April 22, 2023

 

Legislative Update

Rep. Anne Donahue

April 22, 2023

After several weeks buried in wrapping up bills in committee work, the big items of the session have started exploding onto the House floor, beginning last Thursday and Friday with the “Clean Heat Standard” bill. It had passed the Senate by a vote of 19-10, and this week, passed the House by a vote of 98-46. Both those votes (despite a few legislators absent) make it highly likely that the expected veto by the governor will be overturned.

The debate was not over whether we should be doing everything we reasonably can to address climate change. There was broad consensus on that. It was not even about whether working to convert heating away from fossil fuels (oil, propane and natural gas) was a bad idea.

The fundamental question was over whether we should pass a law to require that conversion without knowing whether the program is even feasible, or what it will cost, and whether we should answer those questions before locking it into statute. The member who presented the bill said that it would be “wildly speculative” to assign details or cost estimates at this point. We just can’t know that yet. Thus, she said we should move forward in order to find out the costs and potential benefits.

I got up and agreed with her about needing that information. That was exactly the point. It is wildly speculative, and that is why we should answer those questions, at least with some rational estimates, before enacting a bill. Unlike last year, when the final bill required later review and agreement of the legislature before moving forward (and I thus voted in support of the failed effort to override a veto), this year’s bill allows the process to go full steam ahead.

The legislative “checkback” that proponents point to, which requires the legislature to approval the implementation rules in 2025, is more of a “lookback” at what was developed in that interim. Yes, the brakes could be put on – as can always happen with any bill, by repealing it on a future date – but the bill actually establishes the “clean heat standard” in law. It does not wait for information to be gathered first.

All of the language is, “shall.” It begins by saying, “the Clean Heat Standard is established.” Not, “shall be designed and then reviewed.” Fuel dealers “shall reduce greenhouse gas emissions” from heating sources; the Public Utility Commission “shall establish” a credit system that will mandate dealers to pay for incentives to get homeowners to put in heat pump systems and the like; the dealers “shall obtain” the credits that are required of them; the Commission “shall adopt rules and may issue orders to implement and enforce the Clean Heat Standard program.”

Who pays for these measures? This will be your choice: replace your heating system (with or without support from an efficiency organization that will help lower-income families), or pay the cost of higher fuel prices that dealers will be forced to charge in order to pay for the “credits” they are mandated to obtain. Pay how much? Providing an estimate at this point is what the bill’s presenter said would be “wildly speculative.” Damn the torpedoes -- full speed ahead

There are certainly long-term cost savings that may occur – again, no estimates on how much – but that will be many years down the line. Supporters kept pointing to the language that says the rules to implement the standards cannot take effect “without specific authorization enacted” by the legislature after the program has been fully fleshed out in 2025. That is the checkback.

But here is the other language in the bill that is the mega-loophole, in full:

“The requirement to adopt rules and any requirements regarding the need for legislative approval before any part of the Clean Heat Standard goes into effect do not in any way impair the Commission’s authority to issue orders or take any other actions, both before and after final rules take effect, to implement and enforce the Clean Heat Standard.”

Note the number of times “any” is reiterated!

I was gratified when a new Democratic legislator who is one of the now-three attorneys in the House got up to directly affirm my analysis. He was one of the few Democrats who bucked party directives, and voted “no.”

There were several skirmishes over amendments that were offered before the vote on the bill. Perhaps most relevant was one that would have placed a cap on how high the cost of heating fuel could be allowed to get before a “pause” button could be hit. That was voted down, on the basis that it would constrict development of the program when the costs are yet unknown.

Note that the sponsors themselves said that this bill will not change the status of global warming. The minute-scale efforts from our little piece of the earth cannot change the trajectory of the effects of worldwide efforts, or lack thereof. What it would do would put the costs of trying to push that massive boulder on the shoulders of Vermonters and our economy. We can’t do this in isolation, which is what this bill is proposing to attempt. We need to join consolidated efforts, not go it alone.

***

More To Come

The childcare bill was voted out of my committee on a 10-1 vote. I strongly supported the restructuring and thoughtful work on developing steps to improve the system and support more access and affordability. But again I said, “we can’t do all of this all at once!”

The estimated price tag in the first full year of implementation will be in the range of $140 million. That’s just the baseline. I would absolutely support phasing it in – such as what the governor’s budget proposed, with a new investment of $50 million – but voted no on going full throttle.

