Week 5 - January 29th to February 2nd

Firearm Bills on the Horizon

The House Chamber beginning to fill for the hearing

There are three bills moving through the Senate that deal with firearms in Vermont. Tuesday evening there was a public hearing on the bills. The place was packed with many attendees sporting orange vests and hats. I spoke with a couple before I had to leave in order to get back to Colchester for a forum on the selection of a new Malletts Bay School principal. The picture shows the crowd just arriving.

The bills being considered are:

• H.422 - The House passed this bill last session and sent it to the Senate for consideration. Statement of purpose of bill: This bill proposes to require enable a law enforcement officer to confiscate a dangerous or deadly weapon from a person who is arrested or cited for domestic assault if the weapon is (1) in the immediate possession or control of the person being arrested or cited; (2) in plain view of the officer; or (3) discovered during a consensual search. The bill is now in the Senate Committee on Judiciary. The original bill "required". It was amended by the House to "enable."
• S.221 - This bill proposes to establish a procedure for a law enforcement officer to obtain an extreme risk protection order. The order would prohibit a person from possessing a firearm for up to one year if the Family Division of the Superior Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person poses a significant danger of causing injury to himself or herself or another person by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or by having a firearm within the person’s custody or control. 
• S.6 This bill proposes to require that a background check be conducted on the proposed transferee before a firearm may be transferred unless the transfer is between immediate family members, by or to a law enforcement agency, or by or to a law enforcement officer or member of the U.S. Armed Forces acting within the course of his or her official duties. 

Here are a couple VTDigger articles about the issue:

• January 15th article announcing the hearing
• January 31st article reviewing the hearing

Weekly Summary

• Tuesday 
• 10:00 to 11:10 Lots of bills introduced for first reading and shunted off to committees. We're also beginning to get some that have already been approved by the Senate.
• 11:15 to 12:15 - Buildings and General Services testified about various projects in the adjusted capital budget. Basically they're coming to us to say they need more money to complete projects. These requests are in the proposed Capital Bill Adjustment we are now considering. And if that weren't enough, we were given a list of about $13 million in deferred maintenance that needs to be done by 2020 (not so far away). The big construction projects were:
• Police Barracks renovation in Rockingham and Springfield $800k 
• Repair of a retaining wall at the State Office Building in Springfield - $600k
• Life/Safety improvements to 120 State Str., Montpelier - $968k
• Modifications to the rear entry to 120 State Str. - $2.8 million
• Lunch Break
• 1:15 - 1:45 Public Democratic Caucus
• 2:00 Katie Buckley, Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) and Laura Trieschmann, State Historic Preservation Officer, DHCD gave a presentation about how capital dollars have been spent and will be spent on historical restoration projects as well as the placement of  historical markers throughout the state.
• 3:00 Robert Wood Academy – Police academy projects for a total of about $1.25 million.
• 4:00 Done with testimony. Some committee planning regarding the field trip Wednesday

