Genuine thanks are due the Colorado House of Representatives!

I must set aside my disappointment with the Colorado Senate Veterans Committee killing HCR21-1001 last week. The House is due a salute and my most sincere thanks for their amazing step of a unanimous vote approving HCR21-1001. 

"...submitting to the registered electors of the state of Colorado an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the extension of the property tax exemption for qualifying seniors and disabled veterans to the Gold Star Spouses of deceased members of the United States Armed Forces. "

Thank you, Republicans and Democrats in the Colorado House of Representatives for your unanimous approval of HCR21-1002 that you forwarded to the Senate where others decided $93,000 was just too much to "honor" survivors of our servicemembers.

 Earlier, well before any news of HCR21-1002's existence, I have expected and urged a statutory approach to protecting Gold Star Wives by exercising the legislature's power to redefine terms, thus avoiding the two-year delay built into HCR21-1002, and resolving the issue with 2022 legislation.

Colorado Bar Association: Statement of Support for Disabled Veterans and Gold Star Wives re: Property Tax Exemption

 Colorado Bar Statement:

"The Military and Veterans Affairs Committee (MVA) of the Colorado Bar Association has affirmed its support for two state legislative objectives for 2022. Both involve the state's partial Disabled Veteran Property Tax Exemption, a constitutional benefit since 2007.

Gold Star Wives, survivors of active-duty servicemembers, are denied the exemption because the legislation (HB-14-1373) and enabling statute provides the exemption for survivors of veterans who had the benefit at the time of death. Using the text, "the surviving spouse of a qualified disabled veteran who previously received an exemption," 

Colorado legislators apparently did not consider the issue of active-duty deaths. Loss of the servicemember on active duty precludes the 'previously received an exemption' requirement. Proposed is a redefinition of a qualified recipient to include survivors of active duty servicemembers who die in the line of duty.

The second proposed legislative issue is veterans with VA Total Disability for Individual Unemployability, or 'TDIU.' Just like VA's other 100% disability veterans whose wounds or illnesses are rated totally disabling, these vets are 100% permanently and totally disabled, but currently are excluded from the exemption. 

Their disability is total, not per the VA rating schedule for the particular disability, but because their service-connected disability makes them unable to maintain employment. A TDIU veteran has been found by the VA to be physically or mentally unable to ever work again due to their service-connected disabilities. MVA will propose redefining 'disabled veteran to include TDIU veterans."

We ALL must start reading the Colorado state constitution

Otherwise, we won't know what they're doing to us, or how.

Article X Section 3.5:

"1.5) For purposes of this section, "disabled veteran" means an individual who has served on active duty in the United States armed forces, including a member of the Colorado national guard who has been ordered into the active military service of the United States, has been separated therefrom under honorable conditions, and has established a service-connected disability that has been rated by the federal department of veterans affairs as one hundred percent permanent disability through disability retirement benefits or a pension pursuant to a law or regulation administered by the department, the department of homeland security, or the department of the army, navy, or air force"

 I admit to a period of unAmerican cowardice. I failed to to stand up for myself, and in that failure also failed other Colorado veterans who were in the same situation. We were about 450 totally disabled military retirees, and as you can read in the clip from the Colorado constitution above, we have a property tax exemption. My failure was when DOLA and CDMVA denied me the exemption and disregarded the state constitution. In effect, these agencies and the legislature nullified parts of Article X Section 3.5.

I pointed out the constitution but was rebuffed – "No, we follow the law," insisted DOLA. There was no argument about the law being flawed, having left out those last fifteen words that clearly included us, clearly providing us a constitutional protection and benefit. Too bad, was the state's attitude. Go talk to your legislator. They failed to uphold the constitution or do anything about it. In fact, they NEVER did anything about this obvious conflict except make sure taxes were demanded and paid. Between 2007 and 2021, the estimate is that $3.825,000 was unconstitutionally taxed from these veterans.

My cowardice was in paying the tax even without the exemption. I have no excuse because I'd read both the law and the constitution's Article X Section 3.5, so I knew better. But I caved. My failing was to politely stand up for my constitutional rights,  Not as some "oath keeper" or such, but merely as a quiet American citizen.

 

My fear? Refusing to pay might cost me more somehow, in fines or something. In the extreme I might lose my house, get something on my credit report or some kind of legal trouble even while being passively resistant. "No. It's only a few hundred dollars," I reasoned.

But that was no reason. I abused the constitution itself. No excuse. I let the state, my fellow veterans and all Colorado citizens down by my inaction. Trying to fix it after I caved is no redemption. I faced some really wild and weird stuff flying in crates ranging from the T-33 and C-47 to Fat Albert (C-5,) and 26 years of military service but never caved or soiled my trousers; this time, I folded like a baby. 

I should have paid all but the exemption value, let the state seize my home for non-payment of taxes, and then tried to defend my position in court.

The first and only constitutional I was faced with (state or federal,) I backed down. I paid my property tax in full because DOLA and CMDVA said I had to, despite our state constitution. They didn't do their sworn duty, and neither did I. My shame is the greater.

Why? I must not have truly believed what I thought about the constitution. In this instance, the state constitution but the principal is the same. Jefferson would be, probably is, ashamed of me. I am.

