March 24, 2018 Legislative Update

We passed a $6.8 billion state budget last week that increased from last year by only 1.1 percent. It shifted a few spending priorities from the governor’s proposals but kept under his limit on growth in spending.

One priority area was the crisis in emergency rooms, where Vermonters are sometimes waiting for weeks for an inpatient psychiatric bed to open up. The governor’s budget added some outreach workers, and I suggested two other measures that were also funded in the House budget. One was expanding the toll-free Vermont Support Line (833-VT TALKS) to 24/7. It has shown huge success in peer support for individuals in crisis who might have otherwise gone to the emergency room because they didn’t know where to turn for help. Indeed, that funding will likely do more to help prevent suicide than any gun bill we pass.

The second was expanding supported housing for homeless individuals being discharged from the hospital. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if someone was at the level of psychiatric crisis to need to be in the hospital, and is discharged to homelessness, they will relapse and be back in the emergency room in short order.

The budget was not completely squeaky clean in terms of the “no new taxes or fees” pledge, though it came close. In separate tax bills, we held back some of the money that was to be returned to Vermonters by a restructuring of state income taxes. (Without the restructuring, the new federal tax law would have resulted in an increased state tax.) Of the $30 million, about $2 million went instead to fund the Social Security tax exemption that had been built into the governor’s budget through other cuts in spending.

We also added a tax on e-cigarettes – similar to the way we tax other nicotine products. If, in the same way as the others, it went into the health care fund, I would have supported it. Instead, it went to help fund added budget items that the governor had paid for through other spending cuts.

The tax bills included the new education funding proposal that shifts $60 million from property taxes to an income tax surcharge. There are pros and cons to the change, but I had a more basic objection. The income tax would be retroactive to this past January 1. The property tax reduction would not be effective until next year’s taxes (July 1.) It may be a simplistic perspective – it didn’t seem to bother most people – but I simply cannot support retroactive taxation. I voted against both tax bills.

All of these measures now go to the Senate, where we can expect changes before final bills go to the governor.

***

A few key environmental initiatives were also addressed recently.

It’s a pretty sad thought that we need to have a “lake in crisis” designation, but our water quality issues are getting that serious. So I supported a bill despite some trepidation over the extent of the delegated enforcement power it gives the Secretary of Natural Resources to act beyond existing regulations if a lake has been deemed to be at that stage of pollution.

I also supported a bill that will establish a “stewardship” program for household hazardous waste, to go into effect in 2021 if a working group does not identify better ways to improve access to safe disposal. A stewardship program puts the cost of disposal up front, as part of the purchase price, instead of charging at the time of disposal. We do it now for batteries, paint, and CFL bulbs. Last November, my siblings and I cleared out my Mom’s house for putting it on the market. We ended up with a batch of hazardous waste, but no access to disposal until this coming May. So it still sits there while the house is being shown to prospective buyers.  It’s easy to see why folks get tempted to hide these items in their regular landfill trash – polluting groundwaters as a result.

The other area I would support a stewardship program is for tires, which could significantly impact that blight on our landscape. The pending bill on tires did not make it out of committee in time for this year.

***

I am loathe to delve into the emotional topic of the gun safety bill debate, simply because there were more complexities to the various proposed restrictions than what can be explained in a brief written update. I’m happy to discuss them in more detail with any individual. I have maintained a consistent position in support of any safety measure that was actually workable and that did not place burdens on law-abiding citizens disproportionate to actual safety benefits.

In brief summary that meant “yes” votes on removal of firearms from persons shown to be at extreme risk of violence (even though they have not committed a crime); temporary removal of firearms from a domestic violence scene; the weapons disposal process for law enforcement; and the ban on “bump stocks” that turn semi-automatic firearms into illegal automatic firing guns.

I voted “no” on requiring individuals to go through a gun shop for sales to friends (so-called “universal background checks”). Individuals already face a 10-year federal prison term for selling to a prohibited person, which is likely why such sales have never been the source of weapons for mass shooters. I also voted against making magazines holding more than 10 rounds illegal (these are standard for shooting competitions and have no date stamps that would enable it to be determined whether someone was in violation or not); and on age discrimination among legal adults for purchase of firearms.

