The Race to Town Meeting
 |
| Lots of Spectators and Paper During Cross-Over Week |
Town Meeting Day is an important date in Vermont. It's the first Tuesday in March. Winter is on the wane. The sap is beginning to flow. Mud season is right around the corner. Public schools take the week before off. Lots of people travel. Under the olden Dome in Montpelier the week leading up to Town Meeting is feverish. Friday is 'cross over'. Any bill that is going to be considered by the Senate and perhaps the Governor must be out of the House and on its way to the Senate by that date. This being the second year of the biennium, the pressure is that much greater. Action on a bill cannot be put off until next year. If it doesn't make it this year it dies.
A bill doesn't make it to the floor until it's out of committee, so committees must wrap up taking testimony and debate and, finally, make a decision. Nearly all the pressure falls on the Committee Chair, but a lot also falls on the Legislative Council. That's the team of lawyers that serve the Legislature.
Leg (pronounced "ledge") Council is stressed. Before a bill is voted on in Committee it must be reviewed carefully by the committee. So our legislative assistant (usually a bright young female lawyer) goes over the bill with us, explaining each portion. We try to find all the unintended consequences, the little nits that come back to bite you or the grammar errors that change a meaning. Before we review it, the bill is submitted to an editor, so there aren't many of those type of errors. Primarily we just have to think very carefully about the intentions and the ramifications of the bill. Inevitably that results in a change, sometimes small, sometimes large. Leg Council then has to hustle off and make the changes and run it past the editor while we go on to something else. When the change is made we go review it again.
The first reading of a bill on the House floor was when it was first introduced and pushed it off to committee. The full House does not discuss the bill at that point. It's barely noticed. After that, if it's a controversial bill we hear rumors of what's going on in committee. When a bill comes out of committee and hits the floor for second reading, we notice. The bill is presented by a member of the committee and a vote is called. At that point, before the actual vote, there can be debate. Often there is no debate at all, but sometimes it can go on for hours, as it did this week. At the same time, Leg Council is working on rewrites. If our bill's redrafting is completed and the floor debate is dragging on, our chair might pull us from the floor for more discussion or a vote on our bill.
Most debate on controversial bills occurs on 2nd reading, then the bill sits for a day before it hits the floor for the last time for third reading. Even controversial bills will fly through third reading on a voice vote. All the arguing was done on second reading. There's no point in going through it all again. That's usually the case, but sometimes third reading can be just as rough. All along the way there can be calls for roll-call votes which slows everything up. When a roll-call vote is called, the bells ring and if we're in committee or wandering around stretching our legs, we return to the House chamber for the vote.
You can guess that all this is disruptive and unpredictable. In addition, this week we had gun violence related legislation about to come over from the Senate. That resulted in a bit of political jostling.
I should add that during all this I'm still trying to figure out the algebra behind Vermont's education funding formula. I found a Representative on the Education committee who was willing to look over my work and I wanted to get it done by Town Meeting. So while on the floor half-listening to some other Representative wax eloquent about some obscure passage in a bill, I scribbled algebraic formula and pulled my hair out.
For the first two days of the week my committee concentrated on getting bills out of committee. We knew action on the floor would make the last two days of the week difficult. As you'll see, Thursday was the rough one with Saliva and Guns on the Floor. Friday was no picnic. Here's what happened:
A bill doesn't make it to the floor until it's out of committee, so committees must wrap up taking testimony and debate and, finally, make a decision. Nearly all the pressure falls on the Committee Chair, but a lot also falls on the Legislative Council. That's the team of lawyers that serve the Legislature.
Leg (pronounced "ledge") Council is stressed. Before a bill is voted on in Committee it must be reviewed carefully by the committee. So our legislative assistant (usually a bright young female lawyer) goes over the bill with us, explaining each portion. We try to find all the unintended consequences, the little nits that come back to bite you or the grammar errors that change a meaning. Before we review it, the bill is submitted to an editor, so there aren't many of those type of errors. Primarily we just have to think very carefully about the intentions and the ramifications of the bill. Inevitably that results in a change, sometimes small, sometimes large. Leg Council then has to hustle off and make the changes and run it past the editor while we go on to something else. When the change is made we go review it again.
