The Denver District Attorney's Office has decided not to pursue charges against Colorado State Rep. Laura Bradford for allegedly possessing a firearm while intoxicated.
DA spokeswoman Lynn Kimbrough told FOX31 Denver Monday afternoon that prosecutors looked at the "totality of the evidence" and determined they could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
DUI charges have also been ruled out...
It's pretty simple--since Rep. Laura Bradford was never subjected to testing needed to prove in court she was legally drunk behind the wheel a week and a half ago when pulled over by Denver Police, she can't be charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. And since it would be necessary to establish that Rep. Bradford was intoxicated in order for her 9mm pistol in the car to be unlawful, there's really no way to charge her with that, either.
In both cases, these are outcomes that would not have been but for the immunity legislators enjoy from misdemeanor arrest during the session. This immunity was foisted on an unwilling Rep. Bradford, as the story from Denver Police has been changed to say now. The original version of the story as told by the responding DPD supervisor, officially retracted but the investigation of which is not complete, is that Rep. Bradford slyly invoked it herself. We have not heard from that supervisor, Sgt. Benita Packard, to know anything more about her version of the story.
With DPD's Internal Affairs division reportedly investigating, we doubt we will anytime soon.
Because there remain far more unknowns that knowns in this situation, House Speaker Frank McNulty, we'd say appropriately, convened an ethics committee to try to sort out what happened after a reported "lobbyist happy hour" at Prohibition, an East 17th Ave bar, on the night of January 25th. It's possible there will be much revealed about the incident by this committee--perhaps who the lobbyists were, other legislators, and as Charles Ashby of the Grand Junction Sentinel tantalizingly added this weekend, "even members of the media" who may have been present. We've also heard questions about Rep. Bradford's actions immediately after police "lit up" her vehicle, and where she may have driven before coming to a stop.
The ethics committee also appears to be taking its time, which is good for Frank McNulty since Bradford has promised (as of last Friday anyway) to see the process through before doing anything, you know, crazy--like decapitating the House GOP leadership. That's a considerable change from last Thursday, when her rhetoric was quite a bit more bellicose. If the committee formally clears her, then we'll know if Bradford is genuinely angry at leadership for failing to stick by her, or if that was an affectation to gain leverage. If the committee finds something else incriminating? Perhaps the first indicator will be Rep. Bradford flying off the handle again...
Bottom line: things may settle down, but we wouldn't "oh well" the case of Rep. Bradford's traffic stop away like the Denver Players'disappearing black book quite yet. The reason it's not over is a Republican, out of personal spite or perhaps even good sense, is still asking questions.
The Ft. Collins Coloradoan has the news from a statement issued by Republican Rep. B.J. Nikkel:
"While I am disappointed that Democrats on the Reapportionment Commission gerrymandered Brian (DelGrosso) and me into the same district, I am very proud of what we have accomplished in the state House," Nikkel stated in a news release.
Nikkel now represents District 49 in the Colorado House. The new boundaries upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court last year put her in the District 51, which is now represented by DelGrosso.
Newt Gingrich waited until the day before Colorado's Republican presidential contest to start campaigning here, and -- as if to make up for lost time -- took the guns-blazing approach upon arrival.
The former House speaker opened a rally here in this Denver suburb today with an assault on Mitt Romney, closed it with a racially tinged attack on President Obama's economic policies, and in between, went after the "elite media" for good measure...
"Barack Obama is the most successful food stamp president in American history," he said, describing the president as responsible for making more people dependent on government handouts.
"Look, when you have 43% African American teenage unemployment, this is a social catastrophe," Gingrich said. "These are young people being denied the opportunity to learn the habits of work, so we have to rethink from the ground up. I do not want to turn and say, 'Oh, I'm not going to worry about the poor, they have a safety net.' That safety net is dependence. It is a banal lack of a life of excitement."
As the Grand Junction Sentinel'sGary Harmonreports:
Santorum, who served two terms in the Senate, pointed to a Rasmussen poll that showed him two points ahead of the president in a head-to-head matchup and said he was the best person in the GOP field to clearly differentiate himself from Obama's policies.
He pointed in particular to the health care system shepherded by one of Santorum's leading GOP foes, Mitt Romney, in Massachusetts, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's alliance with Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi on global-warming legislation.
Both of his opponents in the Republican Party are too entwined with Obama policy for voters to draw clear contrasts between either if they face off against the incumbent, Santorum said.
