NEBRASKA LEGISLATURE
The official site of the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature

Sen. Mark Kolterman

Sen. Mark Kolterman

District 24

The content of these pages is developed and maintained by, and is the sole responsibility of, the individual senator's office and may not reflect the views of the Nebraska Legislature. Questions and comments about the content should be directed to the senator's office at mkolterman@leg.ne.gov

Medicaid expansion legislation has been renewed again this year with Senator McCollister’s LB1032, the Transitional Health Insurance Program Act.  While I appreciate the continued efforts to ensure health benefits for Nebraska’s underserved populations, I believe our efforts are best spent on other forms of health care reform.  Unfortunately, expanding Medicaid to additional portions of the population is simply unsustainable, and this would only be a detriment to everyone in the future.

The number of individuals covered by Medicaid has increased substantially since the program’s inception in 1965, with the greatest increase happening in the most recent decades.  If Nebraska were to expand the eligibility pool even further, the already burdened program will simply not have enough funds to sustain itself for long.  We should remember as well that Medicaid was originally created to benefit the country’s most vulnerable citizens, including children in low-income families, caretaker relatives, the elderly, and people with disabilities.  According to the Platte Institute for Economic Research, “Creating a new entitlement for able-bodied adults under the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion will not only hurt the most vulnerable, but undermine Nebraska’s long term reform efforts.”[1]

Furthermore, LB1032 would be funded by the Nebraska Health Care Cash Fund, which is funded solely by the Nebraska Medicaid Intergovernmental Trust Fund and the Nebraska Tobacco Settlement Trust Fund and was created to be perpetually funded.[2]  Even without further obligations from Medicaid expansion, the Health Care Cash Fund is itself unsustainable.  The Nebraska Investment Council, in 2014, indicated in its letter to the Legislature, “At the current pace of spending the projections suggest that there is a high probability that the [Health Care Cash] Fund transfers are not sustainable indefinitely.  The Fund earning cannot keep pace because a significant portion of the earnings are being used to cover a growing negative distribution amount and not reinvested.”[3]

Legislative Bill 1032 would be funded by monies that are already unsustainable.  I understand the challenges we face as lawmakers to protect our society’s most vulnerable citizens, but I cannot support LB1032 because, in the end, it will only be a detriment.

This is not a simple issue.  Rather, it is very complex.  I applaud Senator McCollister and others for their efforts in health care reform, and I hope that we can all work together to find a solution that protects our citizens and can be funded indefinitely.

As always, if we can be of assistance to you in any way, please do not hesitate to contact my office. My door is open and I have made it a goal to be accessible to the constituents of our district.  Please stop by any time.  My e-mail address is mkolterman@leg.ne.gov, and the office phone number is 402-471-2756.  Joe and Katie are always available to assist you with your needs.  If I am not immediately available, please do not hesitate to work with them to address your concerns, thoughts, and needs.  Please continue to follow me on Facebook at Kolterman for Legislature and on Twitter at @KoltermanforLegislature.

[1] See Jessica Herrmann, Medicaid’s Midlife Crisis, Aug. 6, 2015 (available at

http://www.platteinstitute.org/research/detail/medicaids-midlife-crisis) (last visited Mar. 11, 2016).

[2] See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 71-7611(1).

[3] See letter from Jeffrey W. States to Patrick J. O’Donnell Re:  Sustainability of Health Care Transfer, Sept. 30, 2014 (available at http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/103/PDF/Agencies/Investment_Council/139_20140930-131617.pdf) (last visited Mar. 11, 2016).

Legislative Resolution 378CA, a constitutional amendment to ensure the right of farmers and ranchers in Nebraska to farm and ranch, was voted out of the Agriculture Committee last week. In an extended executive session the resolution advanced to General File on a 5-3 vote.

The resolution, if passed by the Legislature, will be placed on the general election ballot this year to be voted on by the citizens of Nebraska. Introduced by Senator John Kuehn, LR378CA was proposed “to protect agriculture as a vital sector of the Nebraska economy by guaranteeing the rights of citizens and lawful residents of Nebraska to engage in farming and ranching practices.”¹

As Senator Kuehn shared in the Agriculture Committee hearing, “Agriculture is the undisputed foundation of Nebraska. The economic engine of our state, Nebraska agriculture represents one in every four jobs and over $23 billion in economic impact.” Because of the potential for expensive lawsuits from anti-agriculture groups inside and outside of Nebraska, Senator Kuehn introduced this resolution which would create the highest level of protection for the right to farm and ranch. Senator Kuehn adds, “Nebraska’s farm families do not have the resources to defend legal challenges in response to suits filed by deep-pocketed, anti-agriculture activist groups.”