The bill will now move through the Education Committee, the Appropriations Committee, and the Ways and Means Committee, which is responsible for identifying how we will raise the money for it.

The chair of that committee was quoted in the press last week as saying she believes the bill does not go far enough, and that her committee will be looking towards an increase in the personal income tax to fund it.

Keep in mind that this would be on top of the payroll tax to pay for a medical and family leave program that is moving through the House and Senate, the heating costs of the Clean Heat Standard, the investments in maintaining our safety net and universal school meals – and at the same time, continuing to tax most of Social Security and military pensions to a degree that other states do not.

***

Other Actions

The House approved the Brattleboro charter change 103-33, a bill that was vetoed last year but can clearly move forward this year. It allows 16 and 17-year-olds to be elected as representatives to the town’s delegate-style town meeting system.  I’ve seen a lot of Facebook posts over recent months, confused about why young adults up to age 21 are no longer being named in arrest reports and are being sent to Family Court.

We made that change in the legislature based upon the emerging science that the brain development to make thoughtful decisions rather than impetuous ones is ongoing through about age 25, so older teens shouldn’t be held liable as adults. But they can represent constituents and make decisions about town government? It would be nice to stop being so inconsistent.

We also passed a bill that was more symbolic than substantive that bans “paramilitary training camps” when the intent is for the training to be used for violent civil disruptions. It was targeted, of course, against Slate Ridge in Pawlet that has been a thorn in the side of that community for years now.

Why do I say symbolic? The government has the burden of proving intent. Someone need only say, this is training for defense against a violent civil disruption. Ironically, it included specific examples of “exemptions” that included Norwich training activities. I think the “intent” requirement already more than covered Norwich!

***

On the Agenda

Several bills are working their way through the process to address the delicate balance between public protection regarding the tiny fraction of individuals whose mental symptoms lead to violence – but also to help, rather than harm, people in crisis. These include enabling police to arrest and remove anyone (frequently unrelated to mental issues) who is being violent against hospital staff or EMTs. I helped work to ensure that the bill is clear that people who are being treated and not yet medically stabilized would not be subjected to being hauled away to jail.

Another bill creates a segregated “forensic” treatment capacity as a subunit at the Vermont Psychiatric Care Hospital in Berlin for persons accused of crimes who are found not competent to stand trial but who remain a danger. They are currently held in the hospital, but sometimes do not need that high a level of nursing care. My main concern was that we do not hold people in a more restrictive way based on being “accused” of a crime. The bill is being revised to require the same standards that are currently used in “no bail” decisions based on risk of violence, which requires a judge to also find “that the evidence that the person committed the alleged crime is great.”

I do worry about taking nine inpatient beds off-line to create this non-hospital care level. The administration is saying that our bed shortage (and resulting number of people left waiting for days in our emergency rooms) is not for these high-level, involuntary hospital settings. Those currently left waiting are primarily people who are asking for, and need, hospital care – but for whom we lack inpatient space. That remains unaddressed.

Finally, there is a bill moving (at last!) that would restrict police who are taking a person in crisis to the hospital from using handcuffs unless it is the only means for safety. Police would need to have medical-style restraints available if needed, so that these folks are not being treated like criminals. We have already required this for years for sheriffs who do hospital transport, and it hasn’t created any problems; it’s clearly the right way to treat and respect people.  

***

Please stay in touch with me and Rep. Ken Goslant. We welcome your views and the opportunity to represent you. We can be reached at adonahue@leg.state.vt.us or kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us. My archive of legislative updates is available at representativeannedonahue.blogspot.com

 

April 8, 2023 Legislative Update

 

Legislative Update

Rep. Anne Donahue

April 8, 2023

 

Our current legislature functions without the checks and balances of robust dialogue and compromise that a democracy creates through a two (or more) party system.

A majority of Vermonters have chosen one-party control through their votes, so that’s as it should be from the perspective of policy priorities. But it does reduce the ability of minority voices to be heard.

Despite a Republican governor, there is no check there either, since the Democratic majority is now large enough to be “veto-proof,” meaning holding a 2/3^rd majority that can always overturn a veto.

Fortunately, we do still have one healthy arena for the exchange of perspectives that I believe is critical to best outcomes. That is because the House and Senate, despite both holding very liberal views, often have very different priorities and approaches.