• Wednesday - Field Trip
• 9:00 Committee met at the Middlesex Residential Treatment Center for a short tour of the facility. 
• 10:00 Tour continued to Vermont State Libraries building in Berlin
• 10:30 Toured the Vermont Psychiatric Care Hospital in Barre
• 12:20 Met with Rep. Trevor Squirrel and Rep. Dan Connor regarding Clean Water Funding
• 1:00 On the floor. Roll-call vote on H.410 having to do with Energy Efficiency Standards. The bill adds several products to Vermont's list of products covered by energy efficiency standards. 133 members voted for it and 4 voted against it. I voted for it.
• 2:30 Back in Committee to hear from a parent who's son went through the Corrections and Mental Health systems in Vermont, including Mental Health Court. He is advocating for making it known to parents and those in court that there is a genetic test for adverse reactions to drugs used in psychiatric therapy. 
• 2:47 More testimony about projects in the Capital Bill Adjustment
• Northern State Corrections Facility door control system - $2.7 million
• Vermont Supreme Court building reconfiguration -$20 million
• Parking garage repair in Rutland - $250k
• 4:40 Done with testimony. Some continued discussion about our field trip and the work we have before us.
• Thursday
• 8:30 - 10:00 The chair wanted some time for 'Committee Discussion'; just a chance for us to talk without taking testimony. We need to concentrate on the big picture needs regarding Corrections and Mental Health. 
• Switchgear and Generator - Interesting discussion about what the State House should have with regard to generator backup. It's a $500k project. We have an aging 45kw generator that supports the emergency lights and the IT servers, but little else, and not the elevators. During the June 2017 veto session we lost power and a couple of tourists were stuck in the elevator between floors. There are a number of legislators who really can't use the stairs. We need more information on this issue. Near the end of the discussion I raised the possibility of Tesla Batteries, so BGS will look into that as well. I'm pretty sure that will be too expensive.
• 11:00 Short Break
• 11:30 The Military - Brigadier General Michael T. Heston, Deputy Adjutant General, Military Department (MD) and John Patry, Military Operations Supervisor, MD testified about what the National Guard needs and is using for armories and training. A new armory in Bennington is planned. There are also several small project at Camp Johnson in my district.
• 12:00 to 1:00 - break
• 1:00 to 1:30 on the floor for some quick action on Swimming Holes (H.132) and a couple other bills. The swimming holes are discussed later in this blog.
• 1:30 Back in Committee to hear testimony on several bills that are 'on our wall', meaning we have to make some sort of decision about them: should be really consider them or not? back them or forget them? This is an early step in a bill's trail to becoming law. The sponsors of the following bills gave short presentations.
• H.756 Regarding the use of Capital Bill dollars to fund school construction. Currently there is a moratorium on the use of any state bonded money to help with school construction.  This bill proposes using it only when schools are consolidating. This could be a real can of worms.
• H.760 This bill proposes to preclude defendants held without bail from eligibility for the Home Detention Program. I discuss this later in this blog under Legislation by Anecdote.
• H.773 on Medically Assisted Treatment (MAT) of those in the Corrections system who are addicted to drugs. The bill wants DOC to have several facilities apply for designation as an Opioid Treatment Program (OTP) and encourage DOC to induce treatment for addicted inmates who are not already on MAT. Opioids, and the treatment of same, within Corrections is another messy issue we're dealing with. We will take more testimony from DOC on this before deciding what to do with the bill.
• 3:00 - Cornelius Hogan (former Commissioner of Corrections) gave us his opinion of the proposed 925-bed Corrections Campus. This was particularly good testimony from a person with considerable experience within Corrections. He is against such a large facility.
• H.806 (4:00 - 4:22) Committee member Paul Belaski introduced this bill on behalf of some community leaders in the area around the now-closed Corrections facility in Windsor. The bill creates a committee of community members that will make recommendations to the state.
• 4:30 - Done for the day.
• Friday
• 8:45 - T.J. Donovan, Vermont Attorney General weighed in on the proposed Corrections Campus. He admits that talking to the Committee is a bit unusual, but he has some strong feelings. He is concerned about overbuilding. By some measures we are the safest state in the union. Crime has been reduced while we have reduced our incarceration rate. This is the result of community based efforts and an enlightened criminal justice system. With our Corrections population decreasing he does see the need for a new large facility.
• 9:30 - 11:40 On the floor - Lots of bill introduced and pushed off to committees. There was considerable discussion on a couple.
• H.562 for 2nd reading - Statement of purpose of bill as introduced: This bill proposes to repeal  Vermont’s parentage laws and replace them with a more comprehensive parentage title that includes de facto parentage, genetic parentage, parentage by assisted reproductive technology, and parentage by gestational carrier agreement. By voice vote the bill was ordered for 3rd reading and will come back again.
• H.633 is the Budget Adjustment Act. The House passed this in mid-January. The Senate has been working on it and finally sent it back with some amendments. We passed it again with a voice vote. Now it goes to the governor. 
• 11:45 - Back in Committee for a little discussion and that was it for the week. Soon we will begin working Friday afternoons.

Legislation by Anecdote

On Thursday we heard testimony from Representative Chesnut-Tangerman about his bill H.760. He began his presentation by saying that he knows Legislation by Anecdote is a bad thing, but, just the same, he wanted to tell us the story of events in the town of Tinmouth, VT. He then presented a story of a dairy farmer killed in a hit and run by a neighbor with a considerable crime record. The town does not want the charged person released on home detention. They think someone will get killed if he is. The person charged has been held without bail for over a year. The trial is coming up in March.

The proposed bill would state that anyone who is held without bail cannot be released on home detention. 

The story was compelling and the committee hastened to assure the presenter that no one in their right mind would release the guy. But the presenter made it clear that the town was not swayed by those arguments. They wanted a firm guarantee, by law, that he would not get out of jail before the trial. 

