Seed Newsvine
A physician will replace resigning Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver.
Dr. Irene Aguilar, a champion of a single-payer health care system who has pushed for adoption of a bill creating one in Colorado, was chosen by the Senate district 32 Democratic vacancy committee.
According to the Denver Post, Aguilar beat Rep. Beth McCann, D-Denver, by a wide margin among the party activists who voted.
Romer is leaving office Dec. 31 to seek election as Denver mayor.
Since he was re-elected Nov. 2 to a second four-year Senate term that begins next month, Aguilar can serve until January 2015 before facing the voters.
Showing posts with label Chris Romer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chris Romer. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Friday, December 10, 2010
Post: Scanlan, Romer to leave seats Dec. 31
Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, and Rep. Christine Scanlan, D-Summit County, will leave the General Assembly on Dec. 31.
That's according to a report in today's Denver Post.
Romer resigned to seek election as Denver mayor, while Scanlan is joining Gov.-elect John Hickenlooper's staff.
Democratic vacancy committees will appoint replacements.
That's according to a report in today's Denver Post.
Romer resigned to seek election as Denver mayor, while Scanlan is joining Gov.-elect John Hickenlooper's staff.
Democratic vacancy committees will appoint replacements.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Romer to leave Senate to seek Denver mayor's job
Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, is leaving the legislature.
Romer, who was elected to second term in the Senate Nov. 2, announced Tuesday that he will resign his seat so that he can seek election as Denver's mayor.
He made his announcement at a meeting of business advocates, promising to balance the city's budget.
Early speculation has Rep. Beth McCann, D-Denver, being the most likely replacement for Romer.
A district 32 vacancy committee will have to make that decision, and McCann won't be the only option the members have.
According to a report in Wednesday's Denver Post, Denver Democratic Party secretary Owen Perkins, former federal civil servant Jeff Hart, physician Irene Aguilar, and environmentalist Matt Royster may also seek the appointment.
If McCann is appointed to fill the remainder of Romer's term, which would expire in January 2015, she would also be replaced in House district 8 by a vacancy committee.
Romer, who was elected to second term in the Senate Nov. 2, announced Tuesday that he will resign his seat so that he can seek election as Denver's mayor.
He made his announcement at a meeting of business advocates, promising to balance the city's budget.
Early speculation has Rep. Beth McCann, D-Denver, being the most likely replacement for Romer.
A district 32 vacancy committee will have to make that decision, and McCann won't be the only option the members have.
According to a report in Wednesday's Denver Post, Denver Democratic Party secretary Owen Perkins, former federal civil servant Jeff Hart, physician Irene Aguilar, and environmentalist Matt Royster may also seek the appointment.
If McCann is appointed to fill the remainder of Romer's term, which would expire in January 2015, she would also be replaced in House district 8 by a vacancy committee.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Tuition Bill Clears Appropriations Committee
The controversial bill that would allow some children who unlawfully emigrated to the United States with their parents to pay in-state tuition at Colorado universities and colleges cleared a key procedural hurdle this morning.
SB 170 was approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee and will now go to the floor.
The measure had been expected to run into trouble before the ten-member panel, as one of the six Democrats among the committee members said she would oppose it. But Sen. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch, was absent from the committee's meeting today and so the bill was cleared on a 5-4 vote. Democrat Moe Keller, D-Wheat Ridge, joined the Republicans on the panel in opposition.
SB 170 was approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee and will now go to the floor.
The measure had been expected to run into trouble before the ten-member panel, as one of the six Democrats among the committee members said she would oppose it. But Sen. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch, was absent from the committee's meeting today and so the bill was cleared on a 5-4 vote. Democrat Moe Keller, D-Wheat Ridge, joined the Republicans on the panel in opposition.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Legal Experts Dispute GOP Claim that Bill Granting In-State Tuition to Undocumented Immigrants Contradicts Federal Law
Keith King is convinced that Colorado cannot make in-state tuition rates at its colleges and universities available to the children who are undocumented immigrants.
In a video released by the Republican senate caucus Wednesday the veteran legislator and first-term senator argued that SB 170 violates federal law.
The Colorado Springs Republican senator is not alone in his view.
Attorney General John Suthers (R) issued a 2006 opinion in which he asserted that the state is forbidden to charge resident tuition to kids brought across an international border by their parents without permission from Congress.
