Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Recent Audit of Weatherization Assistance Program shows severe lack of controls--- Program should be eliminated

Like nearly every other government program…once begun, they never go away, always grow, and become vehicles to redistribute wealth, (Robin Hood style) forcibly taking from those that have…and giving to those who don’t.  Such programs begin by "compassionate" legislators…and with no thought as confining their efforts only to the enumerated powers of the U.S. Congress.  The Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) is a case in point.   

Following the 1973 oil crisis and rising utility bills, Congress initiated the WAP to install insulation, seal around doors and windows and modernize heating equipment.  In 1992, Colorado took on this federal program as a funding partnership between the U.S. Department of Energy (providing a non-enumerated function) the Colorado Low Energy Assistance Program (LEAP) (a Federal Program not enumerated in the Constitution) and the Public Service Co. of CO (now Xcel Energy).

As part of the $1.6Billion in Federal Recovery Act funds received by Colorado, $79.5 million must rapidly be “spent” to weatherize large numbers of homes within a short 33-month period beginning June 15, 2009.   Prior to this large influx of Federal funds, the program focused on emergency and temporary measures, such as covering windows with plastic sheets and  caulking and weather-stripping doors and windows.  Today, the program requires every home “served” (the state, as you know is now a “service agency”) under the program to determine which energy conservation measures will be most cost-effective before weatherization services are provided.  Furthermore, instead of the previous not-to-exceed expense dwelling of $3,000, the new federal regulations allow up to $6,600/dwelling and substantially increase the income threshold for residents to qualify.

The Audit pointed out lack of accountability by the Governor Ritter’s Energy Office in administering the program, “for free” to over 8,000 homes since 2009, among which were:
  • ·        Noncompetitive procurement
  • ·        Rejection of bidders before holding required public hearings
  • ·        Inconsistency in scoring competitive bids
  • ·        Lack of procurement documentation
  • ·        Failure to hold agencies throughout the state accountable for administering the program
  • ·        Inadequate monitoring of work to ensure it was even performed.
  • ·        Poor accounting for cash advances to agencies performing work
  • ·        Performing work on properties where landlord does not qualify.
  • ·        Reports to Federal Energy Office submitted w/o Director’s approval. As required.
  • ·        No definition as to what types of costs are administrative or program operations.
  • ·        No assurance was given that we are not providing services to those illegally in the U.S. or performing some weatherization work by illegal aliens.

Other questions we should be asking:
  • ·        Why does the state’s Energy Office take such a cavalier attitude towards dispensing with hard-earned tax dollars?
  • ·        Why does the state’s Energy Office indicate the service is “free” when it is really taxpayer-subsidized?
  • ·        Why do we perpetuate the idea that one-time money will create lasting jobs?
  • ·        Why does the state continue usurping the role of family, friends, religious institutions and charities by providing taxpayer-subsidized help to those in need?
  • ·        Why does the state continue allowing the Federal Government to fund such a program for Colorado? 

This program should be immediately considered for elimination by the U.S. Congress.

Friday, October 22, 2010

Senator Schultheis Pulls Endorsement for Dan Maes

Today, I am removing my endorsement of Dan Maes for Governor of Colorado.  This has been the most difficult decision I have made during my 10 years in the legislature.  After interviewing Dan last November over three separate occasions totaling over eight hours, I made the decision to endorse him, believing that he was the most conservative candidate running.  Eight hours is a long time to interview a single candidate, but I believed that was necessary in order for me to endorse a candidate for such an important position.

After winning the party’s nomination, it was extremely troubling to see the Colorado’s Republican Party virtually refuse to assist him in important areas, such as campaign organization, campaign finance rules and in acquiring proper campaign financing.  It is totally understandable, in my view that party’s nominee would and should hold firm to that nomination and expect cooperation and full support from not only Republican officials throughout the state, but also Republicans voters.  Had Dan Maes had such support, I believe he would have won handily over Denver Mayor, John Hickenlooper.  Unfortunately that was not the case; rather the reverse was true.

