[applause] Good evening everybody.

Welcome to the Buell Public Media Center here in the heart of downtown Denver.

Welcome.

We are so happy that you're here.

And thanks to all of you who are tuning in live on YouTube.

We are so grateful to partner with extraordinary organizations like the Colorado Sun, who's doing just exceptional reporting around the state.

I am Amanda Mountain, president and CEO of Rocky Mountain Public Media and the Colorado Sun, Rocky Mountain Public Media, KUNC, Colorado Public Radio, and Rocky Mountain Community Radio all partnered together to make sure that good quality public policy and state legislature coverage goes to every Coloradan and across the state.

We do this together so that it's more accessible and more easily easy to find for all Coloradans, regardless of where they live.

So thank you for your support of all of our organizations.

I am so happy to introduce an old friend, an exceptional media executive publisher of The Colorado Sun, Larry Ryckman.

[applause] Thank you Amanda.

And thanks to Rocky Mountain PBS for being such great partners to us and great hosts for us tonight and allowing us to live stream this, this event tonight.

We'll also have this event available for viewing on our website.

ColoradoSun.com So you'll be able to watch this later and share it with friends.

We have some other candidate events coming up and I encourage you to sign up for free.

We'll be in Fort Collins on Sunday at noon for the US Senate candidate.

Candidate debate will be at the University of Colorado on October 14th at 6:30 p.m.

for the Attorney General Debate, and then heading to UNC on October 20th for the CD eight live issue interview.

You can sign up at ColoradoSun.com/events.

You can also stop by the registration table, and Kristina can help you get signed up.

And without further ado, I want to introduce Jesse Paul and Phil Weiser.

Thank you very much.

[applause] Thank you.

Well, I'll correct one thing that Larry said the A.G.

debate is at the University of Denver.

So don't drive all the way to Boulder.

We won't be there.

So good evening and welcome to the Buell Public Media Center, which is home to Rocky Mountain PBS, as well as the Colorado Sun.

We're joined tonight by Attorney General Phil Weiser, the Democratic nominee for governor, for a one on one conversation in front of a live studio audience.

This is brought to you by The Sun and RMPBS, which are both part of the Colorado Capital News Alliance.

And we're doing this conversation with only Mr.

Weiser because Republican gubernatorial candidate Victor Marx declined both an invitation to debate Mr.

Weiser, as well as an invitation to be interviewed before a live audience.

So Phil Weiser is in his second term as Attorney General, before being elected Colorado's top law enforcement officer in 2018, he was dean of the University of Colorado Law School.

He previously worked in the Obama Justice Department and helped found Silicone flat Silicon Flatirons at CU Boulder, which helps support startups.

He's also a long suffering Colorado Rockies fan.

> That's true.

> Season's over now, though.

Well, thank you so much for joining us, Mr.

Weiser.

Appreciate it.

> I am enjoying the Nuggets.

> Yeah.

> And that passed by Jokic the other day.

That was me so pumped.

> I'm not a basketball fan, but that was pretty awesome.

> Pretty cool.

> So I'll just ask the folks who were gathered here tonight not to... to hold your applause, boos, If you have tomatoes please don't throw them at me until the end of the night so we can just get to as many questions as possible.

Mr.

Weiser hasn't seen any of the questions, and I'm that I'm asking in advance.

And we actually just finished up a 30 minute interview backstage about a whole bunch of other different questions.

> Are you gonna ask any of the same questions you asked before?

> I think there might be one, but I might change it up.

So.

Well, let's jump right in.

So early today you've been you've had a busy day.

I was there.

You appeared on stage with Victor Marx for what I believe was your schedule to be your only time before Election Day on November 3rd?

You both got questions from the Colorado Chamber of Commerce.

You got those questions in advance?

Mr.

Marx was reading some of his answers.

I'll give you credit for not doing that.

You couldn't really call it a debate, but it was kind of emblematic of how this election has gone so far.

It's been a little one sided.

It's been pretty unusual.

And I don't want to spend this entire conversation talking about Mr.

Marx.

But at the top, just talk about how you're approaching this race.

Given that you have a candidate who's who's not really engaging and it's not it's not a super substantive issue based campaign so far, > Jesse, you've articulated a state of affairs that as citizens, all of us should be concerned about.

Candidates who are not willing to show up and engage in debate, answer questions.

Candidates who don't believe they have the responsibility to develop their substantive policy views.

We have a 109 page Colorado Blueprint.

It's on our website PhilForColorado.com because I believe voters need to know where we stand.

And this is so important Jesse, Every forum I have questions from people.

I'm always learning how do we get better?

But if you basically say, I'm going to stay in my bubble, curate my message, never leave my bubble, never have real engagement, you're to my mind undermining what the democratic process is about.

And I'm concerned about the fact that we have a major candidate who doesn't see things the way I believe democracy requires, and that's something that I am not letting affect how I show up.

What does that mean?

I'm showing up to all these forums, sometimes only by myself.

Sometimes it might be another minor party candidate who might be there, but the fact that Victor Marx is saying, I'm going to run a campaign that's not outlining my substantive views, Im not going to show up, answer questions.

I'm not going to honor what I believe people deserve.

I'm still doing it.

I went to Club 20 this year.

This was interesting because in past years it often was said, why are Democratic candidates for governor not showing up?

This year it was the Republican candidate not showing up.

So in short, I am showing up as my best authentic self.

I'm going to answer questions.

I'm going to engage on the substance of the issues.

I'm going to keep trying to learn because that's what I believe candidates need to do.

All right, well, let's get into some of the issues, because it looks like in all likelihood you'll be governor.

And a lot of these questions are posed to you in the likelihood that you will be governor.

So, we asked you many times during the primary about where you stand on the graduated income tax ballot measure this year, and you sidestepped the question, saying it hadn't qualified for the ballot yet.