Rick Santorum had a tough night in Nevada Saturday, finishing a distant 4th place, but has invested much more time in Colorado in the past seven days than ever before. A poll follows--would a solid finish in Colorado put Santorum back in the "Romney alternative" hunt?
Boosted by improved public confidence in his economic stewardship, President Obama for the first time holds a clear edge over Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in a hypothetical general-election matchup, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll...
The survey was conducted Wednesday through Saturday. During that time, the president and the Republican candidates were in the spotlight: Obama had just completed his State of the Union address and held campaign-style rallies in battleground states, and the Republicans were in the middle of a series of primaries and caucuses.
Overall, 55 percent of those who are closely following the campaign say they disapprove of what the GOP candidates have been saying. By better than 2 to 1, Americans say the more they learn about Romney, the less they like him.
According to this new poll, Barack Obama leads a general-election matchup against Mitt Romney by a comfortable 52-43% margin among all Americans, a somewhat smaller (but still encouraging for Obama supporters) 51-45% among registered voters. Among the pivotal independent segment of voters, it's a statistical tie with Obama nominally ahead 48-47%. Obama's personal approval stands at 50%, the highest since the killing of Osama bin Laden.
Worth keeping in mind as Romney's "momentum" grows...
That's the tenor of the debate about cutting Medicaid in Colorado. It's not like the Republicans want to do it, we read in the media, because they know that cutting money for poor people can cause hardship, sickness, and even death.
But there's a budget problem (assuming we don't want to raise taxes on the vulnerable 1 percent) and, besides, skin should be inserted in the game.
When Mitt Romney changes the tone of the conversation about poverty, and says brazenly, "I'm not concerned about the very poor," that's news.
And rightly so, because in America, we're supposed to care about each other, and our country is supposed to provide basic opportunity for everyone, right? And, as the debate about Medicaid shows, no one's saying, let the poor get sick and die.
But what about proposals to expand Medicaid? These proposals save lives, yet politicians go around trashing the Medicaid-expansion aspects of Obamacare day in and day out, with near media immunity, as if saving poverty-stricken Americans from sickness and death is so outrageous.
You don't have to search very hard to find examples, but I'll use one from Rep. Mike Coffman, who, as I've written, deserves more media scrutiny now that he's in a competitive district.
It's caucus time in Colorado, so we want your predictions. As always, we're interested in what you think will happen tomorrow -- not in your preference.
In a statement by Neppl provided by the Romney campaign to ABC News, the CEO said that the manufacturer "is not a stimulus success story."
"I did not support the stimulus, I did not seek out stimulus funds, and the stimulus did not create or save a single job here," said Neppl. "One of our best customers placed an order as they have in the past, for a government project like those we have done in the past." [Pols emphasis]
Hailing a metal engineering plant that received $2.3 million in stimulus funds as a small business success story, on Saturday Mitt Romney told an audience at the plant the federal recovery program "did not do the job."
Romney said the millions in federal funds granted to Springs Fabrication in Colorado Springs had not created any new jobs at the plant.
"That stimulus he had, it did not do the job," Romney said of the plant's owner, Tom Neppl. "I mean, I understand Tom said he was working on a project that got some stimulus money. I asked, well were you able to hire more people because of that? He said no. Didn't add any more people, just more money into the system. But no more people hired."
...Romney credited the fact that 160 people worked for the company to "the ingenuity of Tom," the owner, and said the stimulus protected government jobs but did not create private sector jobs "like it should have."
Well, what the hell did you expectMitt Romney to say, folks? After it was reported that the business Romney chose as his backdrop to disparage President Barack Obama on the economy--located in beet-red but as it turns out highly government subsidized Colorado Springs--received millions of dollars from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the very same "stimulus" Romney attacks at every opportunity, he was really only left with two choices:
1. Pray the snowstorm became severe enough to close Colorado Springs Airport, or
2. Find a way to pull off this speech without thanking Barack Obama.
Mother Nature didn't cooperate sufficiently to close the airport, so what we got are these throwaway lines from Romney, citing absolutely no evidence, that the $2.3 million Springs Fabrication received "didn't do the job." A $2.3 million contract, evidently, isn't enough for Springs Fabrication to create any jobs! Heck, maybe $2.3 million didn't even preserve any jobs, but unfortunately Gov. Romney never got into that kind of detail in his brief speech.
This is as utterly preposterous as it sounds, of course. The only thing we can say about such mind-blowing hubris is that in El Paso County, Colorado, where the #1, #2, and #3 (and #7!) employers meet payroll with federal taxpayer dollars every two weeks...the fact is, this is a kind of hypocrisy so deeply embedded there that they don't even notice it anymore.
