While a state senator backed up that account, Bennet’s campaign disputed the characterization on Tuesday.

For the Sunday event in Englewood hosted by , organizers initially wanted Bennet and his Democratic primary opponent, Attorney General Phil Weiser, to share the stage. But they changed the format to a forum with each candidate at Bennet����ap request — with the senator set to speak first, followed by Weiser.

Bennet����ap team also raised several concerns early last week, six days before the event. Azra Taslimi, an attorney and a co-founder of Colorado Muslim Vote, said that in addition to raising concerns about security and about how organizers planned to handle disruptions, Bennet����ap campaign manager also requested no questions related to Gaza or Israel’s war in the Palestinian territory.

Taslimi declined the campaign’s request and also declined to provide specific questions in advance, she told The Denver Post. But she said she told Bennet����ap team that she would work with them on framing the questions appropriately and that she shared the topics of the questions.

The campaign then said that Bennet would not participate, Taslimi said, because the forum wasn’t the appropriate place to talk about his record on Gaza. Instead, the campaign said Bennet would be willing to meet with Muslim leaders privately to discuss the issue, Taslimi recalled.

State Sen. Iman Jodeh, an Aurora Democrat, said in an interview that she also spoke with Bennet����ap campaign, which provided the same reasoning for backing out of the event.

“How can we not ask about a thing that affects so many people in our community?” Taslimi said Tuesday.

She said her group had sought security for the event and had taken steps to curb any disruptions. During the forum, when some audience members interjected as Weiser answered questions about Israel and Gaza, Taslimi — who moderated the event — intervened.

Bennet����ap campaign “absolutely, unequivocally said: ‘No questions on his record about Gaza,’ ” she said in an interview. “The takeaway was, if we agreed to not ask questions about his record, that he would still participate.”

In a statement Tuesday afternoon, Bennet spokeswoman Jordan Fuja said the campaign “did not demand to approve questions in advance nor refuse to answer questions about his record.”

“Michael is deeply committed to having meaningful conversations with the Muslim community,” Fuja wrote. “As we received details about the forum, it became clear that this event would not lend itself to a genuine dialogue where Michael can listen to the community and provide the clarity people deserve.”

“Michael has never refused to answer difficult questions,” she continued, “and will continue to have these conversations, as he has his entire career.”

Bennet — who, like Weiser, is the son of Holocaust survivors — has in Gaza but has limiting . He’s faced public questioning over Israel before: He was repeatedly interrupted by pro-Palestinian protesters during an event last May, and audience members to Israel during another town hall in Colorado Springs earlier last year.

“I do think the Gaza situation is a tragic, tragic situation,” he said at that event. As he started to talk about a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians, audience members interjected.

The latest disagreement comes as Democratic politicians nationwide try to navigate growing criticisms from their own voters about American support for Israel. The Middle Eastern country has been accused of human rights violations in the West Bank and Gaza, where by the Israeli military since the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attack by Hamas, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.

As the death toll in the Palestinian territories has mounted, public polling has shown a stark decline in support for Israel among U.S. voters. In February 2022, 55% of voters had a favorable view of the country. Four years later, that figure had fallen to 37%, .

The decline is even sharper among national Democrats: According to Pew, 80% of Democrats and likely Democratic voters hold an unfavorable view of Israel, a 27-point increase from 2022.

The shift among Democrats has played out in Colorado, too. Nearly two years after the Colorado Democratic Party rejected a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, the party last month at its state assembly that accused Israel of committing genocide in the territory.

The state party also called for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, the U.S.-based lobbying group that spends heavily to support pro-Israel candidates, to register as a foreign agent under federal law.

, Weiser was peppered with questions about Israel and Gaza, alongside questions about how he would address anti-Muslim bigotry, according to a video of the event. He pledged to “listen and work with you” and noted the rise in both antisemitic and Islamophobic rhetoric.

That earned him applause. He received a much more muted response when he said that, though he didn’t agree with all of AIPAC’s actions, he didn’t support requiring the group to register as a foreign agent.

Weiser did not directly answer when asked if he supported repealing a Colorado law that requires the state employees retirement fund to divest from any company that boycotts Israel. He argued that the fund should be focused on making the best investments it can, not “seeking to advance foreign policy goals.”

Another audience member then asked if Weiser agreed with the state party’s recently adopted policy platform, which labeled Israel’s government as “extremist” and said the country’s campaign in Gaza was genocidal.

“I will answer your question this way: I recognize the human rights violations that we’ve talked about. I will say that the Netanyahu government has had actions and policies that I find abhorrent and that pain me,” Weiser said, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “I will say that at my Passover Seders, I and others were praying for peace and were pained by the suffering of so many innocent Palestinians and kids who have suffered so greatly.

“I feel and I understand the pain that so many have been affected by. I recognize the need and the work ahead for repair.”

That drew murmurs that Weiser hadn’t directly answered the question. Taslimi then asked Weiser if he was disagreeing with the state party’s platform.

“I’m saying that this is a word” — genocide — “that I use very, very” carefully, he said, adding: “I will condemn the suffering, the pain, the human rights violations.”

They also vented their anger that senior officials hadn’t better planned to address prison overcrowding that’s coming to a head.

“I want to know what it is (Gov. Jared Polis’) administration is going to do and going to support, beyond just continued requests for more beds, building more prisons and spending more money in that respect,” Rep. Emily Sirota, a Denver Democrat who chairs the legislature’s Joint Budget Committee, told colleagues during a meeting Wednesday afternoon.

, came a month after a legislative analyst warned that the state’s prisons were going to exceed their capacity in the coming fiscal year, primarily because the number of inmates released on discretionary parole has declined.

