 |
|
Dan Pilcher CACI Senior Vice President & Chief Operating Officer
E-Mail: dpilcher@COchamber.com
Friday, April 1, 2011
Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund Solvency Reform Bill Clears First House Committee
Yesterday, the House Economic and Business Development Committee on a bipartisan, unanimous 13-to-0 vote, passed HB-1288, which addresses the insolvency of the state’s Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund (UITF). The Fund now owes about $530 million to the Federal Government. The unamended bill now goes to the House Appropriations Committee.
The bill’s prime co-sponsors in the House are Representative Larry Liston (R-Colorado Springs) and Representative Dan Pabon (D-Denver). Representative Liston chairs the House Economic and Business Development Committee.
Statehouse reporter Ed Sealover of The Denver Business Journal covered the hearing.
CACI represents hundreds of businesses statewide and also represents several trade associations, economic development commissions and 35 local chambers of commerce.
I’ll start out by being completely candid: I was one of the strongest critics when we started working on this legislation. Not only is this one of the most unorthodox coalitions I’ve been part of in my lobbying career, but I truly had my doubts on whether we could agree on a solution to fix a system that is so broken.
We strongly support this bill, and we really appreciate Representative Liston’s and Representative Pabon’s efforts to carry this critical legislation.
I also want to give a lot of credit to Don Mares, the former Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE), who had the foresight to create this taskforce,
And I thank Ellen Golombek, the new CDLE Executive Director, for maintaining a seamless transition between what Don started and our ultimate goals: to stop the volatile increases in premiums on employers while keeping benefits the same for workers.
You’ve heard a lot already about the changes in the funding system. I’m going to focus on the areas of concern raised by our members;
Several weeks ago, I spoke to the CACI Board of Directors about this bill, and, instead of getting the general consensus that I expected, I actually received very clear marching orders on additions that needed to be included in the bill. Our Board members said loud and clear that, if employers were going to help make changes to the funding system, then they also need to see more accountability on the part of the Department. Our Board asked for the language that would address the problem of overpayments to someone after they’ve already received a job and also reinforce efforts to prevent fraudulent claims.
What we learned about fraud and overpayments is that the Department has paid approx $1 million annually in mistaken overpayments. There’s approximately $2 million in fraudulent claims committed. Although these may not sound like a huge fiscal impact, when we have a trust fund that is broke, we really need to be diligent in preventing these kinds of mistakes.
So what you see in this bill addresses those important issues: · The bill requires the Department to enter into agreements with Federal agencies that monitor income or wage verification so that we know exactly when someone has received a new job and that additional UI payments aren’t sent to that person. · The bill also requires that the Department include in their report to the legislature how much in overpayments have been paid. · The bill also says that, if by reason of fraud, mistake or error, there is an overpayment to a claimant, then the employer’s account will be credited by that amount. · The bill clarifies the penalties for claiming benefits if someone has fraudulently represented themselves or if they willfully failed to disclose that they should not have received benefits. The penalties are that the person is required to pay the total amount of the overpayment plus a penalty of fifty percent of that overpayment.
We believe these provisions are critical pieces to this bill, and they will help prevent those who should not receive benefits from getting them.
On behalf of CACI and the business community, we believe this is a “must-pass bill” and is the only viable solution available for fixing the broken system that we have now.
We would strongly encourage your “yes” vote on this bill.
Two main factors created the need for the bill: (1) an inadequate fund-balance formula written in statute that did not reflect the current size and composition of jobs of the Colorado economy and (2) the deep recession of 2008-2009.
The Unemployment Insurance benefits system is a Federally mandated-and-governed program with premiums paid entirely by employers to provide a benefit to workers who have lost jobs through no fault of their own. Employers pay a state premium as well as a federal tax calculated on a base wage per worker and, at the state level, the experience rating of the employer.
The primary goals of HB-1288 are two-fold:
1. Repay the Federal loan before federally mandated penalties against Colorado federal UI rates (FUTA) begin and rebuild a necessary fund balance before the next economic down-turn without harming employers’ ability to recover from the recent recession and increase jobs.
2. Construct a new UITF rate chart that reflects and grows with the size of the Colorado economy to provide adequate Fund reserves, that has less volatility and is simpler to administer, and reflects sound pooled-insurance principles for shared risk and non-charged benefits.
