[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6362131,"mediaKeyId","2168697-413308a7587e7f325077e626a6c89a53","parentId",2168697,"title","Executive Committee reviews remote testimony policy; staff to allow in-person witnesses to switch to remote in some cases","audioSeconds",850,"startMs",441000,"endMs",1291000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2168697-413308a7587e7f325077e626a6c89a53&start=441&end=1291","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2168697-413308a7587e7f325077e626a6c89a53/thumbnail_441000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6362131/Colorado/Executive-Committee-reviews-remote-testimony-policy-staff-to-allow-in-person-witnesses-to-switch-to-remote-in-some-cases","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6362131-503b24c908fd28f5e89c4847e7954c17/orig.mp4?Expires=1773677682&Signature=BZ2Fm5RNXUe-8PhP1a6PRNi4i76QFcHNDa8~cTgBNMWdnNt8FsHuiS2bDb96N9FAKem3RUevimwYuKUxbfVVhcm8q2-qtlKotCZffZibc4kJIZBuR6jWcTpTWJFJTb5RorObB7RZax2fZOuKurpc5ecLoDoBSjnwTlubOqfbPzNL6M1rI9Il8Bvp1Ud7zKc9MvZbQ8D352RzRBZwb2zD4Cw9EwUHM1lkpgyrxdADILz0vPkbmlIyiTh29~WpbO3g-ie-nPVZEaNtRUpmSeTt9OmHDxwBNJEk2r-D17P5AxJL2~Fac957Kkgui7E-O3h4eXv2ZGN6TOrato~kLaW53A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Executive Committee of the Legislative Council","date","2025-01-28T00:00:00Z","article","Deputy Director Elizabeth Berger, Legislative Council staff, presented an updated Executive Committee policy on remote testimony that is unchanged from the previous policy except for updated dates and clarifying language.

Berger told the committee that, under the current policy, “remote witnesses [must] be registered at the time the hearing begins,” while in-person witnesses and those submitting written testimony may register throughout the hearing. The policy is issued under state law that authorizes the Executive Committee to set remote-testimony procedures for committees and is intended to create consistent rules across the House and Senate.

Committee members pressed staff on two points: whether the registration cutoff is tied to the scheduled start time or the actual start of a bill hearing, and whether an attendee who originally signs up to testify in person can later switch to remote testimony if they need to leave. Berger clarified that the cutoff is the “actual start…when the staff triggers the bill hearing,” not the scheduled meeting start, and said the current draft would not allow an in-person registrant to switch to remote after registration has closed.

Several members, including Majority Leader Rodriguez and Minority Leader Lundin, argued the chair should have discretion to broaden access. Rodriguez asked whether the cutoff is “the time or…the start of the hearing,” and Lundin and other members urged that chairs be able to expand access. Berger and other staff said they could accommodate switching in individual cases without programming changes: “we could accommodate those folks in that…circumstance” by providing the remote link manually if the committee desires.

Director Natalie Castle and Deputy Director Manish Jani noted a trade-off between staff/technical burden and public access. Castle said it would be easier from a systems standpoint “to program the system to either have it allow it until the end of the hearing or not allow it after the beginning of the hearing,” while Manish Jani said staff could manually supply links to allow in-person registrants to switch to remote if the committee wants that discretion.

The committee did not take a formal vote on changing the registration cutoff during the meeting. Staff offered to revise the draft policy to (a) confirm the registration cutoff is the start of each bill hearing, and (b) include optional language allowing chairs to permit in-person registrants to switch to remote, or to have staff manually provide the link in specified circumstances.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Executive Committee of the Legislative Council [Jan 28, 2025]","oneSentenceSummary","Deputy Director Elizabeth Berger, Legislative Council staff, presented an updated Executive Committee policy on remote testimony that remains unchanged except for dates and confirms the registration cutoff for remote witnesses.","taxTitle","Executive Committee of the Legislative Council, YEAR-ROUND COMMITTEES, Committees, Legislative, Colorado","taxId",26850,"location","Colorado","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6362123,"JBC staff outlines compensation choices: salaries, step-like increases and insurer premium risk drive budget uncertainty",1172,1530000,2702000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2168697-413308a7587e7f325077e626a6c89a53&start=1530&end=2702","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2168697-413308a7587e7f325077e626a6c89a53/thumbnail_1530000.jpg","/articles/6362123/Colorado/JBC-staff-outlines-compensation-choices-salaries-step-like-increases-and-insurer-premium-risk-drive-budget-uncertainty","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6362123-4c4ba3ce5839b686946774c966ce474b/orig.mp4?Expires=1773677682&Signature=MYj1xmKyfh4AG6OuZgwwIehPqzABoFAzUE2jbBwJzAfaetamQHJk1Mi6x9hFLNxrEGzT6ZLCCne6DANcXsxqId53A1bzmGnXvrH6HcL63An0Mo-CHjvV-t0coamW5OEkEQHc-2c~6RyMGu4-iUBVbaaR0RhuYgbmposkkNlw8vWnjz8gGNl2PjmehCW7xHoSQXEUdk6UttuBldE4~7IPypCri-iBo0KFJVZsilOOWr2B9jsfSpNgBUwfOgWVHdm859Oej7GPQJqQBn7S~ogVK~Mni-CCg15rsELDwUockif7wdiO4yWuNHBxgUR9j6x2O2sX2MQFiW3ZOqYX3w~T7w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Craig Harper, director for Joint Budget Committee staff, presented background and options on the employee compensation common policy, emphasizing that the two largest budget drivers are salary costs and health/life/dental insurance.