This year, the Senate appears to be the best hope to reign in a few of the highest cost aspirations of the House.

I’ve referenced several times about my concern that we are headed towards financial catastrophe if we combine a predicted slowing of the economy (revenue downgrade) and loss of the influx of federal funds with a cumulative number of very high-cost new initiatives.

Most of them will have a smaller cost this year – enabling a balanced budget this year – but will have a significant increase in cost in the next several years ahead as they scale up, just as increases in revenues drop.

The budget the House passed two weeks ago included major increases for existing programs to maintain them in the face of inflation, something I support. Let’s not undercut our current safety net in order to fund new programs.

But the full proposed budget is off the rails. That is particularly so in the way it “balances” revenue and costs.

It included the first year of investment to develop a paid family and medical leave program that is untested in its scope and cost, and a multi-million increase in support for the early childcare and education system.

To pay for just first-year costs, the House budget added a 20% increase in motor vehicle fees, removed several proposed tax relief proposals, and of greatest concern, decided not to hold aside funds for the required matches for huge federal infrastructure opportunities that will still be coming in for the next two years.

If we don’t have that cash on hand because we spend it this year, we won’t be able to take advantage of those infrastructure funds; that money will be lost to us.

We also already voted for a new payroll tax for the future family and medical leave program.

Still on the horizon are the consumer costs that will result if we begin to implement the proposed heat program to convert our energy sources away from fossil fuels.

Will the Senate partially rescue us?

The Senate has passed the “affordable heat” bill with a requirement for a report on the major elements of the plan before implementation is locked in.

It also passed a combination childcare and family leave bill, with major new investments but a lower cost than overall House versions because it does not include medical leave.

Neither of these are likely to sit well with the House.

It is also now the Senate’s turn to work on and present its version of the budget.

It is only in the Senate that I have heard comments that, “We can’t do everything we want in just one year.” Thank goodness for that recognition.

By late April, the divergent views of House and Senate will begin to be hammered out into compromises, and only then will we begin to see what the real outcomes of this session will be. Though these will be unlikely to show any significant restraint, it hopefully won’t be as extreme as the level of cost burdens the House is putting forth.

***

Child Care

My committee is now deeply immersed in the Senate’s childcare bill. The crisis in this system is multi-tiered, which means that creating both accessible and affordable access – the goal – carries big costs in multiple areas.

A study authorized last year tells us that to meet criteria for a high-quality system of care for children 0-to-4-years-old, the price tag would be about $24,000 per child per year, just about the same as the average per pupil cost in our schools. That contrasts with a current cost of $17,000 a year.

Last year, we set a goal that no family should have to spend more than 10% of its income on childcare. To attempt to meet that with inclusion of the major spending increase, state subsidies for the cost would need to extend to families of 600% of poverty, or more.

Roughly speaking, the official definition of poverty is below $25,000 for a family of three and $30,000 for a family of four. At 600%, that means below about $149,000 and $180,000, respectively.

Even at that level of subsidy, the increase in per child cost would mean that families just about that threshold would be paying significantly more than they do now -- about 16% of income -- and if they have two children, as much as a quarter of their income.

The state would pay a $38.5% rate hike on the payments to childcare programs that are the basis of the subsidy system.

The reason for the increase in tuition rates is to address early education pay increases. Low wages add to the challenge in finding workforce, which in turn adds to the challenge of having enough childcare programs in the state to meet demand.

Part of the plan is to set a tiered professional compensation scale that would align with primary grade schoolteachers with equivalent degrees.

I raised a question: since most childcare programs are privately run, how does the state get to set wage scales (or tuition) for them?

The answer: the same way we do a lot of carrot-or-stick interventions, which is with money.

We can tell programs that they will get increased subsidies per child, based on a higher tuition level, but only if the money is being used to meet state-set wage scales. It will be those higher scales that will force a tuition increase for unsubsidized children as well.

One question being batted around is whether pre-K for 4-year-olds should simply be folded into the school system.

Currently we have universal pre-K education funding for these kids, but it’s only for 10 hours per week, and it assumes a parent can find an opening, particularly if the school doesn’t run any program or is capped in the number of slots.

There are downsides. From the testimony we are hearing, many of the experts believe our current “mixed delivery system” – the choice of school-run or private programs for state-support eligibility – is best for families.

They also believe it enhances child development to blend 3- and 4-year-olds.

