DENVER AREA LABOR FEDERATION, AFL-CIO, a Colorado Corporation, and Jack Hawkins, Petitioners, v. Victoria BUCKLEY, Secretary of State for the State of Colorado, and Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority, Respondents.
No. 95SC314.
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.
Sept. 23, 1996.
924 P.2d 524
Natalie Meyer was the Secretary of State of Colorado prior to the filing of this appeal. Victoria Buckley, successor to Natalie Meyer, has been substituted as the respondent to this appeal.
We conclude that the electorate of a governmental entity may authorize retention and expenditure of the excess collection without forcing a corresponding revenue reduction. In Nicholl, we characterized pre-Amendment 1 approval and retention of all revenues from a registration fee to fund a highway project as a voter-approved “revenue change,” referring to the language of section (7)(d). 896 P.2d at 873.10 Since the law of initiated and referred measures and the language of Amendment 1 favor placing matters before the voters, we should not adopt a construction of this constitutional provision which would void the electorate‘s determination, in the absence of clear language to the contrary.11 We have long held that the Colorado Constitution, “as well as the statutes which implement it, must be liberally construed so as not to unduly limit or curtail the initiative or referendum rights.” Billings v. Buchanan, 192 Colo. 32, 35, 555 P.2d 176, 178 (Colo.1976); In re Second Initiated Constitutional Amendment Respecting the Rights of the Pub. to Uninterrupted Serv. by Pub. Employees of 1980, 200 Colo. 141, 146, 613 P.2d 867, 870 (Colo.1980).
III.
In sum, the concept of offset utilized in section (7)(d) is that the electorate may counterbalance the governmental entity‘s duty to refund excess revenues by performing, in favor of that entity, the function reserved to the voters: the people‘s discretion to approve retention and expenditure of the excess revenue collections rather than taking the refund available to them under Amendment 1.
Thus, we affirm the judgment of the trial court upholding retention and expenditure of excess revenues collected by Archuleta County in accordance with the Referred Measure approved by the county‘s electorate.
Dallas, Holland & O‘Toole, P.C., Neil D. O‘Toole, Denver, for Petitioners.
Gale Norton, Attorney General, Timothy M. Tymkovich, Solicitor General, Maurice Knaizer, First Assistant Attorney General, State Services Section, Denver, for Respondent Secretary of State.
Curt Kriksciun, Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority, Denver, for Respondent Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority.
Justice KIRSHBAUM delivered the Opinion of the Court.
I
The petitioners filed a petition with the Secretary to include on the 1992 state ballot a proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution entitled the “Safe Work Environment Amendment.” An organization, the Coalition to Save Colorado Jobs (the Coalition), was formed to defeat the proposed amendment. The Authority printed articles opposing the proposed amendment in its publication and, on behalf of the Coalition, purchased posters prepared by the Coalition and distributed them to employers. In addition, the Coalition filed reports with the Secretary indicating that the Authority had made contributions to the Coalition.
On December 15, 1992, the petitioners filed a verified complaint with the Secretary pursuant to section 1-45-113(2) of the Act alleging that the Authority, as a political subdivision of the state, violated the Act and exceeded its statutory authority in making these contributions. On December 17, 1992, the Authority filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the contributions did not constitute contributions of “public moneys” or prohibited contributions in kind because the Colorado compensation insurance authority fund administered by the Authority consists primarily of premiums paid into the fund by employers for the purchase of workers’ compensation insurance. The Authority also argued that the determination of whether the Authority exceeded its statutory authority in making the contributions was not within the jurisdiction of the Secretary. The Secretary agreed with these arguments and on February 3, 1993, entered an order dismissing the complaint.
The petitioners filed a complaint in the district court seeking review of the Secretary‘s order, pursuant to
II
The petitioners argue that the moneys in the fund administered by the Authority constitute “public moneys” for purposes of
State and political subdivisions—limitations on contributions. (1)(a) No agency, department, board, division, bureau, commission, or council of the state or any political subdivision thereof shall make any contribution or contribution in kind in campaigns involving the nomination, retention, or election of any person to any public office, nor shall any such entity expend any public moneys from any source, or make any contributions in kind, to urge electors to vote in favor of or against any issue before the electorate....