Specific provisions of HB-1288
For calendar years 2012 and 2013: · Keep the current rate-chart through calendar years 2012 and 2013, · Cap the compounding solvency surcharge at current levels, · Raise wage-base from $10,000 to $11,000, and · Tighten fraud prevention and overpayment of claims.
To reach solvency in 2014 the next steps are to: · Implement a new UITF rate chart with more gradual pay scales, · Implement dynamic economic measures, · Index the wage base from $11,000; and · Remove the solvency surcharge with a simple, emergency-only surcharge.
In particular, CACI has communicated to the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE), which administers the UITF and the benefits system, CACI’s strong desire to see that the bill also strengthens state law concerning the UI benefits system to reduce and prevent fraud by claimants and overpayment of benefits. In short, CACI has sought to strengthen accountability measures with HB-1288.
To this end, CACI worked to have the following provisions concerning fraud & overpayment included in the bill: · The bill requires CDLE to enter into agreements with all Federal agencies that monitor income or wage verification as a method of controlling the overpayment of UI benefits. · The CDLE must include in their report to the General Assembly how much in overpayments have been paid by the Department. · If by reason of fraud, mistake or error there is an overpayment to a claimant, the employer’s account will be credited by that amount. · The bill outlines the penalties for claiming benefits if they have fraudulently represented themselves or if they willfully failed to disclose that they should not have received benefits.
The proposal allows the UITF to repay its debt and rebuild at a slightly faster rate in order to save employers’ from higher costs in interest and penalties. The proposal will also create more stability in rates for employers.
The bill is the result of a task force, convened last year by the CDLE that has worked for many months to study the problems of the UI system and develop recommendations for legislation. The members of the taskforce include CACI, the Colorado Competitive Council, NFIB, AFL-CIO, The Fiscal Policy Institute and CDLE staff.
For more information on HB-1288, contact Loren Furman, CACI Vice President of Governmental Affairs, at 303.866.9642 or via e-mail.
Controversy Arises in Senate Committee over Health-Benefits Exchange Bill, Leaving Proposal’s Future Uncertain
Two surprise amendments were offered yesterday afternoon during the hearing on SB-200 by the Senate Health and Human Services Committee following a letter sent by the bill’s House sponsor to the Senate sponsor.
CACI and four other major business organizations—the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, NFIB, Colorado Concern and the Colorado Competitive Council—have worked with the two sponsors to ensure that the concerns of the business community were addressed in the introduced bill. CACI supports the introduced bill.
SB-200’s sponsors, Senator Betty Boyd (D-Lakewood) and House Majority Leader Amy Stephens (R-Monument) had publicly said before the bill was introduced that they would not accept amendments to the bill unless they both agreed on the amendments.
The Committee passed the bill on a partisan five-to-four vote after the two amendments, advocated by Representative Stephens but offered by Senator Shawn Mitchell (R-Broomfield), were defeated by the same partisan five-to-four margin.
Yesterday morning, Senator Boyd reportedly received the following letter from Representative Stephens:
March 31, 2011
Dear Senator Boyd:
The discussion surrounding SB 200 (the Health Benefit Exchange) is proof positive that the enactment of Obamacare has set the American debate about healthcare backward by light years. For years, conservatives at all levels have touted the free market virtues of healthcare exchanges as a way to give private citizens greater purchasing power and greater access to private health insurance. The concept of individuals banding together to cut the best healthcare deal possible for themselves and their family has been a staple of the House Republican platform for many, many years.
But enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – otherwise known as Obamacare – has so thoroughly contaminated the public discourse about the nation’s healthcare system that even simple and common-sense ideas like healthcare exchanges have become toxic and fraught with public policy peril. This is more than a symbolic concern. Many of my constituents and a few of my colleagues have told me that, while exchanges are themselves sensible public policy, the potential linkage of this legislation to Obamacare is far more damaging than whatever benefit is derived from the bill. Some have worried that, even though the exchanges created in my bill are totally independent of Obamacare, that future legislators or Governors (or even the federal government) could hijack this local control measure to implement Obamacare. It is not in the plain language of the bill, but after all the over-reaches that government has engaged in of late, it is an issue that I want to settle in this legislation in the clearest possible terms.
On this point let me be clear: Obamacare is unconstitutional, and it is bad public policy. I applaud Attorney General Suthers and his colleagues around the nation for taking the fight to the courts. I have supported legislation in the past to legislatively opt Colorado from its big government vices.
