Senate Judiciary [Mar 30, 2026]

Senators Carson.

Doherty.

Hendrickson.

Wallace.

Zamora Wilson.

Roberts.

Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, members of the Judiciary Committee. It is a pleasure to be before you, and thank you for your time and consideration today. My name is Rondi Moore. I serve as the Chair of the Parole Board. It is my honor to introduce you to three outstanding current members of the Parole Board and ask for your reconfirmation. Greg Sise was appointed to the board by the governor in 2022 to serve as the statutorily required representative on the parole board with offender supervision experience. Catherine Rodriguez was appointed by the governor in 2024. She brings a great deal of experience to the board, particularly in the field of sex offender management. and Rodrigo Louveno was appointed to the board in 2025 after several years working in offender supervision and program management with DCJ. They are each valuable members of the team and we look forward to their continued contributions to the parole board. I'll turn it over to them to share with you a little more about themselves and their accomplishments while serving on the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, esteemed committee members, thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today as I seek reappointment to the Board of Parole. I have dedicated my career to public safety through service. My 20-plus career has been spent working in every level of the criminal legal system, local, state, federal, each of which has given me a perspective on what works as far as driving public safety, learning the complexities and intricacies of our systems of rehabilitation, which have shaped my work on this board. My time on the board, as Ms. Moore noted, started in 2022. It has been an honor and the highlight of my professional career. This position is, in equal parts, the most rewarding and the most challenging position I've ever held. Each decision requires that I hold two truths at the same time. One is that people have caused real harm, harms to their communities, to others, to themselves. And the other is that people can make positive change. Beyond my regular duties as a board member, I am also a member of the Governor's Advisory Council on Community Corrections. I am also on the Colorado Association of Community Corrections Boards. My service in those roles has given me valuable insight into the intersection of justice and rehabilitation in community correction settings. It has also provided me with opportunities to drive connection, to enhance opportunities 4, understanding, fostering connection, and furthering collaboration. A bit dated, but in 2023, in the regular session, I was also part of an interim committee that, the Interim Recidivism Study Committee that proposed SB 29 and 30. Those were a common definition of recidivism, as well as looking beyond the natural measures, measures of recidivism that we commonly think of the binary. Was there recidivism? Yes, no. but exploring further markers of success when it comes to recidivism. If reappointed, or confirmed rather, I will continue to drive positive changes, drive policy and process improvements initiatives to ensure that this board is as efficient and effective as it possibly can be. Those of us in government understand the complexities of the positions we work in and the exchange and interchange of working with so many broad partners. Many smart people can disagree on how to get there, but our collective goal remains the same, safer communities for all of us. And I'm eager to continue to contribute to the shared mission and look forward to my opportunity to continue to serve this great state of Colorado. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Wiseman and Vice Chair Roberts and the rest of the members of the Senate. Good afternoon. My name is Catherine Rodriguez, and I have had the honor of serving on the parole board since January 2024, as you heard from Chair Moore. I've worked in the criminal justice field for nearly three decades. I hate to admit that in the age of myself, but serving in a variety of roles across state and local government. My background includes providing supervision and conducting investigations as a parole officer, policy development at the Sex Offender Management Board, management of mental health programs at DORA, leadership of the Victim Witness Program in the 17th Judicial District Attorney's Office, and oversight of law enforcement certification at the Attorney General's Office. Since joining the board, I've served as co-chair of an SOMB subcommittee working to revise our parole criteria for individuals sentenced for determinate sex offenses. I'm currently piloting an assessment tool to help evaluate its effectiveness for that subcommittee. I've also helped train new board members on evidence-informed practices for individuals who have committed sexual offenses and drafted a policy to support consistency in our decision-making. Right now, I'm in the process of developing additional training to further streamline our practices related to that population. Over the past two years, I've appreciated the collaboration among board members, colleagues at the Colorado Department of Corrections and Parole. external agencies, and our community partners. This work is both challenging and deeply meaningful to me, and I remain committed to serving Colorado to the highest standard. I look forward to continuing my work with the board and contributing to its invaluable mission. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Mr. Vice Chair, Mr. Chair, and esteemed committee members, I want to start by thanking you all for the opportunity to address you today. My name is Rodrigo Louvino, and I have served on the Colorado Board of Parole since December of 2024, which has truly been an honor. I do not take this responsibility lightly and value the trust that has been placed in me to make these decisions. That is why today, with the utmost humility and respect, I request confirmation to the Colorado Board of Parole to serve a full term, as my current term was vacated by a previous parole board member. The mission of the parole board is to increase public safety by evaluating an individual's potential for successful reintegration into the community through the use of innovative, evidence-informed practices. I believe my past experience aligns with these objectives and has allowed me to make decisions during my time on the Colorado Board of Parole that factor in offender rehabilitation while placing an emphasis on public safety and victim impact. Prior to this role, I worked with the Division of Criminal Justice Office of Community Corrections, evaluating and auditing both rural and urban communities programs throughout the state of Colorado. I also served as a sobriety court probation officer, working with high-risk, high-need offenders in a multidisciplinary setting focused on rehabilitation and public safety. Along with my civilian law enforcement-related experience, this background provides me a well-rounded perspective in my work on the Colorado Board of Parole. My time on the Colorado Board of Parole has equal parts been rewarding and very challenging. Each day is heavy with decisions that have real-life consequences. I conduct a thorough analysis of each case as deeply as I can to render decisions that will positively impact our communities. Since my appointment, I have applied my knowledge of community supervision to assess offenders' risk and readiness, striving to balance public safety with meaningful rehabilitation. My commitment to public service is deeply rooted, and I remain passionate about continuing this work. As a career public servant, it is a distinguished honor and privilege to serve on the Colorado Board of Parole. I will close by humbly asking for your vote to confirm my reappointment so I may serve a full term. I look forward to addressing any questions from the committee. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all so much for being here. I'd like to hear from each of you about what you see as the efforts or how you're going to approach the delays in the parole board. We talk a lot in the committee here about the population management that we need to do in our carceral system. And I think between us and the JBC, we hear a lot that the parole board is one of the holdups there. And so wondering what you're doing to help ensure that folks who have served their time are no longer a threat to community are able to be released so that they're not, you know, draining funds from the state's budget. Any order you'd like.

