May 12, 2026 · State, Civic, Military, & Veterans Affairs · 12,657 words · 13 speakers · 126 segments
All right. The state civic military and veterans affairs committee will come to order. Ms. King, please call the roll.
Representatives, bottoms. Here.
Bradley. Here. Carter.
Pass. Espinosa.
Here. Ray.
Here. Rolick.
Here. Black. For the last time, joyfully present.
Aww. Also joyfully here.
Ricks. Here.
Carter. Present.
Clifford. Here.
Madam Chair. Here. Members, we have one bill on the agenda today, Senate Bill 192. and our bill sponsors are with us, so we will turn it over to them. Representative Soper.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I want to thank you for listening to one last bill. It's in the bill 92. It's important that you understand the process of how we got here. Both my co-prime and I sit on the Committee on Legal Services, as do a couple of others on this panel. For those that do sit on OLS, you'll remember we had an out-of-cycle rule review. For those who are not on the panel, I will describe what happened. We had a member, Representative Camacho, who asked for the producer responsibility dues appeals process rule that had been enacted as a rule, so regulation.
All right. There you go. Picture break. Love it. One more picture break today.
So it had been a regulation in November of 2025. That was out of cycle because it was past the cutoff for the legislature to be able to review the rule, and so a member of the General Assembly may request a rule to be reviewed. That was, in fact, heard by the Committee on Legal Services, and after a very lengthy hearing, it was an exact tie vote, which meant that the committee could not decide if the rule was ultra-virus or not. There was an opinion by the Attorney General's Office, who represented the Solid and Hazardous Waste Commission, that said that the rule was kosher. And our attorneys with the Office of Legal Services had a memo that said the rule was not kosher. The General Assembly had not granted an explicit appeal process where they could delegate that power. Because it was a tie, I had said at that time, along with Senator Dylan Roberts, that we would be interested in a bill where we actually address the issue. The bill that you have before you attempts or seeks to codify the rule that was in place that is particularly contentious. We'll leave it at that. The bill reaffirms that the advisory board after a producer if they are choosing to appeal they must go first to arbitration Then they can appeal to the advisory board, and the advisory board is an evidentiary hearing. And then they would recommend to the commissioner what type of appeal to have. And depending on what's decided there, the next course of remedy would be to the district court. And this would all be over the producer fees. I will turn it over to my co-prime sponsor to talk about really some more of the mechanics with the bill that's inside it. I will say, because I do think it's important to put this on the record, that I personally have some difficulties here. I wish we had a longer runway and were not on the eve before SNADA, because to me, I would like to see a process where this is just like all the other Administrative Procedures Act appeals, and that that is a process that's well tested, it's within statute, it's consistent across the board. I do worry that we're making germane what otherwise might not be or that the courts are going to be hearing a long process over probably no matter what happens. And so those are my personal reservations. but from the spirit of looking at how the statutes are drafted, we have to be consistent one way or the other. We have to be consistent with what's in front of you or we have to be consistent with what's in the other administrative appeals processes that we have for every other agency across the state of Colorado. And consistency in the statutes is important. So I will just leave it with the committee that each and every one of you will have to decide because you are going to hear from very high-level witnesses on both sides, and I want each and every one of you to judge this on how you deem it under the merits.
Representative Joseph.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. It's a pleasure to be here in front of you to present Senate Bill 192. I've had for several years now have worked on policy aimed at creating a circular economy in Colorado. While Senate Bill 192 concerns a rule only recently passed, the state has been implementing its extended producer responsibility program for almost four years now. the EPR program. Later this year, our constituents will see curbside recycling that is as convenient as trash collection. This program will expand recycling to over 700,000 households in Colorado at no expense to government and taxpayers. But Colorado's program will not withstand constitutional challenges if it does not include an appeals process for businesses being assessed dues In the Committee of Legal Services which I sit on with my good representative Soper we heard from the Attorney General office that the appeals regulation was legal and envisioned by the statute Not only did the legislature design the EPR advisory board so that it had subject matter expertise to advise the department on all aspects of the program, but this structure already exists today in state government. At least two other Colorado advisory boards hear administrative appeals even without explicit statutory authority. The Domestic Violence Program Advisory Committee is an advisory committee that reviews appeal regarding restriction placed on program funding and denials. The Foster Youth Successful Transition to Adult Program Advisory Board assists the Division of Childhood Welfare with administrative hearing. Members, this bill is simple. It simply reaffirms and makes abundantly clear that Colorado's EPR Advisory Board can make recommendation to CDPHE on appeals of producer dues amounts. And also, I want to iterate in the bill that the department shall review the recommendation and determine whether to approve or reject the recommendations. The department determination on the matter is a final agency action subject to judicial review. So ultimately, yes, the advisory committee makes a recommendation, but the department has final approval. I ask for your yes vote to ensure Colorado's circular economy is strong and businesses are afforded due process, and we have experts to answer any questions or other questions that you may have. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Members, what questions do you have for our bail sponsors? Okay.
Representative Carter. I guess this question is for Representative Sober. I believe you guys are working on some additional information or additional memo. Would that have helped you moving forward?
Representative Soper. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Carter. You know how to ask very tough questions. Yes. I would say the ability to have worked on an amendment would have given me reassurances. But we don't have an amendment for you today.
Any further questions? Representative Espinosa.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I've seen the memorandum for both the AG's Office and the Office of Legal Services. Just out of curiosity, since you both sit on the committee, were you on opposite sides of the vote? Would either of you like to respond to that on the mic?
Representative Soper.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't remember where my co-prem was, but I believe that the department had acted ultra-virus. I had asked the AG's attorney. I read a portion of statute out of the book. and ask how that did not fit in I didn like the answer that I had back from the attorney with the attorney general's office. And I was convinced that they viewed this as a logical nexus, that you could delegate this power from the commission down to an advisory board, and that they were just being, I guess, very liberal with the reading of the statute.
Representative Espinoza, follow-up.
Thank you. This is not judiciary, so could you do the committee a favor and explain ultra-virus and why that's relevant to the issue we're talking about today?
Representative Soper.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Espinoza. And it's hoping to hide behind Latin phrases. So ultraviolet is a Latin phrase for acting without authority or going beyond the scope of the power that you've been granted. Ultimately, I would say, because we were on different sides of our analysis, I mean, each bill sponsor had a different opinion on where things landed. I mean, to me that shows that if the statute reads that there's the ability to have a delegation, how broad is that in terms of an appeal process versus how explicit does it need to be to be granted an authority? And so that was kind of the question that it came down to. and because there, in my opinion, was the lack of words in the statute, one could see why it could have tipped either direction because we have very smart attorneys in the Attorney General's office and we have incredibly smart attorneys in the Office of Legal Services. And the fact that both of those attorneys came up with two different legal opinions as to what the state of the law was and the fact that the Committee on Legal Services was split 5-5, most of whom are attorneys on that committee, shows that you had a lot of incredibly smart people who couldn't even figure out what the law is. And so if anyone were to say that it's crystal clear, it's not.
