Category Archives: Politics

House, Senate poised to withdraw controversial tax plan, pave way for copacetic adjournment

Speaker of the House Shap Smith

Shap Smith

House and Senate Democrats look poised to end their veto showdown with Gov. Peter Shumlin by withdrawing an income-tax overhaul that would have delivered tax cuts to more than 200,000  middle-class Vermonters.

Neither House Speaker Shap Smith nor Senate President John Campbell have made any definitive announcements today about the status of their battle with Shumlin over the tax reform proposal. But in an interview on WDEV’s the Mark Johnson show this morning, Smith seemed to indicate that he didn’t want to escalate the standoff.

“It’s going to be a good proposal if it’s passed this year, or if it’s passed (next year),” Smith said.

Since the impacts of the reform proposal wouldn’t begin taking effect until fiscal year 2015 anyway, Smith said, “our feeling is we can still do it (next) January if we decide not to go forward with it today.”

The tone telegraphed the withdrawal of the proposal – an official announcement will be coming later this afternoon – a concession that would signal the end of a late-session battle that has pitted the Democratic governor against a House and Senate controlled by members of his own party.

Smith and Campbell had sought to cap itemized deductions, and used the resulting revenue to bring down marginal income-tax rates across the board. The changes would have had the effect of increasing taxes on about 15,000 wealthier tax filers, and decreased obligations modestly for about 240,000 people, mostly in low- and middle-class tax brackets.

Janet Ancel

Janet Ancel

Rep. Janet Ancel, chairwoman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, championed the plan as a revenue-neutral way of delivering tax relief to working Vermonters. Shumlin, however, said the proposal violated the no-new-taxes pledge he entered into with lawmakers last week, and made it clear he would veto the bill if it made it to his desk.

Shumlin also criticized the plan for coming so late in the session, and said it hadn’t been sufficiently vetted.

Smith this morning said that if there’s going to be a fight over the proposal, he wants it to be over the merits of the policy, not over whether it came too late in the session, or whether it reneges on any deals.

“We don’t think something that’s pretty good policy should be clouded by technical arguments, and we don’t want to fight about anything other than, is this a good idea?” Smith said.

In the months between now and the second half of the biennium, Smith said, he believes he can help Shumlin learn to appreciate the rightness of the House and Senate’s thinking.

“We think this is a fair tax policy that’s going to lower taxes for over 200,000 Vermonters, and we think we can take the time and convince the governor that this makes sense to do,” Smith said. “We think this is something the governor and the Legislature should be out championing, not fighting about.”

The dispute over tax policy may the most contentious issue standing between lawmakers and a Tuesday adjournment, but it isn’t the only area of disagreement in the building.

An effort to insert into the budget language previously stricken from a bill dealing with mountaintop wind development has tripped up negotiations around the $5.3 billion bill. House lawmakers are trying to desperately to salvage pieces of an education-funding reform bill that has stalled in the Senate. And the House floor this evening – and perhaps well into the night – will have one last debate over an end-of-life-choices bill that appears all but certain to win final passage.

Conservative super PAC back in action with mailings that hit Dems over new taxes

The conservative super PAC “Vermonters First” is venturing back into legislative politics, this time with a statewide mailing that hammers Democratic lawmakers for proposed increases on a slew of taxes.

Earlier this year, Vermonters First, which spent about $1 million on behalf of Republican candidates during the last election cycle, aired a series of 15-second television ads calling Dems on the carpet for a proposed increase in the gas tax.

The group, funded almost exclusively (as of the latest campaign-finance disclosure deadlines) by Burlington heiress Lenore Broughton, is out now with glossy tri-folds, which began arriving Tuesday in the mailboxes of voters in districts with Democrats in the House.

“(Your representative here) just voted to go on a massive taxing spree!” the mailing says.

A photograph of a shopping cart filled with a pair of jeans, gas can, miniature house, cup of soda and a burger symbolizes the suite of provisions in three revenue bills passed by the Vermont House so far this yaer.

The House’s $23 million revenue bill would eliminate the sales tax exemption on soft drinks, candy, bottled water and items of clothing that cost more than $110. The legislation also raises the meals tax for a year, and would raise income taxes on rich people. An education-funding bill passed in February, meanwhile, would send property tax rates up by 5 cents.

“The high cost of living in Vermont is going to get worse if Democratic (your rep’s name here) gets her way,” the mailer says.

