measures had made changes to both initiatives after the review and comment hearing that were substantive and not in direct response to questions or comments posed by the legislative council at that hearing. During the colloquy regarding Initiative 2011-2012 No. 94, a Board member asked Mr. Staelin, the one designated representative who was present at the meeting, whether a particular change was made in response to a question at the review and comment hearing. Mr. Staelin responded, "You know, frankly, I don't think I can answer that." During the Board's discussion of Initiative 2011-2012 No. 95, neither designated representative was present. This proved problematic, because the Board was left to speculate about whether changes the proponents made to that init P.2d 937, 942 (Colo.1992) (<HOLDING>). 1 28 However, the General Assembly's
holding that the plaintiff filed suit within the statute of limitations even though he could not prove the time at which he mailed his petition holding that the boards statement of reasons or bases must be adequate to enable a claimant to understand the precise basis for the boards decision as well as to facilitate review in this court holding that proponents designation of only one person to whom all notices or information would be mailed instead of two did not deprive title board of authority to fix the title holding that listing of five proponents where the statute required that the proponents designate two persons to whom all notices or information concerning the petition would be mailed did not affect the boards authority to act holding that the failure to properly caption and verify a petition did not affect the substantial rights of the parties