Q&A With State Senator Dan Grossman

We're happy to bring you another Q&A where your politicians answer your questions. Today we have with us State Senator and possible attorney general candidate Dan Grossman.

Dan Grossman is a Denver native who was elected to the State House in 1996 and later became the youngest House Minority Leader in Colorado history in 2000. In 2002, he was elected to his first term in the State Senate. Should he leave his seat to run for attorney general, a topic he discusses below, the race for his open senate seat will be one of the more hotly contested Democrati primaries in the state.

Senator Grossman will be answering your questions throughout the day; to ask a question, simply click on the COMMENTS link below. Senator Grossman has graciously agreed to take time out of his day to answer your questions, so please be respectful. You can disagree with him, but you can do it in a respectful manner.

And with that, click below for our first 11 Questions with Senator Grossman...

Q&A With Democratic State Senator Dan Grossman

1. How do you feel about how Democrats ended the 2005 legislative session? What surprised you about being in the majority in both chambers?

Of the nine sessions in which I have participated, this last one was the most productive and most efficient. And I am not just saying that because the Democrats were in the majority (although that was nice, from my perspective).  But I think it can be said objectively that we were able to accomplish more in less time than previous legislatures.  For example, we were able to craft a bipartisan solution to the challenges posed by the TABOR Amendment and are referring that solution to the voters this November.

We balanced the budget without raiding the state education fund and without kicking old people out of nursing homes.  We have scheduled the return of the seniors' homestead exemption from property taxation and we even put in place a tax cut for all Coloradans assuming the TABOR proposal passes.

A lot of the big worries that Governor Owens and some of his Republican colleagues fretted about at the beginning of the session simply did not materialize. Appropriately, there were no efforts to roll-back accountability measures for K-12 education.  Charter schools were not harmed. There were no tax increases proposed by the Democrats and there were no decreases in criminal sentencing. But there was an effort to increase investment in the state's transportation system as well as the capital infrastructure, including higher education.

In short, we Democrats accomplished everything the Republicans said we couldn't.  And the state is better off for it.

2. You sponsored the contentious anti-smoking bill, which was one of the pieces of legislation that drew the most attention in 2005. Why did you carry that bill, and what happened to it? Will you propose it again?

Anyone got a smoke? The Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act came two votes shy of creating a smoke-free workplace for the vast majority of Colorado's workers. I agreed to carry the legislation only if (1) the business community, including the Colorado Restaurant Association agreed to support it, and (2) the health advocates agreed to the content of the bill. When those two things happened, I became confident that we would get it passed.

And then the Republicans in the Senate locked down against the bill. I knew I was going to lose some of my Democratic colleagues (two of them are smokers and have opposed anti-smoking legislation in the past).  But I guess I underestimated the Senate Minority Leader's ability to obtain binding commitments from his caucus, even before the bill was introduced.

When it became clear that I could not find 18 votes in the Senate to pass a bill that covered all restaurants and bars, I fulfilled a promise I made to the groups that supported the legislation and I allowed it to die with the expiration of the session. It was a very disappointing defeat. 

In addition to the business and health advocates, I heard from individuals whose lives were changed (and likely shortened) by exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke at work. One witness told the Senate State Affairs Committee that he had less than six months to live because of lung cancer that only could have been caused by exposure to cigarette smoke or radon in his home.

His home tested negative for radon, but he had worked in an establishment that allowed smoking.

When we know that passive smoke can cause health problems, it is incumbent upon government to act to preserve the public health. Opponents of the bill said it infringed upon the "rights" of property owners and individuals, as if electing to smoke is some benign and legally protected choice. In fact, it is neither benign, nor legally protected and people should not be permitted to smoke in indoor spaces where their choice will adversely affect the health of others. Just one guy's opinion.

I am not sure if I will bring the bill back next year. There may be an effort to bypass the legislature and take the issue directly to the voters in 2006. A poll commissioned by the American Cancers Society indicates that 67 percent of Coloradans favor a smoking ban in most indoor places, including restaurants, bars and casinos.

3. You carried a bill dealing with Homeland Security grant money and how spending is reported, which was ultimately signed by the governor. What was the reasoning behind this bill, and why did it pass? 

