Gov. Peter Shumlin chats with Vermont Press Bureau chief Neal P. Goswami about the health care package in play in the House, new unemployment numbers and gun legislation that cleared the Senate this week.
Gov. Peter Shumlin chats with Vermont Press Bureau chief Neal P. Goswami about the health care package in play in the House, new unemployment numbers and gun legislation that cleared the Senate this week.
MONTPELIER — Lawmakers are taking a step that could increase voter participation.
By a vote of 20 to 7 Thursday afternoon, the Senate gave preliminary approval to a bill that would allow residents to register to vote on the day of an election. Currently, an individual who wishes to cast a vote on a Tuesday must have registered to vote by the previous Wednesday.
“Those of us in this building spend a lot of time thinking about elections, but most people don’t,” said Sen. Jeanette White, D-Windham. “People move or go into long-term care facilities in a town where they were not originally registered to vote and didn’t get engaged until the last moment. That doesn’t mean they’re uninformed.”
Under the terms of the bill, an individual could show up at a polling place the day of an election and present documentation of residency as required by federal law, such as photo identification or a utility bill. Either the town clerk or members of the municipality’s board of civil authority would review the documentation, and if approved, the individual would be a allowed to vote that day.
Currently, 13 states, and the District of Columbia, allow election-day voter registration.
“This is a voter-rights issue,” said Sec. Of State James Condos, following the vote. “This is for the benefit of the voter, for the benefit of the citizens to exercise their constitutional right to cast a ballot.”
According to Condos, places that have election-day voter registration have seen their rates of participation rise 10-12 percent since implementation.
Several senators expressed concern that election-day voter registration could lead to voter fraud, including Kevin Mullin, R-Rutland — who voted for the bill — and Dustin Degree, R-Franklin, who did not.
“There are lots of problems with elections with the system we have now,” Degree said. “I think the integrity of our elections is more important than increased participation.”
White disagreed that the bill could open up the door to more voter fraud.
“There is no more potential for voter fraud than there is under the current system we use now,” White said. “If someone wants to commit fraud now, all they have to do is say they registered when they renewed their driver’s license.”
Condos downplayed the idea that voter fraud is much of an issue at all.
“We have a hard enough time getting people to vote once, never mind voting twice” Condos said “Voter fraud is really nonexistent in this country. There have been many, many accusations, but they usually filter out and there will be a logical reason for what happened.”
The bill is expected to come before the Senate for final approval Friday.
MONTPELIER — Gov. Peter Shumlin said Thursday his Chief of Staff Liz Miller will step down from the post in May and return to work in the private sector.
Darren Springer, currently the deputy commissioner of the Department of Public Service, will replace her, Shumlin said.
At a news conference Thursday, Shumlin said he convinced Miller more than 4 years ago to first become commissioner of DPS, and later to become his chief of staff after winning his first term as governor in 2010.
Shumlin praised Miller for her work on behalf of his administration and Vermonters.
“I have been blessed with one of the brightest, most hard-working, dedicated people that I’ve ever worked with in my lifetime. Liz has now made the decision at the end of May to do what she threatened to do two and a half years ago, go back to the private sector,” Shumlin said. “We could not have had a person who served this state with more distinction, dedication and more elbow grease and more grace than Liz Miller.”
Springer, who became deputy commissioner of DPS in March 2013, will continue in that role until the end of May. He previously served as a senior policy advisor for energy and environment issues for Sen. Bernie Sanders, and later as Sanders’ chief counsel. Prior to that Springer worked as the energy and transportation program director for the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices.
Shumlin said Springer has been “the really creative collaborator and creator of new ways of promoting renewables, promoting cleaner, greener energy throughout Vermont.”
“I couldn’t be more delighted to have someone of Darren’s caliber take over from Liz at the end of this legislative session,” Shumlin said.
MONTPELIER — The Vermont Senate on Wednesday gave preliminary approval to new gun restrictions by a 20 to 8 vote that will make it a state-level crime for some convicts to possess firearms and require that people determined by a court to be in need of mental health treatment be reported to a federal database.
Wednesday’s vote followed months of behind the scenes political machinations and some public spats as advocates and opponents of the new gun measures tried to gain the upper hand. Advocates, including Gun Sense Vermont, which strongly backed the bill, claimed success Wednesday.
“I think any time there is a vocal minority it can be a little tricky, but what’s so exciting is how vast, aggressive grassroots support has really changed the landscape. It’s meaningful because, finally, common sense gun legislation is getting passed,” Gun Sense Executive Director Ann Braden said.