The issue is driving an animated debate at the capitol, as Democratic Sen. Chris Romer of Denver and Rep. Joe Miklosi, D-Denver, are sponsoring a measure that would allow some immigrant children who have attended high school in Colorado to pay in-state tuition at any of the state's institutions of higher learning.
Despite GOP certainty on the issue, though, some legal experts believe federal law poses no obstacle at all to the passage of SB 170.
At the core of the dispute is the meaning of two federal statutes enacted in 1996.
The first of those federal laws, called the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, says that undocumented immigrants are ineligible for state-based “public benefits,” including “postsecondary education.”
But the statute also says that “[a] [s]tate may provide that an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States is eligible for any [s]tate or local public benefit for which such alien would otherwise be ineligible . . . only through the enactment of a [s]tate law after August 22, 1996, which affirmatively provides for such eligibility.”
The second, known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, says that “an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a [s]tate . . . for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”
Suthers said in his 2006 opinion, which was requested by the then-executive director of the state's Commission on Higher Education, Rick O'Donnell, that the first of these two laws means that "aliens are ineligible to receive 'state or local public benefits' unless, through enactment of a state law after August 22, 1996, the state 'affirmatively provides' for such eligibility." The second federal law, according to Suthers, means that "undocumented aliens [are] ineligible for in-state tuition status so long as such status is conferred based on residency in the state."
But Professor Michael A. Olivas, the director of the Institute for Higher Education Law and Governance at the University of Houston Law Center, says Suthers' interpretation is incorrect.
"It is a very symmetrical arrangement that the restrictionists have completely ignored," Olivas said. "They say, 'If Congress has said if you give this status to someone who is undocumented you have to give it to everybody.' That is not at all what the statute says."
“What that means is, you may not give an enhanced status to someone who is undocumented with regard to rate duration and time. That means that someone from New Mexico could not be held to a 12-month standard and someone who is undocumented be held to a six-month standard."
The proposed Colorado law would require undocumented immigrants to have lived in the state for at least three years and to have graduated from a Colorado high school or obtained a GED to qualify for in-state tuition. American citizens qualify for in-state tuition rates at Colorado colleges if they can prove they have resided in the state for one year and intend to continue making Colorado their home.
Olivas said that there is no definitive judicial resolution of the argument about the meaning of the two 1996 federal laws available.
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which is based in Denver and which has jurisdiction over federal cases arising in Colorado, ruled in 2007 that a group of college students in Kansas could not challenge a Sunshine State law similar to that being considered in the General Assembly.
In that decision, which came in a case known as Day v. Sebelius, the appeals court judges said the students lacked "standing" because they could not prove they were harmed by the law. The U.S. Supreme Court later declined to review that decision.
Olivas says the Tenth Circuit's ruling reflects common sense.
“My getting in-state tuition in Colorado doesn’t mean someone else doesn’t get it," he said. "It’s not like admission.”
There is another case pending in the California supreme court that challenges a similar law in that state, Olivas said, but it would be unlikely to have any impact on a Colorado law because Colorado courts are not bound by the findings of California state court judges and it is probable that the two states' laws would be significantly different.
In that California case, called Martinez v. Regents of the University of California, a state intermediate appeals court reversed the dismissal of a complaint by a college student that the Golden State's law granting undocumented immigrants the right to pay in-state tuition at state colleges. But that California court of appeals ruling was ordered "de-published," or removed from the law books, when the California supreme court decided in December to review the case.
Olivas is not alone in his assessment of the impact of federal immigration law on states' authority to offer resident tuition rates to undocumented immigrants.
In a letter sent to the attorney general of Texas last October, five other law professors took a similar view. In addition, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security told the North Carolina Department of Justice in a letter last July that the two 1996 federal immigration statutes have no impact on states' decisions about whether to admit undocumented immigrants to their colleges and universities.
Notwithstanding Olivas' certainty about the impact of federal law on state in-state tuition statutes, there are other authorities on immigration law who insist Congress did indeed mean to forbid access to in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants.
Ralph Kasarda, a lawyer with Pacific Legal Foundation who has filed an amicus curiae brief arguing on behalf of the college students in the California case, said he is certain the laws similar to SB 170 that have been adopted in ten states are blocked by federal law.
