Legislative Update
Representative Anne Donahue
May 1, 2016
Perhaps the best way of demonstrating the chaos of
the final week of the legislature is to share the calendar for Monday, May 2,
even though those issues will be wrapped up by the time the Northfield News version of this column
appears.
We are still, for now, mostly on the schedule that
allows for three days of review of a bill. It is on notice for a day, is
presented and debated at “second reading” the next day, and has a “third
reading” the following day to give a chance for thorough consideration, plus
any final amendments.
However we did expedite one day by having a “mock
session” on Saturday. That means no one needed to be there, but the calendar
moved ahead a day because bills on notice for Saturday will now be up for
second reading on Monday. In addition, Monday is an added day to the schedule
since we usually meet only Tuesday through Friday to allow time for those
catching up on maintaining their full-time job responsibilities.
The big bills that need to pass will come at the end
of the week, and will determine the actual closing day. They must pass because
they include the general fund (operating budget) and the capital budget, plus
the new tax and fee bills to pay for budget increases.
Anything else, including these Monday calendar
items, will die if they are not finished when the money bills reach the finish
line.
***
From
Friday’s calendar:
Bills
up for third reading:
Montpelier
charter change: no controversy (the Berlin Pond section
was struck), but it is a House bill, so it will still need to complete the
Senate process. Because of the late date, we will likely
“message our actions” to the Senate so that another day will not be lost.
Estate
tax revisions: changes in the law that the Senate made
that will generally reduce estate taxes, but includes the increase to the
telecommunications fee that the House already passed but was not taken up by
the Senate. The fee increase was controversial, but opposition was voted down
(again) on Friday. It was added to the estate tax bill that the Senate sent
over and wants, in order to force the Senate to address it, since the Senate
will have to either accept the change or ask for a conference committee to
resolve differences with the House. This is a common tactic.
Standardizing of some parts of environmental
permits: no controversy, but it came from the Senate and the House made
changes; the Senate will have to decide whether to accept the changes.
Permanency
for children: no controversy, but from the Senate,
and some changes made which will need Senate consideration. In addition, I have
a proposed amendment. For long term guardianships, the bill permits a successor
guardian to be appointed at the same time as the guardian, and an automatic change
in custody then occurs if the guardian dies. I think that at that future time,
there should be a new review by the court in case there are any changes in
circumstances. (That kind of court review always happens in case of death of
natural parents, even if they appointed a guardian in their wills.)
Approved
absences from home detention: no controversy, Senate
will need to approve House revisions.
Alcoholic
beverage license changes: no controversy, Senate will need
to approve House revisions.
Rental
agreements if there is an unauthorized sub-lessee:
no controversy, Senate will need to approve House revisions.
Bills
up for second reading:
Bridport
charter changes: no controversy, but will still need to
complete the Senate process. Because of the late date, we will likely “suspend
the rules” to move immediately to third reading and to “message our actions” to
the Senate.
Drones,
cell phones and license plate readers: this is a very big one,
and rewritten from the Senate version. There will be lots of debate and
potential amendments about the balance between citizen privacy protections and
law enforcement needs. The Senate will undoubtedly want a conference committee,
and if there is no agreement before the money bills finish their process, it
will die.
Farm
to school program: not likely to be controversial, Senate
will need to approve House revisions.
Winooski
charter changes: no controversy, but will need Senate action.
Barton
charter changes: no controversy, but will need Senate action.
Government
accountability committee revisions: no controversy and
House is accepting the Senate bill without changes, so it will go straight to
the governor.
Changes
to the law defining independent contractors compared to employees.
A major House bill that is coming to the House floor under a rarely used
procedure. The Commerce Committee voted on it unanimously in March but it was
sent back to the committee to hold pending input from a second committee.
Others had major objections, and it stalled and was proclaimed “dead.” The
unusual procedure was a motion and vote on the floor to “relieve the committee”
of the bill and bring it to the House floor to proceed with second reading. It
will be fiercely debated and may or may not pass. If it passes, it is highly
unlikely that it will be taken up by the Senate since it is well beyond
deadline with no time for Senate committee review. Nonetheless, many members
felt it was important to hold a House vote.
Consideration
of Senate changes to a House-passed bill:
Miscellaneous
changes to criminal laws: no controversy or significant
changes to the underlying House bill, and likely would have been accepted by
the House. But! The Senate attached a bill that was stalled in the House (see
process, estate bill, above) – the marijuana legalization bill, which sets up a
major infrastructure for state oversight of sales. This will force the House to
debate and vote on the Senate bill (or vote as a whole to send it to a House
committee). Yes, expect a very extended debate, with an uncertain outcome. Most
pundits believe it is highly unlikely to pass, in particular with no changes
from this original Senate version. If a changed version does pass the House at
some point, the Senate will have to decide whether to accept it as sent, or to
ask for a conference committee where there are good chances it would die – if
for no other reason than running out of time.
From
Saturday’s Calendar:
Bills
Up for Second Reading:
Pay
Act for State Employees: likely to engender controversy,
since fully funding the newly established contract would either require a
further budget increase or – as the bill proposes -- partial cuts (through
attrition) of the state workforce. The Senate had the contract information in
time to include it in its version of the budget; the budget is currently back
under House review.
Revisions
to existing law for labelling of marijuana used for medical symptom relief: possibly
some controversy, and the Senate will need to approve House revisions.
Combatting
opiod abuse: a major bill that will likely raise
questions and discussion, the Senate will need to review significant House
revisions and it will likely request a conference committee.
Notifying
patients about doctor office changes: no controversy, but
Senate will need to accept House changes.
Consideration
of Senate changes to a House-passed bill:
Hunting,
fishing and trapping law revisions: no controversy, but
House committee may ask for time to review Senate changes.
Transportation
construction budget: House committee will ask for conference
committee on multiple Senate changes.
Capital
budget: House committee will ask for conference committee
on multiple Senate changes.
Conference
Committee Report:
Police
body camera rules: Senate and House disagreed on
differences in bills passed, so a conference committee was appointed and has
come to agreement. Both bodies must approve the agreement, but these are
usually always approved.
The
Rest of the Week
There will be more and more pressure to suspend the
usual rules of process to speed bills through. That will happen for anything
non-controversial.
It used to also happen for major bills that the
majority party (the Democrats) wanted passed, even extremely lengthy bills,
including the budget itself. There was often no time to even actually read a
bill before it was voted on.
Eight years ago I provoke a rebellion over this
process, which does a serious disservice to our constituents. Thus was born the
unofficial “24 hour rule.”
It requires a three-quarter vote to suspend the
rules, so a minority party (the Republicans, though not the Progressives) can
block a rules suspension. At the start of that next session, Republican
leadership notified the Speaker that we would no longer go along with
suspending rules without at least 24 hours to review any controversial bill,
unless there we had internal consensus that we had had enough time to read and
understand it. We extend that courtesy on behalf of the Progressives and any
Independent if they feel they needed the full 24 hours.
It has spawned its own new opportunity for political
gamesmanship. The Democrats will tell the press that Republicans are the cause
of delaying adjournment. The Republicans, in turn, sometimes use the rule to
its benefit by negotiating the timeline in exchange for a bill it wants to see
pass.
But there is a bottom line: we should never be
passing bills before legislators have enough time to read and understand them,
and 24 hours is a reasonable standard to insist upon.
***
Thanks
for the honor of representing you! You can contact me or Rep. Patti Lewis by
email (counterp@tds.net for me; pattijlewis@myfairpoint.net for Patti) or by
leaving a message at the statehouse at 828-2228. We welcome your feedback and
input.