But opponents, including the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s clubs and the National Rifle Association, also claimed victory because they were able to kill off earlier versions of proposed legislation that included expanded background checks.
“At the end of the day, from the bill that was originally proposed to this, the other side, I think that their agenda has been rejected. On that note we’re happy,” said NRA lobbyist Darin Goens. “If the question was asked on the original bill I think the vote would have been very different.”
Braden said her group will not be looking to restore the background check provision in the House.
“We’re focused just on this bill, not adding on,” she said.
The scaled-back bill passed Wednesday was the result of proposals from the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Health and Welfare Committee. Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Sears, D-Bennington, told his colleagues on the Senate floor Wednesday that the bill looked to clarify a simple point — who should possess a firearm under Vermont state law.
Sears noted that that all of the other states have a similar state-level law that excludes some convicts from possessing firearms, as does the federal government.
“We are the outlier in this particular area. There are no other states at this point,” he said.
A agent with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and a federal prosecutor provided testimony to the Judiciary Committee that federal prosecutors “don’t have the time or the resources to prosecute these offenses in federal court,” Sears said.
Under the law, people convicted of so-called “listed crimes,” the most serious crimes in the state, will be restricted from possessing a firearm. The law makes some exceptions for lewd and lascivious behavior, as well as reckless endangerment and other motor vehicle-related crimes. The law also includes crimes involving the selling or trafficking of drugs that carry prison terms of at least 10 years.
The legislation will also require those found by a court to be “in need of treatment” for mental health reasons to be reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Sears said 38 states require such reporting.
Sears noted that the state of Virginia passed a law requiring such reporting following a mass shooting at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in 2007.
“I would hate for Vermont to wait for such a tragedy,” he said.
Much of the debate on the Senate floor Wednesday centered on how and when a person could have their right to possess a firearm restored after being reported to the database. The Senate approved an amendment that would allow a person to seek restoration of their right after 18 months, if they were found by a court to no longer be in need of treatment.
Sen. Joe Benning, R-Caledonia, sought passage of an amendment that would have eliminated a waiting period altogether, but it was defeated on a voice vote.
“This is a constitutionally delineated right,” Benning said. “My concern is that once you have had a constitutional right removed it should not be your problem to try and get it back.”
Sen. John Rodgers, D-Essex-Orleans, voiced opposition to the bill, fearing that it will be altered as it makes its way through the House. He asked why an existing state law that makes it a crime for people to possess a firearm while committing a crime is not enough.
“The key word is “while committing another crime,” Sears said, noting that state prosecutors, under the provisions of the bill, would be allowed to prosecute some convicts just for possessing the firearm.
“If you believe that convicted violent felons and drug traffickers …. ought not to have firearms, then I guess that’s how your vote would be. To me, this is a pretty simple policy choice that we’re faced with,” Sears said.
Rodgers also expressed a believe that many gun rights groups have expressed throughout the legislative process, that outside groups were influencing the legislation and encouraging lawmakers to act.
“This is largely driven from outside forces and I believe the Judiciary Committee had some evidence of that in testimony recently,” he said.
Rodgers said the state has a long heritage and tradition of gun ownership and those that disagree with it “may want to seek another place that has a culture that they like.” He made a motion to delay the bill by having it committed to the Appropriations Committee but that effort failed on a voice vote.
The bill is up for a final vote in the Senate Thursday before heading to the House.
A full story will appear in Thursday’s editions of the Barre-Montpelier Times Argus and the Rutland Herald.
Roll call vote results:
Sen. Tim Ashe, D/P-Chittenden
Sen. Becca Balint, D-Windham
Sen. Philip Baruth, D-Chittenden
Sen. Joe Benning, R-Caledonia
Sen. Chris Bray, D-Addison
Sen. John Campbell, D-Windsor
Sen. Brian Campion, D-Bennington
Sen. Ann Cummings, D-Washington
Sen. Jane Kitchel, D-Caledonia
Sen. Ginny Lyons, D-Chittenden
Sen. Mark MacDonald, D-Orange
Sen. Dick McCormack, D-Windsor
Sen. Alice Nitka, D-Windsor
Sen. Anthony Pollina, D-Washington
Sen. Dick Sears, D-Bennington
Sen. Michael Sirotkin, D-Chittenden
Sen. Barbara Snelling, R-Chittenden
Sen. Rich Westman, R-Lamoille
Sen. Jeanette White, D-Windham
Sen. David Zuckerman, P/D-Chittenden
Sen. Brian Colamore, R-Rutland
Sen. Dustin Degree, R-Franklin
Sen. Peg Flory, R-Rutland
Sen. Dick Mazza, D-Grand Isle
Sen. Norm McAllister, R-Franklin
Sen. Kevin Mullin, R-Rutland
Sen. John Rodgers, D-Essex-Orleans
Sen. Bobby Starr, D-Essex-Orleans
MONTPELIER — A National Rifle Association lobbyist is on hand at the State House for today’s Senate debate and vote on a gun bill, just days after gun rights advocates accused Gun Sense Vermont of being a front for a national group.