In construing the language of a statute, courts must ascertain and give effect to the intent of the General Assembly in enacting the statute. Boatright v. Derr, 919 P.2d 221, 224 (Colo.1996); Colorado Common Cause v. Meyer, 758 P.2d 153, 160 (Colo.1988). To determine such intent, courts should first look to the statutory language giving words and phrases their commonly understood meaning. Colorado Common Cause, 758 P.2d at 160. If the language of that statute is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning, courts should construe the language in light of the objective sought to be achieved. Id. Moreover, a statute should be construed so as to give consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to all of its parts. Id.
The Act prohibits the expenditure of “public moneys from any source” for certain purposes. While the term “public moneys” is not defined, the all-inclusive language “from any source” indicates that the General Assembly intended an expansive definition of the phrase. Thus, the term “public moneys” may not be construed to refer only to sums realized from the imposition of taxes. Given the broad sweep of this term, any effort to determine whether certain moneys constitute public moneys for purposes of the Act by reference solely to the source of such moneys would prove futile.
The Authority and the Secretary rely upon our decision in Stong v. Industrial Commission, 71 Colo. 133, 204 P. 892 (1922), in support of their argument that the fund administered by the Authority does not consist of public moneys for purposes of
The parties do not dispute that the Authority is a political subdivision of this state and enjoys governmental immunity. See
The court of appeals referred to our decision in Pensioners Protective Association v. Davis, 112 Colo. 535, 150 P.2d 974 (1944), in the course of its decision. In Davis, we concluded that an award of attorney fees satisfied from moneys taken from the old age pension fund did not constitute a recovery against the state and, therefore, was not barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Id. at 539-40, 150 P.2d at 976. In the course of reaching that conclusion, we determined that moneys comprising the old age pension fund did not constitute “public funds” belonging to the state. Id. at 540, 150 P.2d at 976. The court of appeals in this case stated that the General Assembly is presumed to be aware of our interpretation of the term “public funds.” Denver Area Labor Federation, 907 P.2d at 640-41.
It must first be observed that
Furthermore, the question presented here is not whether the moneys of the workers’ compensation fund are “public funds” that belong to the state. As we have indicated,
III
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. The case is remanded to that court with directions to return the case to the district court with directions to remand to the Secretary for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VOLLACK, C.J., dissents.
Chief Justice VOLLACK, dissenting:
The majority holds that the language of
I.
In 1992, the “Safe Work Environment Amendment” (the Amendment) was included on the general election ballot. In response, the Coalition to Save Colorado Jobs (the coalition) was organized to defeat the Amendment. The CCIA, which supported the coalition‘s efforts, spent approximately $30,000 out of the Colorado compensation insurance fund (the fund) to publish negative editorials in its newsletter and send out posters to subscribers urging them to vote against the Amendment.
In December 1992, the Denver Area Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, and Jack Hawkins (the petitioners) filed a verified complaint with the Secretary of State against the CCIA. The complaint alleged that the CCIA expenditures used to defeat the Amendment violated the CRA as unlawful contributions in kind. The CCIA filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on grounds that the CRA prohibition on contributions in kind did not apply to political entities managing private funds.
The Secretary of State granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the CCIA had not violated the CRA. The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that while the CCIA funds “are held in public trust for specified statutory purposes, those funds do not constitute public money.” Denver Area Labor Fed‘n v. Meyer, 907 P.2d 638, 641 (Colo.App.1995).
II.
A.
The majority reverses the Court of Appeals, holding that the language of
No agency, department, board, division, bureau, commission, or council of the state or any political subdivision thereof shall make any contribution or contribution in kind in campaigns involving the nomination, retention, or election of any person to any public office, nor shall any such entity expend any public moneys from any source, or make any contributions in kind, to urge electors to vote in favor of or against any:
(A) Statewide ballot issue ...;
(B) Local ballot issue ...;
(C) Referred measure ...;
(D) Measure for a recall of any officer....
(Emphasis added.)
The majority interprets the statute‘s “from any source” language highlighted above as an indication that the General Assembly intended an expansive definition of the term “public moneys” to include political entities completely funded with private money. Maj. op. at 527. I dissent because I believe the plain language of the CRA requires that the “moneys” spent be “public.” In my view, the CCIA is a hybrid political entity managing a private fund to further the interests of its private membership. For this reason, I would hold that the CRA does not apply because the money spent by the CCIA on in kind campaign contributions is not public money within the meaning of the CRA.
B.