The four Democratic members of the JBC, which controls the state budget, asked with growing consternation why the Department of Corrections hadn’t brought them a plan to address overcrowding, to step up releases of old and infirm inmates, or to improve its own shortcomings. Those include challenges like high vacancies among sex offender treatment staff, a problem that’s kept scores of inmates in prison past their parole dates, as The Denver Post recently reported.

The goal of Wednesday’s votes, lawmakers said, was to spur Polis and prison officials to either support legislation intended to address prison overcrowding or to come up with their own plan to solve the problem, without simply increasing the number or size of state prisons. Sen. Judy Amabile, a Boulder Democrat on the committee, said bills she’s previously considered running were shelved because she was told “they wouldn’t see the light of day.”

“It all falls on deaf ears unless we push back,” she said.

In a statement, Polis spokeswoman Shelby Wieman said the governor wanted to cover medical costs, address a jail backlog — in which local facilities are housing some state prisoners — and increase prison capacity.

“We are eager to explore any solutions that ensure we are protecting public safety, supporting and protecting the safety of DOC staff, provide safe living conditions for offenders, and better prepare offenders to go back into communities and not recommit a crime,” she wrote. “The Governor’s Office will be in front of the Joint Budget Committee on Monday and will consider what portions of the DOC request to potentially bring back for consideration.”

Alondra Gonzalez-Garcia, spokeswoman for the Corrections Department, said in a statement Thursday morning that a ” ‘partial’ budget creates an environment in which we must make difficult operational choices to maintain safety.”

“When funding is provided at 50% of the documented need, the Department does not ‘halve’ its safety standards; instead, we must prioritize where resources are deployed to avoid overcrowding units beyond their design capacity,” she wrote. “Because we will not compromise the safe environment of our staff and those in our care, the denial of caseload funding means the Department will be forced to suspend intake once the remaining funded beds are filled.”

$2.4 million request for more beds

In a Jan. 9 letter to the committee, state budget director Mark Ferrandino wrote that Polis’ office and prison officials “are working diligently to identify options to address the additional demands for capacity.”

But his letter went on to describe only plans to increase prison capacity, including through purchasing or leasing new or dormant facilities.

“However, we remain committed to working with the Legislature and its staff to identify the best path forward for the State of Colorado,” Ferrandino wrote.

Among the funding requests rejected Wednesday: a $2.4 million ask for 788 more prison beds. Kyle Giddings, of the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, said it was the first time in his organization’s 25-year history that its leaders remembered the budget committee denying a request to add more prison beds.

Giddings’ group and Colorado WINS, the union that represents prison workers, had urged the committee in a statement Tuesday to reject the funding requests.

Lawmakers’ frustration with the state prison system has been building.

Sirota and Amabile described posing repeated — and unanswered — questions about prison planning and management. The Corrections Department’s annual budget recently surpassed $1 billion in a legislature that is often short on cash. The agency is seeking an additional funding boost this year, even as lawmakers grapple with a roughly $750 million budget shortfall that will likely require cuts to core services like Medicaid.

“As a person who’s focused his career on health care predominantly, it pains me to fund prisons,” said Rep. Kyle Brown, a Louisville Democrat on the budget committee. “We have to, it’s a necessary part of our state. But every dollar we have to spend on a new bed in a department that receives … no federal funding, is at least $2, maybe $10, that we could be spending on Medicaid to get people health care.”

Jail payments, medical expenses

In addition to rejecting the bed request, the budget committee also agreed only to sign off on 50% of the requested money for jail payments, medical expenses and contract services for health providers. It delayed a $3.9 million payment for unfunded liability for the Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association, the state’s public pension plan.

Sirota and Amabile argued that they could pay for the rest of the jail and medical requests later in the spring.

The committee’s two Republicans — Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer and Rep. Rick Taggart — expressed some sympathy and similar frustrations.

But they worried about the strain placed on local jails, which have housed some prison inmates to ease overcrowding. Plus, the Republicans said, the legislature will face the need to pay those bills in the near future anyway.

Kirkmeyer, of Brighton, said delaying full payment for jails could increase the risks for the people in the jails and the staff members overseeing them.

“I mean, I guess it����ap a big, huge slap on the wrist — tell (Polis’ office and prison officials) to get in here and that you want to see the planning,” she told her Democratic colleagues. “But I don’t know why you haven’t been pressuring them in the last couple of years.”

Though Giddings’ group had urged lawmakers to reject the department’s requests, he said he was still surprised the committee followed through.

“The JBC just finally looked at everything that was happening and just heard what we’ve been saying for a long time,” he said. “The Department of Corrections isn’t underfunded; it����ap underperforming. It����ap time to fix what����ap going on and stop holding up a broken bureaucracy.”

Updated at 10:07 a.m. Jan. 22: This story was updated to include a statement from the Department of Corrections.

Modisette, who owns a small construction business with her husband in Castle Rock, said they currently pay about $175 a month for insurance bought on the . When enhanced federal subsidies expire in January, the family’s monthly cost would jump to $430, which isn’t feasible, she said.

While she’s been in remission from thyroid cancer for 10 years, Modisette still needs periodic blood tests and medication to replace hormones her thyroid would have produced.

While their two children qualify for — which covers kids from families that earn too much for — Modisette and her husband don’t have a public coverage option and are contemplating going without insurance. Other small business owners she knows are in a similar position, since they don’t have job-based coverage.

“It’s real people that are working really hard to build something of your own,” Modisette said. “If something bad happens, are we going to go bankrupt?”

Monthly health insurance premiums are poised to double next month for hundreds of thousands of Coloradans who have been receiving enhanced pandemic-era subsidies on the individual marketplace, according to the state’s . About 321,000 people received those subsidies in Colorado last year.

The loss of those subsidies, which Congress has so far declined to extend, at the end of this month will force individual marketplace customers across the nation to shoulder a larger share of their premiums in 2026.