Harper said the negotiated partnership agreement from September is the basis for the governor’s request and that legislative decisions historically have mirrored the executive branch request for legislative staff. Harper outlined the salary components embedded in the request: a 2.5% across-the-board increase and a 0.6% step-like component for classified employees. He said the 2.5% component equates to about $130,000 for the General Assembly; statewide, the 2.5% across-the-board would be roughly $83 million in total funds and about $44 million in general fund.

Harper explained that the step-like increase (classified employees’ step plan) accounted for roughly 0.6% of the total request this year and equates to about $233,000 for the General Assembly; statewide that step-like share is roughly $17 million total funds and $10 million general fund. Together those components approach a roughly 3.1% cumulative increase (2.5% + 0.6%) cited in staff materials.

On benefits, Harper said the negotiated agreement “requires the state to fund all premium increases for fiscal year 25–26.” For the legislative branch, staff estimated total Health Life Dental appropriation at about $6 million, representing roughly a $500,000 increase year over year; statewide estimates were described as on the order of a half-billion dollars and an expected 7–8% increase overall in premium costs.

Harper emphasized substantive uncertainty: the Joint Budget Committee had not completed decisions and the fiscal capacity to fund the partnership agreement was an open question. He warned of the potential consequence that “any significant deviation from the partnership agreement would force a reopening of the agreement.” The presentation provided options that go beyond the partnership agreement (for example, base personal services reductions) but staff said such choices have political and practical implications and would drive further negotiations.

No committee vote was taken on compensation at this meeting; members asked clarifying questions and staff advised the Executive Committee that these would be ongoing discussions at JBC.","Craig Harper of Joint Budget Committee staff briefed the Executive Committee on compensation decision items, highlighting a 2.5% across-the-board request, a 0.6% step-like component, and health insurance premium risk that could require substantial state funding.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6362128,"Executive Committee endorses staff recommendations for three long-bill items; committee votes 5-0 to forward to JBC",1241,1245000,3873,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2168697-413308a7587e7f325077e626a6c89a53&start=1245&end=3","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2168697-413308a7587e7f325077e626a6c89a53/thumbnail_1245000.jpg","/articles/6362128/Colorado/Executive-Committee-endorses-staff-recommendations-for-three-long-bill-items-committee-votes-5-0-to-forward-to-JBC","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6362128-b62983155cbb783a3d277e460983aa3c/orig.mp4?Expires=1773677682&Signature=FrTu~jCX~-rtV0Cv-5uk-CLDu9xNBsXehvGgh06suPot88G9ZAjcjzsJAx70I5llqlh1dAAkOrgHYHOcrEXFoy2XQEckOsz0XbLh9g6Isp7Pfe0imxSrf5~wDRQwEULx4ICbE7ZAZKzn4F2doUuG9oyvcM7hR1tQnrj0980cK8xB6waMDQCHFo0-DapW0ZyiujH4rRCuIPME7sXMERsJlh2iqvYkBmFPXLtNWCN5StC-HML01NnVd8KkWI5xk1R5se~8mkmzklCljhwxaqBVajIM3C~n7KybcMvBDHS-Vi~06~QG6~3xNDtoNvwvbG864Ia3w2LlHbnQD8SQiYqJgQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Executive Committee voted to forward staff recommendations to the Joint Budget Committee on three long-bill appropriation items: funding for the Blue Book voter information guide, an increase to the property tax audit study appropriation, and funding for a school finance cost-of-living study.

Natalie Castle, Director of Legislative Council staff, outlined the three recommendations. For the Blue Book (voter information guide) she said the recommendation is “to appropriate a total of $4,000,000” (language in the packet). For the constitutionally required property tax audit study, Castle requested “a $100,000 increase from $752,000 to $852,000 general fund.” For the school finance cost-of-living study, Castle described a reappropriation request for $200,000 (an increase from fiscal year 2025 but a decrease from the prior study’s $270,000).