Gun Sense maintains that it is a Vermont-based, grassroots organization. The two-year-old group is seeking passage of a bill, S.141, that would make it a state-level crime for some convicts to possess firearms. It would also require the names of people found to be mentally ill by a court to be reported to a national database.
Earlier versions of legislation before the Senate included an expansion of background checks to private gun sales, but that has since been shelved.
On Monday, the Vermont Second Amendment Coalition blasted Gun Sense for being a front for former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s group Everytown For Gun Safety. A lobbyist from the Necrason Group, testifying on behalf of Gun Sense, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Gun Sense needed “to get national expertise” before signing off on a proposed amendment.
On Wednesday, just hours before the Senate was due to debate the bill, NRA lobbyist Darin Goens denied being a national interest on the other side of the debate.
“We’re a grassroots organization. I represent Vermonters. I’m not sure they represent Vermont citizens. They’re a national group who has funded a lobbyist,” Goens said, while sitting and chatting with Evan Hughes of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs.
Goes said he has worked with Hughes’ group in opposed S.141.
“We’ve worked hand-in-hand with the Federation of Sportsmens Clubs,” he said. “They’re our state association so we’ve worked with them for the last several years,” Goens said. “On this particular issue we’ve met with legislators jointly. We’ve discussed amendments. We’ve organized events to make sure that our membership turns up at the capitol to make sure they’re voice is heard.”
MONTPELIER — An ad hoc economic development group created by House Speaker Shap Smith earlier this year presented an economic development plan to lawmakers Tuesday, some of which could be acted upon this year, according to Smith.
The Economic Development Proposal Review Group, comprised of people from across the political spectrum, was created by Smith to help review ideas submitted by the public. Smith called on the public to submit economic development proposals early in the legislative session. The group reviewed about 90 proposals and crafted a report for lawmakers based on those ideas.
Vermont Coffee founder and former Democratic lawmaker Paul Ralston served as the group’s leader, facilitating meetings over a three week period. He told the House Commerce and Economic Development Committee Tuesday that economic development in the state will require changing the conversation.
“It’s time for our government to stop talking about huge programs that cost a lot of money that don’t work. It’s time for our government to stop talking how old we’re getting in Vermont and how young people don’t want to live here in Vermont. It’s time to change that story and the story can be changed by taking action,” he said.
Ralston said several ideas could be acted on this session, including passing legislation to clarify that the state’s sales tax does not apply to remotely accessed software, commonly referred to as the cloud tax. In addition, lawmakers this year could:
— Enact an employee relocation income tax credit
— Restore a research and development tax credit
— Repeal or “substantially” reform the licensed lender law
— Develop a process to simplify and strengthen the Vermont Economic Growth Incentive program to work for more employers
Other ideas in the report the group believes could be passed this biennium include examining benefit cliffs in the state’s social assistance programs and reforming the Earned Income Tax Credit to “mitigate financial penalties from work.” The group also suggested mapping all workforce development programs across state government and creating a single budget for them.
The group also wants to increase access to capital by creating a regulatory framework that encourages crowd funding. The state could also offer loan guarantees to support private sector funding for “essential business infrastructure” like telecom projects.
The group recommended permit reforms that “constructively reduce cost and time.” Some reforms could also speed up construction of workforce housing through downtown construction tax credits and faster permitting for housing projects.
Long-term ideas the Legislature should consider include revisiting recommendations made by a Blue Ribbon Tax Commission in 2010. The group suggested a carbon-based tax that is revenue neutral by using it to replace the corporate income tax, creating a seed capital fund, targeting tax incentives for young entrepreneurs, creating a “Vermont embassy” in area cities like Montreal, New York and Boston and enhancing the state’s public transportation system.
Ralston said the group’s recommendations “disproportionately landed on tax credits” because members were concerned that lawmakers would not be willing to appropriate funds in a tough budget year.