The Denver Post spoke to Coloradans facing large premium increases about the choices they face as their insurance costs increase.

People facing significant increases have three general choices: find another source of coverage, choose a less expensive plan within the individual marketplace – with the possibility of facing more out-of-pocket costs if they need care – or go without insurance, meaning they would have to pay the full price for any medical care they need.

Customers who wanted their insurance to start Jan. 1 needed to pick a plan by Monday. Those who haven’t could still choose Jan. 15 for coverage starting in February.

Congress adjourned without passing any bills to extend the subsidies, but the House of Representatives will take up the issue in January. , who wants to move on, and joined a Democratic “discharge petition” that will force leadership to hold a vote on a bill that would extend the subsidies for three years, with no major changes.

Such a bill would face challenges in the Senate. The chamber voted down a three-year extension earlier this month. A Republican alternative, which would have placed $1,000 into health savings accounts, with the sum increasing to $1,500 for people between 50 and 64, .

House Republicans passed a bill expanding coverage options for small businesses and self-employed people, but it where it would need at least some Democratic support to move forward. , though none yet have the support to pass.

If Congress extends the subsidies in January, the state-run marketplace, , would have to shut down temporarily to reprogram. Congress , protecting customers from the rate increase coming at the start of the year.

‘Health insurance is rapidly becoming my mortgage’

Roger Allbrandt, of Centennial, said that if Congress doesn’t act, the subsidy for the plan covering him and his wife Claudia will drop from $1,036 to $503, raising their monthly premiums from about $35 to $862.

About two-thirds of their increase in cost comes from reductions in subsidies, and one-third comes from an increase in the overall cost of the plan.

Claudia recently started a new teaching job that provides insurance, but adding Allbrandt to her plan would put the monthly cost over $1,000. He’s planning to rely on the in Aurora for primary care and any emergencies.

They liked their coverage through the , but the increase is more than their budgets can handle, he said.

“I never have an extra $800/month to pay for health insurance. No way we can even consider the DHMP plan,” he said in an email.

Kate Tynan-Ridgeway, a retired teacher who lives in Littleton, said she also is moving to a less-than-ideal coverage option. Her premiums on the marketplace would have risen from about $600 a month to $1,200, so she decided to buy insurance through the , at about $800 a month.

The PERA plan comes with a $4,000 deductible, which is about twice the amount her previous insurance required, Tynan-Ridgeway said. Patients pay a larger share of their health care costs before hitting the deductible, with lower-premium plans requiring patients to pay for everything other than preventive services they legally must cover until they hit the deductible.

“I’m making harder decisions about when to seek health care,” she said.

Her husband, Patrick Ridgeway, aged onto this summer, which reduced their insurance expenses, Tynan-Ridgeway said. But she’s still considering picking up some odd jobs to offset the increased cost, she said.

“I don’t have a mortgage, and I feel like health insurance is rapidly becoming my mortgage,” she said.

In a , about one-third of marketplace enrollees said they would shop for a different plan if their costs doubled, and one-quarter said they would consider going without insurance.

About half said they already have some difficulty affording premiums, and three-fifths said they have trouble paying their deductible.

‘I worked hard, I did what I needed to do’

Myshel Guillory, of Eagle, would have preferred to stay in the individual market, but determined she’ll probably be better off paying out of pocket.

She was counting on health care costs rising 5% to 8% annually when she retired two years ago, but the price of insurance more than doubling threw off her plan.

The most affordable plan Guillory found would cost about $1,000 a month and have a $12,000 deductible. If she had an injury or illness severe enough to meet the deductible, health care would eat up one-quarter of her budget that year, Guillory said.

She looked for jobs with insurance around Eagle, but hasn’t gotten any callbacks, and is planning to go without coverage until either the subsidies return or she qualifies for Medicare in 10 years.

Friends of hers who planned to retire in their early 60s and use the individual marketplace as a bridge to Medicare are now holding onto those jobs, which doesn’t serve them or people who’d like to move up in their careers, she said.

“I planned, I worked hard, I did what I needed to do,” she said. “Sure, I have $1 million in the bank, but that needs to last.”

Most people who will receive subsidies next year can still find an affordable option, particularly if they’re willing to consider a different company or to pay more if they need care, said Leah Denzel, an insurance broker and owner of . People earning more than , or about $62,000 for an individual, will no longer qualify for any assistance with their premiums.

The amount of the tax credit is based on the second-cheapest silver level plan available in each area, but customers can use it to buy any bronze, silver or gold plan, Denzel said. Bronze plans have lower monthly premiums and higher out-of-pocket costs for using care, while gold plans have the opposite design and silver plans land in the middle.

“For most people, there are options,” she said.

People near 400% of the poverty line have to make harder choices, though, particularly if their income can vary from year to year, Denzel said. The enhanced subsidies allowed people with incomes over that threshold to receive assistance for the first time.

In addition, the Trump administration has announced that people who received some level of subsidy, but then end up earning too much to qualify for it, will have to pay back the full amount, Denzel said. Anyone who might be close to the line will need to watch their income carefully, so they can claim subsidies if they qualify and drop them if their business picks up, she said.

While no one knows what Congress may do, Denzel said she’s recommending her clients choose an plan they can afford without the enhanced subsidies — and that they avoid short-term plans or health-sharing ministries that look cheaper, but .

“If they have any health conditions, they need an ACA plan,” she said.

Colorado is teetering on the brink of a fiscal crisis, and the recent federal government shutdown offers a stark warning of what could lie ahead. We narrowly averted a hunger emergency due to delayed federal funding. Now, we face the specter of 100,000 Coloradans losing healthcare coverage as federal insurance premium tax credits expire.