Thank you, Senator Wallace.

They've served their time, right? And it is fair for you to say to us, we need more resources from you. That would be fair, right? Does it look like halfway houses for folks? Does it look like mental health facilities, right? Like, it's fair for you to say we need more resources. it's not fair to keep people in prison who have served their time and are waiting to get out and are simply in there only because those resources don't exist. Okay, and that helps me a lot. I appreciate that, Senator Wallace.

Senator Wallace. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much for your response. When you say that last part, they need an approved parole plan, so what's the delay in their approved parole plan?

Yeah.

Yeah, I thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank you, Senator Wallace, for the question. I think my colleagues cover quite a bit. I think, you know, we all get a signed list as far as that we have to review that, you know, people who are, you know, possibly could be released. And when I reviewed my list, obviously speaking on only my list, majority of them are waiting for that approved parole plan. It would be like an approved parole plan, and every now and then I do see, you know, someone who's still completing the therapeutic community, so the highest level of substance abuse care in DOC, and then once they're done completing that, that's when they would be released. But typically, when I look at my list, it's people who are waiting for an approved parole plan.

I think maybe I'll just make more of a statement in the interest of time. An organization like the parole board is funny and that it is set up to have a lot of independence, but necessarily lodges under a principal department and the chain of reporting and sometimes maybe influence that flows from that. I think the commentary just now to Senator Wallace's question underscores an important point. You are vested with important decision-making. We're not ultimately doing somebody a favor if we parole them under a bridge in the winter, which gets to a parole plan, which gets to housing. and you're the parole board, you're not a provider of housing for folks in need, which implicates the Division of Adult Parole, like you said. It implicates the Division of Prisons in terms of getting folks ready to be handed over to the Division of Adult Parole, arguably other parts of state government as well. As you go forward and continue to lean into these duties, I think all of us in the General Assembly, particularly on the Judiciary Committees, is want to know if you are not being presented with all the information that you'd like to have. We want you to be able to make fully informed decisions based on the facts that are brought to you, not to be making what I might call a false positive or a false negative decision. In my earlier years around here, I would hear about problems to that effect. I think maybe trying to sort out what is good information, maybe that's better in terms of you're getting better flows of data from the department. I hope that's true. I hope it stays true. But I think I will speak for myself at least. I would rather no than not if there's a problem because we put a lot of weight on your shoulders, and for you to be able to bear that weight, you need facts. and what you do with them is your charge, but I don't want to see you set up to fail for lack of information, and that implicates more than just the board and its membership. So I'll leave that there.