The coup de grace: a perforated tear-off, onto which Vermonters First has already printed the home address of the Democratic rep, that encourages voters to “write your own personal message” to the officeholder.

Broughton cried foul last year when a group of single-payer advocates picketed outside her Burlington home in protest of her media blitzes.

Vermonters First’s lone staff, Tayt Brooks, didn’t respond to requests for comment, as usual. But the mailings indicate that Broughton is as committed as ever to ending one-party rule, and is willing to spend a lot of money to get it done.

Vt. GOP struggle: Go moderate? Or stay the course of conservative?

Phill Scott

Phil Scott

They’ve descended to super-minority status in both the House and Senate, and lay claim to just one of Vermont’s six statewide offices.

By the numbers at least, the once-dominant Vermont Republicans have reached a new low in their years-long fall from grace. Their fight for the future, however, is being waged not with the Democrats that so embarrassed them in the last two election cycles, but among fellow Republicans vying against each other for control of the party’s organizational apparatus.

The emergence of two factions — one led by Vermont Republican Party Chairman Jack Lindley, the other by Lt. Gov. Phil Scott — has pitted the old-guard GOP against a cadre of upstart reformists looking to put some distance between themselves and the Republican National Committee.

As a group led by Scott pieces together a statewide re-branding strategy aimed at picking up the centrists and Independents he says have been turned off by the party in recent years, Lindley and others are beginning to push back against a plan that would, in Lindley’s words, “turn its back on the national party.”

“I’m not about to go down the road of trying to have a party in Vermont that’s Democrat-lite,” Lindley said in an interview last week.
Continue reading

Dottie Deans elected to serve as Democratic Party’s new chairwoman

The Vermont Democratic Party has a new chairman.
The Democrats’ state committee on Saturday voted unanimously in favor of Dottie Deans, who replaces outgoing chairman Jake Perkinson. Deans, of North Pomfret, most recently served as vice-chairwoman of the party, and said she’s eager to begin preparing for the 2014 election cycle.

“I look forward to continuing our work concentrating on our
biennial reorganization in our towns, counties, and state as well as
supporting our elected representatives here and in Washington and
preparing for the 2014 elections,” Deans said in a statement.

According to a party release, Deans is a former elementary school teacher who began her climb through party ranks as town chairwoman in Pomfret. Deans is also known for her local HIV/AIDS Service organization, H2RC, where she served as a volunteer, staff member, and most recently stepped down as the board chairwoman, according to the release.

“As a teacher I know that an integral part of learning is listening and
staying focused on the tasks at hand,” Deans said. “I will concentrate on working with all Democrats to grow and strengthen our outreach and presence
throughout our state.”

UPDATED: Perkinson out as Democratic Party chair

Jake Perkinson, who’s milling about the Statehouse cafeteria this morning in the wake of announcing his resignation as chairman of the Vermont Democratic Party, says a confluence of business and family matters has compelled him to call it quits.

He said he leaves under nothing but good terms, and that it’s really about freeing up time for him to spend more time with his kids and pursue some professional opportunities.

Perkinson said he also wants to allow talent within the party to churn through the ranks, and that by leaving now, he prevents the kind of hierarchical “logjam” that comes with longer-serving chairs.

The party this morning announced the imminent departure of Jake Perkinson. He’ll step down March 16, according to a press release, when he’ll be replaced on an interim basis by vice-chairwoman Dottie Deans.

Perkinson has been with the party for a decade, and helped orchestrate its near sweep of Republicans in the most recent election cycle.

We’ll have more on Perkinson’s tenure in tomorrow’s editions of the Times Argus and Rutland Herald.

Below, the release:

Continue reading

Critics say campaign finance bill has gone off the rails

Elections watchdogs say a bill aimed at tempering the influence of money in politics would only exacerbate the problem.

The Senate Committee on Government Operations has spent much of the first two months of the session on a wide-ranging campaign-finance bill, S.82, that originally sought heightened disclosure requirements in the elections process.

The bill comes in the wake of a 2012 election cycle that saw super PACs make their debut in Vermont. Lawmakers from all three parties seemed to agree that while the Legislature can’t curb the flow of  money into these new entities, they can at least help voters follow the money.

But changes to the bill in recent weeks have drawn fire from elections watchdogs, who say the legislation would actually intensify the stream of cash flowing into the elections process.

At issue is a proposed increase in the size of allowable donations to candidates and political parties, who would, under the new rules, be allowed to receive larger contributions from their donors.

