Notes/Comments from Sheriff Maketa will appear in a bold, italicized, blue font.

These notes and comments were added outside of the chain of emails for the purpose of explanation.

The following are three emails I received that express concern with regard to the senate dems feedback to Sheriff's from other sources at the capital. It should be noted there absolutely no regulation or statutory requirement to have 7 republicans sign on as sponsors to permit late bill status such as insinuated by the senate president.

(Email #1)
From: Christopher Olson [colson@csoc.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 10:54 AM To: Terry Maketa Subject: RE: Agreed upon amendments - SB 197 Understand. It is probably no surprise that the Dems are mad at us, but I agree that we can still be true to what all of you testified to the other day. I was advised that a letter of support for SB197 might sooth certain bad feelings. Sheriff, it is up to the Legislative Committee to let me know what to do. Thanks for your input. Chris From: Terry Maketa [mailto:TerryMaketa@elpasoco.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 10:49 AM To: Christopher Olson Subject: Re: Agreed upon amendments - SB 197 I see how it if we want a salary bill then we better be obedient because the dems are mad at us. Well from what I've seen and read the Sheriffs are not happy with the Dems or the process they used to derail citizen input.. Addressing salaries at a fair market value is a legislative mandate not an option or and emotional knee jerk reaction. It was the dems process that was used to determine a fair compensation proposal, let's not forget that fact. So sheriff mis behave in the eyes of the dems and now they threaten us with salary. Yes it is selling out. Two separate issues and that is also a fact. From: Christopher Olson [mailto:colson@csoc.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 10:23 AM To: Chad Day (c.day@yumacountysheriff.net) <c.day@yumacountysheriff.net>; Doug Darr (dndarr@co.adams.co.us) <dndarr@co.adams.co.us>; dweaver@dcsheriff.net<dweaver@dcsheriff.net>; Gary Cure <gcure@csoc.org>; Grayson Robinson (grobinson@co.arapahoe.co.us) <grobinson@co.arapahoe.co.us>; James Beicker (jim.beicker@fremontso.com) <jim.beicker@fremontso.com>; John Cooke (jcooke@co.weld.co.us) <jcooke@co.weld.co.us>; Joseph D. Hoy (joseph@sheriff.eagle.co.us) <joseph@sheriff.eagle.co.us>; Kirk Taylor (taylork@co.pueblo.co.us) <taylork@co.pueblo.co.us>; Lou Vallario (lvallario@garcosheriff.com) <lvallario@garcosheriff.com>; Peg Ackerman <aicorp@qwestoffice.net>; Terry Maketa; Tim Jantz (tjantz@sheriff.moffat.co.us) <tjantz@sheriff.moffat.co.us> Cc: Fred McKee <fmckee@deltacounty.com>; peg@aic-co.com <peg@aic-co.com> Subject: FW: Agreed upon amendments - SB 197 All,

Below are the amendments to SB 197 that Sheriff Robinson and I discussed with a small group yesterday, from CDAC, the Chiefs, and Amy Miller with CCADV. Based on other information I received today, I would strongly advise that we review these amendments and potentially change our position on this bill from neutral to support. I feel that we were very much listened to during this small group discussion and that the CSOC voice was heard. I have been advised by a reliable source at the Capitol that the Dems are seriously not pleased with the CSOC positions on the gun bills, and given the potential for a real salary bill to be introduced as you shall see from a follow-up email from Sheriff Pelle,, support of SB197 would put us in a more favorable light for salary bill support from the Dems. I do not believe we would be sacrificing our principles or positions on the other gun bills by supporting SB197. Please let us know what you think on this proposal ASAP as I need to get a letter from us to the Senate Dems before the close of business today. Also, you can go to the General Assembly website to find the current version of SB197. Thank you for your consideration of this urgent matter. Chris

(Email #2)
-----Original Message----From: Christopher Olson [mailto:colson@csoc.org] Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 1:48 PM To: Subject: FW: Legislative Meeting Sheriffs, This effort is not dead! Please help Sheriff Pelle by getting one or more of your Republican legislators to help. Thank you. Chris From: Pelle, Joe [mailto:jpelle@bouldercounty.org] Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 1:45 PM To: peg@aic-co.com; grobinson@co.arapahoe.co.us; Christopher Olson Subject: Legislative Meeting I won't be attending the legislative meeting. The only update I have on the salary commission is that we are still trying to nail down one Republican House Representative willing to sponsor the bill with Rep. Levy. The President of the Senate, Morse, has stipulated that we have to get seven Republican co-sponsors before he will grant late bill status on the Senate side. That is not going to happen. After the sheriff's finish testifying on the gun bills it won't change, but will get worse. Speaker Ferrandino and House Majority Leader Hullinghorst indicate they will give late bill status on the House side if we get a Republican to sponsor a bill with Claire. That is still proving to be difficult.

