U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 05, 2013 11:41 AM UTC

"Colorado Commits to Kids" Turns In 160,000+ Signatures

  • 35 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols


Photo courtesy Colorado Commits to Kids

coloradocommitskidsThat's the news in a press release a short while ago from proponents of Initiative 22, the school finance ballot initiative headed for this year's statewide ballot with nearly double the required number of signatures:

Backers of the Colorado Commits to Kids Initiative on Monday turned in to the Colorado Secretary of State signatures from more than 160,000 people who support placing a school-finance measure on the November ballot.

“We’re not just delivering petitions today,” said Gail Klapper, director of the Colorado Forum, which has been working with business, civic and educational leaders for nearly two years to craft an initiative with broad, bipartisan support. “We’re delivering a message to our students and our businesses that Coloradans understand the best investment we can make in their economic futures is through our education system.”

The Colorado Commits to Kids Initiative will ask voters to approve a two-step state income-tax rate increase to pay for reforms that would make Colorado a national model for P-12 education…

Details after the jump. 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:     
Monday, Aug. 5, 2013    

CONTACT: Curtis Hubbard
Curtis@ColoradoCommitsToKids.com
 
Colorado Commits to Kids delivers more than 160,000 signatures to Colorado Secretary of State’s Office

DENVER, CO – Backers of the Colorado Commits to Kids Initiative on Monday turned in to the Colorado Secretary of State signatures from more than 160,000 people who support placing a school-finance measure on the November ballot.

“We’re not just delivering petitions today,” said Gail Klapper, director of the Colorado Forum, which has been working with business, civic and educational leaders for nearly two years to craft an initiative with broad, bipartisan support. “We’re delivering a message to our students and our businesses that Coloradans understand the best investment we can make in their economic futures is through our education system.”

The Colorado Commits to Kids Initiative will ask voters to approve a two-step state income-tax rate increase to pay for reforms that would make Colorado a national model for P-12 education:

Step 1: On income up to $75,000, the rate would increase from current 4.63% to 5% 

Step 2: Any income above $75,000 would be taxed at a rate of 5.9% . 

Please note: Every taxpayer would pay 5% rate on their first $75,000 of income

In order to qualify for the November ballot, the Colorado Commits to Kids Initiative needed to gather signatures from 86,105 registered Colorado voters.  The Secretary of State’s Office has 30 days to determine whether Colorado Commits to Kids gathered the requisite number of signatures. 

About the Colorado Commits to Kids Initiative:

The Colorado Commits to Kids Initiative will modernize Colorado’s P-12 system by:

• Strengthening early childhood education by investing in preschool and full-day kindergarten;

• Ensuring Colorado kids have a great teacher in every classroom and a great principal in every school;

• Reducing class sizes to offer more one-on-one time between students and teachers;

• Increasing support for gifted and talented students, at-risk students, and English-language learners;

• And providing equal funding to charter schools and district schools, ensuring that students receive the same support no matter the type of school they attend.

Money from the Colorado Commits to Kids Initiative will be placed in the State Education Achievement Fund and can only be used for education reforms and enhancements to existing programs.

The Colorado Commits to Kids Initiative also contains unprecedented accountability and transparency measures. If passed, the state will be required to conduct regular reports to assess the cost of our public education system and the effectiveness of our funding efforts in improving student achievement . The initiative will also establish a state-maintained budget transparency system to  allow taxpayers to track spending at every school in the state.

For additional information, visit www.ColoradoCommitstoKids.com

###

Tweet
Share

Comments

35 thoughts on ““Colorado Commits to Kids” Turns In 160,000+ Signatures”

    1. Yup.

      Nothing is to prevent a continued escalation in the amount school districts pay to fund teacher pensions. Without a mechanism to stop more "education" dollars from funding pensions, there is no incentive to bring pension programs in line with modern-day retirement plans or to protect taxpayers. As the debt grows and more retirees live on PERA benefits, we can expect more of our education money to fund retirements rather than books, classrooms and teachers. It's a sinkhole.