The first reading of a bill on the House floor was when it was first introduced and pushed it off to committee. The full House does not discuss the bill at that point. It's barely noticed. After that, if it's a controversial bill we hear rumors of what's going on in committee. When a bill comes out of committee and hits the floor for second reading, we notice. The bill is presented by a member of the committee and a vote is called. At that point, before the actual vote, there can be debate. Often there is no debate at all, but sometimes it can go on for hours, as it did this week. At the same time, Leg Council is working on rewrites. If our bill's redrafting is completed and the floor debate is dragging on, our chair might pull us from the floor for more discussion or a vote on our bill.
Most debate on controversial bills occurs on 2nd reading, then the bill sits for a day before it hits the floor for the last time for third reading. Even controversial bills will fly through third reading on a voice vote. All the arguing was done on second reading. There's no point in going through it all again. That's usually the case, but sometimes third reading can be just as rough. All along the way there can be calls for roll-call votes which slows everything up. When a roll-call vote is called, the bells ring and if we're in committee or wandering around stretching our legs, we return to the House chamber for the vote.
You can guess that all this is disruptive and unpredictable. In addition, this week we had gun violence related legislation about to come over from the Senate. That resulted in a bit of political jostling.
I should add that during all this I'm still trying to figure out the algebra behind Vermont's education funding formula. I found a Representative on the Education committee who was willing to look over my work and I wanted to get it done by Town Meeting. So while on the floor half-listening to some other Representative wax eloquent about some obscure passage in a bill, I scribbled algebraic formula and pulled my hair out.
For the first two days of the week my committee concentrated on getting bills out of committee. We knew action on the floor would make the last two days of the week difficult. As you'll see, Thursday was the rough one with Saliva and Guns on the Floor. Friday was no picnic. Here's what happened:
Weekly Summary
- Tuesday
- 10:00 On the floor. No new bills, nothing exciting, no debate.
- 10:38 - 11:41 Public Democratic Caucus
- H.675 Statement of purpose of bill: This bill proposes to clarify that a court may order, as a condition of release prior to trial, that a defendant participate in prevention of domestic violence programming or that a defendant not possess a firearm or other weapon.
- H.237 Statement of purpose of bill as introduced: This bill proposes to allow law enforcement to use saliva testing on operators of motor vehicles reasonably suspected to be drug-impaired.
- 1:00 In Committee - Took testimony on H.874 about prescription and psychotropic drugs in Corrections. Good testimony from a variety of perspectives inside and out of Corrections: Nicholas Palmisano, Vermont Recovery Network, Paul Capcara, Director of Inpatient Psychiatry, Central Vermont Medical Center, Richard Fales of Rutland, Ron Coppola, NAMI Vermont. Though we made no final decision we are getting close.
- 2:25 Drones (H.615) again. And again we are getting close to a final decision on this. We're tweaking the language in the bill.
- 3:15 State Treasurer Beth Pierce testified to the committee in support of H.777 about changes in the Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund. This too should be wrapped up Wednesday.
- 4:10 break
- 4:20 H.806 Why do these get so messy? This is the Windsor facility bill that just seems to spin wheels. Discussion and testimony going around and around.
- 4:45 Done - Some discussion after before departing.
- Wednesday
- 8:30 - 10:25 - H.874 - Worked on this for nearly two hours. A thorny issue with what seems to have no solution. But we did work it closer to a conclusion.
- 10:35 - Back to the Drones bill (H.615)
- 11:30 Done with Drones, Back to Windsor commission (H.806 ).
- 12:00 - lunch
- 1:00 - 2:30 - On the floor
- 2:30 - Back in committee to work on Drones
- 3:22 - Done with Drones - on to H.777 about the Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund.
- 3:40 - Back to Drones for an official committee vote - That one;s out of Committee
- 3:48 - Back to Clean Water
- 4:25 - We're trying desperately to be done with the Water Bill but need more information.
- Various unofficial talk until 4:50. Done for the day.
- Thursday
- 8:40 - In committee for H.874 another two hours on this. The dam finally broke when we just deleted the most controversial part. Another draft requested
- 10:40 - H.777 Back with clean water - finally a clear description of how the money flows.