(Email #3)
From: Pelle, Joe [mailto:jpelle@bouldercounty.org] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:02 PM To: Christopher Olson Cc: peg@aic-co.com; grobinson@co.arapahoe.co.us Subject: Salary Bill The Salary Commission will be presenting our recommendations to the joint Committee of Local Government Affairs, (House and Senate combined), next Thursday February 21st, at 08:00 at the state capitol. (I don't have the room number just yet). Linda Romer-Todd, (the chairperson of the salary commission), met with the Senate President Morse today, and was essentially informed that he was fundamentally opposed to a salary bill and will not give it late bill status to allow it to be heard on the Senate side. There is speculation that we are being punished for the CSOC position on gun bills??? Our next best chance to get a bill going is on the House side. I have a Democratic Representative from my district, (Rep. Levy), willing to sponsor a bill. However, the Speaker of the House will only grant late bill status if there is a Republican co-sponsor. So, we absolutely need a Republican State Representative willing to co-sponsor a salary bill. I am attaching the final version of our presentation. Sheriff Joe Pelle Boulder County, Colorado Office# 303-441-4605 Fax# 303-441-4739 jpelle@bouldercounty.org

Facts:
The Salary Commission studied data from 2006 thru 2012. The Commission found the CPI increased 13.77% while nonelected county salaries increased an average of 11.07% during the same time. The last salary increase took effect in 2006, and was fully implemented in 2009. If this current recommendation were to be passed in 2013, it would not take effect until 2015 or be fully implemented until 2017, by which time these recommended salaries will already be 4 years stale dated. If no action is taken this year, or in 2014, which is an election year, then 10 years will pass until another increase can take effect and won't be fully implemented until 2019. This continued delay will have a direct impact on counties. One of the deciding factors to form the Commission in 2005, came from counties overwhelmingly requesting that salary adjustments for local county elected officials be more regular rather than the past very large and costly adjustments which were based over longer time periods. On average, sheriffs' salaries are $13,439 below other similar situated positions along the Front Range. Some police chiefs make $10,000 to $35,000 more annually than sheriffs; and, captains in some Front Range sheriff's offices make $6,000 to $8,000 annually more than their sheriff, according to Commission findings. The salary Commission, again created and appointed by the Democrat leadership, even states, "January 2013 is the time for action". C.R.S 30-3-105, spells out the Commission's responsibilities and requires the Commission report to the legislature during odd years. It further mandates that the recommendations contained in the report "shall be based on sound and systematic occupational analysis and job evaluation and shall consider the information in subsection (1) of this section." Furthermore, the Salary Bill, if passed, would have no state fiscal impact, nor would it increase any fees or taxes at the county level. The only fiscal impact is to county government and would only affect those following the 2014 election and taking office in January 2015.

Unanswered Questions:
Was the Democratic leadership creating road blocks to the Salary Commission when they set the requirement that seven Republican senators must sign on as sponsors as seen in the above email? Did they require this on any gun bills? Absolutely not, nor did they let citizens voices be heard on those bills. Why have two separate individuals made reference that our position on the gun bills may negatively affect a possible Salary Bill? So as President of the Senate states, his fundamental beliefs are deciding factors as to whether a statutory responsibility can even be assigned a late bill status? Why is that? And is it sound governance? Was it not the actions of the majority leadership to place the salary proposal in the status of being a late bill, considering the Salary Commission has presented findings each of the last 3 years? This Salary Commission was established by Governor Ritter to base decisions on quantifiable data, and the enabling law that was signed by the governor states that the commission shall be appointed by the Senate President and House Speaker. It states they shall serve for a period of four years. If the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House have the authority to appoint the members, why did the President of the Senate allow these Commission members to invest so much time following the statutory intent to only have him decide he is fundamentally opposed? Why did he become fundamentally oppose?, Was it after the sheriffs expressed their opposition to many of the gun bills? If it is the statutory responsibility of the legislature to adjust these salaries, and the Democrat leadership appointed the membership of the Commission and their findings are fact based, why would the legislature not enter discussions and meet their statutory responsibility? These are questions that should be answered by those that are statutorily responsible for this process. As I have said it has no impact on me personally; but I am concerned and believe the process set up in 2006 and why the Commission was formed are important enough to have these issues addressed by those responsible for the final decisions.