Kipp is back with another stab at CORA. SB26-065 Front Range Democrats know more than those working the land. Sharf: PERA bills are a "mixed bag".
Kipp is back with another stab at CORA.
I had heard from my state senator (B Pelton) that Senator Kipp would be back this year with another run at modifying the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA).
Her bill recently came out and I link to it first below. The Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition (CFOIC) article on the bill is linked second below as an additional resource if you want it.
I will be advocating against this bill both here and, hopefully, by testifying against it in committee (as of this writing there is no date set).
To her credit, Kipp is not oblivious to past criticism (or strident enough to not care a la Senator Sullivan) about her previous attempts at modifying CORA; having been following her efforts over the course of years now, I've noted that she removes and/or modifies some of the more onerous provisions in earlier versions.
Still, I'm a no. I'll leave it to you to read either the CFOIC piece or the bill summary to see what this bill does in full, but I can outline the provisions I still object to pretty quickly.
I'm glad to see that the bill doesn't separate us into first- and second-class records requesters by giving special favors to the media (a notable feature of earlier bills), but the provision about extending CORA timelines is back. Quoting the CFOIC piece with lines intact:
"Under the new bill, they would have five working days, rather than three, to fulfill requests and an additional 10 working days, rather than seven, if “extenuating circumstances” exist. Governments could take up to 30 working days to fulfill requests made “for the direct solicitation of business for pecuniary gain” and charge a “reasonable cost” — rather than the maximum hourly rate in CORA — to do so."
along with this, there is a related provision (from further down in the CFOIC piece):
"The bill also would add an extenuating circumstance, giving records custodians who are 'essential to the process of responding to requests' more time to process requests when they are not scheduled to work during the response period."
As with earlier attempts by Kipp, this bill inserts a bit which would lump together any requests within a 14 day window the custodian thinks are related into one big request with only the one hour's free research/retrieval time.
"Additionally, it would let governments treat multiple requests — 'pertaining to facially similar content' made by the same person within 14 days — as one request, ensuring the requester gets only one free hour before research-and-retrieval charges kick in."
I fail to see why we should be extending deadlines. Investigating what the government is doing with our money and in our name is already a lot of work to do on top of a full time job when you have a family. Perhaps extending deadlines is not as onerous to one who does this for a living, but when schedule's and time are tight, this makes something difficult worse.
I also take exception to the proviso about multiple requests. This has been a feature of every previous bill Kipp has done, and I'm just as against it now as I was before. People like me who are not paid journalists without large, monied organizations behind them, are often working a zero to a very limited budget (on a good day).
Mess up? Forget to include something? You get to wait 14 days if you don't want that screwup to burn up your single free hour of research/retrieval.
Not only that, what if the custodian determines that a second request you made is "facially similar" and thus lumps them together. If you disagree, I hope you got money and time to go to court over it. The bill makes no provision to has that out otherwise.
Kipps latest attempt may not be as awful as earlier ones, but it's still not the kind of policy we need in Colorado. Even though it doesn't explicitly favor one group, it creates disparities that put citizens at a disadvantage compared to others.
These are our records. They are not the government's and we don't need more barriers to access than we already face.
If you want to follow the bill and/or speak up about it, check it's progress through the bill link below.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB26-107
https://coloradofoic.org/state-lawmakers-try-again-to-let-governments-take-up-to-three-weeks-to-fulfill-many-cora-requests-no-journalist-exemption-in-sb-26-107/
SB26-065 Front Range Democrats know more than those working the land
I came across SB26-065 first via the Sun article linked below. There is a lot of context about the bill and reactions to it (some of which we’ll get to in a bit), but first I want to look at the bill itself.
SB26-065 is linked second below. I took a screenshot of the bill’s summary and attach it as screenshot 1.
In short, besides adding more to the state’s already bloated regulatory (and non-elected) infrastructure, the bill creates a scheme whereby wanting to grow “field crop” seeds which are coated with a systemic insecticide** must get a permission slip from the government.