It has been my goal to be a consistently-strong and principled conservative Republican because I truly believe that the Republican Principles, if followed by all those who alien themselves with the Republican Party are the best in the long-term for Colorado and for America.  Far too many “Republican” legislators over the years lost focus on those principles and voted to allow damaging, progressive bills to pass.   During my tenure, I have worked hard to set an example of how one can hold fast to the fiscal and moral principles as found in the Party’s platform and still remain standing.

While I still believe that Dan Maes would stand tall for all those principles Republicans hold dear, it is evident that as a result of the negative campaigning and negative talk-radio bashing of this man., his poll numbers have slid to the point where the race is now only between Tancredo and Hickenlooper.  Just this week, the largest TeaParty group in Colorado endorsed Tancredo, further reducing Maes’ base support and adding further justification to the withdrawal of my support for Dan Maes. 

Much is at stake in this election, including the appointment of Supreme Court justices who will honor the law, decennial redistricting of State legislative boundaries, stopping the union takeover of state jobs, reducing the serious and negative effect of illegal immigration, the potential of modifying state statutes to allow the Republican Party to regain its majority status should it get less than 10% of the total gubernatorial votes, and much, much more.  Furthermore, should Hickenlooper win, Colorado will become a far more progressive state than it has already become over the past decade.  That must not be allowed that to happen.

I realize that by removing my endorsement from Dan Maes that I am also disappointing many strong conservative supporters who have applauded me for standing not just for Dan, but for the election process which I hold dear.  Those who have worked so diligently for the conservative cause under the Republican banner will have the most trouble with my decision, as  I have always advocated that the process must be honored because in the long-run, lack of adhering to process causes confusion, lack of commitment and frustration.  Unfortunately, that process has been trashed in this election cycle.  That saddens me greatly.

That said…the choice is now between Hickenlooper and Tancredo.  Hickenlooper must be defeated.  Therefore, I will be voting for Tom Tancredo as Colorado’s next Governor.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

My November 2010 voting recommendations with respect to Colorado's ballot issues

State Legislature-Referred Constitutional Amendments (“Referendums”)
Yes on Amendment P:   Moves Regulation of Bingo and Raffle Games of Chance from the Secretary of State to the Department of Revenue, which currently regulates most gambling activities.
Yes on Amendment Q:  Establishes a process for moving the seat of state government to a temporary location during a declared disaster emergency.
Yes on Amendment R:   Eliminates property taxes for individuals or businesses that use government-owned property for a private benefit worth $6,000 or less in market value.
Citizen-Initiated Constitutional Amendments (“Initiatives”)
Yes on Amendment 60: Phases in a reduction of Property Taxes paid by individuals and businesses by 50% over a ten-year period.
Yes on Amendment 61: Places common-sense restrictions on Government borrowing.
Yes on Amendment 62: Acknowledges the inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.
Yes on Amendment 63: Adds healthcare choice as a right listed in the bill of rights in the Colorado Constitution.

Citizen-Initiated Statutory Propositions (These amend the state laws and NOT the CO Constitution)
Yes on Prop 101:  Reduces state income tax gradually over time from 4.63% to 3.5%.  Reduces or eliminates taxes and fees on vehicle purchases, registration, leases, and rentals over four years.  Eliminates all state and local taxes and fees on telecommunication services, except 911 fees.  Requires voter approval to create or increase fees on vehicles and telecommunication services.
NO on Prop 102: Prohibits the release of a defendant on an unsecured bond to supervision by a pretrial services program unless that defendant is arrested for his or her first offense that is also a nonviolent misdemeanor. 

County Questions
Yes on 1A:  Ends the sale of marijuana while keeping intact the rights of medical marijuana patients and caregivers.
No on 1B:  Allows the D.A. to run for a third four-year term.
No on 1C:  Allows County Commissioners to run for a third term.
No on 1D:  Allows the County Treasurer, Clerk, Surveyor and Assessor to run for a third term.

City of Colorado Springs Questions
No on 2B:  Colorado Springs received $600,000 from taxpayers over and above its TABOR limit.  The City is requesting taxpayers to allow it to keep these funds for allocation to “high priority” road and bridge repairs.
Yes on 2C:   Al1ocates 15% of tax revenue raised for trails and open space (TOPS) for park maintenance for two years.
No on 300:  Passage may lead Colorado Springs to an autocratic system.  The most conservative city council member, Darryl Glenn is strongly opposed.  

