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.
No comments:
Post a Comment