And in that respect, it might actually be a good place for Romney to give speeches.
Provided nobody outside El Paso County ever sees them.
One Colorado, the group leading the lobbying effort for civil unions here, has repeatedly pledged to support any lawmaker - Republican or Democrat - who supports relationship recognition legislation. This week, campaign finance reports show the group has made good on its promise.
Two Republican state senators, Jean White, R-Hayden, and Ellen Roberts, R-Durango, were gifted $1,000 each by One Colorado's small donor committee.
Both women voted in 2011 for a bill that would have established civil unions. A third Republican senator, Nancy Spence, also voted for the Colorado Civil Union Act last year, but is term-limited. A similar bill will soon be debated this year.
"(LGBT equality issues) are neither red nor blue," said One Colorado's Executive Director Brad Clark. "We will show support to any lawmaker who does the right thing. We pledge our support regardless of party affiliation."
It's a great idea for gay rights group One Colorado to highlight support for candidates from both parties who support their legislative agenda--not least because both of these Republican women have, well, hater past donors out there who probably won't give anymore because of their votes. But we assume at some point some conservative blog or talk radio show will also use these donations to slam Sens. Ellen Roberts and Jean White, or even imply that the dangling of a thousand whole dollars in front of them might have incentivized their votes for civil unions.
It sounds silly now, but give your AM dial a chance to stew about it for a few days.
Back in reality, the simple fact of the matter is that 70% of the public in Colorado now supports civil unions, and the remaining disagreement over passage is really a debate within the Republican Party. From our point of view it's pretty simple: if Republicans do not want to appear increasingly out-of-touch and priggish to the voters they need to keep their jobs, a lot more of them will qualify for One Colorado's small donor committee contributions very soon.
In what appears at first blush from headline to the last quarter of the story, a rehash of the rift between Bradford and McNulty, we find out that Bradford is staying on for now.
http://www.gjsentinel.com/news...
According to the Sentinel's Charles Ashby,
...Bradford plans to defend herself before that ethics panel and challenge the traffic citations issued by Denver police.
She also decided she won't become a Democrat or resign her seat.
"That's completely off the table," Bradford said in an interview. "Now, I want the ethics committee to do its work, and when I'm exonerated by them, we'll see what happens next."
While Bradford hasn't yet decided if she'll leave the party, her husband already has.
Along the way to finding out Bradford's latest decision, we find out she's the unofficial leader of the House chorus but decided not to take part in singing Happy Birthday on McNulty's 39th birthday; that her husband had helped influence her into staying Republican for now and then stopped into Mesa County Elections on Friday and changed to Unaffiliated stating: "This was the last straw."
So now we wait, I suppose, until the ethics committee meets to see what knew twists and turns the Laura saga takes. Meanwhile, the leg. is in session and bills are being heard without the usual airing and public discussion here or in the mainstream news.
Mitt Romney apparently isn't making himself available to real journalists in Colorado, in advance of Tuesday's GOP caucus, but he called into conservative talk-radio shows today, where, predictably, he found a copasetic environment, free of annoying follow-up questions.
That's unfortunate, because Romney said a few things that deserve a closer look by reporters, if they ever get access to Romney.
On KOA's Mike Rosen this morning, Romney suggested that he didn't like the insurance mandate that was included in the Massachusetts health care bill, and he would have vetoed it in favor of offering tax breaks to people with insurance.
Romney told Rosen:
"In one important respect, the incentive to get people to have insurance in our state was associated with a penalty, which is if you don't have insurance, you have to help pay the cost of your health care in our state. I would've rather given a, if you will, a benefit -- a tax break -- to people who had insurance. So you'd give people a, if you will, a positive, as opposed to a negative. When you do that you accomplish the same objective, which is to get people insured and have people take responsibility for their own health care."
Romney said, "There were a number of features in the [MA] health care bill I vetoed, and those vetoes were all overridden by a legislature which is 85 percent Democrat."
The liberal Center for American Progress caught this magnificent Mitt Romney deer-in-the-headlights moment on public lands policy, in an interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal last night. It's hard to imagine how this could have gone worse:
I don't know the reason that the federal government owns such a large share of Nevada. [Pols emphasis] And when I was in Utah at the Olympics there I heard a similar refrain there. What they were concerned about was that the government would step in and say, "We're taking this" - which by the way has extraordinary coal reserves - "and we're not going to let you develop these coal reserves." I mean, it drove the people nuts. Unless there's a valid, and legitimate, and compelling governmental purpose, I don't know why the government owns so much of this land.