"I believe the federal law preempts all of these state laws," Kasarda said. "The federal law speaks of a post-secondary education benefit and the legislative history behind that certainly indicates that Congress was contemplating in-state tuition. So the law says that states can't grant a post-secondary education benefit to an illegal alien unless that same benefit is granted to out-of-state students without regard to residence."
"I would come down with the appellate court here in California, which said a law like that violates federal law."
Kasarda also dismissed claims that the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents Congress from imposing a barrier to state attempts to make in-state tuition available to undocumented immigrants.
"It's illegal to hire an illegal immigrant," Kasarda said. "Just their presence in the united States is illegal, so providing assistance to them is illegal. So, for a state to give assistance to an illegal alien is thwarting federal immigration laws and would be preempted on that basis."
The controversy over SB 170 may be mooted soon in any event.
A proposed federal law known as the DREAM Act, which passed the U.S. Senate in 1996 before dying when a comprehensive immigration reform bill was killed by a filibuster in 2007, would make clear that undocumented immigrants who meet certain criteria may pay in-state tuition rates at state colleges and universities.
A spokesperson for U.S. Rep. Howard Berman, D-California, who has previously been the prime sponsor of the bill in the House of Representatives, said the DREAM Act would be reintroduced in the current Congress "in the next several weeks."
Colorado's 2nd District Congressman, Democrat Jared Polis of Boulder, is expected to be a co-sponsor and leading proponent of that bill.
The states other than California that have laws granting some undocumented immigrants access to in-state college tuition are Washington, Texas, Illinois, Nebraska, New York, Utah, Kansas and New Mexico. Oklahoma had a similar law in effect between 2003 and 2007.
In a video released by the Republican senate caucus Wednesday the veteran legislator and first-term senator argued that SB 170 violates federal law.
The Colorado Springs Republican senator is not alone in his view.
Attorney General John Suthers (R) issued a 2006 opinion in which he asserted that the state is forbidden to charge resident tuition to kids brought across an international border by their parents without permission from Congress.
The issue is driving an animated debate at the capitol, as Democratic Sen. Chris Romer of Denver and Rep. Joe Miklosi, D-Denver, are sponsoring a measure that would allow some immigrant children who have attended high school in Colorado to pay in-state tuition at any of the state's institutions of higher learning.
Despite GOP certainty on the issue, though, some legal experts believe federal law poses no obstacle at all to the passage of SB 170.
At the core of the dispute is the meaning of two federal statutes enacted in 1996.
The first of those federal laws, called the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, says that undocumented immigrants are ineligible for state-based “public benefits,” including “postsecondary education.”
But the statute also says that “[a] [s]tate may provide that an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States is eligible for any [s]tate or local public benefit for which such alien would otherwise be ineligible . . . only through the enactment of a [s]tate law after August 22, 1996, which affirmatively provides for such eligibility.”
The second, known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, says that “an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a [s]tate . . . for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”
Suthers said in his 2006 opinion, which was requested by the then-executive director of the state's Commission on Higher Education, Rick O'Donnell, that the first of these two laws means that "aliens are ineligible to receive 'state or local public benefits' unless, through enactment of a state law after August 22, 1996, the state 'affirmatively provides' for such eligibility." The second federal law, according to Suthers, means that "undocumented aliens [are] ineligible for in-state tuition status so long as such status is conferred based on residency in the state."
But Professor Michael A. Olivas, the director of the Institute for Higher Education Law and Governance at the University of Houston Law Center, says Suthers' interpretation is incorrect.
"It is a very symmetrical arrangement that the restrictionists have completely ignored," Olivas said. "They say, 'If Congress has said if you give this status to someone who is undocumented you have to give it to everybody.' That is not at all what the statute says."
“What that means is, you may not give an enhanced status to someone who is undocumented with regard to rate duration and time. That means that someone from New Mexico could not be held to a 12-month standard and someone who is undocumented be held to a six-month standard."
The proposed Colorado law would require undocumented immigrants to have lived in the state for at least three years and to have graduated from a Colorado high school or obtained a GED to qualify for in-state tuition. American citizens qualify for in-state tuition rates at Colorado colleges if they can prove they have resided in the state for one year and intend to continue making Colorado their home.
Olivas said that there is no definitive judicial resolution of the argument about the meaning of the two 1996 federal laws available.
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which is based in Denver and which has jurisdiction over federal cases arising in Colorado, ruled in 2007 that a group of college students in Kansas could not challenge a Sunshine State law similar to that being considered in the General Assembly.
In that decision, which came in a case known as Day v. Sebelius, the appeals court judges said the students lacked "standing" because they could not prove they were harmed by the law. The U.S. Supreme Court later declined to review that decision.
Olivas says the Tenth Circuit's ruling reflects common sense.
“My getting in-state tuition in Colorado doesn’t mean someone else doesn’t get it," he said. "It’s not like admission.”
There is another case pending in the California supreme court that challenges a similar law in that state, Olivas said, but it would be unlikely to have any impact on a Colorado law because Colorado courts are not bound by the findings of California state court judges and it is probable that the two states' laws would be significantly different.
In that California case, called Martinez v. Regents of the University of California, a state intermediate appeals court reversed the dismissal of a complaint by a college student that the Golden State's law granting undocumented immigrants the right to pay in-state tuition at state colleges. But that California court of appeals ruling was ordered "de-published," or removed from the law books, when the California supreme court decided in December to review the case.
Olivas is not alone in his assessment of the impact of federal immigration law on states' authority to offer resident tuition rates to undocumented immigrants.
In a letter sent to the attorney general of Texas last October, five other law professors took a similar view. In addition, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security told the North Carolina Department of Justice in a letter last July that the two 1996 federal immigration statutes have no impact on states' decisions about whether to admit undocumented immigrants to their colleges and universities.
Notwithstanding Olivas' certainty about the impact of federal law on state in-state tuition statutes, there are other authorities on immigration law who insist Congress did indeed mean to forbid access to in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants.
Ralph Kasarda, a lawyer with Pacific Legal Foundation who has filed an amicus curiae brief arguing on behalf of the college students in the California case, said he is certain the laws similar to SB 170 that have been adopted in ten states are blocked by federal law.
"I believe the federal law preempts all of these state laws," Kasarda said. "The federal law speaks of a post-secondary education benefit and the legislative history behind that certainly indicates that Congress was contemplating in-state tuition. So the law says that states can't grant a post-secondary education benefit to an illegal alien unless that same benefit is granted to out-of-state students without regard to residence."
"I would come down with the appellate court here in California, which said a law like that violates federal law."
Kasarda also dismissed claims that the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents Congress from imposing a barrier to state attempts to make in-state tuition available to undocumented immigrants.
"It's illegal to hire an illegal immigrant," Kasarda said. "Just their presence in the united States is illegal, so providing assistance to them is illegal. So, for a state to give assistance to an illegal alien is thwarting federal immigration laws and would be preempted on that basis."
The controversy over SB 170 may be mooted soon in any event.
A proposed federal law known as the DREAM Act, which passed the U.S. Senate in 1996 before dying when a comprehensive immigration reform bill was killed by a filibuster in 2007, would make clear that undocumented immigrants who meet certain criteria may pay in-state tuition rates at state colleges and universities.
A spokesperson for U.S. Rep. Howard Berman, D-California, who has previously been the prime sponsor of the bill in the House of Representatives, said the DREAM Act would be reintroduced in the current Congress "in the next several weeks."
Colorado's 2nd District Congressman, Democrat Jared Polis of Boulder, is expected to be a co-sponsor and leading proponent of that bill.
The states other than California that have laws granting some undocumented immigrants access to in-state college tuition are Washington, Texas, Illinois, Nebraska, New York, Utah, Kansas and New Mexico. Oklahoma had a similar law in effect between 2003 and 2007.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Controversial Measure Giving Some Immigrant Kids In-State College Tuition Eligibility Advances in Senate
A controversial bill that would allow immigrant kids who have spent three years in Colorado to pay resident tuition rates at the state's colleges and universities cleared a Senate committee Thursday.
SB 170 would not permit students who entered the United States in violation of federal immigration laws to receive Colorado Opportunity Fund grants, as other students who pay in-state tuition rates can, and specifies that those students would not be eligible for state-awarded financial aid.
College Opportunity Fund grants provide $2,000 vouchers that can be used to pay in-state tuition.
Nevertheless, Republicans on the Senate Education Committee attacked the measure as one that rewards illegal behavior and deludes immigrant kids into believing they have a future in the United States.
"Your bill fosters false hope," Sen. Keith King, R-Colorado Springs, told sponsoring Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, during the five-hour hearing. "It doesn’t matter if they have a four-year degree or not. They are going to be deported."
Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, said the bill amounts to "creeping amnesty."
But Democrats argued that a college education is valuable no matter where an immigrant child ends up living and that offering educational opportunities will reduce crime, substance abuse and other socially destructive behaviors.
"I think you build great societies by offering hope," Romer said. "When you offer people hopelessness, they do hopeless things."
Senate president Peter Groff, D-Denver, also argued that the bill ensures that the state is not punishing children for the crimes of their parents.
He said the bill involves a "moral issue."
Romer modified his original proposal to require beneficiaries of the bill to file an affidavit stating they would apply for U.S. citizenship before the committee approved SB 170 on a 5-3 party-line vote.
Despite opposition from GOP legislators, Romer's proposal has support from several prominent Republican businessmen. Colorado Rockies co-owner Dick Monfort testified in support of the bill, as did prominent energy industry executive Alex Cranberg.
The measure is also supported by the Colorado Education Association and Colorado Association of School Executives.
Approval of SB 170 came one day before the House Appropriations Committee approved another bill that would grant in-state tuition eligibility to armed forces veterans.
Romer's bill now heads to the Senate floor, where a partisan fight is expected.
Ten other states have enacted similar legislation.
SB 170 would not permit students who entered the United States in violation of federal immigration laws to receive Colorado Opportunity Fund grants, as other students who pay in-state tuition rates can, and specifies that those students would not be eligible for state-awarded financial aid.
College Opportunity Fund grants provide $2,000 vouchers that can be used to pay in-state tuition.
Nevertheless, Republicans on the Senate Education Committee attacked the measure as one that rewards illegal behavior and deludes immigrant kids into believing they have a future in the United States.
"Your bill fosters false hope," Sen. Keith King, R-Colorado Springs, told sponsoring Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, during the five-hour hearing. "It doesn’t matter if they have a four-year degree or not. They are going to be deported."
Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, said the bill amounts to "creeping amnesty."
But Democrats argued that a college education is valuable no matter where an immigrant child ends up living and that offering educational opportunities will reduce crime, substance abuse and other socially destructive behaviors.
"I think you build great societies by offering hope," Romer said. "When you offer people hopelessness, they do hopeless things."
Senate president Peter Groff, D-Denver, also argued that the bill ensures that the state is not punishing children for the crimes of their parents.
He said the bill involves a "moral issue."
Romer modified his original proposal to require beneficiaries of the bill to file an affidavit stating they would apply for U.S. citizenship before the committee approved SB 170 on a 5-3 party-line vote.
Despite opposition from GOP legislators, Romer's proposal has support from several prominent Republican businessmen. Colorado Rockies co-owner Dick Monfort testified in support of the bill, as did prominent energy industry executive Alex Cranberg.
The measure is also supported by the Colorado Education Association and Colorado Association of School Executives.
Approval of SB 170 came one day before the House Appropriations Committee approved another bill that would grant in-state tuition eligibility to armed forces veterans.
Romer's bill now heads to the Senate floor, where a partisan fight is expected.
Ten other states have enacted similar legislation.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Mandatory CO Monitor Bill To Get Committee Hearing Thursday
A House committee will hear Thursday a bill that aims to require all homes put up for sale in Colorado, whether new or existing, and all apartments to have carbon monoxide detectors.
HB 1091, named for its sponsors after the Lofgren family of Denver, is expected to draw support from firefighters in addition to state health officials.
"We have lost too many Colorado lives over the past few months," Rep. John Soper,
D-Thornton, a sponsor of the bill, said. "We must do everything we can to prevent these tragedies from occurring again. I am an electrician and I know that the installation of carbon monoxide detectors is a reasonable addition to new homes that can prevent senseless deaths and injuries.”
Soper and cosponsoring Rep. Lois Court, D-Denver, said they are motivated to push the bill after the Lofgren family of Denver died in a west slope carbon monoxide poisoning incident over the Thanksgiving weekend. Since then a University of Denver college student also died of CO poisoning in her apartment.
Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, will carry the bill in the Senate.
HB 1091, named for its sponsors after the Lofgren family of Denver, is expected to draw support from firefighters in addition to state health officials.
"We have lost too many Colorado lives over the past few months," Rep. John Soper,
D-Thornton, a sponsor of the bill, said. "We must do everything we can to prevent these tragedies from occurring again. I am an electrician and I know that the installation of carbon monoxide detectors is a reasonable addition to new homes that can prevent senseless deaths and injuries.”
Soper and cosponsoring Rep. Lois Court, D-Denver, said they are motivated to push the bill after the Lofgren family of Denver died in a west slope carbon monoxide poisoning incident over the Thanksgiving weekend. Since then a University of Denver college student also died of CO poisoning in her apartment.
Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, will carry the bill in the Senate.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Senate Gives Preliminary OK to CAP4K, Adds English Proficiency Requirement
Gov. Bill Ritter's signature education initiative gained preliminary approval in the Senate Thursday after lawmakers decided to require school districts and charter schools to assure that all students are proficient in the use of the English language.
The measure, which has bipartisan sponsorship in both chambers, would require schools to track the readiness of students entering high school, mandate that credit be given by means other than "seat time" in a class, and update the state's curriculum standards.
The Senate adopted an amendment by Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, that would add to the curriculum standards a requirement that all students show proficiency in spoken and written English before receiving a diploma. However, it leaves the mechanism for achieving those standards and verifying that a student has achieved them to local school districts and charter schools.
"The goals in SB 212 are not enough--we need to hold districts accountable for reaching and teaching students to speak English," Mitchell said. "If a student spends days, weeks, months and years, in a public school and is eligible to receive a diploma but hasn’t been taught to speak English, its not the student's fault, it's the system's fault. We are failing those students."
SB 212 also phases out the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) for ninth and tenth graders over time, replacing it with the American College Test (ACT).
The bill faces one more vote in the Senate before moving on to the House. Its primary sponsors are Reps. Christine Scanlan, D-Dillon, and Rob Witwer, R-Genesee, and Sens. Chris Romer, D-Denver, and Joshua Penry, R-Fruita.
The measure, which has bipartisan sponsorship in both chambers, would require schools to track the readiness of students entering high school, mandate that credit be given by means other than "seat time" in a class, and update the state's curriculum standards.
The Senate adopted an amendment by Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, that would add to the curriculum standards a requirement that all students show proficiency in spoken and written English before receiving a diploma. However, it leaves the mechanism for achieving those standards and verifying that a student has achieved them to local school districts and charter schools.
"The goals in SB 212 are not enough--we need to hold districts accountable for reaching and teaching students to speak English," Mitchell said. "If a student spends days, weeks, months and years, in a public school and is eligible to receive a diploma but hasn’t been taught to speak English, its not the student's fault, it's the system's fault. We are failing those students."
SB 212 also phases out the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) for ninth and tenth graders over time, replacing it with the American College Test (ACT).
The bill faces one more vote in the Senate before moving on to the House. Its primary sponsors are Reps. Christine Scanlan, D-Dillon, and Rob Witwer, R-Genesee, and Sens. Chris Romer, D-Denver, and Joshua Penry, R-Fruita.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Solar Energy Financing Bill Leaps First Hurdle
A bill that would make low- or no-interest loans available to homeowners and businesses who want to install solar energy collectors cleared a House committee today.
Under HB 1350, the state government, as well as local and county governments, would be given permission to lend money for investment in solar panels and other renewable energy technology.
According to a report in today's Denver Post, the cost of a solar system can average about $25,000. Some electric utilities offer rebates and there are tax incentives to assist with the purchase price. However, according to the Post report, such assistance defrays only about one-half of the purchase price of the system.
"Right now, even with the rebates and knowing it will save you money in the long run, many homeowners don't even consider putting solar on their house," said Rep. Alice Madden, D-Boulder, the bill sponsor. "They know they're going to have to come up with some up-front payment."
The bill would also make the loans available for improvements to a structure aimed at lowering energy use.
The measure is similar to a separate bill moving in the Senate. SB 184, sponsored by Democrat Chris Romer of Denver, would create a fund for loans to homeowners interested in doing smaller-scale energy efficiency improvements to their homes.
The committee vote to send HB 1350 to the House floor was unanimous.
Under HB 1350, the state government, as well as local and county governments, would be given permission to lend money for investment in solar panels and other renewable energy technology.
According to a report in today's Denver Post, the cost of a solar system can average about $25,000. Some electric utilities offer rebates and there are tax incentives to assist with the purchase price. However, according to the Post report, such assistance defrays only about one-half of the purchase price of the system.
"Right now, even with the rebates and knowing it will save you money in the long run, many homeowners don't even consider putting solar on their house," said Rep. Alice Madden, D-Boulder, the bill sponsor. "They know they're going to have to come up with some up-front payment."
The bill would also make the loans available for improvements to a structure aimed at lowering energy use.
The measure is similar to a separate bill moving in the Senate. SB 184, sponsored by Democrat Chris Romer of Denver, would create a fund for loans to homeowners interested in doing smaller-scale energy efficiency improvements to their homes.
The committee vote to send HB 1350 to the House floor was unanimous.
Friday, March 28, 2008
CAP4K Clears First Hurdle
Gov. Bill Ritter's far-reaching proposal to re-structure the state's public education system won approval from a Senate committee Thursday, clearing its first hurdle on the way to the lawbooks.
SB 212, which incorporates the governor's "Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids (CAP4K)", was approved by the Senate Education Committee on a unanimous, bipartisan vote.
CAP4K, which Ritter introduced at a press conference last month,has four principal elements:
1. The state Board of Education and Colorado Commission on Higher Education would be required to establish definitions of school readiness and college and workforce readiness.
2. The state's Model Content Standards that guide the high school curriculum would be expanded and improved. They would apply to all grades from pre-school to the first year of college (standards currently only exist for grades 3 through 10) and align those standards with the content and skills needed for success after high school.
3. The school readiness assessment program would be based on a goal of assuring that all students who graduate from high school are ready for college and/or the workforce.
4. Post-secondary institution admission policies would be modified to allow students to earn credit by proving their proficiency in a particular subject as opposed to limiting the circumstances under which knowledge can be assumed to a student's completion of a course.
Among the means used to assess student proficiency would be a series of subject-based examinations that would replace the CSAP tests.
SB 212 now goes to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
The bill's bipartisan prime sponsors include Reps. Christine Scanlan, D-Dillon, and Rob Witwer, R-Genesee, and Sens. Chris Romer, D-Denver, and Josh Penry, R-Fruita.
SB 212, which incorporates the governor's "Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids (CAP4K)", was approved by the Senate Education Committee on a unanimous, bipartisan vote.
CAP4K, which Ritter introduced at a press conference last month,has four principal elements:
1. The state Board of Education and Colorado Commission on Higher Education would be required to establish definitions of school readiness and college and workforce readiness.
2. The state's Model Content Standards that guide the high school curriculum would be expanded and improved. They would apply to all grades from pre-school to the first year of college (standards currently only exist for grades 3 through 10) and align those standards with the content and skills needed for success after high school.
3. The school readiness assessment program would be based on a goal of assuring that all students who graduate from high school are ready for college and/or the workforce.
4. Post-secondary institution admission policies would be modified to allow students to earn credit by proving their proficiency in a particular subject as opposed to limiting the circumstances under which knowledge can be assumed to a student's completion of a course.
Among the means used to assess student proficiency would be a series of subject-based examinations that would replace the CSAP tests.
SB 212 now goes to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
The bill's bipartisan prime sponsors include Reps. Christine Scanlan, D-Dillon, and Rob Witwer, R-Genesee, and Sens. Chris Romer, D-Denver, and Josh Penry, R-Fruita.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
McElhany's I-70 Toll Bill Passes Senate Committee
A bill that would require all motorists on I-70 to pay a toll at the Eisenhower tunnel cleared a Senate committee today.
SB 213, sponsored by Sen. Andy McElhany, R-Colorado Springs, was approved on a 5-2 vote. Among the senators voting "yes" were five co-sponsors of the measure.
The decision by the Senate Transportation Committee came after about two hours of testimony. Most of the witnesses testifying before the committee spoke against the bill. In fact, other than McElhany, the only person speaking in favor of the bill was Denver Chamber of Commerce president Joe Blake.
McElhany's bill would authorize the state to collect a toll of up to $5 on all cars and trucks moving in both directions on I-70.
McElhany, who is the Senate minority leader, said his bill aims only to secure a mechanism for funding whatever recommendations come out of the state department of transportation I-70 study process now underway.
The committee killed a competing proposal by Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver. SB 209 would have charged tolls on vehicles with less than three occupants only at peak travel times.
SB 213, sponsored by Sen. Andy McElhany, R-Colorado Springs, was approved on a 5-2 vote. Among the senators voting "yes" were five co-sponsors of the measure.