Smith made a rare appearance before a legislative committee Tuesday to tout the report and encourage lawmakers to act.
“Not surprisingly, a number of them cost money and involve tax credits and direct investments. But there are a number of them that don’t cost money and I think we could move forward with them this year,” Smith told the Commerce and Economic Development Committee.
The speaker cited the employee relocation tax credit as a way to attract younger workers to the state for jobs that employers have had difficulty filling.
“I’ve never been a huge fan of tax credits, but I think the employee relocation tax credit that they’ve identified is a very intriguing idea and could be a tool that could be used by businesses,” he said.
Smith said he believes Vermont is an attractive place for business, but the recommendations in the group’s report could improve the business climate.
“I think that we can make it an even better place,” he said. “I’m hopeful that there will be some ideas here that you can work with and will be put into law by the end of the year.”
Read the group’s report below:
Read the economic development ideas submitted by the public to House Speaker Shap Smith below:
MONTPELIER — Emergency dispatch centers in Rutland and Derby will get a temporary reprieve from the chopping block in the state budget approved Monday by the House Appropriations Committee.
Gov. Peter Shumlin proposed in his recommended budget that two of the state’s four public safety answering points be closed and operations consolidated with the remaining two in Williston and Rockingham. The plan, according to the administration, saves $1.7 million annually and would eliminate about 15 of the state’s 71 full-time and 33 temporary emergency dispatchers.
Facing a $113 million gap in the 2016 fiscal year budget, the administration has insisted the consolidation is necessary to help reduce spending in the budget.
But the House Appropriations Committee sought a way to keep all four dispatch centers open, even temporarily, following strong push back from the Vermont State Employees Association and first responders from around the state. Chairwoman Mitzi Johnson, D-South Hero, said the the committee’s plan will keep the PSAPs in Rutland and Derby open until at least Sept. 15.
The House plan uses $425,000 from the state’s Universal Service Fund, which assesses a 2 percent fee on telecommunications services to supports Vermont’s Enhanced E-911 program. It was approved by the committee unanimously.
“Although it is not our preference to use that money for anything other than, specifically, 911 call taking, this was closely related enough,” Johnson said Tuesday. “It is strictly one-time, USF money that keeps the four PSAPs running as is until Sept. 15.”
Johnson said the committee heard from many people, particularly in the Rutland and Derby areas, who are concerned that emergency dispatch services will suffer under the administration’s consolidation plan. Johnson said her committee deferred to the Government Operations Committee on safety concerns, but heeded requests to allow those communities time to explore options to maintain local dispatch services.
“It gives time for local entities to try to come up with an alternative or a transition plan,” she said. “They asked for some time to come up with a local alternative, so that’s what we’re offering.”
The committee included legislative language in its budget plan calling for Public Safety Commissioner Keith Flynn to meet with first responders in the Rutland and Derby areas about how dispatch services could be funded.
“I think there were enough questions raised, and there were enough possible alternatives raised, the fact that there are potentially viable, home-grown alternatives out there, is reason enough to say, ‘Is there a different way to do things?’” Johnson said. “There are places all over government where we’re asking for a different way to do things.”
Shumlin spokesman Scott Coriell said the administration is reviewing the Appropriations Committee plan and would not be commenting on each component. Shumlin issued a statement Monday after the House approved its plan on a bipartisan, 11 to 0 vote.
“My budget team will take a close look at the specifics in the bill passed this afternoon, and will continue to work closely with the Legislature as the budget makes its way through the next steps in the House and on to the Senate later this session,” Shumlin said in the statement. “I remain committed to making sure this budget responsibly spends our limited resources to advance our economy and protect our most vulnerable.”
MONTPELIER — The Vermont State Police have launched a criminal investigation into a former Vermont Department of Labor employee that “acquired” the names and social security numbers of at least 39 people from the department’s unemployment database.
The department said the former employee intentionally acquired the unauthorized information through her regular work duties. Although she had access to the information through her work, the department does not allow its employees to copy, transfer, disclose or retain that information for any purpose that is not related to the department’s business. No computer systems were breached, according to the department.
Officials did not identify the woman accused of acquiring the personal information.
In a press release, the department said the data was acquired on Feb. 24. Officials immediately asked the Vermont State Police to begin a criminal investigation. Police were granted a search warrant for the woman’s home and seized copies of documents and personal computer devices to aid the investigation.