I'm not seeing any other hands, so with that we will move in.
I did have my hand up.
I'm so sorry. Representative Ricks, I completely missed you. Please proceed.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just curious. The advisory board was not set up as a quasi-judiciary board. So with the administrative hearings that it has to do, will you guys be providing additional resources to help them do those proceedings?
Representative Joseph, would you like to answer that?
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. That's part of the conversation that we're having. In the OLS memo, it talks about how the delegation was improperly promulgated because the commission lacks authority to authorize the advisory board to conduct the hearing. And two, it conflicts with the APA, and the advisory board is not an agency that may preside over an evidentiary hearing. but according to the Department of Law's memo which I agree with it says the act authorizes Commission to promulgate rules to implement and administer the program, and the statutory authority extends to rule deemed necessary by the Commission to administer and enforce program requirements. And to my understanding, what I agree with, delegating to the advisory committee is what is deemed necessary. And also when you look in case law, in Colorado case law, it says that the General Assembly cannot delegate explicitly for every contingency. So really, when you were thinking about a delegation as part of the APA, the work that we do here within our chamber, we cannot think for every possibility. So this rule delegation is within the scope of the advisory committee. And I'll stop right there. there was something else I wanted to say. Oh, also, too, the advisory committee has experts on it, right, that could help with the work of CDPHE when it comes to addressing issues with the EPR program and the dues.
Representative Froelich.
Thank you, Chair Wilford, and thank you, Bill Sponsors. I think you are addressing something that needs to be addressed and is difficult. I guess where this has happened and where EPR has gone into effect in states, they do delegate this rulemaking authority and this appeals process to various places. And is there not also available a parallel, always available a parallel path through the courts if you do not get redressed in the rulemaking and appeals process?
Representative Soper. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Frolick. I don't know that I would call it a parallel process, but the way it works is you first have to exhaust your administrative remedies. So it starts out with the alternative dispute resolution. So you first have to have arbitration. Then if you're not happy with the arbitration proceedings, then you would move before the advisory board. And the advisory board would make a recommendation to the commission. And if you're not happy with the commission's decision, I mean, ultimately I guess the commission could have a different finding than the advisory board. Although, yeah, I mean, I'll just leave it at that. They possibly could have a different finding. If the person or producer is not happy with the finding of the commission through the advisory board, then they can appeal to the district court. So evidence is actually presented three times, basically three evidentiary hearings between arbitration, the advisory board, and then the district court. So that's a little bit different than other appeals processes where you would have an evidentiary hearing only one time, and then it would be an appellate board, and then you might have a second evidentiary hearing by the time you get to the courts.
Representative Carter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just so I understand the process once it gets to the district court the district court would give deference to the case law and to the actual statutes which we are modifying right now. If I'm wrong, let me know.
Representative Sober. Representative Sober.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Carter. No, you're correct. I mean, there's a lawsuit where we're modifying statute currently. Courts will give, obviously, not just deference to what's ever in the statute. They actually have to follow the statute. I mean, deference would be if something is persuasive, this is, I mean, statute is binding.
Representative Espinoza.
I guess that triggers a couple of questions for me because that statement I don't believe is completely accurate. If you're in the middle of litigation and we act to try to remedy something that was defective in the first place, the courts could deem that our action did not remedy the underlying lack of authority to the rule. And the question becomes whether we actually have authority to go back and clarify because there's two issues here. One is an issue of the initial rulemaking, which the OLS memo at least specifically indicates was not allowed under the rulemaking or under the grant of the legislative authority. And you can either read our authority broadly to say that they could do anything that was necessary to fully effectuate the law or a little more narrowly as the OLS did with regard to that. And then as a legal matter, one of the issues that's going to be adjudicated is whether we have the authority to go back retroactively to reinstate the rule that may or may not, depending on how the determination was given the 5-5 vote. And we did not make a conclusion as a legislature that the actions were legitimate. So that's why we're actually acting now. whether the courts would actually determine that we have jurisdiction to remedy by retroactive application that in this bill, which is one of the things we're doing in this bill. Secondarily, however, becomes even if we retroactively affirm this, there's a question about whether the remedy that we're providing in this statute is also authorized. That is, can we have the advisory board that is not an adjudicatory board, as contemplated under the rest of the statutes, take the place of what the rest of the statutes would require with regard to the Administrative Procedure Act? That's how I look at this bill, right? That there's two issues, and the court has at least three issues that they're going to look at in the middle of this litigation. That is, whether the first rule was appropriate, whether we as a legislature can retroactively fix it if it was not appropriate, and then the question of whether our delegation to this advisory ward is legally competent itself, given the statutory framework which would not normally delegate that authority to non-legal authorities to make a determination. Am I missing something?
Representative Joseph, I just want to quickly note that it will remind everybody we're not in judiciary, but I am very glad that we have attorneys that can answer that question. Okay.
No, no, I'm joking. I'm joking. Please, please answer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to respond. I heard a lot of questions and comments coming from both Representative Espinoza and Carter as well, and we clarifying for my understanding of the bill and the proponent of the bill we are clarifying the law And also, too, in the State of Colorado Department of Law memo, it also sought to define an agency under the APA. And it says in agencies defined as any board, bureau, or commission, department, institution, division, section, or officer of the state. And those who are in opposition to the bill, part of the conversation is whether this advisory board can be delegated the duties that they currently have. And in the Department of Law memo, it says yes by definition of what is an agency within the EPA itself.
Representative Soper.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And just to add on a little bit more as far as an answer to Representative Espinoza, I think you have a very good legal analysis on currently where things stand. Because if the courts were to find, because there's an actual case, and I think probably this entire panel knew that, But if they were to find that the rule did exceed the authority granted by the legislature, then from November of 25 until, say, whenever this bill were to pass, that would be struck down. So then there wouldn't be an appellate process for that scope in time. And the fear from some is that that would bring the entire producer responsibility process down. I mean, that's the ultimate thing that's here. The courts might say we will be retroactive and that we'll look at Senate Bill 192 and we'll apply that retroactively. I can tell you I have a law that I pushed through. It went all the way to the state Supreme Court on the question of retroactivity legislation, retroactive legislation, and it was struck down 7-0. So I'm a little bit sensitive to arguments like this because they are real, and they are the Supreme Court. You never know where they're going to land. but that ultimately is kind of the question is what's a better route? I mean, is it better to be silent and presume the rule was always germane? Is it better to have a bill but then we risk whether or not we're creating a retroactive situation? And I think you'll hear from a lot of super smart people on both sides of the equation, and I hope you ask some similar questions of them because that is where we are right now. And I would like to say it's super black and white, but we're, I mean, I wish we'd had a little more time, and I'll just leave it at that.