Colorado's abandoned 100% disabled veterans – those rated "Total Disability for Individual Unemployability (TDIU)"

Voters approved Referendum E in 2006. We were asked whether a partial property tax exemption should be offered totally and permanently disabled veterans. We approved. But we didn't get what we voted for, not by half.

VA has two kinds of total disability awards – "TDIU" for total disability for individual unemployability, and 100% service connected permanent and total.

VA may increase certain veterans' disability compensation to the 100 percent level, even though VA has not rated their service-connected disabilities at that level. To receive the supplement, termed an Individual Unemployability (IU) payment, disabled veterans must apply for the benefit and meet two criteria. First, veterans generally must be rated between 60 percent and 90 percent disabled. Second, VA must determine that veterans' disabilities prevent them from maintaining substantially gainful employment—for instance, if their employment earnings would keep them below the poverty threshold for one person. 

Unhappily, our legislators really tightened up qualifications and locked out every single TDIU veteran. TDIU vets are carefully evaluated by VA, have at least one 60% permanent disability and a combination of factors making it physically impossible for them to work. Ever. Both vets are referred to as 100% VA disabled, but TDIU veterans have been refused the Colorado disabled veteran property tax exemption.

Consider the leeway given the legislature in the tax code. Clearly, the legislators had/have the power to follow Referendum E "in a manner that gives its words their natural and obvious significance." Must we suppose that totally and permanently disabled aren't "natural and obvious" enough words for TDIU?

Colorado Revised Statutes 2016, Title 39-3-202

TITLE 39(c) In enacting legislation to implement section 3.5 of article X of the state constitution the general assembly has attempted to interpret the provisions of section 3.5 of article X of the state constitution in a manner that gives its words their natural and obvious significance;

VA OIG 19-00227-226, Page ii, September 10, 2020

"Veterans are considered to have total disability when they have a 100 percent disability rating due to service-connected disabilities or if their service-connected disabilities make them unemployable. For the total disability to be permanent, the law requires the disability to be “based upon an impairment reasonably certain to continue throughout life."

"The Veterans Benefits Administration Inadequately Supported Permanent and Total Disability Decisions",

   

SITREP: Report to the Colorado Gold Star Wives re: Disabled Veteran Survivor Property Tax Exemptiopn

Here's my 8 May update to the Gold Star Wives:

Good evening, 

I agreed to provide you an update of things of interest regarding the property tax exemption for Gold Star Wives. Here it is.

The first item is that some legislators and staff were of the impression Colorado might have upwards of a thousand survivors. This is wildly off from the estimate of 150 potential applicants that the Legislative Council Staff calculated in 2019 for Representative Kipp. With a modest budget impact of less than $100,000 this looks more and more reasonable.

I've asked for but haven't been able to get any information from UVC about GSW being a 2022 legislative objective, which is the timing you suggested when we spoke. 

Their gentle suggestion seemed to be that I should back off but that it would be okay to stay tuned to UVC web info. Rather than being so uselessly passive, silent and merely hopeful, it seems more appropriate to remain proactive within UVC and also follow UVC guidance to keep my elected representatives advised. It seems useful to get coalition members informed and supportive of your exemption now so it can be presented in June and voted on by this November – if I understand the UVC timing.

To that end, my American Legion post and district submitted an internal resolution that, if approved at our June meeting, informs the UVC of the Legion's request for placement on the 2022 objectives. Nothing more explicit, and all within UVC channels. If it fails to get UVC behind it next year as well, at least there was an effort.

As you and I agreed, National Guard troops who die when activated for state contingencies are referenced in this Legion resolution. I spoke with Guard and DMVA folks about the issue: a Guardsman's surviving spouse is protected with something like DIC but more generous at about $2800/month. It would be an unlikely event but if it ever does happen it absolutely right that their spouses be protected!

As you can read, the resolution doesn't actually do much in that it only directs the Legion's UVC delegate to ask the coalition to consider GSW. Details are left for the professionals to iron out if/when/however the coalition wishes:

RESOLVED, by the American Legion Department of Colorado) that unremarried Gold Star Wives and unremarried surviving spouses of State National Guard members who die while activated by the Governor for State service, be included in the Disabled Veteran Survivor Property Tax Exemption because it is both necessary and proper, that the United Veterans Coalition be informed for this to be part of its state legislative objectives until acted upon with a goal of implementation before 2023 

--
As a Gold Star Family Member (CW4 Hank Carter, WWII, Korea, Vietnam,) this means a lot to me personally! In different circumstances it could have been my own GSW mom or my wife to be affected. It would affect survivors of crewmembers I've lost: Paul, Gabby, The Gif, Larry, Turcottte, Art, Bill, Bob, Arch, Fred and others.

If anything, I'm more concerned about this now than at our UVC banquet a couple years back when I introduced you and David Ortiz to then-Congressman Polis and to VA acting Deputy Secretary Scott Blackburn (our speaker that night.) This illogical distinction between GSW and disabled vets must be eliminated. If it had been done properly from the exemption's launch, each GSW would have saved over $8000 by 2022!

Whenever you have the time, I'd appreciate a cup of coffee and some discussion. The clip below is what I did for an informative panel.

God bless!