      We can only give thanks for one state employee who has connected the dots and blown the whistle on an upcoming scam. State Treasurer and former businessman Walker Stapleton – a financial genius with an MBA from Harvard and a graduate degree from London School of Economics – sees the upcoming tax proposal as a fraud on voters.

      After a destructive legislative session, politicians want voters to approve a $1 billion-plus tax increase in the fall. Don't worry, they tell us, it's for the children. The money will fund their educations.

      If that were true, the proposal could have merit. A well-educated populace causes more economic development, prosperity and a greater quality of life.

      But it may not be true. The ballot measure is part of an education finance bill the governor signed into law last month. Stapleton brought his concerns to sponsors and other proponents of the bill, as legislators debated it, and explained how we cannot successfully earmark new revenues for the classroom unless the bill specifically prevents using the money to backfill growing PERA obligations. They smiled, nodded and said they'd get back to him. No one called. As a result, the bill became a law that does nothing to ensure the proposed new taxes will pay for education.

      http://gazette.com/tax-increase-not-what-proponents-claim/article/1501623

      3. Colorado Treasurer "Financial Genius" Stapleton "smelled of alcohol," "made belligerent noises," "ignored officers."  Today, Stapleton smells of deceit and ignores reality.  He continues to make belligerent noises.

        After Colorado's State Treasurer Walker Stapleton was arrested for driving under the influence, his honesty and integrity were called into question.  Does Treasurer Stapleton exhibit a pattern of personal failings relating to "honesty and integrity" have spilled over into his participation in the Colorado PERA pension reform debate?

        Reform of the Colorado PERA pension system is one of our Treasurer's favorite political topics. Perhaps, similar to Rhode Island's State Treasurer, Stapleton believes that public pension contract breach is the route to higher political office (not working out as planned for Treasurer Gina Raimondo in Rhode Island.)  Or, given the decline of defined benefit pension plans in the private sector, perhaps our State Treasurer hopes to exploit "PERA pension envy" for personal political gain.  I encourage him to advocate prospective PERA pension reforms in conformance with the Contract Clause of the Colorado Constitution, similar to prospective reforms made available to Colorado county governments last year in SB 12-149.

        The Colorado PERA pension system has significant unfunded pension liabilities.  As documented at saveperacola.com, these liabilities have accumulated due to the failure of the Colorado Legislature to pay its full pension bill for the last decade.  Colorado PERA pension liabilities are a contractual obligation of Colorado PERA-affiliated employers, a legal debt obligation of Colorado state and local governments.

        Colorado's Treasurer Stapleton has expressed concern regarding Colorado PERA's unfunded liabilities, but why is our State Treasurer so concerned about this one particular form of Colorado state and local government debt, public pension debt?  Why do we not see our State Treasurer concerned about all other Colorado governmental debt, all outstanding bonds issued by Colorado state and local governments?  What is so special about our public pension debt obligations?

        Why do we see our State Treasurer focus on Colorado's public pension debt obligations that will come due over the next 70 years?  Why does he leave the impression that PERA unfunded liabilities due over the next 70 years are somehow due immediately?  A current financial "crisis," a "shortfall"?  Why have we never heard our Treasurer note that Colorado's financial support for public pension obligations consumes less than three percent of all Colorado state and local governmental expenditures?  A level far below the national average for the states?  Does this key information not comport with his political agenda?  Would it not be more "honest" for our State Treasurer to acknowledge this fact?

        Why does our State Treasurer see the PERA pension debt service that will be paid by Colorado taxpayers in coming decades as onerous, yet he lacks any corresponding concern for the "burden" of all other Colorado state and local government debt (bonds) on taxpayers that will come due over the next 70 years?

        Colorado has not "banked" the three percent of future state and local governmental expenditures that will be required to support future Colorado PERA pension obligations and that is a "crisis" in the mind of our State Treasurer.  Yet, Colorado has not banked the 97 percent of state and local governmental expenditures that will be required to support all other public sector programs for the next 70 years and that IS NOT a "crisis" in the mind of our Treasurer.  We see our State Treasurer ranting about Colorado PERA public pension debt in particular because this serves a political agenda.

