Legislative Update, January 28, 2023

 I’m someone who believes that transparency is a bedrock of our democracy. The fact that any citizen can walk in or out of our state house and in or out of any committee room to see what is happening, really matters.

We both lost and gained with COVID. Having to convert to remote lawmaking was a major loss to interpersonal legislative dynamics. But that conversion also meant the installation of new technology, and now anyone can watch a committee from any part of the state, include archived videos of prior meetings.

Being back in person should mean that, even with the ongoing remote access, we are back to open doors and open access. In theory, we are. Capacity limits are a bit tighter than they used to be. No more allowing small committee rooms with standing room only, becoming winter breeding grounds for winter colds and worse. But the doors are otherwise open.

That was until this past week, when the House Appropriations Committee made a temporary move to a meeting space in the executive office building next door. (It was getting its new committee room, a former large meeting space, spruced up; nothing essential.) That building has restricted access. To get in, you need to have identification on you, and sign in to get a guest pass. Other committees are also planning to use that space at times.

Most people seemed to think it was no big deal. I think it is a big deal, and I made an objection on the House floor. I don’t know that it will make any difference. But when we start taking open public access too lightly, it becomes easy to keep sliding farther away from considering transparency as a bedrock.

***

Another internal debate: now that we’ve learned how handy it can be to participate remotely, should we create some allowances for voting remotely? (In committee only, not on the House floor.) We ended that special COVID authority at the end of last year, but as with workplaces across the country, some folks want to hold onto the new accessibility.

In the past, voting in person was sacrosanct. If you were out sick, you could participate by speakerphone, but you didn’t count as part of a quorum and could not vote. Our Rules Committee (I am a member) is now reconsidering this policy. Suggestions on limits are being debated: COVID-only? A sick child or a childcare or school closure (snow day)? Dangerous travel in a snowstorm? 

The argument for flexibility has some added weight when we consider that we want to encourage more diversity – more younger folks, who are more likely to have kids to worry about – among candidates for office. It was never an issue before because we never had the capacity for visual participation before. If you couldn’t make it for a day, then it meant you couldn’t make it that day.  

The question for me is, just because we can, should we? There is something about seeing people eye-to-eye. There is something to maintaining the gravitas of what we are doing by requiring that you be physically present to vote. We’ll continue the discussion in the Rules Committee and likely vote next week (in person) on whether to do a trial run, and if so, with what limitations.

***

Speaking of diversity, that’s the primary argument behind new efforts to make it more affordable to be a legislator. A bill introduced in the Senate would require that legislators receive full health coverage and childcare reimbursement along with a one-quarter salary for the work done during the off-session (May-Dec.) The current salary and expense stipends add up to about $20,000 for the 16 weeks; there is no health care support at all.

The suggested benefits would exceed what anyone else is guaranteed in their employment and would cost taxpayers a lot of money. On the other hand, other jobs don’t have the issue of ensuring equity in representation in one’s government.

***

The post-COVID crash will start arriving in the next couple of months: the loss of the added federal supports for individuals that have poured in for the past two years. For those who have become accustomed to them, it will come as a hardship. 

Those receiving “3Squares” (our Vermont name for food stamps) have been receiving a supplemental payment each month. The mid-month payment will end when the federal budget cuts it off after March.

In addition, states were told to suspend “redeterminations” for Medicaid during COVID. That’s the annual process of checking that a person is still eligible. That, too, is coming to an end. Even folks who remain fully eligible need to ensure that their address is up to date for Medicaid notices. If you are on a Medicaid plan, and you’ve moved in the past three years you might not get the notices that tell you what you need to do to stay enrolled – and you could get cut off.

Extra emergency housing benefits paid with federal funds are also expiring at the end of March. The governor’s budget has added some $15m in state funds for next year to help the most vulnerable folks (families with children, seniors, and those with disabilities) gain a bit more time and support in finding more permanent housing.

But in the Human Services Committee, we are already beginning to hear the pleas from community organizations for extra help. There will be plenty more as we review the human services budget over the next several weeks.