American Legion District 4 Approves Gold Star Resolution for 2022 Action

The Fort Collins Legion post forwarded its unanimously-approved Gold Star Wives resolution to Legion District 4. This morning, the nineteen posts represented unanimously approved the resolution and District 4 now forwards it to Department.. The next step is to convince the department resolution committee and then, it will be put to all delegates. 

Then, the Legion delegate presents the issue to the United Veterans Coalition.

This is very encouraging. The resolution asks the UVC, where both the Legion and the Gold Star Wives are members, to advocate inclusion of survivors of active-duty military line of duty deaths in the Colorado Disabled Veteran Survivor property tax exemption.

We should know more about the Legion's Department of Colorado decision this month!

Opposition to extending the property tax exemption is considerable, with most concern being the tight state budget. Finding $100,000 shouldn't be impossible, given that the general category of homestead exemptions for seniors, disabled military and survivors is $149,000,000; we're asking only for 0.0006 of an increase. 

I realize there is also coordinated opposition by some worried veterans, concerned about the groundwork underway to advance this within UVC. Perhaps there's some area of conflict with other coalition priorities or conflict caused by an outsider (me) trying to get UVC help going forward – nobody has said.

I'm a little concerned about UVC suggestions that any concerns, even these about which I care deeply) are best left altogether to them. I don't want to stand aside to see whether or not the coalition opts to advance GSW. It would seem better strategy, with no conflict of my causing, to advocate among primary members for their support. As I read the 2019 email, the task is getting issues into consideration by June and decided upon for inclusion of GSW with the legislative agenda.

At this point, my objective is still (1) get UVC member organizations aware of the Gold Star Wives property tax exemption (2) get the unanimous UVC member organizations' approval to include this issue in the UVC 2022 state legislative agenda (3) bring this to the attention of interested state legislators to draft a bill and update LCS research from their 2019 review

It has been six years since UVC last considered Gold Star Wives when I asked. Nothing formal ever followed – no bills, no committee hearings. It simply disappeared without action back in 2016. For 2022, We must not meekly stand aside, passively watching and wondering if UVC will act in 2022. 

With the offer of a bill to be introduced in June, and with the hoped-for UVC leadership and support (rather than disappointment with me and undoing my efforts) the issue should have a chance of reaching the legislature, maybe even into law by the summer of 2022.

Farewell, MOAA and my 30-year membership.

No help here!

I've ended my 31-year membership in the Military Officers Association of America, resigning last week. Leadership's brief response to my request for support (copy below) or advice on property tax exemptions for surviving spouses of active-duty military wasn't helpful and didn't deal with the issue. The only answer was that the Colorado MOAA representative would decide whether to support or not, and whether to speak with me or not. 

There wasn't even an offer to bring my concerns about Gold Star Wives and Colorado's TDIU veterans to the MOAA representative.

In essence, I was told by leadership that my effort as a life member to express my need for MOAA help within the United Veterans Coalition was dependent upon and at the sole discretion of our lobbyist. 

MOAA's rep hasn't found an opportunity for me to discuss my hope for MOAA support within the Colorado United Veterans Coalition. My specific request was for MOAA to advocate veterans' issues as per our mission statement. I was sent an email on how the United Veterans Coalition handles legislative objectives but nothing regarding how MOAA could help, nor whether MOAA agreed or disagreed with my concern's solution.

Being denied my voice, permitted any discussion of my needs only upon invitation of another (no matter how kind or skillful or even supportive the lobbyist may be) is unacceptable. This is an MOAA gag. Are officers expected to wait around, mute and dependent on others deciding what's best for us?

Rather than have my affiliation as a member affirm MOAA inaction, disinterest, or perhaps even opposition to my needs, I have terminated my life membership. Now I hope to bring up the issue with other UVC-affiliated groups, seeking their support to place Gold Star Wives and TDIU veterans on its 2022 legislative agenda.

What I wrote MOAA to ask for help:

I'm a life MOAA member and ask your help. Good afternoon. I don't know the complexities of getting an MOAA resolution but hope for your advice. If appropriate, please consider this a motion under the appropriate rules for such a thing.

Our state restricts the small Disabled Veteran Property Tax Exemption to those whose spouse died while already in receipt of the exemption. This language makes it impossible for "Gold Star Wives: (name change underway to Spouses) to qualify because their troop died on duty and never came home to apply for the exemption An obvious and gruesome "Catch-22." 

There are about 150 or so widows/widowers not already covered under the Homestead Exemption. I'm not addressing Gold Star Wives' second category, spouses of vets who die after the military of service-connected causes because the current language includes them. Legislative Affairs Council estimates the cost to Colorado to be under $100,000.

I'd like to correct this via our membership in the United Veterans Coalition of Colorado. I assume we either agree upon supporting something as an informal process or some sort of resolution. I've drafted such a resolution for discussion.

Please help me correct this discrimination of active duty widows who should be receiving the same respect and honor as do Colorado's disabled veteran survivors.

Several years back, MOAA was much more responsive when I visited headquarters in Washington along with Dr. Jeanie Stellman from Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. MOAA and ROA, the American Legion, NPR, even Air Force Times all lent their support throughout the four year effort getting our crews C-123 Agent Orange coverage.