All of these passed in the House. How very much I wish we were not delivering false promises to Vermonters that these measures will actually improve safety.

***

The Vermont legislature has never, in the past, been appropriately compared to the ugly partisanship that occurs in Washington, D.C. How do I define “ugly partisanship”? It is when actions have nothing to do with honest or even passionate political disagreements over policy. It comes when a majority party deliberately uses its control over rules of procedure to block debate or squelch the voice of the minority.

That happened last week in Montpelier.

Our work on the House floor – the presentation of bills by committees so that we can understand what we are voting for, the debate when there are concerns, and the votes themselves – was declared as being merely a “show” by the Democratic minority assistant leader. The context was an unprecedented vote to authorize a policy committee to meet and work on bills at the same time that the floor is in session.

The significance is that members of a committee are forced to choose: participate in hearing witnesses, analyzing pros and cons of a bill, and taking part in the committee’s decision to recommend a bill to the full body versus participating in hearing the presentation of bills on the floor, listening to and participating in debate, and voting.

On an individual basis, members do sometimes make their personal choice to not be on the floor when addressing another priority matter. I have done it myself for brief periods when consensus bills are under review. At times near the end of the session, there are enough members rushing around getting final work done that there needs to be a quorum call on the House floor.

One major embarrassment to the body occurs every time there is a roll call vote on a major bill. A warning bell rings, and legislators who were absent during debate flock to the floor to cast their votes. It means that those members felt they had no need to hear what their colleagues had to say before voting. In another sad commentary on how we address our responsibilities, I have a reputation in the House as someone who “actually reads all the bills.” In other words, that’s a rarity. But all of those are individual decisions by members as they juggle how they meet their obligations. They are accountable to their constituents for how they balance these priorities.

The difference in what occurred last week is that the Judiciary Committee was authorized by a vote of the House to meet as a whole and take formal action on bills while the rest of the body is on the floor. The reason: the chair’s desire to continue moving as rapidly as possible on the gun bills it was considering. We were not without adequate time to address those bills through the normal process, but the effort was being made to rush them, without even the typical public hearing that occurs for controversial new proposals.

Those committee members were thereby forced to choose to miss votes in one setting or the other, or to cast votes in one setting or the other without the information for an educated decision. They were being involuntarily compelled to abdicate their responsibilities either to being present on the floor or present in their committees. There is a reason that House rules say that committee chairs are not permitted to call their committees to meet without the permission of the full body. It is to prevent that conflict. That is why a House vote was required on whether to grant permission to the Judiciary Committee to meet.

The outcome was directly along political party lines, which meant an 82-52 vote that placed minority members in that untenable position, in the interests of the majority to move those bills forward. It was raw political partisanship.

In explaining my “no” vote in a formal statement, I pointed out that our processes are intended to protect the voice of the minority. “That voice has been trampled on today, through an unconscionable and unprecedented vote by this body. The significance cannot be understated.”

The assistant majority leader then provided her explanation: “It has been said the committees do the work of the people; the floor is the show. Enough said.” It was a staggeringly arrogant acknowledgement that majority membership feels its presence on the House floor is unnecessary. Its members can control the outcome of every vote. There is no need to listen to other perspectives.

Although I am a member of the minority party, I would feel the exact same way if the roles were reversed. I believe the outcome was a sad day for Vermonters and their right to be represented in the people’s House.

***

Please stay in touch as you hear about issues affecting you and to keep me informed about your views. You can reach me at adonahue@leg.state.vt.us. Thank you for the honor of representing you.

March 9, 2018 Legislative Update

Legislative Update

Rep. Anne Donahue

March 9, 2018

As we return from the town meeting week break, the most important bill of this year will be coming before us. Other subjects may capture bigger short-term headlines, but it is taxes and expenditures that are the largest responsibility of government. Several things are combining to raise the possibility of significant changes in our tax structures this year.

