The citizen Legislature goes home.
2023-06-27
Dear friend,
One of the features of Vermont’s part-time, non-professional “citizen Legislature” is that it's made up of people who, more or less, don't want to be there.
We spend the time we need to do the work voters ask us to do. Then we go back to our families and our other occupations, as voters want us to do.
Montpelier is a place that I visit on voters' behalf on weekdays from January to May.
Halifax is home. It was sweet to hear the rush of the Green River out my car window as I arrived back late Tuesday of last week.
I was away again so soon because the Governator Governor vetoed a "record number" of the Legislature’s work from the session, including the State budget.
Thus we filed back into the chamber Tuesday for a “veto session.”
Protesters chanted over Speaker Krowinski's calls for order for a few minutes, but she patiently waited them out and gaveled us in at 10 a.m. We voted on bills all day and adjourned a little after 5 p.m.
That’s all she wrote till January 2024.
Here’s what transpired on our last day...
***
Two bills didn’t make it into law last week.
S.39, the bill to gradually increase the pay of future Legislatures, was vetoed by the Governor.
I support the intent of S.39 to increase access to the Legislature -- see A challenge and an offer.
However, I didn't feel the time was right to increase legislative pay and I voted “No” on S.39. I was ready to vote “No” again to sustain the Governor’s veto.
The question being asked of legislators in the override votes is “Shall the bill pass notwithstanding the Governor's refusal to approve the bill?” Therefore a “Yes” on the override vote is a vote for the bill to pass, while a “No” vote sustains the veto.
Both the House and Senate vote separately on a veto override, starting with the chamber where the bill originated.
S.39 did not have the two-thirds majority in the Senate, so it didn't make it to us in the House. (By the way, one of the many interesting discussions that surfaced around this bill was Sen. Ruth Hardy's gender-related commentary as quoted in a Digger article.)
***
Gov. Phil Scott's veto of S.6, a bill to ask police not to try not to lie to the subject of an interrogation, also stands.
S.6 is an interesting bill, and one I hadn’t previously discussed with voters. It wasn't even on my radar going into the session that Vermont police in a custodial interrogation (not undercover) would use deception, threat of force, or threat of a bad legal outcome, to get a confession.
I decided to go into veto week with an in-depth look at it, last Monday in Should cops lie to kids?
As I said there, lack of trust in law enforcement is fatal. It's damaging to our society.
S.6 would strengthen law enforcement in Vermont and support faith in our bedrock institutions.
Not all residents saw it that way. Within 10 minutes, a resident replied with a one-line email:
“You are officially out of touch with your constituents.”
- A Resident
I replied right away.
“Huh. Tell me more.”
– Rep. Roberts
No reply, but I'm glad he got it off his chest.
Another resident wrote and said:
I don't think ANY GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE should be knowingly lying to ANY CITIZEN at any time. In any case where telling the truth would be deemed harmful the speaker always has the option to be silent.
Further, our laws speak to "the accused being PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL FOUND GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW". All the reasons in support of lying fall flat if the face of that presumption.
- A Resident
Great perspective.
Another resident wrote to recommend a book, “Duped: Why Innocent People Confess – and Why We Believe Their Confessions.”
They said:
It is all about deception and police, a real eye opener!
- A Resident
Thanks for the book recommendation!
Hours after sending out that newsletter on Monday, I got word that the Senate didn’t have the votes to override the Governor on S.6.
The bill is dead for this year and my vote would not be counted in the House.
At that and in light of the "officially out of touch" email, I felt a little sheepish.
While I don't know why this voter called me that, voting "Yes" on a bill that Windham County Sheriff Mark Anderson asked me to vote "No" on did make me curious if some voters would be on the other side of me on this issue. As we weren't voting I didn't even have any reason to take a public position on it.
Oh well—I’m glad to know how those voters felt about it.
I will definitely be talking with law enforcement about evidence-based interrogation practices over the off-session, and I’d love to hear from residents.
***
Those are the bills that didn't make it to a House vote.
On the five bills we did vote on -- I voted “Yes” with the Legislature to override the Governor on all five.
I was proud to vote “Yes” on H.217 to enact a 0.44% payroll tax, with 75% of that paid by the employer, as a reliable funding source for affordable childcare that pays a living wage.
A lot of our social safety net is there for the lowest-income Vermonters.
H.217, which passed the House on a tri-partisan 116-31 vote, is a bill to support and grow our middle class.
The House and the Senate, reflecting broad consensus and years of studying gaps in childcare coverage around the state, decided that $120 million is the figure that makes this system work for the middle-class.
The median income for early childhood teachers in Vermont is currently under $40,000 and $22,000 for assistants, typically with no PTO or healthcare. Starting on January 1, 2024, the state will reimburse child care providers at a 35% higher rate, enabling them to stabilize their businesses and raise wages.
***
I voted “Yes” on H.494, the State budget. For more background on my vote:
--“We can do hard things.” - History
The lives of thousands of unhoused Vermonters were the focus of lawmakers considering their overrride vote.
The House passed the budget in May with 90 votes, not enough to override. The path to passing a budget for the fiscal year starting July 1st, 2023 was not clear.
The vote on Tuesday was 105-42, giving Vermont a budget for the year.
The Representatives who voted "Yes" this time around after having voted “No" last time said that the difference was that we also passed a new bill last week, H.171, An act relating to adult protective services and emergency housing transition.
H.171 does a number of things to provide a better transition out of the COVID-era “motel voucher” program for the Vermonters that it serves. It also asks the Administration to negotiate rates with the motels and to report back to the Legislature on its work.
H.171 commits no new money to motel vouchers, which was key test for me in voting “Yes” on it. However, in a compromise, it does allow the Administration to access more funding if it is needed and if tax revenues come in over budget.
***
I voted “Yes” to override and pass:
--H.305 Professions and occupations regulated by the Office of Professional Regulation.
This is a housekeeping bill on fees and regulations executed by the Secretary of State’s office.
--H.386 Approval of amendments to the charter of the Town of Brattleboro.
This allows 16- to 18-year-olds to vote in Brattleboro elections and serve on Selectboard.
If Brattleboro wants to do this, I say from over in Halifax, let them try it.
It doesn’t affect the State in a meaningful way. I support local governance wherever possible.
--H.509 Approval of amendments to the voter qualification provisions of the charter of the City of Burlington.
This allows legal residents who are not citizens to vote in certain elections in Burlington.
See above on Brattleboro for why I voted for this.
Thanks for reading.
Happy summer! Please be in touch anytime.