This is the time of the session when legislators are spending most of the time in committee, delving deeply into bills that are expected to move this year. There is little action on the floor because bills have not been voted out of committees yet. It’s a slow time for the news media, which typically only has the bandwidth for headliner items, not complex testimony. That means picking up on juicy-sounding bills, even if they are not being seriously considered.
Legislators have received a massive
onslaught of email – more than on virtually any bill I can remember – urging us
to vote “no” on H. 113, a bill that would deny tax-exempt status to nonprofit
organizations that do political lobbying. They are all cut and paste messages
and mostly coming from Chittenden County, though many writers are not
identifying their town. (If I haven’t answered a local constituent, my
apologies.) Cookie-cutter messages being sent to every legislator rarely get
given much weight regardless, but in this case, it’s a bill that isn’t on any
committee agenda, and closely aligns with existing federal law.
So be on guard! Ask Rep. Ken Goslant or me
if you’ve seen something of concern, and we’ll find out if it is being taken
seriously in a committee. If you want to follow where any committee is
focusing, the best bet is to scan every Monday on the weekly agenda posting. Go
to legislature.vermont.gov, click on “Committees” and go to the far right
column. Scroll down and click on “complete weekly schedule.”
***
What Is Getting Attention?
Beyond next year’s state budget and the
question of taxes to fund new initiatives, the range of current hot topics with
big price tags include paid family leave, making universal school lunches
permanent, expanding support for childcare, and housing.
More and more, housing and childcare are
being tied into the workforce shortage crisis, arguing that more availability
would draw more folks to Vermont. Some people with job offers are turning them
down because they can’t find housing; some of the folks temporarily sheltered
in hotels are stuck because they can’t find housing. I support the ongoing
investments there, and the recognition that part of the problem that needs to
be addressed are state and local construction barriers. If we want more people
to fill empty jobs (and to contribute to our economy) we need to be more
welcoming of all types of housing in our communities.
I’m less sure about how much of a role
government should have in childcare. That bill will be in my committee over the
next several weeks, and I’ll be paying close attention to the testimony. The
component that is stirring the most controversy right now is the argument for
and against folding 4-year-olds into the school system instead of maintaining
the current public-private system.
Last year, I understood and supported the
rationale for expanding free school lunches to every child, but it was paid
with one-time money and the talk was of continuing it in the future with an
increase in the sales tax. “One-time” becomes momentum to keep it going, and
using the regressive sales tax would mean – in simplistic terms – taxing the
poor to feed the wealthy. It was a tough call for me, but I voted against it. I’m
glad to see a broader look this year. It would make more sense if absorbed as
part of the cost of educating our children, by including it in school budgets.
***
Focused Issues
Some of the issues getting committee
attention include increasing consumer protection for data privacy, legalizing
sports betting, creating a mechanism via miles travelled to have e-cars
contribute to road maintenance taxes (since they don’t pay in to the gas tax),
responses to our high suicide rates, the crisis with kids’ mental health, and
assaults of health care workers.
I went to a presentation and emergency
room tour at Central Vermont Medical Center last week to hear about workforce
and financial stresses along with assaults. Generally, under Vermont law, if
there isn’t an arrest warrant and it’s not a felony, a person can only receive
a citation rather than be taken into custody. Our society is getting more
short-tempered and aggressive and that’s carrying over into emergency rooms. But
if a nurse is assaulted, the police can only cite the person, not remove them
from the scene. That doesn’t make a lot of sense. I support expanding health
facilities to the situations where the police can remove someone. CVMC was clear
that no one would be removed if they remained actively needing treatment – but
they would then be under police custody until able to be discharged.
Another high-profile issue is a plan by
the administration to change state employee retiree health benefits from the
standard Medicare supplemental coverage to a Medicare Advantage plan. The
assertion is that nothing will change in the benefits but it will save money
for both retiree premiums and the state (meaning, taxpayers.) I’ve just gone
through the complicated transition to Medicare and know a lot of detail about
how each works.