The state has acted quickly to address these problems. Gov. Jared Polis and the General Assembly authorized $10 million to support food banks, and voter support for Propositions LL and MM will help backfill some Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding. For our part, the Colorado Treasury just kicked off a tax credit sale that will raise $100 million in state revenue.

Unfortunately, these solutions aren’t nearly as big or ambitious enough to tackle the looming crisis ahead, caused by H.R. 1’s cost shifting to states. Over the coming years, our General Fund could be hit with up to a $3 billion burden for SNAP and Medicaid alone. Compounding this, federal tax code changes are projected to strip $2.6 billion in state revenue through FY 28. This onslaught comes on top of Colorado’s recent budget shortfall driven by Medicaid costs generated at the state level.

I spent 25 years teaching junior high math before running for office, but you don’t need to be a math teacher to understand the depth of our fiscal woes. We need an active, aggressive legislature to push back on this austerity agenda.

First, Medicaid. Those of us who deal with the program in our personal lives know that our state’s Medicaid agency, the Department of Health Care Policy and Finance (HCPF), can and should provide services more efficiently and effectively. That����ap because HCPF operates like an insurance company, not like a service agency.

The people who work for HCPF are well-intentioned, but too often we hear that the only way to reduce health care costs is to ration and cut needed services. I fear this approach has taken the upper hand in the governor’s most recent budget proposal, and it played out in the budget balancing work he put forth following the recent special session.

Over the long term, this results in higher costs and risks terrible outcomes. For example, early intervention for young children with autism and other disabilities makes a huge difference for them later in life. If we continue to slash the provider rate, more facilities will close because they aren’t earning enough to keep their businesses open. That means more children will forego the services they need, leading to much more extensive and expensive services later in life.

The same goes for retirement. Reducing state support for the Colorado Public Employee Retirement Association (PERA) by up to $38 million — money that should be invested —pushes PERA’s finances in the wrong direction. This one-time reduction will result in a $180 million opportunity cost long term, putting pressure on current retirees and employees while further delaying our obligation to make PERA whole. As with Medicaid, cuts today hurt Coloradans tomorrow.

Austerity has also choked our revenue stream. Our current approach has placed a vice grip on state and local economies. Agencies and departments across the state barely have enough to keep the lights on. It is time to level with Colorado voters: without significant funding increases, the state government will soon be unable to provide the most basic services for a livable Colorado.

I believe that we can break free from this scarcity trap. I strongly support a new graduated income tax proposal put forth by Protect Colorado’s Future. By asking Colorado’s billionaires and millionaires — just two percent of the population — to pay their fair share, we can generate $2.4 billion in annual revenue going forward. This measure would stave off immediate cuts and help us plan for a sustainable future.

We should also look at our state’s severance tax, which lags woefully behind other Western states. Despite lower oil and gas production, Wyoming generates more than twice the severance tax revenue. Modernizing our tax codes — and investing those dollars in Coloradans’ health and dignity — is the responsible way out of this mess.

In this upcoming legislative session, the General Assembly must do more than raise tough questions. They must assert their constitutional authority to protect children, the elderly, and the disabled, and they must use their platform to advance meaningful tax reform. Otherwise, the ordeal we experienced together a short while ago risks becoming our day-to-day reality.

Dave Young of Greeley is the Colorado State Treasurer and an ex officio member of Colorado PERA board.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

It’s a plan that proposes clamping down on dental benefits, requiring prior authorization for more services and making payment changes affecting home health services. Elsewhere, Polis hopes to revive his often-proposed — and never accepted by the legislature — idea of privatizing Pinnacol Assurance, the state’s workers’ compensation insurance program, to generate hundreds of millions of dollars.

Medicaid, which provides health insurance to low-income Coloradans, has been gobbling an ever-bigger chunk of the overall state budget for years. It’s growing at a rate that’s double the overall spending growth allowed by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR.

If left unchecked, Medicaid costs could end up dwarfing all other spending in the state in the next 15 years, leaving almost no money for any services that aren’t directly related to education or health care, according to the governor’s office.

“This gets worse if we don’t fix it,” Polis said Friday. 

The governor’s overall budget proposal for the 2026-27 fiscal year includes a total spending request of more than $50.6 billion, up from $48 billion in the current fiscal year, which goes through June 30. Most of that is already spoken for as pass-through spending or other obligations.

The general fund, which covers most day-to-day spending, would grow from about $18.2 billion to $18.6 billion under Polis’ proposal.

Polis’ announcement of his proposal represents a starting point for the state’s next spending plan, which will cover July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027. He will unveil an amended proposal in January as the state updates economic projections.

Then the legislature will have its say, starting with the powerful Joint Budget Committee.

Four of the committee’s six members are seeking higher office in the 2026 election, making this budget an even more pitched-than-usual declaration of political values. The legislature will vote on the final budget in the spring.

Early forecasts have the body needing to make up a nearly $1 billion gap — again — between planned spending and what the state is allowed to spend under the growth cap set by TABOR. This tight budget year follows an August special session where lawmakers needed to fill a $783 million hole opened up in the current fiscal year by federal tax changes signed into law by President Donald Trump over the summer.

Trying to rein in Medicaid

Polis said a key hope of his budget proposal is to bring growth in Medicaid spending in line with the overall growth in state spending allowed by TABOR. Over the past decade, the state constitution has limited total state spending to growth by an average 4.4% per year.

Medicaid spending has grown at double that rate, 8.8%. In that period, general fund spending on Medicaid has grown from about $2.4 billion $5.5 billion per year.

In his proposal, Polis would increase state Medicaid spending by about $300 million. That increase alone represents more spending than several executive agencies’ combined budgets — but would still be half as steep as Medicaid’s projected growth without changes to the program.

Polis said he wants to lower overall spending on Medicaid services without touching how much individual providers are paid for services. Proposed changes include annual caps of $3,000 on dental benefits, which Polis noted would be double the cap that existed in 2023; adding prior authorization to some services; and changing how payment is calculated for home health nursing and therapy services.