The Labor Department said it also reported the breach to the Vermont Attorney General’s Office, the Department of Information and Innovation, the Department of Human Resources, the U.S, Department of Labor and the Internal Revenue Service.
The Labor Department said Friday that the criminal investigation is ongoing, but some information is known. The names and social security numbers of 39 people, and an additional 41 social security numbers not associated with names, were in the woman’s possession. The quarterly wage reports of seven people were also improperly accessed, but no Federal Employer Identification Numbers appear to have been involved.
The Vermont State Police are continuing to examine the items seized in the search, including data on the woman’s home computer and from her internet provider, but have not yet identified any transfer of data to other people or entities. As a result, the Vermont Department of Labor said Friday it believes the risk of identity theft is minimal.
All people affected by the data breach will receive a written notice from the department alerting them that their personal information was improperly accessed. The letters, which will be sent out no later than March 28, encourage individuals affected by the unauthorized access to call the Department of Labor if they have questions, check for information posted on the department’s website and to conduct credit monitoring as recommended by the Vermont Attorney General’s Office.
MONTPELIER — The Shumlin administration will scrap Vermont Health Connect and pursue joining a federally-run health insurance market later this year if technology upgrades needed for the state site are not working by October, Gov. Peter Shumlin announced Friday.
Shumlin, in an interview Friday, said his administration would legislative language to the House Health Care Committee Friday afternoon that will codify the administration’s contingency plan. Shumlin said he expects the state’s contractor, Optum, to complete the so-called change of circumstance function by the end of May, as well as the necessary technology for individuals to enroll in insurance plans through the website by early October.
Should Optum not deliver, the state will begin pursuing a move to a Federally-Supported State-Based Marketplace for the 2017 open enrollment period, Shumlin said. The federal government provides three exchange marketplace options, all of which use the healthcare.gov web platform and federal call center.
But the FSSBM option would allow states to maintain the most authority over health plans, officials said. A bipartisan group put forth a similar idea earlier this year.
A full story will appear in Saturday’s editions of the Barre-Montpelier Times Argus and Rutland Herald.
Gov. Peter Shumlin and Chief of Health Care Reform Lawrence Miller discuss the administration’s new self-imposed deadlines for Vermont Health Connect. Failure to deliver working technology will result in the state pursuing a transition to a federal health insurance exchange.
MONTPELIER — A host of industry representatives are pushing back against language inserted into a Senate health care bill late last week that would alter a 1-year-old law that looks to regulate toxic products in commercial products.
The Senate Health and Welfare Committee heard testimony from several people Wednesday looking to scrap the language added to S.139 on Friday. It would make changes to Act 188, which was signed into law last year by Gov. Peter Shumlin following an arduous back-and-forth process that was finalized in the waning hours of the previous biennium.
The law created a reporting mechanism for manufacturers that use certain chemicals in children’s products. Beginning in July of next year manufacturers that use chemicals designated by the state as “chemicals of high concern to children” must disclose information about those chemicals to the Department of Health.
It also created the Chemicals of High Concern to Children Working Group that would make recommendations to the commissioner of health about regulating designated chemicals.
But an amendment to S.139 approved by the committee Friday would make significant changes to the law. It would allow the commissioner of health to add chemicals to the list through rule making based on “credible, scientific evidence,” removing language in the law that calls for “the weight of” such evidence to be considered.
Opponents of the change say it could allow a single study to form the basis for regulating a chemical.
It would also change the authority of the working group. Instead of allowing the commissioner of health to adopt rules regulating the sale or distribution of children’s products containing such chemicals “upon the recommendation” of the working group, the commissioner could act “after consultation” with the group. It diminishes the oversight and purpose of the group, which includes members with varying viewpoints.
The amendment would loosen the standard for allowing the commissioner of health to act by changing the threshold from “children will be exposed” to “there is potential for exposure.”
And it also removes language calling for “a probability” that exposure or frequency of exposure to such chemicals could cause or contribute to adverse health impacts before the commission of health could act.
Several industry representatives, including William Driscoll, vice president of Associated Industries of Vermont, testified Wednesday against the changes.
“We are very concerned about the proposed amendments to that statute, even as it is being implemented,” Driscoll said. “We feel that however well-intentioned, the amendments … are unwarranted and actually undermine the statute.”
Allison Crowley DeMag, a lobbyist representing the American Chemistry Council, said the language undermines the process undertaken last year to craft Act 188. The law that was eventually enacted represented a deal, she said, and the amendment seeking to change it would “undue what was a very collaborative effort last session.”