I was pleased to be able to craft the compromise with regard to disclosure of public records pertaining to homeland security. The Owens administration had pushed two bills through the legislature in past sessions that draped ALL records produced by or to the Department of Public safety and having to do with homeland security in a cloak of secrecy. The result has been that even records that document how state and local governments are spending homeland security grant money were shielded from disclosure, notwithstanding the fact that they contain no sensitive information in them. This situation led to even less accountability of state and local officials on the issue of homeland security in an administration that has already diffused responsibility and accountability for security among several departments and cabinet heads.

It was difficult to come up with language that the Owens administration, local governments, law enforcement and the Colorado Press Association could agree to, but we succeeded in the end. This was a victory for fiscal responsibility as well as security.

4. You helped push through HB 1014 (Substantive Changes to Criminal Law - noteworthy for adding homosexuals to the hate crimes list), which Governor Owens controversially allowed to become law last week. There was a lot of work done behind the scenes on this bill from a number of people; can you help explain the effort that went into letting this bill become law, and why you supported it?

I was the Senate sponsor of HB 1014, which was the annual omnibus bill concerning changes in the substantive criminal laws. The bill is initiated each year by the Colorado District Attorney's Council, and it is the result of nearly a year of debate and deliberation among DAs throughout the state. As the bill was introduced, the bill was important, but not particularly controversial.

In the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the bill, Sen. Bob Bacon offered the amendment to update Colorado's ethnic intimidation statutes to include sentence enhancements for crimes motivated by anti-gay and anti-disability bias. Current law already contains enhancements for bias crimes based on race, religion, gender and national orientation.

I supported the amendment because I have always supported the expansion of hate crimes legislation to encompass crimes motivated by anti-gay bias. Such crimes, just as those committed for racist or anti-semitic reasons, inflict a qualitatively more pernicious harm on the victims and on society, and should be punished more severely. I am pleased that the legislation

passed the legislature and that Governor Owens allowed it to become law.

5. Governor Owens has vetoed a record number of bills this year. Is there a lesson that Democrats will take from this in order to cut down on the number of vetoes in 2006, or is that just the way it goes when you have a governor and a legislature that are of opposite parties?

Just saying No. Obviously, it is the Governor's constitutional prerogative to reject legislation presented to him by bill from the legislature and prevent it from becoming law. This session he has chosen to exercise that prerogative freely. Such is our system of checks and balances.

However, I would be less than honest if I said I wasn't disappointed by some of Governor Owens' veto decisions. And his explanations have been less than persuasive. For example, he nixed a bill that I carried with Rep. Al White (R-Winter Park) that would have permitted counties to go to their voters and ask for permission to raise the county sales tax to preserve open space.

This is the process that TABOR envisioned. The bill passed with overwhelming majorities in both chambers. But the Gov. vetoed it, saying it was a tax increase. That was just flat out false and he knew it.

There are plenty of other examples, but you know how the saying about spilled milk goes . . .

6. Are you running for Colorado Attorney General in 2006?

I am likely to be a candidate for Attorney General in 2006. I am testing the waters now and I am encouraged with what I am hearing. I hope to make a final decision this summer.

7. What would make you a good candidate for Attorney General?

I am passionate about Colorado and I am absolutely dedicated to fighting to protect the opportunity and quality of life that is so unique to our state. The Office of Attorney General can be a tremendous tool with which to protect the environment, defend Colorado's water rights, fight consumer fraud and identity theft, protect children from exploitation and shore up our state's homeland security. That is precisely the kind of Attorney General that Coloradans should demand and I am confident that I could deliver.

8. Critics will say that you don't have enough experience as an attorney to serve as attorney general. How do you respond to that charge?

I have practiced law in Colorado for 12 years. I have worked in small, medium and large law firms and I spent five years as senior corporate counsel and executive director of employee relations for a global company with over 20,000 employees. I have litigated complex cases in state and federal courts and I have managed litigation involving the best lawyers in the country. And now I have my own law practice representing small businesses and individuals in civil rights cases. I am proud of the success I have enjoyed practicing law.

In addition, I have spent nearly a decade crafting public policy in the Colorado General Assembly. I have made my mark on the criminal code, strengthening sentencing laws for sex offenders and creating the state's DNA database for convicted felons. I have improved Colorado water law by passing legislation adding flexibility to water rights and valuing conservation as well as development. I have made Coloradans more financially secure by passing strong consumer legislation. Finally, my work on homeland security has made the state safer.