Vice Chair Clifford.
Thank you, Madam Chair. First question, so I'm going to rapid fire. There's going to be a couple questions in here. So how involved were either one of you in the drafting of this? Because we don normally use type 2 boards for quasi purposes but we do have some I been working on the post board for a few years for instance and that one that we do a similar function under the Department of Law I think has a bit more structure than possibly the recycling folks. I'm kind of wondering like why this didn't go to like the Solid and Hazardous Waste Commission, which is a commission, or why we didn't use administrative courts. I'm just fascinated like why this path, Why did we create the quasi-judicial under this? I know there was some other clarification that got done in here from some complexities.
Representative Soper.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Clifford. That's probably a question better for the department. I have actually asked a similar question myself, and I don't really know the answer why this was chosen as the path, but it was. You'd have to go back to the 2022 legislation. That's it. Thank you.
Okay. We'll wait until the department comes up for that. Thank you. Is there any further questions, committee? Seeing none, thank you both. We have four individuals signed up for testimony. I'm going to bring everybody up at once. However, CDPHE, I see that you have somebody signed up to provide testimony. If you have anybody else that you'd like to bring up in order to answer questions, you're welcome to do so. Let's call up Andrea Albersheim, Aaron Radin. Wolf Cray, and Randy Mormon. And if there's anybody else with us today that would like to provide testimony, please come forward at this time. Let's start with Erin Radin. Welcome. Please come off mute. The floor is yours for three minutes and hold for questions afterwards.
Thank you so much, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm Erin Radin here on behalf of the Consumer Brands Association. We represent the consumer packaged goods industry, which in Colorado supports over 45,000 jobs, powers the economy with $3.5 billion in wages and injects $5.9 billion into Colorado's economy. The consumer packaged goods industry supports EPR and packaging policies that protect consumer safety, improve recycling access, and deliver strong environmental outcomes. But unfortunately, this bill does not further these goals, and we must respectfully oppose. We support producers having due process. However, the advisory board is not the appropriate venue for this to occur. I want to make it clear that other state advisory boards do not and should not have the authority contemplated here. The advisory board consists of members representing the variety of stakeholders in the recycling system, including local governments, haulers, and recycling and composting facilities who benefit from the funds collected by the program, as well as representatives of NGOs and specific material types, creating an inherent conflict of interest. These members are tasked with advising the department and the producer responsibility organization through their individual lens, not to provide an objective judicial function. Even if they are successful in putting their individual interests aside, there's still the perception of bias. Additionally, because of Colorado's sunshine laws, any such hearing would have to be conducted in a public meeting, causing the release of a producer's confidential business information and proprietary data. If the actual determination will be made by the department, then they are the appropriate entity to conduct a hearing or other review of the ecomodulated dues, as they are already tasked with the enforcement of the program and could conduct the review while maintaining confidentiality of the data. that because this only covers the eco-modulated dues and not all dues, that it doesn't solve the constitutional due process litigation concerns that have been raised as well. We raised these concerns about giving the advisory board this level of authority during the rulemaking process, even though this change was introduced late in the public comment period. Our concerns fell on deaf ears. Therefore, we were especially disappointed to not be included in the development of this legislation. We were supportive of amendments proposed by some of our industry partners, but this bill was introduced so late in the session without any stakeholder process and insufficient time for all parties to come to an agreement. We appreciate this committee's time and effort as well as that of the sponsors to solve the problems raised, but this bill does not solve the problems that we are discussing here today. We do look forward to continued engagement on this topic and hope that we can actually find a solution that is both workable and addresses all of the different elements that we are discussing here. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Next up, Andrea Albersheim.
Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I am Andrea Albersheim, and I lead Plastic Sustainability and Recycling Policy at the American Chemistry Council. We really appreciate the intent behind SB 26192. Producers, should have a clear and fair path to challenge dues and assessments. However, we have significant concerns with the process identified in this bill. ACC proposed amendment language intended to address those concerns, but because agreement could not be reached, we have moved to an opposed position. The advisory board should not be at the center of a formal appeals process that affects producers' financial obligations. The advisory board was not created and should not have the authority to conduct hearings, evaluate disputes, or function as a quasi-judicial body. As mentioned earlier, the Office of Legislative Legal Services recently concluded that the existing rule authorizing the advisory board to preside over these hearings exceeds statutory authority and it conflicts with the Administrative Procedure Act. The memo states the advisory board is not the appropriate body to conduct evidentiary hearings under Colorado law. This bill continues to go against their counsel. Similarly, in the public comment period for this rulemaking, several stakeholders raised concerns with this hearing process. And I'd like to clarify something very important. It was asked earlier to the sponsors, and the answer is that no other state EPR law gives authority for hearings to the advisory board. The advisory board is not a neutral decision-making body. Its membership includes local governments, waste haulers, recyclers, and consultants who may have financial or operational interests tied to the program. This structure raises due process, confidentiality, and antitrust concerns by placing competitors and market participants in a process involving financial disputes and potentially sensitive business information. We believe there is a better path forward. If an appeals process is needed, it should be administered directly by the department in an established administrative process that ensures neutrality and fairness. For those reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on this bill. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Please hold for questions. Next up, Randy Moorman.
