The bill, entitled the “Job Protection and Civil Rights Enforcement Act of 2013″, would make it easier for employees to sue their employers or places of business for alleged discrimination. Additionally, as described in the legislation, the bill “would allow the additional remedies of compensatory and punitive damages in employment discrimination cases brought under state law.”

The measure would be a boon for lawyers not only in that it would allow for a greater number of employment and discrimination lawsuits to be filed, it would also provide compensation for attorney fees and costs to be covered if the plaintiff were to prevail in the case.

The bill notes that “[c]urrent law does not permit an award of compensatory or punitive damages or attorney fees and costs to a plaintiff who prevails in a complaint before the Colorado civil rights commission or in a lawsuit alleging a discriminatory or unfair employment practice under state law”. HB 1303 would change this precedent.

Senator Carroll previously worked in employment law at a firm with her mother after she graduated and became an attorney. As of January 1, 2013, Carroll was hired by Bachus & Schanker as a practicing lawyer and as such would stand to benefit financially from the legislation. Carroll would handle cases directly associated with the types of suits that would be allowed if HB 1136 were to be passed. A press release from her law firm confirms this: “On January 1, 2013, Bachus & Schanker welcomed State Senator Morgan Carroll as an attorney in the law firm, working in the areas of mass torts, employment law, and social security.”

As outlined by both the Colorado Constitution and Senate Rules, legislators with conflicts of interests are expected, if not required, to recuse themselves and not vote on the measure before them.

Under Colorado Constitution Art. V, sec. 43, House Rule 21(c), Senate Rules 17(c) and 41, and Joint Rule 42, a member of the General Assembly who has a personal or financial interest in pending legislation is required to disclose the fact of that interest and may not vote on the legislation.

Specifically, Senate Rule 17(c) states that, “Any Senator having a personal or private interest in any question or bill pending, shall disclose such fact to the Senate and shall not vote thereon, and if the vote be by ayes and noes, such fact shall be entered in the journal.”

Ethical principles set forth in statute, such as C.R.S. 24-18-107, also provide guidance in matters of conflict of interest.

For example, former Speaker of the House Frank McNulty (R) recused himself earlier this year on HB 13-1121, a pharmaceutical bill, because he wife is a registered lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry. Representative Garcia also excused himself from a vote on legislation in the current session. In other recent legislative sessions, Representatives Scott, Weissmann, and Baumgardner have all recused themselves on votes with potential conflicts of interest.

Despite statues and rules which provide ethics guidance, and historical precedent in the use of the same, Morgan not only plans to vote on the bill, but is a primary sponsor listed on the legislation and has spearheaded the debate in the Senate.

Sources inside the capitol have informed Media Trackers that Morgan Carroll will likely vote on the bill this evening in the Senate and may prove to be the deciding vote on the controversial measure.

Aside from her current role as a paid trial lawyer, Carroll’s political campaigns have, without fail, been supported by lawyers associations and lobbyists. Carroll has received nearly $3,000 directly from the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association. Lawyers and lobbyists are the number one financial backer of Carroll’s political campaigns, with the industry contributing $53,177 to her House and Senate races since 2004.

A total of 502 lobbyists have signed on to the bill, according to 30 pages of online filings with the Colorado Secretary of State’s office. All of the major lawyers associations are in favor of the bill including the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, the Plaintiff Employment Lawyer’s Association, and the Colorado Bar Association.

In addition, key union groups such as 9to5, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, and the United Transportation Union have rallied behind the measure. One Colorado, the Bell Policy Center, and nearly a dozen other liberal advocacy organizations across the state have also hired lobbyists to argue in favor of the partisan legislation.

Those in opposition to the the bill are regional business alliances and chambers of commerce from all across the state including Denver, Aurora, Colorado Springs, Douglas County, and Jefferson County.

This story was originally featured at Media Trackers Colorado.