In short, I believe that my experience more than qualifies me to serve as Attorney General, should I choose to seek that office.

9. From The Rocky Mountain News: "Maybe it's because Grossman let it be known he might run for attorney general next year, but it seemed every time he got up to debate a bill, Republican Sens. Jim Dyer of Centennial and Shawn Mitchell of Broomfield raced to the microphone to disagree with him."

How is it different approaching your job as a State Senator when you are thought to be a candidate for higher office? How do you pass legislation when Republicans are looking to damage your hopes at statewide office in the process?

Having a target on your back because you may be a candidate for higher office doesn't really change things that much. Serving in the legislature is challenging and fighting for what you believe in makes that challenge worthwhile. You can't control other people who disagree with you or who just want to see you fail. All you can do is prepare, do your best and count your votes.

10. Republicans have already filled out the dance card for every statewide race, from Governor to Treasurer, and from Secretary of State to Attorney General. Why are Democrats taking so long to actively campaign for these posts and allowing Republican candidates such a head start? Obviously you can't speak for others, but why do you think there is such a lag time right now?

I think the Dems are going to field a very strong field for the statewide constitutional offices. I have nothing but respect for Bill

Ritter and Rutt Bridges and I think both have the potential to become Governor. As for treasurer, I hear Chris Romer is running and I think he will be more than formidable. I am confident of my chances in the AG race, once I decide to do it. 

11. What’s with the bow tie?

Glad you asked about the bow tie. My grandfather, Henry Chorley, was a railroad man who moved to Colorado with his wife's family from North Dakota in the 1920s. They moved here because my grandmother (his wife) had tuberculosis and the clean and dry climate of Colorado were thought to be curative. Henry took a job as a bookkeeper for Public Service Company, where he worked until he retired. He wore a bow tie to work every day. He died in 1988 of emphysema, most likely from smoking.

I wear a bow tie every Thursday to honor Henry Chorley, a man who worked hard and knew all about sacrifice and the importance of family.

I know it looks goofy on me, but it didn't on him.

Do you have a question for Senator Grossman? Ask away in the COMMENTS section below...

Comments

[co dem]

Senator Grossman I was wondering what is your view on civil unions vs same-sex marriage and will you oppose an amendment that would bar same-sex unions (marriage or civil unions) in our state? Also when you hopefully decied to run for AG and win, who do you think the possible candidates to fill your seat in the state Senate? Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions.

[vladimir]

I find your comments comparing yourself to Eliot Spitzer -- shall I say disingenuous at best. Spitzer was one of the top felony prosecutors in the Manhattan DA's Office and had an outstanding record as a trial attorney.
How many jury trials have you handled?
How many cases have you prosecuted? What is the largest transaction you have handled? How many people have you ever supervised?
Have you taught law or distinguished yourself academically? Is there one thing that you can point to that even remotely qualifies you to be Attorney General other than being a member of the Bar for the requisite number of years?

[vladimi]

Dan -- by all accounts you treated John Suthers with kid gloves during his confirmation hearing. None of his problems as US Attorney came to light --1. Does this show that you are incapable of handling even the most cursory of investigations? All the stuff about him was readily available yet all you let people talk about was some crazy nuns who trespassed and refused to plea bargain. 2. Did you fail to question Suthers aggressively because you are simply afraid of him and intimidated by his long record?
It was an awful performance on your part and you did both the Democratic party and the State a disservice with your milquetoast questions to a man about to take over an important job.

[Rebel Rep]

Senator,
How can you justify the Colorado clean indoor air act? Was it something you have been working on with constituents or the cancer lobby? As a Democrat, why whould you put such a discriminatory bill in front of the legislature? Finally, don't (especially democrats) need the funds generated by smokers? What will you do with those absent funds once smoking is banned state wide?

[andrew]

Senator Grossman,

I read in the paper that you think we need a new State Department of Homeland Security. Why? What would such Department look like? Would they control all aspects of Homeland Security within the State or would it serve a policy role only?

Thank you for your response and have a pleasant day.

[Phoenix Rising]

Democrats spent their first year in the majority getting the job done, as you say. They have ignored some of the more thorny subjects. Do you think that after we get past Ref. C & D we'll get into more interesting territory?