LR378CA creates what is called in legal jargon the “strict scrutiny” level of judicial review. Essentially, this means that, if the State of Nebraska passes a law that restricts the rights of farmers and ranchers to run their businesses, it must justify such a law with a very strong reason. Generally, this means that farmers and ranchers will be free to farm and ranch.

I support LR378CA because I believe it will provide protection for farmers and ranchers to continue their operations without the risk of being sued by environmental groups and other anti-agriculture organizations. The constitutional amendment, if passed, does not provide an exemption for farmers and ranchers to circumvent federal regulations. But in an age when farming and ranching practices are becoming more difficult to maintain, it is important to provide legal protection for our number one industry. In representing a district where the economy is widely driven by agricultural interests, I feel it is important to show strong support in protecting farmers’ and ranchers’ agricultural heritages.

As always, if we can be of assistance to you in any way, please do not hesitate to contact my office. My door is open and I have made it a goal to be accessible to the constituents of our district. Please stop by any time. My e-mail address is mkolterman@leg.ne.gov, and the office phone number is 402-471-2756. Joe and Katie are always available to assist you with your needs. If I am not immediately available, please do not hesitate to work with them to address your concerns, thoughts, and needs. Please continue to follow me on Facebook at Kolterman for Legislature and on Twitter at @KoltermanforLegislature.

 

¹  Senator John Kuehn, Statement of Intent for LR378CA (available at  http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/SI/LR378CA.pdf).

At the request of Governor Ricketts, Senator Mike Gloor, Chairman of the Revenue Committee, introduced a bill to “slow down the increase in state-wide agricultural and horticultural land valuation and to slow the growth of property taxes levied by the political subdivisions.”¹  LB958 would limit the amount political subdivisions statewide may increase agricultural and horticultural land valuations to three percent per year.

The Governor was the first proponent of the bill during a Revenue Committee public hearing on February 4 that lasted more than six hours. The Governor’s plan is to reduce the budget and spending increases year-to-year by limiting local governments’ ag land valuations and levies. If the statewide aggregated increase of agricultural land values in any year exceeds three percent, the Property Tax Administrator will uniformly and proportionately reduce the value of every parcel of agricultural land to prevent the statewide aggregate increase from exceeding three percent. This adjustment would also effect the calculation of the school finance formula.

The bill received support from three of Nebraska’s largest agricultural groups, the Nebraska Farm Bureau, the Nebraska Cattlemen, and the Nebraska Pork Producers, which all testified that LB958 will help to relieve the disproportionate burden placed on farmers for support of public schools.

There was also a long list of opponents to the bill. In addition to Lincoln Mayor Chris Beutler, La Vista Mayor Douglas Kindig, Nebraska Association of County Officials President Robert Post, and Nebraska Farmers Union President John Hansen, the Open Sky Policy Institute testified in opposition to LB958. The Institute’s recent policy brief argued that if a policy related to LB958 were in effect for this year, it would have yielded shortfalls for schools and other localities and that the largest tax benefits would go to farmers and ranchers near urban areas, not to greater rural Nebraska.

On February 10, the Health and Human Services Committee, on which I sit, heard testimony for LB1032 (McCollister), which is another biennial attempt to expand Medicaid in Nebraska. In an extended hearing, the proponents alone took four hours to testify.

Though I applaud the efforts of my fellow legislators to extend affordable health care coverage to those who are unable to obtain it on their own, Medicaid expansion is an unsustainable way to try to accomplish this feat. Among the states that have expanded Medicaid, there were 17 that made their expansion enrollment projections available to the public. Every one exceeded their annual projections in 2014 and in 2015 they all exceeded their total maximum projections. This means that more people enrolled for Medicaid by 2015 than were projected to enroll in the entire course of expansions.²  This is simply unsustainable.

LB1032 is essentially the same type of Medicaid Expansion that has already failed in Arkansas, where private insurance costs more per patient than regular Medicaid expansion.³  As we have seen, Medicaid has not made health insurance more available or more affordable. In fact, the opposite effects have occurred. I doubt anyone disagrees with the idea that all Nebraskans should have access to affordable, quality health care services. However, it has been demonstrated time and time again that expanding Medicaid in any form creates higher costs and increased burdens on taxpayers as a whole.