The Resolution was initially received by two lone Democrats, Senator Irene Aguilar (D-Denver) and Representative Joann Ginal (D-Fort Collins). Aguilar introduced and sponsored SCR-002 in the Senate with the organizational backing of CFUHC, but soon after had to spike the legislation after the universal coverage plan received nearly universal opposition by both the legislature and outside advocacy groups.

CFUHC and Senator Aguilar have held close ties since the Foundation’s inception. Ivan J. Miller, the President of CFUHC, financially supported Aguilar and her political campaign for Senate when she was first elected in 2011. Miller has also given to a dozen other issue campaigns and candidates in Colorado since 2009 – all of them Democrats.

Vice President William Semple personally donated to Aguilar twice last election cycle. Lyn Gullette, CFUHC’s Secretary, also gave twice. All but two of the Foundation’s Board of Directors contributed to Senator Aguilar’s election efforts and the two members who did not donate had no recorded history of political giving.

CFUHC is set up in Colorado as a registered trademark name of the larger Patient Advocacy Coalition that was established in the state in 1996. Miller, the current President of CFUHC, is also listed as the registered agent of the Patient Advocacy Coalition. The Coalition became delinquent with the Secretary of State’s office in 2007 and 2009, when Miller failed to file the required annual reports.

In addition to his efforts to enact government run healthcare at a state level with both the Coalition and the Foundation, Miller also serves as the volunteer Health Care Policy Advisor for Senator Aguilar.

CFUHC’s work to enact a form of state controlled healthcare in Colorado has been shown to come with serious financial ramifications. Miller and Senator Aguilar’s SCR-002, for example, was estimated to cost Colorado taxpayers a whopping $16.2 billion in increased payroll and state income taxes every year by 2017, according to the Resolution’s fiscal note finings by the General Assembly. On top of the increased tax burden, the cost to the state of Colorado would be approximately $25 million in the next four years.

In order to continue to defend its position and combat the unbiased fiscal notes, CFUHC had to hire and economist from Massachusetts to publish a statement saying that state run healthcare would save Coloradans money in the long run. Gerald Friedman, the University of Massachusetts professor who agreed to work with CFUHC, also has a history with unions and has written extensively supporting big labor in the United States.

This story was originally featured at Media Trackers Colorado.

The petition for appeal was brought by the ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, Taxpayers for Public Education, Interfaith Alliance, and several individuals with strong ties to organized labor. In a joint press release which addressed reasons for the challenge, the groups continued to incorrectly assert that the CSP directly funds and illegally benefits private religious schools.

The ACLU’s recent press release highlighted the dispute over the constitutionality and alleged cost of the CSP.

“This case raises issues important to the constitutionally mandated public-education system in Colorado, which is facing serious financial difficulties,” said attorney Matthew J. Douglas of the Denver office of the international law firm Arnold & Porter LLP, who argued the appeal on behalf of ACLU.

While opponents claim the CSP has deprived public school districts of funds, the innovative charter school program from the Douglas County Board of Education (BOE) simply allows “per-pupil funding” to follow scholarship recipients to the school of their choice, whether religious or secular.

Absent from press releases and petitions to the court is the fact that students enrolled in the CSP would have been enrolled within the Douglas County district regardless. In order to participate in the program, scholarship recipients have to be residents of the county and enrolled in Douglas County public schools for at least one year prior to enrollment in the program.

Additionally, the proverbial Hail Mary to the Colorado Supreme Court fails to recognize that the CSP actually results in public schools receiving 25 percent of the per-pupil funding for students they no longer have to teach whenever a student takes advantage of the program to attend another school.

Despite the Appeals Court’s well-documented ruling that CSP funds benefit the student, not the sectarian institution, plaintiffs have continued to insist the government may not disburse scholarship funds if any of the fund recipients are religious.

As the Supreme Court weighs whether or not to hear the CSP case, many of the complaints of the plaintiffs turn on an assumption that once a private school has received public funds, it effectively becomes a public school. This would then subject it to all statutes regarding employment discrimination, religious indoctrination, and so on. However, the Appeals Court explicitly rejected this idea on the basis that the funds are received for and by the students, for their benefit, and not disbursed to the schools directly.