Along those lines, you note that we haven't reduced any criminal penalties. Do you think it's time we in Colorado start re-evaluating our treatment of non-violent drug users? The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world; couldn't we better serve society and save money at the same time by providing more comprehensive treatment programs and less jail time for drug users who have committed victimless crimes?

[Ter Ducken]

Rutt Bridges announced his candidacy for governor today by saying that he does not want to form "an exploratory committee." Do you think it is important to announce your intentions to run in a clear manner, or is it okay to say that you have an exploratory committee?

Thanks for your time.

[SanLuisTony]

Senator,

In a state where Democrats that win state-wide wear cowboy hats and have rural roots, do you see a challenge facing your possible bid for AG? Do you feel that rural Colorado voters will be leery of your propensity to value hands-on nanny policies like the Indoor Clean Air Act? Do you think West Slope voters can take to a Denver Senator who looks like he just finished lecturing at Harvard? How do you expect your religious affiliation to play into the mix, if at all? How do you plan to overcome some of these image problems in the rural parts of our state? Are you ready to be called out as a Front-Range Big-Brother Liberal in places like the San Luis Valley, Four Corners, and Western Slope?

[Dan Grossman]

co dem:
I oppose efforts write discrimination into the Colorado constitution. I believe that the sanctity of marriage is preserved by love, faith and family, not intolerance and division. People who believe, as a matter of faith, that same sex couples should not marry are free to join religious organizations and churches that refuse to sanction such unions. That is the wonderful thing about the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. But the state should not define as a matter of constitutional principal what unions are acceptable and which are not. I hope that answers your question.

Vladimir:
I didn't compare myself to Eliot Spitzer. He certainly is a remarkable public servant who has fought the good fight for consumers in New York, a fight that has even benefitted some Coloradans.
As for my qualifications, I submitted a partial list of them in the initial Q&A above. I am proud of my accomplishments as a lawyer and as a legislator.
Like Ken Salazar and Gail Norton before him, I have never served as a prosecutor. But I have built a strong record on criminal justice, environmental protection, water rights defense and consumer protection and that record will serve me well should I decide to run for Attorney General.

Vladimi (same as Vladimir?):
You obviously were not present at the Judiciary Committee hearing regarding Mr. Suthers' nomination by the Governor to serve as Attorney General. Mr. Suthers was asked tough but pertinent questions on a number of issues. He answered them to the satisfaction of the Committee members and his nomination was sent to the floor for confirmation.

John is a competent manager and a good lawyer. I respect him a great deal, although we disagree greatly on many policy issues. John was the Governor's choice and he is qualified to serve.

Is there something in Mr. Suthers' background that you would have liked to see expounded upon during the hearing?

Rebel rep:

Sorry we disagree about the Clean Indoor Air Act. On balance, I belive the rights of all workers to a healthy work environment trumps any perceived "rights" of smokers whose decision to inflict harm on themselves also impairs the health of those who are near them. Passive smoking (i.e., second hand smoke) causes premature deaths of at least 38,000 adult non-smokers each year. This is the most widely accepted science available on the subject and I find it persuasive.

As for the money generated by tobacco, I have always favored the securitization of Colorado's entitlement to funds under the Master Settlement Agreement with Big Tobacco. Why? Because it is blood money and the state has no business funding good programs with the dollars spent by Coloradans to inflict themselves with emphysema, lung cancer, heart disease and countless other ailments. I supported Amendment 35, not because of the revenue that would flow to the state, but because it makes kids less likely to start smoking by raising the cost of cigarettes.

Andrew:
The Owens administration has done an absolutely miserable job on homeland security. Over $120 million in federal homeland security grant money has been spent in Colorado prior to the completion of a critical infrastructure analysis or even a strategic plan for homeland security. In fact, responsibility for homeland security has been diffused among at least four different executive branch agencies and cabinet officials, with no direct accountability. We can do much better.

First, we need to come up with a strategic plan for homeland security that includes a comprehensive analysis of the state's critical infrastructure and with specific security objectives. Second, we need to create a Department of Homeland Security, with its director a member of the Governor's cabinet, that will take control of the grant process with an eye toward targeting resources to the specific objectives in the strategic plan.