The Vermont Food Bank is seeing increased demand and higher costs. They testified last week asking for $3m. Home health providers are having payment rates by Medicare cut. Since Medicaid already underpays, those services are facing a severe shortfall – and they are crucial for helping people get out of the hospital or avoid going into hospitals and nursing homes.

Parent-child centers are telling us that without $5m in added funding for salary and other inflationary pressures, they may have to limit their services to struggling families. Senior centers are coping with an aging volunteer corps and rising costs. It costs about $12 per meal they provide, and they are reimbursed about $5.50 each.

The local agencies that provide community services for those with mental health and developmental needs – an area which has faced decades of budget shortfalls and is experiencing unprecedented increases in demand – is receiving no rate increase in this year’s governor’s budget. Not receiving a rate increase amounts to a budget cut in the face of inflationary costs.

Even small programs create tough choices. For the past several years, the Junior League of the Champlain Valley has stepped up with a new volunteer initiative to create a “diaper bank” for families in need; diapers cost some $80/month, we were told, which is a big bite out of a minimum wage salary. The League testified that they can’t maintain the emergency project and its significant growth. It is asking for $380,000 for the state to fund the program. 

Meanwhile, we’re also facing some major new costs over the next several years to build and operate at least three new locked treatment programs for justice-involved juveniles with violent behaviors. We closed the only existing one a few years ago. The numbers will keep growing as we continue the “raise the age” law passed several years ago that converts many young adults into juveniles handled by Family Court, currently up from age 17 to 19 and due to move to 20 this July.

Meanwhile, we are making little progress on rebuilding the state’s workforce, which is contributing to high health care costs and reduced progress on other initiatives. The agency in charge of the weatherization program for low-income homes (saving both heating costs and environmental damage) testified last week that progress has been slowed by the backlog in weatherization workforce capacity.

To understand the scope of the healthcare workforce impact, one has only to look at this year’s budget adjustment request for operating costs of the Vermont Psychiatric Care Hospital. Despite having budgeted for the need for travelling nurses (provided by agencies at three or more times the cost), more were needed than projected, resulting in the need for $11m to be added to the current budget. Despite that, four of its 25 beds currently remain closed because of staffing shortages. For context: the annual budget pre-COVID was about $23m/year, so $11m more is a 50% increase to the operating budget. 

Money has to come from somewhere and ultimately, it is all from our pockets. As we look to balance the budget, I think that addressing existing programs must come before creating new ones. That makes me highly leery of the talk of creating paid family leave programs, super-charging childcare support (beyond the $50m in added support the governor is already proposing) and using fuel tax increases as the mechanism for pushing for a reduction in carbon-fueled heating systems.

Even the governor’s proposed budget, though balanced without new taxes, adds to that pattern. It funds the creation of three new mental health response programs, for example, while cutting the existing ones. To make it worse, those new ones are “pilots” that come “cheap” to us because they receive a significantly higher federal match than the standard one. When that match rate drops in two years, we will have to either close them down or backfill with more state money. 

Closing down is much harder than not starting. We’re already seeing that as COVID funds go away and I don’t think we should be making it worse for the future. 

***

Please reach out anytime to your representatives – me (adonahue@leg.state.vt.us) or Ken Goslant (kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us) at any time. 

Legislative Update, January 15, 2023

Both Rep. Ken Goslant and I did “biweekly” updates last week, so this will be some shorter highlights as we get onto our usual alternating schedule.

The good news of the week is that the long tradition of Farmers Night has returned after a several-year COVID absence. These free performances in the House Chamber every Wednesday evening at 7:30 are a real treat and showcase some of our most talented Vermont performers, including the Vermont Symphony Orchestra. You can find the full schedule (Jan. 18 through April 12) at the bottom right of the legislature’s home page, legislature.vermont.gov

***

Committees are just getting organized, and bills just being submitted, so there’s been no action on the floor yet, but lots of media attention on the agenda for the controlling majority in both House and Senate. These include significant investments in childcare (from general funds); the family leave bill (via payroll tax); and climate change mitigation through home heating mandates (via fuel surcharges.) On top of inflationary pressures and an expected hike in school taxes, these could really add up, so each will require review with an eye to the whole package.