The other system gap is the afterschool issue, both for the pre-K and older grade school kids. School hours don’t align with working hours.

We are sliding into a more fundamental question.

What is the state’s role – or more correctly stated, the societal and taxpayer role – in paying for care and education before the start of the traditional school age? Does the village pay to raise the child beginning at birth? Does the role extend to cover all parent working hours?

Conceptually, that is the direction the new bill is heading, if it lowers the age for full reimbursement and expands the role of taxpayers in paying subsidies at all ages.

The Senate bill which tied early childhood education into a family leave bill raises a lot of the total cost for both programs through a payroll tax on everyone. The startup phase next year would be $88 million; in the years after, it would be $163 million per year.

The payroll tax (.42 %) would raise $88 million of the cost, elimination of the new (last year) child tax credit of $1,000 per year would raise $32 million, and the rest would be a general fund cost.

I’m not sure that payroll taxes or tuition increases are what people have in mind when they urge legislators to do more to support the funding of early education.

This goes way beyond adding help with costs. It is restructuring the concept of responsibility for the cost of raising children – shifting it from resting fully on parents to becoming a shared community responsibility.

I’m not automatically saying that’s a bad thing, but it is certainly worthy of recognition and serious reflection.

Just as we all benefit from an educated society and thus share in the cost of public schools, investing in healthy growth of children from the beginning brings a community benefit.

These are the most formative years of all for young brain development, so it matters to do the job well. We want our next generation of kids to flourish.

Let’s also not forget that we keep bemoaning the loss of new young workers because they will be needed to sustain the economy and fund Social Security for our aging population… aging population means that fewer children are arriving to balance off those of us growing old.

We all have a stake in this for many reasons.

But it also has to balance with affordability for Vermont. We aren’t an island, and the further ahead we get of other states on these kind of costly initiatives, the more we lose both business and taxpayers to the tax burdens.

Ergo, my plea: we can’t do all this all at once. We don’t have to be – can’t afford to be – first in everything.

***

Other Bills

We passed the property tax rate for next year, the basic math between budgets passed by schools versus revenue from the grand lists. On average budgets increased 8%, grand lists (property valuation) increased 9.7%, and individual property tax rates will increase 3.84%.

The number doesn’t mean much on an individual basis, since every town varies.

We also passed a bill that proposes to shift away from locally elected listers to a more professional, statewide system.

There was some opposition to taking away local control, but the reality is that this is about an effort at greater equity among all our towns, since the property valuations that make up the grand list in each town impacts the entire state. Thus, I supported the bill.

I also – with misgivings – supported the expanded “bottle bill.” It isn’t just an expansion of the deposit system to more recyclables, which I wholly support. It reconfigures the entire system and could be more disruptive than anticipated.

There will be a window, however, between rulemaking and implementation that will allow us to back up if some of the premises turn out to be wrong.

My committee received a bill from the Senate on banning all flavored tobacco and vaping products to reduce the appeal to kids, and we are hearing a lot of lobbying from both perspectives already.

Given the amount of work needed on the childcare bill, our chair has said we won’t take this up until next year.

The Senate has sent us a bill that would more than double legislator salaries over the next several years and add health benefits (at a cost of $853,000) for next year. It also includes a first-ever salary for one day per week during the off-session.

It is another example of costs being approved this year that will hit the budget at much higher levels in future years.

The last time there was a major hike in legislator salaries was about 16 years ago. It came after an independent study and recommendations, was pegged at median Vermont salaries, and included an ongoing cost of living increase tied to state employee increases.

This new bill is not generated by outside recommendations, but by some legislators who feel underpaid and who believe it will make it more possible for lower income folks to run for office. If equity is the issue, there may be an argument for it, but doubling the salary means legislators being paid far above median income for what is supposed to be public service. I can’t support that.

Since we, as the lawmakers, have yet to achieve access to affordable health benefits for all Vermonters, it’s a hard sell for me to say legislators should get that coverage.

***

Please stay in touch with me and Rep. Ken Goslant. We welcome your views and the opportunity to represent you. We can be reached at adonahue@leg.state.vt.us or kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us. My archive of legislative updates is available at representativeannedonahue.blogspot.com

March 25, 2023 Legislative Update

 

Legislative Update

Rep. Anne Donahue

March 25, 2023

 

We had three long days of debate addressing bills that are now headed to the Senate. Spoiler alert: if a bill comes to the House floor, it will be passed by us. It also has a solid chance to override a veto, given a Democratic super-majority.