        From the Huffington Post:

        "In June 1999, GOP candidate state Treasurer Walker Stapleton was charged with DUI and leaving the scene of the accident in San Francisco where two women were injured."

        "He blamed the victims. (The reality is that he accepted a plea bargain down to a DUI, with three-year probation, twice weekly AA meetings and court-ordered community work.)"

        "That charge was amended several days later, to charges of running a flashing light and hitting a cab in the intersection, causing injuries and leaving the scene."

        "One of the victims, Ginger Vasquez of Santa Monica, CA, was alone in the backseat of the cab that was hit by Stapleton.  She describes the vehicle spinning after the impact and seeing Stapleton's car driving away."

        "After Stapleton's car stopped down a steep hill, she says, two cabs boxed in his vehicle to prevent him driving any farther. She has never talked to Stapleton and did not know his name until recently. She does not know the other woman injured in the accident. Stapleton never approached the cab to find out if everyone was all right. Most importantly, she has no motive to lie about events that night."

        "Stapleton, who has an obvious motive not to tell the whole truth, continues to shift the blame and will not produce police reports (unavailable to the public) of the accident."

        (My comment: Have complete police reports relating to the incident been released by our State Treasurer?)

    2. The Gazette never read SB13-213 which is the bill that the initiative is governed by. If it passes the money will go into a reserve fund for p-12 schools and on an annual basis be appropriated for Tier B funding for special education, capital construction to build new school buildings and repair others; and early chidlhood education, including preschool for 3, 4 and 5 year olds and full day kindergarten. The initiative will also fund special needs programs, including gifted and talented, at-risk programs and English language learners and charter schools. The new funding will be used to bring our school districts up to speed with the latest internet technology. Finally, the funds will be used to insure that the teacher accountability programs establihed by SB08-212, SB09-163, SB10-191 and HB12-1238 will be funded.

      Not one dime of the new money will be used to backfill the unfunded PERA liabilities. The only part of these new funds that could go to PERA is where a school district hires a new employee with the funds and of course in that instance, the school district must pay into PERA for the new employee.

      If you read the bill, PERA isn't even mentioned. The bill is a detailed presentation of where the funds must be spent and PERA's unfunded liability isn't one of them.

      The notion that the funds will be sent to PERA to pay for its unfunded liability is  nonsense.

      1. Don't try to confuse them with facts. 

        However, this is the narrative they will push, and it's hard to combat. What took them one sentance to falsly claim took several paragraphs to prove false – the average voter doesn't have that attention span.

        CC2K has a messaging problem, and they need to get a head of it quickly.

      2. Not quite nonsense, R36.   Money is a fungible little devil and the fact that PERA isn't mentioned doesn't mean the new money might not displace old money that would then be redirected to PERA.  I used to be treasurer of my church and union and often found myself dealing with restricted funds and using them to pay liabilities formerly funded by my general fund.   Unless you outlaw the profession of accounting, you can never be certain that earmarked funds won't have this displacement effect.   Still, ajb's point is a good one:

           

        Investment returns for the 10-year period were 8.4 percent, exceeding the board-established 8 percent assumed rate of investment return, according to the annual report. PERA's annualized investment returns for the 30-year period have been 9.4 percent.

        PERA credited Senate Bill 1, passed by the Colorado Legislature in 2010, for increasing plan assets and reducing PERA"s unfunded liabilities.

        I am concerned that an 8 pct assumed rate of return forces an overreliance on equities at a time when T-bills are drawing about 3.6 pct for a 30 year note.   The PERA problem can't be ignored, but the 2010 plan is a step toward resassuring it.  Most of the old abuses, like "buying" service credits at huge discounts, as Mike Coffman did, have been addressed.

            I real concern with this plan is that it doesn't put a nickel into higher education, at a time when Colorado is all but abandoning higher education.   Unless I see a fairer distribution of the money raised by this "everthing for preschool and K-12 and nothing for postsecondary " plan, I will be voting no.

