It
seems almost inconceivable that my last update was only two weeks ago, because
our world has changed so radically since then. That Saturday morning, I wrote:
“As
I stood up on the House floor early Friday evening to report the emergency
response bill from my Health Care Committee, I shared that it felt a bit odd to
talk about a crisis based on two people being sick in all of Vermont. But I
pointed out that the time to make sure the lifejackets are on hand is when the
boat springs a leak, not when it is sinking.”
That
evening, we closed the legislature for a week. This past Wednesday, we declared
a legislative emergency in effect through May 1. We also voted to pass our
COVID-19 emergency legislation, which had finally arrived back from the Senate
with its recommended changes. The Governor is expected to sign it Monday.
The
interim two weeks have been a blur of lost days, with countless hours listening
in on phone conferences and hardly ever getting out of the chair in my home
office. I’ve never been much of a Facebook user, but suddenly I was on it
constantly, trying to pass on updates from the various state agencies on school
closings, business closings, unemployment, and health care.
I’m
grateful to Front Porch Forum, which eliminated its monthly cap on postings for
legislators providing information to their towns. It has really expanded its
vital role as a communications base for many folks.
This
past week, my House Health Care Committee began to meet remotely to assess what
essential work needs to continue, and what bills should be abandoned for now.
It’s a learning curve to watch oneself and one’s colleagues on a laptop screen,
gallery-style, knowing that same screen is live streaming on YouTube.
It
feels more public and transparent to be sitting in a room surrounded by
chairs occupied by any member of the public that walks in. Yet now, anyone can
turn on a computer and watch the proceedings; we just can’t see them.
(If
you want to try it, go to the legislative web site – legislature.vermont.gov –
and choose the “committee” drop-down tab. Pick a Senate of House committee and
check its agenda to see when it meets. The “live stream” link is right on the
committee page.)
We
can’t meet as often, because the IT capacity only allows for a certain number
of committees to function at the same time, so we are tightly scheduled.
Our
first two meetings this week were focused on getting updates from the
administration on the efforts to increase health care access during the
pandemic, and to prepare for the near-certain surge to come.
One
of the most important updates was about the new “open enrollment” period for
Vermont Health Connect: the ability to sign up between now and April 17 if you
do not currently have insurance (usually, it would require waiting for the
annual enrollment period in the fall.)
If
you lose health insurance because of job loss – or even if your premium is now
far too expensive because of reduced income – there is never a waiting period,
so it’s important to check your options on Vermont Health Connect.
Your
new eligibility could include Medicaid or a very substantial premium reduction.
Call 855-899-9600 or (particularly because there may be a phone backlog that
develops) go to https://portal.healthconnect.vermont.gov/VTHBELand/welcome.action.
***
Non-spoiler
alert: this next section is going to get deep into the weeds of inner workings
of House processes, so unless you are a person fascinated by process, you might
want to stop reading now. The big explosion last week in the House made for
splashy news coverage, but the real story was far murkier than the headlines
suggested.
But
if detailed machinations of politics intrigue you, then I wrote this for you.
As
a member of the House Rules Committee, I was deeply involved in the challenging
discussions about shifting our entire legislative process from the House
chamber to a system of remote participation and voting for 150 members.
Once
it became clear that we would not be able to return to Montpelier and go about business
as usual in a week, or even a month, conversations began about those alternatives.
Our
state constitution itself says that the General Assembly shall not reconvene “to
any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting,” and that,
“The doors of the House in which the General Assembly of this Commonwealth
shall sit, shall be open for the admission of all persons who behave decently,
except only when the welfare of the State may require them to be shut.”
In
order to meet through remote technology, we had to temporarily amend our House
operating rules, and do so in a way that upheld not only the words of the
constitution, but also our own oaths taken as stewards of a representative
democracy.
Would
it even be possible to debate bills, question other members, offer amendments,
and vote – in short, to do our jobs representing our constituents -- from a
computer screen?
Within
the Rules Committee, a divide emerged. The four Democrats, headed by the House
Speaker, believed that technology was more than adequate to the challenge, and
we should be able to handle any business at hand. We would be “conducting our
business” from the House floor, as required, but participating from afar.
The
three Republicans believed that debate and representation would be seriously
impaired. We agreed that there were critical bills that had to be addressed,
and that it would be a public health issue to meet in person, but felt that
remote proceedings should be regarded as a limited emergency response only to address
essential bills.
The
phone conference on Tuesday last more than five hours, and at one point, it
seemed that we were stalemated, because the Speaker was not willing for the resolution
effectuating an emergency rules change to be limited in any way in terms of the
number or type of bills that would be voted on remotely.
So
why not just outvote the Republicans, and push the change through on a 4-3
committee vote to bring it to the House floor?
The
problem was that we needed to reach consensus: 100% consensus among the entire 150-member
House.
No
one wanted the entire House to reconvene for a vote on the two issues that were
in front of us (the rules change, and the COVID-19 bill), given the status of
the coronavirus spread. Yet we could not change the rules to vote remotely without
a vote to do it, on the House floor.
There
is a technical way to proceed – assuming complete consensus. A quorum is
assumed to exist if no member rises to challenge whether there is a quorum. But
if it is challenged, then members must be counted, and at least 76 of 150 must
be present.