But I've got you on the hot seat.

It's on the ballot.

So where do you stand on amendment 87?

I am in a different hot seat because I am responsible for representing Colorado in litigation on this very issue.

And as you know and understand, when I am in litigation on an issue, it is important that I not say anything that would disqualify me and my ability to handle that litigation.

So my responsibilities as Attorney General are, in this case, at odds with saying anything.

I can say that I do believe we are facing real challenges, and I'm going to work hard to build a better future.

Whatever happens on this, there will be challenges from it I will work on.

And if the litigation was able to be resolved, I couldn't say more, but at this point I shouldn't.

> Okay, so let's say it's two weeks ago.

The lawsuit hasn't been filed, but it's on the ballot.

> What a clever journalist.

[laughter] > I mean, you never came out in support of it, right?

And I wonder what people should read into that.

And I guess when I think about the legal implications, I wasn't the dean of CU law school.

Maybe that's in the future for me.

I don't know, but I don't know what.

> It's a much harder job than being governor from a level of political difficulty.

Just saying.

> Well, we'll see about that.

But I mean, I guess I can't really understand why how it would mess up the case to say if you're voting for or against it, unless you're voting against it.

> Clever journalists try to find ways to get you to answer questions that you've previously said you're not able to answer.

I respect that, and sadly, I'll have to keep my answer where I left it.

> Okay.

Will you answer it after that case resolved?

I think there's a hearing next week.

> If there is no longer pending litigation, I will be free to offer commentary.

At this point, I'm not free to do so.

> Okay.

And just for folks who aren't aware of the pending litigation, it's a challenge to the fact that it's on the ballot.

Has to do with signature gathering still making its way through the court process very early, but as of now, it's too late to get off your ballot.

Many of us have already received our ballots.

So speaking of ballot measures, you helped negotiate a deal with Democrats in the legislature that prompted the construction industry to drop their ballot measure that sought to boost road funding through some interesting maneuvering.

There were concerns about how it would take money out of the state budget, things like education and health care.

But no one actually said what Democrats agreed to to get that off the ballot.

And I'm wondering if you can talk a little bit about, like, what that deal was and if there was money involved where you find it.

Given that the state's budget constraints are so intense right now?

> That measure was born of frustration that we're not investing in our roads the way we should.

Interesting side note I meet the governor of Kansas, Laura Kelly, who has been very successful, and I say, Laura, what advice do you have for me as a prospective Colorado governor?

She says, "fix your roads."

I drive from Kansas to Colorado, the roads get much worse.

So this issue had my attention.

And when I met with those backing it - contractors, they expressed how frustrated they were that there wasn't a commitment to this issue.

And first and foremost, by listening to them and building trust, they're able to say, we trust that you get it.

And what we're able to say is we'll work -- And you're right, it's not going to be easy -- within existing budgetary constraints to try to come up with at least a modest down payment to start some of the investment in infrastructure that we need.

And then we're going to work with you to come up what would be a broader base program that would require, in the case of raising revenue, going to the ballot to build the type of road infrastructure that we haven't been building need to build.

And what I will just say is this shows something about how I can solve problems, because having a constitutional proposition that would literally prescribe exactly what type of construction, it's, to me, antithetical to how a functioning government would work.

We shouldn't be tying the hands of the legislature with these requirements.

We should be building up a track record that we're solving problems together by working with them.

We got it off the ballot and we put it on a path to a better resolution.

> So the two things I heard in that, that I want to follow up on one was a down payment.

Was there a number thrown out that was agreed to?

Okay.

And then secondarily, you talked about a ballot measure, new revenue.

Is that something you're committing to?

> Listen, if you are on our road and you think they're great the way they are, then you could vote against whatever, a ballot measure.

But if you see our roads and say, this is unacceptable, we need to do better.

And the number, the letter grades for our roads are usually in the C area.

They're not they're not A+, to say the least.

Then I plan on doing something which I believe is the responsible thing to do, coming up with a path forward to improve our roads.

> Wouldn't it just be easier to have $2 billion of new revenue coming in from a graduated income tax to go to other things?

I mean, you're laughing, but ... > You've gotta give this guy credit.

You got to give him credit, > I guess.

I mean, I'm trying to kind of parse out, like if you're talking about a different revenue stream, there's one that's on the ballot right now that frees up potential money for roads by boosting education and health care funding.

I mean, I just I guess I'm confused why?

You know, after all this effort was put on out there to get the graduate income tax on the ballot.

You're talking about now, another funding measure.

> We have to think hard about how we fund what different critical investments.

And the historical way we fund roads is by thinking about who's using the roads.

And part of the challenge, part of how we got here is if you don't think long term, your initial funding source may become inadequate over a longer period of time.

And so there's a disconnect right now, which is what are the existing mechanisms to fund the roads and what do we need to have?

My commitment is let's look at what's the best way to build a better revenue base, to make sure that we're getting the type of investment erodes we need.

And what's great about the conversation I had with those who were pushing it is it was literally taking hope.

This is a familiar metaphor.

The shirt sleeves off of my vest.

I was already there.

If you read my platform, if you listen to me.

I've been admitting for a long time before I had to have the governor of Kansas rub it in my face that we need to do better for our roads, and so looking for a way to invest in this critical infrastructure.

It was on my agenda.

Now I've got a partner to do it.

> I will say that that stretch from Kansas into Colorado, like Kansas to Denver, is very bad.

> Northeast Colorado is worse.

Like, yeah, there's there's there's real work we have to do.

And the way it traditionally works, you know, this, Jesse, a lot of people know is if you put something on the ballot about transportation infrastructure, you literally could say, should we raise revenue this way to fund these roads so people know what they're paying into and what they're getting?

> I want to talk a little bit about Medicaid.

Obviously, this is kind of related to the funding questions going on that are going on.

And backstage.