Welcome. Good afternoon Chair Wilford and members of the committee My name is Randy Moorman and I am the director of Policy and Community Campaigns at EcoCycle a Colorado nonprofit recycler now in its 50th year of working to build zero communities across the state I'm here today to express our support of Senate Bill 26192. As one of the original proponents of House Bill 22-1355, the Producer Responsibility Act, we have worked with a broad coalition to craft the Colorado's Producer Responsibility for Packaging Program. We are now at a major milestone. Colorado is beginning implementation of the program that will revolutionize how we recycle. It will provide equitable access to no-cost recycling services to every community across our state and dramatically increase Colorado's recycling volumes. Senate Bill 26192 reaffirms the Solid and Hazardous Waste Commission's authority to direct an appeals process for producers to contest eco-modulated dues conducted by the Producer Responsibility Advisory Board. This board is the appropriate body because it is an impartial board that has no producers on it. It is made up of individuals with expertise in EPR and ecomodulation, and this board has approved the producer responsibility program, which includes dues already being paid right now by producers. So this appeals process is a key element in building trust in the system. A theme throughout the past three years of meetings and public comments was the need to create a transparent, equitable, and authentic recycling program for Colorado that the public, local governments, and consumer brands can trust. Senate Bill 26192 helps ensure due process and transparency in the crafting and implementing of ecomodulation bonuses and malices as financial incentives for producing more environmentally sustainable and recyclable packaging in the setting of producer dues. This appeals process in Senate Bill 192 is essential to meet due process requirements under the U.S. Constitution. We urge the committee to vote yes on Senate Bill 26192. Please keep Colorado's producer responsibility program moving forward in a transparent and equitable manner that builds trust and participation. Thank you. Thank you very much. And lastly, Mr. Cray. Welcome.
Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Wolf Cray. I am the materials management
unit leader at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. I'm here today in support of Senate Bill 26192. This bill reaffirms the authority of the Solid and Hazard Waste Commission and Rule 18.2.7 adopted by the Commission in November of 2025. The intent of Rule 18.2.7 is to provide consumer brand companies with a public, transparent process to resolve alleged errors in their producer dues. Extensive stakeholder negotiation and discussion went into the development of this process, with over 700 stakeholders notified of the proposed regulations and 200 participants attending our stakeholder meetings last fall. Both industry and NGOs supported this rule, noting it would provide added transparency in a largely internal process. The department worked with businesses impacted by this rule and other stakeholder groups, and the commission heard from all sides on this issue. In the end, the commission ultimately voted unanimously to adopt this rule, and the rule tasked to the EPR advisory board with conducting a review hearing and making a recommendation to the department. This is advisory in nature It is not supposed to be adjunctary and the rule is filled by the department when it issues the final agency action or the district court if the producer seeks judicial review Again, the board is not issuing the final decision, purely making a recommendation to the department. The legislature designated the makeup of the advisory board due to its expertise in EPR. They represent various sectors, local governments, and entities that understand the complexity of the various aspects of this program, such as PCR content and various materials that would be factored in for ecomodulation. Would you mind just pausing really quickly?
Members, if you want to have a conversation, please go outside. It's a little distracting and I want to be able to hear. Thank you.
Okay, you can proceed. Thanks. So last year, the board reviewed the plan detailing how EPR will be carried out of the road of Colorado. And already the board is providing a depth in its reviewing EPR functions. The department graciously appreciates the committee's consideration of the bill and we ask for a yes vote. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Members, this is your panel. What questions do you have? Representative Bradley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I do not know law. I'm trying to write a lot of notes. To the two women, one from consumer brands and ACC, I guess I'm trying to figure out, so you said no other state gives the EPR rulemaking to the advisory board. So what typically happens in other states? I'm happy to start, and Erin can go from there.
Hold on just a moment. Mr. Aberchine, I just want to make sure that we're calling on people so folks who may be listening in can follow the conversation. Mrs. Aberchine, you can proceed.
Thank you. Sorry. Happy to start, and Erin can go from there. So Circular Action Alliance, which is the producer responsibility organization that is utilized in Colorado to support the packaging EPR program, is also utilized in several other states, including Colorado and Oregon. Right now, Oregon is the only other state that is this far along in the process, and they are actually further along. They have actually implemented the program, and they have a fee assessment and appeal process that is currently handled exclusively through the Circular Action Alliance, as is written into the rules and regulations in Colorado as well. And so there would be an appeals process within, they are the ones that assess the dues. And so the appeals process would go back to them. If there is a concern after that initial review, then and these issues cannot be resolved informally, then a mandatory contract agreement with CAA requires producers to submit disputes to private binding arbitration. So it would have to go through the courts and legal process.
Yes, Representative Bradley, you can ask a follow up.
Thank you, and forgive my ignorance. So walk me through how the Circular Action Alliance is different than the advisory board. I mean, I know that there's probably, I get that from layman's terms, but walk me through it like I'm five.
Do you want, who did you want to direct that to? Okay, there's also CDPHE here that can speak to that as well. Okay, all right. Who wants to take it? Okay, Erin, Ms. Radin.
Thank you Madam Chair Members of the committee yes So the way this process works is that the state CDPHE selected what is called a producer responsibility organization, and that is who is charged with actually implementing the program. They work through a normal regulatory process that CDPHE oversees with advisory role for the advisory board in giving input, giving their expertise to the development of the rules. And once those rules are passed, then they ask what is in Colorado, the PRO, Circular Action Alliance, to create a program plan. And the advisory board also gives advice to Circular Action Alliance on what that program plan looks like. And then the Action Alliance takes that program plan and implements the program, which, you know, the goals of are increasing recycling all across Colorado. And they are very much on track to accomplish the statutory goals that the rulemaking then supports that is implemented by Circular Action Alliance. And your earlier question around what authority the advisory board has, the advisory board in this state and in other states has exactly what it sounds like, an advisory role. They are supposed to lend their different expertise, be it from a municipality, from an NGO, from a composting facility. All of these pieces that come together that are what builds the recycling system, they all come together and they have an advisory role. And so, yes, do they give their thoughts and comments on the rules? Yes. Do they give their thoughts and comments on what's called the pro plan? Yes, but in no other state do they have the ability to make recommendations on an individual producer's dues invoice the way that is being contemplated here. So that's really the distinction that we're teasing out when we say that this level of authority for an advisory board does not exist in any other states.
Okay, next question goes to Rep Ricks.
did I make that up did you not have your hand up I think you made that up
I'm just trying to be inclusive thank you Madam Chair so Mr. Mormon
I guess we're hearing that Oregon is the comparable state and that we shouldn't do anything Oregon's not doing and et cetera, et cetera. Can you comment on what's happening in Oregon and if they should be a model for us or not?
Mr. Mormon.
Yeah, sure. Thank you, Rep. Wuerlick and Madam Chair. In Oregon, we heard reference earlier about their process, and their process is different right now from what we are establishing here in Colorado a little bit. And so I want to just speak to the fact that there is a legal challenge in Oregon to their producer responsibility program. And a judge recently in Oregon ruled that the binding arbitration that Oregon has to resolve contract disputes with producers is not constitutionally sufficient. And so that is why we need to have an appeals process here in Colorado. And so that's why we are trying to address that with this bill. Ms. Radin, I see that your hand is up, but the question was actually directed to Mr.