Proponents say the higher limits are a necessary evil aimed at helping candidates counteract the impact of super PACs, which aren’t bound by limits on the contributions they can accept. Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, disagrees with the tactic.

It’s like saying that I object to the amount of pollution that a large factory is discharging into the river, and my solution is to allow every other factory to increase its pollution in order to achieve parity,” Burns said in a release. “This arms race mentality only increases the problem of money in politics, it doesn’t solve it.”

Political candidates currently can accept no more than $2,000 from a single donor in a two-year campaign cycle. The Senate bill, up for a committee vote later this afternoon, would increase that figure to $5,000. The bill would allow candidates to accept up to $7,000 from political action committees, and $85,000 from political parties.

As Shumlin sounds alarm over sequestration, GOP chairman urges calm

As Congress inches closer to the brink, lawmakers and administration officials in Vermont are beginning to sound the alarm over the financial impacts of sequestration. But Jack Lindley, chairman of the Vermont Republican Party, says it’s much ado about nothing.

“There’s very, very little evidence that would indicate the sky is going to fall,” Lindley said this afternoon. “I think things are being terribly overblown.”

A report put out by the White House last week enumerates the financial impacts of sequestration on Vermont. Across-the-board cuts to human services, public safety, education, health care and the military will see a reduction in federal revenue of at least $9 million over the next seven months, according to the White House projections. And that figure doesn’t capture the dollar effect of furloughs or job losses for the thousands of federal employees that call Vermont home.

For a complete list of the Vermont-specific impacts, visit: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/sequester-factsheets/Vermont.pdf

But Lindley said Vermont can more than withstand the looming cuts. He said the “cuts,” after all, are actually reductions in rates of increase.

“There’s going to be very minimal damage,” he says.

Lindley said he’d like to see the D’s and R’s get together and cut a deal. But he said it needs to include at least as significant a spending cut as the one awaiting the country if they do nothing. If Vermont and the U.S. can’t absorb the kinds of spending reductions associated with sequestration, Lindley said, then we’re all doomed anyway.

“This is exactly what needs to happen if we’re going to get ourselves where we’re not borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we’re spending at the federal level,” Lindley said. “If we can’t get this accomplished, lord help us all in terms of what it means for our kids and grandkids.”

Shumlin tells Politico: “Congress… is holding America hostage”

Peter Shumlin

Peter Shumlin

From Politico.com reporter Kevin Robillard:

Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin has seen the enemy — and it is Republicans in Congress.

“The one thing that stands in our way of prosperity, of job creation, right now, is this Congress, which refuses to work with the president,” Shumlin said Friday on POLITICO’s State Solutions Conference, adding: “We have a Congress that is holding American prosperity hostage right now; we have Republican governors who are passing the tax policies they can’t get past a Democratic [Senate] and a Democratic president.”

He was speaking at Politico’s “State Solutions” conference, and had much more to say, on gun control and on the 2016 Presidential race. The interviewer gets in a nice sigh, about 45 seconds into the video – watch the video and read the full story at Politico.com.

Governor reimburses state for campaign trip in state plane

Jeb Wallace-Brodeur / Staff File Photo State aviation program administrator Guy Rouelle stands next to the state-owned Cessna.

Jeb Wallace-Brodeur / Staff File Photo
State aviation program administrator Guy Rouelle stands next to the state-owned Cessna.

By Pete Hirschfeld

MONTPELIER — Until recently, most Vermonters probably weren’t aware that the state had its own plane. But news that Gov. Peter Shumlin used the single-engine Cessna in the run-up to last year’s election has lent the aircraft some newfound celebrity.
On Sept. 27 of last year, Shumlin hopped aboard the state-owned plane to make a late-evening flight from Lyndonville to Middlebury. It was one of Shumlin’s five flights aboard the 51-year-old Cessna last year, but it’s proving to be the most controversial.
That’s because Shumlin was en route to Middlebury State Airport so he could catch a car ride to a campaign fundraiser at a private home in Lincoln. When the Burlington weekly Seven Days broke news of the trip last weekend, administration officials asked the campaign to retroactively reimburse taxpayers for the flight. Continue reading

Dramatic vote in Senate proves game-changer for “death with dignity”

Stefan Hard / Staff Photo Stefan Hard / Staff Photo Sen. Claire Ayer, D-Addison, introduces end-of-life bill S. 77 Tuesday in the Senate Chamber of the Statehouse in Montpelier. Ayer is flanked  on her right by Sen. Christopher Bray, D-Addison, and Sen. Peter Galbraith, D-Windham. Sen. Robert Hartwell, D-Bennington, is in the foreground right.

