A panel of Colorado state senators on Wednesday amended a bill that seeks changes to the state’s open meetings law and sent the measure to its next stop — the full chamber for debate.

The purpose of this bill was never to reduce transparency, insisted Senate President Steve Fenberg, D-Boulder, sponsor of Senate Bill 157.

As introduced, the measure drew sharp criticism from several groups, which said they were not included in the “stakeholding” process and argued the bill would completely exempt lawmakers from the open meetings law.

Voters put the open meetings law into statute in 1972, Fenberg said, but since then, there have been conflicts and ambiguities, some of which have led to litigation and which has also led to confusion about how to follow the law.

Very little would change should the bill become law, he claimed.

Wednesday’s hearing at the Senate State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee was for amendments and a vote only, following last week’s hearing that included public testimony.

No one testified in favor of the bill last week.

Earlier, First Amendment attorney Steve Zansberg, president of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, said the proposal, in essence, “completely exempts the General Assembly, and all its constituent committees, from the open meetings law,” a scenario that would leave the public “completely in the dark.” 

Zansberg said if enacted, the proposal would allow lawmakers to engage in an “infinite number of serial meetings” with less than a quorum of any committee, caucus or the entire body — without providing public notice or keeping minutes — and in “endless discussions through electronic means” without the public ever knowing such conversations occurred or gaining access to them. Such a scenario would leave the public “completely in the dark,” Zansberg added.           

Colorado lawmakers decide to hold proposal exempting legislature from open meetings law's provisions

Among the most controversial aspects of the bill is in its definition of “public business,” which could include legislation before its formal introduction.

In the statutes, Fenberg said, bill drafts are usually confidential.

There are exceptions: during the November special session, some lawmakers chose to make bill drafts available before the start of the session, and interim committees almost always make drafts available on their websites before approval by the committees. 

The amendment Fenberg offered to define public business said bill drafts are public business only when discussed by a quorum of a statutory committee, a committee of reference during a regular or special session, or a quorum of an interim committee.

“This is reasonable, pretty narrow and it rarely happens that a quorum of a committee discusses a bill draft,” Fenberg said.

He called the amendment a departure from existing practice. 

The amendment didn’t get any love from Sen. Chris Hansen, D-Denver.

“We have to be able to talk about work product with each other, or we can’t do our jobs,” he said. This amendment is a “substantive material change that could have a chilling effect on our ability to be legislators.”

This would make legislative work tough to get done, he said. 

“I don’t disagree,” Fenberg said but asked the committee to approve it anyway. The amendment is a result of good faith discussions with a need to address a concern that he insisted is not totally founded and claimed is likely due to perceptions. 

This amendment would require notice and minutes so long as it’s a quorum of the committee members, he said, adding that other aspects of law allow for drafts to be treated as confidential.

“I’m really worried about a big chilling effect” before finalizing a bill, Hansen replied.

He noted that some interim committees are small, and a quorum could be as few as two or three people, which could trigger notices and minutes.

These informal conversations are “what makes this place great,” Hansen said. “I would hate to lose the ability to banter about different ideas as I’m thinking about a final draft of a proposal.”

The amendment passed 3-2, with Hansen and Sen. Mark Baisley, R-Woodland Park, voting against it.

“It’s healthy and good to have these conversations in the open and think about how we operate” with integrity in the modern workplace, Fenberg said.

The committee approved the bill 4-1, with Baisley voting against it. It will now heads to a full Senate debate.