Do you have a follow-up, Rep Froelich? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
From CDPHE, can you tell us the creation of – we were here, those of us who were here for this incredibly difficult and challenging and ultimately significant original bill. The creation of the Advisory Council, can you tell us a little bit about what went into that? and are we in a semantics war because we called it an advisory council and now people are saying you stick to your lane, you can only give advice when if we'd have called it the action council or something that we wouldn't be in this problem. Mr. Crane. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Prolich. So the advisory council is an advisory board and that is all they're doing under this process. The Solid and Hazardous Waste Commission is the rulemaking board that oversees this program. Under 1355, they have the authority to set all regulations for this program. The advisory board still is not setting any type of rules. They are not taking an action. They are purely there under this process following the hearing to provide input on ecomodulation factors. And that's really important because the dues that producers pay have already been established within the program plan. So if company X sells aluminum cans, they may be paying two cents. If company Z sells an aluminum can, they're paying the same thing. However, when those dues get eco-modulation assessed to them, they change based upon specific variables. We need the technical experts from the advisory board that have familiarity with those aspects as far as how products are developed how they're put together to provide that feedback. Again, the department makes the final decision, but having those technical experts on the board will help us get us through the process and evaluate that. Vice Chair Clifford.
Thank you. I've been working through quite a few things just in the type of board that it is. And it is one of those things where we're doing something that's slightly unusual and also like, okay, are you really going to break anything? So the question that I have is in the looking at the breaking. The only thing that I'm concerned slightly about right now that I don't think is a major concern, but I'd like for you to address it, is the fact that the producers that are on the board are also served by the board, the fee, et cetera. Are you guys looking at this more like that provides benefit to this decision-making because there are people that are of like minds, kind of like a jury of your peers, if you will, or can you kind of describe any concerns you have about that process?
Mr. Cray. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. That is an excellent question, and I would like to clarify. There are no producers on the board. There is no direct conflict of interest as far as there being any producers that would be making this decision or commenting or providing, again, a recommendation to the department. I will there are industry trade associations that have members that are producers so there are folks that are That are very much aware of how this program works, but no producers who would be paying dues to the program are on the board and To be very clear. We have the Attorney General's office Involved with this very complex program as you can tell there's a lot of different things sort through with the the legal aspects of this We have them at every meeting and we follow the Ministerial procedures act which includes all members of the board submitting a conflict of interest disclosure before as soon as they join the board and anytime we have a vote anybody who has a conflict of interest either direct or indirect must disclose that in any direct conflict of interest cannot take place in the vote. All right next question representative Luck.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm wondering, so this conversation, Ms. Radin had quite a reaction to. I'm wondering if I can hear her response to these questions before asking my own. Can you maybe summarize for us what you'd like her to answer? I am just curious as to why she was so adamantly shaking her head no when other member was responding. Okay, we just saw her shake her head again. Ms. Raden, please. Ms. Raden, I'm sorry. Please.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I will be brief. I appreciate being recognized. The judge in Oregon, there is no ruling in the Oregon lawsuit. There has been a lawsuit filed in Oregon. There is a hearing set that begins in mid-July, but there is no ruling in Oregon. nothing about their program has yet been found unconstitutional. So it was very, very inaccurate statement to say that this has already been found to be unconstitutional in other states. And I just wanted to make that clear. It's a very important distinction to talk about a legal precedent in that way. I want you to have the correct information. There is no ruling on this in any state. Okay. Representative Leflak, back to you. Thank you, Madam Chair. So my understanding is that the advisory board is actually sort of a separate entity from a lot of what we would understand generally as the agency. And so when I read on page three, it says the advisory board starting on line seven, the advisory board shall, jumping down to line 12, if requested by a producer, hold an administrative hearing in accordance with section 24.4.105, which is the hearings and determinations subsection under the general category of rulemaking and licensing procedures. And that particular section requires in subsection three that at the hearing, only one of the following may preside, the agency, an administrative law judge from the Office of Administrative courts or a hearing officer who is a member of the body which comprises the agency. And so I'm just wondering from Mr. Mormon, sorry, my apologies for butchering your name, but you had mentioned that this is all good to go and you're supportive of this. And so I'm just wondering if you can help me reconcile this, what I see as an internal violation. We're referencing a section of statute that we're not actually following by delegating this to an advisory board. And that was for Mr. Mormon. Okay. Mr. Mormon, if you would like to respond. Thank you. I think I will defer that to Mr. Cray, who's been working with our AG's office, who could answer the legal standing behind us. I'm I'm not a lawyer so I have to defer to them please. Mr. Craig, would you like to respond and also perhaps you could tell us what the judge in Oregon did decide while you're at it. Thank you Mr Craig Thank you Madam Chair Thank you Representative Loft for the question That an excellent question Under the Administrative Procedures Act the definition of an agency includes boards and commission So the advisory board within the department is within the agency so it is part of the process as far as making that recommendation That is the word-for-word definition of agency for the definition includes boards. As far as the Oregon situation, it is correct that this is still under review. There was a hearing held a few months ago that has been held off, and the actual case itself will not be happening until later this summer. However, of the challenges that were addressed, there were numerous challenges that were brought up within the Oregon court case. Many of them have already been thrown out. The issue of due process and the lack of review by the overseeing agency, which is the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, was one of the issues that was left in there, and that is still an ongoing concern. So the department, understanding that EPR is very new, and we're learning as we go here, recognizes that this is an issue. Because CAA is a non-governmental organization, there is no final government oversight without an appeals process and an ability to take that to the department. Now, if an entity still disagrees with the department's final ruling, they can still appeal that and take it to a judicial hearing. And for clarification, was there any sort of preliminary injunction that happened in Oregon? That's correct. There was a preliminary injunction here in Oregon. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much.
Rep Luck. Thank you, Madam Chair. So help me understand, I sat on the committee that heard this a couple months ago, mid-March, and it was my understanding then that the advisory board was separate from CDPHE. There was a break there between the two, and that this unique creation was not connected to CDPHE in a way that actually would easily make the APA apply. And so help me understand how you see the advisory board subsumed to be able to fit the definition of agency.
Mr. Cray. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Luck. Yes, the advisory board is a type two board, which does just that. It is not directly housed. So I can speak to myself. I am a member of the advisory board. I'm a non-voting member of that board. As the department is one of the 15 total seats, there are 13 total members. The two non-voting seats would include CAA, the pro, and myself representing the department. All other members are external factors, be it local governments, private industry, composters, recyclers, various entities that are subject matter experts with recycling. So the board is contained within the department as an advisory board, the way it's set up.
