House Education [Apr 23, 2026]

Mr. Beck, please call the roll. Representatives Bacon.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Present.

Here.

Here.

Regrettably. Johnson. Excitedly. Stuart Kay. Here. Story. Here. Zokai. Here. Martinez. Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. and committee. Today I made the decision to lay to postpone indefinitely House Bill 261264. This was not a decision made lightly. This legislation was developed to address a clear issue after having conversations with students that do not feel safe in buildings. It was narrowly tailored, operationally feasible, and grounded in existing frameworks that did not come with more work or a fiscal note. The intent was straightforward to ensure that when a student reports harm, there is a timely, consistent, and accountable response, which students don't feel that's happening. What is deeply concerning, however, is not simply the outcome, but the process and lack of communication that led to it. Throughout this process, I had hoped to receive substantive constructive feedback that could have strengthened the bill and moved the policy forward. Instead, what became evident was the outside's influence of outside interests, shaping the posture of how committee would vote, often absent meaningful engagement on the merits of the legislation itself. That dynamic is problematic. Public policy, particularly when it concerns the safety and well-being of students, should be driven by evidence, by need, and by a commitment to equitable outcomes. It should not be constrained by external pressures that operate outside the transparent transparent legislative process. I remain committed to this work. The issues this bill sought to address have not been resolved. The gaps in response, the inconsistencies across systems, lack of communication, and the risks to students remain. And I will continue to elevate their voices. This is not the end of the conversation. At its best, it is a pause. I will continue conversations with students across the state until they see the changes they would like to see. And I intend to continue advancing policies that center student safety, institutional accountability, and the expectation that when harm is reported, it is met with urgency and care. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. at the sponsor request I move to postpone indefinitely House Bill 1264 I second that I just didn I couldn tell who actually said but we say it seconded on the mic by Rep Garcia

The request of the sponsor, yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

The request of the sponsor, yes.

The request of the sponsor, yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

I request to the sponsor, yes.

Yes. And with that, House Bill 1264 has been postponed indefinitely. We will now transition to House Bill 1345. Rep Hamrick is here.

Yeah, while we're waiting, there's another one, this one. Yeah, that was put together to, oh, see, you brought your thing from your desk. Does everyone have that? If you don't, yeah, see, good job. Some of you, yeah. Yep. Hi. Hi.

Do you want me to go first with the overview and then you can go? Awesome. Cool. Awesome. Cool. Sorry, I was running down the stairs.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm proud to join Speaker McCluskey in presenting this critical update to our higher education funding model. While the speaker will guide you through the technical mechanics of the levers and metrics, I want to speak to the why behind this legislation. For over a year, the Department of Higher Education and the Commission on Higher Education engaged in a rigorous, statutorily mandated review of how we distribute state resources. They were joined by a robust working group that included representatives from every public institution and system in our state as well as governmental and agency staff This bill is the direct result of that consensus process implementing recommendations designed to ensure our funding formula finally reflects the reality of the modern Colorado student At its heart, the bill is about equity and recognition. We know that 55% of our students attend part-time and 45% transfer at least once, yet our current formula has historically ignored these pathways. By modernizing our data to include part-time retention and all qualifying four-year transfers, we are finally recognizing the success of the diverse learners who drive our economy. Furthermore, we are providing protections for innovative bridge partnerships, ensuring that institutions are not penalized for collaborating to meet regional workforce needs. We are shifting from a rigid step process to a more flexible lever system that allows us to address historic inequities and reward results more transparently. I want to be clear. In a system as diverse as ours, ranging from large research universities to local area technical colleges, achieving 100% agreement on every decimal point is a tall order. However, through eight convened working group meetings and extensive stakeholder surveys, the working group reached a point of broad agreement that these changes were not just beneficial but necessary. Our institutions agree that the shift to more precise data, like moving Pell-eligible to Pell recipient, is a best practice that brings much-needed clarity to our funding decisions. This bill represents a shared commitment to a learner-focused ecosystem that rewards efficiency and creates a more stable, equitable future for all Colorado institutions. So I urge an aye vote on House Bill 26-1345. Speaker McCluskey.

Questions for our bill sponsors?

Speaker McCluskey. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the question. A couple of points. particularly for our open access institutions, our community colleges, local district colleges and certainly some of our institutions, MSU Denver I see as a great example where we have a lot of adult learners who may be part time students. I think the part time student addition is a real plus for those institutions. We have done a preliminary run with the new formula to see what the impacts might be for our institutions. And it's important to note that we see all of the institutions at or better what the current funding formula would bring them to. So our initial read is that there are no unintended consequences from the restructuring of the formula.

work on this and I'd love to continue the conversation. Speaker McCluskey. Thank you, Madam Chair. Very thoughtful comments and I think what I would like to reflect, while our formula maintains a focus on an institution's performance against itself kind of year over You may have noticed it a four year averaging divided by you know the three most recent years compared to the four years It a ratio that we use so that institutions are measured against their own performance in the results metrics that we have identified in the bill And while I think that is really important, I think you're also speaking to the adequacy of our funding in higher education, Rep. Martinez. And I would lift up that while our formula is not shifting dramatically in the approach of measuring year over year on results that that institution is driving towards graduation, enrollment, and underserved populations, I do think that we continue to fall short in the amount of money that we are driving towards higher education, K-12 education. We need to do better there, but I believe that at least foundationally our formula here and the formula in K-12 need to make sure that the resources the state does have are distributed in an equitable and thoughtful way to drive the best support that we can for students across the state.

Rep Story. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the bill's sponsors for bringing this forward. I do have a few questions, I guess, to ask. You mentioned part-time students. You know, the percentage of part-time students, I think you said, was 55% of all students are part-time. That's unbelievable and remarkable at the same time. Is this, may I dialogue?

Since I already started dialoguing.

So is this the trend that's on the rise in terms of the percentage of part-time students? Just curious.

Thanks for that. And certainly, you know, that would have a huge, the fact that you're including part-time would be a huge change for, like, the Auraria campus in particular because they also have a huge percentage of students that are part-time. I was also curious about the four-year transfers and I think what that means is students that are transferring within their four-year program is that 45%? And so that also is a huge proportion of the students that are doing that so I appreciate that there's this recognition that it's not, that it's a notable, you know, proportion, I guess, of students and that, you know, they somehow need to also be included. So I think that's also great. And so the, you gave an example of transfer students, like, for example, at Western that, you know, a student does two years at Western, and then they transfer into the engineering program there at Western. That is a collaborative effort with CU, and so they are able to stay at Western and continue their degree in that engineering program. But does this also, and I think you might have just answered it a minute ago, but does this also include transfers that are, like, for example, starting at Western, but then transfer to another, like totally transfer, you know, their selves to another institution. They're also considered as a transfer student and fall into the same category.

Man.

And I don't get put in that position very often. How lovely. Yes.