Several of those proposals are extensions of executive orders he issued to help shore up the most recent budget trouble in August.

“There have been a number of benefits that have been added (to Medicaid) in recent years, and some of those are not sustainable over time,” Polis said.

His administration has also been working with national consultants to examine how Colorado’s Medicaid spending has differed from national trends. That report should be available in the New Year.

Pushing to privatize Pinnacol … again

In another key element of his proposal, Polis is looking to restart a fight from last year over converting the state’s quasi-governmental workers’ compensation insurance program to a fully private enterprise.

Polis’ office predicted spin-off, if completed, would generate at least $400 million for the state. About half of that would go to pay for the homestead property tax exemption, while the rest would go to state maintenance and to balance the budget.

Pinnacol acts as an “insurer of last resort” for employers in high-risk industries. The firm is generally not allowed to refuse to insure employers or cancel policies, but it can operate only within Colorado’s borders.

Polis restarted the conversation last year with arguments that Pinnacol was hamstrung from competing in today’s markets, where employers are less bound by state borders than ever. Turning the quasi-state agency into a private firm would also equal a payday for a cash-strapped state.

The effort petered out when the idea didn’t win much traction during the legislative session — though Polis hinted later that he hadn’t given up on the effort.

This year, Polis said the money would help the state keep its property tax break for certain long-term homeowners, known as the homestead exemption. The tax break is usually paid for using the state’s TABOR surplus, but the state won’t have one this year, Polis said.

“Nearly every other state has moved in this direction for reasons that are very important to employees and employers,” Polis said. “For Pinnacol to be able to continue to serve as our insurer of last resort, we have to be able to allow them to write interstate business, to take some of the same steps that can reduce overhead and produce better value to employees that other states have done.”

Opponents to the move worry that taking Pinnacol private would weaken protections for workers and employers in the state. The insurer essentially acts as a social safety net for industries that otherwise couldn’t obtain coverage, they argued last year.

This year, opponents are warning that privatizing the insurer and taking a portion of the money — potentially hundreds of millions of dollars — would be unconstitutional because the money isn’t the state’s to take.

“Pinnacol’s assets were built from employer premiums, not tax dollars,” said Stephanie Tucker, an attorney and president of the Workers’ Compensation Education Association, in a statement. “These funds belong to the employers who paid premiums and (to) injured workers, not the state. Privatization without clear legal authority could result in years of litigation and uncertainty for both Pinnacol and the state of Colorado.”

State officials have a different interpretation. The state “has an obligation” to get value for Pinnacol if it����ap spun off, Mark Ferrandino, the head of , said.

Polis said he’s been briefed on the legal question and his staff classified it as a “very low litigation risk.”

Marrero made the request in a scathing email to school board President Carrie Olson on April 22 in which he laid out numerous grievances against Youngquist, including accusations that the director has created a toxic work environment, undermined DPS leaders and showed racial insensitivity to district staff.

Youngquist’s behavior, the superintendent wrote, “constitutes a serious threat to the health, functionality and integrity of our school district.”

“His obsession with my removal, coupled with his private aspirations to assume district leadership, strongly suggests a conflict of interest,” Marrero wrote in the email, obtained by The Denver Post under the Colorado Open Records Act. “It is becoming increasingly clear that his actions are driven by a personal ambition to become superintendent himself, as he had previously pursued repeatedly, unsuccessfully.”

Youngquist, in an interview Monday, said Marrero’s letter “feels like a very clear personal attack, which I do not understand.”

“I have actively worked for every child in DPS to be successful for over 30 years,” he said. “Every decision I have made has been in support of children in Denver Public Schools.”

Youngquist denied wanting Marrero’s job despite having applied for the superintendency after Susana Cordova resigned in 2020. Marrero was hired to replace Cordova the following year. “I didn’t get the job. That was OK then and that’s OK now,” he said.

Bill Good, a spokesman for DPS, declined to comment for this story.

“We have not yet taken any action or made any decisions in relation to the complaint,” Olson said in an interview, noting that the school board will meet with an outside attorney.

Tensions between Youngquist, district staff and other school board members flared publicly earlier this year when the director faced allegations that he mistreated employees of color. Marrero’s email shows the conflict has escalated.

“I cannot, in good faith, engage professionally with someone whose conduct suggests he actively wants me — and this district — to fail,” Marrero wrote to Olson.

Youngquist said there hasn’t been any conversation about his behavior since January. In his time as a DPS educator, Youngquist said, “never has there been a concern about my behavior.”

Allegations preceded contract vote

The email is also notable in that the superintendent����ap allegations came a week before the school board voted to extend Marrero’s contract and made it harder for the board to fire him by requiring a supermajority vote by directors  — a decision Youngquist opposed.

“(Youngquist) has suggested the possibility of a buyout of my contract to raise this as a strategic option — not out of concern for the district, but as a tactic of intimidation,”  Marrero wrote to Olson.

Youngquist denied having ever suggested a buyout of Marrero’s contract. He also said Marrero’s email, which he had read before last week’s board meeting, did not influence his decision to vote against the superintendent’s contract extension.

Marrero’s contract extension drew criticism from community members who questioned the timing, given November’s school board election, and whether the superintendent has had enough time to show he’s improving student academic outcomes, especially among Latino pupils.

The board voted on the extension at Thursday’s public meeting, during which members were also expected to go into a closed session to receive legal advice regarding a discrimination complaint. Directors did not go into executive session because they ran out of time and opted to vote on Marrero’s contract instead.

The board did not specify what complaint would have been addressed during the closed session, but Marrero’s email also accused Youngquist of hostile behavior toward staff, particularly employees of color.

