I_SFinance_2017A 07/24/2017 08:30 AM Committee Summary

08:35 AM -- Call to Order and Opening Remarks



The hearing began with opening comments from the chair and members of the interim committee; Following some opening remarks from chair, Rep Garnett invited comment from the other committee members. Several members discussed their desire to keep focus on students when moving forward with the work of the interim school finance committee. Sen Merrifield read from prepared remarks, and distributed a letter to the editors of the Colorado Springs Gazette. (Attachment A)



Attachment A.pdf



08:44 AM



Rep Lundeen's comments focused on the intersection of finance and policy, concluding that one should be driving the other. Sen Gardner echoed his colleagues' intent for the committee to focus on students, not institutions or existing structures. Rep Leonard shared his optimism about the work, and opined that the focus of the committee should be on efficiency, and on student need. Rep Hamner remarked she is also excited to be part of the work. The representative expressed hope that the committee will "move the needle"; will have good conversations; and will emerge with a bipartisan finance bill. Rep Hamner shared her concern that the focus of the interim committee should remain on student success, and on the equitable distribution of resources. She asserted that there is still great inequity in that distribution. Rep Hamner also made reference to the Governor's executive order to reanimate the Education Leadership Council to create an education policy vision for the state of Colorado.



Vice Chair Owen Hill arrived at the committee at 8:52.



08:53 AM



Rep Buckner remarked that she is excited and ready to dig into the work. Rep Buckner feels that past efforts at revising the school finance act had left off important issues around how to define student success, and how to foster a sense of worth in students.



Sen Zenzinger reminded members of the interim committee to study the Public Employees' Retirement Association (PERA), and challenged this current school fiance committee to leave politics at door and come together to create recommendations that the public can trust. Moving forward, this work requires attentiveness, open minded ness, and a commitment to arrive at conclusions.



Sen Sonnenberg shared his excitement for the work. The Senator described the great variance of the school districts in his Senate district. Large, small, well funded, etc. The senator shared his willingness to keep an open mind and learn about the issues and problems related to school finance, recognizing what an important issue it is as a economic driver and state priority for a properly educated workforce.



Sen Hill welcomed the members of the committee. Sen Hill asserted that vouchers and tax increases are the bookend policies, the extreme positions, and that neither are likely to be part of the outcomes of this interim committee. The vice chair challenged members to keep their focus on what can be accomplished, on the realm of the possible. He reiterated that vouchers for public education or new taxes to increase funding are both non starters and the committee shouldn't get distracted arguing issues that are unlikely to find resolution.



09:02 AM -- Overview of Committee Charge and Deadlines - Legislative Staff



Brita Darling from the Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS) provided the overview of the committee's charge. Brita Darling discussed the interim committee rules for bills, drafting, and fiscal notes. Josh Abram, Legislative Council Staff (LCS), described some of the deadlines for bill drafting and the preparation of fiscal notes should the committee request bill drafts or want to forward/sponsor legislation for the 2018 session.





09:10 AM -- Discussion: RFP Vendor Proposals



Rep Garnett opened up discussion of the two proposals. The chair stated his hope that a vote can be taken to select the vendor. The chair would like to get a majority vote to make the selection. Rep Garnett described RFP process used by staff explained that two of the three vendors who stated an intent to reply partnered to combine one of the proposals. Rep Hamner expressed concerned that the committee only received two proposals, and asked staff if we put the budget amount into the RFP. Staff replied that the total budget for the vendor was included in the RFP, in addition to being publically stated in both the fiscal note, and the appropriation clause for the enrolled act.



Sen Gardner remarked that the scope of work and the budget amount was likely an impediment to many major firms. The senator opined that the committee was fortunate to get two proposals.



Rep Leonard asked how the RFP was marketed and who received the request. In addition to staff's efforts to post the proposal and send it to interested sources, Sen Hill responded that he personally called several firms and found that scope and pay kept some vendors from responding, echoing Sen Gardner's observation.



Mr. Abram, LCS, discussed some of the process steps used to release and market the RFP.





09:21 AM



Rep Garnett asked how members want to discuss the proposals.