Representative Espinoza.
And Representative Bombs, I see you. We're getting down to you. We're going to hear Representative Nguyen, and then we'll hear from you, okay? Did you say Che? Check. Oh, got it. Check. Okay, great.
Representative Espinoza. Thank you. And I appreciate your response to that question, but I still believe that subsection, and this is a disagreement with the Attorney General's interpretation, and I think an easier solution to this bill would have been if you weren't an ex-officio member of the board and you're actually a member of the department, that authority could have been delegated to you to review and make a determination because I do think that's authorized if you're within the agency. However, I am concerned that it says, and I'm a lawyer, so I look at the actual words of the statute, and the statute says it may be a member of the body which comprises the agency I don see that as delegating that to a whole other advisory board which is not within the definition of the subsection three statute statutory authority under the APA of who could be delegated this authority And I just want to ask how many members of that advisory board, if any, have legal experience to be able to adjudicate as one would envision you would be adjudicating an appeal in this matter? Mr. Cray.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Espinoza. There are no attorneys on the board that I am aware of. However, the Attorney General's Office sits in on every single meeting and provides us legal guidance to make sure that the recommendation, and again, it is purely a recommendation, is correct before it goes to the department who makes the final decision on this.
Representative Espinoza. I guess just one follow-up in terms of that, in light of there not being expertise in this matter, The other issue that I'm concerned about is you've indicated that this advisory board made the recommendations in the first place to set the fees and establish the program. How does that not constitute an inherent conflict of interest from the get-go if they're the ones that are going to be adjudicating whether someone met the standards that they themselves set? In any legal proceeding I've been involved, that would be determined to be a conflict of interest. Mr. I'm sorry.
Cray. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Espinoza. once again the board did not make those final agency action. As the act is written, the board reviews the base dues that were set by circular action alliance and provide a recommendation as far as the program plan and again how the ecomodulation factors and various aspects of this program are implemented. But again it's purely a recommendation and the final agency action decision to approve is made by the department. Thank you. Representative Nguyen. Thank you, Madam Chair. My apologies for Representative Bottoms. I'll be very quick. My question is to Mr. Board Member Cray. You talked about how the boards and commissions are within the agency and they're part of the recommendations. Can you just go on a little bit about what the current process is right now and why this is an important element of transparency and accountability? Mr. Cray. Absolutely. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Quinn. So as of right now, the way things are set up is a producer is billed dues by Circular Action Alliance, the PRO, which is, again, outside of state government. As of right now, they have the opportunity to follow through mediation with the producer responsibility organization, and that was essentially their only option up until this rule was passed. This rule gives the ability to actually follow through and conduct a hearing to verify whether or not the producers that are very industry that are paying into this program to fund this have an ability to appeal their process. And so, again, this hearing is really just the opportunity to have those technical experts who understand the various aspects of things like post-consumer recycled content, various levels of packaging, the cost of recycling due to the various materials, provide feedback and guidance so we can understand that technically. And again, the department is the one that makes the final decision. All right, Representative Bottoms.
I'm going to.
No, you do not. You better ask a question now. After all that.
To Mr. Curry. So I do see this as taking a board, a group, and force it into a space that's almost a justice space, like a judicial kind of thing that I don't think is healthy. but you said something that kind of caught my attention. You said that there's no producers on the board and there's... Therefore, there's no conflict of interest, right? So here's my concern with that, is because there is no producers on the board, which that may be a conflict or not, but how do you guarantee that the producers' proprietary issues are not just laid out there in the process? I mean, this is going to be open appeals discussion, whatever.
Mr. Cray. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Bottoms. That's an important question because of the fact that this process will be looked at by different entities. We have within our regulations and within the act itself, it sets up a confidential business information clause that anything that a producer considered to be confidential business information is protected. That requires a process where producers must note that and clarify that they consider such information as confidential business information. but that gets submitted to the department anytime a board would go into something that potentially could review confidential business information we would need to break off into an executive session or ensure that it's not being disclosed if there's any discussion of something like that. Do you have a follow up? Yeah I will. I know the look that's all.
Go ahead. Representative Bottom, thank you for being properly called upon.
So I understand what you just said. I like what you said. But the problem to me would be the process. How do you know you're not already exposing proprietary stuff if there's nobody sitting there that has experience within that context or somebody that is a lawyer that has experience within that process?
Mr. Cray. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Bottoms. So this is a common issue that we run into with the recycling industry quite regularly. So we generate the statewide recycling rate. Everybody, you know, we see lots of reports on that. All of that information, the tonnage collected by private businesses across the state, there's an ability to report that to the department as confidential business information because there are things there. It's going to different end markets. That is protected information. So this is stuff that we routinely see at the department. For the board process itself, again, we have the Attorney General's Office who are guiding the board members to make sure that anything that they're doing is following the correct procedures through the Administrative Procedures Act. And, of course, the appeal process that we're receiving is from the producers. The producers would be submitting this documentation to us, which includes things such as going through mediation with CAA and everything that they would want to use to prove that anything that should be reduced in their dues is justifiable. So ultimately, only the information that we're getting and the border would be reviewed is being submitted by the very producers that would be the ones protecting this is confidential business information. Representative Espinoza.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Unfortunately, I don't believe that would be accurate because these are open proceedings that are separate from whatever process you're doing to set these other rules. If you're following the procedures, this is going to be an open proceeding. I don't believe there's an exception to filing this document separately if you're not putting it under the specific APA process. Do you have any statutory direct reference you can give me that would assure that that information could be held confidential.
Mr Cray Thank you Madam Chair Thank you Representative Espinoza 1355 includes the provision that talks about the confidential business information and our regulations It Section 18 the Solid and Hazardous Waste sorry Section 18 of the Solid Waste Regulations lays out that process for verifying confidential business information
Okay, members, thank you so much for being so engaged and asking great questions of our panel. we do not have anybody else signed up to provide testimony so with that the testimony phase is now closed given that we just lost our bill sponsors we will stand in a brief recess The committee will come back to order. Sponsors, do you all have any amendments? No. No amendments. Committee, any amendments? No. Seeing no amendments, the amendment phase is now closed. They'll wrap up. Who would like to begin?