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Dire Consequences of Voting for Third-party Candidate, Tancredo for Governor

Over the years, I’ve been a fan of Tom Tancredo and have admired his strength of character as well as his willingness to tenaciously challenge the big-government Washington elite head-on. I like such character and resolve in a person. During my ten years in the Colorado legislature, I have been nearly as bold in fighting progressive thinking and plotting that seems to be so common in too many legislators, including some in my own party. I wonder what is now driving him to subvert everything he has stood for.

Had Tancredo entered the Governor’s race and competed in the caucus and primary process as he should have, he may very well have had my vote, but instead he entered this race by deserting the Republican Party in order to circumvent the Party’s nominee. In short, by running as a third-party candidate, he has undermined the effort of tens of thousands of TeaParty activists that have worked so hard for over a year to analyze and select a nominee consistent with their values. Such political shenanigans are disgusting, particularly when done by those in the Republican political party. When one subverts the Republican Party rather than make it better, they are no longer “Republican.”

Tom Tancredo’s recent defection from the Republican Party in order to run for Governor and/or attempt to force Dan Maes out of the race is extremely misguided and creates a near insurmountable obstacle on our road to victory. Third-party candidates NEVER win elections; Tancredo said that himself. We refer to these third-party candidates as “spoilers.” Tancredo is the spoiler in this race and his continued candidacy will almost guarantee a Hickenlooper win as Colorado’s next socialist governor.

In December 2009, Tancredo, in a letter to 912/TeaParty activists stated:

“Some patriots are tempted to launch a third political party or back one of the existing small parties that never attract more than one or two percent of the vote in state races. I strongly believe that such a course is suicidal and would only result in splitting the conservative vote and guaranteeing the re-election of liberals and socialists.

I believe the Republican Party is the natural home of conservatives and that the road back to constitutional government lies in taking control of the Republican Party from top to bottom, from county committee to the statehouse and all the way to Washington, D.C.

Throughout our nation’s history, third parties have never succeeded in taking power and running the government. They have sometimes succeeded in pushing a major party in a new direction, but just as often, they succeeded only in electing the more liberal candidate after many conservatives waste their votes on a third party candidate. Remember 1992? Ross Perot never had a chance to be president, but he did help elect Bill Clinton.”

Either Tancredo believed what he wrote or not. If he did believe his comments, then he is deliberately attempting to ensure Hickenlooper’s election by subverting the Republican Party’s nominee. If he did not believe what he wrote, then why did he attempt to keep TeaParty activists from forming a third party? Has Tancredo now become “both ways Tom?”

The Statesman recently wrote that discussions were held between Colorado Party Chairman, Dick Wadhams and Tancredo over who the gubernatorial vacancy committee would appoint should Dan Maes, the Party’s candidate, be forced to drop out. Additionally, it reported that Tancredo wanted some veto power over the committee’s selection. So not only were these possible kingmakers willing to contravene the will of Republican primary voters, but they were also plotting to secure their candidate as the anointed one. A vacancy committee appointment to override the voter’s selection? Yes.

Because of growing nation-wide distain for Obama’s Administration and the overreach of a Democrat-controlled Congress and Colorado Legislature, and an extremely liberal Governor, this year’s election may reverse the majorities in both the Colorado Senate and House of Representative from being solidly Democrat to Republican. I predict that following this November’s election, Colorado’s Senate will be the most conservative Senate in our state’s history. To lose the future benefits of this swing by electing a pro-tax, sanctuary-city Democrat (Hickenlooper) would thwart the hopes and effort of tens of thousands of citizens, many TeaParty and 912 activists, who have risen up to take their state government back from those elitists who have ignored their will for too many years. Key to seeing their goals met is to elect a conservative as Governor.

With his win in the recent Republican Primary, Dan Maes will now command top line on the ballot this coming November. Dan Maes is the people’s choice for Governor. He is not the choice of back-room politics. The grassroots have made their voices heard. They will no longer tolerate politics as usual. The people demand a say in who represents them. They will no longer watch from the sidelines while “inside baseball” determines who they may vote for. Those days are over.