- 11:30 - Something new - Louis Josephson, Chief Executive Officer, Brattleboro Retreat gave presentation about the need to remedy the back up in hospital emergency rooms. We are also interested in hearing from the Retreat with regard to our bigger problem of the flow of individuals through the various mental health and corrections facilities of the state.
- 12:30 Break for lunch
- 1:00 - Proceeded in an orderly manner through a bunch of bills but then got stuck on (in?) The Saliva Bill (H.237). That occupied us for nearly two hours. The Saliva Bill came out of the Transportation committee chaired by Colchester Representative Pat Brennan. He's a strong Republican but has remained chair of Transportation for some time, because he's good at it. All the Saliva bill wanted to do was to add a saliva test to the kinds of tests that can be done at roadside to determine if a person might be driving under the influence. Here's the SAT question: The Breathalyzer test is to alcohol as the Saliva test is to what? . . . right ! drugs. Somehow this triggered all kinds of problems to some Representatives. After about an hour, our Chair pulled us to the committee room to work on a bill.
- 3:25 - H.675 came up on the floor for third reading. It's a Justice committee bill that went through the House on second reading with no debate. I'll explain what happened here in detail below. Suffice it to say that, as soon as it hit the floor, a caucus was called and each political party went to a meeting place to huddle.
- 4:15 Left caucus with at least some understanding of what might transpire next. But all the paperwork behind the process had to be taken care of, so we wandered around, went back into committee or worked on other things (email, algebra, etc.)
- 5:35 Back on the floor, and it begins to look like a long night. We're usually done by now. Fortunately there was a reception in the Cedar Creek Room so we could grab some meatballs, cheese and crackers and such. There is also no food or drink in the House chamber (except for water) so you can't dawdle.
- 8:55 Done with H.675. Yes, that took about four hours. I'll explain it below, for those that might be interested.
- 9:00 pm - With everyone tired and cranky the Speaker asked for a motion to adjourn and one was made. At which point someone yelled 'Roll-call.' We thought it was a joke as it would entail another half hour for use to vote on whether or not to adjourn. There was some laughter as people gathered up their papers. But the gavel came down. The Speaker (rightfully so) took it seriously and carefully explained that there was a call for a roll-call and if six members stood up to sustain the request, there would be a roll-call vote on adjournment. Five Republicans stood up and we adjourned at 9:05.
- Friday
- 8:30 - We're not supposed to be on the floor until 10:30 but the Committee Chair wanted to move the Clean Water Bill (H.777) We met at 8:30. After an hour and a half our Leg Council had enough for another draft and we paused work on Clean Water. Discussion and break until we're went on the floor with no idea how long we'll be there. Saliva was coming back for third reading, as well as that bill that kept us four hours on Thursday.
- 10:30 - The devotional was John Gilmore playing guitar and singing his song about Town Meetings in Vermont. Very good.
- 10:55 Representative Poirer rose and asked to be recognized for a point of personal privilege. Whoa! Never heard that before. And I'm not sure what it means, but it stops everything and allows him to speak about something that effects only him. The Speaker, a little taken aback, agreed. Rep. Poirer issued a serious apology for something he had said in the heat of Thursday's debate. I'll cover it below. We continued cranking through bills until lunch break.
- 12:45 Back on the floor.
- 12:50 Back in committee for Clean Water work while floor action continued.
- 1:25 - Saliva hits the floor for third reading and we returned to the floor for an expected vote. But the whole debate began again . . .
- 2:24 - Committee Chair calls us back as the Saliva debate continued.
- 3:00 - We wrapped up the Clean Water bill and sent Leg Council off for another re-write.
- 3:10 - Back on the floor to see where we are. Not only had the Saliva bill passed as expected but the gun related one from Thursday had flown through on a voice vote during my absence.
- 3:35 - Back in committee for a vote on Clean Water bill
- 3:55 - Back on the floor.
- 4:00 - Adjourn for the week, in the course of which we had voted three bills out of committee. Our Chair felt it was work well done.
 |
| John Gilmore Sings the Devotional |
What Happened with Guns?
The lay of the land
There were at least four gun-relate bills floating around the General Assemble. The governor is pressing for something to be done. Everyone would like to have something to bring back to Town Meeting to show we've made some progress on this issue. At Town Meeting, legislators get a chance to talk about what they've accomplished. This could be something to talk about.