***

Paid Leave

One new initiative is paid family and medical leave. Side-by-side review shows that it will be the most expansive benefit among the nine states that have such programs. Setting up the infrastructure will cost an estimated $111.5 million from our budget over 3 years. Beginning in 2026, it will cost between $118 to $214 million per year in premiums shared between employers and employees. It will require 65 new state employees, assuming we can find them; 10% of state jobs are currently open. There is no choice involved. Everyone pays in and everyone has access to the benefits.

There are alternatives: start smaller and expand infrastructure and benefits after we know what is sustainable. Better yet: adopt the program developed by the governor for state staff which starts this year and uses a well-established commercial financer. Their infrastructure is already in place and private employers could buy in. It would also allow for individual employees to choose whether the cost-benefit meets their needs, and they could buy in even if their employer did not participate, ergo, an equally universal opportunity, but not a mandatory one.

If we found it did not work in the ways we had hoped, it would not foreclose creating a system of our own in the future. This private alternate is how New York and two other states run their programs.

I would support starting up that way. I think paid leave is incredibly important to support working families. I would really like to see a sustainable way forward to make it available. And if optional, it avoids forcing other trade-offs, which I’ll discuss later.

***

Universal School Meals

This program has strong support for becoming permanent. There are benefits, including capturing children whose families struggle making ends meet but are not eligible for free meals under the federal program. There is also a bigger bang-for-the-buck. Some features for federal support mean that making meals available to all kids brings in a higher reimbursement rate.

There are many intangible benefits that were articulated by constituents last year when we were extending the COVID-funded program for one year. It was a tough call, but I voted against it then, based on the number of constituents who opposed it and the fear that the one-year extension would increase momentum to make it permanent in our tax base. Worst, the scuttlebutt was that the sales tax would become the permanent funding source. Our most regressive tax! The least wealthy pay the highest percentage of income, and the wealthy, the lowest, meaning low-income folks paying in to taxes to feed wealthier kids.

This year, the decision was made to roll it into the Education Fund, paid for primarily through property taxes, and thus, structured progressively. Based on that and the strong constituent support, this year I voted for it. But with reluctance, because of the timeline of our decisions in our overall budget process. Again, keep reading for more on that issue.

***

Gun Restrictions

New gun restrictions also passed this week, with a stated focus on suicide prevention. There are several unequivocal facts: Vermont has a suicide rate much higher than the national average and growing; this is directly tied to high gun ownership in our state; suicide attempts by firearm are nearly always lethal, compared to those attempted by other means.

There are three parts: a 72-hour waiting period for any firearm purchase (to thwart impetuous actions); a safe storage provision requiring firearms to be locked if a minor might get access; adding any family or household member as a person who can file a petition for an extreme risk protection order to remove firearms from a person.

The first issue was whether the bill was constitutional, given a new US Supreme Court decision last year changing how gun laws are reviewed under the 2^nd amendment. The Offices of the Attorney General and of the Defender General (the state’s top two attorneys) had opposite opinions on that.

As someone who has spent decades in the work to address suicide – myself a survivor of several suicide attempts during my severe illness in the 1990s – this issue is close to my heart.

I have received an award for my work from the Vermont Suicide Prevention Coalition. Suicide is a terrible tragedy not just for the individual but also for family and friends. If I were a gun owner, I would likely not be alive today. My attempts had far lower risk of lethality. Fortunately for me, I dislike guns. I’ve never owned one.

But I hold a priority on defending constitutional rights on any issue. Yet no right is absolute. I have voted for gun restrictions when it was clear that the benefit in protecting others outweighed burdens on 2^nd amendment rights.

In this case, the second question was whether the restrictions would actually be a benefit. I put a great deal of time into reviewing the research on the measures in this bill. It’s clear that the 72-hour wait would have almost no impact. States where guns are already widely available do not benefit by sale delays. These deaths occur because weapons are there, so that is the option chosen.

The preeminent study reviewed a 5-year period (1994-1998) when many states had to institute a 5-day waiting period to enforce the federal Brady bill background check before the instant check system went into place. That included Vermont. During that time, there was no change in our own rate of suicide. In the past 10 years, there have been more than 400,000 gun sales in Vermont, with two deaths known to have resulted within 72 hours of a purchase. However, the House rejected an amendment to permit buyers who had proof of existing gun ownership to be exempt.