Stefan Hard / Staff Photo
Sen. Claire Ayer, D-Addison, introduces end-of-life bill S. 77 Tuesday in the Senate Chamber of the Statehouse in Montpelier. Ayer is flanked on her right by Sen. Christopher Bray, D-Addison, and Sen. Peter Galbraith, D-Windham. Sen. Robert Hartwell, D-Bennington, is in the foreground right.

The Legislature may have 180 members, but the biggest votes in Vermont’s history often come down to a single individual. And in the Senate Wednesday evening, Sen. Peter Galbraith used his turn at the wheel to derail a decade-old push for a state-sanctioned process by which doctors could hasten the death of their terminally ill patients.

As one of four senators refusing to say publicly whether he supported “death with dignity,” the Windham County Democrat has been at the center of the intrigue since last month. On Tuesday, he broke his silence by voting in favor the bill. His support would prove fleeting.

The controversial legislation outlined a process by which physicians could prescribe lethal doses of medication to mentally competent, terminally ill patients with less than six months to live. Galbraith said he supports the intent of the bill – to allow suffering individuals to bow out on their own terms, surrounded by friends and family. But he said the “state-sponsored process” constituted undue government intervention in what should be a sacred exchange between doctor and patient.

Peter Galbraith

Peter Galbraith

Instead of a defining a lengthy and highly regulated procedure by which patients of sound mind can seek a fatal dose of barbituates from their consenting doctors, Galbraith said, the state ought to simply indemnify any physician who agrees to prescribe the medication.

Under normal circumstances, Galbraith’s proposal wouldn’t have stood a chance. But Wednesday wasn’t a normal day.

The vote on the bill Tuesday passed by a 17-13 margin, and Galbraith wasn’t the only ‘aye’ to register  concerns with the bill. Sen. Bob Hartwell, a Bennington County Democrat, also dislikes the legislation, and said his ‘yes’ vote Tuesday was only to give its supporters a chance to make it more palatable before a final vote Thursday.

Galbraith’s amendment sought to strike entirely the underlying bill, which was modeled after a 15-year-old statute in Oregon and has been years in the making here. He then replaced the 22-page bill with a five-paragraph amendment that insulates from civil and criminal liability a doctor who prescribes a “lethal dosage” to a terminally ill person. The amendment also protects from liability any friend or family member who is in the presence of the person when they ingest the medication.

The amendment gave opponents of the original bill the opening they’d been looking for. By voting in favor of Galbraith’s bill – a measure most wouldn’t support generally – they could effectively kill off the legislation it sought to replace. Sure enough, all 13 people who voted against the bill Tuesday voted in favor of Galbraith’s amendment today. They were joined by Galbraith and Hartwell, which led to a 15-15 tie on the floor of the Senate. That left the tie-breaking vote to Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, an avowed opponent of “physician assisted suicide.” He voted ‘yes’ for Galbraith’s amendment.

It was a dramatic moment that took even jaded Statehouse veterans by surprise.

It isn’t the end of the road for the original bill. Sen. Claire Ayer, an Addison County Democrat, chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare, has spent the last six weeks shepherding the Oregon-style bill through the Senate. “As much as I detest” the Galbraith amendment, Ayer said, she encouraged her colleagues to vote in favor of it.

By getting it through the Senate and over to the House, she said, lawmakers can bring the bill back to its original form and get a second chance to pass it as-is. Sen. Dick McCormack agreed, saying there are procedural reasons to pass the bill, “even in its presently grotesque form.”

Galbraith said his amendment differs philosophically from the bill it replaces in only one area.

“And that is as to what safeguards are built in,” Galbraith said. “The other bill leaves it to the state to decide who can do what under what circumstances. I believe the best safeguard is the close relationship between a doctor and their patient.”

He seemed taken aback by the intensity of the hostility to his amendment.

“It’s not grotesque. It’s not a travesty,” he said. “It isn’t exactly what they wanted, but it delivers the result they were looking for.”

Ayer said the underlying legislation sought to end precisely the kind of ill-defined, poorly overseen, under-the-table process that Galbraith’s bill would legalize. She said the legislation sought to engender deeper conversations between doctors and patients about the dying process, and make sure terminally ill people understand the range of palliative care options available. Ayer said she worries the Galbraith amendment may also create some new legal loopholes ripe for exploitation by unscrupulous doctors or caregivers.

