Legislative Update

Rep. Anne Donahue

March 16, 2007

With only a few days to plunge through a 70-page bill on how the family court handles child abuse and neglect cases, my frustration over the legislative process is growing.

When we lack time, the solution is to cut back on review instead of waiting another year to do the job right.

Family court has the awesome responsibility of balancing the protection of children with the rights of parents. Whatever actions our Department of Children and Families take, there are always people ready to criticize: they either acted too hastily to remove a child, or they failed to act when they should have.

Having been a foster parent in the past and seeing families unnecessarily destroyed, I believe we, as a state, should have to demonstrate that our plans for a child are better options than even an unstable family may be.

When we remove a child and then place them into “foster care drift” because of lack of resources (and lack of enough foster homes), we can easily do more harm. We heard testimony from a 16-year-old girl this past week who, in the past two years, has been in nine foster homes and five different schools.

This law improves the standards for the efforts the state must make for family reunification, but I hope to strengthen them more, and tighten some time frames. Two months waiting for a “disposition hearing” is a lifetime for a 5-year-old. Having had a 10-year-old who cried himself to sleep each night during the four months it took to do a “home study” so that he could return to his mom has certainly influenced my viewpoint.

My second foster child, age 12, was the oldest of five brothers who adored one another. Five years later, he didn’t know where a single one of them was.

Protection of children in danger must include protection of their emotional bonds with parents, siblings, and others who are close to them.

Another law that has not been updated in close to 30 years, and has undergone close scrutiny and revision in the Judiciary Committee, is the law on guardianship for individuals who need help in managing their finances or personal wellbeing.

This bill was intended to also be reviewed in my human services committee for its many public health issues, but time ran out, and it is moving to the Senate with only a day of informal review by our committee.

I was able, as an individual legislator, to testify on several critical aspects. We all have the right under Vermont public policy to make our own health care decisions when we have the legal capacity to understand the decision and the risks and benefits.

As drafted, the bill did not protect that right. The Judiciary Committee unanimously accepted my proposed amendment, and I am pleased about that -- but still regret a process that allows bills to move forward without the intended review by each committee that has the expertise on a part of it.

The committee system exists to ensure for the rest of us that we can rely on the specialized knowledge that develops in each area of law, since it is impossible to know every aspect of the law. When we short cut that system, we short change the public.

I intend to continue the fight against short cuts, most particularly the egregious practice of new policies never addressed in any committee being inserted into bills in the final stage of a “conference committee” between House and Senate -- a practice that allows six people to make law without evidence or testimony.

Often it happens in the capital appropriations bill or budget bill, so the only way to vote against those changes in law is by voting against the entire budget. Few people are willing to do that, despite opposing the injected changes in other laws, so the practice continues.

The biggest new bill on the horizon for the new week is the “affordable housing” bill. Don’t be mislead by the title.

I think measures to protect our state’s natural environment are critical. But how far do we go if it means we can’t create the housing that makes it possible to live here, and to allow new business, with jobs and more people who need housing, to relocate here?

The housing shortage is a more hidden issue that actually outranks health care in the reduced access resulting from cost increases of the past 10 years. That’s without also counting the impact on property taxes. In standard market fashion, a shortage of housing drives values up, which therefore drives tax assessments up.

So what does the new bill do? It makes it a little easier (less costly) to build in official downtown-designated areas with sewer and water lines, because of relaxed Act 250 standards, and harder to build anywhere else.

Although the well-intentioned goal is to prevent suburban “sprawl,” the impact here in Moretown, Northfield and Roxbury would be to increase the cost of creating new housing.

There are an estimated 60 towns in the state that could gain limited benefits, if they have available downtown space (the Central Vermont Chamber of Commerce has identified all of two lots in Barre that would be eligible.)

For rural areas, new construction could literally grind to a halt under the new Act 250 restrictions for new homes or businesses.

It would be permitted only under conditions that include mandates of “clustering” new home developments, but not permit those developments to exceed the density of existing “compact village or urban centers” or to create conflicts with open space or “natural areas.”

If one takes Roxbury as an example, new development must be clustered together, yet the cluster can’t create greater density than the village center along Route 12A, which is hardly an area of “dense” development. It doesn’t provide much leeway.

Regardless of town zoning (or a town’s choice to have no zoning), this is in essence an expansion of Act 250 that is creating a high level of statewide zoning for rural areas.

The “benefit” it brings in terms of support for affordable housing in downtowns, on the other hand, is minimal in its level of enticement for developers or towns.

Finally, it creates a statewide registry of rental housing, billed to landlords -- a virtual guarantee that the cost will be passed on to tenants and increase rents.

So much for being an “affordable housing” bill.

Please stay in contact with your own priorities and concerns. As this session moves into the wind-down phase, new initiatives can’t be raised, but current bills can still be impacted.

You have the right to know how I vote on every issue, not just roll calls: I can’t write about all of them, but feel free to ask. Leave a message any time at 485-6431 or counterp@tds.net.