But the bottom line here is that existing
law says the retiree plan must remain the same as the negotiated plan for
current employees. I strongly agree that if there is going to be a change, it’s
the administration’s job to sell the beneficiaries on why it is better. Our retirees
are currently not the least bit convinced. A deal is a deal. Follow the law: get
buy-in or drop the idea.
***
In My Committee
The Human Services Committee is working on
a broad rewrite of our old laws on protection of adults who are vulnerable to
abuse based on age or disability. It’s a complicated bill and though we’re
mostly finished with testimony, it will take at least a week of “mark-up,” the
process of going through the bill to make revisions. We will also be starting
on a bill to add measures to the arsenal of tools for fighting the drug
epidemic.
We divided into teams to review different
sections of the proposed budget relevant to our committee’s jurisdiction for
offering recommendations to the Appropriations Committee. I’m working on the
proposed for an assortment of new facilities for juveniles charged with crimes
who are under the custody of the Department of Children and Families, not
Corrections.
We closed and demolished the up-to-30-beds
Woodside facility several years ago. It was serving fewer than five or six kids
and was under court oversight for abuses. Now the state’s decided we do need
some locked capacity for youth who present an active danger or who need
intensive residential treatment; it’s suggesting at least three smaller new programs.
The most immediate would be a short-term lock-up (called a stabilization
program) for up to eight kids, but the need is perceived as too urgent to wait
the four to six years (???) it takes to build a new state facility.
Thus, the current proposal is for a
temporary facility constructed with ten modular units on the grounds of the
Northwestern Correctional Center; price tag, around $4 million. We want to
ensure there is input from families and other experts for its design. This will
be a multi-committee subject since the Institutions Committee oversees state
capital funds and the Judiciary Committee addresses legal issues.
It all ties into the “raise-the-age”
initiative of the past several years that recognizes the science of brain
development of 18-to-20-year-olds in terms of the ability to make adult
decisions. I could say a lot about my views on the pros-and-cons of handling
young adults in Family Court rather than Criminal Court, but it would be far
too detailed for this space. I’ll leave it at saying there are definitely both
pros and cons.
***
My Work
I made an unsuccessful attempt to have the
legislature commit to closer evaluation of the planning underway for the state
to pay to develop a children’s inpatient psychiatric unit at Southwestern
Vermont Medical Center. Kids’ needs are urgent, but is Bennington the right
place when the only other place in Vermont is currently in Brattleboro? And is
this the best target for spending big dollars, versus in urgent care and
community support? Why would this be state money, anyway? If a new surgery
suite was needed, a hospital would be the one to pay for it.
I think if these beds are needed, they
belong attached to our only Children’s Hospital, at UVMMC in Burlington. But
UVMMC, which has been saying it has no money for new construction and is under
huge financial stress, has just announced plans to construct a new surgery center.
It reflects a sad reality of our totally mucked-up health care financing system
and the failure to achieve parity in treatment of mental health. Inpatient
psychiatry is under-reimbursed and loses money. Surgery is highly reimbursed
and stabilizes a hospital’s revenue. Hospitals must opt for financial stability
over identifying the highest community need. So, it’s the state budget that must
build psychiatric beds.
***
Protecting Health Providers
The one significant bill on the House
floor this past week addressed protecting health providers from being
prosecuted or sued from out of state for providing services that are legal in
Vermont. It focused on reproductive services such as abortion and gender treatment
or surgery.
Vermont is one of only two states in the
country that does not cover the flip side of this issue: protection against
discrimination for providers who do not want to participate for reasons of
conscience. Bills have been introduced but not taken up. I introduced an
amendment to add conscience protection to the out-of-state interference
protection. It was ruled not germane, so I voted against the bill in protest
(knowing the reasonable underlying bill would pass easily, which it did,
130-13.)
***
No comments:
Post a Comment