But I recognize that everyone has their own priorities, since I’m introducing a bill that would require new funding: the “65th Birthday Cliff” bill would address the disparity that currently occurs when older Vermonters lose financial assistance for health coverage as they go onto Medicare. Medicare has significant gaps, yet we change the low-income threshold for Medicaid support at that point.

***

The governor’s budget address is scheduled for this Friday, so we’ll be hearing his priorities. We are already reviewing the changes in the current budget he is proposing in the budget adjustment act. One item of concern to me is a $9m appropriation to fast-track construction of a children’s inpatient psychiatric unit at Southwestern Medical Center in Bennington. We do need to act quickly to meet critical mental health needs, but not so quickly that we make major investments that could be misguided.

Those kinds of mistakes can occur when public input is limited. I’m concerned that this would be in Bennington, when the only other hospital for children is in Brattleboro, causing significant challenges for families. We also need to ensure we aren’t investing in the highest, most expensive level of care without adequately funding programs in the community that could prevent a need for hospitalization. 

It’s worth asking why the state be paying to build a unit in a hospital, when all other types of care are part of the hospitals’ own capital investments? The answer is that hospitals get more revenue for care such as surgery while psychiatry loses money. Reforms need to align the actual costs with actual funding, both inpatient and outpatient, and we’ve made little progress on parity for mental health care. It shouldn’t be a surprise that mental health needs are skyrocketing when kids wait months to access child psychiatry.

The legislature has been pushing for steps towards integration of health care for decades, but we almost took a step backwards in our own language in another example of action taken too quickly without input. The Speaker wanted to change jurisdictions of our House committees. One was eliminated to bolster several others, and descriptions of all were revised. Input by the full legislature was limited to seeing the document an hour before the vote on it. Health care was renamed “physical and mental health care” – the lingo of segregation we eschewed a decade ago. I objected with a fair amount of passion and am happy to report that it was re-amended this past week to use our own current statutory language that describes an “integrated and holistic health care system.”

***

Berlin’s leadership took a key step this past week in getting a handle on the level of disruption that has been occurring because of the state paying to house homeless individuals and families at the Hilltop Inn. I had helped in encouraging the state to come to the table and sat in on a meeting with town officials and the police chief, owner representation from the Hilltop, a social service provider and the Commissioner and staff from the Department of Children and Families.

Berlin officials made it clear that they want to support homeless folks, but the minority who are bringing violence and drug issues are creating a huge burden on local police. The Inn’s management hasn’t taken any quick actions, and the town felt more support was needed by the state. It turned out that the Hilltop wasn’t aware that they can have people removed immediately if they are endangering others, but also needed help in getting clear details from the police calls. All the players will now be meeting weekly to see if problems can be resolved quickly when they crop up. I was particularly impressed by the Berlin manager, Vince Conti, in how he steered the discussion to stay on topic and work towards problem-solving.

***

Please reach out any time to Rep. Goslant or me, at KGoslant@leg.state.vt.us or ADonahue@leg.state.vt.us  It is a pleasure to serve you.

Legislative Update, Start of the 2023 Session

 

    Pomp and circumstance can get a bad rap sometimes. “Get over yourselves. Go to work.” Returning to it this week to open the 2023-4 legislative session after missing it in 2021 due to COVID reminded me of why it matters. It emphasizes for all of us the gravitas of what we are doing, representing the people of Vermont -- 150 representatives, 30 senators, a governor, and four other constitutional officers all pledging to uphold the constitution and to do our best together to promote the interests of our state.