We
have never, in my years there, actually taken action without a quorum. We
sometimes have what is termed a “token session.” We schedule to meet on a
Monday (when the legislature is usually closed) in order to move the notice
calendar and not lose a day. The House is gaveled to order, and is immediately
gaveled out. Only the one person gaveling needs to be there, but it results in
moving the bills from the notice calendar to the action calendar for Tuesday.
By
longstanding tradition, one other person always attends: a representative of
the minority party for that session. That is because if there was no one
present to ask the magic question – “Madam/Mister Speaker, do we have a
quorum?” – then in fact, that single presiding member could pass a whole stack
of bills. The quorum, unchallenged, is assumed and the actions are valid.
In
the extraordinary circumstances we faced this past week, we needed to take a
vote about changing the rule to permit remote voting, yet wanted to act without
an actual quorum in order to avoid having a large group of people gathering in
Montpelier to vote. Thus, the only way to achieve it was that full degree of consensus.
So,
we kept looking for a way to reach agreement. The Speaker remained adamant
about not limiting what bills could be addressed by remote vote, and I knew we
had members who would never support an unrestricted rule change. (And I was
among them.)
The
Speaker was convinced that after some trial runs, in a few weeks when we had
the first of our new bills ready for a vote, members would become comfortable
with the technology and feel confident in their ability to meet their
constitutional obligations.
Voting
to make the change this week, however, would in effect make it irreversible on
the part of any minority members who remained unpersuaded. Yet not voting this
week would mean having to convene again, even if only a few people.
I
proposed a compromise: vote this week with the members “in person”
(unofficially present, for the non-quorum vote) to authorize a later vote in
which everyone could participate remotely, and which would ratify the rule
change as long as ¾ of the members agreed.
In
that way, the Speaker would have the opportunity to have practice sessions
proceed but not have to return for a vote later, because the ratification vote
would be authorized to be, itself, a remote vote.
Even
though the resolution would still have no limitations on the type of bills that
might be addressed by remote voting, I felt the ¾ vote would protect those who
were most worried about the ability to function fully, because it would require
far more than a simple majority to force the change upon them later.
There
was pushback to make it a 2/3rds vote, but I was not willing to go further.
I
knew that left me with having to convince those members in my caucus that this
was enough protection for them that they would agree to proceed with passing
the resolution this week. Otherwise, any one person could block the compromise
by showing up and asking whether there was a quorum.
(I
warned you that this report was deep into the weeds of process. But it was more
than process. Core constitutional principles were also at stake.)
It
was now Tuesday evening, and in fact the Speaker’s email to all members to
explain this brand-new proposal did not go out until just after midnight, with
the House scheduled to convene (without a quorum) and vote at 1 p.m. on
Wednesday.
We
had, of course, ended up with a proposal to enact a resolution that would
authorize a remote vote on the issue of whether we could vote remotely. I
didn’t think of it in exactly that way, but it was the actual effect.
For
one member, this whole series of events crossed a line of any acceptable or
constitutional process.
So,
when the dozen or so of us gathered in the House chambers to vote – acting on
the faith of those who accepted what we were going to do on their behalf – that
member stood up and asked, “Madam Speaker, do we have a quorum?”
It
stunned everyone, because there was no warning that someone was planning to not
collaborate in the staged process. It was also a surprise because the objector
was a member of the Speaker’s own party.
But
I know that if I had felt as she did, that we were about to enact a rule that
violated my constitutional oath, and to do it without even having a quorum
present, I would have done the same thing. In fact, if we had not reached the ¾
vote compromise, it could well have been me, standing there.
This
member was publicly lambasted and later penalized (she was demoted from her
committee) for placing the public health at risk by forcing a quorum of
legislators to come from across the state to gather in the chamber and vote.
What
she did, the Speaker said, was to “put principle above public health.”
Perhaps.
But then again, maybe the health risk was not overwhelming given that the 80 or
so members that quickly assembled were able to spread across all points of the large
chamber and then leave again quickly after the vote.
The
day before, the Senate gathered a 17-member quorum in its much smaller chamber
to vote on our COVID-19 bills and chose not to authorize remote voting. They
will have to return again to vote out any other bills, or for any future rules
change.
We
also did not have to vote for that resolution, at that time or even that
day. The Speaker could have reconsidered whether the member’s objections were
sound; we could have looked for further compromise. It was her decision to move
forward by calling in the troops.
And
principle, especially constitutional principle, actually matters, a lot. As someone else noted later, “All too
often in times of crisis we are willing to allow our rights to be diminished in
the name of safety or expediency.”
Finally,
achieving the vote Wednesday did not actually bring about a full solution. The
Speaker still will have to convince ¾ of the membership that they can
effectively represent their constituents using remote technology.
Otherwise,
it will be back to square one to hammer out a new agreement – which will itself
require a new, in-person vote.
***
Feel
free to get in touch any time with Rep. Goslant and me. There is a lot going
on, so if you have questions about something – ask. If we don’t know, we can find
out for you. It is an honor to serve you. (kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us; adonahue@leg.state.vt.us)