This isn't rocket science, and it should have been done long ago.

Phoenix rising:

We need to pass Refs. C and D, just to catch up with the essential needs of state government. Fully funding education, investing in higher education and community colleges, beefing up environmental protection efforts, investing in transportation infrastructure and economic development will be the big ticket items if these much-needed measures pass.

I agree with you that we need to integrate more treatment and restorative justice principals into our criminal justice system. However, I don't think that reducing sentences is the answer. We have managed to keep crime rates down in Colorado because of our tough sentencing laws and I, for one, don't want to see us lose ground on that front. BUT, we need to do everything we can to reduce rescidivism by supporting important programs such as juvenile diversion and the Tony Grampsas Youth Services fund. Intervention, especially with juveniles, is the best way to turn kids away from crime.

Ter Ducken:
I don't really have an exploratory committee, I am just trying to be deliberative about this important decision. I am very exscited about the prospect of running and the positive response I am getting from every corner of the state, from Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated voters. Expect to hear a definitive answer from me very soon.

San Luis Tony:
I have spent a lot of time in rural Colorado talking about agriculture, water and economic development. I have built relationships and coalitions that span the Continental Divide and I am proud of the friendships I have with people all over the state. I think it is extremely important to the people of the San Luis valley to have an Attorney General who stood with them when they went to the ballot to protect their water in 1998. I think it is extremely important to the people of the Western Slope to have an Attorney General who stood with them in opposition to the front range water grab known as Referendum A. People care about issues more than they care about image.

As for the Clean Indoor Air Act, it is supported by rural Coloradans at a rate close to 70%.

I am a Jewish Democrat, born and raised in Denver and taught to value and enjoy every corner of this great state. I am proud of my heritage and of the traditions in which I was raised. My values are Colorado values: Opportunity, community, family.

Those values will serve me well should I choose to run for Attorney General.

Thanks for the opportunity to chat with you all. It has been a pleasure.

Dan Grossman

[Alan]

Senator Grossman,
Could you identify some of the policy issues on which you differ with John Suthers ?
and could you identify what if anything you would do differently to increase the protection of children from sexual predators?

[poligoddess]

Hey Dan,

Eliot Spitzer has nothing on you. I think you so hot- way hotter than Ron Tupa.

[Phoenix Rising]

Sen. Grossman:

As somewhat of a follow-up to my previous question, what are your opinions on dealing with the ever-increasing cost of prisons and the ever-increasing number of prisoners we are holding?

PS - I forgot to say this before: thanks for participating!

[Dan Grossman]

Alan:
I think John and I disagree on water issues, environmental protection, civil rights, etc. But rather than focusing on John's views, I think it is important for me expound upon my own vision of the office of Attorney General. And, as I said previously, if I choose to run and win, I will be passionate in my advocacy for the public interest rather than just the executive branch of state government. Managing the office is important, but that is just the means by which to accomplish the paramount goals of promoting the public interest in the administrative agencies and the courts of the State of Colorado. That is probably where John and I differ most significantly.

Poligoddess:
Nobody is hotter than Ron Tupa. Not even Eliot Spitzer.

Phx Rising:
Unfortunately, incarceration is an expensive but necessary component of crime control. Of course we need to invest in education to give people the tools they need to succeed in life without turning to crime. And we need to fully support divsresion and intervention programs to keep young people out of the criminal justice system and we need to look at programs for reintegration of convicts so that we aren't contributing to the rescidivism problem by releasing people with no skills and no resources back into society where the easiest option for them will be to re-offend. These options all cost money in the short term but save money in the long run by breaking the cycle of crime and reducing the number of prison beds we need.

Having said that, I maintain that reducing criminal sentencing for drug crimes will increase crime in the short term and increase prison costs in the long term.

Again, thanks for the opportunity to particpate.

[Vladimir]

1. Are you saying that your qualifications equal those of Salazar? Salazar handled major litigation and managed large departments -- have you managed anything -- have you handled any case or transaction of any size?
2. Suthers hearing -- Duh -- did you think to ask about how they screwed up the Qwest prosecution? Did you see fit to ask about the dismissal of major environmental cases?
I mean I know you feared a tough retort from Suthers but perhaps you should have held a hearing not a lovefest?