That brings us back to SB 200, and the fear that the health exchange legislation might be unwittingly used to support the implementation of Obamacare. There is only one way to solve this problem, and that is to make absolutely sure that the healthcare exchanges are implemented only after the State of Colorado opts-out of Obamacare. Specifically, I am requesting that the Committee add the following provision to the legislation.
“The provisions of SB 200 shall not be implemented, nor shall they have force or effect, until the State of Colorado requests, and the federal government grants, a full waiver from all terms, restrictions, and requirements in the federal Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act of 2010, and all rules, regulations and administrative guidelines issued thereto. The Governor of the State of Colorado shall seek such waiver within 60 days of the enactment of this Act.”
In as much as I believe that healthcare exchanges are a good idea, in order to be a good representative of my district, I must ensure that these state exchanges are not hijacked for the unconstitutional purposes of implementing the federal healthcare legislation. With this amendment, Colorado would become one of the first states in the nation to take-up President Obama on his recent offer to allow States to opt-out of his healthcare bill. For his part, Governor Hickenlooper expressed openness to the idea of an opt-out. In exchange for the bold step of opting out of Obamacare, the State of Colorado will have healthcare exchanges that help patients get and receive affordable and reliable healthcare. It is a win-win for the State of Colorado.
I strongly encourage the Committee to accept the above language. If the Committee chooses not to add this important provision and still forwards the bill to the House, I will work all of the votes in my caucus to ensure that the Obamacare opt-out provision is added in the House of Representatives prior to returning to the Senate.
I continue to believe that healthcare exchanges are a common sense policy, just as conservatives have advocated for many, many years. And with the addition of the above provision, they can be implemented into law without federal intrusion, instruction or interference.
Thank you for your consideration.
House Majority Leader Amy Stephens
One defeated amendment would have required that the exchange could only take effect after Colorado receives a federal waiver from the federal health-care law passed last year that was advocated by President Barack Obama. Governor John Hickenlooper would have 60 days to request the federal waiver after SB-200 becomes effective, assuming he would sign the bill into law or allow it to become law without his signature. The other defeated amendment said Colorado could not accept federal monies to establish the exchange.
The Governor, however, reacted strongly to news of the two SB-200 amendments, and was quoted in a story in The Denver Post today as saying “It would be a shame if this common-sense legislation is derailed by politics.”
After the two controversial amendments were debated and defeated, Senator Boyd told the Committee that she wanted the bill sent to the Legislative Council and not to another Senate committee, such as the Appropriations Committee, or directly to the Senate Floor. The Committee then, on a five-to-four party-line vote, approved SB-200.
Some statehouse observers, however, question why the bill has been sent to the Legislative Council. Actually, the bill goes to the six-member Executive Committee of the Legislative Council.
Normally, a bill passed by its first “committee of reference” goes on to another “committee of reference,” such as the Appropriations Committee if the bill involves state money. If it does not involve state money, then it usually goes directly the chamber floor, where the chamber acts as the “Committee of the Whole” for Second and Third Reading.
SB-200 calls for an interim study committee. If a bill creates an interim study committee, then it goes to the Executive Committee as a committee of reference under a bill passed last year, SB-200. The Executive Committee prioritizes requests from the legislature for interim committees and then sends the two chambers a joint resolution for consideration to implement the interim committees.
The political significance of SB-200 going to the Executive Committee, however, is that it is comprised of three Republicans and three Democrats. If the Council’s vote on SB-200, or amendments to the bill, is a tie, then the bill dies.
Senate President Brandon Shaffer (D-Longmont) chairs the Executive Committee, whose next meeting is reportedly April 13th.
The Executive Committee consists of the following: Senate President Shaffer, Senate Majority Leader John Morse (D-Colorado Springs), Senate Minority Leader Mike Kopp (R-Lakewood), House Speaker Frank McNulty (R-Highlands Ranch), House Majority Leader Stephens, and House Minority Leader Sal Pace (D-Pueblo).
Statehouse reporter Ed Sealover of The Denver Business Journal also wrote a story about the political controversy surrounding SB-200.
Dan Anglin, CACI Governmental Affairs Representative, testified in support of the bill. Here is an edited version of Dan’s prepared testimony:
I’m here today to support SB-200, which concerns the creation of a Colorado health-benefits exchange. CACI’s HealthCare Council, made up of health-related industries and employers concerned with health-care issues, has been involved since last summer in the discussion about creating an exchange.
The Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing and the Governor’s Office initiated a stakeholder process that held meetings across the state to gain input from citizens and other interests. CACI attended the meetings to listen to concerns and provide insight into how an exchange could be successfully created.
In late 2010, five major business organizations, which collectively represent most of Colorado’s business community, formed a coalition to find common concerns and support for the concept of an exchange in Colorado. This coalition has been instrumental in providing the sponsors with the concerns and perspectives of employers regarding the elements necessary for Colorado to create a successful exchange. The business community has determined that, in order for the Exchange to be successful, the following: · It must not be an agency of the state; · The state must not become a purchaser of insurance, which leads to a loss of jobs; · Rates in the exchange should not be set by any other authority than the Colorado Division of Insurance, the agency that currently sets health-insurance rates; and · The concept of an exchange must be separate from the Federal health reform act.
Senator Boyd’s and Representative Stephen’s bill accomplishes all of the above concerns and build in more protections to ensure that an exchange will not become government-controlled health care. SB-200 is not a piece of the Federal Act. It is a measure that will preserve Coloradoans’ right to choose to purchase or not purchase health insurance.
By creating a health-benefits exchange, small employers--who have in the past opted not to provide health benefits to workers because the cost was too prohibitive--may be able to afford to provide those benefits
Workers whose employers cannot afford to provide health-benefit plans and have not been able to afford to purchase individual plans will find more affordable plans available to them in the exchange.
There is no mandate to purchase insurance. There is no government agency that determines what plan you can purchase. There is no bureaucrat that a customer of an insurance plan must call for approval.
There are only more affordable, private health plans, all available in one place with the ability for employers, workers and individuals to purchase from as many insurance carriers that choose to offer products.
In conclusion, Colorado businesses are over-taxed, over-regulated and saddled with burdens that prevent reinvestment in the state
One of the top concerns employers in Colorado have is the prohibitive cost to provide employees with quality health benefits.
SB-200 is the first step towards solving the issue, by providing small employers with additional options to purchase affordable health benefits for their employees.
We ask that you support this bill.
CACI-Supported “Phantom Damages” Bill Shot Down by Senate Committee
Yesterday, the Senate Local Government and Energy Committee--on a party-line, three-to-two vote--killed HB-1106, known as the “phantom damages” bill.
The bill sought to spell out how medical costs in personal-injury cases should be determined. The purpose of the bill was to overturn a four-to-three decision last November 15th by the Colorado Supreme Court in the case of Volunteers of America v. Gardenswartz.
The Court’s majority held that injured plaintiffs could receive the billed amount of medical costs even if the amount actually paid later was less. Health-care providers commonly accept discounted payments from health insurers that are less than the original billed amount.
This monetary difference became known as “phantom damages” because the amount was neither owed nor paid. In other words, it became a monetary “windfall” for plaintiffs and trial attorneys.
During the Committee hearing yesterday, representatives of the medical sector argued that, if the bill failed, medical malpractice insurance premiums would increase. It was also argued that liability insurance premiums would increase for vehicle drivers.
The CACI Government Affairs Council had declared the proposal a priority for the business community to advocate. The bill was strenuously opposed, however, by the Colorado Trail Lawyers Association, otherwise known as “the plaintiff’s bar,” at the State Capitol.
The noteworthy aspect of the bill’s fate under the Gold Dome was the fact that Senate President Brandon Shaffer (D-Longmont) had assigned the bill to the Local Government and Energy Committee instead of the Judiciary Committee. Here’s what the CCJL had to say on its Web site Wednesday:
In the end, however, it appeared that the curious assignment of the bill by Senate President Brandon Shaffer (D-Longmont) to the Local Government Committee was a favor to the trial lawyer lobby which apparently was not certain it could defeat the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where civil law bills are typically heard.
Majority-party Senate Democrats who voted against the bill were Irene Aguilar (Denver), Joyce Foster (Denver) and Jeanne Nicholson (D-Black Hawk).
Minority-party Republicans who voted for the bill were the bill’s Senate sponsor, Ellen Roberts (Durango) and Bill Cadman (R-Colorado Springs). The House sponsor was Representative Bob Gardner (R-Colorado Springs).
Leading the charge in favor of the bill was the Colorado Civil Justice League, which is mutually affiliated with CACI. Another supporter was CACI member COPIC. The Colorado Medical Society, the Colorado Competitive Council and medical-lien companies also lobbied for the bill.