So, thanks again, MOAA, but farewell. I'm not able to travel to Washington again to find somebody in MOAA to hear me out.

May 2015 MOAA Magazine

 

Helpful advice – and a word of caution

For some years I've advocated for Gold Star Wives receiving the same property tax exemption provided survivors of our totally disabled veterans. I've been feeling somewhat better and picked up some steam and got onto the bandwagon (I treasure mixed metaphors) to plow ahead to get some interest among others. 

That hasn't gone so well. Not only is it a difficult sell in a state economy battered by Covid, it is also just one concern among so many affecting veterans and our families. Fortunately, we in Colorado have our United Veterans Coalition to bring to bear 460,000 veterans' voices for legislators to hear,

The UVC does its job well. Their decades-long track record is proof.  The inclusion of a multitude of our largest and smallest veterans' organizations is another proof of the trust placed in UVC by us as veterans. One voice, 460,000 addressing agreed-upon legislative objectives.

But things can still be difficult. I've been concerned about bringing the issue up with the veterans' groups and my elected representatives, hoping for inclusion of Gold Star Wives' property tax exemption in the UVC 2022 legislative agenda. That's been hard, with less enthusiasm that I'd expected, and also hard because UVC has its well-established way of doing things. I knew little about UVC objectives and how to get UVC support, but when I asked for updates to information given me in 2019 before starting these current efforts my emails and calls went unanswered. Of course, nobody owes me any response at all - we're all volunteers in these veterans' projects.

You know the phrase: "Lead, follow or get out of the way!" In the vacuum of responses to my inquiries, I found nobody to follow and so I started seeking interest from others. The basic step was clearly getting UVC "primary members" behind what would have to be the unanimous coalition approval. Although I certainly have no attitude about "get out of the way," I didn't grasp the friction that my trodding on others' turf would cause as I reached out to primary coalition members.

So doing what I've been doing hasn't gone too well with UVC and what they're doing. Their opposition to my concerns about Gold Star Wives (I'm a Gold Star Family Member) is perfectly understandable because they are the experienced lobbyists, chosen for their dedication and successes.  GSW wasn't an objective in 2014, 2015, (it was an objective in 2016 as I asked), 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 or 2022. They've mentioned to others that my urging for it to be a 2022 objective wasn't well-received.

I've appreciated their two emails of useful guidance after I directly asked them, " I guess I should just ask outright, should efforts on Gold Star Wives stop altogether? "

Okay. Hand gently patted and pushed away from the throttle. I take it the coalition's suggestion is to "follow the UVC legislative committee updates" to see if action happens to develop among member organizations before coalition approval in November Gold Star Wives' taxation. Also, the gentle inference is that approaching my legislators for interest in their help next year, and approaching groups like the Legion or Colorado National Guard wasn't helpful or welcome, thus the guidance instead of encouragement or advice to do ... anything.

Darn. I'd hoped, expected even, some hand-holding. Some guidance and encouragement. Referring back to their email of sixteen months ago was interesting, and the point was that I should have remembered it and been compliant with it. I guess I was influenced most by our leadership's 16 Nov 2016 instruction:

 "it is crucial that each of you reach out to your own State Senator and  Representative, and at least let him/her know that you are part of the UVC, and talk about how important it is that we support our veterans,

Oh, well.  Lesson learned about playing nice with others.

"...in keeping with our legislative agenda" - United Veterans Coalition Champions Veterans' Issues for Colorado. When the time is right, Gold Star Wives' concerns WILL be heard!

Four hundred and sixty thousand loud, strong voices.  

At the right time,, I'm hopeful these thousands of veterans will be convincing our General Assembly that Gold Star Wives should be eligible for the Disabled Veteran Survivor Property Tax Exemption.

But this just isn't the right moment for GSW property tax issues. The benefit will be sought in the near future, just not right now. And it wasn't right back in 2016 when our state legislative agenda included Gold Star survivors but no traction was found, not even a draft bill.

UVC is "the tip of the spear" for our state's veterans. Speaking as one voice, coordinating dozens of organizations state-wide. VFW, DAV, American Legion, PVA, MOAA, NCOA, ROA, AFSA, VVA, and so many others of which I'm not a member – Submarine Veterans, Gold Star Wives - if an association serves vets and their families, if an organization promotes the national defense, they're a welcome part part of UVC and their concerns are heard. The various needs and propositions are discussed by the membership, and those agreed by UVC are delivered to the decision makers, both state and federal, in the form of the annual focused UVC legislative objectives.  

Legislators in Denver and Washington listen carefully, hearing those thousands of UVC voices when the United Veterans Coalition speaks. Whether addressing an individual legislator, senate or house committee, or public forum like a town hall meeting or city council, the United Veterans Coalition commands attention, and rightfully so.

I know this. On a few occasions, I was a witness before the National Academies of Science or one of the house or senate committees, and authorized to speak on behalf of the UVC. UVC was firmly behind me as I sought Agent Orange benefits for C-123 veterans. We got all of Colorado's senators and congressional representatives together to pressure the VA, even to block presidential nominations from consideration until VA acted. Finally, we won on the merit of the issue and UVC strength. 

