Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that both designated representatives for each of the proposed initiatives at issue here complied with this statutory mandate. In so doing, they certified that they were aware not only that they were required to attend all meetings at which their proposed initiatives would be considered, but also that any motion for rehearing would be heard at the Board's next meeting or within forty-eight hours after the expiration of the seven-day deadline for filing such motions. See § 1-40-107(1)(a). The email to Mr. Ottke and Mr. Slota from the Secretary of State's office suggesting that they were not required to attend the meeting on the motion for rehearing did not relieve them of their clear statutory obligation to do so. Cf. Comm. for Better Health Care v. Meyer, 830 P.2d 884, 892 (Colo.1992) (<HOLDING>). III. Conclusion T31 Because the Title Board 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the 1991 mixedmotive amendments do not apply to  1981 based on an independent analysis of the amendments and  1981 (B) holding that the ada amendments act does not apply to preamendment conduct (C) holding that where initiative proponents were provided with copies of relevant statutory amendments and related documents proponents did not reasonably rely on statements by the secretary of state to assume that amendments did not apply to their initiative (D) holding that amendments to procedure apply to both pending and future matters (E) holding that the protect act amendments to the standard of review apply retroactively
Output (English): holding that the protect act amendments to the standard of review apply retroactively