H_JUD_2018A 02/13/2018 01:40:14 PM Committee Summary

The committee was called to order. A quorum was present.  Representative Lee, Chair, provided an overview of the processes that would be observed in hearing the sunset review for the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Division.  Mr. Brian Tobias, Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA), briefed the committee on the functions and duties of the Colorado Civil Rights Division, as well as the Civil Rights Commission. He provided additional details about this programming, such as budgets, and discussed the recommendations made by DORA in its sunset review (the sunset review may be found at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1eD7wvZltwxaXVJMWdNcXY4aTg/view).  Mr. Tobias responded to questions regarding rules and issues surrounding the commission and division that were not included in the scope of the sunset review.

Mr. Tobias responded to questions regarding the role of the division and commission as investigatory and appellate bodies. Discussion ensued on this point.  Ms. Jennifer McPherson, Deputy Director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division, provided input on questions raised by the committee.

Discussion continued regarding the roles of the division and commission as investigatory and appellate bodies, and checks and balances associated with the processes involved.  Discussion ensued regarding legal resources available to the commission, and options available to individuals before the division and commission for dispute resolution.  Ms. McPherson responded to questions regarding the discrete roles of the division and commission.

Mr. Tobias responded to questions regarding DORA's recommendation to extend the division and commission for nine years, and the rate at which cases are closed by the division.  Discussion ensued regarding the commonality of pairing a division with a commission in administrative operations.  Ms. McPherson responded to questions regarding impartiality among the employees of the division.

The following persons testified regarding the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Division: Mr. Wellington and Ms. Wilma Webb, representing themselves, testified before the committee. Mr. Webb discussed the importance of maintaining the division and commission, and provided background on how these functions operate. He discussed the message sent by maintaining the functions. Ms. Webb discussed the importance of civil rights, and the role of the Civil Rights Division in furthering civil rights. Ms. Webb responded to questions regarding a bill she brought forth as a member of the General Assembly to grant subpoena power to the Civil Rights Division. Mr. Webb responded to questions regarding what changes he might recommend for the commission and division. Ms. Webb responded to questions regarding resources available to minorities to seek redress for discrimination.

Discussion ensued regarding the importance of maintaining the commission and division to the success of the state. Discussion returned to the roles of the division and commission as investigative and appellate bodies, and the amount of time that an individual has to file a complaint with the division.  Discussion followed regarding the potential for expanding the division's power to investigate police brutality, and the implementation of legislation passed by the General Assembly.

Ms. Rosemary Harris Lytle, representing the NAACP, testified in support of continuing the Colorado Civil Rights Division and Commission. Ms. Lytle responded to questions regarding the atmosphere created by maintaining the division and commission, and how these bodies might address police brutality. Ms. Lytle responded to questions regarding actions taken on civil rights-related bodies in the executive branches of other states.

Mr. Yoav Lurie, representing Good Business Colorado, testified in support of continuing the division and commission. He discussed the importance of maintaining these bodies to Colorado's economy and the business climate.

Ms. Michelle Campbell, representing the Coalition of Minority Women's Chambers, testified in support of maintaining the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Division. Ms. Campbell discussed the importance of maintaining these functions to the business climate and Colorado's economic competitiveness. Ms. Campbell responded to questions regarding the opinion of her clients on maintaining an administrative infrastructure focused on civil rights. Discussion ensued regarding the prospects of funding and continuing the division and commission, and her clients' opinions on the effectiveness of state-based civil rights administrators. Ms. Campbell responded to questions regarding the representation of business interests on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Ms. Debra Johnson, representing the LGBTQ Chamber and the City and County of Denver, testified in support of continuing the division and commission, and asked that they be continued in perpetuity. Ms. Johnson responded to questions regarding the impact of the passage of certain ballot issues and laws in Colorado and other states on the business environment in those jurisdictions.

Ms. Mari Newman, representing the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, testified in support of continuing the division and commission. She discussed the importance of maintaining these bodies and funding them well. Ms. Newman explained that the commission and division provide protections to small businesses that the federal government does not. She discussed the impact of a Colorado ballot measure passed during the 1990s on the state's business climate. Ms. Newman responded to questions regarding avenues for relief available to certain groups in the absence of the division and commission.

