HOUSE COMMITTEE PRIORITIES

It is Sunday evening and the close of the first week of the 2010 legislative session. The tone of the State House this year is somber as our fiscal constraints loom so large. While most of the news this week has been about the budget, here is some of what to expect from the 14 House committees this year:

1. WAYS AND MEANS: is concentrating on our revenue streams. Expect to hear about steps to provide for greater accountability, jobs creation initiatives, and another look at “current use.”

2. APPROPRIATIONS will focus on expenditures. They will work to create a balanced budget that reflects the values of Vermonters, knowing that many who depend on state government will receive less in the coming year due to the size of the deficit.

3. COMMERCE will address Vermont’s troubled unemployment insurance fund as well as strengthening long-term planning for Vermont’s economic future.

4. HUMAN SERVICES’ primary focus will be responding to budget challenges. As the economy struggles, Vermonters are seeking assistance who have never needed it before. We will hear about chronic mental health issues, changes in child abuse and neglect, and juvenile justice laws.

5. TRANSPORTATION will present a bill that will provide a 1-year pilot project to allow heavy trucks currently restricted to town roads to use our Interstate highways. Expect to hear more about our 433 structurally deficient bridges. Nineteen of these were identified as most urgent as their closure would require a 30-60 mile detour.

6. GENERAL, HOUSING AND MILITARY AFFAIRS put support for families of deployed guard members and returning soldiers as a top priority. They will also be looking at affordable housing delivery systems, labor issues involving mandatory overtime among a myriad of other topics.

7. GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS faces a very big year. They will respond to the recent report on government accountability and government restructuring. Another hot topic will be the date of primary elections.

8. NATURAL RESOURCES/ENERGY will focus on several environmental initiatives.  First up is a bill to control the disposal and recycling of electronic waste, or e-waste–TV’s, computers, monitors, printers, etc.  The bill places responsibility for collection of e-waste with the manufacturer including convenient collection.  The committee will continue to gather information on Vermont Yankee to inform the continued operation debate. Whether there will be a vote from the Legislature or not remains to be seen.

9. EDUCATION committee is currently looking at 18 separate reports regarding the restructuring of education, education finance, and a host of other things. Priorities will be likely be set at the end of the week. One committee member told me the magnitude of pressure facing our schools and our taxpayers cannot be overstated.

10. AGRICULTURE will seek continued funding of the Farm to Plate program to invigorate Vermont’s food production systems. They will also address revisions to the Vermont Use Value Appraisal, known as “Current Use” in order to improve its performance while making it less costly.

11. JUDICIARY will spend significant time on the structural reorganization of our court system. Expect also to see legislation regarding texting while driving which was passed in the House last year, but died in the Senate.

12. FISH, WILDLIFE AND WATER RESOURCES will focus first on the riparian buffer bill which establishes a 50 foot buffer along our navigable waterways. This died on the House floor 2 years ago however has more momentum and clarification this year. Testimony from area scientists indicates that this is the cheapest and most effective way to protect our water.

13. INSTITUTIONS AND CORRECTIONS will focus on the direction of the state hospital and the capitol bill including a new health lab. They will continue to work on suggestions generated by Council of State Government report regarding ways to save on the corrections budget while keeping the community safe.

14. HEALTH CARE committee will be spend the first few weeks reviewing the federal health care options and determining what steps need to be taken to maximize reform efforts in Vermont.

Please continue to contact me with your questions and concerns at 233-7798 or KLWEBB22@mac.com.

While all eyes are on the federal government activity to overhaul health care, here are a few bills recently signed into law in our state:

REFORMING HEALTH CARE:  H.444 was signed into law on June 2nd as Act 61.  This is a 124 page omnibus bill which positions Vermont to receive ARRA (federal stimulus) money for health information technology.  A partial list of features of this bill is as follows: 1) allows farmers and self-employed people to use depreciation as an allowable business expense for reporting income; 2) people who have lost their insurance no longer have to wait twelve months for state-sponsored insurance; 3) asks providers to develop recommendations to coordinate treatment of stroke patients in Vermont;  4)  sets up a pilot program to provide vaccines at no cost;  5) bans the use of the flame retardant known as “Deca” which has been found, ironically, to be highly toxic when it burns.