The superintendent, in the email, did not detail specific events that led him to make that allegation, but said Youngquist dismissed “equity-focused progress” and engaged in the “undermining of diverse leadership.” Marrero accused Youngquist of “belittling, dismissive and condescending behavior toward district staff, especially employees of color.”  

Marrero alleged Youngquist routinely ignores board protocol and directs district staffers. Youngquist has also accused Marrero of “conspiring with educators to ensure students are not failed, implying that our graduation data is manipulated and dishonest,” the superintendent wrote.

“Most troubling, it is increasingly clear that Mr. Youngquist is not invested in the success of Denver Public Schools,” Marrero wrote to Olson. “Instead, his behavior signals an intent to cause harm — in pursuit of personal ambition.”

Youngquist called Marrero’s allegations “misrepresentations.” For example, Youngquist said, his question about graduation data was related to how DPS paused failing grades temporarily during the pandemic compared to other years when that wasn’t a policy.

“It was the right thing to do at that moment,” Youngquist said of the pause. “But, I think, it also likely supported (failing) students’ progress toward graduation.”

Requesting a rare board censure

In his email, Marrero requested that the board censure Youngquist for his behavior. Such a move is rare. The last time a DPS board censured a member was when members voted to formally rebuke Auon’tai Anderson in 2021 after an investigation found he flirted online with a teenage student and made intimidating social media posts.

Marrero also asked the board to prohibit the director’s contact with staff “outside of official channels”;  require Youngquist to attend anti-bias training; and review whether there’s a conflict of interest if Youngquist intends to seek the superintendency.

Youngquist was elected to the school board in 2023, along with board Vice President Marlene De La Rosa and Treasurer Kimberlee Sia.

School board members criticized Youngquist publicly in January after he accused them of violating the state’s open meeting law. They also took Youngquist to task for his treatment of DPS employees, although they did not say how he acted improperly, except for noting that he was persistent in trying to receive full compensation for his official board duties.

While directors have become known for past infighting, January’s meeting was rare in that board members aired their grievances publicly. 

Three board members — Xóchitl “Sochi” Gaytán, Michelle Quattlebaum and Scott Esserman — specifically accused Youngquist of “behavior unbecoming of a board member toward DPS staff” last year. 

Rep. Brianna Titone, who was reelected to her fourth term in the state House in November, unveiled her candidacy in a press release. She is the Colorado legislature’s first openly transgender lawmaker, and — if elected to the treasurer position in 18 months — she said she would also be the first transgender person elected to a statewide executive office in the United States. (A Hawaiian who is transgender was previously elected to that state’s board of education.)

“I’m running for state treasurer to champion fiscal responsibility, protect PERA, invest taxpayer dollars wisely, and make the government more efficient,” Titone said in a statement. PERA is the Public Employees’ Retirement Association, which provides benefits to state workers.

“I’ve spent my career tackling complex financial and policy challenges,” she added, “and I’m ready to bring that experience to the treasurer’s office.”

The current state treasurer, fellow Democrat Dave Young, is term limited and will leave office in early 2027. Two other Democrats — John Mikos and Jerry Ditullio — have already filed paperwork to compete to replace Young. No Republicans have filed yet.

While the state treasurer doesn’t set the state budget or have a direct hand in raising or lowering taxes, he or she does oversee the state’s investments and bank accounts. The treasurer also sits on the board of PERA, which faces uncertainty amid gloomy projections and other budget-tightening proposals.

A New York native, Titone began her career as a geologist. On her website, said she would prioritize continuing Young’s efforts to return unclaimed property to Colorado taxpayers and to shore up PERA, as well as addressing “the shortcomings” of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR, by “exploring reforms that allow for necessary investments in public services and infrastructure while maintaining a balanced budget.”

Amid the state’s $1 billion budget crunch, some Democrats — including House Speaker Julie McCluskie — have started to discuss potential reforms to TABOR.

Titone is unlikely to be the last Democrat to jump into the treasurer primary — or to pursue one of the three other statewide offices that will be vacant after 2026.

State Sen. Jeff Bridges, a Greenwood Village Democrat, is reportedly mulling a treasurer run. In a text to The Denver Post on Wednesday, he said that he was “focused on how to make Colorado more affordable while still cutting the $1 billion forced on us by TABOR.” Bridges chairs the powerful Joint Budget Committee, which is tasked with setting the budget.

Titone, who has backed a series of “right-to-repair” bills in the state legislature in recent years, has already secured a number of endorsements from other elected Democrats, including 12 state lawmakers and several mayors and county commissioners.

But in doing so, directors still did not reveal how Youngquist behaved improperly toward staff members beyond his persistent effort to receive full compensation for his public duties.

“I’m deeply disappointed in the problematic comportment that I have seen from you this past year,” said board member Xóchitl “Sochi” Gaytán during the meeting. “I’m disappointed and hurt that it continued and continues. I feel that it����ap unfair and unjust to the employees in how you behave toward them.”

Gaytán, along with Michelle Quattlebaum and Scott Esserman, accused Youngquist of “behavior unbecoming of a board member toward DPS staff” last month. Carrie Olson added the discussion to Thursday’s board agenda at their request but expressed her own frustrations at Youngquist’s allegations against his colleagues, saying that they affect the “reputation” of the board.

During the meeting, school board members focused their rebukes on a Dec. 17 letter Youngquist sent accusing them of violating state statute after he was excluded from an executive session in December.

Youngquist sent the email to Olson, accusing the board of violating state statute by not properly stating the subject of a Dec. 12 executive session that dealt with his board compensation and how it relates to rules set by the , or PERA.

He has said he was told to leave the meeting and could not participate.

The executive session came as Youngquist sought to receive the full $33,000 compensation he is allowed to receive from the district for performing his official duties. Board members aren’t paid automatically but are able to request compensation based on the hours they’ve worked.