Mr. Barry Roseman, representing the Plaintiff Employment Lawyers Association, testified in support of continuing the division and commission.  Mr. Roseman discussed the importance of the functions served by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Colorado Civil Rights Division. He discussed the need to properly fund the division.

Ms. Camille Papini-Chaplar, representing , testified in support of continuing the division and commission. She discussed the efficiency of the conduct of the division.

Ms. Dorothy Watkins Hayden, representing herself as the former director of the Civil Rights Division, testified in support of continuing the division and commission. Ms. Watkins Hayden discussed the signal that continuing these functions would send to the rest of the General Assembly. Reverend James Peters, former commissioner on the Civil Rights Commission, lent his support to maintaining the division and commission functions. He compared his experiences as a civil rights advocate to his service on the commission. Ms. Watkins Hayden responded to questions regarding improvements made to the division and commission over the years. Discussion ensued regarding the ability of the division to address police brutality.

Reverend Amanda Henderson, Ms. Iman Jodeh, and Mr. Dilpreet Jammu, representing the Interfaith Alliance, testified in support of the continuation of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Division. Reverend Henderson discussed the alliance's work with the division, and the importance of being free of discrimination in housing, workplaces, and businesses. She discussed a case that recently came before the United States Supreme Court. Ms. Jodeh expressed concerns about funding for the division, and decisions before the General Assembly about continuing the division and commission. Mr. Jammu discussed the uncertainty created by failing to fund or continue the commission and division, and provided an example of the division's work. Discussion ensued regarding the previously mentioned supreme court case.

Mr. Bill Levis and Ms. Jean Nolfes, representing the AARP, testified in support of reauthorizing the commission and division. Ms. Nolfes discussed the impact of these bodies on protecting the rights of older citizens, and expressed concerns about funding for the commission and division. Mr. Levis addressed questions raised during earlier testimony. Discussion ensued regarding the burden of proof for age discrimination cases.

Ms. Celina Benavidez, representing Celina Inc., testified in support of continuing the division and commission.  She discussed the coffee shop that placed a "welcome gentrification" sign out for marketing purposes.  She encouraged re-authorization of the division and commission.

Ms. Christina Johnson, representing herself, testified in support of continuing the division and commission.  She explained that seniors are discriminated against.

Ms. Jeanette Hensley, representing the Colorado Senior Lobby, provided an account of her brother being laid off on account of age.  He has contacted the Colorado Civil Rights Division.  She discussed the importance of continuing the division and commission.

Mr. Daniel Romos, representing One Colorado, testified in favor of the commission.  Mr. Romos discussed the work of the division and commission in protecting the rights of the LGBT community.

Ms. Emma Davis, representing herself, testified in support of continuing the division and commission. Ms. Davis discussed the importance of funding these bodies, and the ramifications of not continuing the commission and division on the state's economy.

Ms. Rebecca Messall, representing NLA, testified in support of continuing the Colorado Civil Rights Division and Colorado Civil Rights Commission. She discussed some issues that should be rectified. Ms. Messall responded to questions regarding her opinion about the legal training for members of the commission.

Ms. Dee Porter, representing herself, testified in support of continuing the commission and division. Ms. Porter discussed the positive impact of the division on maintaining respect for laws, and the importance of maintaining these bodies to the future of Colorado.  The committee recessed.

The committee returned to order.  Representative Michaelson Jenet, prime sponsor, presented House Bill 18-1131, concerning a program to facilitate conducting judicial proceedings via networking technology.  Representative Michaelson Jenet explained the effect of the bill and discussed its need.  She also discussed the effect of amendment L.004 (Attachment A). Representative Michaelson Jenet responded to questions regarding the exclusion of the Division of Youth Services from the scope of the bill by amendment L.004.

Ms. Lauren Snyder, representing the Department of Human Services, addressed the questions raised earlier about the Division of Youth Services. Ms. Alli Daley, representing Colorado Counties, Inc., addressed questions about a timeline for soliciting bids to establish the bill's telejustice infrastructure, and to roll out the program. Discussion ensued on this point. Ms. Sherri Stwalley, representing the Judicial Branch, addressed questions about the timeline, and the ability to bring the program online and on budget. Ms. Jessika Shipley, Legislative Council Staff, responded to questions regarding the fiscal impact of HB 18-1131. Discussion ensued regarding the fiscal impact of amendment L.004.

The balance of the calendar was laid over.