Beyond the merits of the case, the Supreme Court may also decide whether or not those opposed to the charter school program even have the standing to bring suit. It is unclear whether or not private citizens have sustained injury due to the existence of the CSP. Although the appellate court did not rule on whether the injury was clear, it did cite existing precedent that gives school boards significant leeway when stipulating how school funds are managed, which favors the legality of the CSP’s direction of funds.

The defense for DCSD and the CSP has until April 22 to file a responsive petition to the Supreme Court.

This post was originally featured at Media Trackers Colorado.

A total of 89 pages of findings against the MMED were reviewed by the Legislative Audit Committee this morning, and included multiple $1,000 office chairs, 50 BlackBerry cell phones, and 33 government vehicles for the Division’s 37 full time employees. The March 12 report from State Auditor Dianne Ray’s office found that MMED’s careless spending has prevented medicinal marijuana from being properly regulated in the state, concluding, ”Overall, we found that the Division has not managed its resources effectively to meet its objectives.”

 The audit report advised MMED to develop new fee-setting processes, stronger control over expenses and purchasing, and better performance management and strategic planning. In all, thirteen different recommendations were noted throughout the audit as issues MMED must address in order to operate as intended.

Auditor’s office staff also found that nearly a quarter of all expenses recorded by MMED did not appear reasonable or sufficiently calculated. For example, the division claimed that the purchase of 50 Black Berry smartphones was necessary for occasions when a staff member was out of the office visiting medical marijuana businesses.

The $31,000 MMED spent on 21 tablet computers in fiscal year 2012 was justified as useful for employees in helping them document their work. The Division also “spent about $250,000 on furniture in Fiscal Year 2011. The furniture purchases in our sample included $28,000 for seven desk extenders, $16,000 for three cubicles, and $4,200 for four office chairs.”

Representative Daniel Nordberg (R-Colorado Springs), who sits on the bipartisan Legislative Audit Committee comprised of legislators from both the House and the Senate, was troubled by the state auditor’s findings.

“I am absolutely appalled by the government waste being presented in this morning’s audit of the Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division (MMED),” Nordberg posted to his Facebook page this morning. Nordberg concluded that the audit “continues the disturbing theme of no accountability in [Governor] Hickenlooper’s administration.”

Senator Steve King (R-Grand Junction), who co-chairs the Committee, agreed with his fellow legislator, adding: “It seems to me we have a dysfunctional system of tracking the marijuana.”

The Department of Public Health and Environment, which oversees the MMED, agreed to the recommendations made in the report from Auditor Ray and upheld by the Legislative Audit Committee. The Department of Revenue agreed to the auditor’s recommendations, as well, and the agencies will begin implementation of new processes this summer.

The stinging MMED audit report comes on the heels of a January Colorado Energy Office (CEO) report which uncovered $250 million in unaccounted for and mismanaged funds over the last six years.

This story was originally featured at Media Trackers Colorado.

While the words “Republican” and “Union” are rarely seen anywhere near each other, the Republican Union PAC believes that is just where they belong. Taking over the typical strategy of the left’s prized union members, Republican Union PAC also promises boots on the ground for the path ahead. But rather than the shouts and cries of unity with big labor, Republican Union PAC brings with it a message of solidarity among grassroots, community organizations, and other political partners from all across the country.

In other words, Republican Union PAC desires to be the new face of the right’s ground game. And, unlike many other PACs that serve their purpose in only one or two election cycles, Republican Union PAC is in it for the long haul.

Republican Union PAC’s mission statement is a practical outline of that vision: “The Republican Union PAC was created to fund, train, deploy and organize grass roots activists in communities strategically important to electing a Republican majority in the United States Senate and House of Representatives, as well as to electing a Republican President.”

Patrick Davis, nationally known political consultant and one of the founders of the Republican Union PAC, believes that such a mission is simple and straightforward.