Senator Kevin Lundberg and I were the first two legislators in Colorado’s General Assembly to give our endorsements to Dan Maes. My decision was made carefully and with much thought after over eight hours of intensive interviews with Dan spread over three separate meetings last November. As the legislator recently viewed by as Colorado’s most conservative, my endorsements are only given with much thought and personal discussion with candidates.

With his strong win at the State Assembly, Dan Maes must now be the gubernatorial candidate supported by Republicans and those from other parties who desire a truly conservative candidate who can win the Governorship. November will be a critical election for limited-government advocates.

It is crucial that we understand what’s at stake in this election it is much more than just electing one person over another. Changes Colorado’s citizens are demanding will not occur should the Democrat win. Please understand the consequences on the following issues:

Redistricting of Colorado’s Political Boundaries

Following the Census every ten years, the legislature is charged with redistricting the political boundaries for Congressional and State legislative districts by putting forth bills to adjust the boundary maps for these voting districts. This is mainly done to reflect changing population numbers throughout the state and align these districts in accordance to certain set criteria. Ten years ago, the legislature (with a Republican majority in the House and a Democrat majority in the Senate) couldn’t agree to new redistricting boundaries and as such, the Colorado Supreme Court stepped in and established those boundaries based on their politicized liberal bias.

With a politicized Supreme Court majority, the decision naturally favored the Democrat maps. That could very likely happen again with a liberal governor, even though there will most-likely be a conservative Republican-controlled legislature. Even though Colorado’s Constitution clearly states that the legislature shall decide Congressional and Legislative districts, the liberal Supreme Court ignored the legislature’s constitutional authority and considered itself part of the legislature. That will most-likely happen again if the Governor vetoes redistricting maps developed by a Republican-controlled legislature and the Supreme Court adheres to “precedent.” Since third-party candidates can’t win, a vote for Tancredo will be a vote to maintain a progressive bias with respect to the state’s redistricting process for the next TEN YEARS.

Selection of Colorado Supreme Court Justices

Should Clear the Bench Colorado be successful in orchestrating the removal of three progressive members of the Colorado Supreme Court, as appears possible in the November election, the next Governor will appoint their replacements. Colorado needs justices that will interpret the constitution, not modify its meaning. These appointments will be critical and therefore must come from a governor who honors the Constitution. Since third-party spoiler candidates can’t win, a vote for Tancredo will be a vote for more progressive/liberal justices on Colorado’s Supreme Court.

Illegal Immigration

Many of Colorado’s conservative legislators have worked long and hard since 2005 to pass legislation that would deal effectively with Colorado’s fast-growing problem of illegal immigration. Numerous bills have been introduced, only to be promptly killed by a Democrat-controlled legislature.

This is a very serious and growing issue in Colorado, especially since the recent passage of Arizona’s SB1070. Many more illegal aliens are now crossing Colorado’s border from Arizona. If Colorado elects a conservative Governor, we will pass several bills that will reverse that trend; if not, the sanctuary policies that Hickenlooper instituted in Denver will lead to Colorado becoming a sanctuary state. As more and more states pass bills similar to SB1070, illegals from other states will flock to Colorado. Much is at stake.

It is terribly ironic that Tancredo, who has worked so tirelessly on the illegal immigration issue, would deliberately orchestrate a situation where strong illegal-immigration bills would be vetoed by a Democrat Governor. Dan Maes has committed to signing a bill similar or identical to AZ’s SB1070 as well as a bill that requires private employers to utilize the federal government’s E-verify system when hiring new employees.

Republicans must win the Governor’s race to halt and reverse illegal immigration in Colorado. Since a third-party candidate can’t win, a vote for Tancredo will be a vote to increase illegal immigration in Colorado.