Chair then opened the floor for general discussion by the committee. Sen Gardner shared his experience that there might be a need for an executive session to discuss vendor contracts. Rep Garnett asked Brita Darling, OLLS, to help the committee think through the necessity and appropriateness of an executive session for the vendor selection. Siting statute, both Brita Darling and Julie Pelegrin from OLLS do not believe selection of a vendor for the interim committee meet the criteria for "matters required to be kept confidential", and do not see an obvious exception that would allow the committee to discuss the vendor proposals in executive session.



Rep Leonard suggested that perhaps a subcommittee could address the work. Rep Leonard further opined that there is enough funding in the RFP, and the scope of work is still an issue to be defined, which would then inform the creation of criteria for selecting the vendor. Rep Leonard's concern isn't that the committee doesn't have enough funding in RFP, rather that the committee does nodt have good criteria for evaluating and selecting from the proposals.

.

09:28 AM



Rep Garnett discussed the possibility of moving the process to an interview phase, but acknowledged that the committee may be running out of time to create a subcommittee. Sen Gardner also remarked that a sub committee must conduct itself in an open meeting, and therefore would not create the circumstance for an executive session. The senator reiterated that we are unlikely to receive more proposals, even if the committee opened up the process and re-posted the RFP.



Rep Garnett asked if there is a way to get a definitive answer concerning the executive session? Julie Pelegrin answered she does not see an exception for the Executive Session statute that would alow the committee to discuss the vendor proposals in an executive session. These conversations must remain part of the open meeting. Julie Peregrin informed the committee that she will continue to ask open meeting experts at OLLS and return to the committee if there is a different interpretation.



Rep Hamner asked if bill allows us to reopen the process? If the dollar amount available to fund a vendor limited the proposals, is there a way to put more money into the process from the JBC?



Rep Garnett wondered if the committee can access extra money to "sweeten the deal"? Rep Leonard would like to create some criteria by which to evaluate the vendor and possibly task a subcommittee to do some of that evaluation first and then present to the fuller committee; Rep Leonard also asked if the scope can be scaled back to make the work more manageable, perhaps making it easier for the committee to arrive at an informed decision.



09:38 AM



Sen Gardner remarked that both proposals seemed to want to "drive the train" and that the committee should remain focused on being sure that the committee continues to drive the agenda, not the vendor.



Rep Lundeen echoed that the committee was created as a balanced / fair/ and bi partisan and is troubled that proposals aim to set the agenda. Also felt that since the committee has 2 interims, it is more likely to get something done when past efforts failed by running out of time between sessions. He also had a process question: do chair(s) have flexibility to select? Could decision be given to the chairs?



Rep Garnett wants to be as inclusive as possible; wants to keep all voices and input into the process. If we bump up against those deadlines, perhaps this can force the decision and chairs can be tasked with making the final decision.



09:45 AM



Jule Pelegrin reiterated that there is no exception to allow the committee to use an executive session to discuss / select a vendor. The chair could work with staff at the point of contracting without a public meeting.



09:46 AM



The committee recessed



10:06 AM -- Discussion: RFP Vendor Proposals (Continued)



Rep Garnett again discussed re-posting the RFP and working with staff to create a process allowing time to enter into a contract to meet the September 1 deadline. This would include allowing presentations from vendors either at next interim committee meeting, or at a subcommittee meeting. Sen Hill also suggested that we ask respondents to focus on a project management, instead of school finance expertise. If we are going to ask for public presentation from vendors, perhaps a video presentation with predetermined questions to use as a web based interview process? Sen Zenzinger remarked that if we want less prescriptive proposals, we should be able to work with the existing vendors/respondents who would be flexible to modify bids in order to work with the committee.



Rep Garnett asked if there are more thoughts about re-posting the RFP? Sen Hill suggested working with staff to pare back scope of the RFP into a project management request. This may open up potential vendors. Rep Leonard also saw value in re-posting a revised RFP and a web based interview process.



Rep Garnett asked if committee wants to re-post. All the members seem to agree. Sen Hill asked if we can we do a web based interview and does this count against the total number of formal meetings allowed by the enacting legislation (HB 1340)?