So I haven't studied it, what the purpose is of the land, [Pols emphasis] so I don't want to say, "Oh, I'm about to hand it over." But where government ownership of land is designed to satisfy, let's say, the most extreme environmentalists, from keeping a population from developing their coal, their gold, their other resources for the benefit of the state, I would find that to be unacceptable...
Now there are particular reasons why so much of Nevada's territory is managed by the federal government--the biggest of which is the enormous military presence in the state--and areas like the Nevada Test Site that Romney would probably prefer stay public once he "studies" them.
Here in Colorado, while not as extensive as Nevada, we certainly have broad swaths of public lands too--places like Great Sand Dunes, Mesa Verde, and Rocky Mountain National Parks. Not to mention national monuments, forests, grasslands, wilderness, plain old BLM...how many billions of dollars in economic activity do we owe to our public lands in Colorado?
Anyway, we sincerely hope Romney gets a crash course on this stuff before he sits down with editorial boards in our state. This is a little like Arizona's John McCain telling the Pueblo Chieftain in 2008 that the Colorado River Compact "obviously" needed renegotiating, then being somehow confused when people started showing up at his rallies with pitchforks.
A major snowstorm bearing down on Denver has closed the Colorado General Assembly Friday. Barring anything unexpected, Rep. Laura Bradford (?-Collbran) will drive home this evening, and decide some time this weekend whether or not to disaffiliate from the Republican Party--and if she does, whether to become and independent or, as has been reported a possibility, a Democrat. There's really no overstating the importance: control of the one-seat GOP majority Colorado House, and the future of Speaker of the House Frank McNulty, even if the House remains Republican-held, hangs on her decision.
Assuming she does leave the GOP, as Rep. Bradford is reportedly "95% decided" to do, it comes in the aftermath of a traffic stop last week in Denver that spun out of control into damning allegations against her. Since DUI is an embarrassing but not necessarily career-ending offense, the worst Bradford faced was accusations of abuse of the until-now obscure legislative immunity from misdemeanor arrest members enjoy "going to or returning from" the legislative session. After reaching a point where Rep. Bradford's resignation was basically certain, a stunning news conference by Denver Police on Tuesday resulted in her partial exoneration--at least to the original police report's contention that she had tried to evade arrest with legislative immunity.
Rep. Bradford says now that she believes she would have passed tests to determine if she was legally under the influence, something that can never really be proven either way now--we're left with her word versus a police report whose veracity has been called into fundamental question, so we don't see how it can ever really be settled. But more importantly, Bradford says that her House Republican leadership, especially Speaker McNulty, threw her to the wolves before the DPD's false reports were revealed--and that this was the product of estrangement between Rep. Bradford and House leadership that had been building for a long time.
"This Romney thing, it's all about reflexes--and it pains me to say this stuff. This show has not been easy. You don't... Well, maybe you do know, but he just doesn't have conservative reflexes. It's like trying to learn golf late in life: The reflexes just aren't there. You've got to have a foundation, a basic understanding to have the reflexes, and they're just aren't there."
LONGMONT: Today, Brandon Shaffer put an end to rumors that he would change directions and run in the 6th Congressional District.
"While I appreciate the offers of support from those who asked me to consider running in CD6, I live in CD4, I understand CD4, and I plan to represent CD4 in Congress.
In truth, this was an easy decision. My wife works at the school our children attend. I have represented this area in the State Senate for the past seven years. We have built many lasting, strong relationships in Northern Colorado. I'm not running for Congress just to seek political office; I'm running to represent the people. And the people I know best are those in Colorado's 4th Congressional District.
There are people who have said that the newly re-drawn CD4 is too tough of a race-that party registration favors the Republicans. To them I say: "Just watch me." The people in Northern Colorado are tired of bickering, tired of politics as usual, and tired of a Congress that sides again and again with wealthy special interests over the rest of us. Republicans, Democrats, and Unaffiliated voters can agree on at least one thing: the current Congress is not getting the job done. It's time for change - it's time to bring some Colorado Solutions to Washington. That's why I'm running for Congress."
-----
Breaking via the Longmont Times-Call'sJohn Fryar:
State Senate President Brandon Shaffer announced Thursday afternoon that he will not switch his congressional bid from the 4th Congressional District to the 6th District...