Instead, I hope the members of our Legislature will seriously consider LB817 (Riepe), which creates the opportunity for individuals, families, and corporations to defray the exorbitant costs of health insurance premiums by essentially becoming monthly members of their primary care doctors offices. Dr. Clint Flanagan, a native of Fremont and a supporter of LB817, has been providing Direct Primary Care (DPC) in Colorado with great results. For a low monthly rate, his patients have virtually unlimited access to his services and can see him as many times as they need. Dr. Flanagan noted that his DPC patients have access to his cell phone number and email address and can contact him any time with questions.

Another benefit of DPC is that Dr. Flanagan, as well as other DPC providers in Colorado, work directly with specialty health care providers to significantly reduce costs for specialty visits. While the DPC model would not provide a patient an exemption to the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, a Direct Primary Care patient would essentially only need to supplement his or her health care with cheaper catastrophic insurance that would also provide coverage for expensive procedures and operations.

The main draw for DPC is that it allows the patient to be more proactive in his or her health, and through this model, it reduces the reliance upon increasingly unaffordable and ineffective health insurance.

As always, if we can be of assistance to you in any way, please do not hesitate to contact my office. My door is open and I have made it a goal to be accessible to the constituents of our district. Please stop by any time. My e-mail address is mkolterman@leg.ne.gov, and the office phone number is 402-471-2756. Joe and Katie are always available to assist you with your needs. If I am not immediately available, please do not hesitate to work with them to address your concerns, thoughts, and needs. Please continue to follow me on Facebook at Kolterman for Legislature and on Twitter at @KoltermanforLegislature.

 

¹ See LB958 Statement of Intent, available at http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/SI/LB958.pdf
(last accessed February 9, 2016).

² See Vokal, Jim, Legislative Testimony: LB1032, Arkansas-Style Medicaid Expansion, (2/10/2016) (available at http://www.platteinstitute.org/blog/detail/legislative-testimony-lb-1032-arkansas-style-medicaid-expansion)
(last accessed 2/11/2016).

³ Id.

 

 

 

Last week, I introduced to the Judiciary Committee a bill that I hope will begin a series of discussions about the need to protect vulnerable adults from financial exploitation. Legislative Bill 953, which was proposed to me by the Nebraska Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors (NAIFA), allows for an extra layer of protection against exploitation of adults 60 years of age and older. I was glad to introduce this bill because I have seen in my personal business the detrimental exploitation has on families with vulnerable adults.

In essence, it allows for Financial Advisors, referred to in the bill as “qualified individuals,” and their associated firms the ability to temporarily refuse to execute financial transactions if they suspect that a client is the victim of financial exploitation. The transaction may be delayed for a maximum of 15 business days unless there is a court order to extend the temporary delay. If a qualified individual suspects financial exploitation, he or she is given the opportunity to notify the appropriate agencies (the Department of Insurance and/or the Department of Business and Finance). That notification is permissive and not compulsory. The agency must then respond to the qualified individual or firm within 15 business days whether or not the transaction should be executed. The client, defined as a “qualified adult” in the bill, is anyone sixty (60) years of age or older.

Although I hope to see a bill similar to LB953 passed in the very near future, I asked the Judiciary Committee not to take any further action on the bill this year. After I introduced the bill, I realized that there needs to be a lot more work done on this issue. Therefore, rather than push the legislation this year, I am planning on organizing an interim study dedicated to providing financial protection to adults who may be vulnerable to exploitation. I was glad to see that numerous financial organizations support the idea of this bill, and I look forward to receiving further input in the upcoming months.

As always, if we can be of assistance to you in any way, please do not hesitate to contact my office. My door is open and I have made it a goal to be accessible to the constituents of our district. Please stop by any time. My e-mail address is mkolterman@leg.ne.gov, and the office phone number is 402-471-2756. Joe and Katie are always available to assist you with your needs. If I am not immediately available, please do not hesitate to work with them to address your concerns, thoughts, and needs. Please continue to follow me on Facebook at Kolterman for Legislature and on Twitter at @KoltermanforLegislature.