[Rebel Rep]

Senator,
Do you mean that 38,000 Coloradans die each year from second hand smoke? Or, 38,000 Americans die each year? 38,000 Coloradans would consist of 0.8% of Colorado's population, and 38,000 Americans would consist of 0.013% of the U.S. population. Either way you look at your statistic, you are imposing your views about smoking on 100% of Colorado's population and 1.5% of America's population. Democrats are always complaning when Republicans label them as "Nannies", but here is a very good example of how a little power goes straight to your head. I suspect you will attempt to strenghen liquor laws and laws pertaning to drug use next year right?? Those issues impact a much higher percentage of the population. Thanks.

[Alan]

Senator Grossman,
The second part of my question was "what if anything will you do differently to increase protection for our children from sexual predators?" Do you think enough is being done statewide on this problem and if not is there anything specific that you will do to protect our children if you run and are elected attorney general.

[Dan Grossman]

Vladi:
As I have stated twice now, I have significant legal and management experience, both in the private sector. I have litigated major, complex cases in state and federal courts and I have managed multi-milllion dollar litigation with the country's best lawyers. I have participated in the drafting of major commercial deals and other transactions. I gladly stack my legal experience up against John Suthers or just about any other lawyer in the state. If you don't think private sector experience matters, then I don't know what to say to you.
In addition, my legislative experience would be uniquely valuable to someone serving as Attorney General. The policy areas that are within the purview of the office are the same policy areas on which I have worked and excelled as a legislator.

As for the confirmation, Mr. Suthers can defend his own record as DA, head of DOC and US Attorney. The matters you raise no doubt are complex and were unlikely to affect his confirmation. John got a fair hearing and you could have come to raise the issues about which you complain at the time.

Rebel Rep:

Sorry I mis-typed. 38,000 American non-smokers.
A question to you: Is the Occupational Safety and Health Act "nannyism?" Is the proscription of exposure in the workplace to asbestos "nannyism?" When we learned about the hazards of exposure to asbestos, the government acted to protect the health of workers. The same needs to happen with passive smoking, regardless of the power of Big Tobacco.

Alan:
Protecting kids from sexual predators starts with giving parents the tools they need to keep their children safe. Posting the names, photos and addresses of known sex offenders on the internet, regardless of whether their crimes were misdemeanors or felonies, is a good example of such a tool. We need to give local law enforcement the authority to do so.
Also, the problems that the Department of Corrections has experienced in designating violent sexual predators is inexcusable and we need to correct them immediately. Finally, John's proposal to criminalize the solicitation of children via the internet is a good idea and I will work to pass it next session.

Thanks all for your questions. I enjoyed participating in the forum.

Dan Grossman

[John]

I wonder why a state like New Mexico can use its Lottery/Lotto funds to support education and our state seems to have no interest in that. Our lottery/lotto funds go to buying up open land, and supporting outdoor parks and recreational activities, which can be argued to be in the best interest of our future. But aren't our children also our future? Couldn't there be some balance struck with the environmentalists on the use of these funds, afterall, they've had at them since we started allowing lottery here in Colorado. With educational costs getting higher each year, can't someone look at using these funds for this purpose? What is your position on this issue.?

Thanks for taking time to read and respond.

[bonequisha]

huh???

[josie brodie]

Dan Grossman:

Congratulations!

You have joined the ranks of the neo conservatives.

Right to privacy and control of my own mind, body, soul; and, business for that matter, seems to be in your hands as you wish to dictate and control how I should take care of it.

I am ashamed that you call yourself a democrat.

You have joined the members who are intent on
trampling individual rights.

Democracy is again, thanks to you, set backwards.

Sincerely

Lifelong FDR Democrat.

jb

PS: you will never receive my support.

[Dave Simpson]

Goodd day sir.
How do I find out who voted for the clean air act in Colorado ? Or how everyone voted on it ?

[Wade Yenowine]

I am wondering what recourse is available to individuals who are medically alergic to smoke so that their asthma causes them difficulty breathing. We live in a condo and the association seems to be unable to stop air flow in a building not designed well to stop smoke from penatrtating otehr units. We have been unable to stay in a unit purchased last summer and we have heard a rumor that Colorado is drafting new legislation which may require a building to become smoke free if they are unable to protect units with non smokers, is this rumor true?