Legislative Update, Veto Session
Rep. Anne Donahue, with Rep. Ken Goslant
This year’s legislative session is
officially over with the completion last week of overrides votes on several
vetoes by the Governor. There were no great surprises because the Democrats
have a supermajority. That means having enough votes to override any veto. Both
Rep. Ken Goslant and I are scared by the outcome in terms of the cost increases.
We don’t think that increasing state spending by 13 percent, and raising taxes
to achieve it, is what Vermonters want to see.
While most of the new initiatives
being funded are good ones, responsible budgeting is about living within one’s
means by setting priorities, not by just starting up anything one might want. I
was in the legislature the last time we had a recession. We – and that includes
a Democratic majority at that time – had to go through incredibly painful
decisions about layoffs and program cuts. The more we overinflate the budget
now, the deeper those cuts might be if the economic indicators before us for
the next several years hold true. A majority of current legislators haven’t
experienced that and instead have been here at a time of extraordinary surplus
revenues. The only budget decisions have been where to spend money, not where
to hold the line. And in this budget, spend we did.
Nowhere is the challenge of cutting
something once it’s been created as evident this year as in addressing the
hotel program for those who are homeless. During the COVID emergency, group
emergency shelters that exposed multiple people could have led to disastrous
spread of virus. Separating people by using federal emergency money to place
them in hotel rooms made sense for everyone’s protection.
It was an “everyone in the door”
effort, including eliminating the standard requirement for all subsidized
housing in Vermont that people contribute a third of their income – no matter
how small, but never more than a third – to their housing costs. Emergency use
of hotels or motels when shelters were full has always existed, but it was
time-limited and restricted to defined emergencies or to the “cold weather” exemption.
As a result of the unlimited access, the number of households receiving shelter
exploded over these past several years and it became a semi-permanent home for
many, not just a safety net for a month or two.
Now that the emergency (and the
federal money) has ended, there has been outrage that these folks would be
thrown to the streets. That’s a very legitimate reaction. We created this reliance
on a program that exceeds any typical or reasonable approach to helping people
have safe housing. It was also destined to create a big number of people in
crisis all at once as it ends.
We wanted people to make use of it
for our overall benefit; they did. Housing is exceptionally difficult to find
right now; it realistically cannot be found for several thousand people all
trying to find affordable options at the same time. But it’s a bad “program,”
if it can be called a program at all. There have been inadequate supports
beyond a roof over the heads of people, many of whom have serious struggles in
life coping skills in general. It hasn’t been a positive option for them, beyond
the question of costs. It also placed major burdens on communities like Berlin
that are hosting these hotels, which suddenly found themselves with large
groups of needy people, including that small minority who gum it up for
everyone else up by abusing it.
So, what to do?
Some more liberal legislators who
wanted the whole program extended threatened to support the governor’s veto in
order to demand a new budget with increased spending, by joining with
Republicans who were voting “no” because of overspending. Advocates, including
many who are living in or recently already lost hotel housing, were chanting
loudly from the public seating areas as we assembled for the one-day veto
session: “housing is a human right.” (They respectfully stopped shortly after
we began work.)
So, a deal was struck. It still
officially ends the open-door program on June 30, including not changing the
termination of hotel payments for those had already lost them this past month.
Those were the folks who did not have someone with a designated level of disability,
children, or a person over age 60 in their household. But it creates a special,
more gradual “off ramp” program for the households with that greater
vulnerability who are already there as of June 30. (Note that new folks are
still enrolling until that end date, since the old program doesn’t end until
then.) Between now and next April, the Agency of Human Services is tasked with
finding a housing option for each such household before terminating hotel
payments, working with case managers gradually over those interim months.
There are a lot of great goals and
concepts for parameters set out in this new legislation. Unfortunately, none of
it – neither the protection for those vulnerable individuals, nor the assurance
of a program end in April nor the standards for participant compliance – are
worth the paper they are written on. This was a deal that saved face for both
sides: On one side, “we aren’t being mean and tossing people to the wolves, but
we have set limits”; on the other side, “we saved the day by keeping the
program going until everyone has replacement housing.”
It was my committee that reviewed the
bill, and I identified all the reasons that it actually has no assurance of
achieving either of those and has little likelihood of success. But I also
voted for it in my committee – it was an 11-0 vote – as well as on the floor. Why?
I do not believe in rejecting a proposal that attempts to solve a problem
unless I have a better alternative in mind that would address it. I don’t have
a solution for resolving this crisis, and we are the ones who created it.
