the GOP charge, calling the budget "a railroad of socialistic spending," "budgetary blasphemy" and "fiscal child abuse."

The budget amounts to more than $3,500 per Colorado resident, Bruce said.

But that's a bargain, said Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder.

"I'm happy to take that out and sell it. $3,500 a person. I bet your health-insurance company has a hard time providing your grandma health insurance for $3,500," Pommer said.

The state runs an insurance program for the poor and elderly, and also provides primary education and colleges for young people; law enforcement and prisons to deal with lawbreakers; and a transportation network for everyone, Pommer said.

Republicans focused their attacks on the 1,335 new state employees in the 2008-09 budget.

But the budget reflects the growth of the state, Democrats said.

An estimated 1.01 percent of Colorado's population will be on the state payroll next year, up just 0.01 percent from last year and down more than a quarter of a percent since the early 1990s, according to the Legislature's nonpartisan researchers.

"We operate one of the leanest budgets in America, and we are still trying to serve one of the fastest-growing populations in America," said Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff, D-Denver.

The House passed the budget on a 40-24 vote, with every Republican except Al White of Hayden voting against it. White serves on the committee that wrote the budget.

The Senate will debate the budget next week.

Representatives succeeded in making only four changes after a nine-hour debate that ended late Wednesday night.

The biggest change repeals a $900,000 tax on energy companies to fund new employees at the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. The 21 new employees still will be hired, but they'll have to be paid with existing money available to the commission, not an increased tax on companies.