The third week of the 104th Legislature, 2nd Session continued with committee hearings for the hundreds of bills introduced this year by the Unicameral.  Of the 11 bills I introduced this year, six of them have already been heard in committee, three in both of the last two weeks.  Here is a summary of those bills:

  • LB747 – Amend the Nebraska Capital Expansion Act to increase the amount of funds the state investment officer may offer as deposits; Retirement Committee hearing January 20; placed on General File;
  • LB790 – To alphabetize defined terms under various retirement statutes (a clean-up bill); Retirement Committee hearing January 20; placed on General File;
  • LB813 – Permit certain persons to consent to donate plasma; Health and Human Services Committee hearing January 27;
  • LB901 – Change dental assistant and licensed dental hygienist provisions; Health and Human Services Committee hearing January 27;
  • LB909 – Changes powers, duties, and fee and penalty provisions relating to the Department of Agriculture; Agriculture Committee hearing January 26; placed on General File; and
  • LB924 – Provide an additional withholding procedure for certain payments under the Income Withholding for Child Support Act; Judiciary Committee hearing January 22.

If you are interested in the process and status of any of the legislative bills, I encourage you to go to www.nebraskalegislature.gov to find more information.

This past week, I received some questions about the filibuster process and its purpose, so this is a good opportunity to explain what filibustering is and what it does.  The term “filibuster” is related to the term “freebooter,” which refers to pirates of the 16th and 17th centuries.  Filibuster, as it is used in the legislative sense, is likely an extension of freebooter because legislators would “pirate” debate by hijacking the regular order of procedure.

In today’s lawmaking process legislative bodies have specific rules for dealing with filibusters, perhaps because it has become such a common occurrence in the course of legislative debate.  In Nebraska, the process is regulated by Rule 7, Sec. 10 of the Rules of the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature, a section simply called “Cloture.”  The term “cloture” is interchangeable with “closure.”  This rule describes the process of closing, or ending, debate on a bill.

Every bill that has reached the floor of the Legislature (at least to General File) and has been scheduled for debate is guaranteed a “full and fair debate” according to Rule 7.  In the past, the Rules specified an objective standard for the meaning of “full and fair debate.”  Today, the Rules call for a more subjective standard:  “the presiding officer’s opinion,” but Speaker Galen Hadley communicated to the Legislature that his opinion of what constitutes a full and fair debate would be based on very objective criteria.  For a bill on General File, it must be debated for a full six hours.  This time was traditionally eight hours, but Speaker Hadley reduced the time in order to allow more time for a greater number of bills.  The time limits on Select File and Final Reading are four hours and two hours, respectively.

Without the Rule on cloture, the Legislature could potentially spend the entire session on one bill.  This is obviously not a good use of time and taxpayer funds.  The purpose for filibustering a bill, on the other hand, is to delay the amount of time a particular bill has to go through the bill-making process.  Essentially, if cloture is not invoked, the bill stalls.  In order to invoke cloture, a minimum of two-thirds of the elected senators (33 of 49) must vote to end debate.  Once debate is ended, a vote must be taken on the merits of the bill.  Essentially, this means that a vote for cloture is a vote for the bill because only one-half (25 of 49) senators are required to pass a bill on to the next stages of debate.  In the event of a veto from the Governor, only 30 votes are necessary to override that veto.  Assuming that the 33 senators who vote to end debate on the bill support its merits, the bill will easily pass through the remaining stages of bill enactment.

We have already seen filibustering on a few matters before the Unicameral.  Legislative Bills 176 and 289 both received lengthy debate but had different outcomes.  LB176, which allows meat packers to have a degree of ownership of the hogs they prepare for slaughter, was recently placed on final reading after a successful cloture motion.  LB289, which makes gun possession laws in Nebraska uniform, failed to proceed because its cloture vote failed by one vote.

There will likely be further filibustering in the near future.  Although I believe it is not a controversial bill, I expect LB975, the Child Welfare Services Preservation Act, will be subject to a filibuster.  My hope is that the reasonable and honorable senators of our great state will come to understand that my intent with this bill is not to discriminate in any way but to allow private child-placing agencies to operate according to their deeply held beliefs.

As always, if we can be of assistance to you in any way, please do not hesitate to contact my office. My door is open and I have made it a goal to be accessible to the constituents of our district. With the Retirement Chairmanship election, we have moved offices and are now in Room 2004B. Stop by any time. My e-mail address is mkolterman@leg.ne.gov, and the office phone number, which has stayed the same, is 402-471-2756. Joe and Katie are always available to assist you with your needs. If I am not immediately available, please do not hesitate to work with them to address your concerns, thoughts, and needs. Please continue to follow me on Facebook at Kolterman For Legislature and on Twitter at @KoltermanforLegislature.

Last week, I introduced Legislative Bill 975, the Child Welfare Services Preservation Act. Unfortunately, some media outlets have misrepresented my intentions in introducing this legislation, and have unfairly characterized me as a person.