“At the end of the day, everyone in this room, as far as I know, we all gave some, we all won some, but we all came to a deal. Part of that deal was implementing this working group that represented all different types of interests,” she said.
Crowley DeMag urged the committee and others supporting changes to the law to allow the law to be enacted as passed last year.
“The working group hasn’t even been appointed yet and here we are undoing what I thought was a very collaborative effort last session. I’m just really disappointed in the process,” she said. “If the chemical industry had come out and done something like this I know people would be very, very concerned about it. I think that we should just go forward with what we did last session, whether we liked it or not, and just move ahead with the process as it was outlined last session.”
Representatives of IBM and the Personal Care Products Council also testified against the amendment, while representatives from Seventh Generation and Vermont Conservation Voters testified in favor of the changes.
Sen. Ginny Lyons, D-Chittenden, vice chairwoman of the committee, said she is looking to make changes because of potential legislation in Washington that might undercut the state’s ability to regulate chemicals. Changes under consideration to the federal Toxic Substances Control Act could prevent the state from strengthening its law in the future, she said.
“We heard that the Congress is acting on TSCA to make changes which would hold states exactly where they are with respect to chemical regulation, or preempt us altogether, which I hope wouldn’t happen,” she said.
Lyons also said she is looking to enact language the Senate passed last year that was removed by the House before it became law. Because the session was ending, the two chambers did not go to a conference committee and the Senate had to settle for the House version, she said.
“We wanted to approve the language that was passed in the bill last year to ensure that our department of health can do its work,” she said. “This opens a conversation that we were unable to have last year because the bill went right up to the end.”
Driscoll said the there is no need for the state to rush because the changes being considered to the federal law would preempt state actions taken after Jan. 1 of this year. And the federal legislation is not focused on the “procedural matters” addressed in the committee’s new language, he said.
“Arguments that these amendments must be rushed into enactment to avoid federal preemption are without factual basis,” he said.
Others see the issue differently, including VPIRG. Executive Director Paul Burns said there was never a deal in place to pass the law.
“Right up until the end the industry lobbyists were opposing it and were opposing the Senate for suspending the rules to take it up. This notion that there was a deal, and certainly a deal that included an understanding that nobody would ever come back to try to change the law, that just doesn’t exist. That’s just a fantasy,” Burns said.
He said the “modest changes” added to S.139 are intended “to make a law that is designed to protect kids from toxic chemicals a little more effective.”
If changes are made to the federal law the state would be prevented from taking any action against chemicals that the federal Environmental Protection Agency considers regulating for a seven year period, Burns said.
“It puts it on list, so seven years later they may decide to regulate or they made decide not to. In all that time we would be prevented from taking any action,” he said.
By acting now, the state may be allowed to continue to regulate chemicals at the state level, depending on what Congress passes, according to Burns.
“That could be grandfathered in … if we could make it happen soon enough,” he said.
There are differences of opinion within the committee’s 5-member ranks. Sen. Dick McCormack, D-Windsor, said he believes the committee’s amendment is “superior to the language that’s in the law.”
However, McCormack also said he believes “a deal is a deal,” and making changes now could hinder future efforts to craft collaborative policy in the future.
“If a deal was made I’m reluctant to just say, ‘Well, it was a bad deal so now we’re going to make a new deal,’” he said. “I’ve got to roll this one around in my mind for a little while.”
Lyons challenged his position.
“So we’d never change a law again? I’m going to push you on that one,” she said.
Lyons said the Senate’s position last year was abandoned because of the time crunch.
“The deal, as it left the Senate, was all consumer products were being regulated. That was a deal I felt very firm about,” she said. “Some of the changes that were made in the House, I think, have been identified here as being problematic.”
First-term Sen. Brian Collamore, R-Rutland, indicated he supports keeping the existing law as is.
“I do think that you had disparate parties brought together. There was concession on both sides, an agreement was reached and Act 188 was passed,” he said. “You haven’t allowed the process to work yet.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Anthony Pollina, P-Washington, indicated his willingness to amend the law. Committee Chairwoman Claire Ayer, D-Addison, was absent Wednesday due to a family emergency.
The committee is expected to make a final decision on whether to seek changes to Act 188 this week.
MONTPELIER — The House’s path to closing the state’s $113 million budget gap is becoming more clear after a new framework was revealed Friday by House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Mitzi Johnson.