We won the four year battle and gained VA Agent Orange benefits for 2500 Air Force C-123 aircrew, maintainers and survivors. Until Congress acted on the Blue Water Navy group, this was the only time VA added a new Agent Orange exposure group, and the only expansion of Agent Orange benefits since 1991. With HB16-1444 we won property tax exemptions for Colorado 450 military retirees and their survivors who'd been medically separated from their service as 100% disabled, and in doing so we brought the legislation into agreement with our state constitution's Article X Section 3.5. 

Not only does the UVC present veterans' concerns to our legislator, UVC also prioritizes the multitude of issues and forms an annual legislative agenda for both state and federal issues.

The UVC legislative agenda is already firmly set for 2021, but has yet to be finalized for 2022. Whether or not Gold Star Wives' property tax exemption is identified as an objective is up to the primary members and lobbyists of UVC. The coalition sorts out our needs, identifies the possible, and prioritizes them. Presto, the annual legislative agenda.

At the right time, Gold Star Wives' property tax issue is likely to be addressed by the coalition. Admirably, the GSW members are patient and understanding, with full confidence in the coalition.

The timing for GSW isn't right for 2021. Complexities of state budget, coalition priorities. Strategy and resources – all must align, and then UVC will deliver for the members of Colorado's Gold Star Wives. Let's get together for Gold Star Wives' proper place on the UVC 2022 legislative agenda!

SAMPLE MESSGE TO COLORADO STATE LEGISLATORS FOR GOLD STAR WIVES' PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION

Colorado residents, there's a sample letter or email below that you should send your state senator or representative (around the end of June is the best time) as we fight to get the same property tax relief for Gold Star Wives as Colorado gives survivors of disabled veterans. 

Here are the names of Colorado's 35 senators and state's 65 representatives.

"In the spirit of the Assembly of the State of Colorado Senate Joint Resolution 21-010s, issued April 5, 2021 in honor of Gold Star Families, I strongly urge in 2022 much more substantive respect be shown Gold Star Wives with your support of 150 survivors whose spouses died on active military service.

As the needs of Colorado and its citizens form the 2022 legislative agenda, please support their inclusion in the Disabled Veteran Survivor Property Tax Exemption. The only reason they are denied the benefit is that their spouses died on active military service.  Only the line-of-duty death of their military spouse disqualifies Gold Star Wives from the same modest state benefit extended to survivors of our totally disabled veterans.

Language in Article X Section 3.5 (1)(b) of the Colorado Constitution provides for survivors of totally disabled veterans and of the Senior Homestead Exemption. Illogically, the phrasing completely disqualifies survivors whose active-duty military spouses lost on active duty. Article X Section 3.5 (1)(b) reads, in part: 

 (b) The owner-occupier is the spouse or surviving spouse of an owner-occupier who previously qualified for a property tax exemption for the same residential real property under paragraph (a) of this subsection

 

In 2014, HB 14-1373 dealt more directly with homesteaders' survivors, providing for "the surviving spouse who takes possession of the qualifying residence of a deceased."  Again, active duty troops' survivors were disqualified unless the family owned a Colorado home when the military spouse died – most military families, especially the young and junior ranks, do not own homes. Personal income and the frequent necessity of their transfers often makes home ownership illogical except as they near retirement. 

The language of HB 14-1373 also worked against the hopes of survivors stationed out of Colorado but hope to return or establish residence here. 

Colorado denies the exemption to survivors of active-duty military because their spouses died. Those servicemembers will never come home as disabled veterans, alive to be "previously qualified" for the exemption for which they never had the chance to apply. 

They died instead of being injured. Benefit denied the surviving spouse.  This is a too-gruesome "Catch-22".

It is also an illogical distinction between active duty troops' survivors and veterans' survivors. Perhaps our legislators did not intend to disqualify military survivors, but did they overlook the fact that not every soldier, sailor, airman or Marine will be coming home alive? Did they overlook the fact that America has been at war for the last two decades?

LSC estimates a total only 150 widows and widowers, survivors of active duty servicemembers. The state's homestead exemption benefits over a quarter million Colorado homeowners and their survivors. 

Gold Star Wives are just 0.0006% of that population. LCS says coverage for them would under $100,000 with negligible administrative overhead. Hardly an insurmountable hurdle for Colorado!

Perhaps today's wiser Legislature needs to include the death of an active-duty servicemember in its definition of "disabled veteran."

Did Colorado Legislative Council Overrule the People and Constitution of Colorado?

"CLC" is the Colorado Legislative Council. The CLC web site tells us they have an important role in our state's legislative process:

"The Colorado Legislative Council plays a big role in the initiative process in Colorado. The Legislative Council meets to approve all language for all ballot measures that have qualified in Colorado. Also, Legislative Council provides a fiscal impact statement which is mandatory for all ballot measures. This is done to determine impacts on any state agency or local government.
Once the analysis is complete, the Legislative Council prepares an official booklet which is published to Colorado voters on the actual language and fiscal impacts of ballot measures. The name of the official booklet is known as the Blue Book."

Colorado's voters were sent the Blue Book back in 2006, and CLC explained which veterans were specified in Referendum E. Included were explanations that the Referendum specified totally military personnel retired by their services, and described VA-rated totally and permanently disabled veterans, "Veterans are rated 100 percent permanently disabled when a mental or physical injury makes it impossible for the average person to hold a job and the disability is lifelong." Referendum E received 78% of the votes, becoming Article X Section 3.5 of the Colorado constitution.