We were talking about, > Is this the one you asked me a different version of the same question?

> No not yet.

> Okay.

> So if graduated income tax pass, I asked, you know, would you still talk about Medicaid trims.

And you said basically, yes, where appropriate.

So the reality is, like if you're elected in November, we're talking about depending on whether or not, you know, these these funding measures pass, you're only going to have a few months as governor to start tackling some of these Medicaid issues before the first budget has to come out.

And you've talked a lot about bringing people to the table, how you're going to weigh what they're saying.

But like, who's at that table and how do you decide who to listen to?

> I just want to tell people, because we have people here, people watching a little bit what I said backstage.

So everyone has the context.

If you're looking back at Colorado's Medicaid program over the last five years, and you are seeing some of the stories of what's happened, you have a right to feel angry.

Let me just give you some of the painful points.

Colorado is 49th in the nation getting people enrolled on Medicaid after the pandemic, Colorado spent orders of magnitude more on some transportation services than we should have been spending, because we were choosing to reimburse people driving in cars for what people in the medical world call ambulatory services.

But we were paying rates as if they were in ambulances.

That's a ten x difference.

Colorado has failed to get some of the federal funding for Medicaid that we should have gotten.

So what I said backstage is our we going to look at how we do better in a medicaid program?

The answer is we absolutely need to the concerns that are being raised about how our Medicaid program is operating.

Call for attention, vigilance and improvement.

I also mentioned, and this is important, that people are just aware there's a medicaid commission out the legislature.

They're looking hard and long getting all the data, asking, how did we get here?

What do we need to do to dress it?

So the first thing I'll do is I'll talk to those legislators who are looking under all the relevant stones to ask what's happening to our Medicaid budget, why is it going up so much?

The second thing I want to make sure I'm doing is talking to those who depend on Medicaid, because part of what I've heard on the campaign trail is those who are impacted.

And when we hit a town hall in Greeley with people, same type of dynamic where Victor Marx didn't show up, one of the people came to the town hall, and that's the question, he said, I'm taking care of my disabled child and I depend on Medicaid.

I want to make sure those individuals are at the table.

And we're asking a very important question.

This is about respecting fellow Coloradans.

We have only so much money.

If we need to save money, what can we do to save money?

And one of the opportunities I believe we have is by bringing a broader based conversation.

Obviously, those who depend on Medicaid, but also providers in the system, how can we save money?

Because if you look at our Medicaid budget right now and you probably know the answer, our Medicaid budget will take over the entire Colorado state government budget if we don't do something.

So someday.

Yeah.

So we're in a we're in a position right now that's not sustainable.

We have to look at it and we have to look at it thoughtfully, carefully, carefully, sensitively to people who are involved to ask this question, what do you do better?

And part of what we can do is you mentioned who else at the table.

Let's talk to other states.

Some states are doing a lot better with their Medicaid budget.

What are they doing that we can learn from.

> So and I give you like a theoretical here, I know some of the folks who came to that town hall were parents and their children of folks who need intensive care.

Those people require a lot of this.

Medicaid spending in the state goes to them, even though they're a relatively small portion.

So there's been this debate at the legislature among the lawmakers on the JBC about how much money to give to those folks and what to take away from the vast majority of Medicaid recipients.

So how do you make that balance?

Right?

Because that's that's a real question that you're going to face.

> I will go through what I said before and put into this context the first point, what are other states doing?

We're not the only this is one of the great things about the United States of America.

We have 50 states and the District of Columbia.

We can learn from other states.

Other states face this exact same situation.

> 49 of them might have the same Medicaid problem.

I mean, I think it's pretty universal, the spending issues.

> I think Colorado's Medicaid situation right now is if you graph states where facing this in a more painful way than most states, which begs the question, why?

What do we learn from that?

So my first is let's look at other states.

I'll ask the Laura Kelly's of the world.

"How have you managed Medicaid spending?"

Second, I'll talk to those families, like I said and say, hey, we're going to have to find ways to be smart about how we manage our Medicaid budget.

Are there savings that you see that are possible?

And there's all sorts of strategies that we can try.

And this would be a third point.

Let's try some pilot projects, different experiments being upfront that we've got to work this challenge together.

And I will tell you in my conversations with the range of groups, people really, really mostly say, can you make sure that we're not being surprised that you're including us in the conversation?

You're being transparent and we're working the problem together.

And that's going to be my governing style.

> A couple more health care questions.

So the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, which is known as Puff, runs Medicaid.

It's faced a lot of criticism.

And I think you've maybe leveled a bit of that here tonight.

So you'll have a chance to overhaul its leadership.

And I think a lot of folks are kind of wondering, like, what are you looking for in a leader of that agency?

And you can maybe broaden this out to all of your cabinet positions, but what are you looking for in a leader of that agency, like an operator or a policy wonk?

Do you keep people on from the last administration?

Obviously, Kim Stafford stayed on from Polis to as Hickenlooper to Polis, and until she was effectively forced out pretty recently.

What's your philosophy on that?

One of the benefits, and I made this point a lot in the primary.

It's now equally true in the general having run a state agency, having higher top leaders, I am set up to understand what it means to be an executive, to understand what it means to be a leader in the executive branch.

And you made an important point.

You said, would you look for someone who's a policy wonk?

And I want to say my number one goal is I want someone who's a leader, which means you could imagine and just you could pick any agency.

We were talking about transportation.

Before you talk about corrections, I could imagine picking someone who I believe is a tremendous leader, but hasn't had the, I'll call it wonk or the subject matter expertise in a particular area.

And I wouldn't I wouldn't foreclose.

A leader who knows how to lead an agency is number one on my list.

Number two, cultural values.

There's a saying, and I've heard a tribute to different people culture eats strategy.

I want them for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Culture is essential to effective implementation, to getting results.

If you have a high functioning culture, you can.