The state compensation insurance fund was created with the passage of the original workers’ compensation statute in 1919 and was subsequently renamed the Colorado compensation insurance fund in 1990. It consists of (a) premiums paid by employers to insure them against workers’ compensation claims, (b) all property and securities acquired by the fund, and (c) any interest earned on those assets.
The state treasurer serves as custodian of the fund subject to the direction of the CCIA fund manager (the manager) and the CCIA board of directors (the board).
The State Compensation Insurance Authority (SCIA) was created in 1986 to manage and administer the fund and became the CCIA in 1990. The CCIA consists of a seven-member board of directors appointed by the governor with the consent of the senate.
While the CCIA is “a corporate body and a political subdivision of the state” and enjoys liability protection under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act as well as inclusion in the risk management fund, it is not an agency of state government.
Both the fund and the CCIA operate in much the same manner as a private insurance company. Employers pay premiums to the fund, claims are received and processed by the CCIA, and disbursements are made to claimants out of the fund. See
Clearly, the legislature set up both the CCIA and the fund to operate as private entities within the state government and
C.
The CRA was passed to “promote public confidence in government through a more informed electorate.”
The original CRA prohibited political entities from making contributions or contributions in kind to campaigns involving candidates for public office, but allowed contributions and contributions in kind to campaigns involving issues in which the political entity had an “official concern.”
The majority interprets the phrase “public moneys from any source” in
The majority‘s interpretation overlooks the myriad of sources of public funds besides tax revenue such as fines, tolls, escheats, and federal grants. A more reasonable interpretation of the “public moneys from any source” language would first require that the money spent on political contributions be “public” before disregarding the various sources of those public funds. It would follow that private money outside the reach of the general fund would not fall within the CRA‘s prohibition on contributions in kind.2
This interpretation is consistent with relevant case law. In Stong v. Industrial Commission, 71 Colo. 133, 204 P. 892 (1922), this court held that the state treasurer did not have the authority to manage the state compensation insurance fund because the fund consisted of money separate from the general fund. The Stong court stated:
Full control of the fund is given to the Commission; the custodian [the treasurer] is authorized to do nothing with it except upon their order....
....
[Y]et the constitution is not violated, because the fund in question is not the general property of the state and its custody is no part of the treasurer‘s constitutional duty but is conferred on him by statute only. The fund is not “creditable to the general revenue of the state” and is “designated for purposes other than such general revenue,” and so is not in the treasury of the state.
Stong, 71 Colo. at 135-36, 204 P. at 893 (citation omitted).
Similarly, in Pensioners Protective Association v. Davis, 112 Colo. 535, 150 P.2d 974 (1944), we held that a pension fund administered by the State Board of Public Welfare was subject to an award of attorney fees because there was no public money in the fund. The Davis court pointed out that:
The fund is not dependent upon legislative appropriation. The state, in its sovereign capacity, has and can have, no interest therein .... The moneys involved are not public funds. They stand segregated for a special and designated use. The term public funds means funds belonging to the state. The term does not apply to special funds, which are collected or voluntarily contributed, for the sole benefit of the con-
tributors, and of which the state is merely the custodian.
Davis, 112 Colo. at 540, 150 P.2d at 976 (emphasis added).
As Stong and Davis make clear, the state has no interest in funds derived from private sources. The state, therefore, has no authority to prevent the CCIA from spending private moneys in support of, or against, a campaign issue.
D.
The CRA legislative history cited by the majority is ambiguous as to whether the term “public moneys” includes funds derived from purely private sources and held apart from the general fund. Maj. op. at p. 528, n. 4. These passages only address the use of general or individual funds to advocate a position on a ballot issue and shed no light on the issue presented by this case. Id.
During the floor debate on the bill to amend
I don‘t think it‘s appropriate that we be using taxpayers money to push one side of an issue.... It‘s not fair to take one group of taxpayers and elevate them above another group of taxpayers.
H.B. No. 1179, 56th Gen. Assembly, 2d Reg. Sess., (Feb. 24, 1988) (emphasis added). Later, Representative Owens reaffirmed this idea:
I think the important point is that we shouldn‘t be letting taxpayer funds be used on one side or the other of these issues. Representative Green‘s bill will simply insure the government‘s neutrality on these issues.
H.B. No. 1179, 56th Gen. Assembly, 2d Reg. Sess., (Feb. 24, 1988) (emphasis added).
