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…
No comments:
Post a Comment