Was Medicaid or transportation get stuff done?

If you have a dysfunctional culture, you're going to have terrible results.

Let me explain what I mean by that.

First, as a cultural value, are you operating with integrity and transparency?

Some cultures have integrity, transparency and intellectual humility, which means someone comes in and says to you.

I've heard this concern and I've I've heard this criticism about I've heard this concern.

What do you think?

And a high functioning culture with integrity says, tell me more.

I want to learn more.

A dysfunctional culture says, you're wrong.

I don't ever need to listen to you.

Second, want Colorado state government.

I want our culture focused on how we serve the people of Colorado.

The culture is government is serving people.

Government has to be responsive to people, deliver results to people.

If people want to be in government because they think it's about them, no, I want it to be about service number three.

I want innovators, creative problem solvers, people at the Department of Law AG's office.

They know the worst thing you can say to me, we've always done it this way.

I don't want to hear from people who say, we've always done it this way.

I want to hear what's the best way to do it.

And finally, and this is really important in state government, I want a value of being better together collaborators, because right now, part of the problem with some state agencies is one of them.

You can have another agency and they're not collaborating.

I had an issue with Department of Transportation back to that example where we were looking at broadband, which was a goal of a different state function, and Department of Transportation wasn't collaborating to advance broadband.

And for me, that's unacceptable.

I want our state government working together to get shared results.

So the governor has less health care question.

The governor has a policy currently that basically he tells the legislature not to send him any health insurance mandates because he's concerned it would increase health insurance prices.

And so there's been a number of things that have been rejected, either vetoed or just didn't make it to his desk.

I'm thinking about, you know, requiring that health insurance carriers cover things like go V. Oh, I'm blanking on some of the other ones.

But there's kind of it's this blanket thing.

No health insurance mandates.

Is that something you continue?

My first response won't be a red line.

It will be.

Why are you asking to do this?

What are you hoping to accomplish?

And the reason is, when you open up a conversation, a lot of times you may realize there's something else there.

How else to accomplish the goal?

So no, I'm not going to start with a red line.

I'm going to start with a conversation.

So speaking of Jared Polis, one of the biggest political dynamics over the past eight years of the Capitol has been the divide between progressive Democrats and the governor on tax policy.

So most Democratic lawmakers think Colorado's taxes are too low.

They think they're too many tax breaks for businesses, not enough tax breaks for lower income folks.

But the governor has repeatedly joined forces with conservatives to cut taxes and block those progressive efforts to redistribute wealth.

So if your governor, next time conservatives push for a tax cut or progressives push for a tax hike, which side do you think you'll take?

If we had Barb Kirk Meyer here tonight.

Here's what she would say.

Barb, Kirk Meyer would say, and you'll hear this line from Republicans.

I think Victor Marx said it lunch to Barb.

Kirk Meyer says we don't have a revenue problem.

We have a spending problem.

The problem with that statement, the reason I disagree with it, the reason why I believe we need to figure out ways to capture more revenue.

And I have taken a position on there's no litigation about it, which means the state can keep more revenue wouldn't generate any more revenue, though.

I mean, it would keep more around.

This is actually really important from a standpoint of state budget would means is if we're capturing revenue, we don't have to give it back.

We're able to invest in education.

And let me tell you why that's so important.

To your point, it may not well be sufficient from what I'm about to say, but at least is a start.

Over a period of close to 20 years, Colorado has had something called the BS factor.

Now this is a family show, so BS doesn't stand for what you think it does.

It stands for budget stabilization.

If you add up that entire amount of budget stabilization, which is money that we didn't put into education and that we were required to, and that we should have, it's $10 billion.

What does it mean to hollow out $10 billion of education?

Your class sizes, your student teacher ratio is higher than way more states.

You pay less than your surrounding states to teachers.

You have fewer school days.

You're a number of kids who read a third grade level in third grade is lower than it should be.

We have underfunded education.

So to your point.

Yes, I believe in this proposition n n, which would help.

I believe we have a responsibility to better fund and invest in education because giving our kids a bright future, including investing in things like career and technical education and mental health, is going to pay huge dividends in our future.

I'm not sure I got a exact answer exactly on on what you would do in the redistribute wealth conversation, right?

So the legislature this year, let's just look at that.

There were some bills that the governor said, don't send to me, I'm going to I'm going to be to them.

They would have decreased tax breaks for businesses and given, changed those basically to increase tax breaks for, for lower income folks, obviously, like there's a million different levers you can pull there.

But generally speaking, is that something you would support or something you would.

So two separate questions.

Do we need more tax revenue for critical investments like education?

Yes.

As you're looking at revenue or you inclined to say those who are doing really well can afford to pay a little more, should.

Yes.

Okay.

So the state has steadily expanded the definition of affordable housing to include middle income families.

Would you support that approach, or do you think that the limited tax dollars that the state has should be spent on lower income families who need the most help?

I use this word at lunch today.

I can't say you should do one of those and not the other because they obviously both matter.

So we need to be strategic and smart.

We have a range of strategies, a portfolio, if you will, starting with how do we have.

We used to call this affordable housing.

But so much housing has become unaffordable.

That word is not meaning what it used to mean, but housing for people who are really struggling, who are on the edge that they can have a place.

We have to have money for rental assistance for people who might lose a home to make sure that we're keeping their home.

That is super smart of both from a humanitarian and compassion, but also from a societal return.

On investment standpoint.

We also need to preserve existing housing stock that is affordable to people.

We have to build new homes.

Use the word starter homes here that we used to be building and we're not building.

So the challenge is you can't I can't say, oh, I care about one of those and not the rest because they all matter.

Well, I mean, that's a that's a good talking point, but it's but the point.

The point is they all are strategies we have to be invested in.

And we are going to need to be smart as much as we can to build the base to address all of them.

