Legislative Update
Rep. Anne Donahue
March 25, 2017
We are hitting the meat of the session in the coming
week, as we take up the House version of the state budget.
It appears that for the first time in many years, it
will match our actual revenues instead of requiring new taxes to support it.
That is thanks to our Appropriations Committee acting under the threat of a
governor’s veto.
A good example of how it is possible to address
urgent needs without increasing overall spending is the proposal developed by
my Health Care Committee to address the psychiatric care crisis that is backing
up our emergency rooms. I described that in detail in my last regular report.
***
Marijuana
A long debate on the House floor this week will be on
the marijuana legalization bill.
In contrast to the Senate’s “tax and regulate” sales
bill that failed a year ago, this bill is about legalizing the possession of an
ounce or less, and the growing of a few plants.
I’m not interested in seeing the state go after
personal use or cultivation of small amounts of marijuana, so in theory I could
support the approach. But there are a number of key caveats for me, and the
bill does not include many of them.
Unless floor amendments address those concerns – and
there will be plenty of amendments offered and debated – I would be hard
pressed to support it.
First, kids: the bill does include some aggressive
prohibitions against persons allowing access to anyone under age 21. Does
enabling “consumption” include prohibiting parents from exposing their kids to
inhaling second-hand smoke? Not clear.
Does the bill include an assumption of child abuse
or neglect if children are exposed? No.
The bill also promotes an attitude that marijuana
isn’t all that bad a thing for young people, despite all the medical evidence
that it is particularly harmful to developing brains, because it establishes
possession of up to two ounces by youth as exactly equivalent to possession of
alcohol.
Second, safety on our roads. We can’t test for
“under the influence” in the same way we can for alcohol. Those who say that is
no change from what exists today are kidding themselves if they don’t think
there will be more use – and thus more driving while impaired – if use is
legalized.
We could, however, enact stringent prohibitions on
any use (by a passenger or driver) or even presence of marijuana in a motor
vehicle. The bill does not do even that.
Third, public use. My view about personal use
doesn’t extend to subjecting me to use by other persons. There are minor fines
for public use; I think it needs to be illegal.
That was a flaw in decriminalization several years
ago. An amendment I offered then to have a higher fine for public use, failed.
Even “private property” creates issues, because it
includes apartments. Unlike alcohol, marijuana intoxicants are carried in the
air. Don’t apartment dwellers have the right to be free from exposure to their
neighbors’ use of pot?
Yet to make that distinction would create a
fundamental inequity between wealthier (home owning) and less wealthy
(apartment dwelling) users.
It’s a good demonstration of how difficult it
becomes to draw clear lines among levels of how legal marijuana could be
restricted to “personal use only.”
I’m not sure why leaving it all at our
decriminalization approach (just a fine for small amounts) does not remain
workable. There are enough others who feel the same way that a close vote is
expected.
***
School
Finance
Also coming up is a bill to restructure how we set tax
rates within our statewide education property tax. It would create a clear
connection that would benefit districts that spend less than the statewide
average per student, and create a disadvantage for those that spend more.
This makes sense, BUT… it would be retroactive to
the current budget year, with budgets already voted on. I have always fought
retroactive bills, and will oppose this.
Regretfully, it appears that – having already
rejected the Governor’s proposal – we will again do nothing this year to
actually address the escalation of education costs.
***
Guns
It sounds reasonable on the surface to say that a
person who commits domestic assault should have his or her guns removed from
the home; that was the premise of the gun bill last week.
But there is a total illogic to say that a person
who is an immediate threat to another person, and has been charged with an
assault, should be left there with the victim -- just take any guns away and
the victim will be safe?
If the person presents that kind of danger, he/she
should be kept in custody until a bail hearing, and at that hearing, a judge
can decide whether to order that weapons be confiscated. That way, both safety
and due process rights are protected.
To merely confiscate all guns in a home, with no
court review and only an allegation of abuse, violates a person’s right to
their own property without the “due process of law” that is guaranteed by our
constitution. It also violates the presumption of innocence when we act based
only on charges being filed, without even immediate judicial review. I voted
no; the bill passed on a 78-67 vote, very much closer than the often party line
divisions on controversial issues.
***
Pregnancy
Another seemingly good proposal: require reasonable
accommodations (you don’t have to wear the otherwise-required staff uniform;
you can have a stool to sit on) so that pregnant employees can continue to maintain
their jobs.
Unfortunately, it wasn’t written that way. It includes
unlimited amounts of unpaid leave beyond existing family leave laws and “job
restructuring” without the employee necessarily being able to perform even the
core functions of the job.
We were assured on the floor that the requirement
that the accommodation not present “undue hardship” to employers means “they can
say no” if, after a discussion with the employee, they feel the request creates
an undue hardship.
That turned out to not be accurate. It is a mandate.
The Attorney General or Human Rights Commission that would resolve disputes.
If put into practice as written, it could cost the
state (as an employer) a great deal of money, so I moved (unsuccessfully) to
have it sent for review by the Appropriations Committee.
I hope the Senate addresses some of the overly-broad
language, so that I can support this bill when it returns to the House.
***
Mental
Health
I reported two bills on the House floor. The first
creates a review committee for interactions between police and persons who
appear to be having a mental health crisis when it results in the use of force
with death or serious injury.
The genesis of the bill was the death of Phil Grenon
in Burlington last year. Consensus among all parties emerged that we need a way
to review such incidents without trying to assess blame (the State’s Attorney
review for wrongdoing already addresses that).
So the commission would do an in-depth analysis,
determine if there were ways that could have resulted in a better outcome, and
make recommendations for the future.
The second bill was part of our effort to address
Vermont’s high rate of suicide. (It is the second leading cause of death for
young people in Vermont; overall annual deaths exceed those from motor vehicle
accidents, murder, and drowning combined.)
One group of teens has six times the rate of suicide
attempts of the rest of our kids. These are the kids who identify under the
Youth Risk Behavior Survey as “lesbian, gay, bisexual or questioning.”
Some of them, knowing that parents must consent to
counselling, will not ask for help in addressing their confusion or mental
health crises – even if that support is specifically to enable them to feel
able to talk to their parents.
This bill allows minors to get counselling on these
issues without parental consent.
It is certainly not an easy thing to allow parents
to be excluded in this process, but the need is obvious and urgent. I was
gratified by the House support of my report with a 125-12 roll call vote.
***
I’ve recent a flurry of constituent messages about
the bill to create a Racial Justice Oversight Board in Vermont. Most have urged
support, a few have said we don’t need it. Sometimes the fact that we think we
don’t need something (we’re Vermonters, after all; we can’t have any
prejudices!) is precisely the evidence
that we do. I support this bill.
***
Thank
you for the honor of representing you. Please contact me with your questions
and your opinions. You can reach me by message at home at 485-6431, at the
statehouse at 828-2228, or at this email at counterp@tds.net
No comments:
Post a Comment