Dick Walters, head of Patient Choices Vermont, an advocacy group pushing the bill, said Galbraith’s amendment “strips all of the carefully crafted and well-tested safeguards from the bill and instead gives physicians full immunity when prescribing lethal doses of medication.”

The bill comes up for final reading Thursday, creating another potentially interesting vote. A number of senators who supported the underlying bill voted against Galbraith’s amendment today. The amendment carried only because of unanimous support from opponents of the underlying bill. But the original bill is dead now, in the Senate at least, and can’t be resuscitated regardless of the fate of the Galbraith amendment. That means the same people who wanted to see the bill killed off entirely can now vote against the Galbraith amendment without consequence. And if senators who supported the original version don’t come around to Galbraith’s language, the legislation, in all its forms, could die for good.

Walters said he hopes senators who support the underlying bill will hold their noses and vote ‘yes’ for the amendment.

Republicans break out badges in move to become health care police

House and Senate Republicans have accused Gov. Peter Shumlin of violating state law by failing to tell Vermonters how he plans to pay for single-payer health care.

Legislation signed into law by the Democratic governor in 2009 included a provision calling for the recommendation of a single-payer financing mechanism by Jan. 15 of this year. Administration officials say the mandate was rendered unnecessary by a shifting federal landscape that postponed for at least three years any hope of implementing the publicly financed system.

Senate Minority Leader Joe Benning, however, said Vermonters are looking answers, not excuses.

“Businesses need to have the information necessary to make important decisions for themselves and their employees,” Benning, a Caledonia County Republican, said during a Statehouse press conference Thursday morning. “We need to have a clear understanding of what the game plan is, and at present we don’t have that game plan.”

Jeb SpauldingAdministration Secretary Jeb Spaulding dismissed the GOP attack as a “stunt.” The administration last week unveiled a highly anticipated report on single-payer; Spaulding said the administration had explained to lawmakers in advance that it would not include any specific recommendations for financing. He said reasonable people agree that it makes no sense to design a financing system for a program that won’t begin until 2017.

“These are people who want to undermine the effort to move to a single-payer system and are looking for any opportunity they can get to confuse people and erode support,” Spaulding said. “Issuing a specific plan at this stage of the game would not in any way help Vermonters understand what a new system would look like or what the options are to pay for it.”

For a deeper look at Republicans’ grievances, and whether they have any merit, check out the full story in today’s edition of The Times Argus and Rutland Herald.

 

Baruth withdraws proposed assault weapons ban, but gun-control debate lives on

Jeb Wallace-Brodeur / Staff  Photo                           Tim Griswold of Rutland wraps himself in a flag during a rally in support of gun rights at the Statehouse in Montpelier on Saturday afternoon.

Jeb Wallace-Brodeur / Staff Photo
Tim Griswold of Rutland wraps himself in a flag during a rally in support of gun rights at the Statehouse in Montpelier on Saturday afternoon.

Reported first by Green Mountain Daily’s Ed Garcia and confirmed first by Paul Heintz at Seven Days, Sen. Philip Baruth says he’ll withdraw a proposed ban on assault weapons.

Baruth’s proposal fueled a groundswell of opposition that erupted Saturday in Montpelier, when about 250 Vermonters rallied on the steps of the Statehouse in support of the Second Amendment. In a statement provided to Heintz, Baruth said “it is painfully clear to me now that little support exists in the Vermont Statehouse for this sort of bill.”

“It’s equally clear that focusing the debate on the banning of a certain class of weapons may already be overshadowing measures with greater consensus, like tightening background checks, stopping the exchange of guns for drugs, and closing gun show loopholes,” Baruth said.

Elected last month to serve as majority leader of the 23-member Senate Democratic caucus, Baruth also said “I owe it to my caucus to remove an issue that seems increasingly likely to complicate our shared agenda this biennium.”

Baruth’s decision to withdraw S32, however, won’t table the gun-control issue in Montpelier this year. Over in the House, Reps. Linda Waite-Simpson, an Essex Junction Democrat, and Adam Greshin, a Warren Independent, are dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s on a piece of legislation that will, most controversially, seek to ban ammunition clips containing more than 10 rounds.

Continue reading

Progs slam Shumlin over plan to fund childcare by cutting benefits to poor

A group of Progressive lawmakers this afternoon took an aggressive stance against Peter Shumlin’s first high-profile proposal of 2013, saying his “half-baked” plan to fund new childcare subsidies would “pit working families against one another.”