The news media may focus on the governor’s inauguration and his inaugural address (his emphasis this year was equal opportunity for our rural areas), but every orchestrated piece of the ceremonies bear meaning. The National Guard escorts honored guests to the well of the House (the center section). This includes all past governors (Howard Dean, Jim Douglas and Peter Shumlin were all there), members of the Vermont Supreme Court, and the incoming state officers. They are Auditor Doug Hoffman, Secretary of State Sarah Copeland-Hansas, Attorney General Charity Clark, and Treasurer Michael Piechak. This year, only one is a returning official (Hoffman), which means a major transition in state leadership.

The Senate files in to its designated seats of honor in the House chambers; the Guard presents the colors; all join in the pledge. The Star-Spangled Banner was sung by none other than François Scarborough Clemmons, best known as Officer Clemmons on Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood and a resident of Vermont (I didn’t know that!) The student chorus from Middlebury Union High School sang “America the Beautiful” and “These Green Mountains.” There were two invocations and one benediction.

Some of the small traditions help carry the sense of weightiness and significance of the events. For example, a committee of six (three Representatives and three Senators) is formally appointed by the presiding officer (the Lieutenant Governor, who like reps and senators were sworn in the day before) to walk out in procession to the Governor’s office and then escort the governor-elect into the House chamber.

As commentator David Moats said later, “It was a grand day when Vermonters could feel pride in the governing institutions of their state, in their leaders, and in the spirit of community that unites people of widely different experiences and viewpoints. It was a day of patriotism in the old-fashioned sense.

“The inescapable contrast was evident to anyone who tuned in to the goings-on under way in the U.S. House of Representatives.”

***

Much of the feel-good will ebb away as we plunge into work and the controversies we will inevitably face. We elected a Republican Governor but a “super-majority” Democratic House and Senate, meaning majorities of more than two-thirds, thus capable of overturning any veto of legislative priorities.

There will be some restraint in the actions of the general assembly, since members know they will face elections in two years and would risk losing seats if they pressed farther left than the state’s voters want. Thus, while the voice of Republicans could theoretically be disregarded altogether, it will not become irrelevant. They will point out excesses and try to mitigate perceived harms.

Perhaps most importantly, they will keep alive the role that I have always believed to be most essential to our democratic process: that it is in the robust debate of different perspectives and the melting pot of ideas that we develop the best paths forward on difficult issues.

That segues directly to a discussion of my committee appointment in the House, which drew some media attention.

For all my previous 20 years in the House, I have had a significant focus on mental health and am well known for that work. I speak above all for those, like me, who have faced the challenges of mental illness. That comes within the context of our overall health care system with its failures and gaps. I have been part of the team working urgently to attempt to address growing costs and the need for equity in access. For the past six years, I have been vice-chair of the House Health Care Committee. Less than two years ago, the Speaker referred to the committee chair and me as her “A-Team” in health care.

Last fall, I took on a vocal, statewide volunteer role speaking out in opposition to passing Article 22, the constitutional amendment on reproductive rights. I’ll not repeat here the long discussion of the differing perspectives and why I believed presenting the opposing view was so important. The amendment was not only a priority of the Democratic majority and the Speaker but was also of great personal importance to her, a former policy director for Planned Parenthood. So, this past week, she punished me by removing my vice-chair position and my health care committee membership altogether.

It did not come as a surprise to me. I knew from the start that there was a political risk to be outspoken on the issue. But I felt compelled to follow my own moral compass and speak out for what I believed in. I heard from others that she was under pressure from allies to demote me. In mid-December, I was told I would be moved to the Commerce Committee, which covers subjects for which I have no background. A few days before the start of the session, that was changed to the Human Services Committee.

What saddened me greatly was not so much the move, but the inability of the Speaker to put core principles of free speech and public debate ahead of differences of opinion. If a person with a position that is contrary to that of the ruling majority can be punished for speaking out publicly, there is a chilling effect on all debate over controversial subjects. Regardless of any specific topic, it bodes poorly for the democratic process. As Voltaire said, “I disagree with what you say, but I defend to death your right to say it.”