Okay. And then I just have one more to ask. Relative to the, in the chart that you've put together, on the resident Pell eligible student population share. I also find it interesting that it currently is at total resident student population but it going to undergraduate resident student population So that must mean that you were that currently it including graduate students in that Is that what I'm supposed to think? I don't know how that works. I guess I don't understand how like I would have assumed it was just undergraduate in both cases. but the spreadsheet specifies in bold undergraduate resident student population. So just curious what the change is. There were a lot of people behind you both nodding their heads. I know you don't have eyes in the back of your head. I just wanted to let you know.

Thank you. That's okay.

Thank you.

Speaker McCluskey. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Representative Bradfield, that is an excellent question. I want to highlight that one of you will note in the bill that we will be utilizing, we will be moving from IPEDS to CERDs as part of our data set that we will use to measure the results, the result metric, results informed metric of our lever one. As we have started to talk with the institutions about some of the clarifying language that they have asked for that I said we are still chatting with them about, I became aware just yesterday about some of the complexities of the data that we collect. It is certainly our goal to capture the entire student enrollment in our institutions and use that enrollment for funding. You know, the first item on is full-time equivalent enrollment, resident, student, full-time equivalent enrollment, the first results informed metric that we use in the formula. But we, as we were talking through even the use of the word resident in that context, we have to make sure that we aren't accidentally excluding some groups that may have very unique enrollment circumstances. I might ask some of our witnesses to speak to that challenge in our data sets, what we're looking at, the two different data systems. But I would acknowledge that it is certainly our goal to, you know, lift up and recognize the very diverse set of students and learners that we have at every institution.

Amel Bacon. Thank you. I am curious. This question is for the sponsors, and I do believe we're going to have witnesses who will come up and hopefully can hear one of these. We did talk about it before, so thank you to Commissioner Walmer and to the department, Rachel, for our conversations. But I did want to raise it here and ask your thoughts about how the conversations in regards to accountability around credentials have come up. And so while I do know that this formula is to restructure or basically for a restructure to better meet our needs in current discussions I do know that in the conversation some of us have had across other states, I sit on the WICHE legislative committee. I am curious about if there are any cross conversations on a performance-based metrics and then accountability tools, particularly around credentialing. We have had a challenge in this state with finding some sort of consistency or I don't know if uniformity is the right word across our institutions with being able to receive credits from other places. it does impact timing of graduation if students have to take classes again. I know we've kind of pulled concurrent out of this formula. But, you know, so for the non-high school students who are thinking they're getting credits for something, I understand that. But for students who might be transferring from different universities in state and out of state. So I'm curious if these conversations have come up in the context of the formula, and maybe not this one or this reiteration, or if there have been conversations about that and some sort of accountability measures.

AML Bacon. Thank you. And again, for those who might come up, you know, the question is about being able to transfer these credits and what that means for completion rates and timelines. The credentialing piece, I think, is also an interesting question because our institutions of higher ed are moving more and more to that space and holding themselves out to do it versus in the private sector. But then, again, to that last point, I am curious about how we have responded to the federal movement on credentials, Pell, and whatnot, and what that means. I know this is the funding formula for higher ed, but there were conversations around Pell. I want to give a shout out to our universities who fought really hard in D.C. to preserve that. But there is still this conversation about credential. There's still conversation about driving people to certain jobs and not to professional and graduate schools. concerned about how much people have to borrow now to be able to go to these programs and just what we might be keeping an eye on by way of completion, since that is a key metric for this formula. And so I think all that's to say is how do we articulate the existence of these external factors in the measurement of success that we are now funding to. So maybe I'm asking this for a top line because I didn't have to be there to know you all talked about it. But I think as the legislature, I think I would just like to know kind of what the headlines are to figure out how we can continue to partner with the commission to keep up with what's happening out of D.C., but also to keep up what's happening in the landscape and what kind of education people are pursuing and why, including market factors. Again, since our formula seems to say performance in it, we've got to know what we're setting ourselves up for success. And if we are a state that says credits should transfer, and that is a reason why students are taking another year that they cannot borrow or pulls against their Pell, that's our fault. So since we did the return on investment I sorry it was ROI slash bill of rights we had an audit He knows We had an audit that talked about those programs and I hope we can keep watching it because the institution can not get in the way of our goals. So thank you for that. If anyone who comes up can share.

Speaker McCluskey. Thank you, Madam Chair, and certainly I welcome Representative Hamrick's input. She may have something as well. You know, we have acknowledged in the formula underrepresented minorities. That started before the version of the formula you see before you here today. That particular group had not been specifically called out and identified, And so by adding that, we believe that our definition of underrepresented minority is now more complete. I would emphasize that during my years at the Joint Budget Committee, we were able to make some additional investments in what was in the current higher ed funding formula step one, which will now be lever two. but in step one we were able to make additional investments to those institutions who were serving more underrepresented minorities. We also made additional investments in those students that were Pell eligible and first generation. Those were priorities for us in the legislature and we put that through the higher ed funding formula in step one to be ongoing in the overall base funding of our institutions. And certainly that will be an option for future general assemblies, legislatures, to be able to make those kinds of investments for those institutions serving more diverse populations. And we have some witnesses from the Colorado Department of Higher Ed and also the Colorado Commission of Higher Ed that can also be more specific to that answer.

you mind if I go go go ahead welcome thank you thank you madam chair members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today my name is Jen Wilmer and I'm here my capacity as chair of the Colorado Commission on Higher Education in support of House Bill 1345 I'm not going to repeat a lot of the process points that you've heard from the sponsors about how we started this review process back in September of 24. But do you think it's important to talk a little bit about how the review was grounded in the values of CCHE specifically recognizing our commitment to embrace lifelong learning and recognition of all pathways, and our recognition and celebration of the strengths and unique characteristics of our many institutions. We also sought to ensure that our recommendations were grounded in the legislative declaration and goals of the formula as outlined in statute,

Thank you, Madam Chair. and members of the House Education Committee. My name is Dr. Tricia Johnson, and I am the Deputy Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer at CDHE, and I'm testifying today in support of House Bill 26-1345. In my role at the department, I had the opportunity to engage in the development of and observe the intentional process that led to the submission of this new funding formula concept for higher ed in Colorado. The funding formula development process was a true collaboration, within the higher education ecosystem, one that invited and ensured voice for stakeholders. In fall 2024, in partnership with the commission, department staff introduced the funding formula review process in a public commission meeting. The commission and the department then took institutional feedback to heart and worked to develop, in concert, to develop a working group model that would elicit feedback from stakeholders. That includes leadership from institutions of higher education, members of the legislature thank you Chair Lukens and subject matter representatives who served to provide technical expertise We engaged the services of a third facilitator who balanced the feedback of the stakeholder participants and offered offline support and dialogue throughout the process to keep it iterative. I am proud to have worked closely with Commission Chair Jen Walmer, who advanced a process that was thoughtful, intentional, iterative, and transparent. Chair Walmer ensured that each meeting built on the prior meeting, taking the thoughts, the concerns, the ideas from the members of the working group to make the concepts for the model better and more representative of the needs of Colorado students and the unique needs of institutions within our state, including, as we've talked about today, important attention for non-traditional students. Having spent the vast majority of my career teaching and leading in community and technical colleges, seeing these students uplifted and them being counted matters so much. Institutional leadership had opportunity to identify who best would represent their needs for each working group session. Sometimes that meant the engagement of a president or a chancellor, and other times that meant a chief financial officer. Our goal was to ensure that institutions had the flexibility needed to have their needs voiced by the most appropriate representative for the conversation at hand. And during each meeting, members of the working group grappled with the metrics that mattered for their institutions, for their communities, for their distinct student bodies. and the direction of the model evolved each meeting, leading to a final commission recommendation that encompassed the holistic needs of higher education in our state. On behalf of the Department of Higher Education, I ask that you vote yes on this bill. Thank you for your time.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Sophia Latterman. I'm the Chief Policy and Research Officer at the Colorado Department of Higher Education. I also served on the Funding Formula Working Group. Happy to answer any questions.