Shumlin won plaudits last week for proposing that Vermont spend an additional $17 million on childcare subsidies for low-income parents. But his plan to fund it – reducing an “earned income tax credit” that now delivers refund checks to more than 40,000 low-income tax filers – has drawn a scathing rebuke.

At a press conference in the Cedar Creek room, Rep. Chris Pearson, a Burlington Progressive, said it can’t be considered a “serious proposal.”

I have yet to hear from any Democrat who supports this idea. Republicans have articulated their concerns, and Progressives are solidly opposed to this funding scheme,” Pearson said.

Pearson said Vermont needs to move ahead with the additional childcare subsidies, but that “there is no reason to cut the most effective anti-poverty program in Vermont” to do it.

Pearson and Sen. Anthony Pollina said a small increase on the tax rates of wealthy Vermonters would easily cover the cost.

It’s odd, Pearson said, that Shumlin last year rejected their proposed tax hike on people making more than $373,000 per year as a “broad-based tax increase.”

He said he was opposed to broad-based tax increases, even though our proposal lat year only impacted about 4,000 families,” Pearson said. “By contrast, this proposal hits over 40,000.”

After the press conference, Secretary of Human Services Doug Racine again defended the plan. Vermont has limited resources with which to help lower-income residents, Racine says, And he and the governor believe the $17 million will deliver more value to Vermont families if it’s reallocated in the form of a childcare subsidy.

Racine also says that Vermont’s tax code has become more progressive in the 25 years since the EITC was created, something that has benefited financially the people who would be affected by the proposed reduction.

Pearson said he thinks the whole episode may just be an elaborate political play.

Gov. Shumlin is a skilled politician, and I fear this is a diversionary tactic,” Pearson said. “Perhaps he hopes his laughable revenue plan will be enough to distract lawmakers and advocates from the budget cuts we expect next week,” Pearson said. “We will not be distracted. We will work tirelessly to protect those who the economic boom of previous decades has left behind.”

Anti-single-payer group steals page from Michael Moore

You might remember ‘Sicko,’ the 2007 documentary from Michael Moore that made the case for single-payer by contrasting the for-profit health care industry in the U.S. with government-run systems in places like Canada, Cuba and the UK.

Now, this state’s leading anti-single-payer group is stealing a page from the liberal provocateur as it tries to send precisely the opposite message. 

Vermonters for Health Care Freedom wants to raise $18,250 to fund production of “Lessons from Canada,” a documentary it says will show what a train wreck single-payer is north of the border.

In an email to would-be benefactors, Jeff Wennberg, executive director of VHCF, says the documentary “will help us activate an already existing coalition of conservatives, independents, and moderate Democrats who think Vermont’s single payer plan is reckless.”

 

Wennberg already has a trailer up  – you can check it out at https://transaxt.com/Donate/4EP84S/VHCFSSinglePayerDocumentary/

 

The teaser gives a little taste of what the full documentary would have in store.

 

This whole idea that it’s free, well it’s  like if you have a free bar at a wedding, some people won’t be as careful as they should, and as a result the liquor may run out,” says one guy in a suit.

 

Look for the health care debate to ramp up next Thursday, when the Shumlin administration unveils it’s long-awaited single-payer financing plan. They’d been scheduled to present the plan today – statute actually required them to – but are holding off until the governor drops his fiscal year 2014 budget.

 

 

Senate committee assignments shake up the Statehouse

What do the Senate committee assignment shake-ups mean for the legislative session ahead? Pete got into this in his story on the subject in today’s Times Argus and Rutland Herald, but one key post, the Natural Resources committee chair, was given to a vocal critic of mountaintop wind projects, signaling action in that quarter:

In by far the highest-profile snub, Chittenden County Democrat Ginny Lyons was stripped of her post as chairwoman of the Committee on Natural Resources. She will be replaced by Hartwell, who will lead the fight this year for a three-year moratorium on mountaintop wind development.

Hartwell is also a vocal critic of the Public Service Board. He wants to radically alter the regulatory process for some major energy projects — a sentiment he says some of his new committee-mates share.

“Right now there are a lot of people who get to make a statement (in the Act 248 regulatory process) and then just get ushered out of the process rather than having their position truly heard,” Hartwell said. “It’s kind of an antiquated system that we’d like to bring up to date.”

Another key assignment was the posting of Progressive Tim Ashe to lead the Senate Finance Committee, a premier post.