No Roll-back of Hyper-liberal Legislation

Over the past six years, Colorado’s legislature has been co-opted by a strong radically-liberal majority. Prior to that, the last four years of the Owens’ Republican Administration was also moving in that direction. Numerous bills were passed during those years that limited personal freedom, limited, or removed personal responsibility, ignored the seriousness of illegal immigration, redistributed wealth from hard-working families to welfare recipients, instituted unconstitutional tax increases, attacked oil and gas production and pushed an all-out assault on small businesses. Additionally, several bills passed that are morally reprehensible to the majority of Coloradans. If the Colorado Legislature will have any chance of rolling back many of these bills, it will take a conservative Governor. Those who vote for Tancredo should know that third-party candidates can’t win. Thus a vote for Tancredo will keep in place those many progressive, redistribution-of-wealth bills passed in recent years.

Thwarted TeaParty Goals

The phenomenal rise of the TeaParty/912 groups has been nothing short of spectacular. Their goal has been to be heard and to return this nation to its roots. To accomplish this, they have involved themselves at every level of politics to elect conservative candidates who will listen to their concerns and restore the meaning of our constitution. “Don’t tread on me,” has been a standard cry of many. In Colorado, the Governor’s race will determine whether or not their vision will be fulfilled. Because third-party spoiler candidates can’t win, a vote for Tancredo will keep that liberal agenda moving in Colorado.

There are a few naysayers in our Party that are not wild about the nominee. That’s always the case. To them I say, it’s time to get behind the party’s nominee. That’s how the system works…or at least should work, and that’s how elections are won.

The time is NOW for all Coloradans to pull together to support the only conservative candidate that has a chance of winning. Not to do so will postpone the progress made to-date by so many patriotic Coloradans. Tancredo is pulling precious donations and support from Republicans and Independents and is relying on raising money from outside of Colorado. We cannot allow this misguided effort to succeed. Should you get a plea for funds from Tancredo, please consider redirecting them to Dan Maes for Governor.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

List of Immigration-related Resolutions Passed Overwhelmingly by Delegates to Colorado's Republican State Assembly

The following is a list of those immigration-related Resolutions passed by the Republican delegates to the State Convention follows:

21. It is resolved by Colorado Republicans that our national borders be immediately secured.

Total 3251 For 3215 Against 36 98.89%

49. It is resolved that Colorado Republicans support mandatory proof-of-citizenship when any person registers to vote in Colorado.

Total 3097 For 3059 Against 38 98.77%

25. It is resolved that Colorado Republicans oppose the concept of sanctuary cities and support legislation that would prohibit public funding to any locality that refuses to cooperate with the enforcement of immigration laws.

Total 3121 For 3071 Against 50 98.40%

28. It is resolved by Colorado Republicans that any illegal immigrant who has been convicted of any criminal offense be deported immediately upon completion of any term of incarceration.

Total 3116 For 3065 Against 51 98.36%

50. It is resolved that Colorado Republicans support a requirement that every person must present a United States, state, or local government-issued photo identification card before being allowed to vote.

Total 3077 For 3019 Against 58 98.12%

52. It is resolved that Colorado Republicans affirm that the English language be the only official language of the United States.

Total 3078 For 3015 Against 63 97.95%

26. It is resolved by Colorado Republicans that illegal immigrants should not receive any non-emergency benefits, services or privileges from federal, state or local governments.

Total 3100 For 3022 Against 78 97.48%

27. It is resolved by Colorado Republicans that employers who hire immigrants should be required to verify the prospective employee’s immigration status.

Total 3094 For 2960 Against 134 95.67%

22. It is resolved that Colorado Republicans oppose any form of amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Total 3215 For 3019 Against 196 93.90%

24. It is resolved by Colorado Republicans that a well-regulated guest worker program is important to Colorado agriculture and industry.

Total 3201 For 2999 Against 202 93.69%

23. It is resolved by Colorado Republicans that birthright citizenship not be granted to any person when neither parent is a citizen.

Total 3215 For 2927 Against 288 91.04%

Several Members of the Republican Study of Colorado take trip to Arizona to discuss AZ's SB 1070

Members of the Republican Study Committee of Colorado take seriously the immigration-related Resolutions passed overwhelmingly by the delegates to Colorado's State Republican Convention earlier this year. Their four-day trip beginning August 18th, 2010 was designed to increase awareness among legislators as to the seriousness of the illegal immigration in Arizona as well as to gain insight into Arizona's recently-passed SB1070 which instituted strong measures against the growing influx of illegal aliens to the U.S.