The bill’s fiscal note provided a more technical explanation of the bill. The fiscal note stated that HB-1106 would clarify a “contract exception” that allows state courts to apply the “collateral source rule” in certain, limited circumstances. When a plaintiff in a personal-injury lawsuit claims an amount of money for medical care, “compensatory damage awards” are restricted under this proposal to the amount actually paid to medical providers or the “amount customarily accepted” by the providers.
The bill stipulated that discounts for medical services negotiated by liability insurance carrier did not qualify for the “contract exception” and thus were “set off” from the damages award given to the plaintiff.
The “collateral source rule,” according to the fiscal note, is “common law doctrine in tort cases,” which says that an injured person can recover damages from both the defendant and a third-party “collateral” source. In 1986, the legislature terminated the collateral-source rule but created an “exception for benefits ‘paid as a result of a contract entered into and paid for on behalf of” a person.”
In its decision, the state Supreme Court said that the “contract exception” applied to the difference between amounts actually paid by an insurer for an injured person’s medical-and-health care and the entire amount billed for health and medical services. This means that “Colorado’s contract exception under the collateral source rule allows and injured party to receive compensatory damages above the amount paid by his or her insurance,” according to the fiscal note.
CACI-Opposed Civil Remedies Bill, SB-72, Scheduled for First House Committee Hearing
SB-72 has been scheduled for a hearing when the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee convenes at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 6th, in Room 112. The House sponsor is Representative Claire Levy (D-Boulder), and the Senate sponsor is Senator Morgan Carroll (D-Aurora).
The CACI Governmental Affairs Council designated this bill as a priority one for the business community to defeat. This bill is similar to versions that CACI in the 2009 and 2010 sessions worked successfully to defeat.
SB-72 establishes the “Job Protection and Civil Rights Enforcement Act of 2010,” which would allow additional remedies of compensatory and punitive damages in employment discrimination cases brought under state law. Under current law, plaintiffs who win employment discrimination and other types of employment claims recover actual economic damages, such as lost wages.
CACI’s concerns with this bill include the following: · This bill makes it more lucrative for both the plaintiff and his or her attorney to file lawsuits against Colorado employers, which provides an incentive for workers and trail attorneys to file more lawsuits against employers of all sizes. · Many small companies don’t have human resources departments that can avoid the many litigation traps employers face every time they make a decision to hire, promote or fire an employee. Additionally, small companies often do not have the resources to defend these cases--even meritless cases--and thus may be persuaded to settle early rather than defend themselves, thereby encouraging more claims. · Large companies (with more than 15 employees) already face most, but not all, of these expanded penalties under Federal law. SB-72 will therefore lead to "forum shopping" in employment cases. · The new employment-related case load created by this bill would further slow Colorado courts--where little employment litigation now takes place--and will thus cost taxpayers. · While the General Assembly is trying to encourage job creation in the state, this bill encourages new lawsuits against employers, which make it more costly for them to hire new workers and re-hire laid-off workers.
Among the business organizations and employers working with CACI to defeat this bill are the following: · Colorado Association of Auto Dealers · Colorado Hospital Association · Colorado Competitive Council (C3) · Colorado Civil Justice League · Colorado Concern · Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce · Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce · ACE Group · National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) · Property Casualty Insurers Association · CNA Insurance · Professional Independent Insurance Agents of Colorado · Rocky Mountain Health Plans · State Farm Insurance · Mountain States Employers’ Council · American Insurance Association · Aurora Chamber of Commerce · Broomfield Chamber of Commerce · Douglas County Business Alliance · Metro North Chamber of Commerce · Longmont Chamber of Commerce · Early Childhood Education Association · Independent Bankers of Colorado
For more information on this bill, contact Loren Furman, CACI Vice President of Governmental Affairs, at 303.866.9642 or via e-mail.
“Private-Letter Rulings” Bill Award Passed by First House Committee
On March 24th, the House Finance Committee today approved SB-89, which would continue the authority of the executive director of the Colorado Department of Revenue (DOR) to issue written responses upon the request of a taxpayer as to the likely tax implications of a business transaction. The bill now awaits action by the House Appropriations Committee.
The House sponsor is Representative Don Beezley (R-Broomfield). The bill originated in the Senate, where the sponsor is Senator Cheri Jahn (D-Wheat Ridge).