The Senate recently passed S.221 with a unanimous vote of 30 to 0. This is their Red Flag bill with a stated purpose of:
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 six months 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.
Everyone supports the concept of having a court decide if someone should be restricted from possessing or purchasing a firearm under these circumstances.
The Senate is also considering H.422 which we passed (with me voting against it) last session. It hasn't really gone anywhere yet in the Senate.
On the House Notice calendar there sits S.267. When a bill is on the Notice Calendar, that means it waiting for the required day before it's next action. This is a Senate bill, so the House could amend it and sent it back to the Senate.
Two ways forward were being rumored:
The Democrats also want to extend the length of time that the restrictions would be in effect from six months to one year.
But we weren't quite there yet. After the first amendment was passed Representative Donahue submitted yet another amendment which sure appeared to me to unwind the amendment we passed. A point of order was called that it was just doing that and after some conferring at the podium the amendment was deemed ok.
The Senate is also considering H.422 which we passed (with me voting against it) last session. It hasn't really gone anywhere yet in the Senate.
On the House Notice calendar there sits S.267. When a bill is on the Notice Calendar, that means it waiting for the required day before it's next action. This is a Senate bill, so the House could amend it and sent it back to the Senate.
The Plan
When we went into caucus on Thursday at 3:28 in the afternoon, the innocuous H.675 was waiting for a vote on third reading. The Democrats want to toughen up the Red Flag Bill (S.221) and somehow get H.422 moving again. All before the end of the day.Two ways forward were being rumored:
- Suspend rules and pull S.267 off the Notice Calendar, amend it with all of H.422 and S.221, pass it and send it back to the senate. A vote to suspend the rules requires 3/4 of those present. It was unlikely that enough Republicans would go along with this. Though they like S.221 the way it passed the Senate, several don't like the other bill (H.422) which allows for a police officer investigating a domestic violence incident to confiscate weapons.
- Amend H.675 so it contains both H.422 and S.221, pass it and send it to the Senate.
Leadership chose the second path in order to avoid the suspension of rules vote.
The idea was that the Red Flag portion of the amended bill would get enough votes to drag the H.422 portion along - two birds with one stone. Enough Republicans would not want to have to explain, at Town Meeting, why they voted against the Red Flag bill. They really wanted to wait for the Senate Red Flag bill to come over to the House and pass that. Several Republican members professing how great it would be for the House and Senate to unanimously pass this bill and send it on to the governor (which actually sounded good to me). But that would have left H.422 in limbo and the Democrats wanted S.221 to be stronger. I should add here that the Democrats and the Republicans in the Vermont House are not highly disciplined. It's not unusual to vote against the party position.
Strengthening S.221
What level of proof do you need to show that someone is about to commit a crime and, therefor, that their guns should be taken away? S.221 as passed by the Senate required that there was Clear and Convincing evidence that the crime would occur. The Democrats wanted the bill to read that a Preponderance of Evidence suggested that the crime would occur. It's harder to prove that there is Clear and Convincing evidence. By making the level of proof Clear and Convincing, the bill is strengthened and may be applied in more cases. The levels of proof are, I've learned, as follows, from hardest to prove to easiest:- Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - hardest to prove
- Clear and Convincing
- Preponderance of Evidence
- Probably Cause - easiest to prove
My understanding is that with Preponderance of Evidence you are saying that the crime is more like than not to occur. With Preponderance of Evidence it is highly likely that the crime will occur.
The Democrats also want to extend the length of time that the restrictions would be in effect from six months to one year.
How it worked out
When we returned to the floor to implement this plan it was 5:30 in the evening. This would be a tough vote for me. I wanted the Red Flag portion but H.422 I had voted against before, and for good reasons. The Colchester Police Chief (also President of the Vermont Police Chief's Association) opposed it. She didn't want the hassle (legal and otherwise) of storing gun. She didn't like the hassle (legal and otherwise) of returning guns. She didn't like her police officers having to decide, during a tense domestic violence intervention, whether to confiscate guns or not. She didn't like putting them in legal jeopardy if they do not confiscate and the result was someone getting injured, even though the law tried to cover that. It was all too messy for me, and she made a great deal of sense.
When debate on the bill began I texted the Majority Whip: "I don't like this." He texted back that we should talk. Se we both left the chamber to sit down in the card room and talk. After about ten minutes I told him I would think about it.