Rep. Story. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll just share some of the questions that I asked earlier, and then whoever feels they wish to respond, that would be great. So I was curious about the, sorry. Here we go. Sorry. I was curious about the Pell eligible, now Pell recipient element, and it states that the proposed changes go to undergraduate resident student population, but the current is total resident student population. So since undergraduate is bold, that seems to be the change. And so does that mean currently then you're looking also at graduate as well as undergraduate population currently? Dr. Laderman?

Good story. Oh, sorry. I'm still working on the dialogue element. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I have another question about the performance element has come up several times. and so um and it sounds like the performance is just based on an institution's own performance we're not comparing institutions across the board and so i you know i appreciate that it's not unlike growth elements within k-12 um but i i don't i don't quite yet know for sure um how if there's growth, then what? What does that mean? Because there's an indication that there's maybe additional funding or something. I don't know. How's this playing out? Like, what is that?

No. No? Okay. We have other folks that have questions, so then we'll go to them, and then if we have time, we can go back to you. Reb's okay.

Thank you.

Ms. Walmer. Thank you. Thank you for the question, Representative Story. I think there's a couple things I'd like to touch on. I think that will get to your answer your question. One is one of the reasons that we're changing it to results and form instead of performance too is that performance doesn't really drive any change in the current formula through step two. Because there are lots of steps in with the consideration of each metric. It is an institution looking against themselves of the averaging of the four most recent years of performance. So it's four-year review of yourself with your change, and then other stabilizing things come into play. So for each metric, then, you have to normalize all of those rates of change for all of the institutions to equal the pot of 100% for that metric. So there's, it's, you do the rate of change to yourself, then you have to make everything in, of all institutions, equal to 100. And then at the end, we're applying, in the old formula, a factor called role and mission. And it really, we're suggesting that. that language change to prior share. And it's, so there are all of these stabilizing things that happen that we don't really see that swing. And that's part of the reason we debated a lot as the working group, that we shouldn't call them that lever or that step, what it used to be called a step, we shouldn't call it performance-based because it really isn't. It's results informed. And we believe those metrics are incredibly important for both an institution to look at their own performance over time and for transparency for policy makers and the state to be able to say how our institutions changing over time but it doesn't really drive any real large variation in funding we do believe that some of the metric changes that we are making and suggesting in this version of the formula will help institutions over time it's going to take some time because we're going to go back and change all of the metrics for the last four years so they're doing even with implementation of the first year it's an apples to apple comparison of their performance in that metric but our hope is that we start to see because we're looking at non traditional students and we're doing all of those things we're going to start to see probably my hope is an ability to address some of what has been historic inequity for some institutions that serve different populations but a lot of it is so level leveling and stabilizing that you don't see the same sort of variations that you might see in a K-12 model where you're looking at year-over-year growth. Dr. Laderman? The one other thing I would add to that, thank you, Madam Chair, is that all of this was sort of on the table when the funding formula working group began, and we were, I think the commission was very open to exploring broader changes to the formula, but the institutions were very clear that they like the formula as it is now and none of those structural stabilizing pieces that chair walmart mentioned are changing a part so thank you madam chair and thanks everybody so

Thank you. Thank you for the question. It is not here. You don't see that here. What you see in front of you is the mechanism or the structure for the legislature to do distribution to institutions of higher ed in a structure that we believe better recognizes student population but maintains a lot of flexibility for you all to make decisions around how much funding goes through each lever. You could choose to use Lever 3 for one-time investments to spur innovation, to spur more bridge and partnership programs, to say through Lever 2 that you want to recognize a certain group of institutions that might be having better ROI outcomes or might be delivering credentials of value in a different way That is completely up to you. That is not written in this mechanism. It's the structure and flexibility of a mechanism that you can choose to move money through as a legislative and policymaking body, but it doesn't say what you have to choose.

Good afternoon, Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Dr. Richard Wagner. I'm the president of the Metro State Faculty Federation. We're an AFT local, and we also are affiliated with the American Association of University Professors. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this House Bill 1345, and I'd like to provide a perspective from faculty who do the hard work of educating our Colorado citizenry. I'm testifying in support of the bill, and I want to really thank the sponsors for all of their work, listening to stakeholders. Also acknowledge all the work of the CCHE, the collaboration among the public higher education institutions in working towards that consensus. We see that bill accomplishes several goals. Some of the changes have responded to challenges from data availability barriers, federal policy. Some changes such as including the part students and the retention formula goes some distance towards reducing historic inequities While we're not recommending any amendments to this bill, we do hold out hope for future adjustments that will continue to address some historical inequities that are referenced in Lever 2. So as an example I already mentioned, the path to graduation for many of our MSU Denver students is not linear. Many balance their education with work, often attending part-time. They may pause their degree path to focus on employment before returning to complete the degree. So the inclusion of a 200% time graduation rate metric, which would capture that sector of our student population who graduate in six to eight years, would be helpful. We also hope that future work in this space may find a better proxy than the Pell recipient metric to capture the population of low-income students. students. Many of our students, especially part-time, are Pell eligible, but they don't receive a Pell grant. So I'd like to thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm Ian Higgins. I'm the Vice president for finance and administration and chief financial officer at Western Colorado University. I'm here today representing Western to support the bill and appreciate the opportunity both to testify and the opportunity I had with the meetings prior to the bill being put together. It's great to be in partnership with the department and CCHE on this. We specifically really want to support the changes related to co-located degree partnerships. As Speaker McCluskey mentioned earlier, Western has an engineering partnership program with CU Boulder, where we intentionally recruit students who will spend four years on our campus, learning in our classrooms and labs, but are technically CU students in their third and fourth years, and they graduate with a CU degree. So looking at the last four years of data, that's the time frame used for the funding formula metrics. Nearly 10% of our undergraduate degree seeking students are partnership program students. Currently the main program is mechanical engineering. Last fall we had our first class of biomedical engineering students and this coming fall we'll have our first class of aerospace engineering students. So we anticipate that that percentage will go up that our amount of partnership students will continue to increase. So removing students enrolled in co-located degree partnerships from the cohorts that determine the 100% of graduation and 150% of graduation rates will ensure that Western, along with all other universities that have partnership programs, are not penalized for having these programs where students are specifically brought to our campuses with the intent of finishing their degree with our partnership university for us at CU. We greatly appreciate this change in statute. We support the other changes outlined in this bill and support the bill moving forward.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Mark Saperka. I serve as Vice Chancellor of Administration and Finance for the Colorado Community College System representing 13 colleges serving more than 130 learners across our state each year Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and thank you to Speaker McCluskey and Representative Hamrick for bringing forward House Bill 1345. I want to begin by noting that over the past several years, we've been directly included and engaged by the Department, Commission, and bill sponsors in the funding, form, and review process and review of of this legislation. The bill makes important refinements to the state's funding model while maintaining stability in year-to-year funding for governing boards. In particular, I want to specifically highlight our support for the bill's inclusion of part-time students in the retention metric. At Colorado's community colleges, a significant portion of our students attend part-time. These are working adults, parents, and individuals balancing education with other responsibilities. The refinements in this bill recognize first-time, part-time students, the retention calculation, ensuring the funding model better reflects who our students are and how they progress on their path towards a credential or degree. On behalf of the Colorado Community College System, I respectfully ask for your support of House Bill 26-1345. Thank you for your time and consideration and open to any questions.