I tried to explain that all the talk of whether or not a judge would release him is irrelevant. We had to ignore the anecdote and how terrible it all was, and consider only the law: should a person who is being held with no bail be eligible for release on home detention. Given that being held without bail means that this is a serious crime and there is a strong likelihood of flight, it would seem sensible to say that such persons should not be illegible for home detention. In fact, in the the state of Vermont there are only 8 to 12 people on home detention and they have real-time electronic monitors on them. The whole issue seems a little over the top.

Legislating by Anecdote is a real danger. Legislators have to be able to pull back and view the law as it is, divorced from the story that may have created it.

It was also interesting that there is no way this bill will become law before the trial, so, in a way, it's moot for this specific case. 

After considerable discussion the Chair found the related statute with the following wording:

At the request of the court, the Department of Corrections, or the defendant, the status of a defendant who is detained pretrial in a correctional facility for lack of bail may be reviewed by the court to determine whether the defendant is appropriate for home detention. 

The keys words are for lack of bail in the first sentence. In this case the detainee is being held without bail not for lack of bail, so, by law, he cannot be released on home detention. QED - quod erat demonstrandum or So it is demonstrated.

Someone needs to tell the community of Tinmouth. By my continual question is: "How did this get this far?" The town is all worked up. A bill was conceived. Legislative Council lawyers put in time researching and drafting. A bill was printed and distributed, read for a first time, sent to a committee and presented to us. All without real purpose?

Well, in fact, Representative Chesnut-Tangerman gets credit for listening to his constituents and for acting upon their concerns. We are also all made aware of the facts of the case. And I get an interesting entry in my blog.

The Governor's Race

This week we heard of two new candidates to be listed in the Democratic Primary to run against the incumbent Republican - Phil Scott. All the current Democratic candidate are:

• James Ehlers - Who was a Colchester resident and is not living in Winooski. 
• Ethan Sonneborn of Bristol, Vermont
• Christine Hallquist of Hyde Park

Let it never be said that Vermont Democratic Party candidates are dull. I know James Ehlers. He's smart, dedicated to the environment (particularly drinking water) and veterans' issues. Ethan Sonneborn is 13 years old. Apparently there is nothing in the Vermont constitution regarding what age a candidate has to be in order to run for governor. Christine Hallquist is the CEO of Vermont Electric Cooperative and also very smart. She was David Hallquist until 2015. 

Swimming Holes and Fine Points

On Thursday we debated a bill about swimming holes in Vermont. People die in them. But can a landowner be sued by the survivors? Current Vermont law reads as follows:

An owner shall not be liable for property damage or personal injury sustained by a person who, without consideration, enters or goes upon the owner's land for a recreational use unless the damage or injury is the result of the willful or wanton misconduct of the owner.

Seems pretty straight forward. So then we have this bill coming up for third, and final, reading on Thursday. A legislator interrogated the presenter, asking for clarification of the last sentence in the bill. It reads "An owner who posts a sign pursuant to this subsection shall not be liable for any damage or injury allegedly arising out of the posting. " The interrogating legislator asked, "Is the owner not liable for the injuries in the swimming hole or for the posting of the sign. Is the owner worried about someone injuring themselves on the sign or in the swimming hole?" The presenter of the bill was confused and unsure. He shuffled his papers as he stood. The crowd waited. The Speaker rescued him, "Would the presenter like to the House to stand at ease for a few minutes will you consult with leg council?"

A few minutes later came the clarification. It was, indeed, the posting of the sign that was the issue, not the swimming hole itself. The purpose of the bill reads - "This bill proposes to provide a landowner with immunity from liability for posting a sign warning about the dangers of swimming in a swimming hole on the landowner’s property. " The idea was that the owner cannot be sued for his sign not conforming to some legal description of what a proper posting might be. So if the sign had lettering that was too small to read he could not be sued for not properly warning about the swimming hole. This seems just a little ridiculous, but we passed it on to the Senate on a voice vote. I may be missing something.

Next Week

• Clean Water Funding should be on the docket for next week. 
• Education Funding has come back into the spotlight with House Ways & Means working on a significant change to Vermont Public Education Funding mechanism. I'm been collecting information on this, some of which is on my website (CT4VT.com) and hope to add to it. There is, as yet, no bill.