In 2007 the Legislature undertook to create statutes to implement the constitution's changes. Their final work efforts were then routed past CLC for legal form, content and other requirements to become law. But CLC, or the Legislature, goofed. Twice.

First, the final legislation somehow dropped reference to totally disabled military personnel retired by the Army, Navy and Air Force. Second, although the Blue Book explained to the electorate (and we approved) that totally and permanently disabled vets "are rated 100 percent permanently disabled when a mental or physical injury makes it impossible for the average person to hold a job and the disability is lifelong," CLC and the Legislature somehow specifically barred VA's disability category called "totally and permanently disabled individual unemployability," or TDIU. The electorate, relying on CDC's Blue Book, amended the constitution and specifically protected vets who couldn't hold a job and whose disability was lifelong.

But CLC then specifically rejected such unemployability, somehow backtracking on its Blue Book as well as the decision of the electorate to amend the constitution, in part overturning the voters' decision on Referendum E.

Today, the Colorado Department of Military and Veterans Affairs refuses to follow the constitution but instead relies on the flawed statute, both of which CLC worked on. CDMVA thus defies the constitution and refuses the exemption to qualified vets seeking the benefit. State and county forms read, but without legal foundation, "VA employability awards do not meet the eligibility requirements." 

Why couldn't CLC get the final statutes to comply with the constitution and the guidance CLC gave the electorate? Why does CLC say VA permanent and total service-connected unemployability disability awards are unqualified for the exemption?

Why is the will of the people, expressed in our approval of Referendum E to amend the constitution, defied by CLC and the Colorado Legislature? How can CLC be called to account for this, and to correct their mistakes?

Will Politics Play a Role Against Veterans' Needs?

Maybe the question should be – will legislators find a way to use veterans' rights and needs to attack the opposing party? With veterans' issues founded in the Constitution, we think not. Especially not, because we've seen leaders in the Senate and the House, from opposite parties, push for late bills.

Folks in the know about Colorado politics remind us that corrections in our disabled veteran property tax exemption face hurdles, especially if legislation is involved rather than a constitutional challenge at the Supreme Court.

Too often, perfectly worthy bills are assigned to committees which have nothing to do with the bill so that failure is certain. For instance, automobile safety bills assigned by the president of the Senate or the speaker of the House to the Committee on State, Veterans and Military Affairs. That's known as referring bills to a "kill" committee.

So, not only do we have to hope leadership in Denver will obey their oaths of office to support the Constitution and bring statues into accord with it, but we have to hope they don't find in the process a way to attack the opposite party and use "kill" committees. Finally, we have to hope the Legislature views veterans' rights under Article X Section 3.5 to be something they will permit us to finally enjoy by passing essential legislation. Too much to hope for? Perhaps.

The problem is felt heavily by the electorate. Bills might be important problem-fixers, but legislative in-fighting makes it far more important for parties to find ways to hurt each other rather than serve the electorate. The worst of these abuses comes when really important legislation is introduced by one party but blocked by the other only to keep the introducing party from getting credit for good legislation.

Finally, the problem can be that this is the veterans' problem, not our legislators'. Their disinterest might just leave us abandoned.

Colorado's Legislative Council – did they let veterans down on Referendum E?

I'm learning so much as I follow the trail of Colorado's disabled veteran property tax exemption, the 2006 Referendum E.

What I've learned about is Colorado's legislative process. Reading about it I've got a better picture about the history of our disabled vet property tax exemption and problems now surfacing.

The steps begin with the Legislature sending the language of a referendum to the Legislative Council to insure its legality, compliance with style and format. That means the property tax exemption was carefully worded by the Legislative Council for the specific words by which the Constitution would be amended, and also the words by which the electorate would be guided to an understanding of the referendum adequate to have an informed opinion when voting.

You can see what they did below in the referendum's plain-language description. Attention is drawn to the highlighted words in the "who qualifies for the tax deduction" section. Consider...this was written by the Legislature's "experts"??

"Who qualifies for the tax reduction? Homeowners who have served on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces and are rated 100-percent permanently disabled by the federal government due to a service-connected disability qualify for the tax reduction in Referendum E. Colorado National Guard members injured while serving in the U.S. Armed Forces also qualify. Veterans are rated 100-percent permanently disabled when a mental or physical injury makes it impossible for the average person to hold a job and the disability is lifelong. Nationally, less than one percent of veterans have a 100-percent permanent disability rating. About 2,200 veterans are expected to qualify for the property tax reduction in Colorado."

After the voters approved Referendum E by 78% and by it, created Article X Section 3.5 of the Colorado Constitution, it became the job of the Legislature to craft enabling legislation. Once done, that headed over to the Colorado Legislative Council for the same reasons...legal clarity, compliance with the Constitution, form and style. This is where serious problems popped up. Legislation did not match the newly-amended Constitution! The electorate was duped.