Vice Chair Martinez. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll help assist you all in some of the questions that we've gotten to today. So Representative Hartzik, with the question that you had with the return on investment bit, it's really, really difficult for them to get return on investment data because a lot of that is done through like surveys or like trying to track them down post-graduation. and it's really it's the best system that they have but it's kind of imperfect at the moment because essentially if you get if you get your survey six months after you graduate you're at a certain job and then when you say within two months you get you bump up you get a degree in your field or you get a higher paying job you may not get that survey again and or like reporting it back and so i think that that's a fairly new system that they've been trying to implement within the last five years and there's obviously they're still working to try to get that so that There can be data showing, again, where you graduate that you can get what you need when you need it. And then being able to have that available for particular degrees that you're getting and showing, again, exactly what you want. It's like how soon before you get in the job field, what kind of income are you making? And then that way you can get that out to your freshman students, and that way they know kind of what degree field that they're doing. And then that also helps the state out as well, too. But they do also report that into the state, but just unfortunately just due to the data. and how you get it. That's where it's a little difficult to maintain at the moment, but they're doing the best that they can.

Closing comments, Rep Hamrick. Thank you, Madam Chair and the committee. And I want to thank many people for this bill. I came on late. So I just want to make sure that you all know the hard work that went on with CCS. CDHE, the higher education institutions, Speaker McCluskey, President James Coleman, Minority Leader Cleve Simpson, and Representative Megan Lukens, as well as Commissioner Jen Walmer, and Commissioner Eric Tucker, Executive Director Dr. Angie Petroni, and Dr. Sophia Letterman, some of whom you heard from today, and many leaders from all the institutions, many of the institutions anyway, in the state. So much hard work went into this, and I really, really do very much appreciate that. So as a former high school teacher, I want to ensure that Colorado students are honored and served and that our state's higher education institutions are rewarded and incentivized as they serve each very, very unique student. Colorado students don't always follow a traditional path, as was stated today. They work, they parent, they transfer institutions. One of the testifiers talked about 15% of all students are part-time at one point in their education careers, which I think is pretty interesting. This bill finally ensures our state funding follows the modern student, rewarding the success of every learner, just not a select few. So I urge an aye vote on House Bill 26-1345.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members, for your engagement. I really appreciate the conversation today and your thoughtful questions. I want to thank our witnesses and particularly lift up the commentary about historic inequities. As our current funding formula allows, the General Assembly can continue to make investments through what will now be lever two on issues that they prioritize, whether that is supporting institutions in rural settings or first generation, underrepresented, or students who come from low socioeconomic backgrounds. the use of the term historic inequities refers to how funding has occurred with our institutions over decades. And while our state is certainly in a challenging moment with our revenues and our ability to provide the level of funding we want in K-12 and higher education, I believe that there has been intent and in some years the ability to deliver in addressing some of those concerns with additional investments. Really want to thank all of our witnesses again and thank the members of the Higher Education Funding Formula Working Group. It was a great experience to work with everyone, and I'm grateful for their expertise and participation. Please vote yes on House Bill 1345.

AML Bacon. I'm going to really regret it. No, I'm kidding. So I wanted to take an opportunity. So first, thank you to the sponsors. Thank you to the commissioners and the working groups and everyone who worked on this. I do believe the structural changes made to the formula are great. I think, you know, there's always so much more to do in higher ed, but I do believe that the formula has made a real adjustment to real time and what we know to be true in our contexts. The thing that I find interesting about this formula, especially when we use words like results informed and performance based, is then also to what extent the funding is connected to our priorities and our interests not just as the legislature but also in the higher education space And so we have taken the proper steps to account for our students Part-time is a big deal, and I want to thank the conversation from MSU and talking about who the student is. That's also very important. And so the thing that's important to me and I'm wondering about for the future is how do we actually use this formula then to help drive the outcomes that we've articulated so many times in this room? You know, I don't know why we've been on a giggle fest today with my colleague from Douglas County. But the thing that we both talk about in this committee is return on investment, and not just for the state, right, because this is our formula, but for our students. If we know it takes six to eight years, we need to know what role we play in that, which is why I'm going to say for the 50th time, we have to get these transfer credit issues under control. One of my lovely colleagues talked me out of writing an amendment to hold everybody accountable to this because he believes we should all love each other at the end of this session. Pause. Okay. Sorry. Sorry. That's a long sister. Thank you. So I am very curious about Lever 2 per this question as well. You know, what is it that we can institute as a matter of policy? I would like to learn from this whole space on how we do that. when we say the term performance based funding also I do want to give a shout out to this commission because this is the number one conversation every time I go to WICHE and to just say this is about performance but having no consciousness around the information you are collecting let alone the direction in which you want to go to just say graduation rates drives me nuts especially in higher ed because we have students that maybe take 10 years. But we have to figure out what role we are playing in the length of time our students are in school. There is no reason why you can't go, and I'm going to say it, sorry, you can't go to Adams State, get some credits, and then cannot go to another university or bigger one and then be like, oh, it takes five years for us to graduate if we are the cause of that. That also costs our students money. We're trying to figure out how to inform these campuses, and we're keeping them there for extra years because we won't even transfer our own kids. I'm sorry. There's a lot of things that we don't like about Florida, but you know what? In Florida, there's one course code. We don't have that here. And so I want to thank you for this. I want to say this because it's the last 20 days, and apparently we'll have another session next year. But when we talk about this, the next time we talk about this formula, can we figure out priorities for this to be an accountability tool, especially where the state gets in the way of our own students' ability to matriculate since we are going to measure it? The last thing I'll say about that too in connection to my colleague, we just did a whole big reorg of our department of higher ed to be aligned with workforce, which means at some point I want to see how the conversation of credential and ROI is somehow a regular thing that we look at and look at our own tools to figure out if we are doing it correctly And so since this for what it's worth, I asked about the formula when that bill came through here. So I want to say it again, that can some of us be updated and included? We talked about if the legislature should be involved and that's OK. They can do it without us. But these are the questions the legislature has, has, has. And also, these are the things that we want to step up and lead in. So fair warning. God bless our universities. But if someone other than you has to make the decision on what to do if you're not transferring credits, we are willing to do that. And we will structure our department to be sure we get ROI and we get the heck out of the way, in the name of Jesus, and seen. Thank you very much for this bill. I look forward to voting yes. That's why I don't go first. Thank you.