The crops that the bill defines as a field crop are attached as screenshot 2, which comes from the bill’s full text.
This permission slip comes from a state-approved third party group. They assess your land, determine whether you need coated seeds or not, and then give you a one year pass to use coated seeds (or not). This is the only way you can get coated seeds, because after the bill is implemented, it will be illegal to sell or distribute them without permission.
By looking at the bill text--quoting, and recall that all caps text is in the language of bills the way you denote a change to existing law, “A THIRD-PARTY VERIFICATION FEE SET IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED THE [Dept of Agriculture’s} COMMISSIONER’S DIRECT AND INDIRECT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR IMPLEMENTING AND ENFORCING THIRD-PARTY VERIFICATIONS--I can already tell you who will fund all this checking.
It’s you if you’re the grower. You fund it with a new fee you’ll pay.
There’s a couple tidbits more to share from the Sun article.*
The first is a quote from the article and it’s the response to this bill by the Colorado Farm Bureau.
“Colorado Farm Bureau spokesperson Melissa Weaver said in an email response to questions that the ag group is opposed ‘as it bans the use and sale of our farmers’ most effective, efficient, safe and affordable pest management tool.’ Farmers are averaging $50,000 a year in profits, and recent inflation has jacked up the cost of everything from machinery to fertilizer, the bureau claims. The extra cost of a new neonicotinoid regime and the loss of yield for farmers who can’t get approval would be a devastating combo, the bureau said.”
The second is a quote from Gov Polis who apparently supports this bill (having attended a get together put on by others who support it--see the article for that):
“Polis does support the seed-licensing bill, spokesperson Eric Maruyama said on Monday. ‘The governor for decades has believed that limiting unnecessary pesticides is an important way to support our farmers and make Colorado healthier, and he appreciates any effort to support a more sustainable and environmentally friendly Colorado,” Maruyama said. ‘That includes reducing the amount of unnecessary insecticides used in farming across the state. The governor calls on the legislature to take meaningful action to limit neonicotinoid pesticides as states like Vermont and New York and the European Union have done, and pass this legislation.’”
I have some concerns about this bill and will be signing up to testify against it. I am concerned that this puts an extra burden on farms (without providing a benefit that will be greater or even in line with the extra burden). I’m also concerned about yet another damned layer of bureaucracy and unelected decision-making.
This is more hoops to jump through and, despite what Polis says, it is in NO way supporting agriculture in this state. It is rather a harm to Ag. This is thoughtless payback by Front Range legislators who’ve likely never turned a shovel of dirt in their lives.
If you would like to follow suit, you will find information on the committee and when it’s up for its first hearing in the bill link below.
*For yet another take on it, see Rachel Gabel’s op ed on it as “Related” content.
**As a quick side note, one has to wonder about Polis’ statements. Do they just pull phrases out and insert them into a generic framework a la Mad Libs? Has he been a politician so long that saying nonsense like that this bill supports Ag just automatically fall out his mouth?
https://coloradosun.com/2026/02/10/colorado-pesticide-neonic-seeds-sharp-restrictions/
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/SB26-065
Related:
The FencePost's Rachel Gabel wrote an op ed on this bill. Linked below for yet another take on it.
Colorado politicians legislating your plate is apt.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/2026/02/02/insecticide-bill-latest-example-of-colorado-pols-legislating-your-plate-rachel-gabel/
Sharf: PERA bills are a “mixed bag”
If you are in PERA or will soon be, I wanted to share the Complete Colorado review of three bills which will affect PERA this coming session.
I'll leave it to you to read the piece, but it covers three bills and Mr. Sharf, the author, chracterizes them as "too little", "too much", and "just right".
Give the piece a read and add the bill's to your watch list as you see appropriate.
https://completecolorado.com/2026/02/04/pera-bills-mixed-bag-for-colorado-taxpayers/
Of course polis supports SB26 065, he has made it well known that he dislikes farmer and ranchers. He claims the state has no need for agriculture. The truth is farmers and ranchers don't vote for his woke agenda so any hardship he can impose on them warms his cold heart.