First, there has finally been some momentum on changing how we fund education. Second, the changes in the federal tax code for next year have a big impact on Vermont, because our state taxes are currently directly tied to the federal formula. If nothing was changed, it would mean a $30 million bump in state income tax revenues: in other words, a $30 million tax increase. Third, under Governor Scott’s leadership, we are finally trying to address the inequity of taxing retirees Social Security benefits. Vermont is one of only six states that fully taxes them.

The House Ways and Means Committee has voted out a bill that addresses these things together, which allows for some trade-offs between the lines. Trade-offs meaning, if we stop taxing the first $40,000 (single) or $60,000 (2-income) of Social Security benefits as per the plan, the money has to come from somewhere else. So although the new proposed structure for the Vermont income tax is intended to keep everything as much the same as possible for individuals, not all the money will be returned.

The new system would mean we will no longer be able to file Vermont returns by just transferring numbers from our federal returns. There would be a state personal exemption, standard deduction and charitable deduction, and a new, lower marginal rate. (Don’t forget: lower rates do not automatically mean lower taxes – a lower rate on more taxable income would mean taxes stay the same.)

The education funding proposal would create a new income tax surcharge that would shift about 10 percent of education revenues away from property taxes. The new surcharge on income would be a rate ranging from 0.1 percent on lowest bracket, 0.5 percent for middle brackets, and one percent on highest income brackets. The estimated reduction in the education property tax rate for Berlin (at its $17,465 per pupil cost) would be from $1.78 to $1.65, and for income sensitivity, from 2.94 percent to 2.74 percent. For Northfield ($14,808 per pupil cost) the property tax rate would drop from $1.45 to $1.26, and the income tax rate from 2.45 to 2.09 percent.

This makes a small change in where the taxes would come from – property versus income – so no one should be fooled into thinking that overall taxes are going down just because property taxes dip. In fact, the big concern I’ve heard is that the change could result in an easing of the property tax pressure, resulting in approval of big increases in school budgets. On the flip side, the mechanism would create a more obvious and direct impact on local towns if they are high-spending, instead of those costs being spread across the state. That could make local communities feel more empowered over local budgets. It’s pretty dispiriting under the current system when a community bites the bullet to keep budgets low, only to see taxes still go up because other towns spend more.

The current bill is a big change from what was being discussed just a few weeks ago, which involved a much bigger shift to the income tax and elimination of “income sensitivity” – because the new income tax would have addressed protection of low income homeowners. The revision also means failure of the goal of making the system easier to understand, since much of the structure will remain the same.

All these proposals have a long way to go before becoming law, because once they pass the House, the bill starts anew in the Senate, which may have its own idea about what changes should be made. Stay tuned – and share your input.

***

Sometimes only the big issues hit the news. For a sense of the backlogs of bills that are on the calendar the day we return (a result of the deadline for bills to be out of House committees if they are to have a chance before the Senate this year), here is just a sampling from the list, from mundane to major.

H. 907 Improving rental housing safety

H. 909 Technical and clarifying changes in transportation-related laws.

H. 910 The Open Meeting Law and the Public Records Act

H. 911 Changes in Vermont’s personal income tax and education financing system

H. 599 Games of chance organized by nonprofit organizations

H. 620 State-owned airports and economic development

H. 707 The prevention of sexual harassment

H. 736 Lead poisoning prevention

H. 766 Creating a homeowner’s rehabilitation tax credit

H. 780 The inspection of amusement rides

H. 802 Rural economic development infrastructure districts

H. 831 Funding for an accelerated weatherization program

H. 854 Promoting television and film production

H. 874 Inmate access to prescription drugs

H. 894 Pensions, retirement, and setting the contribution rates for municipal employees

H. 903 Regenerative farming

Feel free to ask me more if any of these pique your interest.

After this week, the House will begin to focus on what the Senate has sent us, and vice-versa.

***

Examples of routine House bills that came through the week before the break that were passed on mostly unanimous voice votes were:

H. 684 Office of Professional Responsibility. Annual update of professions regulated by OPR. I heard a lot of concerns about discontinuance of licensing to permit persons to do ear acupuncture for substance use treatment. Because the committee took in depth testimony on both sides, I accepted its judgement and voted in support.