Representative Joseph. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the committee, for the robust conversation. we ask for a yes vote on Senate Bill 26192. The commission's rules comply with the EPA because they were authorized by statute, and the General Assembly gave the commission the authority to make rules as may be necessary for the administration of the program through statute, and the program needs due process. Senate Bill 26192 solely makes the general authorization in Section 7057 more explicit. And as the Committee on Legal Services determined in a public hearing in March, the commission's rule do not exceed its authority. Indeed, the governor signed the Rule Review Bill, Senate Bill 26083, into law last week. This rule review bill inherently incorporated Rule 18-2-7 into law in addition to the validation given by Coles on March 19th. Therefore, there is no need to amend the statute. However, an abundance of caution, the sponsors of this bill is clarifying the statute through SB 26192. I'll stop right there and ask for a yes vote on Senate Bill 192.
Representative Soper. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm going to ask you to really weigh what you've heard, what you've read, and vote your conscience. I will say, having listened throughout the committee hearing, including a point that was raised by Representative Espinoza that I think is a really valid point to consider on the impacts of the retroactive side and how that could impact. I will tell you that I believe that whatever we do needs to be in statute. That in this particular area, either with what we've laid out before you needs to be in statute, whether it's as written or a slight modification but I am still concerned about the retroactive element I don think that goes away with the bill before you I think that still sits out there And this is a process that we enacted in 2022 We do know that our laws model very closely to Oregon's. The federal judge did issue a preliminary injunction, which is a type of proceeding before a court. albeit that's not necessarily fully on the merits. It just says there's enough evidence to issue a preliminary injunction here. I don't know that if we pass our bill that it fully gets rid of the question mark that sits up there. I mean, I want to be brutally honest with this committee. that I think all of us, or at least some of us, many of us, want to ensure that a program enacted by the General Assembly remains constitutional. I think a lot of us want that. But I don't know that hanging our hat and saying that our bill before you today is the end all and everything is taken care of, that would be false. The retroactive piece is still a valid piece, and I want everyone on this panel to think about how that's weighed out, because that is important. I have been thinking about this for probably about the last 48 hours in terms of I had wanted an amendment to go in a bit of a different direction because otherwise it does look like we had a tie vote. We decided to run a bill to try to cover up where the tie vote was, or cover up is the wrong phrase, to try to rectify. And yet if we had gone maybe in a slightly different direction, we would have had more time had it not been right at the end of session. We would have been able to say it's not that we had doubts about the strength of where the rule was, and therefore we were doing the same thing in statute. But we could have said we appreciated where the rule was. We're going to pivot and do something slightly different in statute. So I say all that because I want you as the committee to let us know how you feel. And I will leave it at that. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Vice Chair Clifford. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Senate Bill 26192 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation. Second.
Seconded by Representative Nguyen. Closing comments, members.
Representative Carter. I just want to thank the committee and the sponsors for the robust conversation. Let's practice a little bit of love in the State Affairs Committee. what I want y'all to hear what I want y'all to hear and understand is we in the middle of a we in the middle of a at the end of session we have a 5 bill we in the middle of a we in the middle of the end of session We have a 5 bill that both sides have brought lawyers to to explain and they've given it to, well, I trust and love the members of this committee, but the reality is we might be in over our heads. That being said, I want to work towards something on this because the one thing that you guys can agree on is something has to be done, either a statute or case law or something. So I don't want to let it go, but I understand maybe this is the way it happens in this building. that doesn't mean we should be okay with the way it happens in this building. This is an important rule, an important rule-making body, and we were given it two hours ago. I didn't even have a conversation about it until about two hours ago. I still like to try to do my due diligence and don't appreciate being put in a position where I don't get that opportunity. I'm going to be a yes today. because of the robust conversation. Thank you. But I want to make sure that my agitation and trepidation are noted.
Any other comments from this side before we continue to make it down the line? No?
Vice Chair Clifford. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think Rep. Carter said that pretty well, and I think that it should be noted, because this is one of those bills that our record in this committee might actually be reviewed someday on the conversation that we had here, considering that we are in a debate about constitutionality and we're trying to make a fix for something. This is a fascinating direction to go with a type 2 board. But on the same token, it's not the first time that we've had quasi-judicial decisions being made that then go up to a board for decision. And while I do think that there's some – I'll just – like this is weird, the way we're going about it. I also don't see where we're going to, in this particular instance, in this particular time, doing it this particular way, break something so badly that it's going to cause a problem that we can't fix. So while I think that there might still be work to do in some future year, if for some reason this doesn't work out, they're going to have to come back and sort it. But again, we are in a position where something is required. And I know that we could probably put a lot of lawyers in the room and come up with 15 other ways to do this thing. I thought of two while we were sitting here. I think that this is what's on paper. And given what there is on paper today, I'm not uncomfortable voting yes for this. Representative Luck?
Okay, Representative Espinosa.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, sponsors. I am an adamant no on this bill and am not persuaded at all by the Attorney General's memo with regard to the sections here. I believe that our Office of Legal Services Council's is much more accurate. I think it follows a statute. And I think when we look at someone who's going to give us advice as a legislature on the statutes that we've drafted, OLS is in a much better position to do that sometimes than the Office of the Attorney General, who is in the business of representing the agencies and the departments. So from any perspective that they're going to take, they're going to take the perspective of trying to demonstrate that they can support what the departments want to do. It is clear that the proposal that the department put forward in a regulatory framework, which this bill acknowledges was done without authority, because I don't think we would necessarily be coming back and trying to give retroactive authority if there wasn't at least some question of whether they had authority to make this rule in the first place last October. So that's one thing that the bill is already saying. Whether or not, and I do appreciate Rep. Joseph's statement that that's not necessarily a conclusion, and it goes to the whole larger litigation issue and why retroactivity to me is one of the critical issues. But I do think the fact that we are coming forward with this bill, which is asking us to retroactively, in effect, adopt the regulation and the authority for the regulation that was put forward, is troubling. So retroactively is first issue. Secondarily, I do not believe that the advisory board is an agent or a qualifying member of the government, such as they were delegated authority under the APA. and I think that is critical in analyzing the bill even as it sits before us today and if this record is reviewed at some later date, I think it's important to put on the record that in subsection H on page 3, we're saying if requested by a producer pursuant to the authority that was alleged that we're granting in 2517-7091A2, than they would be holding an administrative hearing in accordance with Section 24.4.105. Section 24.4.105 is the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that in order to have that hearing, it must be of an independent adjudicator. I don't believe the board is a member of the department that would qualify under the statute, and I don't believe they can be free of a conflict of interest in this matter because they set the rules to begin with or advised on setting the rules to begin with that they'll be adjudicating. So we're setting up a structure in this bill that is inherently laced with a conflict of interest, and that is very concerning to me as a process. I don't believe that this, you know, I think that it would have been relatively easy to fix this problem by finding an entity within the department,
because I believe they have other entities that actually do this process, to take these hearings and make the recommendation. and I'm troubled by that being for me one of the easier way to address this issue that not being the approach that we took in light of the 5-5 determination that this wasn't clear out of the other committee so I I know this is the last day I know we did not have much time to address this issue but I am very concerned that we are going to be voting because this is a departmental priority and apparently a governor's priority in terms of therefore in terms of trying to protect us I'm afraid this bill does nothing to protect us. It's still going to place us into litigation. And one of the reasons that I firmly always vote against bills is that if they're going to subject the state to additional litigation then I don believe we doing our job to advance the legislation before us because we shouldn be expending tax dollars on litigation So for those reasons I will be a no Representative Bottoms.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Partly because of the Robuster discussion that's happening over here. No, I strongly do believe a lot of what Representative Espinoza is saying, and it just encapsulated my two concerns. One, I think we're taking a group that has been created for something else, for something different, and we're forcing them into a place where they're going to have to make decisions that now become legally binding decisions rather than advisory type of decisions. and then I'm also very uncomfortable with the proprietary information being just – I mean, you can move into this group or this group, but this is the problem is this group was not designed to have behind-closed-doors proprietary meetings, and so now we're forcing them into this place where I think it's – you're setting that group up for liability because they're going to be making decisions they were never intended to make. So let's see how I'm going to go today.
