S_JUD_2022A 04/14/2022 01:05:49 PM Committee Summary

Senators Ginal and Liston, co-prime sponsors, presented Senate Bill 22-179, concerning measures to address tampering with a motor vehicle's emission control system.  Senator Ginal discussed "rolling coal" and emission standards enforcement.  Senator Liston talked about civil penalties, auto dealership licenses, and the bill's relationship to House Bill 22-1217.

 

 

 

Mrs Piep Van Heuven, representing Bicycle Colorado, testified in support of the bill. She discussed "rolling coal". 

Jackson White, representing self, testified in support of the bill. He discussed positive economic impacts and negative externalities.

Jeff Riester, representing Department of Law, testified in support of the bill. He discussed enforcement. 

Committee members ask questions about strict liability and self-reporting.

Further questions were raised about penalties for rolling coal.  Discussion followed about modifying vehicles to prevent rolling coal.

 

 

Mr. Kelly Sloan, representing Freedom to Drive Coalition, testified in support of the bill. He discussed the benefits of this bill, as well as other catalytic converter related ones.  

Rob Dawson, representing Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE), was available to answer committee questions.

David Cardella, representing Colorado Independent Auto Dealers Association, testified in support of the bill. 

Senator Liston distributed and explained Amendment L. 001 to make a technical change (Attachment A).

Senator Liston distributed and explained Amendment L. 002 about grant programs, penalties, self-reporting, and CDPHE-related repairs (Attachment B).

Senator Liston distributed and explained Amendment L. 003, which changes 7 days to 5 days for motor vehicle dealer emissions compliance liability (Attachment C). 

 

 

The bill sponsors made closing remarks.

Senator Ginal, bill sponsor, presented House Bill 22-1217, concerning measures to prevent catalytic converter theft, and, in connection therewith, making an appropriation.   She discussed catalytic converter theft and associated costs to victims. 

 

 

 

Jeff Riester, representing Department of Law, testified in support of the bill.  He discussed catalytic converter theft and the package of bills about this topic. 

 

 

Captain Michael Honn, representing Colorado State Patrol, was available to answer committee questions.

David Cardella, representing Colorado Independent Auto Dealers Association, testified in support of the bill. He discussed supply issues and catalytic converters. 

Committee members asked questions about the different types of catalytic converters and emissions standards. 

 

Jeff Reister returned to the table to discuss after market catalytic converter parts.

Senator Ginal made closing remarks.

Senators Gonzales and Lee, co-prime sponsors, presented Senate Bill 22-196, concerning supporting the health needs of persons who may be involved with the criminal justice system.   The bill sponsors discussed behavioral health capacity, medication assisted treatment, and data sharing and integration.  The senators further discussed diversion and the need for acute behavioral health issues to be addressed in a community-based setting instead of jails or prisons. 

 

Dr. Morgan Medlock, representing the Behavioral Health Administration in the Colorado Department of Human Services, testified in support of the bill.  She discussed non-criminal pathways to treatment and wrap-around support systems to divert people out of the criminal justice system.  She referenced the 2020 behavioral health blueprint for reform (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lWVIG3IHPM8OUgVFgLuqWFn8waqgUseZ/view).

Committee members asked questions about workforce and program measurements. 

Deputy Medicaid Director Cristen Bates, representing Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing - HCPF, testified to amend the bill. She suggested adding clarifying language about federal waivers.

Terri Hurst, representing Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, testified in support of the bill. She discussed medication assisted treatment in the Department of Corrections and access to healthcare. 

Matthew Server, representing Colorado Catholic Conference, testified in support of the bill.

Rebecca Wallace, representing Colorado Freedom Fund, testified in support of the bill. She discussed emergency response team funding opportunities and municipal court text reminder programs.

Committee members raised questions about data collection. 

Perry May, representing Colorado Department of Human Services, testified in support of the bill.

Director - Division of Criminal Justice Joe Thome, representing Colorado Department of Public Safety, testified in support of the bill. He discussed data sharing and access to Medicaid for individuals in the criminal justice system.  He also talked about cost-savings and interoperability platforms. 

Meghan MacKillop, representing Colorado Municipal League, testified in support of the bill. She discussed substance abuse and mental health treatment, and municipal court text reminder programs.

Timothy Lane, representing CDAC, testified in support of the bill. He discussed co-responder models and funding for diversion programs. 

The bill sponsors acknowledged bill stakeholders.

Senator Lee distributed and explained Amendment L.002 about diversion programs (Attachment D). 

Senator Lee distributed and explained Amendment L.003 about an advisory committee to award grants (Attachment E). 

Senator Lee distributed and explained Amendment L.004 about authorized funding uses (Attachment F).

Senator Lee distributed and explained Amendment L. 005 that makes a technical amendment to clarify Medicaid language (Attachment G). 

The bill sponsors made closing remarks about behavioral health treatment, public safety, and community investments. 