After brief discussion and agreement to delay the roll call until an absent committee member’s availability was confirmed, the vice chair moved the staff recommendations on all three items in a single motion: “I move staff recommendations on the blue book appropriation, property tax audit appropriation, and school finance cost of living study as requested today.” The committee voted by roll call; the clerk recorded votes for Senators and Representatives: Duran — yes; Lundin — yes; Uglisie — excused; Rodriguez — yes; Madam Speaker — yes; Mister President — yes. The chair announced the motion passed 5 to 0.

The motion forwards the staff recommendations to the Joint Budget Committee; the Executive Committee did not itself appropriate the funds but recommended these amounts for inclusion in the long bill. Castle had noted detail on each request in staff materials and offered to return for additional questions; the committee did not request amendments during the recorded vote.","The Executive Committee voted 5-0 to recommend three staff-requested long-bill appropriations to the Joint Budget Committee: Blue Book funding, a property tax audit study increase, and a school finance cost-of-living study.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6362118,"Legislative Council staff outline Google Workspace plan; staff recommend district accounts and prohibit credential sharing",2512,2516000,3933,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2168697-413308a7587e7f325077e626a6c89a53&start=2516&end=3","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2168697-413308a7587e7f325077e626a6c89a53/thumbnail_2516000.jpg","/articles/6362118/Colorado/Legislative-Council-staff-outline-Google-Workspace-plan-staff-recommend-district-accounts-and-prohibit-credential-sharing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6362118-958278b55051da31465ba7255575c9e1/orig.mp4?Expires=1773677682&Signature=D~CNRoUPHuReiuYu6arfKKhixpJHQ3p6H3NY5DlRhG4K76iD59eXoS3~HNkxWdNPrYmg7fWbSA86tSe53bnj~YxrVzKygHNOyBIt94YyNgc5neQJnsNll2Dqma4D4VZeAWdH5RAdHbMIACABkI-WD3lcUysaNV0XATviFROJQy8vHrUglOE88UswaDlKU7zAo72cnfYdf95NuN-m8fmyMlPMV82OC7nDQ119UVZ7rvmHL4MSSw1ctERf4mT-Cx9TVUlWaMjebMG3f5jJ9VhawiaMVSExfyHCvCrI8chCPtQn~JhtXDTEQxtzag9GgKBmqNT84GP1smQhF-iftpPXLA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Legislative Council staff presented a set of decision items and recommended settings for the legislature’s Google Workspace enterprise instance, including organizational-unit structure, policies for member and district accounts for aides, and administrative access safeguards.

Director Natalie Castle and Deputy Director Manish Jani described how the instance is organized into organizational units (nonpartisan agencies, partisan staff, Senate and House units) so that settings can be applied to the entire department, to agencies, or to individual users. Manish Jani explained that “some settings can be applied at an individual level, some at an organization unit… and some are for the entire organization,” and that the recommended structure is intended to allow targeted settings for members, partisan staff, and nonpartisan agencies.

Castle and system administrator David Holder recommended that members stop sharing personal credentials with their aides and instead use district aide accounts that are delegated to the member account. Castle said that if configured correctly, “an aide has full access to the member's email if the member wants that and has full access to the member's calendar,” while preserving separate credentials for security and administrative auditability. Deputy director Jani explained delegation: an aide would log into a district address using the aide’s credentials and be delegated access to the member account; actions taken by the aide are logged and show the aide’s account on outgoing messages.

Staff recommended policy language to prohibit credential sharing and to create “district accounts” owned by members but accessible to aides via delegated accounts. The presentation included a draft example (staff used a sample address in materials) and noted administrative issues such as onboarding (“account provisioning” at new-member orientation), handling staff turnover, and what happens to member accounts when a legislator leaves office.

On privacy and access, system administrators said access by staff administrators is restricted and logged. Deputy Director Jani said there are four administrators who can access accounts for troubleshooting, and “every time they do access somebody else's account, they have to provide a reason and it gets logged. And those logs are immutable we can't delete.” Jani also said staff have an internal policy not to access accounts without permission; when access is granted by an owner, administrators record the reason.

Members raised enforcement and ownership questions: how to enforce a prohibition on shared credentials in practice; what happens to a member’s account if a member leaves or cannot grant permission (staff said they had not finalized rules and sought direction); and requests for a sandbox or demo to test workflows. Castle and Jani offered to set up test accounts and demos for members’ offices and emphasized that the recommendations currently apply only to members already migrated to the Google Workspace enterprise instance.","Legislative Council staff presented a plan for the Google Workspace enterprise instance, recommending district aide accounts, prohibiting sharing of member-account credentials, and describing admin access logs and audit safeguards.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Executive Committee reviews remote testimony policy; staff to allow in-person witnesses to switch to remote in some cases

JBC staff outlines compensation choices: salaries, step-like increases and insurer premium risk drive budget uncertainty

Executive Committee endorses staff recommendations for three long-bill items; committee votes 5-0 to forward to JBC

Legislative Council staff outline Google Workspace plan; staff recommend district accounts and prohibit credential sharing