Somewhere during this debate Representative Poirer said that the House Committee on Justice that owned the bill had forced the vote through when several members who would have voted against it were absent and hadn't been told that a vote was being taken. He really implied that the committee, and the committee chair, where behaving badly. The next day he apologized on the House floor, lamenting that he had listened to only one side of the story. I heard rumors of this as well.
Somewhere during this debate Representative Poirer said that the House Committee on Justice that owned the bill had forced the vote through when several members who would have voted against it were absent and hadn't been told that a vote was being taken. He really implied that the committee, and the committee chair, where behaving badly. The next day he apologized on the House floor, lamenting that he had listened to only one side of the story. I heard rumors of this as well.
At 6:00 I was saved when Representative Dean divided the question. That meant there would be two votes. One on the Red Flag portion and one on the H.422 portion.
After some discussion, at 6:40 another caucus was called but it was primarily leadership that wanted to talk. The rest of us milled about and waited. I had the opportunity to confer with several others, including Representative Troiano, who were helpful in organizing my thoughts.
At 7:00 a roll-call vote was called for the first (S.221) portion. After I spoke with a couple others I texted the Whip that I would vote "Yes" on the S.221 portion and "No" on the H.422 portion. I didn't say how I would vote on final amended bill because we had yet to decide how it would be amended.
The roll call vote continued on the S.221 portion and the results were: 93 yes and 46 no. I voted yes. Here's the details:
| R-Yea | 6 |
| R-Nay | 43 |
| D-Yea | 75 |
| D-Nay | 1 |
| R-Absent | 4 |
| D-Absent | 6 |
| Oth-Yea | 12 |
| Oth-Nay | 2 |
| Oth-Absent | 0 |
| Abstain | 0 |
| Not-Voting | 1 |
| 150 |
Next, at 7:20, the roll-call for the second portion of the divided amendment was called. My name begins with a "T" and the roll is called alphabetically. I planned to vote "no", but as the votes came in there seemed to be a lot more "yes"s than I figured. Should I switch? During a roll-call, when I hear the two Sullivan's called I know I'm next. I still wasn't sue when those two names came up, but . . . "Taylor of Colchester" , a pause, and I replied "No." I was one of only 28 that voted "No", the other 112 voted "Yes." Here's the details:
| R-Yea | 25 |
| R-Nay | 24 |
| D-Yea | 74 |
| D-Nay | 3 |
| R-Absent | 4 |
| D-Absent | 5 |
| Oth-Yea | 13 |
| Oth-Nay | 1 |
| Oth-Absent | 0 |
| Abstain | 0 |
| Not-Voting | 1 |
| 150 |
This required another roll-call vote. The amendment was defeated 85 to 53. I voted against it. Here are the details:
| R-Yea | 45 |
| R-Nay | 2 |
| D-Yea | 4 |
| D-Nay | 73 |
| R-Absent | 6 |
| D-Absent | 5 |
| Oth-Yea | 4 |
| Oth-Nay | 10 |
| Oth-Absent | 0 |
| Abstain | 0 |
| Not-Voting | 1 |
| 150 |
And finally there was a roll-call on the amended bill. I wanted the Red Flag portion, so voted yes on the whole bill. It passed 104 to 29. I voted "Yes". Here are the details:
| R-Yea | 15 |
| R-Nay | 27 |
| D-Yea | 76 |
| D-Nay | 1 |
| R-Absent | 11 |
| D-Absent | 5 |
| Oth-Yea | 13 |
| Oth-Nay | 1 |
| Oth-Absent | 0 |
| Abstain | 0 |
| Not-Voting | 1 |
| 150 |
And that brought us to 9:00 pm when the shenanigans mentioned in the above summary occurred. It was a long day.
Next Week:
The Vermont Legislature does not meet during the week of Town Meeting. I'll be giving a short talk at the lasagna dinner the night before Town Meeting day and taking questions. Then Tuesday we vote the usual way by going to the polls. Colchester is too big to have a real traditional Town Meeting with important votes being made by only those who attend the meeting. The rest of the week I relax.
This week my Committee did vote out a bill on Prescription Drugs in Vermont Prisons and I will be reporting that on the day we return from break.