We are in a very precarious situation with housing right now, because if we're not building these type of starter homes, then what does it mean?

It means young people aren't going to want to stay here.

The average age to buy a home has moved in a pretty short period of time, from 30 years of age to 40 years of age 15 years ago, teachers used to be to say, I'm going to to buy a home in the community where I teach.

They can't say that anymore.

So yes, we have to do that, but we also have to make sure that we're keeping housing stock so that people aren't living on the street.

This seems like a good moment to ask a question that I've been thinking a lot about since, you know, the primary, and now you've done a really good job as a candidate, I think, of of being a lot of things to a lot of people.

Right.

And I look at the labor piece act as a good example of that.

I'm not going to explain that because it's very complicated.

But basically it would make make it easier for unions to require that everyone at a workplace pay for representation fees, whether they're in the union or not.

Unions think you're on their side, or they're hopeful, at least.

And I think the business community is hopeful that you're on their side as well as a governor.

You're going to have to make a choice, though, right?

And I think it's it's similar to the tax question about where you direct money to middle income or to lower income.

So like when you have to break eggs to make that omelet, what are you going to do?

How are you going to how are you going to disappoint people?

Because that's that's going to be like your number one job as governor, pissing people off.

My goal as governor is not going to be for people to like me and say, he's always with me.

My goal is for me to be respected.

What does that mean to me?

It means that people will say, Phil had to make this decision.

We won't explain to you the labor piece Act, but those who want to talk about it later, we'll explain it.

People will say, Phil made sure my viewpoint was listened to.

He really listened.

He understood what my argument was.

He engaged, he thought about it.

And then he did at the end what he thought was right and best for the people of Colorado.

I believe if people believe they've been listened to.

They've been at the table.

They can respect decisions.

I want to give you a different example.

I spent a lot of time in rural Colorado.

A lot of folks in rural Colorado right now feel like we're not at the table.

We're on the menu.

We're not being listened to.

I need all Coloradans to know that I care about them.

I listen to them, I'm working for them.

And yes, you're absolutely right.

You're going to be a lot of sense.

I make that people like, I'm really disappointed with that decision or I didn't like that decision.

To which I'll say, I understand.

I've listened to you.

I'll keep listening to you.

You're not going to like all of my decisions, but you're going to know that I care about you.

I listen to you.

I'm going to be transparent.

And at the end of the day, my goal is you can say, okay, I respect you.

I understand that you're doing what you think is right.

How do you think of your polis has done it, that in terms of making sure people feel listened to?

Yeah.

I mean, there are groups who have said they feel like they weren't given a chance to be at the table.

And I've I've heard that concern and that's that's part of what's motivating me to say I am going to set as an obligation to myself and to the people of Colorado, a core principle that we will be transparent, we will really listen, and then people are going to feel like, at least I was at the table.

All right.

That's a tough that's a tough cookie.

So it's so clear he likes being a journalist, by the way, do I?

Yes.

Because you like watching what happens and being able to report on it.

And it's a we need journalists.

We need people who are watchers.

And.

I can say to you right now, if I ever make decisions where people weren't at the table, that will be on me.

I don't I don't ever to be in that situation.

I'm making this a goal and you and others can call me out if I don't do it.

All right.

We'll see if you still like journalists after your first veto and a press conference.

My goal is not to like is to respect them.

There you go.

You know, I, I have a similar philosophy with the people I cover, so I, I don't know what that I. Maybe I shouldn't have asked that question.

I want to ask another housing question.

And we've talked about this and it kind of goes back to the the break in some eggs to make omelets idea.

You've talked a lot about how you want to work with local communities.

Instead.

Do you know the characteristic approach on housing?

Obviously the governor has beaten down some communities for refusing to to kind of follow some of the state housing edicts.

But what happens when you pass something at the legislature and local community says, no, it's not going to do it.

Will you accept no as an answer from a community?

Is that is that, you know, how do you measure that?

The way I would add to your point is I would add the dimension of time.

So I won't accept.

No, but I will say, I think you're saying not yet.

What do I mean by that?

We need to build more dense housing, more housing near transit, more housing that young people, the teachers that law enforcement officers can afford.

And to Jesse, your hypothetical, if community says I'm not going to do it, the problem is, if all communities in the Denver metro area say, I'm not going to do it, we're toast.

Because teachers being an hour and a half from where they're teaching, to me, that is an unacceptable situation.

Or law enforcement being an hour and a half from where they're working.

It's unacceptable.

So we've got a challenge that we've got to recognize and I need.

It's my job to bring everybody to the table and say, here's what we need to be doing.

And then as a day one proposition, I don't need everybody saying, yes, I'm in.

I'm doing this right away.

I just need enough local government saying, yes, I'm in, I'm doing it.

And then over time, we start looking to other governments and say, hey, I'm working with fill in the blank.

They're doing this.

They're getting the benefits of the state support and program.

What are you waiting for?

Isn't there a flip side to that, though?

Like if if you pass it has an edict that's supposed to, affect the Denver area?

Greenwood Village says no.

And then Denver looks at it and says, well, why should I do it?

Nothing happened to them.

It depends on your point of view, because I've got the opposite point of view, which is if you're the community is not doing it, over time, you may start to say, wow, I'm really missing out.

Let me give you a different example.

Outside of housing, when Roy Romer was head of the Los Angeles School district, he had a recognition that teaching kids to read in third grade level when they're in third grade was a super important goal, because first you have to learn to read, then you can read to learn.

So he started with some of the school districts that were the lower performing districts, because the higher performing districts, they thought this approach, I believe it was called phonics, wasn't for them.

So he said, fine, I'll work with these other districts who are willing to do this.

He invested in them, he worked with them.

They started getting great outcomes.

And these other higher performing said, wait a minute, we need to be in two.

What does that mean here?

