were responsive to comments made at the review and comment hearing. In the absence of the designated representatives, the Board was left to rely on the statements of an objector whose counsel had listened to the review and comment hearing, and the directly contradictory comments of one Title Board member who apparently had spoken with the staff person conducting that review and comment hearing. 1 27 We recognize that we have previously held that the failure of proponents to comply with the requirement to designate two representatives does not affect the Board's authority to act, because it is simply "a procedural requirement promoting efficient notification." In re Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment Concerning Ltd. Gaming in City of Antonito, 873 P.2d 733, 739 (Colo.1994) (<HOLDING>); In re Initiative Concerning "Taxation III",
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 title insurer not in business of supplying information in issuing either title commitment or policy of title insurance for purposes of exception to moorman prohi bition against recovery of economic losses in tort further holding that contract defines title insurers liability holding that a title holder has  the superior right to possession over one who holds no title 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 recognizing that most other courts apply title vii principles to title ix cases but refusing to apply title viis knew or should have known standard to a title ix claim