Johnson, D-South Hero, in her first year leading Appropriations, unveiled her own budget proposal the committee will use to finalize its 2016 fiscal year spending plan. It incorporates many of Gov. Peter Shumlin’s ideas to close the original $94 million hole the state faced in January, and incorporates new ideas for the additional $18.6 million needed after a revenue downgrade in late January.
Some of Johnson’s ideas are taken from a list of potential cuts totaling $29 million that lawmakers crafted with the Shumlin administration. House Speaker Shap Smith, D-Morrisville, said Monday that list of potential cuts “is appropriate to use” to close the gap.
Among the cuts used by Johnson in her budget proposal are:
— $5 million reduction for Vermont Health Connect, including subsidies
— Eliminating a $6 million state contribution to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
— Closing the Southeast State Correctional Facility in Windsor, for a $820,000 savings in both the 2016 and 2017 fiscal years
— A $1 million reduction in funding for the Vermont Veterans Home
— A $1 million reduction in funding for the Department of Information and Innovation
— A $560,000 reduction in funding for Vermont PBS split over the next two years
In total, Johnson’s proposal makes about $57 million in general fund cuts. It would incorporate $10.8 million labor savings the administration is seeking from state employees and also consolidate four emergency dispatch centers down to two.
Johnson’s proposal would utilize more than $20 million one-time or short-term funding sources. About $5 million in reserve funds would be tapped to help close the gap. It also would shift $4.8 million in spending for the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board to the capital bill to be raised through bonds. Another $1.7 million would be generated by leasing prison beds to the U.S. Marshal Service.
Whatever proposal the Appropriations Committee settles on will be paired with a revenue package fine-tuned by the House Ways and Means Committee. Smith, D-Morrisville, said the House will likely move forward with a revenue package of $35 million.
It will include, Smith said, a Shumlin proposal to eliminate the ability to deduct the previous year’s state and local taxes for taxpayers who itemize deductions. That will generate an additional $15 million tax revenue.
The House will look to also cap the amount of all itemized deductions at 2.5 times the standard deduction, according to Smith. That will raise about $18 million in additional revenue. Another $2 million in a separate fee bill will generate the remaining revenue to help balance the general fund.
Smith said he supports the framework of Johnson’s proposal which will help the committee finalize its plan this week, including the use of reserve funds.
“I do think that the framework that she’s put forward, it works. I think we both have been trying to figure out ways to bring down the amount of one-time money that is used, recognizing that next year could be difficult as well. At this point in time, I think she’s done about as good of a job as she can limiting the use one-time money,” he said. “I think it is appropriate to use (reserve funds) given the challenge that we face as long as we’re thinking strategically how we might replace it … in outgoing years.”
Smith and other House leaders are still planning to finalize a budget plan this week, but additional time will be taken if needed, he said.
“My view is that if something comes up I’d rather get it right than get it done fast. I think that we’re on target right now for the completion of the budget by the end of the week with consideration of the full House next week,” Smith said.
Read Johnson’s budget outline below:
Vermont Press Bureau reporter Josh O’Gorman and bureau chief Neal Goswami discuss guns, a sugar tax, new budget proposals and education in this week’s episode.
MONTPELIER — The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a bill ahead of the Legislature’s Friday evening deadline for non-money bills on a 5-0 vote, ensuring the full Senate will consider a scaled back-gun bill this year.
The legislation, supported unanimously in the committee Friday, seeks to ban some convicted criminals from possessing weapons and will require people found by a court to be a danger to themselves or others to be reported to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. It would take effect on Oct. 1.
The legislation is a scaled back version of another bill, S.31, that Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Sears, D-Bennington, declared “dead,” because it included an expansion of background checks for private gun sales, something that was vehemently opposed by gun rights activists.
Sears, who wrote the original draft of the revised bill that looks to keep guns out of the hands of some convicts, said he supports the idea because Vermont is the only state in the nation without such a statute. The federal government also has a similar law, but federal prosecutors often do not prosecute because of limited resources, advocates argued.
The committee voted unanimously Friday to merge the Sears-crafted language with the mental health reporting component, which came as a proposal from the Senate Health and Welfare Committee. That committee’s chairwoman, Claire Ayer, D-Addison, urged the Judiciary Committee to include it in its provision earlier this week. It was also part of S.31.
Those found by a court to be a danger to themselves will, if the bill is signed in to law, be reported to the federal database beginning Oct. 1. Anyone reported to the database could be removed from the database after three years if a court rules they are no longer a danger.