If we start working with pick your municipality and all of a sudden they've got all this great, dense, affordable, viable housing, maybe near transit.

And teachers are like, I want to live and work there because my life's going to be better.

And these other places that aren't doing it can't get teachers can't get, law enforcement officers can't get firefighters.

My belief is they're going to say, you know what I need to do this to?

I'm not sure it translates so right.

I mean, from education to to housing and teaching standards versus what, what can and can't be built.

And I think we were talking about this internally.

And I think another area where this could come up is with water.

Obviously we're in a huge drought.

So what do you do if, say, Denver Water decides to cut back its usage and, you know, do its part to to make sure that water is flowing downstream.

So we adhere to the, you know, we're not doing too many trans mountain diversions or whatever.

Northern water says, no way.

We're not going to do that.

Does the state have a role to step in and require a water district to make the same painful cuts?

I mean, painful in the sense that maybe your lawn is not green, but, you know, impose those kind of cuts that, that a neighboring jurisdiction is.

I do believe these three areas have something in common in the teaching examples.

Those who don't want to go along had a natural consequence.

In the housing example.

Those who don't go along have a natural consequence.

In the water example, there's also a natural consequence.

We have a system of water management.

It's under a legal doctrine where people have certain rights and that as there's less water, people can have a right to less water.

If, for example, northern wants to not engage in the conservation measures that are smart and sound measures, if they have less water there, then put in a world of hurt because they have failed to build the appropriate practices earlier.

That's why I will say to all water users, we all have this challenge.

How do we all conserve water?

And it looks different in the Front Range.

To your point, lawns being zero scapes and I give my wife use credit.

Cheesy risk aped air lawn because she recognized this point and we need to make sure that everyone is thinking about water in a way that we often aren't.

We often take it for granted, but we need to say this is a precious resource.

How do we protect it?

That means, like for reservoirs, we should be covering them over with solar panels, reducing evaporation loss by 40%.

We have outdated creaky infrastructure.

We should be updating it.

It can be good for the streams, it can be smart to protect the water, and it helps us manage this precious resource.

So yes, all of us have to take these measures.

And for those who don't adopt them, they're the ones who are going to be directly hurt because it is a precious, finite resource.

Let's talk a little more about water.

If the upper basin states on the Colorado River, including Colorado, end up owing water downstream in a dry year, which Colorado users do you think should be forced to make cuts first?

We're all going to have to make cuts.

This is the important point.

There are schemes out there that have a viewpoint like, oh, let's take water from the San Luis Valley and ship it to the Front Range, the farmers, the valley.

They'll take the cuts and we'll be fine.

Over my dead body.

We cannot allow those type of by and dry schemes that would destroy agriculture communities to get moving and those who would push them, they might make some money doing it.

But it's going to be devastating to communities.

And we've done this before, like in Crowley County.

I have said very clearly, I'm not going to allow that to happen.

Here's what I'm going to do.

I'm going to tell Metro Denver, we have to be responsible with water use.

We have to cut back.

I'm going to say to rural Colorado, how can we be responsible in the Valley, for example, there's an effort called the Rye Resurgence Project, encouraging supporting farmers, growing rye.

You shift from barley to rye, you save water.

How can we make sure we upgrade infrastructure like I talked about?

So there's going to be a series of measures on water that all of us have to take.

We cannot address our water challenges by literally picking on one group to solve our water challenges.

Everybody has to make cuts, but they all have to make the same amount of cuts, I guess, is the question.

Well, it's different because the nature of the use is different.

There are different types of users.

There's lots of room for how can we be creative first in conserving water?

Second, we're not doing enough to reuse water.

We should be reusing water again and again and again.

There's golf courses out there being watered with fresh potable water where you could use reused water.

Gray water gets called sometimes and it's much smarter.

And we should be thinking about how we build more smart storage opportunities, like in Greeley.

They have one.

I think it's called Terry Ranch.

It's a use of their underground aquifers, giving them a little bit more slack capacity.

So there's a lot of steps we got to do on water.

It's not a we're doing this one thing or there's one person doing this one thing.

It's we're all doing a lot of things.

I'm hearing a lot about the like residential and like minor commercial water use.

I mean, most of the water gets used by agricultural sources in Colorado, right?

I mean, what what I know you talk about aqua voltaic and that sounds good, but can you like Agricole take your way out of, this problem?

I mean, I'm not hearing hearing you talk about cuts for agricultural uses.

Well, I just want to be clear.

What I mentioned before is a critical lever.

If you are supporting farmers making a switch from a more water intensive crop like barley to a less water intensive crop like rye, you're saving water.

That's the former conservation.

Also, to your point, could you create structures where, you know, farmers might farm less of their farm or farm every year of the year for some type of conservation program?

Absolutely.

That can and is likely to be part of the solution.

But my big point is I do not want to allow a strategy that just says we are going to buy and dry our way out of this.

I believe we need our farmers in Colorado, we need local food, we need rural communities, and if we are managing water in a irresponsible way, in my mind we could destroy World Colorado.

So it's stick on climate change related questions.

It sounds like you want to hit the 100% renewable goal by 2050.

That was set by Governor Polis when he ran for office.

It's in state law, but as you probably know, we're not on track to do that.

So what's your plan, as governor to get us back on track?

Really easy question.

Yeah.

Easy question.

The war in Iran turns out to be one of the best promotional strategies for electric vehicles we could have imagined.

And so even this administration is, at one level, undermining our transition away from carbon and our transition towards clean energy.

There is now one of the best advertisements we could have had.

That electric vehicle adoption is something we should be leaning into.

And Colorado, I believe is number one or close to it every adoption.

We also are a leader in moving towards clean energy and solar energy right now is incredibly cheap and local and local storage is a powerful combination.

In other countries.

Australia, you've seen a huge adoption of these technologies.

We can be a leader of that in Colorado.