But Youngquist, who has been paid more than $20,000 since being elected to the board, was unable to receive his full compensation because he’s a retired educator and receives a pension from PERA, which limits the hours that retirees can work to up to 110 days or 720 hours per year.

PERA penalizes anyone who surpasses that threshold by cutting their pension by 5% in a future month for each day they work over the limit.

Youngquist requested the board allow DPS to reimburse him for the PERA penalties and costs he would incur if he received his full compensation for his board service. But the board decided to forgo a vote completely during the Dec. 12 meeting.

Youngquist said in an interview before Thursday’s meeting that he decided to not request his full compensation because of the potential PERA penalties.

Youngquist, who was stoic as he listened to his colleagues, acknowledged that he was frustrated when he sent the Dec. 17 letter, saying that he had wanted the board to reflect on its use of executive sessions, which are closed to the public.

“I appreciate … the conversation around the letter that I had written,” he said. “I’ve learned some things over the last couple of weeks.”

Youngquist told The Denver Post this week that he was aware that he offended two senior DPS staff members last year, including Chief of Staff Deborah Staten, although he was unclear how he did so.

He also had a tense exchange with Aaron Thompson, the district����ap general counsel, in which Thompson accused the school board member of repeatedly questioning his legal advice and suggesting the director did so because of racial biases, according to emails obtained by The Post.

Youngquist, a former East High School principal who was elected to the board in 2023, said in an interview that he didn’t know Thompson well enough at the time of the exchange and said that he felt like he wasn’t receiving all the information he sought during an earlier executive session.

Youngquist said during the meeting that he has listened to Thompson’s concerns and that “they helped me to change my understanding.”

But Youngquist’s response to his colleagues appeared to fall short for Quattlebaum, who questioned whether he was taking accountability for his actions.

Earlier in the meeting, Quattlebaum revealed that she had met privately with Youngquist about his behavior last year. She did not say why she had raised such concerns with Youngquist previously, but she noted that more than 120 district staff hours — the equivalent of $13,000 — was spent trying to come to a resolution regarding his compensation.

“This action is not only a violation of the trust placed in us by the community, but it����ap also disrupted the focus of multiple departments and individuals who worked tirelessly for our students, employees and families,” Quattlebaum told Youngquist.

Three school board members — Michelle Quattlebaum, Xóchitl “Sochi” Gaytán and Scott Esserman — publicly accused John Youngquist, who joined the board in late 2023, of “behavior unbecoming of a board member toward DPS staff” last month.

Youngquist, they noted, had levied his own allegations, accusing his colleagues of violating Colorado’s open-meeting law after he was excluded from an executive session in December.

“His subsequent threats, accusations of legal violations and overall unprofessional behavior towards his fellow board colleagues are not in alignment with the respectful and collaborative tone that we are all expected to uphold,” Quattlebaum, Gaytán and Esserman wrote in Dec. 17 letter to board President Carrie Olson.

But the three board members stopped short of specifically detailing how their colleague violated board policies when it came to district employees.

Youngquist, who has expressed surprise at the allegations, told The Denver Post that he is aware of two instances when he offended senior district staff members. The first occurred in February, when he was told he had offended DPS Chief of Staff Deborah Staten, but Youngquist said he was unclear how he did so.

A month later, tensions flared between Youngquist and Aaron Thompson, the district’s general counsel, during an email exchange in which Thompson noted the school board member had repeatedly challenged the attorney’s legal advice, and suggested Youngquist’s pushback stemmed from racial biases, according to emails obtained by The Post.

Youngquist, in an interview Wednesday, said once he realized he had offended Thompson, he asked the attorney to get coffee so he could learn more and understand his concerns.

“I did not know him well at that point,” Youngquist said. “I was just working with the information I was receiving and the information I felt I wasn’t receiving.”

Olson added a public discussion of the dispute to Thursday’s board agenda. She declined to say what exactly will be discussed during the meeting, but acknowledged she is aware of the two incidents involving Youngquist and senior DPS staff and that they could “possibly” come up during the meeting.

“I do have some inkling (of what will be discussed), but we will let this process play out,” Olson said

It’s rare for directors to formally air their grievances in a public meeting as board policy states that any violations must first be addressed privately, although the DPS board has been known for infighting in recent years.

The school board’s move to publicly discuss the allegations against Youngquist are a second step in the process of censuring a board member. Olson said there won’t be a vote to censure Youngquist during Thursday’s meeting.

“My hope is that this is where it ends and that we work on building a better working relationship between all of us,” she said, adding, “My vision is that we’ll have this discussion and we’ll get right back to work.”

Quattlebaum, Gaytán and Esserman either declined to comment for this story or did not respond to requests for comment.

A closed session and pay issues

In an email sent by Youngquist to Olson on Dec. 17, the director accused the board of violating state statute by not properly stating the subject of a Dec. 12 executive session that dealt with his board compensation and how it relates to rules set by the , or PERA.

Youngquist said he was told to leave the meeting and that he could not participate in the closed session.

A previous DPS board voted in 2021 to pay members for their official duties, and, two years later, directors increased the compensation to as much as $33,000 a year per person. Board members aren’t automatically paid, but are able to request compensation based on the hours they’ve worked.

But two board members — Olson and Youngquist — face a problem in getting fully paid. Both are retired educators and receive pensions from PERA, which limits the hours that retirees can work to up to 110 days or 720 hours per year.

PERA penalizes anyone who exceeds that threshold by cutting their pension by 5% in a future month for each day they work over the limit.

Olson hasn’t requested compensation for her board duties because she didn’t want that to affect her retirement benefits. But Youngquist, who has received more than $20,000 in compensation since joining the board, wasn’t able to request the full $33,000 he’s allowed without it impacting his pension.