Senators Garnder and Lee, co-prime sponsors, presented Senate Bill 22-201, concerning independent oversight of matters concerning judicial discipline.  Senator Gardner discussed constitutional duties, separation of powers, accountability, and transparency, among other things. 

Senator Lee discussed judicial misconduct and stated reasons for the Commission on Judicial Discipline to be independent of the Supreme Court. 

Chief Justice Brian Boatright, representing Colorado Judicial Branch, testified to amend the bill.  A copy of his remarks was distributed to committee members (Attachment H).  Justice Boatright discussed funding, reporting requirements, external and internal complaints, and the interim committee proposed in the bill.  He further discussed the on-going investigation into recent judicial misconduct allegations. 

Committee members asked questions about the judicial misconduct allegations and separation of powers.  Discussion ensued about public access to the judicial complaint process.  Discussion continued about the effectiveness of the current judicial discipline structure in Colorado. 

Additional questions were asked about the steps taken after a complaint is lodged against a judge.  Discussion followed about internal versus external complaints, information gathering, and confidentiality.  The conversation returned to independent funding for the Commission on Judicial Discipline. 

Committee members raised questions about evidence gathering in judicial misconduct cases.  Further questions were asked about the Memorandum of Understanding between the Supreme Court and the Committee on Judicial Discipline.  Concerns were raised by committee members that the Commission on Judicial Discipline is not receiving the necessary information to conduct judicial misconduct investigations.  

Justice Monica Marquez joined Chief Justice Boatright at the witness table.  Further discussion ensued about privilege, confidentiality, and information sharing.  The conversation shifted to reporting structures that encourage the filing of complaints and federal models.   

 

 

Committee members raised issues about distrust in public institutions and integrity.  Additional questions were asked about record-keeping and staffing. Discussion ensued about judicial discipline in other states.  Justice Marquez referenced a report on judicial discipline by the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (https://iaals.du.edu/sites/default/files/documents/publications/recommendations_for_judicial_discipline_systems.pdf). 

 

Committee members asked questions about senior judges and appointments to the Commission on Judicial Discipline. 

Mr. Chris Forsyth, representing The Judicial Integrity Project, testified in opposition to the bill.  He expressed concerns that the bill does not create independence for the Commission on Judicial Discipline.  He discussed judicial oversight policies and public judicial proceedings in other states. 

Committee members asked questions about ballot initiatives. 

Mr. Robin Austin, representing Families Against Court Embezzlement Unethical Standards, testified in opposition to the bill.

Ms. Luanne Fleming, representing Families Against Court Embezzlement Unethical Standards FACEUS, testified in opposition to the bill.

Ms. Marilyn Chappell, representing Colorado Judicial Institute, testified in an amend position.

Committee discussion followed about timing, disclosure and reporting requirements, and the proposed interim committee.  Discussion contined about public disciplinary processes and confidentiality. 

Ms Maralee McLean, representing self, testified in opposition to the bill.

Mrs Rosemary Van Gorder, representing self, testified to amend the bill.

Phil Cherner, representing Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, testified to amend the bill. He recommended multiple changes to the bill.

Committee members asked questions about recusals and at what point allegations should become public. 

Ms. Letitia Maxfield, representing Legislative Policy Committee of the Colorado Bar Association, testified in a neutral position on the bill.  She discussed budget oversight, the complaint process, and confidential and privileged information. 

Committee members asked questions about staffing for the Commission on Judicial Discipline. 

 

 

Ms. Emma Garrison, representing self and the Colorado Women's Bar Association, testified in a neutral position on the bill.  She supported further study of judicial discipline, including training for the screener of judicial complaints. 

Committee members discussed implicit bias.

 

Elizabeth Espinosa Krupa, Chair of the Judicial Discipline Commission, testified in favor of the bill.  She distributed a handout about the Commission (Attachment I).  She discussed disclosure obligations, commission independence, and investigatory limitations. 

David Prince, representing the Judicial Discipline Commission, testified in favor of the bill. He discussed the judicial discipline process, funding, information sharing, external and internal complaints, investigations, and enforcement issues related to the Memorandum of Understanding between the commission and the Supreme Court. 

 

 

Christopher Gregory, executive director of the Commission on Judicial Discipline, testified in favor of the bill.  He raised concerns about the commission's funding, staffing, and the fiscal note.  He distributed three documents related to the commission:

• Memorandum of Understanding - Access to Court Documents (Attachment J);
• Chief Justice Directive 08-06 (Attachment K); and,
• Supreme Court Order regarding access to court records (Attachment L). 

Committee members asked questions about funding and independent operations. 

Ms. Krupa provided a brief history of the commission's funding sources.

Discussion returned to the judicial complaint process and related definitions. 

The committee revisited implicit bias and judges.  Further conversation ensued about a public discipline process and at what point an investigation becomes public information. Conversation continued about the composition of the interim committee and statutory codification of judicial standards.

The bill sponsors asked that the bill be laid over until the April 21, 2022.