It is amazing how much worrying takes out of you when every week one has to throw their fate to United Express and the weather. When the two forces collide, no one flies. I have stayed in Denver three times already this year due to cancellations. With-out a doubt, flying is the worst part of serving in the legislature. Urban legislators probably never worry about the small stuff like getting home each weekend. It definitely wears on one's spirit and motivation.

* * * * * * * *

The importance of a legislator preparing to present a bill in committee has been demonstrated many times already this session. New legislators, particularly those in the minority party, face stiff opposition if they have not done their homework and know all of the nuances of their proposed measure. The majority party, obviously outnumbering the minority party in every committee, are often much more forgiving to a party member than a non party member ... and that's just the way it goes. So preparation and delivery are increasingly important.

The style that should concern citizens most, and unfortunately is not uncommon in either house, is the legislator who comes to the committee, basically reads the Fiscal Note prepared by staff and then defers all questions to the witnesses. This approach to carrying legislation weakens the legislative process. All too many times, it is obvious that the sponsor decided to carry a particular bill because he or she didn't already have a full slate of bills or they were carrying the 'political water' for a special interest group. This is not to say that carrying bills for special interest groups is bad, it is saying that blindly carrying a bill without developing a clear understanding of it and being able to answer at least minor questions on how it fits within the law, is irresponsible and cheapens the legislative process.

When accepting the responsibility of carrying a measure, I believe it follows that the legislator should learn all he or she can about that particular subject and be prepared to answer questions regarding its applicability under current law. This means the sponsor has to do a significant amount of research (depending, of course, on the difficulty of the topic) in understanding all of the impacts of the proposed bill. Still it is amazing how many bills get through based primarily on persuasive witnesses in committee and/or seeming disinterest on the floor. Fortunately, this is generally not the case but this past couple of weeks I have experienced more of this than I can remember in past years.

* * * * * * * *

Last week a Durango Herald columnist reported he was "fried" at the Legislature's failure to pass the Strategic Lawsuit's Against Public Participation (SLAPP) bill. Unfortunately the author cast many insinuations that lobbyist intervention tainted my vote. Untrue. Anyone who knows anything about me knows that I attempt to study issues fully and base my decisions on as informed and reasoned understanding as I can obtain.

The article was correct in stating my position that no one should be totally immune when outright lying before public hearings. However, also understanding that some developers drag people into court knowing that the case will ultimately be dismissed (while still causing financial and personal damage), I attempted to amend the bill while at least retaining some accountability under the law for lying .

Rep. Sinclair absolutely refused to allow any reasonable amendments to his bill. Hard as many of us tried to strike balance to an otherwise good bill, we were repeatedly rejected. Being completely stonewalled, I saw no option but to vote "no."

Naturally, this columnist protested my vote and claimed, disappointingly, that lobbyists wrongly influenced me. He also claims that free speech protects even those who would lie before a governmental entity for financial or personal gain. I am confident that the citizens of Southwestern Colorado reject the notion of removing all accountability for lying at public hearings. The Speaker and others are now working on a bill to stop the developer abuse without completely trashing the hearing process.