We know less about safe storage. We do not know how many individuals accessed a gun for a suicide despite it being secured, or as the existing owner, versus it being unsecured and accessed without permission. It would be easy to gather that data, and I’ve urged in the past that we do so. I offered an amendment to postpone the bill one year to first gather it and make informed decisions based on the actual Vermont experience. When that was rejected, I proposed that we at least direct the administration to gather it, so that it could be reviewed for potential later adjustments to the bill. Incredibly, that was rejected.

Finally, I offered an amendment expanding those able to file a petition to include law enforcement, but to remove the new proposed broadly defined categories of extended family or household. They can have a petition filed today, with assistance by the state’s attorney office. Acting alone, such petitions will be more likely to be driven by emotion, not neutral facts. They allow no opportunity for the person at issue to be present, and they remain in place for 14 days until a hearing is held. This was also turned down.

Many members voted believing this bill will help prevent suicide, and it passed with a 2/3rds vote. The evidence does not support that, and the bill is also quite likely to be found unconstitutional. I voted against it.

***

Budget Priorities

All three of these issues relate to the budget, which is the expression of values and priorities as a state. There are significant areas where funding for essential social services is being cut, through providing no increase against an 8% inflation rate. Our community mental health centers – our strongest protective service addressing suicide – were cut in that way in the governor’s budget despite the challenges in attracting workforce given an inability to offer competitive wages. In the House, they may at best see a 4% increase, but we don’t have the budget before us yet to know what will be proposed. Meals on Wheels, the food bank, our nursing homes, our youth support agencies – even youth mentoring, a proven low-cost intervention – are all facing cuts.

We continue with little progress on ensuring health care access. Tens of thousands of families are unable to get care because of unaffordable deductibles and copays. We have seniors who see a major drop in coverage when they transition to Medicare.

Worst, legislators have had to vote on the new programs like school meals and paid leave without knowing what the cuts might be, what else is being funded, or what revenues will be available, because we won’t see the budget until next week. We do know that other major budget additions are planned for childcare, housing, and carbon reductions (the new clean heat bill, after last year’s veto), but we don’t know the amounts being proposed. But existing priorities are being cut to jump to new ones. Good ones, but at the cost of existing ones. That was my caveat on my vote for school meals. It may increase the odds that I will feel compelled to vote against the budget when I see what the final trade-offs are.

Say you go to the grocery store. You start in produce, and you see a new product: a veggie that your kids will likely eat! Beneficial to their health, and though it will be an addition to your budget, it will be a good investment. But you haven’t gotten to the milk or the bread or the eggs yet to find out whether their costs have gone up. Worse, you don’t even know how much you have in your wallet. Do you buy the new veggie right away? Or do you first check the prices on the other things you need and would not want to cut out? And do you first check what’s in your wallet?

When we get to the checkout lane next week, I don’t know whether we can afford everything I would like to have or to buy for you. And I’ll have no opportunity to return anything. It’s an up or down vote.

***

Finally, congratulations to Rachel Giroux, Berlin’s Town Clerk, for being named to the Secretary of State’s Town Clerk Advisory Committee.

***

Please share your input and thoughts. You can reach me at adonahue@leg.state.vt.us, or Rep. Ken Goslant at kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us It is an honor to represent you.

 

Legislative Update, February 25, 2023

 It is hard to believe we’re approaching town meeting week already, which also means only a week beyond that for the deadline for all policy bills to be out of their committees. Thus, during these next few weeks, the proposals being sent from the House to Senate or vice versa will become much clearer, and will fill floor time with debates and votes. Be sure to catch Rep. Goslant or me at town meeting if you want to weigh in on any of the initiatives you’ve heard about. (Or as usual, catch us by email.)

Three of the major and controversial bills are already out of their primary committees: Paid family leave, the so-called “affordable heating” bill, and one set of new gun restrictions (more are being contemplated in the Senate.)

***

Paid Family Leave

This bill has been passed by the House General and Housing Committee in an extravagant version, with every aspect exceeding what is offered in the several other states that require it, and thus at a hefty price tag. It now sits in the House Ways and Means Committee, which is in charge of the decisions about coming up with the money to pay for things that we want. So, the bill may change quite a bit. It’s how our process works: the policy committees offer up what they think our state’s policies should be, but if it requires new revenues, Ways and Means weighs in, and if it needs money to be spent, the Appropriations Committee makes the final call.

