President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 22, 2010 12:11 AM UTC

Sen. Joyce Foster gets slapped by the governor

  • 29 Comments
  • by: Awen

( – promoted by Middle of the Road)

Gov. Bill Ritter today vetoed HB 1364, the bill that extend the sex offender management board and allow sex offenders to choose among three treatment providers.

Ritter vetoed the blll specifically because of the amendment Foster put on HB 1364 in second reading in the Senate.

In his veto message, Ritter says:

Unfortunately, an amendment to this bill was introduced and adopted on second reading in the second chamber of the General Assembly on Friday, May, 7, 2010, after the last of the public hearings on the bill had been concluded.  The amendment, as modified in a conference committee report adopted on the last day of the legislative session, provides:

Each offender entering treatment on or after July 1, 2010, shall be given a choice by his or her supervising agency of at least three appropriate approved providers where available, unless the supervising agency documents in writing that, based on the nature of the program offered and the needs of the offender, fewer than three providers can meet the specific treatment needs of the offender and ensure the safety of the public.

Proponents of the amendment argue that the amendment is critical to improving offender-treatment matching, which is a key element to an offender’s success in treatment.  Proponents further argue that the amendment does not give a sexual offender free reign to choose his or her treatment provider, but instead only allows an offender to choose an appropriate provider from a list of three providers, each of whom have been certified and approved by the SOMB.

Opponents argue that this amendment does not provide adequate safeguards to ensure that an offender knows which treatment provider would be most effective, thereby circumventing an appropriate treatment plan.  Opponents further argue that the approach embodied in this amendment fails to recognize that the supervising authority, be it probation or parole officer, often have far greater experience in determining the appropriate treatment provider.

The SOMB Standards are designed to establish a basis for the systematic management and treatment of adult sex offenders.  The legislative mandate of the SOMB and the primary goals of the Standards are to improve community safety and protect victims.  The language of the amendment discussed above does not, in my view, adequately provide for the systematic treatment of offenders.  In fact, allowing offenders to choose from a list of three providers potentially degrades systematic management and treatment, based on specific evaluation tools and accepted practices.

Ouch.

On the other hand, an op-ed in today’s Denver Post did provide another side to this story:

http://www.denverpost.com/opin…

The claims by the owner of THE, according to the author, are flawed and based on a one-size-fits-all offender treatment, whether it be for the kid urinating in the bushes or the rapist.

Comments

29 thoughts on “Sen. Joyce Foster gets slapped by the governor

  1. and I think Foster has only herself to blame for it. She was less than forthcoming when first asked about having a family member that was a sexual offender and furthermore, she seems to have a real beef with THE; whether her beef is legitimate is up to others to decide. But she had an obligation to disclose some background details relevant to this bill and she didn’t.  

  2. Didn’t the entire Senate adopt the amendment, without much dissent?  To the extent that any veto is a “slap,” this veto seems to be a slap at everyone in the legislature who voted for the amendment and the final amended bill.

    1. that Foster offered up the amendment without revealing she was related to a sexual offender that had issues with the same program she now claimed she had received calls of “concern” over.

      Sen. Joyce Foster, D-Denver, offered the amendment based on calls she said she received on the matter, including those from sex offenders.

      It’s astonishing to us that legislators would support such a controversial change based on such a narrow sampling without seeking the broad range of opinions they would get with a public hearing.

      It’s the kind of maneuver that not only undercuts public confidence in the legislative process, but also could easily result in bad public policy.

      Foster defended the maneuver to us, saying that amendments are added to bills all the time without public hearings, and she is right on that count.

      She did not reveal that her brother-in-law was a convicted sex offender until after she successfully pushed through a last minute amendment on the bill.

      So yes, Earnest. This would be considered a slap down specifically to her and why Ritter refers to it as the reason for his veto.

      1. He vetoed the bill because he disagreed with the amendment on the merits (which was supported by the majority of the legislature).  He did not veto the amendment because of Foster’s actions.  Thus, according to his explanation, his alleged slap was at all supporters of the amendment.

          1. And, if so, his reasoning had nothing to do with Foster’s connections and lack of candor, as I said above.  Thus, to call this a slap at Foster specifically seems inaccurate (if one is to take the Governor’s explanation at face value).

        1. Foster introduced this amendment at the last minute without revealing her direct conflict of interest and it was a pretty major conflict. If you find the title of this diary misleading after knowing that, I can’t help you any further here.

          1. It seems very likely that Ritter would’ve vetoed the bill in any event.  So, to view his veto as primarily about Foster seems off base.  Thanks for your help anyway.

            1. What I said was “He wasn’t going to sign the bill with that amendment in it.”  Foster put the amendment in.

              Call Evan Dreyer and see if Ritter would have vetoed the bill without that amendment.

              1. It was the substance of the amendment to which Ritter objected.  Not Foster’s lack of personal disclosures.  Ritter likely would’ve vetoed the bill with the amendment in any event, even if Foster’s lack of candor was never made public.

              1. ….please read my reply to Ralphie, in which I address the point that Ritter would’ve likely vetoed the bill with the amendment regardless of the disclosure of Foster’s screw-ups.  Ritter disagreed with the substance of the amendmeent and, by extension, he disagreed with all of those legislators who supported the amendment.  

      2. When will our pols learn that everything comes out? You can say you would rather not answer a question because of concerns for the privacy of others and catch a little flack for it but you can’t lie. You won’t get away with it.  It will come back to bite you.

        Not only that but somebody has captured whatever dumb remark you just made at that little fund raiser on their cell phone.  Almost nothing is private for private people anymore.  NOTHING is private for public people. Don’t even try to lie to or keep a secret. It won’t fly.

        1. aren’t we–Blumenthal? Lord.

          I can’t figure out why Foster even tried to tag this damned thing on and figured her conflict of interest wouldn’t come to light. This wasn’t terribly hard to find out and she just killed a pretty good bill with her bullshit.

        2. I mean, God forbid anyone votes in secret?  Privacy only matters until you have publicly pledged to do something.

          Sort of like David knowing who he’s gonna vote for until he doesn’t.

  3. Had the amendment been introduced when it should have, and received public hearing and comment, it would be a different story. Instead it was snuck in at the last minute by someone with the appearance if not the reality of a conflict of interest.

  4. There’s a chance the amendment would never have succeeded if it had been offered in committee will full hearing and expert testimony.  It is unfortunate that a majority of the Senate voted in favor of the amendment on the floor.  The laws around sex offenders and the SOMB are complex – for a reason.  And in my humble opinion, it is an area of the law with which legislators should be somewhat well-acquainted, along with a whole lot of other things like child protection, forest health, water, etc.  But we don’t elect policy experts and/or policy generalists very often, do we?!  Too bad.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

160 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!