Longmont is in the 4th, and while Shaffer would not have necessarily had to move to the 6th to campaign for that seat, he emphasized that "the city of Longmont is my home" and that he's looking forward to representing his Longmont-area Senate district constituents in Congress.
Pinnacol board vice chairman John Plotkin sent Hickenlooper a letter Thursday morning saying that the company felt it needed to slow down what has been a fast-moving process. Several members of a governor's task force examining the privatization plan had made the complaint that things were moving too quickly at a meeting Tuesday.
Statement from the governor's office:
Gov. John Hickenlooper joined Pinnacol Assurance in agreeing today to slow down a proposed restructuring of the company and delay any action during the current legislative session.
"We agree with Pinnacol that additional time is needed to fully explore the proposal," Hickenlooper said. "Clearly, there is more work to do. We look forward to continuing the conversations about restructuring in the coming weeks and months. Our priority remains doing what's best for injured workers, policyholders and the people of Colorado."
Pinnacol Assurance, Colorado's state-chartered tax free workman's compensation insurance entity, has been trying to privatize itself for a number of years. Previous proposals have been rejected as insufficiently beneficial to the state after years of preferential treatment as a state entity--and Pinnacol's strong-arm legislative tactics, belligerent executive management, and frequent appearances in the scandal sheets have done them few favors.
Well apparently, Gov. Hickenlooper isn't the lipstick this pig needs either.
UPDATE: For there's no confusion, WCVB-TV Boston, last September:
"First, you're wrong. That's one. I have never supported the President's Recovery Act, the stimulus. No time, nowhere, no how," [Romney] told them. "That bill didn't work. Throwing $800 billion out the window, that stimulated something, but it was not properly spent."
-----
As reported yesterday, GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney is scheduled to appear in Colorado Springs this Saturday afternoon for a rally at Springs Fabrication, Inc.--a sterling example of the kind of hard working, pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps private enterprise success story Romney loves. And, you know, wants to rescue from the "Obama economy."
Just one little problem, breaksJohn Schroyer of the Colorado Springs daily paper:
That's right, folks. In November of 2010, Springs Fabrication, Inc. received half of a $4.6 million grant from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a.k.a. "teh stimulus." Specifically, Springs Fabrication helped Merrick Nuclear Services & Technology design and build a special test vessel for something called the the Very Small Angle Neutron Spectrometer, as part of advanced research for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Anyway, it's going to be great when Romney extolls Springs Fabrication Saturday as a model of "free enterprise," so much more so now that you know Springs Fabrication was in part made prosperous by government stimulus contracts in support of government-funded research.
It's so perfectly ridiculous that it almost seems like a trap.
Via the former Colorado Senator's "protected" Twitter feed, here is a match absolutely, positively made in proper noun Heaven. Dave Schultheis (right), who serves on the state steering committee for Rick Santorum (left). Maybe the frothiest mixture ever concocted:
Because we assume Santorum's staff monitors Google, here are some helpful links to articles that help elucidate who's hugging the guy they want to be President.
DCCC's Red To Blue Candidates Outraised Republican Incumbents and Rivals
The most vulnerable Republican incumbents are getting outraised and facing serious challenges from Democratic candidates, new Federal Election Commission fundraising reports show. The top-tier Red to Blue Democratic candidates outraised their Republican opponents, most of them incumbents, in the final quarter of 2011. This comes after the NRCC was outraised by the DCCC for the first year of their majority and new polls show voters prefer to elect a Democratic Congress in 2012.
Average Q4 Raised by Red to Blue Candidates: $201,370
Average Q4 Raised by Republicans Incumbents/Opponents: $178,215
The "Red to Blue" race in Colorado is in CD-3, between Sal Pace and Scott Tipton, where the incumbent Tipton is reeling from bad coverage of his poor fundraising performance last quarter, and Pace's relative strength. As you can see, that's a story playing out elsewhere too.
Colorado's Rep. Jared Polistook charge of "Red to Blue" last May, and we assume the glowing press he's indirectly receiving in these key races has him smiling.
The Grand Junction Sentinel'sCharles Ashbyupdates the Rep. Laura Bradford saga:
"I'm frustrated and disappointed in the speaker of the House when last Friday on the phone, when we were discussing this, he said, 'You're toast,'" Bradford said. "This isn't about the last seven days. This has been going on for the past 15 months..."
