DENVER — Majority Democrats on Monday doubled-down on doing the public’s business behind closed doors by killing a bill intended to give a boost to government transparency.

House Bill 25-1242, with the most significant part being a repeal of an open meetings law carve-out (Senate Bill 157) lawmakers granted themselves during the 2024 legislative session, was postponed indefinitely on a straight party line vote of 8-3 in the House State Civic, Military, and Veteran’s Affairs committee.

Last year’s bill, among other things, exempted legislators from a law that says no more than two elected officials can be in the same location at the same time unless by chance or at a function where public business is not being discussed.

Rep. Chad Clifford, a Democrat from Arapahoe County said he was “shocked” to learn he couldn’t have a conversation with another legislator without it being open to the public, and would not vote to repeal last year’s special exemption from the law for legislators.

“You have just specified that this makes this unequal with other governments,” Clifford said to a group of constituents testifying in favor of the bill. “But every other government body has some ability to have an executive session or to discuss, opine, talk strategy.”

Clifford’s remarks were overly broad and not necessarily accurate. Legislators were previously allowed to talk to another legislator, and while Colorado government entities can hold executive sessions, they just need to be limited scope, with the public notified of the general content of that discussion.

Additionally, before SB 157, legislators also had additional protections from the work product exemptions Clifford claimed didn’t exist.

Transparency advocates on the offensive

Sponsored by Rep. Lori Garcia-Sander (R-Eaton) and Sen. Byron Pelton (R-Sterling), HB 1242 also sought changes to the deadlines for custodians to respond to Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) requests, the amount that can be charged to the requestor, the number of “free” hours that are granted, and caps the amount a custodian can charge for attorney review of the information at $50 per hour.

The bill was drafted  in response to an ongoing stakeholder’s meeting involving several dozen entities that wish to change the way public records are treated in Colorado. Those stakeholders include, among others, traditional news media outlets, the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, Colorado’s print and broadcast news associations, the League of Women Voters, Independence Institute, along with several citizen journalists who publish consistently and frequently on their own social media pages and websites.

Jon Caldara, President of Independence Institute, told the committee he has never seen anything like this in his more than 35 years of being involved in Colorado politics.

“Never in my life have I seen such violent and drastic polarization going on throughout the county and the state,” Caldara said. “I have never seen such vile inability for both sides to talk to one another about common goals. I’d like to thank the state legislature for doing something that I thought was completely impossible, to bring together so many different sides of the political aisle to work on this bill in trying to correct the overreach of last year’s Senate Bill 157.”

HB 1242 as written excluded any special considerations or waivers for “credentialed” journalists, nor does it attempt to define “news media,” something that has been a bone of contention in prior attempts at CORA and open meetings reforms, and which is included part of another transparency-related effort, Senate Bill 77, which was heard prior to 1242, and which passed the committee 8-3.

Garcia-Sander told the committee that she brought the bill because for over five decades Colorado has upheld its open records and transparency commitment, until now.

“Our laws insured that journalists could report on government actions, citizens could access records, and elected officials were held accountable to the people they serve” Garcia-Sander said. “With the passage of 157 we granted lawmakers an exemption from key transparency laws making it easier to negotiate policy behind closed doors, making it harder for the press, and even some legislators to make it harder to know what was happening in this building.”

Push for open government

Garcia-Sander said her bill was to restore public trust and reaffirm open government.

The bill also pushed for other changes, including:

• Requires the requestor to submit an affidavit of service with all requests in order to make official the date the request was submitted.
• Clarifies that the custodian cannot increase costs charged or expand date and time for inspection.
• Does not include the day that the service is fulfilled in the time computation.
• Requires that the computation of time begins on the third day after a request is postmarked if mailed.
• Changes reasonable time from three to five working days.
• Requires a custodian to provide evidence of proof that a document requested would violate copyright or licensing agreement.
• Caps hourly fees for public records at $25 per hour.
• Adds to the definition of “official record” any incident report or other record of an interaction between any on-duty peace officer and any member of the public.
• Changes the response time for Colorado Criminal Justice Records Acts (CCJRA) requests to three days after the request is received with up to 10 days for extenuating circumstances.
• Records from a completed internal investigation be available within 21 days of the request being submitted, whether or not the investigation involved a member of the public.
• Applies all the same parameters as those under CORA for search and retrieval and attorney fees to CCJRA.

“Supporters claimed (157) was about efficiency, about allowing law makers to have candid discussions without violating the open meetings laws,” Garcia-Sander said. “But we’ve already seen the consequences. Journalists were barred from legislative meetings. … Reporters were barred from caucus meetings where lawmakers were discussing a potential special session.”

Garcia-Sander also pointed out that even lawmakers have complained they are kept out of discussions.

“One Democrat said they felt like they had a gun to their head when being forced to vote on a deal they were not involved in crafting,” she said. “If lawmakers don’t know what’s happening, how can we expect the public to trust this process.”

Caldara told the committee the stakeholder’s group is prepared to take their request to voters as one or more ballot initiatives, including a constitutional amendment, in the November 2026 election, where he is confident voters will agree overwhelmingly.

“Before you knew it, organizations that I have criticized for more than three decades. Organizations that I have gone to political war with, were sitting down at the table with us because of their outrage over what happened,” Caldara said. “In 2026, we will be bringing forward a constitutional amendment. … The last time we put something on the ballot on sunshine laws, it passed 70-30. And that was without any coalition behind it. This one is going to be exceptional, and I thank you for bringing us all together.”

Complete Colorado, which is a part of the transparency stakeholder’s group, will continue to follow this story.