The written responses are called private-letter rulings (PLRs) and general information letters (GILs) in DOR terminology. The so-called “private-letter ruling” was an initiative several years ago of the CACI Tax Council, and CACI supports the bill. SB-89 implements the recommendation of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies sunset review last year of GILs and PLRs that they be continued from July 1, 2011, to September 1, 2016.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce Labor Expert to Address CACI’s Labor and Employment Council
Glenn Spencer, Executive Director of the Workforce Freedom Initiative of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, will speak about national organized labor issues at the regular CACI’s Labor and Employment Council luncheon meeting on Wednesday, April 27th. The Council will meet from 12 Noon to 1:30 p.m. CACI members who are not members of the Council are welcome to attend. Please contact Misty Lucero to RSVP.
The Institute is the U.S. Chamber’s grassroots mobilization and advocacy campaign to counter organized labor’s effort to have Congress pass the Employee Free Choice Act, more commonly known in the business community as “card check, as well as other union priorities. The Initiative is a multi-million dollar effort to preserve democracy in the workplace, restrain abusive union pension fund activism and block the anti-competitive agenda advocated by many labor unions.
Prior to joining the U.S. Chamber in 2007, Spencer had worked for Citizens for a Sound Economy and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Bill Clarifying Three-Year Limit for Sales-Tax Refund Claims Scheduled for Next Committee Hurdle
The House Appropriations has scheduled HB-1265, which was initiated by the CACI Tax Council, for a hearing when it meets at 7:30 a.m., Friday, April 8th, in Room A of the Legislative Services Building.
The House Finance Committee on March 23rd passed HB-1265 on a unanimous, bipartisan 13-0 vote. The House sponsor is Representative Amy Stephens (R-Monument), the House Majority Leader, and Senator Michael Johnston (D-Denver).
CACI members have made their concerns known to the Colorado Department of Revenue (DOR) in recent months that taxpayers should continue to be allowed three years to file a sales-tax refund claim. This issue was raised based on inconsistencies being applied by the DOR in determining the length of time to be given for refund claims.
CACI Tax Council members stated that the 60-day rule in statute is simply an additional measure for taxpayers to use for faster processing of refund-claim decisions. This provision was never been intended to be used to supersede the three-year statute of limitations defined in Section 39-26-703(2)(e). The bill does the following: · Clarifies that a taxpayer who has established that they have overpaid the tax is allowed three years to request a refund; · Allows, but does not compel vendors to file claims for refunds on behalf of their customers within three years after the due date of a return; · Penalizes anyone that willfully submits false information regarding a refund.
We would like to recognize and thank these long standing members with March renewal dates. · MillerCoors, 67 years · Longmont Area Chamber of Commerce, 56 years · West Chamber Serving Jefferson County, 50 years · CenturyLink, 27 years · Longmont Times Call, 23 years · Univair Aircraft Corporation, 21 years · Colorado Association of Realtors, 18 years · Concentra Medical Centers, 16 years · Mountain States Employers Council, 14 years · Denver Post, 12 years · Residential Systems, Inc, 10 years · Ron’s Printing Center, 8 years · Colorado Garage Door Service, 7 years · Colorado Auto Dealers Assoc., CoorsTek, Colman & Company, Webb Public Relations, 6 years · Southwest Airlines, Basalt Chamber of Commerce, Holcim, 5 years
Upcoming CACI Council Meetings
Council meetings will be held at the CACI Office beginning at 12 Noon. If a HealthCare Council member would like to sponsor the lunch for the April 28th meeting, he or she should contact Misty Lucero, CACI Office Manager.
Governmental Affairs Council, Tuesday, April 12. Luncheon sponsor is Heidi Wagner Morgan, Manager, State Government Affairs, Black Hill Corporation.
Energy and Environment Council, Thursday, April 14. Luncheon sponsor is Scott Hutchings, Government Affairs and Municipal Relations, Waste Management.
Governmental Affairs Council, Tuesday, April 26. Luncheon sponsor is Kara Miller, Lobbyist, Gold Dome Access.
Labor and Employment Council, Wednesday, April 27. Luncheon sponsor is Larry Marquess, Shareholder, Littler.
HealthCare Council, Thursday, April 28.
|
| CACI Home Page | About CACI | Join CACI | Contact Us |
| To unsubscribe, please click here. |
CACI
Vice President of Governmental Affairs Loren Furman testified in support of the
bill. Here’s an edited version of her prepared testimony: