The new session of the Colorado Legislature convened last month and, as is usual, the bills have been introduced at a quick pace and run the gamut from routine to ones that would have large effect.
As of Wednesday morning, 370 bills, memorials and resolutions were listed as being introduced in the Colorado Legislature.
While many won’t have any effect or will have little effect on our corner of the state, others could mean bigger changes, and it will be interesting to see what bills gain traction and what may be passed before the assembly adjourns in May.
A few that have caught the eye of folks around the state so far include Senate Bill 26-097, which would decriminalize adult commercial sexual activity; House Bill 26-1021, the Second Amendment Protection Act that would repeal various state laws related to firearms and other weapons; HB26-1144, which would prohibit 3-D printing firearms and components; and SB26-105, concerning county executive officer disclosures and removal.
There’s also again a bill seeking to make changes to the Colorado Open Records Act.
We are, of course, not in favor of proposed amendments that would make it more difficult for the public to access what they should rightfully be able to see in order to learn about how their local and state governments are functioning and what those public bodies are up to.
One of the changes proposed would change the “reasonable time” to respond to a CORA request from three working days to five working days and would change the extension of time for the response period if “extenuating circumstances exist” from not exceeding seven additional days to not exceeding 10 additional days. The proposed bill would also add an extenuating circumstance that would allow an extension of the response period when the custodian is not scheduled to work within the response period.
We’re thankful at least that the bill also proposes that, if the public records are in the “sole and exclusive custody and control of a person who is not scheduled to work within the response period,” a custodian would be required to provide other available responsive public records within the response period and notify the requester of the earliest date the other custodian is expected to be available or that the person is not expected to return. It would allow the requester to make a subsequent request for additional responsive records on or after the date the custodian provides.
Regardless of what seems like an attempt to soften the blow by including a provision to at least provide some records, we are frustrated that, in a world where everything is moving toward things being quicker and more efficient, our state legislators are again trying to lengthen the amount of time record custodians have to provide requested materials.
These changes also have the potential to lessen the effectiveness of government watchdogs who seek information related to concerns over matters that may be unfolding quickly, and we could see that some governmental entities with perhaps a little less integrity than is ideal could abuse the proposed provisions to drag out things they’d rather not release.
A proposed provision would also narrow the definition a of a “public record” by excluding “a written document or electronic record that is produced by a device or application that is used to assist an individual with a disability or individuals with language barriers to facilitate communication if the written document or electronic record has been produced to facilitate communication in lieu of verbal communication.”
The proposed amendments also give public bodies a bit of a way out if they fail to meet the statutory time limits for providing records.
The proposed bill would require a custodian who fails to respond to a request for inspection within the applicable time period to provide the requester with one additional hour of research and retrieval time without charge for each calendar day that the response is late.
Again, we could see that some with poor intentions could abuse that.
There are a few proposed changes we’re OK with: requiring entities to post rules or policies related to CORA, including information about how to make a public records request; requiring custodians to, if requested, provide the requester a “reasonable breakdown of costs that comprise the fee charged for the research and retrieval” of their requested public records; allowing requesters would be able to pay fees and any deposits associated with a request by credit card or electronic payment if the public entity allows members of the public to pay for other services or products by those means; and prohibiting disclosing public elementary or secondary school students’ addresses or telephone numbers, or any other student information that could be used to contact them.
Other proposed changes relate to timing for fulfilling requests determined to be for solicitation of business, allowing custodians to treat CORA requests received within 14 calendar days of another CORA request for information “pertaining to facially similar content and made by the same person” as one request for purposes of calculating the fee.
We know we, as well as many others, will be keeping an eye on these bills and urging our state lawmakers to keep the bests interests of their constituents above what might be convenient for them.
To dig more into any of the bills, visit leg.colorado.gov.
Randi Pierce
>