What the Legislative Council approved for the Referendum E'/Article X Section 3.5 enabling statute drifted far from what the electorate were told they'd voted for. Struck from the statute was a very important group of veterans the state now cites statute to deny the exemption, even though this category of disabled vet is spelled out in tht Cinstitution. Vets whose injuries leave them unable to work are termed "permanent and total service connected unemployability" ratings. That's bad because the Legislative Council blocked about half of the veterans the electorate voted to help! From the 2006 Blue Book:

"Veterans are rated 100-percent permanently disabled when a mental or physical injury makes it impossible for the average person to hold a job and the disability is lifelong."

Disabled veterans with VA's unemployability disability rating were specified as what the voters were helping, became in the administration of the statute by CMDVA a group specified as unqualified.

That's a complete 180º shift away from the Constitution, enough to disappoint this veteran! 

Today - Spoke to the United Veterans Committee

Thanks to kind and skillful editing by Bill Hanna, we circulated a single-page flyer touching on the basics of Colorado's difficulty to generously administer the Constitution's Article X Section 3.5 for disabled veterans property tax exemption.

Further, we even met with two C-123 Ranch Hand veterans plus a VA lady whose husband is one of our post-Vietnam veterans and his Agent Orange claim has sailed through just fine! That unexpected piece of good news is a blessing for my entire week!

We can only hope enough veterans and our advocates raise the question – why isn't the Colorado Constitution faithfully followed in this important area?

Code of Federal Regulations on Unemployability

Following is the Code of Federal Regulations governance of VA unemployability ratings. Note that VA considers Permanent and Total Unemployability awards (TDIU) to be "a rating of 100 percent service-connected disability based on individual unemployability"

§3.340   Total and permanent total ratings and unemployability.

(a) Total disability ratings—(1) General. Total disability will be considered to exist when there is present any impairment of mind or body which is sufficient to render it impossible for the average person to follow a substantially gainful occupation. Total disability may or may not be permanent. Total ratings will not be assigned, generally, for temporary exacerbations or acute infectious diseases except where specifically prescribed by the schedule.

(2) Schedule for rating disabilities. Total ratings are authorized for any disability or combination of disabilities for which the Schedule for Rating Disabilities prescribes a 100 percent evaluation or, with less disability, where the requirements of paragraph 16, page 5 of the rating schedule are present or where, in pension cases, the requirements of paragraph 17, page 5 of the schedule are met.

(3) Ratings of total disability on history. In the case of disabilities which have undergone some recent improvement, a rating of total disability may be made, provided:

(i) That the disability must in the past have been of sufficient severity to warrant a total disability rating;

(ii) That it must have required extended, continuous, or intermittent hospitalization, or have produced total industrial incapacity for at least 1 year, or be subject to recurring, severe, frequent, or prolonged exacerbations; and

(iii) That it must be the opinion of the rating agency that despite the recent improvement of the physical condition, the veteran will be unable to effect an adjustment into a substantially gainful occupation. Due consideration will be given to the frequency and duration of totally incapacitating exacerbations since incurrence of the original disease or injury, and to periods of hospitalization for treatment in determining whether the average person could have reestablished himself or herself in a substantially gainful occupation.

(b) Permanent total disability. Permanence of total disability will be taken to exist when such impairment is reasonably certain to continue throughout the life of the disabled person. The permanent loss or loss of use of both hands, or of both feet, or of one hand and one foot, or of the sight of both eyes, or becoming permanently helpless or bedridden constitutes permanent total disability. Diseases and injuries of long standing which are actually totally incapacitating will be regarded as permanently and totally disabling when the probability of permanent improvement under treatment is remote. Permanent total disability ratings may not be granted as a result of any incapacity from acute infectious disease, accident, or injury, unless there is present one of the recognized combinations or permanent loss of use of extremities or sight, or the person is in the strict sense permanently helpless or bedridden, or when it is reasonably certain that a subsidence of the acute or temporary symptoms will be followed by irreducible totality of disability by way of residuals. The age of the disabled person may be considered in determining permanence.

(c) Insurance ratings. A rating of permanent and total disability for insurance purposes will have no effect on ratings for compensation or pension.

[26 FR 1585, Feb. 24, 1961, as amended at 46 FR 47541, Sept. 29, 1981]

§3.341   Total disability ratings for compensation purposes.

(a) General. Subject to the limitation in paragraph (b) of this section, total-disability compensation ratings may be assigned under the provisions of §3.340. However, if the total rating is based on a disability or combination of disabilities for which the Schedule for Rating Disabilities provides an evaluation of less than 100 percent, it must be determined that the service-connected disabilities are sufficient to produce unemployability without regard to advancing age.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)

(b) Incarcerated veterans. A total rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability which would first become effective while a veteran is incarcerated in a Federal, State or local penal institution for conviction of a felony, shall not be assigned during such period of incarceration. However, where a rating for individual unemployability exists prior to incarceration for a felony and routine review is required, the case will be reconsidered to determine if continued eligibility for such rating exists.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5313(c))

(c) Program for vocational rehabilitation. Each time a veteran is rated totally disabled on the basis of individual unemployability during the period beginning after January 31, 1985, the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Service will be notified so that an evaluation may be offered to determine whether the achievement of a vocational goal by the veteran is reasonably feasible.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1163)

[46 FR 47541, Sept. 29, 1981, as amended at 50 FR 52774, Dec. 26, 1985; 55 FR 17271, Apr. 24, 1990l; 58 FR 32445, June 10, 1993; 68 FR 34542, June 10, 2003]

VA Statement re: Permanent & Total Service-Connected Unemployability Ratings & "Unemployability"

In response to my inquiry, VA's Senior Management and Program Analyst at Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs emailed me the following confirmation that VA's details for permanent and total individual unemployability are worded the same as Colorado's constitution, at least, that's how the federal government reads their program and Colorado's statute.