To address the bill first, if one takes the time to read the text of LB975, he or she will notice it mentions nothing of sexual orientation or gender identity, nor does it prohibit any group of people from being foster parents and/or adopting children.

This bill is about Nebraska’s neediest children. Nebraska’s foster care and adoption system is already overburdened, and my intention with this legislation is to make sure we do not lose a single provider in our state. There are currently thousands of foster children awaiting permanent placement in safe, loving homes. We need all the safe, loving homes we can get, and we need all the foster care/adoption agencies we can get.

LB975 simply allows faith-based child-placing agencies to carry out their faith in everyday operation. As it stands, any family or individual who would like to open up their home to a foster child has the opportunity to partner with an agency that is a good fit for them. That will not change under this legislation. Actually, it ensures that the State of Nebraska continues to contract with a diverse array of private agencies to recruit diverse placement options. This bill would not take away anyone’s right to foster or adopt Nebraska’s neediest children. The State of Nebraska cannot afford to lose one safe and loving foster family.

Importantly, there are 21 agencies in Nebraska. Some work with a very broad demographic of families and individuals, and others work in more niche demographics. Some – roughly 25 percent – are faith-based. If these agencies are forced to choose between serving the neediest children of Nebraska and the very faith that prompted them to serve, they would have to choose their faith. We can all agree that children should not be punished and that we need to have as many service providers as we can serving our already under-served population. No agency should be forced to choose between abandoning their faith or abandoning the children and parents they serve.

Unfortunately, in the states of Massachusetts and Illinois, and in the District of Columbia, faith-based agencies have been forced to make that exact choice. The State of Nebraska cannot afford to lose one safe and loving foster family, and it cannot afford to lose any child-placing agencies. Chasing away faith-based agencies from serving in our communities undermines the best interests of children. My intent with LB975 is to make sure that we continue to maximize the number of safe and loving foster families.

Although some may be looking at this legislation differently, I hope they understand the spirit in which I am working on this legislation. Foster care agencies match up children and foster parents based on numerous factors, such as needs of the child, transportation requirements, availability of health care, skill level of foster parents, etc. Such an argument that this legislation is discriminatory implies that the State of Nebraska and its faith-based partners are more interested in discrimination than helping to place children desperately in need of a loving home. This bill, which does not prohibit child placement to any classification of persons, would ensure diversity in child placement and codify into state law a practice that has been successful for decades. Foster parents are independent contractors and can freely choose the agencies with which they are most comfortable. In fact, many of the families that are recruited to work with faith-based agencies agree to do so because of the agency’s alignment with a certain faith commitment. Maintaining a variety of child-placing agencies will ensure that children are placed according to their unique needs, whether faith is a part of their needs or not.

Despite all this I have received a number of attacks on my character. This saddens me for a number of reasons. First, that anyone would refer to me as “homophobic” and that my legislation “is a violation of human rights and also an indication of [my] lack of understanding among [my] constituents” is highly offensive. I have close friends and family who identify as members of the LGBT community. In fact, I have discussed this bill with some of those friends and family from District 24. One particular close friend of mine who is openly gay, after understanding the true intent of the bill, supports the idea for people to be able to ensure their religious liberty.

Additionally, if one’s intent is to stop hateful and hurtful behavior, it is beyond reason to engage in hateful and hurtful dialogue. I realize the issue of discrimination against the LGBT community can be a heated one. Although I assure that my intent is not to single out any group of people, I understand the objections before me. It is unfortunate that reasonable people in the midst of a heated issue get caught in the crossfire of unreasonable dialogue. If those who take issue with LB975 took the time to get to know me, I think they would realize that there isn’t a hateful or homophobic bone in my body.

My faith is a vital component of who I am. My family formed the cornerstone of my faith, and that faith tells me that everyone was lovingly made in the image and likeness of God and deserve respect and compassion no matter what they believe. But that faith has also taught me that we must not tolerate certain actions, such as name calling and disrespectful dialogue.

While some of our values may be different, I think it is crucial to engage in respectful dialogue and work together to embrace our differences. I always try to listen respectfully and understand all points of view. While we may disagree about how to get there, I believe our goals are the same: to have safe and loving environments for kids. So how do we get there?