The move smacks of the Washington politics that we try so much to hold as a contrast to ourselves. It is not what we sometimes term, “the Vermont way” or what Moats called “the spirit of community that unites people of widely different experiences and viewpoints.”

The Speaker denied her decision was retribution, but her explanations did not hold much water. She told news media that it was a part of her effort to balance committee needs given an unprecedented number of new incoming legislators and the unprecedented number of committee chairs who retired last year and had to be replaced. She noted that those new chairs needed to have their committees balanced between taking in new members and having support from experienced ones. Yet she played that out in my case by flipping me with a 14-year member of the Human Services Committee. Rep. Topper McFaun from Barre Town became vice-chair of Health Care and I took his slot as ranking member of Human Services. Both those committees have first-time chairs, and both of those chairs have worked for years alongside each of us on those committees; we each have developed expertise in the committee subject matters. Topper himself strongly objected to being moved from Human Services.  

I think it was the voters of Northfield and Berlin who represented “the Vermont way.” You overwhelmingly disagreed with my position on Article 22 at roughly the same as the statewide average, 75 percent. And yet you honored me with the top number of votes to return as your representative, significantly ahead of a pro-Article 22 candidate. The message was clear (and some said it directly to me last fall): We do not agree with you on the reproductive liberty issue, but we respect the work you do for our district and state as a whole and will continue to support you. Many specifically referenced my work in mental health.

I won’t stop working on mental health, although my role will be as an advocate rather than a participating member of a legislative committee. I won’t stop working for constituents, or listening to your perspectives, whether they differ from mine or not. And I will put as much energy into my new committee as I did my old, rebuilding my existing knowledge of its subjects of jurisdiction, which include childcare, Reach-Up, services for elders and those with developmental disabilities, neglect and abuse, and related topics.

***

Rep. Ken Goslant, my district-mate, has been reappointed to the Judiciary Committee, where he has now built four years of expertise in its jurisdictional matters.

As we begin this new session, do keep in mind that some of the controversial and high-profile issues that predominate the media are often not the most fundamental matters for the future of our state. The legislature’s largest responsibility is the state budget, which shapes our priorities both in revenue and spending choices. Our future also rests on workforce development, the education of our children, social equity, and climate change resiliency. But whether big or small, please remember that both Ken and I want very much to hear from you when you have concerns or perspectives to share. He can be reached at kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us, and I am at adonahue@leg.state.vt.us

Best for the New Year to all.

Anne

 

For those who may be interested, I’m going to supplement this update with a section of the report that new member Gina Galfetti of Barre Town sent to her constituents, since it covers another first-day event that I had not included, since my updates are already so long. But this is a good summary:

During lunch, at 12:23pm to be precise, we were sent an email giving notice of a Resolution that we were to consider for the afternoon. And this is where things got interesting. In an unprecedented move, the majority party had decided to put a rather weighty item up for our consideration with little prior notice. I say consideration rather generously, for what could 51 new members know, having never engaged in a committee meeting let alone floor debate?

The Resolution H.R. 4 was a complete overhaul of the House’s committee structure. The resolution eliminated long standing committees such as Fish and Wildlife and replaced them with things like “Energy and the Environment” and “Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry.” It also tasked multiple Committees with the same tasks in what is sure to create troubling overlap in the future.  The Resolution proposed to eliminate a number of committee chairmanships and completely alter the makeup of long-standing committees. At a time when 51 new members would have certainly changed the makeup of many committees anyway, and continuity and institutional knowledge would be needed, this Resolution dropped like a bomb on the stability of the House.  

When we returned to the floor, few members — especially first-year members — had any idea what was going on. The Speaker gaveled up into session, and the Resolution was put up to vote. One lone voice of questioning arose, and that was from Representative Anne Donahue of Northfield. Donahue proceeded to question one of the sponsors of the Resolution as to its meaning and scope. The sponsors of the bill scrambled to answer questions and soon Donahue was hushed up without getting any good answers to her questions.

 As Donahue sat shaking her head, the Resolution was passed and business returned to “normal” with the assignments of committees taking place…