The gentleman's name is obscured here but has been provided to CODVA authorities.

Readers here are reminded that the constitution holds that Colorado will go by ratings of the US Department of Veterans Affairs regarding eligibility for the property tax exemption, which reads: "BEEN RATED BY THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT  OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT PERMANENT DISABILITY THROUGH DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS OR A PENSION PURSUANT TO A LAW OR REGULATION ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT,"

Sxxxxxxx, Exxx, VBAVACO                      Feb 8
to me, Ben, David, Linda

We’d be happy to answer any questions Mr. Mestas and CO DVA have.  As I mentioned in my previous response, VA does consider some IU ratings, such as the one you provided as an example, to be permanent and total (P&T).  P&T IU ratings are clearly marked as such. 

Ex.. 

However, this VA opinion and the clear, very plain language in the law have proved immaterial to CODA officials. These unelected staffers simply inserted their own interpretation of Colorado's constitutional amendment and are determined to block many fully eligible veterans and their survivors now classified by VA as "permanent and total" via unemployability.

BTW, "unemployability" to VA is based solely on line of duty illnesses or injuries, and on VA's careful assessment only of the veteran's service-connected issues as being completely, totally, permanently disabling for life, and to total 100& in the overall appraisal of the veteran.

Colorado Division of Veterans Affairs Stumbles on Property Tax Exemption for Disabled Vets & Widows

Colorado statue on disabled veteran property tax relief: §§ 39-3-202(2) and (3) and 203(1.5) to (5), C.R.S:

"rated by the federal department of veterans affairs as one hundred percent permanent disability through disability retirement benefits or a pension pursuant to a law or regulation administered by the department, the department of homeland security, or the department of the army, navy, or air force."

Issues.

(1) Required to follow the 2007 legislation, Colorado Department of Veterans Affairs excludes recognition of US military disability retirements, despite provision in the constitution and blocks such veterans from the disabled veteran property tax exemption.

(2) Missing from the Constitution but added somehow by CODVA as their own disqualifier are veterans with “unemployability” VA ratings. US Department of Veterans Affairs ratings for permanent and total disability with unemployability (TDIU) are unacceptable to CODVA, blocking many qualified veterans, and their survivors, from any disabled veteran property tax exemption.

Generally, veterans who receive 100% VA disability compensation pension benefits are free to work and are not limited in the amount of earnings they may receive, even when their single- or combined-impairment ratings total 100%. For example, office or sedentary workers such as clerks, lawyers, telephone workers and others may be totally disabled from military line of duty illness or injury yet fully able to continue gainful and satisfying employment although rated 100% disabled by VA for loss of use of legs.

Not so a TDIU disabled vet, professionally judged by VA, Social Security or state rehabilitation agency. That veteran’s service-connected disabilities are sufficient, without regard to other factors, and so severe as to prevent performing the mental and/or physical tasks required to get or keep substantially gainful employment. TDIU recognizes only permanent and totally disabling service-connected issues via an extra-schedular construct. A TDIU veteran is even barred by VA from employment rehab services because no employment is deemed possible.

Permanent and total disability individual unemployability (TDIU) is a recognition that service connected disabilities, while not rated individually at 100%, are complete enough in their totality to equal 100% and to prohibit employment and are in total, permanent and completely disabling. Diseases and injuries of long standing that are actually totally incapacitating will be regarded as permanently and totally disabling when the probability of permanent improvement under treatment is remote.

Permanence of total disability is taken to exist when such impairment is reasonably certain to continue throughout the life of the disabled person. Total disability is considered to exist when there is present any impairment of mind or body that is sufficient to render it impossible for the average person to follow a substantially gainful occupation.

Generally, a vet qualifying for TDIU would also meet SSI requirements for disability benefits, but the same is not true regarding SSDI recipients and TDIU because TDIU is awarded only for military line of duty issues that cause complete and permanent disability. The military services infrequently award such total disability retirements for service members whose injuries or illnesses are completely disabling and considered to be unimproved for life, but all military disability ratings, even for combat, are not accepted by CODVA which recognizes only the US Department of Veterans Affairs decisions, but then, not including VA’s permanent and total service-connected unemployability disability awards. The means by which CODVA excludes military disability retirements is not known, even though its provision is clearly constitutional and blocking these veterans is clearly unconstitutional!

Generally speaking, disregard for military disability ratings and VA TDIU ratings seems unique among states providing property tax relief. For instance, Virginia’s statutes:

A veteran is considered to have a 100 percent service-connected disability if:
• The veteran's disability is rated at 100%; or
• The veteran's service-connection is rated at less than 100%, but the veteran is paid at the 100% disability rate due to unemployability.

NOTE: Under either standard, the disability must be considered total and permanent. Veterans with temporary disabilities do not qualify.