10:19 AM



Sen Merrifield asked about getting more money to put into the RFP? Is there a way to access this money? Sen Zenzinger asked a process question: can the committee burn another meeting against the 5 meeting limit to discuss the RFP? This would need to be answered by OLLS. Todd Herried addressed the money question. The amount appropriated is the amount the committee must work with. Rep Garnett asked Todd if a meeting to discuss RFP would count against 5 limit? Todd does not have an answer on extra meetings. Sen Gardner suggested a contract with expansion clause which would then need to be appropriated during 2018 session.



Sen Zenzinger wondered if a subcommittee could include all members of the interim and this way to add extra meetings to discuss specifically the vendor. Sen Gardner suggested giving the chairs the authority to make these decisions to avoid the heartburn of additional meetings.



10:28 AM -- Discussion: Organizing the Work and Sub Committees



The committee discussed the creation of subcommittees. The first committee discussed creating a subcommittee to work on evaluative criteria for selecting the vendor. Sen Zenzinger suggested discussing the criteria for selection at this current meeting, prior to the vendor proposal subcommitee meeting. Rep Garnett remarked that legislation allows but does not require subcommittees. Rep Garnett opened up discussion of possible evaluative criteria the subcommittee should use. Rep Hamner suggested going back to the original RFP and asked what criteria are described in the request. Josh Abram, LCS, explained that the RFP lifted the language of 1340 to describe the committee's charge, and posed an open question to vendors to explain how they propose to assist the committee to meet that charge.



Sen Zenzinger asked if the current proposals are inadequate and wondered why are we re-posting if the criteria was explicit in the RFP? Rep Buckner expressed her desire that the committee broadened the field, knowing that there are other vendors that would want to apply but did not reply on the first release of the RFP.



Rep Lundeen remarked that subcommittees are fundamental aspects of the bigger issue. Sen Hill suggested that members may wish to focus on specific issues of school finance and should think about the subcommittees they are interested in creating. Chairs want to allow each member of the committee to champion the issue(s) most important to them.



10:40 AM -- Staff Resources on School Finance: An Overview



Josh Abram, LCS, gave an overview of the print resources created by nonpartisan staff and state agencies related to school finance, highlighting the LCS publications that would give members a broad understanding of the current school finance formula and the broader budgetary and constitutional framework in which it operates. Rep Hamner asked to have a copy of the index of resources resent to the committee members. Mr. Abram also introduced other legislative staff from LCS, OLLS, and Joint Budget Committee that members should consider a resource of expertise on school finance issues.



10:45 AM -- Setting the Interim Committee's 2017 Meeting Calendar



The committee decided to convene a subcommittee on Wednesday, September 22. Sen Hill asked members to send staff the dates they are available to meet for the remainder of the 2017 interim. The subcommittee to discuss vendor proposals will meet sometime before September 1, and the chairs will make a final decision concerning vendors before the deadline. Sen Hill asked staff from LCS to provide the committee state ranking information related to school finance. Todd Herried promised to update that information and provide it to the committee.



Sen Hill asked if we have this ranking from previous years? Todd Herreid recalled that we have ranked the state compared to other state systems; however, depending on the metric used for comparison, the state rank can change, so there are many qualifiers in listing the states this way, but staff will work to update that information and distribute to the committee members.



Sen Merrifield asked if subcommittees will be public meetings and staff replied that yes, the subcommittee meetings will be public meetings, but may not include the same level of staff support and reporting reserved for the full interim committee. The RFP is reposted; schedule a subcommittee meeting and do all this in time for staff to create a contract for the vendor. Subcommittee would have to meet during the 2nd tp last week of August in order for the subcommittee to meet and vet the proposals. The comnmittee decided that the first subcommittee to discuss vendor proposals will meet on Wednesday, August 23 at 9:00 a.m.. Senator Sonnenberg announced he will not be able to attend this subcommittee meeting.



11:03 AM -- Motion to allow chairs to select vendor



The committee discussed allowing the subcommittee to make recommendations for evaluating the vendor proposals and if the full group is unable to agree on the selection, to allow the chairs to make the final decision. Staff from OLLS suggested that the committee make a formal motion and vote on this idea.

11:07 AM -- Final Thoughts



The committee members made concluding remarks expressing enthusiasm for the work ahead.



11:09 AM -- Adjourn



The committee adjourned.