That’s true for the overall budgeting process as well. My committee – Human Services – will be making its recommendations this coming week on what the state budget should cover in a very broad range of services, from elder care facilities to child abuse investigation to food supports. But it’s like a giant wish list and we know there might not be money available. It’s the unenviable task of the Appropriation Committee to listen to what all the various committees are recommending, and to hone the entire list into a balanced budget. Based on testimony my committee has heard, there is a lot of need out there, and it will not all be able to be met.

So, back to paid family and medical leave.

The current bill would require every employer to assure coverage for 12 weeks at 100% of salary for a very long list of needs. They sound reasonable until reading the breadth of definitions. Examples: family member includes any person with whom the employee has a “significant personal bond;” safety leave includes when a family member has an appointment to follow-up on a stalking concern; serious health condition includes anything that requires “continuing treatment,” “parental leave” includes time to bond with a child taken into foster care. There is also entitlement to two weeks bereavement leave, but without an apparent definition.

The cost would be .55 percent of wages deducted from employees, but that could go up if there wasn’t enough in the fund (as in, too much is taken under all those definitions.) An employer can opt to contribute up to half. It may sound like a good deal at $550 for someone making $100,000, until one remembers that buying it is not an option; it’s a mandate. I do believe that a more limited benefit – fewer weeks, 75% of income replacement and much more narrowly defined definitions -- would be a valid step forward, and I would support that, with a big, “if.”

The legislative majority this year is also pushing for a huge new investment in childcare and a carbon reduction bill that will significantly raise heating costs. I believe in both of those policies as well, but I firmly believe that we cannot take all these on at once. They add up. The economic impact on Vermonters would be too great. Among these, I would place paid family leave third in priority.

***

Clean Heat

Last year’s vetoed “clean heat” bill has been renamed the more appealing sounding “affordable heat” bill, based on the premise that it will create affordability decades down the line. In the shorter term, it will cost a lot of money, and the debate is not whether that is true but rather, by how much. The Senate Natural Resources Committee has voted the bill out and it is now in Senate Appropriations before it goes to the full Senate.

What it proposes is having the Public Utility Commission develop an incredibly complex plan that will shift us all away from oil and propane over to electricity (produced, it is hoped, through “green” methods) by forcing fuel dealers to help subsidize the replacement of home heating systems. Of course, until full conversion occurs, those subsidies will need to be paid through higher fuel costs paid by those of us who haven’t converted yet. 

We won’t actually know what the cost might be until after the Commission develops the plan. But the bill also directs them to proceed to implement it. So, the legislature would be blindly handing over a blank check. Last year, I voted against the House version because it included the same blank check. The Senate revised it to have the plan delivered back to the legislature for approval before it could be implemented, and I voted for that version. It will be the same for me this year. I won’t support a version that washes the legislature’s hands of the cost.

A final note: it is often repeated that we have no choice to move forward on this in order to meet our mandatory climate change goal deadlines, otherwise we can be sued. That’s true, except we created that in statute, which means it can be repealed or deadlines can be changed by the legislature. I’m not recommending that we do that callously, but it is important to remember that the “mandate” is self-made. One of the most famous words in legislative language is “notwithstanding.” Regardless of existing current law, we can direct something different to happen. No legislature can bind a future legislature against changing laws. We could likewise “notwithstand” or repeal the Affordable Heat bill after the Public Utility Commission develops the plan, but it would require affirmative intervention by the legislature, just as removing the climate goals mandate would.

***

Guns

The House Health Care Committee has voted out a bill on suicide prevention through gun restrictions. It’s under review by the Judiciary Committee this week. I’m glad of the source. I’ve objected in the past when bills have been proposed justified on the basis of suicide prevention without any review by the Health Care Committee (in fact, I’ve made unsuccessful motions on the floor to have such bills reviewed by Health Care.)

That doesn’t mean this bill makes sense. Constitutional rights – including the Second Amendment – are not absolute, but they do require a very high threshold of justification. I have voted for several restrictions over the years (the Extreme Risk Protection Order bill, for example), but most proposals have been based on restrictions that have no demonstrable relationship to the harm they are trying to prevent. I won’t support those.