The increasingly negative effect of illegal immigration on Colorado's citizens is of serious concern. These negative affects are being felt in Colorado's K-12 education system, hospitals, law enforcement, judicial system, to mention a few. On 2008, the costs of illegal immigration on Colorado's taxpayers was estimated by the Federation for Immigration Reform, to be at least $1.1 billion, costing the average native-born household $612/yr.

Colorado's legislators are gaining valuable insight on the issues surrounding AZ's bill. Two legislators plan to introduce a nearly identical bill in Colorado's upcoming legislative session scheduled to begin January 13, 2011. Representative Lambert, who will be elected as Senator of Colorado Springs' Senate District 9 on November 2nd., plans to introduce this bill in the Senate. Rep. Randy Baumgardner has indicated he will introduce such a bill in the House of Representatives.

Furthermore, I expect other illegal-immigration bills to be introduced next year, including:

  • Requirement for non-government employers to determine legal work status through the federal government's e-verify system. A similar bill has been introduced by me annually for the past five years. (State agencies already adhere to this practice)
  • Proof of citizenship to register to vote
  • Requirement to produce ID to vote
  • Requirement for K-12 Schools to identify numbers of students in the U.S. illegally
  • Requirement to compare Colorado's death certificates to the list of recipients receiving Medicaid

Dan Maes, candidate for Governor has indicated he will sign an AZ SB1070 bill as well as an e-verify bill should they reach his desk.

Monday, May 31, 2010

Democrats should get on board with Arizona's immigration law

May 31, 2010 3:00 PM

By Dave Schultheis

While it might come as a shock to Democrats — such as Boulder liberal and U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., most of America is applauding Arizona for taking control of illegal immigration within its borders.

Simply put, the law requires police to check with federal authorities on a person’s immigration status if officers have already stopped that person for a legitimate reason and have a reasonable suspicion the person might be in the United States illegally.

Polis and his colleagues would have the public believing the Arizona law will scare and scapegoat American citizens of certain ethnic heritages.

Opponents love to call the new law “racist,” and Polis even compared it to the policies of Nazi Germany and state sponsored genocide.

Give me a break.

According to a poll conducted by NBC and the Wall Street Journal, one in three Hispanics in the United States said they support the law.

Are they being racist against people of their own ethnicity?

That same poll goes on to note that 64 percent of all adults support Arizona’s new immigration law.

And it’s not just Republicans who think this is a good idea. Half of all Democrats polled say they support the law and two-thirds of Independents polled support it.

The law makes clear that if the person produces a valid driver’s license or other state-issued identification he or she is presumed to be in the United States legally.

Since when has a police officer, asking someone for a driver’s license after making a stop, a “racist” action?

Nearly every American has a driver’s license or some form of identification. If a person lacks proper identification it is reasonable to suspect he or she might be here illegally.

To further demonstrate his disconnect with the American people, Polis has thrown his support behind an “immigration reform” proposal that is supported by the likes of Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Charles Schumer, D-New York.

“If (illegal immigrants) obey our laws, learn our language and pay our taxes, we will welcome (them) to American,Polis wrote in an editorial.

Polis can call it “comprehensive reform” all he wants. He can dress it up and call it whatever he chooses. But any proposal that allows people who are here illegally to cut to the front of the line is amnesty.

We are in a major recession, and we need all the jobs we can get for Colorado citizens and those who reside in Colorado legally. Polis should remember that as he and his Democratic colleagues prepare to face an electorate that is sensitive to job losses.

It is time for Democrats in Congress to start standing up for the rule of law, which they have sworn to uphold.

State Sen. Dave Schultheis is a Republican representing Senate District 9 in Colorado Springs.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Democrat-controlled Senate Committee Unwilling to Assure Adequate Public Testimony

The "circus" that took place during this past year in the Congress in order to pass Obamacare angered citizens across the country. The public's strong rejection of government health-care, was also caused by Congress ignoring of public opinion and ignorance as to what the bill contained.