proper motion. Ms. Jensen, please call the roll. Senators Carson. Yes. Doherty. Yes. Hendrickson excused. Wallace. Yes. Zamora Wilson. Aye. Roberts. Aye. Mr. Chair. Yes. Okay. Vote is six to zero with one excused. Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I recommend that

Senator Wallace. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee for your consideration of House Bill 1234. I want to thank my co-prime as well for joining me. It is always wonderful to participate in bipartisan legislation that is common sense and pretty straightforward. And this bill certainly is. It makes targeted common sense updates to how individuals grant access or are granted access to child abuse and neglect records once they are adults. It does so while preserving the privacy protections that are so important for sensitive records like these. Right now, folks who are the subjects of DHS reports face unnecessary barriers and frankly codified language that is strange and difficult to interpret when trying to be granted access to their own records. Unlike medical or school records, some jurisdictions require power of attorney documents instead of standard release forms in order for subjects to receive these records. This bill simply allows the use of standard release forms, bringing these DHS records in line with other private records. It also fixes a confusing provision in current law that can be read to prevent adults from accessing their own records unless a sibling or child is abused. It just doesn't make sense, and the bill repeals that language. And then finally, we have it removes an unconstitutional criminal provision identified by a federal court and modernizes one other. Oh, and I'm sorry, there is one last provision. It was discovered that four education document handling offenses had accidentally been stripped from codes so weren't enforceable. And so this bill restores those. These changes are supported by the public defenders, the Office of the Child Representative, and the Office of the Respondent Parents Council. They have been vetted with district attorneys and other key stakeholders. So in short, it's a cleanup bill that improves access, removes confusion, and modernizes statute. So I ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have a lot to add because my co-prime described this really eloquently. But the point is we let people have access, easy access, to their private medical records, school records, other private records just by using release forms. unfortunately Denver and other counties are interpreting statute our current language and they bar release of records to attorneys directly it's just this is a clean up bill and really trying to clarify policy I'd also add that this bill passed the house unanimously which is I mean There you go. So really appreciate your aye vote and happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Chair, Ms. Colleen Nelson is here for CCDB. Can we just add a chair and have her do it? Let's do it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Katie Hecker. I'm the Youth Justice Attorney at the Office of the Child's Representative. OCR is here in support. We worked with the partners at the table today to develop the language that you see in the bill. Our mission at the OCR is to give children and youth a voice in Colorado legal proceedings. It goes on from there, but that's really the important part that I want to focus on today. OCR feels that this bill goes a long way in providing youth access to their own story so that they can better tell that story to others. It's impossible to tell your story or to advocate for your rights and interests if you don't even know what official documents say about your story. There are definitely barriers still, even that this bill doesn't address, to youth accessing their records, cost, and time. You'll hear from a colleague of mine with lived experience who can share her story about that. Obviously, again, this bill doesn't address those issues, but this is a great start, and it addresses a very common sense and basic problem that the youth we work with focus on or deal with. It importantly also maintains privacy protections that exist for these records. So again, OCR asks for your yes vote today, and I welcome any questions that you might have.