Heartsook. Thank you, Madam Chair. Amen. Ditto. Ditto. there's a reason that my colleague from Denver and I ran our financial literacy bill we were adamant even though there was a fair amount of pushback we were adamant that the kids and the parents wanted it because it had a definitive ROI and it helped for success that's what her and I constantly look at and many of us we all do the same thing but I know I harp on it all the time but for God's sake if we are not using that as the definitive measure for the success of our students, then we're letting them down. And I got to agree. I mean, the institutions, if that's the problem, then let's streamline it. Streamline it. We are making things, it's like we're tripping over our own ways of trying to make things better. Let's streamline it and just get down to the bottom line and get the kids out of here. Is this better than what we had before? yes. Are we getting to where we are being successful? I still think we've got a long ways to go. So I'll be voting yes, but that was my say, and that's where we're going to keep going. Thanks.

Oh gosh, we have to move the bill.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I move House Bill 2613 45 to the Cal with a favorable recommendation. Second. Seconded by Vice Chair Martinez.

Congratulations. House Bill 1345 has passed. That was unanimous, right? Okay, I couldn't hear a heart soak. Unanimously, and you are on your way to the committee of the whole. Thank you, members. We are now transitioning to Senate Bill 20.

Thank you.

Thank you. To order. Rep. Gonzalez, tell us about Senate Bill 20.

Okay. I understand that Rep Sarota is on her way over from the Joint Budget Committee. So we can start with questions, and then she can give her speech when she gets here. So questions for Rep Gonzalez. Rep Garcia-Sander.

Okay. If you might rephrase the question, I'm happy to answer it. Catch your breath for a second. We can also go ahead and go to your opening, if you would just like to start with an opening, and then there was a question about the fiscal note. But basically, to you, Rep. Sirota.

How much was it? Would you like Rep. Garcia-Sanar to repeat your question? Lovely, and then I can make sure I answer it.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Rep Sirota.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay. Come on up. Ms. Gerstle, please state your name for the record,

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Rep. Garcia-Sander.

Thank you, Ms. Gerstle.

Ms. Gerstle.

because it's coming in-house. Yeah. Questions about the fiscal note since Ms. Gerstle is here.

Ms. Gerstle.

Rhett Flannell.

Well, since Ms. Gerstle's up here, is there any other questions fiscal related? Oh, Rep. Johnson.

Potentially fiscally related, because I've heard this as an excuse for the reason,

I would defer to the sponsors.

Rep. Srotta. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rep. Johnson. I think there probably could be a number of reasons for the safety clause, but I would also say if we want the task force to be able to do its work, it's got to produce its report by January, and so I think it would be important to set up this structure so that the state can then receive the philanthropic contribution and that the task force can then begin their work because they're supposed to meet, I think, four times. And so it will take time for them to meet, to do all of this work,

Rep Johnson, follow up, and then I'll go back to Rep.

Follow up to that. Could we not do an amendment to extend the time of that task force or move that behind? I just, there's not a fiscal reason, didn't hear a safety reason. It seems like a misuse of a clause to allow people, children, to have the ability to petition. Could we not just move this and put it down the road so we're doing the proper clause?

I think that for the providers who are asking for this work to be done, this task force is to examine changes and streamlining and assistance for how the licensure process works. And I think if people wanted to be able to run legislation to make any of these changes, delaying it so that the report isn't due until, you know, several months into the legislative session. I don't think that that would necessarily provide the, um, a responsible amount of time for being, for people to be able to respond to that report if there is legislation that they did want to run to be able to address it in that next legislative session. So I think the January report was, uh, chosen intentionally by, uh, Senator Bright and I'm, I feel quite certain he'd want to keep it.

Thank you. I appreciate it. What concrete outcomes are expected from the child care licensure and the quality task force by January?

Or Rep Gonzalez.

Rep Gonzalez.

Rep Flanel.

What outcomes are expected from the child licensure, the child care licensure and the quality task force by the date, by January? Rep Gonzalez.

what we need to accomplish here. And so I think setting the deadline, I think we don't want to delay some of the stuff that they're concerned about. And again, we are facing a lot of people who are shutting down childcare centers. So we want to make sure that we emphasize the importance of local control and consolidation systems and the experts to make sure that we have a good task force set up to bring ideas and recommendations of what we need to do going forward to make sure that our services are more streamlined for early childhood. So I think it gives them not like an expat at nighttime, but a certain timeframe to look and evaluate everything to make sure we're actually doing following through with what we want to do and the concerns we've had. And we also have some people here from the Child Children's Campaign who also have heard from stakeholders about this, and they also have a better glimpse of what they've heard on the ground, specifically what they want to accomplish. I just know in synopsis, I would say we want to make sure we have a set timeline

without having to, like, have things that are rushed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. how will its recommendations be implemented rather than remaining advisory?

You said implemented rather than just advisory? That is a good question. I don't have the information on here. Let's see. I actually

thank you Madam Chair

Rep Zocchi.

Oh, sorry.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Rep Zokai.

I have an amendment that will shrink the task force a little bit because I think when it was first envisioned, It had a much larger scope than it has now. And now that it's being confined to licensing, we actually don't necessarily need all of the folks. So we're just sort of reshuffling a little bit, but making sure that we are keeping in representation from a rural area and keeping in making sure that we have representation from a licensed family child care home but streamlining this a little bit so that the task force isn too unwieldy and would change who is making some of those appointments. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Rep Gonzalez. No, yes, that's correct. So on table 2A, how we had the breakdown of what we're spending right now currently with licensing, And then when we're moving in-house, we are obviously offsetting 1.3, so we still have that difference. So we are saving half a million dollars. I think right now what this aims to do, again, is to make sure that child care centers and people who are affected by this get the streamlining more relief effectively. Because right now we're not seeing that. There's delays, and it's taking time to process things that they are really concerned about. So I would, yes, basically it does save money. And I think this is just a more streamlined process to make sure that we're responding more quickly in-house versus contractors.

Sorry, what?

I'll just do it. Great. Okay. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Rep. Okay, we will. Ms. Petrini is not in here. I think maybe she didn't realize I was running over, so maybe she went to make more copies of the amendment. Ah, okay. So we, so Mr. Beck is contacting Ms. Petrini, and we will circle back to that. Okay, let's transition to our testimony phase. This is a combo of folks that are in person and online, and I think that some people that we see are remote are not actually online. So I'm just going to call one big panel. I will call up Mathangi Subramanian, Althea Gomez, Brittany Vela, Kathleen McHenry, Alessandra McGinnis, Don Alexander, Deborah Gray, and Jennifer McDonald. Welcome to the House Education Committee. For everyone testifying, you will have three minutes. Please start by stating your name and who you represent and we start at my left and move down Welcome Thank you Thank you Madam Chair and members of the committee I am Dr Mothangie Subramanian and I am the Director of Early Childhood Policy at the Colorado Children Campaign

Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you. We will go online, and we will start with Kathleen McHenry. Welcome.

Thank you. We will now go to Dawn Alexander. Welcome.

questions. Thank you. Now we will go to Alessandra McGinnis. Welcome.

Thank you. Okay. We will transition to, okay, so we have two folks here that are here for questions only. And so if you both don't mind just introducing yourselves and your positions for the record, and then we will launch into questions. Go ahead, Deborah Gray.

Thank you. Questions for this panel of witnesses, Rep. Garcia Sander.

Okay. Who would like to answer, if you don't mind just raising your hand?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay, I'm sorry.

Yeah, the unified application so you can help your families that are applying to your preschool?

Great, thanks. And then to the CDEC people, sorry. Is there any move to allow some kind of the unified access to grant administrative access to the preschool providers to help their families at the businesses?

I'm not sure I understand.

I'm sorry, Reverend Hamrick, was this directed at CDAC?

Ms. Gray.

Correct.

Thank you.

Yes. Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for your graciousness in letting me to testify. I genuinely thought I had signed up, so apologies. My name is Arby Fast. I am the founder of Westwood Academy, a small chain of early childhood programs, one located in Denver, one in Arvada. My Denver location I founded in 2022. I've been working in early childhood in Colorado for 30 years now. And my Arvada location was, I originally planned on opening it in, oh, and I'm testifying in support. Apologies. My Arvada location, I planned to open in October 2025. It is still not open, primarily due to an onerous and, frankly, absurd zoning process. My interactions with the city of Arvada have been confusing and frustrating and, quite frankly, shocking. And so here I am with a child care program that is fully set up. We've got puzzles and crayons on the shelf. We have teachers hired. We have families ready to come off of their maternity leave and join our program. We've passed our health inspection. We are fully compliant with child care licensing. But due to the issues with zoning, we are unable to open. meanwhile I am paying $8,500 a month in rent on a building that I cannot use I have mortgaged my house I have taken on significant loans that I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to pay back I'm afraid I going to lose my home and perhaps have to cash out my retirement to pay these debts And it shouldn be that way I got a beautiful safe program that is ready to serve the community and I unable to. And as you can tell, I'm pretty frustrated by that process. On top of that, the rules and regulations, I am really excited about the task force and hopeful that the funding comes through to make it happen. Back in 2012, there was a reimagining of the regulations in early childhood, and it resulted in a huge book. This is the book of regulations. This doesn't include health or fire. This is just licensing. We have to follow all of these rules every day, every minute of the day, no matter what. My little tabs here show all the rules that I think we could either eliminate or amend to continue to keep high quality and safety at the forefront of our child care programming, while also eliminating unnecessary burdens and creating extraneous costs for both programs and families. Because when programs have costs due to the lack of funding available to us from the government, the only place we can pass those costs on to is the families. So I very much support this bill. I encourage you to vote for it. We desperately need it, and we need it quickly. Thank you.

Rep Story. I can totally understand your frustration, and it's not just irritation that you can't get the system to work, but it has a heavy financial cost to you. um so just curious where you live and what is it county zoning that's the problem just curious oh uh and i'm so sorry i didn't actually write down your last name so i can i have to announce

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Oh, sorry.

Thanks. Okay. Thank you so much. We greatly appreciate your testimony. Okay. Is there anyone else in the room or online who wishes to testify? Seeing none, the testimony phase is closed. We've lost our bill sponsors. The Education Committee will go into a brief recess.

Thank you. Thank you. The Commission Committee will come back to order. Rep. Gonzalez, I understand you have an amendment.

Vice Chair Martinez.

Second.

Are there any questions on L-10? Are there any objections to L-10? Seeing none, L-10 is adopted. Rep. Gonzalez, do you have any more amendments?

Are there any amendments from the committee? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed. Wrap up, Rep. Gonzalez.

Vice Chair Martinez.

Second.

Are there any closing comments from the committee?

Rep. Bradfield. Thank you, Madam Chair. I've been watching this department for several years now, and I feel like it's about time that this department pretty much gets its act together and does what is right for the children and families of Colorado. and I'm hoping that this is a start but if it isn't I will be very disappointed. I will be a yes for today but maybe not a yes on

Rip Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, sponsors plus sponsor and another committee where she went. I talk a lot with child care. I appreciate most of this bill. Some of the local mandates I'm kind of iffy on. The safety clause is a no-go for me, and I'm really concerned about the fiscal note, the numbers matching up, and we just had a very tough budget week, and now we have another fiscal note that we just found a way to budget. So I do have some concerns, and I will be a respectful note today.

Representatives Aiken?

Respectfully, yes. Funnell?

Pass. Gilchrist?

Yes. Hartsook?

No. Stuart Kaye?

Yes. Zilkai?

No for today. Martinez?

Yes. Congratulations. Your bill passes 11 to 2, and you're on your way to the Finance Committee. You will now transition to House Bill 1417. And our bill sponsors are here. Did they change the comment or whatever? Did they change the comment? Is that what he said? That was some kind of comment. That's awesome. No. No objection. We passed this one. We didn't do this one. I mean, all this stuff up here that she was concerned about

House Bill 1417. Okay. is our next bill, and our bill sponsors are here. Who would like to start? Rep Soper.

but I will be here to answer questions particularly around the law but our witness you know has been here many times and he can also answer but if there are any questions happy to answer

thank you Madam Chair and it might be the loss of words that inspired me to maybe dialogue a little so I know that this is changing you know from a licensed entity to a business or individual I have concerns I mean have you heard from like homeschooling groups if they have houses they stay at that don't have this ability or if you're looking at an individual who's offering this because it says a person now is up for this liability and a braille translation can commonly cost over $90 per hour. This is kind of an unfunded mandate on entities. I know we have a zero fiscal note for the state, but then I do look at the fiscal note and I see a ton of entities that will be impacted with the contacts. I mean, you have agriculture, counties, education, higher ed, information technology, judicial law, local affairs, whole other side of that. Just curious, you know, have you seen what this might do when you're looking at now a person in a business?

Permission granted to dialogue.

Yeah, so the PE sheet, the fiscal note, it says the bill changes the definition of testing entity for professional licensing to include any person or business. And then if you go to the back of the fiscal note, it says the state and local government contacts, assuming that this will take in. And then did some research, you know, on what Braille translation costs just for an aspect. And so since the fiscal note is zero, but it says impacts could be local government or in this case now we're extending it to a person or business. It's kind of what I'm referencing. So are you – right.

No. So changing – I mean, so there's a lot of things that this can get into. So I'm just saying because so many contacts were reached out, this is going to affect a lot of individuals and businesses that are not licensed to do this testing that could affect these industries depending on the testing you're doing.

I'm going to jump in, Representative Johnson. The whole section that this falls under is for testing accommodations for Coloradans with disabilities. And so if you look at what this applies to, we're talking about the testing entity. So this is the entity that oversees the examination. So, for example, the medical board, or so I should have the correct term, it's the MB, National Board of Medical Examiners, they oversee the national, it's the United States medical exam. And we require, as a state, that in order to be a medical doctor, you have to take your medical boards and to pass these boards. It just so happens that we don't, as a state, actually administer the medical board. So that's the whole issue, is it's not a state actor. That's actually a private entity that oversees admission to medical schools. They also oversee the writing of the medical board. They also oversee the delivery of the medical board. And the medical board is also delivered here in Colorado, in our state. So a person would apply to the medical board for attesting accommodations. And when you have a court that says, well, on a technicality, they are not a state entity. entity, they're a private entity, it just so happens that the state requires you to be a licensed doctor in order to practice medicine, that for that person they would have to go through the medical boards. There is no other way to become a medical doctor in the state. And you could fill that in for what other professional licensure that someone is wanting to achieve because we have granted monopolies to those entities. And we're making sure that it applies, whether there's a technicality or not, of you're a state actor or you're a private entity operating with a monopoly granted by the state actor. And so I don really see where this would increase expenses I mean certainly an applicant will be paying for this pay a lot of money for these exams I mean thousands of dollars to take an exam

I think also what's, I'm sorry, did you figure it out?

I'll take you to the bill. If you look at page four, you know, the bill is also, I really appreciate the legislative deck. It's wonderfully written. But the bill on page four, you can look existing statutes 24, 34, 806. And we are only amending subsections two and three. But look at what the strikethrough is. Right. Testing entity means a private entity of this state or a state or local government entity. And what we found in the case was that we needed to be clear that we require all entities or people, right? And if you look down on lines 13 and 14, all entities or people or businesses that offer exams or courses related to applications, licensing and certificates need to be able to provide. I'm sorry, they need to provide these accommodations. What the bill did before this, the first bill that we ran that we are updating here, was we declared as a matter of law that the entities providing these tests are covered by our Anti-Discrimination Act and therefore need to create accommodations for those who qualify. You do have to demonstrate you have a disability. And so, again, the previous bill made that statement. Now, given what we just heard from the case, the judge was like, well, this is a private entity. It's a national board, you know, not of the state. And we are being clear that if you are going to offer, right, a course or a test, particular for professions or occupations in the state of Colorado, that a person theoretically has standing, right, to ask for and receive an accommodation. And so the bill only passed in 2024. I think you also asked about costs like Braille. The bill only passed in 2024. But the other thing that we know about licensing and tests is the costs for these things are also put into the fees. And I think that's what he was just said. So for those of us who are attorneys, we all remember the cost of the bar exam. And so the conversation that we also had, the first bill didn't actually come to ed. It went to where? Business? Business and labor. And when we did hear from, you know, all of the boards, we talked about the balance between, you know, what any of these entities would take on and then what would also be transferred into the fees. right you if you want to take an mcat you got to pay for that right the lsat the bar exam um there are other tests you have do you want to be what was it a road operator right um a flag person actually has a test in this in the state of colorado so in regards to your questions of the costs um we believe the same way that we believed before that given the entity sometimes the state or the local government can absorb it, sometimes the costs are passed on through the fees since it is something someone is opting into doing we have other folks that also have questions one last question so we going we going to go to other questions

organizations thank you ma'am chair and thank you representative Garcia Sanders excellent question so with this section of law we incorporated the ADA into Colorado law thereby giving a state remedy for a violation of the ADA and then we further prescribed that a person could demonstrate the need for an accommodation by a lifetime's worth of history, meaning if you had been granted accommodations and had doctors' reports and analysis from elementary school, middle school, high school, college, that that could be used to build a case. Because the other challenge back in 24 was entities were saying, we need you to have a doctor's report, but it needs to be a doctor who also has a psychology degree and a medical degree, there's only five in the state, good luck paying for the bill or being able to get them to sit down with you. The U.S. Attorney's Office, who we also worked with at the time, said that while they had many complaints, they couldn't take on any of these cases because it was hard to justify with so few attorneys in Colorado challenging a dyslexic individual who didn't get a time accommodation when they had major murder cases that were going on, irraketeering cases, major gang cases. So the U.S. Attorney's Office actually had suggested that a state path was actually better because if the only avenue for a remedy was the U.S. Attorney's Office, no remedy would come from a practical nature. So incorporating the ADA into state law was the most efficient means to do so. In terms of, I guess, the second part of your question about the definition, we had listed private entity, and my plain reading of private entity would have included a non-state actor. Apparently the court disagreed and decided that a private entity does not mean a non-state actor, and that's why we're here today.

Rep. Sober. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Representative Garcia Sanders. I'll answer the last part first. So if you taking an examination within the state of Colorado you would be subject to Colorado law If you a Colorado resident taking the same exam outside of Colorado you would not be subject to Colorado law. So any remedies that would be granted under Colorado law are only available if you are seeking to sit the examination within Colorado because we can only control what's here. In terms of the first part of your question, are there other states that have a similar provision in state law? I have to admit, in preparation for presenting here today, I did not do a 50-state survey, so I can't tell you right off the top of my head what other states have or don't have. I do know from my recollection from 2024 that we're not the only state that's done this. This was not a new path for Colorado. I can't tell you how many other states have done something similar, but I do remember from 24 that we weren't blazing a new trail, that this was something other states had done.

Rep Soper. Thank you, Madam Chair. And if I could just add on one point that Rep Bacon was making. We've also seen the harmonization of exams across the United States. A good example, because it's something I'm familiar with, is the National Conference of Bar Examiners. So now the vast majority of states are part of the National Conference of Bar Examiners. So in order to be licensed to practice law in Colorado, you sit a standardized bar exam. And I will give you a bit of my pet peeve with this. the majority, so they test majority rules and we have the, uh, Rights of prior appropriation in Colorado for water law. And my rural colleagues, you can nod. But it's the minority theory, which means in order to practice law in Colorado, you potentially could be tested on the majority rule, which is not that. It's some other law. And so then you pass the bar, and then you have to learn the real law. afterwards. But what was happening, as Representative Bacon eloquently described, is our ORAC, or Office of Attorney Regulation Council, was really not granting any accommodations. So anyone who had a disability like dyslexia, they would run over to Wyoming or Utah or New Mexico and sit the bar exam because they could get an accommodation there, even though all of those states were on the exact same bar exam, which would mean you would get an accommodation, then you could wave into Colorado, and you didn't have to do anything except pay your fee to come into Colorado. And it's like, how is equal justice under the law actually served when you could run over to a sister state, have them recognize your disability and accommodation under federal law, but not have your home state recognize the same thing? And so that was really a lot of the impetus for the 24 legislation. It just so happens now we found the medical board is attempting to do the same thing. Sorry, I was just going to say the Virginia bar exam didn't have any questions about water. And the irony of what was happening, we suggested it should actually be a bar exam question. That was a lawyer joke. I'm sorry. I don't get it. I know. It's like three people on this. Jack gets it. Okay.