         

        1. Don't let perfect be the enemy of better. I agree with all your points. But this is a step forward and it is after the K-12 system has made significant changes.

          PERA has to switch to defined contribution. That's totally distinct from this. And I'm hopeful that in the next year or two the legislature will gather the courage to do so. (For those that will scream bloody murder – defined benefits is not economically sustainable.)

          Higher Education is a mess. But historically increasing funding has directly lead to increased costs. So funding just makes things worse. They need to tame the beast first.

              1. Militarizing the border has little to nothing to do with the legal immigration reforms that are needed.  Becuse reforming PERA is significantly related to needed educational funding changes, your analogy thus fails. 

            5. Nothing says you care about education like holding it hostage to your demands on tangential policy issues.

              We can do better!  Let's also shut down all police departments until we can completely rid ourselves of any police officer abuses.  Close hospitals until we eliminate medical malpractice.  Defund the military until we figure out a plan for Guantanamo Bay.

              1. CDSmithus, you can provide no assurances that the money here will simply not go to prop up PERA.  As such it isn't holding children's education hostage.  Its simply refusing to bailout a pension system based on unsustainable expectations. 

            7. Let's turn the tables here.

              What evidence do you have that the funds from this initiative will be used to fund PERA's unfunded liability?

              What evidence do you have that CDOT's budget won't be used to fund PERA's unfunded liability?

              What evidence do you have that the Colorado Department of Corrections budget won't be used to fund PERA's unfunded liability?

              You can see where I'm going with this. The idea that the funds from this initiative will be used to fund PERA's unfunded liability is a red herring and nothing more. By applying that logic one could make a case that nothing in government should be funded because it could be used for a different purpose. This logic is even more ridiculous when applied to Intiative 22 where the funds are earred marked for specific educational purposes.

              PERA's unfunded liability and Intiative 22 are not even remotely connected.

               

        2. Hey Voyager, the "2010 plan" is unconstitutional.  Colorado state and local governments will not successfully shift their debts onto a small group of Colorado residents (PERA retirees.)

          On October 11, 2012, the Colorado Court of Appeals confirmed the contractual, "automatic" nature of the Colorado PERA COLA benefit.  Colorado Court of Appeals 2012 decision in the case Justus v. State: “We consider McPhail and Bills dispositive (indisputably bringing to a conclusion a legal controversy) of whether plaintiffs here have a contractual right to a particular COLA.”

          http://saveperacola.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/2012-10-11-judgment-reversed-and-case.pdf

          1. Should we fix our entire state with a single vote, then? Given the history of ballot measures, a targeted change has a chance of success, but a broad-based overhaul is likely to fail.

            Cripes. Why is the lack of the perfect always the enemy of the good for people who want to make things better?

    3. Elliot, accrued PERA benefits are contractual obligations of Colorado PERA-affiliated employers.  It doesn't matter if all of the new revenue went directly into the PERA trust funds.  The debt will be paid in any event.  Meeting one's contractual obligations is not a "bail out."  When you pay off your mortgage will you be "bailing out" your mortgage company?

  5. This initiative has 2 major problems:
    1. It raises taxes.
    2. It establishes 2 tax brackets.

    Both of these have NOTHING to do with the merits of helping education.

    Both of these mean this is DOA.

    1. Yes they do>

      For example, part of the funds will be expended on capital construction projects by building new schools or repairing existing buildings. The school district in Antonito needs $9 million to repair existing buildings. That school districts total bonding authority, based on property taxes, is $4 million. By itself, the Antonito school district cannot possibly repair its existing buildings and make them safe. Funds from Amendment 22 will be used to take care of those kind of problems.

      Many school districts can't afford to upgrade the facilities to the internet age. Initiative 22 will fund those kind of projects, especially in rural areas.

      Please take the time to read SB13-213 and I believe you will find there is a lot more to Initiative 22 than money. The bill tells you where the money will be spent. 

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

204 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!