Mr Chair members of the committee thank you for this opportunity to speak today My name is Shermie Houston About three years ago I tried to obtain records from Boulder County related to my time in foster care I was not asking for something unrelated to me or outside my rights. I was simply trying to access information about my own life, my own experiences, and the decisions that shaped my childhood. As a young person who spent years in the child welfare system, I wanted to better understand my history and the reasons certain decisions were made in my case. Instead, I was told that obtaining those records would cost approximately $4,000. That was deeply discouraging for any young person, especially one who has grown up in foster care. Being denied meaningful access to their own history because of costs sends a painful message. It suggests that the details of your life, even when documented by the government, remained out of reach to you. In my case, that was not just frustrating, it felt profoundly unfair. These records matter because they are not just administrative files. They contain history of placements, concerns that were raised, decisions that were made, and events that had a lasting impact on my life. There are experiences from my time in care that I still do not fully understand, including situations where I raised serious concerns and felt those concerns were not taken seriously. Access to these records is important, not only for understanding the past, but also for accountability, healing, and the ability to move forward with clarity. This bill matters because young people in foster care should not have to overcome financial barriers just to learn their own history. Access to personal records should not be treated as a privilege. It should be recognized as a basic part of dignity, fairness, and self-advocacy. When a system has played such a major role in a young person's life, that young person should be able to understand what happened and why. Thank you for listening and considering this bill. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, members of the committee. My name is Melanie Jordan. I'm testifying in support of the Office of Respondent Parents Council and really appreciate the work that the Public Defenders Office and that the other agencies up here have done on this bill. The ORPC is fortunate to contract with a number of parent advocates. They're parents who have lived experience in the child welfare system and work to reunify families. And when we reached out to them and reached out to our contractors to talk to them about this bill, we heard from a lot of them about the difficulty that they experienced in trying to get their own records from when they were children in the foster care system. It probably is no surprise to you that many of the parents that we represent also were in foster care as children, and they need their records for a variety of reasons, sometimes for therapeutic purposes. One of the parent advocates we work with was working on a memoir, and it was important to him to understand what had happened to him as a child in working on that memoir. And in all of those circumstances, because of the way the statute is currently worded, they've come across great difficulty in getting their records. So this bill would help address that, help allow adults who need to get those records from when they were children in the system to have access to those records. but what it will not do is change the access that parents have to their records. It merely ensures that people have consistent access to their childhood records across the state. We ask for your support and we're happy to answer any questions about our agency's position.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm James Karbach with the Office of the State Public Defender. So this bill really started for the Public Defender's Office as we frequently have to get records. When we have a client who's charged with a crime, but they were abused and in the DHS system as an abused person, like getting someone's medical records or historical records, we need to get their records. And we started running into a problem where Denver told us that they can't use release forms to give us our clients' records because of the way this statute was worded. They recommended we pursue statutory change, and we learned that other people were having the problem. So we started with that fix in this bill. And then we saw in subsection 3 of this statute, which is on the bottom of page 4 in the re-engross bill, that there was a phrase in this statute that said, after a child who is the subject of a report to the State Department of Human Services reaches the age of 18, access to that report shall be permitted only if a sibling or offspring of such child is before any person mentioned in subsection 2. Basically saying when you turn 18, if you were abused, you can't get your records unless your sibling or child is being abused and you're standing before certain state actors. No one could ever explain to me what this was intended to do or why we have it. It is probably the most confusing sentence I've ever read in the Colorado Revised Statute, and that says something. And I learned it was inhibiting 18-year-olds from getting their own records when they needed them for treatment or other reasons. So we decided to cross that out. But then I learned there were two crimes in this statute, one of which had been held unconstitutional by a federal court years ago. And the penalties didn't match. The more narrow crime had a lower penalty than a broader one. There were a myriad of problems. That, unfortunately, triggered more stakeholding and broader than we wanted to go, but we needed to fix that problem, so we do. We rework the crime to be constitutional. We reconcile the penalty to be consistent with other penalties in statute, and CDAC is neutral on that as we talked through that solution. We also then learned the day the bill was to be introduced that the drafter had discovered that cross-references that were being cleaned up referenced education crimes, and those education crimes referenced penalties in the open record statute. The open records statute had removed the crime and the penalty that were cross-referenced, and so we had four education crime records with no penalties for the last nine years for which no one was charged. This bill restores penalties at a low level for those crimes because basically there was an error nine years ago in an Education and Open Records Act bill that was never fixed that the drafter said we have to fix. so it is this bill is sort of a tale of no easy bill ever really is as easy as you think but there is no opposition we've stake held with the county attorneys the ags have been in the background through state dhs we've talked to state dhs we've talked to sdac and this is like a common sense reform where people can get records with releases which we need and we fix some other problems which is why i think it was unanimous in the house and i hope you all can support it today