What are its failings? It’s a very
long list, but here are a few highlights that touch on them:
It will depend on the ability to
hire additional staff for case management and for administrative tasks (we
piled on a vast amount of data demands for legislative oversight.) Has anyone
noticed we have a major workforce shortage, with every single business and
profession unable to fill essential positions?
It lacks definitions and creates no
authority as to who will establish them. What is the meaning of “misconduct”
that will allow a discharge, and who determines whether that has occurred?
How are criteria established for
whether someone met a mandate that they “participate in” their case management or
“engage in” their own independent search for housing?
What does it mean that AHS must
offer “alternative housing” – which includes emergency shelters – before
someone can be cut off? If the offered alternative will only last a week before
the household will be homeless again, have we actually done anything to prevent
the identical outcome?
Yet if it had said, “appropriate
housing,” who would have defined whether it is appropriate? (On the House
floor, the bill’s presenter already suggested that if the offer was in another
part of the state and the person had reasons for not wanting to go there, it
wouldn’t count as an offer even under the current language.)
Any decision can be appealed. On
the one hand, allowing an appeal from an arbitrary decision is legitimate. The
bill is rife with possibilities of arbitrary and inequitable application of the
undefined criteria. Yet open-ended appeals of legitimate decisions will cause
long delays in actual implementation.
It came with no cost estimate for
either the extension of hotel stays or the added services. It does set out the
funding as coming from shifting funds in the existing budget, not adding new
money. But any shift means something else – previously determined to be necessary
– will not be funded. There is a goal to re-negotiate rates with hotels (which
up until now, could name their own price) but there is no guarantee of success.
The reality is that there is no
true end to it. Those still stranded in April (which could be almost as many as
those there on June 30) will be in front of us yet again. We created this crisis,
and we haven’t found a way to solve it.
Perhaps we will make progress
between now and April, and perhaps those added months will give us time to
figure out some additional approaches. Let’s hope. We have put hundreds of
millions into developing new housing, some of which can move quickly; that
might also help.
But make no mistake about it. The
housing crisis itself will ensure that new families will be in need as well.
The new compromise bill doesn’t touch that issue yet, not does it help those on
the streets today who relied on our COVID program but don’t meet the federal
disability, child, or “aged” categories.
***
The other challenge was the issue
of childcare. The vast expansion of subsidies and state rates to providers was
a major part of the overall budget expansion and the reason for a new payroll
tax. I know of no one who disagreed with the need for major new investments to
support childcare.
The issue was, by how much and how
quickly? Many people, including myself and Rep. Goslant, voted no because there
was a better alternate to adding some $230 million over the next two years. (The
benefits only start halfway through the year for the first year, which is why
the cost will nearly double next year.) Staging it more carefully would not
have required a new tax. The governor’s balanced budget had proposed $50
million for this year.
It was the very strongest of the
override votes because of the intense desire to demonstrate support for
childcare. Some of my colleagues then voted against the underlying budget. I
think that was a bit disingenuous. If you vote to create one the biggest of the
new programs in the budget, you probably need to vote for the budget that funds
it.
There were 98 votes needed for the
required 2/3rd majority, as three members were absent. The childcare override
vote was 116-31. The budget vote was 105-42.
***
There were five other vetoes
besides the childcare and budget bills, and the supermajority in the House made
short order of overriding three of those; the Senate then also backed those
overrides.
Those were the professional
regulation changes with $7m in fee increases (109-38); a charter change in Brattleboro
allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in local elections and serve on local
boards (110-37); and the charter change for Burlington to allow noncitizen legal
residents to vote in local elections and on the school budget for the statewide
Education Fund (111-36.)
Two other veto bills were in the
Senate, and they did not choose to vote to override either of them, so they are
dead for this session: the legislative pay raise, and the ban on deceptive
interrogation of criminal suspects under age 22.
***
Ken and I both work hard to try to
balance the needs of all Vermonters in the legislative process, understanding
both how the state has a key role in providing supports but also to not
overburden struggling taxpayers. That means listening to all perspectives and
trying to work together and reach compromise, regardless of party labels.
Sometimes it feels as though that balance keeps getting tougher to reach.
The session is over, but we are
still here and ready to listen. Please get in touch with questions or concerns
that can help us gain your perspective for the year ahead. Email anytime at adonahue@leg.state.vt.us or kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us
No comments:
Post a Comment