Davis explains the Republican Union PAC in light of the left’s union strategy by noting that, “Union groups usually associated with the left have played a good ground game for a long time in this way: they take their members from a number of protected states and channel them into key areas throughout the country. The members are put up in a hotel and the unions hold their undivided attention as the volunteers phone bank or are sent door-to-door for eight or ten hours a day.”

It could be said that the Republican Union PAC shares a similar logistical vision in that it allows the opportunity for those on the right to be better mobilized for the cause. It gives willing and available activists on the right the ability to volunteer for several days, a week, or even a month on the front lines for key issues and campaigns.

Instead of being limited to one physical location or their own personal social media networks, Republican Union PAC would fund individuals to go and assist full-time in campaigns where they are most needed. The energy and time that would have been spent pushing content to Facebook and Twitter all day to a select group of friends can be channeled and maximized into forty hours a week of phone banking, door knocking, community outreach, and a greater social media messaging platform to stand on.

Early this week, the Republican Party published its “Growth and Opportunity Project,” a report that also scored an extensive write-up in the Wall Street Journal. The Project highlighted the GOP’s goals and intentions for the Party’s path forward. One of the key resolutions underscored in the report and a running theme was to “encourage PAC’s and outside groups to invest in field staff and technology, not just TV ads.”

Considering the structure and purpose of the organization, the Republican Union PAC seems uniquely equipped to address and resolve this very issue.

Long before the Growth and Opportunity Project was released, Davis was aware of the need for this refined strategy, which is what led him to kick start the Republican Union PAC. 

“Republican Union PAC was positioned perfectly in 2012 to solve this problem,” Davis said. “Republican Union PAC and other grassroots focused outside groups were ignored and purposely underfunded and in some cases unfunded. Conservative donors were encouraged to fund media efforts only, amassing hundreds of millions into a few media centric Super PACs.”

Put differently, there was certainly “enough to go around” on the conservative side in 2012, but the money simply did not get passed around.

Davis concluded that, “In the 2014 and 2016 cycles, Republican Union PAC and our allied conservative grassroots-focused outside groups are prepared to pick up this shovel and begin digging the conservative movement out of this hole. As with anything all that is needed is funding dedicated to field staff and technology.”

Davis and the others involved in kick-starting the Republican Union PAC are both energetic and optimistic; rare but desperately-needed qualities in this soul searching season for the conservative movement. The way they see it, Republican Union PAC is an opportunity to build on the successes of the right and to capitalize on what works as Republicans move into the upcoming election cycles.

The Republican Union PAC is a project worthy of investment. With its focus on solidarity and providing the resources necessary to put boots on the ground, it can and will prove to be a valuable asset to the right’s revamped infrastructure and ground game moving forward.

For example, Fields pleaded guilty to writing bad checks in 1998 when she was charged by the Ft. Collins Police Department. Fields was eventually required to pay fines and court costs of $344. The charge could have landed Fields a jail sentence of up to 30 days.

Fields also demonstrated a willful disregard for state and local traffic laws, racking up infractions in 2011, when she was a sitting lawmaker, in 2009, and in 2007.  In 2011, she was fined $130 for a lane assignment infraction near the intersection of 6th and Lincoln in Denver. She was fined $130 in 2009 for speeding between 15 and 19 miles per hour over the speed limit at the Denver International Airport. In December of 2007, she was fined $190 for speeding between 10 and 14 miles per hour over the speed limit in Denver.

A 1989 careless driving charge in Littleton ended up costing Fields a fine of $576. That case was finally closed in 1996 according to court records.

All told, the fines connected to Fields’ five previously unreported criminal infractions total more than $1,300.

Given that Fields has chosen a high profile role in pushing for new restrictions on gun and ammunition ownership, her past record of ignoring simple traffic laws calls into question her assumption that violent criminals will abide by any new gun restrictions.

Fields has not responded to multiple requests for comment by Media Trackers Colorado.

This story was originally featured at Media Trackers Colorado.