“Both Carrie and I have been, over the course of the year, really working to try to solve how compensation can be provided,” Youngquist said. “We, along with others, just didn’t find a solution there.”

Olson said the board has met with PERA officials and state legislators about the issue affecting directors’ pay.

“This is something that we’ve been working on for a really long time,” she said. “It doesn’t appear to be something the district can solve through policy.”

During the Dec. 12 meeting at which Youngquist alleged his colleagues violated state statute, Olson asked board members whether anyone wanted to make a motion to vote on whether to reimburse Youngquist $21,291 for PERA penalties he would incur for working more than 140 days.

No one made the motion.

Allegation of racial biases

In his Dec. 17 email, Youngquist told Olson that if he did not receive a “reasonable response” to his concerns about open-meeting violations by 4 p.m. Dec. 18, then “the letter will be provided more broadly for external review,” according to emails reviewed by The Post.

Olson responded by forwarding the correspondence to the rest of the board, noting that Thompson advised it should also be sent to outside counsel. Hours later, in their own letter, Quattlebaum, Gaytán and Esserman called the allegations of open-meeting violations “unfounded and without merit” and accused Youngquist of violating board policies.

Two days later, an attorney with the firm Caplan and Earnest, representing DPS, sent Youngquist a response.

The attorney told Youngquist that the meeting was not improperly noticed and noted that Youngquist����ap absence from the closed session was required because the meeting was in response to his request for reimbursement of PERA penalties and costs associated with his board service.

“Your desire to be reimbursed for the penalties and costs you incur as a PERA retiree for Board service exceeding 140 days per calendar year is a financial interest personal to you,” wrote Kristin Edgar of Caplan and Earnest.

She added that, under state law and board policy, Youngquist “may not vote on or attempt to influence the decision of others in voting on the matter.”

“The district may have from (the attorney) a legal perspective that is different from others,” Youngquist said in an interview.

While December might have been a turning point in board members’ relations, Youngquist acknowledged he offended at least two senior staffers earlier in the year.

Emails from March show Youngquist did not feel Thompson adequately answered questions he asked during an earlier executive session, with the board member saying the attorney’s response “represents as a manipulation in regard to information shared and not shared and information that has been represented as provided, but not provided, to me as a board member.”

In his reply, Thompson noted that, “Historically, stereotypes of deceitfulness and manipulation have been unjustly and harmfully applied to Black individuals and communities.” He also noted that the district staff members Youngquist interacts with most — including Staten and Superintendent Alex Marrero — are people of color.

“I feel I must respond on their behalf to avoid any additional discomfort that may be unnecessarily imparted to district staff,” Thompson wrote to Youngquist. “That said, I invite you to explore any unexamined biases you may have concerning interacting with district staff, who also happen to be people of color.”

Thompson declined to comment for this story.

Youngquist did not provide details about the incident with Staten, the district����ap chief of staff. Staten did not directly address the incident in a statement to The Post.

However, our government has grown by leaps and bounds in recent years and it����ap time to take a step back.

Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer is correct that Colorado lawmakers can’t fuzzy math their way out of the roughly $700 million shortfall projected for the 2025-26 budget.

The prudent way to handle this shortfall isn’t by selling off a state asset – Pinnacol Assurance – and using the proceeds to pay off a state-debt owed to the Public Employee’s Retirement Association. No, the healthy way forward is to trim some fat.

Some of the state’s growth has been brilliant. Gov. Jared Polis has managed to fully fund education for the first time in decades, while also expanding early childhood education through a statewide preschool program.

And some of the growth has been driven by Colorado voters. Voters approved a tax to help pay for the universal preschool program, a tax for free school lunches for all children and a tax for a paid family leave program.

However, the administration of those programs has also taxed the General Fund, requiring state investments on top of the new tax revenue to keep these programs running at full capacity. They are important programs and we are glad the state is investing in our next generation, however, maintaining these and other new services requires belt tightening if revenue doesn’t keep up with growth.

The other great expansion is a proposed increase in how much the state’s health insurance safety net —  Medicaid — reimburses doctors and hospitals for the care they provide to Colorado’s low-income residents and children. Even with the increase, Medicaid is still paying doctors less than private insurance companies, so we understand why the change was needed, but the timing was bad. At the same time as the proposed increase in payments, the utilization rate of Medicaid has increased, meaning more eligible Coloradans are seeking medical care.

This strain may require a rolling back of provider fees if the state can’t cut from other places.

Another strain is that some of the state’s increased revenue must be returned to taxpayers under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. Lawmakers wisely increased the Earned Income Tax Credit by an estimated $200 million to make sure that a good chunk of the TABOR refund money would go to Coloradans most in need of stimulus, but even after that tax expenditure – and many other new tax credits were approved – the state still will return about $500 million to taxpayers.

This is all good news. Our economy is growing, taxpayers are getting money back, and our programs to help our kids grow, learn and thrive are receiving more state investment.

And it means that Kirkmeyer is right. State agencies must present recommended 10% cuts in their departments. This will be hard work and we understand there will be tradeoffs. Hopefully there won’t be any job losses, just job reassignments and empty positions remaining unfilled.

Sen. Jeff Bridges told The Denver Post that cutting $700 million from a $17.2 billion budget that had grown by 3% over the previous year would mean “cutting muscle, bone and limbs.”

Parsing through the state budget to find $100,000 here and there to trim will probably feel like losing a limb, but it won’t actually be that bad. Just last year lawmakers easily identified $1.8 million in obsolete tax credits to eliminate from the budget, and then turned around with at least $42.6 million in new tax credits (in addition to the Earned Income Tax Expansion) and a $300,000 total per year increase to lawmaker’s per-diem payments for living in Denver during the legislative session.

We are confident this $700 million can be found one rounding error at a time.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.