The committee labored over which crimes to include in the ban Friday morning before voting on the measure. Most major crimes in Vermont are included, but the committee agreed Friday to remove lewd and lascivious conduct, several motor vehicle crimes and all misdemeanors except domestic violence.
The committee’s action Friday was hailed by Gun Sense President Ann Braden, who helped launch the effort for new gun laws in January. She called the vote “an historic victory.”
“This is a gun violence prevention bill that’s going forward despite the opposition of the gun lobby. It shows that second amendment rights [and] respect for the 16th amendment in the Vermont Constitution goes hand-in-hand with gun violence prevention,” Braden said.
Although Sears declared Friday that S.31 — and expanded background checks for private gun sales — is dead for this year and next year, Braden said her group will continue to push for it.
“I think these are really important measures that are definitely going to keep guns out of the wrong hands. In terms of background checks, we still want that to happen. We knew that this was going to take a long time,” she said.
Evan Hughs, legislative liaison for the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, said his group will also continue its effort to ensure that gun rights are not infringed upon.
“It’s one more step in an evolving process of legislation. As the federation we’re concerned about the interests of the hunting and shooting community in the state of Vermont,” he said following Friday’s vote. “At this point we still have things that concern us but we’re willing to participate in getting the bill right.”
The meticulous attention the committee paid to the bill Friday illustrates the delicate process — and political challenges — involved in passing gun legislation. Sears said he felt “extreme pressure from all sides.”
“When I announced that I wasn’t supporting the background portion of the bill that pissed off most of the more liberal members of my caucus as well as the leadership of my caucus as well as many of my constituents back home,” he said.
Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell, D-Windsor, an original sponsor of S.31, pushed Sears hard to advance a bill. He spent considerable time in the Judiciary Committee, often seated near Sears, monitoring its progress.
“I think his behavior has been fascinating,” Sears said.
His attention was bothersome to Sears, and prompted the veteran lawmaker, who is known to express his displeasure at times, to offer Campbell total control earlier this week.
“There was one point where I asked him if he really wanted to chair the committee,” Sears said.
Campbell, a deputy state’s attorney in Windsor County and a former police officer, said he was pleased with Friday’s vote, but noted it is only “one small battle won.” The extra attention, he said, was a result of its importance.
“When you see the effect that heroin and other drugs have had on our families here in Vermont, I was willing to do anything I needed to do to try to come up with an answer,” he said. “In addition to being the pro tem I am also one of the senators. This is a bill that I actually sponsored, and as such, it was one where I felt I had not only a duty but an obligation to shepherd it in any way I could.”
Campbell said he was aware of Gov. Peter Shumlin’s discussions with members of the committee and was trying to counter that force.
“The governor made it very clear how he feels about this bill. He doesn’t support it,” Campbell said. “The governor is very powerful and the administration is very powerful. As such, I guess I had to step up my involvement.”
Shumlin, who strongly opposes any new gun laws, was pushing his message. Sears said he had conversations with Shumlin, including a call Thursday night from the governor to inquire about the bill’s status.
“He asked me what I was expecting to have happen,” Sears said. “He never said, ‘Don’t do it,’ but he’s been pretty clear publicly.”
The governor has adopted a wait-and-see stance. He acknowledged in an interview Friday that he has been speaking with committee members “over the last weeks,” but will not declare if he intends to veto the legislation if it clears both chambers and reaches his desk.
“If a bill comes to my desk, I will look at it when it gets to me. These bills have a long way to go. My feelings I’ve made clear. We’ll see what happens,” he said. “Let’s give them the latitude to do what they think is right and the governor will do what I think is right.”
Sears said the bill, as crafted, is narrow and could end up with the governor’s support.
“If we can get it through without adding something on in either the Senate or the House, I suspect he’s going to be comfortable with the idea that there’s certainly people that probably shouldn’t possess firearms,” Sears said. “It’s up to him. He’ll do what he wants.”
Shumlin, however, is far from offering his support.
“These are tough bills. (Sears is) trying to come out with one that he thinks is sensible, but we may well agree to disagree,” Shumlin said.
Campbell, despite warnings from some opponents of the bill that his efforts would cause him political harm, said he decided to push away.
“The price that I will end up paying for this is one that won’t be known for a couple years. I’ve had people tell me, quite frankly, that my political career is over for pushing this bill. As I’ve said before, that’s fine, I’m ready to deal with that.”
Read the legislation below:
Gov. Peter Shumlin chats with Vermont Press Bureau Neal P. Goswami about a House Health Care Committee bill, the state budget and gun legislation.