We also have to keep looking at carbon across the economy.

Landfills are a huge emitter of carbon.

How can or a methane particularly how can we capture those greenhouse gases in ways that protect against climate change?

So yes, we are facing headwinds because we have an administration in Washington that has been doing things to undermine the transition that Colorado knows we want to make, and we can keep doing all the canon.

Colorado bring a sense of urgency to this issue.

Do you guys have an EV in your family?

Yes.

Okay.

Is it what kind of a car guy?

Your car guy?

Rav4 okay, cool.

That's a plug in accounts.

Yeah, I got we we're we're we're not you know, we're not unfortunately getting on the road a lot.

At least my wife's not.

And so we are managing keep that mostly EV.

So transportation emissions are the I think the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the state.

We were talking backstage.

This was the question that, I had to change because I already asked you, but we talked about the Colorado Connector ballot issue seven a the the sales tax increase to pay for the Front Range rail.

You said you haven't decided how you're going to vote.

Vote on that.

Have questions about, financing.

If we don't do things like that though, how do we lower?

I mean, we can't I mean, it would be great if everyone drove an EV, but then you got other problems, right?

I mean, you got electric grid issues.

So transit is a big way to kind of reduce those emissions.

Do you not see the Calder Connector or Front Range passenger rail as a key component of that?

Okay, a few points.

First off, I believe in and I'm excited about Front Range passenger rail.

The only question is how we stage and think about funding.

We have an opportunity to start and make a really huge accomplishment.

If you can build this train, you're going to give people from Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, eventually, Pueblo a chance to take a train to a Broncos game, for example.

And that's a huge opportunity to take people off of I-25.

So that's something that I am for.

Whether or not it's the right time to put this measure into law is where I'm still looking at some of the questions.

I also believe that when you think about public transit, the way I think about it is we keep trying different things to get people options, and we see what works.

We're about to try and experiment on Colfax.

For those who have heard the term BRT, it stands for Bus Rapid Transit.

And the idea is we're going to give people a chance to take busses that will be very effective, they'll be sought after, and people may drive to a certain location, get on a bus and get where they're going more effectively.

If that's a big success, we learn from that.

We scale it up.

If it's not, we try something else.

The the bus Stang is another example.

Huge success as a public transit option and we should be leaning into it.

So I do believe in public transit.

It's absolutely part of our future and it helps us address the concerns on climate, on congestion.

We can, we will and I believe we must have a multi-modal transit and transportation system.

How big EVs are part of that is is significant.

And you got to keep building that infrastructure because we are making a transition.

EVs and those who are on the other side of that transition right now are really happy.

They are because of how much gasoline cost.

If the ballot measure, the sales tax increase fails, they say that there still be some semblance of this route between Denver and Fort Collins.

But do you think as as a leader in the state that they should go back a different way?

Would would that be something that you would work on?

Let's take one step at a time.

I am going to look at this, see whether I am going to be voting for it.

I think there are some questions that I'm looking still answer about how we time it and stage it.

But what I can say is my goal is 100%.

We make this work, we make this attractive, we make this a success, we scale it up.

And my promise to Coloradans, whatever the issue, is transportation, health care and public policy.

If it's not working, we should learn from that and we should pivot.

Data centers, AI, big topics.

Right now, you've said that I think you want your first bill to be a data center bill I have.

What do you envision being in that three common sense guardrails.

First, communities should not have data centers shoved down their throats, noisy data centers near senior homes or healthcare facilities, or highly concerning, particularly when communities say there was no process, there was no consideration.

We were stuck with this.

So we want to protect communities who don't want them.

Number two, we need to protect all of us as consumers that our electricity rates don't get pushed up to pay for data centers.

We need to make sure that data centers are paying for their own electricity.

There are different ways to do that.

Number three, we have we just talked about this.

Clean energy commitments.

Want to protect our water.

We got to make sure that data centers are advancing and allowing for those goals not interfering with them.

I can tell you there are data centers out there that would meet my goals and would advance other goals.

Take, for example, Northwest Colorado.

As part of our energy transition, we're shutting down coal plants.

I want to make sure those workers in those coal plants have jobs.

If we had a data center powered by geothermal power, and workers who lost jobs in the coal plant could get jobs in a geothermal plant, that would be a just transition.

That's a smart data center to have.

Should there be incentives in that?

Tax incentives when you are advancing a just transition goal?

I do believe tax incentives can be part of the equation, because I believe we owe an obligation to people in Craig, to people in Hayden, and getting this done in a way that is sensible and that it is a goal, is a priority and is something that's worth investing in.

Are you saying that data centers that open in those just transition communities are the only ones that should get tax incentives?

I'm not sure I would go that far, but what I can say is incentives for data centers that accomplish critical economic development goals and just transition is high on my list, or ones that the state can invest in.

It's possible there could be others, but.

But this one is important to me and is one that I want to work hard to make happen.

So maybe higher tax incentives for folks who build in those areas.

I haven't devised my exact plans on how this would work, but I can say the just transition priority is really high to me.

And I just let me just tell you the backstory.

When I'm first running for attorney general, I went to Hayden and Tammy delayed.

Tammy Delaney, who runs something called The Granary, had a community conversation, and Tammy was chair of the school board at the time.

The process of closing the coal plant had started there, and they were literally changing the property tax payments from the coal plant to the school district, and they're having to cut their budget really significantly.

Those coal plants are the lifeblood of those communities, and it's really important to me that we not abandon those communities.

I'll ask every current politicians favor question about wolves.

I know you guys love answering those questions, but if, if and when do you become governor?

That'll become your problem.

And right now, the policy administration has issued a directive, issued a directive that blocks the killing of gray wolves that harass or kill livestock over fears that the population growth may not occur this biological year and amid evidence of an infectious parasite.

So do you agree with this policy?

Are you going to keep it in place if you're elected governor?