My question is, where is the balance? Opponents of LB975 have stated that the bill is discriminatory and wish to protect the right of LGBT families to adopt and foster children. LGBT families would still be able to foster or adopt children in Nebraska. This legislation preserves in law Nebraska’s longstanding public/private partnership with a diverse group of private secular and faith-based agencies that work side-by-side to respond to the critical need to find permanent loving homes for children. I don’t believe that the interests of upholding adoption rights for all families (LGBT families included) and upholding religious liberty are mutually exclusive. Unfortunately though, there are some who believe upholding religious liberty inherently interferes with LGBT rights. I believe that there can be a balance where all Nebraskans are allowed to act according to their deeply held beliefs. At times, this will require some to respectfully disagree with others. To force one’s hand either way is poor public policy. Child-placing agencies should be treated fairly and not targeted or punished by the government because of their beliefs. This applies equally to all agencies, and it applies to all individuals.

Balance can only be maintained if opposing sides can work together to find common ground. The common ground here is to find loving, safe homes for Nebraska’s foster children. Getting all foster children into loving homes is my goal, and it’s one I hope we can all get behind. With such a great need in our state, I hope there are many more families in Nebraska who will step up and foster and adopt our neediest children regardless of their particular beliefs.

The Legislature convened Wednesday, January 6 at 10:00 a.m, kicking off a short 60-day session. The session began with official business, including the election of a new chairperson of the Retirement Committee, of which I have been serving as a member. I announced my intention to seek this seat after Senator Jeremy Nordquist resigned at the end of the previous session and was elected by the members of the Legislature to serve as chairperson.

I felt I was uniquely qualified for this position, having worked in the financial services industry as an insurance agent the past 40 years and having specialized in employee benefits and retirement plans for 31 of those years. I take great pride in the fact that I have helped my clients, many who are friends and neighbors, plan for their future, and I wanted to use my expertise to help lead the committee that oversees this important area of state government.

As background, there are 121,920 participants in the state retirement system. Additionally, the total assets of all the retirement plans managed by the Nebraska Employment Retirement Systems amount to $12.6 billion dollars. These plans are utilized by retired employees from the schools, the state patrol, judges, state and county levels. This information is documented in the 2014 Annual Report of NPERS.

As State Senators, we have an obligation to the taxpayers of this state as well as the employees covered under these plans to ensure that they are kept up to date and managed properly. As chairman, I will do my best to work with my colleagues and the Nebraska Employment Retirement System to make sure these retirement funds are managed in the best way possible.

Along with becoming a chairman, there are additional changes in my office. Kenny Zoeller, who served as my Legislative Aide during my first year as a State Senator, has moved to work with Governor Ricketts in the Governor’s Policy Research Office. Kenny has been a good friend and trusted adviser since I started my campaign in 2013, and I appreciate the service he has
provided me and the constituents of District #24. I look forward to working with him in his new role, and I wish him the best.

Replacing Kenny is Joe Neuhaus. Joe is an attorney who received his law degree from the University of Nebraska. He has previously served as Legislative Aide to State Senator Lydia Brasch and was the Policy Director at Nebraska Family Alliance.

Additionally, Kate Allen is joining my staff as the Legal Counsel for the Retirement Committee. Kate has many years of service with the state, serving in the legislature for 28 years. For two of those years, Kate worked in the Policy Research Office during Ben Nelson’s tenure, and she has been Retirement Committee Legal Counsel since 2009.

Katie Quintero will continue to serve as my Administrative Assistant and will take on additional duties as the Clerk of the Retirement Committee. Katie worked as Senator Colby Coash’s Administrative Aide for six years and before that briefly served as Senator Tony Fulton’s Aide.

As always, if we can be of assistance to you in any way, please do not hesitate to contact my office. My door is open and I have made it a goal to be accessible to the constituents of our district. With the Retirement Chairmanship election, we have moved offices and are now in Room 2004B. Stop by any time. My e-mail address is mkolterman@leg.ne.gov, and the office phone number, which has stayed the same, is 402-471-2756. Joe and Katie are always available to assist you with your needs. If I am not immediately available, please do not hesitate to work with them to address your concerns, thoughts, and needs. Please continue to follow me on Facebook at Kolterman For Legislature and on Twitter at @KoltermanforLegislature.

New Year, New Office

January 6th, 2016

Senator Kolterman was elected as chair of the Retirement Systems Committee.

His office is now located in Room 2004B.

Please feel to stop by when you are visiting the Capitol!

Sen. Mark Kolterman

District 24
Room #2004
P.O. Box 94604
Lincoln, NE 68509
Phone: (402) 471-2756
Email: mkolterman@leg.ne.gov
Search Senator Page For:
Topics
Archives

You are currently browsing the District 24 News and Information blog archives for the year 2016.

Search Current Bills
Search Laws
Live Video Streaming
Find Your Senator
>