In 1988, Colorado voters passed a Constitutional Amendment, now referred to as the Gavel Amendment, to ensure that all bills would receive a public hearing. Following its passage, the House and Senate adopted rules providing for at least a one-day public notification of hearings for each and every bill. However, both Houses also adopted a rules that allowed for a waiving of all rules during the last three days of the Colorado legislature, allowing bills to be heard in a matter of hours. So much for keeping the public informed! During the last thee days, under current rules, no notice of public hearings can be as short as the Senate President deems necessary. In most instances, there is no-one from the public present...only lobbyists.

After experiencing this last-minute rush near the close of session, for the past nine years, I drafted Senate Resolution SR10-008, to make sure the current one-day notice of bill hearings would remain, except for bills deemed to be an emergency by a two-thirds majority. The Senate State, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee heard the Resolution on Monday, April 19th. As expected, the Resolution was summarily killed by the Democrat majority on the committee on a party-line vote.

This Resolution needs to be passed next session, should the Republicans be in charge. Both political parties have used this lack of public notice to rush bills though without adequate time for review and contemplation. This procedure must be stopped.

Monday, April 12, 2010

Put a Stop to Suspension of CO Senate Rules During Last Three Days of the Session

In the past nine years that I have served in the Colorado Legislator, the custom, provided for under the Senate Rule 17(f)((6) states: “To suspend the rules shall require 24 votes, except upon three days’ notice, in which event 18 votes shall be required. What this means is that the Senate can rush bills through without public comment, and hold committee meetings at the podium without the benefit of public comment. This rule allows for much mischief by the majority party during the last three days of the legislature and makes it VERY difficult, if not impossible to read and understand bills prior to voting. This procedure is followed no matter which party is in the majority and has always frustrated many of us, who like to know what we are voting on and want to have time to study and understand bills.

So…I have proposed Senate Resolution 10-008 which, if passed would no longer allow suspension of the rules unless there is a 2/3 majority in the Committee of Reference to waive the normal Committee rules and would require 24 votes by the full Senate on a bill-by-bill basis to allow a bill to be rushed through during the last three days. The current process allows much mischief to take place.

The Colorado Legislature has 120 days (4 months) to do its business. If it can’t get it done w/in that time-frame it can be granted exceptions on a bill-by-bill basis if the bill is really crucial. Leaving public comment out of committee deliberations should not be acceptable, except for emergencies. Mischief should not be tolerated.

The Resolution. SR10-008 has been assigned by the Senate President (Dem) to the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee to be killed. The date of the hearing has not been assigned as yet. Now is the time for Tea Party and 912 activists to take a strong stance in favor of this Resolution if they so choose. The Senate should be a deliberative body… not a body that slams important bills through with little or not thought or public input.

If there is interest in passing SR10-008,so that bills can be deliberated on properly during the last three days of the legislative session, the key persons to contact are the Democrats on the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee.

Sen. Rollie Heath 303-866-4872 E-mail:

Sen. Betty Boyd 303-866-4857 E-mail:

Sen. Bob Bacon 303-866-4841 E-mail:

I could really use your help to get this Resolution out of Committee and to the Senate Floor for debate.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Sen. Schultheis Endorses Dan Maes for Governor of Colorado

Today, I declare my endorsement for Dan Maes for Governor of Colorado.

Dan Maes and I have had several extended meetings over the past several months regarding his candidacy. During those times, we discussed his views on a myriad of situations that may come before him as Governor of Colorado. He holds strong, conservative values, and believes them to be the best for Colorado's citizens.

During tough fiscal times, Dan Maes understand the need for fiscal discipline and has the courage to make appropriate cuts to achieve a balanced budget without relying on one-time funds to do so. He understands the continued desire of government to grow in good times and bad.

I am convinced that Dan Maes will be a strong defender of States Rights; he understands the incessant desire of the federal government to continue to encroach on the rights of individual states. To me, this is one of Colorado's most critical issue.

One of my major issues is illegal immigration. After our discussions, I am firmly convinced that he will ensure that the State Departments are upholding the intent of a bill passed in 2006 that required all state vendors to verify work eligibility of those employed to perform work for the state.

To view his positions on key issues, please refer to his website.

I am convinced that Dan Maes is a true conservative, that he truly believes they will best serve the people of Colorado, and will hold to these values in the years ahead.