Hi, my name is Stacey Nelson Colling. I'm here to support the bill on behalf of both the Colorado Office of the Alternate Defense Council and the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar. For years, we had been also hearing from our attorneys that they were having difficulties obtaining these records on behalf of their clients, depending on the county that held the records, because different counties have been interpreting the statute in different ways. some counties will only release records directly to a client and not to an attorney on behalf of the client, meaning even if the client is asking them to, they won't hand them physically to the attorney. So sometimes records have been delivered to clients in custody, which creates a really big confidentiality problem. And the workaround for that, at least with some of the ADC cases, was that sometimes a DHS staff member would physically drive the records to the prison. And then we would pay somebody on the defense team to physically drive to the prison. And they would bring the client in to a room. And the three of them would just hand the records around. and when you're in the metro area and the prison's in Canyon City, that's a full day that we're paying somebody to do that and DHS is paying somebody to do that. And so, yeah. Also, we've had situations where they won't release the records directly to a child client but only to the parents and that creates an inherent conflict of interest that does not guarantee the parents are going to then give the defense team or the child those records. And when you're talking about kids who, specifically kids who are tried as adults or the prosecutors seek to try them as adults, one of the things that the court must consider in a transfer hearing or a reverse transfer hearing is the client's social history, family history, life up to that point, and these records are critical for that. So in order to provide a constitutionally firm ethical defense, we need those records. And they need to go directly to the child's attorney and the child. We think this bill is a common sense solution to all of the issues I talked about, as well as the ancillary issues that were discovered along the way. And it will fix this without sacrificing the privacy concerns behind the statute. So both organizations urge an aye vote. Thank you.

because there was a similar misdemeanor level penalty in a different part of statute than we're talking about here for release of records. And basically the issue is he tripped over a First Amendment concern. Presumably we are not reciting a petty offense level sanction without having determined. We've grappled with the question whether there's any constitutional concern about that. It is a low-level offense, which I agree with, considering it's essentially penalizing something of a regulatory nature. But maybe we could just build out our record a little bit for that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, so Peck v. McCann was really about somebody in the court system that had access to DHS records and was talking about how bad the DHS investigation was, and they were threatened with prosecution for talking about that. because the statute was written so broadly that if you had the records, even if you had them legally, you couldn't talk about in any forum anything that was in the records. Even the victim couldn't talk about the records if they got them. And so people were getting threatened with prosecution when DHS was unhappy with what they were saying, even though the person already knew there was an investigation and their knowledge was mixed from the records and they weren't revealing identifying information from the records. What the federal court really said is the portion of the statute where you can't give away names that you got access through and reveal specific information is likely constitutional, but you do have First Amendment rights to talk about DHS investigations. One of the things I did as we prepared for this bill was make a data request of the judicial branch and of the Denver County Courts. Peck v. McCann talks about as no one's been prosecuted under this statute for years, and I confirmed no one's been prosecuted under this statute for three years. The way this statute was really being used was just to threaten people, not to actually prosecute them. It was very overbroad. We now focus, we take two crimes, make it one crime in subsection one. We focus on identifying information, which Peck v. McCann suggests is constitutional to restrict people from disclosing, and we set the penalty level consistent with what 21 did this statute is really meant as a deterrent I think and I say that because no one prosecuted right So that one of the reasons I think CDAC okay with this We are not talking about shifting penalties on something that we see prosecutions for. But now there are clear restrictions on what you can and can't do. And we add language to the statute that people that obtain these records legally can use them in litigation. Arguably, even when we were getting them, as defense lawyers, if we gave them to a court, theoretically we were violating a statute. We fix all that here. Of course, and I give this caveat a lot, it is my opinion that we fix this in a constitutional way. That is always ultimately up to the courts. People can make that challenge. Anybody that says they can predict that with precision or they're in charge of it, unless they're a member of the Colorado Supreme Court that has a case before them, can overstep that. But yes, we spent a lot of time trying to find a way to rework this statute in a way that fixes it and is constitutional and fits the penalties in a coherent way in our overall scheme. And I think we've done that.

Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you to the witnesses. I think that they really brought home why this policy is really important and necessary This bill, again, simplifies and modernizes DHS record release procedures for people who are the subject of abuse and neglect reports. It ensures that they can get their own records, whether they've turned 18 or not, and makes sure that the records, when an appropriate release is signed, can go to a professional working with or for the person who was subject of the report. and it removes an unconstitutional over broad framing of a crime for DHS records. Also restoring valid penalties for education records crimes found along the way. This bill is supported by a long list of stakeholders who have struggled with these issues and I ask for your support and your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I also want to thank the witnesses who shed further light on this legislation. Just, you know, always nice to undertake bipartisan work that makes sure the legal system is working as it's intended to. And so I ask for an aye vote, and thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 261234 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation, sir.

Please call the roll. Senators Carson.

Doherty.

Henriksen excused. Wallace.

Zamora Wilson.

Roberts.

Mr. Chair.

Senator Wallace. Can I ask for the consent calendar?

Mr. Vice Chair will preside over this segment of the hearing. All right. We are on House Bill 1186, sponsored by Senators Ball and Weissman, who are before us. Who would like to start?

Senator Weissman. Thank you, members. Again, pretty simple bill. This is a sunset bill to continue oversight of this important profession as Senator Ball spoke to. occurred to me as I was walking down here, I think I was on the last sunset bill in 2017 actually, and here we are again. You'll note, and the summary still reflects the introduced recommendation, there weren't any findings. Sometimes if there's more friction on something, the sunset will recommend a longer extension. Where the opposite is true, where the case is robustly made for oversight and no changes are needed, you'll often see copper recommend a pretty long number of years, as they did here, 13 years. The House decided to walk that back a little bit to bring it back before the General Assembly a little bit sooner, so that's amended to 2034. I think that's fine, honestly. Why do we need to oversee this profession? The Sunset discussion gives a few examples. Sometimes in the course of securing bail, there might be a lien put onto property. That lien then needs to be timely released when it's proper to do so. Going back to the prior sunset, we actually had to have a little tweak to fix some cases where there was nobody around after passage of time to secure a lien release, or the whole point here is for bail to be posted timely. We need to make sure that actually happens. So there's not a gigantic number of problems, but this is an important enough function in the criminal legal system that we should continue oversight of it. That is what 1186 seeks to do. We ask for your support. Thank you. Committee members, any questions for the sponsors? Seeing none, we will

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Vice Chair and members of the committee. My name is Steve Giampolo. I am the Director of Producer Licensing and Enforcement at the Colorado Division of Insurance. I am here today to testify in support of the Sunset Review recommendation to continue the Division's work. around the regulation of cash bonding and professional cash bail agents. This work provides important protections for consumers who must interact with such agents. The division is responsible for regulating the bail bonding industry and for handling complaints against bail bonding agents. As said before, there are three types of bail bonding agents, cash bonding, professional cash bail, and surety agents who are insurance producers. This sunset focuses on the cash bonding and professional cash bail agents. Cash bonding agents are authorized to write an unlimited amount of bail for an unlimited amount of defendants. Professional cash bail agents are authorized to write bail for not more than twice the amount of the qualification bond filed with the division, which is $50,000. There are currently three registered cash-binding agents in Colorado, as this type of registration will be eliminated through attrition. There are 17 professional cash bail agents currently operating in Colorado. The division ensures that the premiums bail-binding agents can charge consumers to post bonds are in compliance with Colorado's insurance laws. We assist consumers if they have problems involving the release of collateral. The Division also investigates consumer complaints and disciplines bail bonding agents for violations of the statute or division rules. As the Sunset Report states, over the past five fiscal years, the Division received numerous complaints against bail bonding agents, including 29 complaints from Colorado courts regarding an agent's failure to pay the bail bond posted. Additionally, the Division issued letters of admonition to registrants for failure to comply with existing laws. In closing, the Division's oversight of bail bonding agents ensures consumers are protected and agents comply with statutory requirements. We urge your support of the Sunset recommendation to continue the Division's regulation of the industry. Thank you for allowing me to speak today, and I'm happy to answer any questions from the Committee.

No, Mr. Vice Chair. I'm just here to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Senator Ball. Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair. Good bill. Vote yes.

That is a proper motion. Any comments before we vote? Seeing none, Ms. Jackson, please poll the committee.

Doherty. Yes.

Samora Wilson. Respectfully, no.

Aye. That passes on a vote of 5 to 1.

You want me to adjourn us? Sure. Just a logistic note, members. Wednesday we're hearing 96 at the request of the sponsor 71 will be off the calendar for this week I do expect that we will add House Bill 1101 it's probably going to be another short day on Wednesday but don't make any plans later in April thank you we are adjourned