Any other wolf notes for folks out there?

I will start with because I was just there, northwest Colorado, Meeker, not too far from where I was talking about it.

Hayden I met with a group, the Northwest Council of Local Governments, and they said to me, this is apropos of our earlier conversation.

These decisions about wolves being made by the Parks and Wildlife Commission were being made without them at the table.

I reached out to the Parks and Wildlife Commission, and I advocated strongly.

You need to put them at the table.

You need to make sure you're listening to local communities.

The idea that important decisions are being made affecting communities without those communities is antithetical to how I believe government should function.

And my starting place.

Obviously, you're noticing the theme here.

I need to understand from multiple perspectives what policies are working, are not working.

What are your goals?

What do you need?

What can you give up?

We obviously are in a tough place on this.

I think nobody is happy right now with where we are in the Wolves program.

So there's a lot of work that has to be done.

It'll be important to me to make sure we get the right team to work on this issue and to work on it the right way.

January 14th or 15th, whatever.

If and when you're sworn in 20 1215 counting who you don't have a vacation booked for that day.

That day will not be a vacation day for me, but I do plan to have a vacation before the session.

The session would start me to, The first day you're in office.

Is that policy remaining in place, not killing wolves?

The good news is I will get to have a transition period where I will both look for the team that I'll be building and look at different policies that may require some adjustment.

And I believe in that process.

The the team that we're going to build is a team that's going to be consistent with the type of leadership.

I talked about the type of values I talked about, and that'll be one of many decisions we have to make.

We've got a couple of minutes left, something that's been, I've been thinking about a lot is whether you're going to be okay not being AG.

And I asked that from the perspective of a it seems like you really like it, but be, you know, your job is going to change a lot and, we'll see who the next attorney general is.

But this would be the time to plug the debate.

Your host.

Yeah, you can come Wednesday at University of Denver, not University of Colorado at 630.

You know, I haven't I realized I haven't asked very many Trump administration related questions, but the reality is that the governor can't do very much to push back against the Trump administration.

Well, there is the Tina Peters commutation topic.

You didn't bring that up either.

No, that's done right.

I mean, I don't know, maybe you can.

It's done.

You're right.

But my point is the governor has a huge role in sending a clear message.

Are we being viewed as someone who's doing things that might be accommodating, or are we standing by principals saying you don't have a legal right to intrude on our sovereignty?

So I do believe the moral authority of the governor standing for principles like we manage our elections, we take climate action seriously.

We believe in diversity and inclusion.

That's really important to have a governor who understands our rights as a sovereign state and is committed to fighting for principles we believe in.

Are there any other I mean, what's how do you explain the to voters who look to you and say you're not doing enough to push back against the Trump administration as a governor who maybe don't understand what your role is and how will you have you?

I mean, in all likelihood, it's going to be a Democratic attorney general.

How do you work with them?

Maybe they're not going to take the same tact that you do.

Just kind of curious.

You're a busy guy.

You have a lot of focuses.

I don't know how you're going to manage those two things.

It's something I'm interested in.

The good news for Democrats who want to make sure that an attorney general has the commitment I've had to standing for our principles is, I'm confident, the Democratic nominee for attorney general, Jenna Griswold, will follow the lead I've offered.

I'm also confident that having a team that is aligned on this is important, and that I said there's a lot in the primary, so it hasn't come up as much in the general.

But if one of your concerns is how will Colorado approach the Trump administration and you are believing, I've done important work of our lawsuits 86 and counting.

We're winning well over 80% of them, because this administration keeps breaking the law and we're calling them out on it.

As governor, I will be the client, if you will, to the new attorney general.

I will also be a partner to a new attorney general, which means one of the benefits of having this governor is you have someone who does know the law, knows our constitutional rights, and will be able to ensure that we don't miss a beat in this area.

But you asked a question that I will also touch on.

I have loved being Attorney General.

You're absolutely right.

It's been incredible job.

And when I've talked to my friends who've been Attorney General Josh Shapiro, Maura Healey, Josh Stein, Bob Ferguson, they've all endorsed me to be attorney general when I was in a primary.

They've all told me being governors, even a better job because you have more of an impact.

Now, a lot of the work I've done is going to translate.

I believe I'm really well set up to this work, and it is absolutely a bigger chance to make an impact on a range of issues, some of which I've been watching, asking why can't we do better?

Whether it's on how we manage Medicaid or how we manage reentry from prison, we have the 45% rate.

People leave prison, come back to prison within three years.

The national average is 37%.

This is an issue that I want to work on, but as attorney general, I can be an advocate.

I can be a counselor.

But as governor, I can be the person who has the responsibility to get things done for the people of Colorado.

I'm excited to get to work.

All right, last question.

Will you commit to serving out your entire term?

There's a non-zero chance that a Democrat wins the presidency in 28 and says, who should be my attorney general?

U.S.

Attorney general looks to you.

You'll say, no, I mean, this is the job I'm going to be.

And I want to actually give you the priors on this.

Had a Hillary Clinton won in 2016, I would have loved to have been head of the Antitrust division or head of the Federal Trade Commission.

2020 came around.

The Joe Biden team were looking and I got outreach.

Would you consider going to Washington?

I said, no, I've got a job to do.

So my view is I've got a job to do as governor.

We have a lot of work to do.

I am all in to do this work.

If the people will have me, I plan to do it for eight years.

All right.

We'll see if you still like it and then in a couple of years.

Thanks so much, Mr.

Weiser.

We really appreciate your time tonight.

You can you can applaud for him now.

Thank you.

Thank you to Rocky Mountain PBS for hosting us and streaming today's event.

Thank you to the technical folks who always do such a great job making us look and sound great.

Thanks to Christina Pritchett, The Colorado Sun for planning this event.

Election days November 3rd.

Have a great night.

Get home safe.

Thank you.