No, Madam Chair, I was able to ask the drafter. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Jack Johnson. I'm an attorney at Disability Law Colorado here testifying in support of House Bill 1417. I think Representative Soper and Assistant Majority Leader Bacon covered a lot of it, but I just wanted to say that in going through this process, we found that what was really important was to be clear in the law. And when we have rewritten CATA in the many different sections, basically every year we've been here, and sometimes we miss things. And so when going back and looking at the court case to Representative Johnson and Garcia Sanders' question, the court actually recognized that this individual, Catherine Dunn, did have a potential cause of action under federal law. And so there were two claims that were brought to the court, the federal claim and the state claim. What they said is Colorado's state law doesn't recognize this as a valid claim because the definition excluded these actors. But under the federal law, the definition does include these actors. And so the text of the bill is – the heart of it is taken from that definition in Title 42, obviously merged a little bit with the existing definition of Colorado law so we don't lose the work that was done. And so at the end of the day even if this bill were to not pass and we were to do nothing on this subject these individuals would still potentially have a federal claim The difference and the reason it important to also have a state claim is because our state courts are much more accessible to these individuals especially to get injunctions quickly I mean, we're talking about people who have the bar exam in July and they're coming up and they get denied in May. And now they have to quickly make a decision. Do I take the bar? Do I withdraw my name? Do I file an injunction? And going through the federal court system is very difficult. And so one of the key important parts of this state court claim and why this bill is important is because it allows those people to access those local state courts in order to get remedies, especially those injunctive remedies, which are the most important parts of these cases. It's not like people get a lot of monetary damages. What they're asking for is their accommodations to be honored. And so I will leave the rest of my time for questions if there are any. Thank you.

Rep Soper. Thank you, Madam Chair. We don't have one written. However, I wondered if you might entertain a conceptual amendment. Nobody?

There is somebody else from judiciary here who gets it.

I am serious. So on page four, lines three, we have a page three. We have two typos. So in two places it says 25 that should say 24. 24. Yeah.

AML Bacon. Thank you. We're asking for a conceptual amendment because we do believe it's a typo. It's not policy. So on page 3, line 25, it says, you see the citation 2534806. It's supposed to be 2434806. And it's repeated again on the top of page 4 on line 3. If you look up Title 25, that doesn't exist. But Title 24, 34, or 8.06 are the references. So we're asking if we can change it here.

Many, but –

Thank you, Madam Chair. So if in the process of a conceptual amendment, meaning it wouldn't need to be drafted on paper, we would just vote it.

Okay.

Okay.

So let do we need to what would we title it Okay So let start with AML Bacon Will you please move your amendment

Seconded by Rep. Zocay.

Rep. Johnson has objected.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, your conceptual amendment Passes on a vote of 11 to 2 Are there any other amendments From the bill sponsors?

Are there any amendments from the committee? Seeing none, the amendment phase is closed Closing comments Closing comments, Rep Soper

Amel Bacon.

AML Bacon, the proper motion is to the Committee of the Whole.

Second.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, sponsors, for taking this on. To be honest, I felt like I was in judiciary. I understood very little of anything you all said. The more I asked questions, the more I got confused. So I honestly don't know how to vote. Usually my default when I am confused is no. But I understand the intent that you're wanting to do and wanting to make sure that we are caring for those who need accommodations. but with such a big law that affects so many people, I would like to understand what it actually means. So I don't know how I'm gonna vote today. Would love to be a yes on the floor. I don't, either way how I vote, I would love for clarification in human terms not lawyer terms Would really appreciate what y are saying but I do appreciate the intent and I know what you trying to get at so would just love explanation after Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to thank you for the discussion today, and I really appreciate you all clarifying this in law. It feels like a much-needed fix. I also, you know, it was being brought back to last year when we worked on the dyslexia bill and how powerful that was. And as a mom of a kid with severe dyslexia, it is one of her many challenges and all of it is invisible and has to, as you were talking about, Rep Soper, advocate at every stage. and then to come to adulthood and hit a brick wall feels deeply unfair. So thank you for fixing this, and I'm very excited to vote yes today.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I really did just want to thank the sponsors for bringing this forward. I think it's a really impactful bill, and I'm really excited that I'm on House Ed to be able to vote yes for it today. And I really appreciate the example of the bar exam and noting that it's really expensive to take the bar exam. And I don't know if that's the same across other professions as well, but I know for myself, if I was not able to put my best foot forward and didn't pass, I was not sure I was going to be able to take it again just because I couldn't afford it. So I really appreciate that this is before us today, and I don't think we should have had to be in this position. This should have been something that was already being practiced, but unfortunately, we have to be very clear that we do mean it this time. And I did just want to note one thing. I wanted to look into that definition of individuals with disabilities that is noted in this bill. And I looked in 806 and in 301. And in both of those sections, it references the ADA. And I just think that's something for us to consider. I think that things in the ADA have changed. I think case laws also change things in the ADA, and that we have an opportunity when we are opening up sections of law to codify those definitions into our state statutes And that a way I have practiced writing my legislation I leave it to you if that something that you want to consider But I think that that is just food for thought. And thank you and happy, excited to vote yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to take a moment and say I appreciate both the sponsors and the legal brains that you bring to this important work. and I very much admire it. My closing comment will mostly reflect on the anecdotal emotional part of these types of bills. As a parent to a child with multiple disabilities who is making his way through high school right now, what keeps me up at night isn't what he has and where he's going, but what his path looks like to get there. and to Rep Gilchrist's point how much does a parent have to intervene and at what point are you hitting this wall because they're adults so to know that the state is working to do what we can to help support these young adults as they work their way through and find their path I'm very excited to be a yes and appreciate your work thank you

Thank you, Madam Chair. When I read the bill, I understood the bill. I thought, and I agreed with it. I have to tell you that between the two of you, I got very confused, and Mr. Johnson didn't help. And then we have a conceptual amendment, and I have had it drilled into me that every amendment has a paper trail, and we were doing one without. I believe very strongly that anyone who has disabilities and is wanting to be a professional and that they should be able to take the exams with the accommodations that they need. I am a yes, but I had to share with you I have had a long hard trip in this last half hour Thank you very much Riff story Thank you Madam Chair

Representatives Bacon?

Bradfield

Flannell

Garcia Sander

Gilchrist

Amarick

Hartsook

Johnson

Stuart Kay

Story

Okai

Martinez

yes and Madam Chair