The decision by the Senate Transportation Committee came after about two hours of testimony. Most of the witnesses testifying before the committee spoke against the bill. In fact, other than McElhany, the only person speaking in favor of the bill was Denver Chamber of Commerce president Joe Blake.
McElhany's bill would authorize the state to collect a toll of up to $5 on all cars and trucks moving in both directions on I-70.
McElhany, who is the Senate minority leader, said his bill aims only to secure a mechanism for funding whatever recommendations come out of the state department of transportation I-70 study process now underway.
The committee killed a competing proposal by Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver. SB 209 would have charged tolls on vehicles with less than three occupants only at peak travel times.
I-70 Bills Get Hearings Today
Two bills aimed at reducing congestion on I-70 through the Rocky Mountains will be heard by a Senate committee today.
Both bills, introduced by Sens. Chris Romer, D-Denver, and Andy McElhany, R-Colorado Springs, contemplate tolls on the highway. Romer's proposal would assess the tolls on vehicles carrying three or fewer people and which are traveling during peak use periods. McElhany's bill proposes to charge tolls at all times.
The Romer bill would use money generated by the tolls to pay for mass transit expansion along the corridor, while the minority leader's measure would use the money to add additional lanes to the highway.
A report in today's Rocky Mountain News says that Colorado has already been given authority by the federal government to charge tolls on the interstate highway.
Some West Slope lawmakers are critical of the measures.
According to a report in this morning's Denver Post, Sen. Dan Gibbs, D-Silverthorne, thinks the General Assembly will be dealing with "Johnny-come-lately," since there is an ongoing review process underway. And the article quotes Rep. Christine Scanlan, D-Dillon, as saying there is no "magic bullet" to solve the I-70 congestion problems.
The state department of transportation has been sponsoring a collaborative study of possible ways to ease traffic woes on I-70.
The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority is also examining the feasibility of developing a high-speed passenger rail system for the I-70 corridor.
The bills are SB 209 (Romer) and SB 213 (McElhany).
Both bills, introduced by Sens. Chris Romer, D-Denver, and Andy McElhany, R-Colorado Springs, contemplate tolls on the highway. Romer's proposal would assess the tolls on vehicles carrying three or fewer people and which are traveling during peak use periods. McElhany's bill proposes to charge tolls at all times.
The Romer bill would use money generated by the tolls to pay for mass transit expansion along the corridor, while the minority leader's measure would use the money to add additional lanes to the highway.
A report in today's Rocky Mountain News says that Colorado has already been given authority by the federal government to charge tolls on the interstate highway.
Some West Slope lawmakers are critical of the measures.
According to a report in this morning's Denver Post, Sen. Dan Gibbs, D-Silverthorne, thinks the General Assembly will be dealing with "Johnny-come-lately," since there is an ongoing review process underway. And the article quotes Rep. Christine Scanlan, D-Dillon, as saying there is no "magic bullet" to solve the I-70 congestion problems.
The state department of transportation has been sponsoring a collaborative study of possible ways to ease traffic woes on I-70.
The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority is also examining the feasibility of developing a high-speed passenger rail system for the I-70 corridor.
The bills are SB 209 (Romer) and SB 213 (McElhany).
Friday, March 14, 2008
Rocky: Senate Republican Leader Wants Tolls on I-70 to Pay for New Lanes
According to a report in today's Rocky Mountain News, Sen. Andy McElhany, R-Colorado Springs, plans to propose that a toll be charged on I-70. The purpose would be to widen the highway.
According to the article by Rocky reporter Chris Barge, the toll would be collected at the Eisenhower Tunnel and would be used to pay for the improvements between there and Denver.
The proposal, if made, is similar to one suggested by Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver. He has said he'll ask his colleagues to authorize HOV lanes on I-70 and charge fees to vehicles that have less than three occupants. The charges would apply during ski season and on Sunday afternoons all year.
The Rocky story says that McElhany's proposal contemplates collection of tolls every day throughout the year.
According to the article by Rocky reporter Chris Barge, the toll would be collected at the Eisenhower Tunnel and would be used to pay for the improvements between there and Denver.
The proposal, if made, is similar to one suggested by Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver. He has said he'll ask his colleagues to authorize HOV lanes on I-70 and charge fees to vehicles that have less than three occupants. The charges would apply during ski season and on Sunday afternoons all year.
The Rocky story says that McElhany's proposal contemplates collection of tolls every day throughout the year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)