There are two major parts of this bill. One is a 72-hour waiting period to purchase a gun; the other is a requirement that guns and ammunitions be locked if there is a reasonable chance of a minor or “prohibited person” from gaining access.

The problem with the first is that there has never been an effort to gather actual data that shows how many people have purchased a gun for the purpose of a suicide. Guns are clearly the deadliest form of attempted suicide and as a result, reflect the highest number of suicide deaths. However, it is highly reasonably to suspect that the vast majority of those are by individuals who already owns guns. We are a high ownership state, with a resulting high suicide-by-gun rate. 

When I was in my period of severe clinical depression and contemplated suicide, it was through other methods, because I don’t own a gun. Without such familiarity, I would not have considered purchasing one for that purpose. I know anecdotally of two cases in the past 10 years where there was a such a purchase. But several years ago, I offered to introduce a bill to actually review cases to identify the sources of weapons used, and the idea was rejected. If this link was proven to be significant, I would support a waiting time for first-time gun purchases. (Not purchases by those who already own guns, for what should be obvious reasons.)

The issue is similar for the locked-gun requirement. Where is the Vermont data that there is a problem that needs to be addressed – and I don’t mean anecdotal data or a single tragic event? If this kind of carelessness by gun owners is a serious issue in Vermont, then I would support creating an enforceable standard that requires reasonable care. But I will want to see that evidence before considering restriction of a constitutional right.

***

Committee Work

A truly significant threat to life is clear in the 212 Vermonters who died last year as a result of a drug overdose. We tried a lot of interventions, but we need to do more to protect people against the deadly illness of addiction. My committee is working on a multi-prong approach. Much was in a bill that was vetoed last year, but the veto was based on only one part of it.

That part was a proposal for a study of what are called “safe injection” sites, where people can use illegal drugs in the presence of medical personnel in case things go wrong. I voted for last year’s bill because looking into the pros and cons (before any decision) made sense. This year – with no fear of a veto, given the super-majority – my committee is taking testimony on potentially starting a program. I don’t want to prejudge without hearing all the testimony and discussion, including what the parameters might be, but I think I will be very hard-pressed to go there.

Our committee is looking at a bill to have the state develop a proposal for how (and whether) we should remove the “ratable reduction” on support for families with children (the “Reach Up” program.) Currently, we take the calculation of a budget that meets just basic need (about half the estimated “livable budget”), subtract the other cash benefits a family receives, and then say, in effect, “we need to keep our budget stable, so we’re going to automatically reduce the remaining amount by half.” A parent with three children is estimated to need $1,309 a month but gets $976 under the formula.

New Hampshire has eliminated a similar reduction and found it added no costs, because people got off supports more rapidly when they had adequate support to regain stability. I think we need to understand impacts of decisions we make. I support this study. Whether it is affordable to do anything about the recommendations will be the question to be addressed next year.

My “right to repair” bill has been receiving some media attention, and hopefully that will encourage the committees of jurisdiction to take them up (one is broad-based, the other sets agriculture equipment as a first priority.) Manufacturers, more and more, are making it impossible for you to do repairs on things you buy and own, by requiring specialized tools to access parts, sole-sourcing parts, etc. It creates a monopoly for dealers for all repairs.

I came to understand this issue thanks to a high school entrepreneur in Berlin, Jesse Batdorff, who was frustrated in efforts to use his skills in electronics. I teamed up with a Democratic legislator who has been working on the issue for a while, so the bills are bipartisan.

Watch for a potential WCAX piece with Jesse in the coming week or so!

My committee’s final budget recommendations will likely include creation of an advisory stakeholder group to work with the Department of Families and Children on the planning for new juvenile lock-up facilities. As with so many issues, we don’t have the time for deep analysis, nor should we micromanage how the administration does its job.

In this case, we think they need more guidance than just from inside the Department, so this is a way to balance that need. As I referenced in my last update, DCF want a deferral from moving older teens into its jurisdiction until it finishes all the facility planning. That’s thinking backwards, and a reason for concern over turning decisions over without any outside eyes.

***

Please contact Ken or me anytime; adonahue@leg.state.vt.us or kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us. All of my updates are accessible at representativeannedonahue.blogspot.com.

Legislative Update, February 11, 2023

 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.)

***

Please contact Ken or me anytime; adonahue@leg.state.vt.us or kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us

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.