In her remarks to the house committee, Representative Green also compared the bill to
No moneys of the authority may be used to urge or oppose passage of an election to establish or increase any tax or annual motor vehicle registration fee....
If this provision was used as a model for
The emphasis on “public money” in the wording of
III.
I agree with the majority that the use of public money to influence the passage of a proposed initiative violates core values in our democratic system and reduces public confidence in government.3 However, a public
I dissent because I disagree with the majority‘s classification of the fund over which the CCIA operates as “public moneys” subject to
... When residents within a state seek to participate in this process by proposing an amendment to the state constitution, the expenditure of public funds in opposition to that effort violates a basic precept of this nation‘s democratic process. Indeed, it would seem so contrary to the root philosophy of a republican
Notes
The SCIA board underwent several structural changes in the years prior to 1990, yet always maintained a majority of employer representatives. See
By creating and maintaining a majority of employer representatives on the board, the General Assembly clearly intended the CCIA to serve primarily as an agent for employers in the workers’ compensation scheme.
We granted review of the following three issues:
- Whether the court of appeals erred when it found that the Campaign Reform Act‘s prohibition against political subdivisions spending “public moneys” to support or oppose issues before the electorate, § 1-45-116(1)(a), 1B C.R.S. (1994 Supp.), does not apply to the Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority.
- Whether the court of appeals erred when it found that § 1-45-116(1)(a), 1B C.R.S. (1994 Supp.), of the Campaign Reform Act, which prohibits “in kind” contributions by political subdivisions, does not apply to the Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority.
- Whether § 8-45-101(5)(i) limits the political activities of the Colorado Compensation Insurance Authority to reviewing and recommending legislation pertaining to workers’ compensation and does not permit any other political activity under the doctrine of inclusio unius est exclusion [sic] alterius.
In view of our disposition of the first issue, we do not address the second and third issues.
It is true that, for public investment purposes, the term “public funds” is defined inDistrict Judge Matsch had this to say about the expenditure of public funds for issue campaigning in a case dealing the original language of
A use of the power of publicly owned resources to propagandize against a proposal made and supported by a significant number of those who were taxed to pay for such resources is an abridgment of... fundamental freedoms. Specifically, where the proposal in question—placed before the voters in the exercise of the initiative power—seeks fundamentally to alter the authority of representative government, opposition to the proposal which is financed by publicly collected funds has the effect of shifting the ultimate source of power away from the people....
form of government as might cause this Court to resort to the guaranty clause in Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution. Mountain States Legal Found. v. Denver Sch. Dist. No. 1, 459 F.Supp. 357, 360-61 (D.Colo.1978) (citations omitted).
Legislative history supports the determination that the General Assembly‘s use of the term “public moneys” was intended to designate those moneys under the control of the public entities specified in
Currently a public entity cannot give any money to a candidate for their retention, nomination or whatever, but they can put money into a ballot issue and there‘s nothing to prohibit them from putting money in on one side of the issue or the other. What the intent of my bill is is that they will be able to put money in to present an even, balanced, non-biased report of the facts on both sides of the issue so that the electorate will be informed, but that they cannot take one side or another and promote it....
Hearings on H.B. 1179 Before the House Committee on State Affairs, 56th Gen. Assembly, 2d Reg. Sess., Feb. 11, 1988. Furthermore, use of the term “public moneys” serves the purpose of distinguishing such moneys from the personal moneys of those who serve in governmental office, as is further evidenced by the following statements by Representative Green:
[W]hat the bill does is it only deals with contributions and contributions in kind in prohibiting anyone from using those moneys to advocate, to take an advocate position on a ballot issue. It does not prohibit by the definition of contribution or contribution in kind in the current statute an individual person using their own time. It only deals with public money or public time.
Hearings on H.B. 1179 Before the House Committee on State Affairs, 56th Gen. Assembly, 2d Reg. Sess., Feb. 11, 1988. There is no suggestion from these remarks that moneys such as those contained in the workers’ compensation fund were not intended to constitute public moneys for purposes of
In contrast, the statutory provisions of
Where a taxing entity exceeds the limitation imposed by subsection (1) of this section during any year, the division of local government shall order a reduction in the authorized revenue of the taxing entity for the subsequent year in an amount which offsets the excess revenues levied in the preceding year. Such order shall be preceded by notice to the taxing entity of the proposed order and an opportunity for the taxing entity to respond prior to issuance of the order.