Rep. Anne Donahue
Legislative Update
March 1, 2008
“Legislators who usually commute, bring your PJs and slippers.”
That was the word Friday addressing the week after Town Meeting break, which will be the last week before “crossover.” Crossover is the deadline for all bills from one body to be finished for consideration by the other body if they are to be taken up for passage this year.
The “PJ announcement” is an unhappy reflection of the fact that the legislature acts like college kids: dawdle in January, cram during the week before finals. That often means poor quality work.
An example came this past week, when inquiry on the House floor uncovered that one part of a bill on the Corrections system had received no testimony or discussion by any committee before being included.
After a minority member’s motion to send it back to committee for further work (with a roll call vote requested), there was a quick huddle with the speaker. The motion was withdrawn, and a majority member made a motion to strike that section from the bill.
We then recessed while the Judiciary Committee addressed the section, and we came back to approve a motion to amend the bill to reinclude the section.
Does that sound like silly maneuvering? Hardly. The procedures established for enacting law were created to ensure careful deliberation. Skipping a part erodes the democratic process.
The incident also demonstrated the vital role of having the check and balance of the involvement of more than one party in the lawmaking process. The Democrats in this situation acknowledged the slip-up and the importance of correcting it, but it would not have been caught if there was no Republican presence to challenge the bill.
There have been some key actions in the pre-town meeting weeks, even without being on final deadline yet.
The fuel efficiency/global warming bill was successfully passed by both houses with bi-partisan support. The regrettable part is that we lost a year of opportunity to start the programs, as a result of party politics.
This bill is similar to what was passed by the House last year, also with bi-partisan support. The Senate chose to play brinkmanship with the governor by injecting a tax on Vermont Yankee, provoking a veto.
The final bill also closely resembles what was proposed last July by Republicans after the veto override failed (with a number of Democrats also opposing override). That bill was blocked from being presented.
Sometimes, fortunately -- although not often enough in a legislature so heavily predominated by one party -- there is very good collaborative work among members.
It happened with the bill to increase protection of children from lead poisoning that my committee produced and was passed by the House this past week.
I have described it as a bad bill: increasing the cost of housing with new burdens on landlords, and intruding on private rights by restricting what private homeowners do in their own homes.
As we worked on the bill in committee, however, we focused on what parts were both most important, and also fair. The knowledge base about the amount of neurological damage that can occur in the developing brains of young children has increased tremendously in the past ten years.
Preventing poisoning is much more important than responding after the fact. We changed the focus of the bill to education: outreach to landlords, parents, and family doctors about why this is so important.
We removed homeowner restrictions, but all professionals who do work that disturbs the lead paint often found in pre-1978 construction must take the 8-hour course on safe practices.
There are some minor new requirements for landlords, who are, after all, offering a product on the market that needs to be safe. These are offset, however, by a new section I proposed that gives complete immunity to landlords from tenant claims if corrective work standards set by the state have been completed.
I remained opposed to the unfunded mandate on physicians to test all one- and two-year-olds, when the Vermont Medical Society was committing to voluntary compliance. That one section alone was not enough to block my support what is now an otherwise very positive bill.
Education cost containment also came to the floor as a result of a tri-partisan initiative.
Virtually nothing has been done yet to address reform of education financing. I have co-sponsored a bill promoting a complete revision. Both this proposal (which can be looked up on the web at www.leg.state.vt.us under bills introduced, H. 869) and a bill proposing an income tax solution (H. 866) will be the topic of a public hearing on March 13 from 6 to 8 p.m. in Room 11 at the state house.
Come and speak out to the Ways and Means Committee, which will be reviewing these options!
In the meantime, a bill was on the floor this past week making “technical corrections” to last year’s effort at cost containment, which created the “think twice,” two-part vote for school budgets. That was a rush compromise idea between the House, Senate and Governor in the final days of the session without any committee testimony.
The claim that it would actually address cost-drivers was very weak; it was a “we have to say we did something” law, and I voted against it last year.
Thus I joined an initiative last week, led by a Progressive and co-sponsored by two other Progressives, three Republicans, four Democrats, and two Independents to amend the technical corrections bill by adding a repeal of the double vote provision. This provoked the Education Committee to pull the bill back to prevent a splintered vote on the floor. The Committee sent the bill back with its own repeal of the double vote, and the bill passed.
Re-passing last year’s high spending penalty as the House alternative only restages last year’s stalemate with the Senate and governor. Our “repeal” of the double vote will almost certainly be unsuccessful.
However it sends an important message to you, our constituents. The House, at least, acknowledges that nothing has been achieved by the legislature on this issue.
A brief update on health care reform: the message I have been sending for four years is beginning to be repeated by many more voices. We need to “Fix Medicaid First.”
Catamount Health risks bankrupting what we do for the most needy of our citizens.
Democrats have now agreed that Catamount cannot be expanded further this year. Medicaid support is already being threatened by proposed increases in premiums that may drive more people to be uninsured. This would defeat the whole concept of the Catamount initiative.
Meanwhile, our ongoing lack of state funding for the full costs of Medicaid services has shot up by $7.5 million just in this past year. We repay that deficit twice: in our own premiums, and in our school, town and state budgets through the premiums for public employees.
Between now and next Monday, March 10, is a great time to catch me at home to share your own concerns and opinions on the issues facing us this year. Please be in touch: you can reach me at 485-6431 or at counterp@tds.net.