Representative Luck.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, committee members. My recollection of March's meeting for the Committee on Legal Services, we were asked to decide whether or not the rule was something that the rulemaking body had authority to make. That was the issue before us. And during that conversation, you may recall, and the interested parties may also recall, that I encouraged just such a thing, that if we were going to move forward, that I did not find that the agency had acted within the scope of authority that we had granted as a legislature in the 2022 bill. and that that needed to be rectified and could be easily rectified, that the issue before the Committee on Legal Services could be easily remedied by saying that the agency had acted outside of its scope of authority and that a bill could be brought to then grant that authority for them to then act. And so I appreciate the follow-up here. I will note that I was a bit discouraged to hear some of the opponents to this bill say that they weren't brought to the table and that this just appeared last week. Obviously, I don't know those conversations and how that all took place. I will note that, again, we met in March and the bill was introduced last Monday. And so that makes things problematic for me. But I'm not saying that those conversations didn't happen or I don't know. But just hearing that was a bit concerning. I recognize that there was a desire of the committee, as we talked, to try and solve this problem such as to avoid litigation. It sounds as if we're in litigation regardless. Whether we do something today or not, the state will see costs. The question is are we going to add additional costs because we adding additional issues for the court to decide i the retroactivity or not So I leave that there. And again, appreciate that you guys followed up, brought it back, that you honored that conversation. I was not making a determination that day based off of the appropriateness of the board itself. That wasn't my thought process. and I will say that I agree largely with my colleague from Denver I don't think this is an appropriate model to embrace I am concerned that we are creating an internally violative statute in directing the advisory board to be the hearer and determiner of the fact in the law in the way that this bill contemplates when the APA doesn't actually allow for that I do not think that this board, in fact was stated, is not really part of the agency. It is outside. I have a problem, and I'm not aware, and I look forward to talking to the vice chair about this later, but I'm not aware of other situations where we create a system that allows for one body to be the ones to determine the facts, determine the law, ask the questions of the party and then submit that to someone else to either rubber stamp or reject. In all other situations that I'm aware of, the person who takes in all that information, who asks the parties for questions, who collects all of that is the one who makes that final determination. I'm more comfortable with that type of a model. Obviously, if an advisory board wants to advise and wants to speak into the process and give any sort of necessary insight, that's one thing. But to be the one to actually hold the hearing, to be the one to actually do that, as is contemplated here under 7H, I can't get behind. we are called to not just do something we're called to find to do the right thing to the degree that we know and i don't think this is the right thing i think we have other models we could shift into which raises the question of to my colleague from denver's point why not just embrace the system we already have and I think that's really the crux of the issue before us it hasn't actually been addressed the elephant in the room so to speak as to why it's this model and not the traditional model that we are pursuing I leave that for the committee to make their own determinations about
those subsets of issues but for me today I will be a no. Okay with that Ms. King please poll the
committee.
Representatives Bottoms.
No. Bradley.
No. Carter. Yes.
Espinosa. No.
Gray. Yes.
Krolik. Yes.
Luck. No. Lynn. Yes.
Rick. Yes.
Clifford. Yes, for today.
Madam Chair. Yes.
Senate Bill 192 passes on a vote of 7 to 4 Thank you very much Members before you jump up and leave I just have a few comments to make given that this is our final committee hearing Sponsors you welcome to run away Thank you. I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank you all so much for the opportunity to chair this committee. Not that you had a choice in the matter, but to say that I learned a lot. I did have a lot of fun, and hopefully we were able to create a space where, even though it was messy at times, everyone knew that they would be treated with fairness, with humor, and most of all, with respect. I want to say a special thank you to Ms. King for your professionalism. I wrote this in your card, but it bears repeating. You are a public servant in every sense of the word. You regularly give great care and great love to every detail of our work, and I am so thankful to have been able to spend two sessions learning from you. You are a tremendous gem to our state. To our members that will not be returning next session, a couple shout-outs to you. Representative Bottoms, you finally called me Madam Chair. It took two years, but it happened today. I also learned that you have a fantastic sense of humor, and I am so thankful that you shared that with all of us. To Representative Luck, we finally ran a bill together, and I got to see the world through your eyes, and it was something that I very, very much treasure and appreciate how you approach your work with so much thoughtfulness and courage. and to Representative Froelich, you are an OG. And it was really fun to have you on this committee because you are the longest serving member in this body and have been such a tremendous mentor to me as I learned how to become a chair. So I wanted to say thank you. Finally, I want to leave you all with the acknowledgement and the celebration that we were not, in fact, the KILL Committee. I think you all know that I got pretty grumpy earlier on when somebody called us a kill committee, and I was like, we are not the kill committee. But, you know, I hope that you take honor in the fact that we heard substantial policy and we really did contribute to our General Assembly in a meaningful way. And you often hear me joke about this not being the Judiciary Committee because the Judiciary Committee was, in fact, the kill committee. and I did not want us to be that because I think that we can absolutely work through some of the issues that our colleagues bring us in the legislation and move forward in a way that honors all of the work that we do. So may you all enjoy your much-deserved interim. Best of luck in wherever the year might take you. And with that, the State Civic, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee is adjourned. Thank you.