H. 711 Crime Victims Protections. Requires unpaid time off for persons who need to testify as crime victims.

H. 728 Bail Reform. Prohibits money bail for misdemeanors. Bail – even low amounts for small crimes – can mean that poor folks sit in jail waiting for trial, which those who can afford it, get out. That’s not exactly justice.

H. 901. Health Information Technology. A bill passed by my committee setting strict standards for the Vermont Information Technology Leaders (a public-private partnership in charge of Vermont’s health information exchange) to get its act together or face defunding next year. VITL has been flying under the radar for years, getting state funds and not showing good results.

H. 378. Creation of an Artificial Intelligence Committee. Do we need to regulate this newly emerging technology? Maybe not – but we better find out.

H. 615. Prohibiting use of drones near correctional facilities. Now, that was a no-brainer!

H. 726. Creating a voluntary pollinator-friendly solar-generator standard. An effort to prevent false claims that a solar site is being managed to provide greater benefits to pollinators and shrub-dependent birds.

H. 614. Sale and use of fireworks. Prohibits use between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., except for New Year’s and the Fourth of July.

***

The contentious bills of last week:

H. 237. Saliva Testing. A roadside test is now available that shows whether one of seven drugs (including legal ones) are in your system, but without any indication of whether they are at a level that can impair driving. Yet, allowing this test could result in an officer deciding to hold you, or release you, on what is essentially invalid evidence. Even an amendment that required that testing devices meet the same standards as breath testing devices failed. There was extensive debate over two days on this bill. I voted no; it passed easily. I think the legitimate anxiety about increased driving with marijuana-impairment after legalization on July 1 drove this bill forward. It’s a valid concern but a bad way to address it.

H. 675. Conditions of Release. This small, non-controversial bill clarified the right of judges to order defendants to not possess weapons when released pending a trial on criminal charges.  Because any bill can become a “vehicle” for other topics as long as they are germane to the underlying bill, it turned into the most controversial bill since the marijuana debate in January.

The Senate had just passed its “Extreme Risk Protection” bill on a 30-0 vote, creating an avenue for immediate judicial orders to take away a person’s weapons in cases where a crime had not occurred, but there was evidence of significant danger to a person (suicide) or to others (homicide.) The Senate had taken weeks of testimony to strike a balance between safety and defendant rights, but the House Judiciary Committee had just passed a bill based on two days of rushed process that changed that balance, setting a lower standard for taking guns away, and allowing it for a year instead of 60 days.

House Judiciary had added its own domestic violence bill, which had passed the House last year but was sitting in the Senate because it had become unnecessary – the Extreme Risk bill covered those circumstances, and many more. I had voted against the House bill last year because of constitutional problems.

The Senate bill could have gone straight to the governor the Friday before town meeting if it had passed the House. Any changes meant a long delay with conference committees between the two bodies. I tried to get the Senate bill in front of the House through amending H. 675 to incorporate what the Senate had passed. The House leadership then called a two-hour break to propose an amendment that matched the bill that House Judiciary had passed.

Since the Speaker has discretion over which amendment to take up first, she chose the House Judiciary version of the Extreme Risk bill. After extended debate, it passed, 93-46. The domestic violence portion, which had been changed to allow judicial review in one day, passed 112 to 28, with my support, since the due process issue had been corrected. After that, the handwriting was on the wall. My deferred amendment gained some crossover votes from those who had voted for the House version to match the Senate bill, but failed, 85-53.

There will be much more to come on gun safety initiatives in the weeks to come, and many long conference committee hours before we have final House and Senate votes. Unfortunately, most of the remaining proposals are “feel good” reactions that actually address nothing about the true safety issues.

***

Please stay in touch as you hear about issues affecting you and to keep me informed about your views. You can reach me at adonahue@leg.state.vt.us. Thank you for the honor of representing you. My blog of legislative updates can be found at representativeannedonahue.blogspot.com.