Regardless of the department's exoneration of Bradford, McNulty said there are other issues to discuss, such as Bradford's driving after drinking, and her claim that she came from a legislative function at a downtown Denver bar...
Bradford said she is 95 percent certain she will leave the party. The last 5 percent she has to think about is whether she will become an independent or Democrat, [Pols emphasis] and whether she will resign before the end of her term. She is up for re-election for her third term this fall.
McNulty responded that, "It is quite possible that I said that if she's not honest about what happened, and she doesn't show remorse for what happened, that she would be toast."
He said Bradford's comments about possibly leaving the party are "unfortunate and unproductive." He said the forming of an ethics committee shows "the seriousness of the allegations that have been put in play here."
Bradford said she disagrees with having an ethics committee look at her actions - and potentially dole out punishment ranging from censure to expulsion - because the question of whether she abused her power has been settled. She said she's deciding Friday whether to leave the GOP and switch to unaffiliated or Democrat, even though she's been a lifelong Republican.
As of this morning, the consensus view from our sources is that Rep. Laura Bradford'sdisaffiliation from the Republican Party is all but inevitable now. Most expect her to serve out her current term, but not to run for re-election due to the logistical hurdles imposed by changing affiliation so late--and of course the drama and still-unresolved questions about the past week complicating everything. It's considered more likely that Rep. Bradford will go unaffiliated, though the possibility of her switching to the Democratic Party remains out there.
The thing to understand is that in either case, Bradford going unaffiliated or Democratic, it's a very good bet that House Speaker Frank McNultywill not be Speaker when the dust settles. As we said yesterday, if Bradford switches to a Democrat, the majority simply flips. If she goes independent, you've got a 32-32-1 tie, and near-certainty of Bradford--or somebody else--calling an election for a new Speaker. And as you probably know, or if you didn't know you could well be about to learn, McNulty is not universally loved within his caucus.
One possible scenario here is a House that remains in Republican hands, with Democratic help.
That's all we should prudently say right now, we'll update as events warrant (which they will).
red tape n. The collection or sequence of forms and procedures required to gain bureaucratic approval for something, especially when oppressively complex and time-consuming.
(From its former use in tying British official documents.)
We spent much of this afternoon listening to the state Senate Judiciary Committee's debate over of a pair of odd Republican bills worth retelling the story of. Senate Bill 12-027, sponsored by GOP Sen. Mark Scheffel, and Senate Bill 12-073 sponsored by Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman, attempted to impose additional review processes and criteria for rules promulgated by executive branch agencies. Which is a long way to say they "added red tape." After debate this afternoon, SB12-027 was laid over until Monday. SB12-073 was killed on a party-line vote.
The bill creates an additional rule review process for rules adopted on or after November 1, 2011, that are determined by the staff of the committee on legal services (the office of legislative legal services) to be related to legislation enacted during any legislative session, regular or special, commencing on or after January 1, 2011. The rules are to be reviewed by a committee of reference of the general assembly. The legislative council staff determines what committee of reference appears to be the most appropriate based on the principal departments assigned to each committee of reference as specified in legislative rule. The committees of reference must review all assigned rules no later than the 45th day of the legislative session. Each committee of reference may establish its own procedures for the review, but the bill sets forth minimum requirements for at least one public meeting. The bill allows the committees of reference to disapprove a rule for any reason, but provides the committees of reference some minimum considerations.
An executive branch agency is prohibited from adopting a rule pursuant to the "State Administrative Procedure Act" unless the agency finds that the rule is consistent with the clear legislative intent of the general assembly as supported by the public record of committee hearings and floor debates, including any public statements made by the principal sponsors or proponents of the bill or an amendment to the bill before its adoption.
The bill adds another ground for the committee on legal services and its staff, the office of legislative legal services, to use when it reviews rules adopted by executive branch agencies: A rule shall not extend in scope or impact beyond the clear legislative intent of the general assembly as supported by the public record of committee hearings and floor debates, including any public statements made by the principal sponsors or proponents of the bill or an amendment to the bill before its adoption...
In short, SB-027 would send adopted rules back to their committees of reference to perform an additional review early in the subsequent session, giving committees the power to reject rules "for any reason." SB-073 required agencies to evaluate all rules by additional criteria to determine if they conform to the "clear legislative intent of the general assembly," to the point of requiring them to comb through debates, legislative testimony, maybe even press clippings.
Coming from a pair of rock ribbed "red-tape slashing" conservative Republicans, it's fair to say that nobody really knew what to make of these bills in Senate Judiciary today.