PRESCRIPTION DRUG MARKETING:  S.48 was signed into law on June 8th as Act 59.  One of the great contributors to rising health care expenses is the cost of prescription drugs.  Alarmingly, one-third of every dollar spent on prescription drugs goes into marketing. In 2002, Vermonters spent $377 million on prescription, over-the-counter and nondurable medical supplies.  In 2007, this number grew to $572 million or an average increase of 8.7% per year.

According to the April 2009 report of the Vermont Attorney General’s office, pharmaceutical manufacturers reported spending almost $3 million in Vermont on fees, travel expenses and other direct payments to Vermont physicians, hospitals, and universities for the purpose of marketing their products.  Testimony cited considerable research that shows that marketing does affect prescription practices.

This act attempts to reduce the real or perceived conflict of interest between manufacturers and providers by increasing transparency and placing limits on gifts.  Free samples of prescription drugs resulted in considerable debate in the House.  Free samples have been found to affect physician’s prescribing patterns, however, contrary to popular belief, these samples do not go primarily to low-income patients.  The House bill required manufacturers to report free samples given to providers however a last-minute compromise with the Senate resulted in exempting free samples from disclosure.  It is hoped that these measures will help control costs and improve care.  This bill received support from the Vermont Medical Society, the AARP and the mental health community.

PALLIATIVE CARE:   H.425 was signed into law on May 18th as Act 25.  The purpose of this Act is to improve the quality of life and management of pain for patients facing serious medical conditions.  Palliative care addresses relief from symptoms such as pain, nausea, anxiety, shortness of breath, which may be caused by the underlying disease or by side effects of more aggressive interventions.  It also addresses physical, cognitive, emotional, psychological and spiritual needs, while facilitating patient autonomy, access to information and choice.

This act works toward expanding access to palliative care for children and adults across the state and ensures that Vermonters are aware of their rights and care options through a patient’s “bill of rights.”  In addition, it sets a plan to improve the knowledge and practice of health care professionals with respect to palliative care and pain management.

Feel free to contact me at KLWebb22@mac.com or 985-2789.  I have posted my previous Shelburne News articles on my website.  www.KateWebbVt.com.

It is a sad day for Vermont when the Governor vetoes a budget and calls the Legislature back in session; it is sadder still when the Legislature chooses to override that veto.  While the media and various pundits characterized this as a “Showdown in Montpelier,” this does not accurately reflect the seriousness and grief felt by many that this could not have been worked out through negotiation.

Most of us held out until the last minutes, hoping for an agreement between the administrative and legislative leadership.  The last day, we heard the closest they had come was to postpone some decision-making.  It was time to move forward with the 2010 budget, warts and all, make some corrections with the “Companion Bill” and encourage both leadership teams to begin in earnest to address the challenges in FY2011 and FY2012.

Make no mistake about it.  Both the Governor’s proposal and the Legislature’s budget, cut programs, cut spending, used ARRA (Federal Stimulus) funds, raised some revenues, cut some taxes and looked for savings.  Both budgets were balanced for FY2010 but faced difficulties in FY2011 and more so in FY2012.   The major difference between the budgets had to do with how FY2010 was balanced.  The Legislature left future burden on the General Fund while the Governor left the burden on the Education Fund, i.e. property taxes.

I voted to override the veto.  When I ran for election, I promised many people that I would work for quality education while also containing our distressingly high property taxes.  A vote to sustain the veto would have re-opened the discussion to shift the teachers’ retirement fund to the Education Fund, creating a huge, unfunded, and ongoing cost to property tax payers.  In addition, 216 Shelburne homeowners with incomes between $75,000 and $90,000 would have seen an average property tax increase of $944 with some adding more than $7,000 to their yearly property tax bill. Another spreadsheet comparing the effect of the two different budgets on the 265 towns in Vermont showed Shelburne to be one of the towns to suffer the most under the Governor’s budget.  Testimony from school board members and superintendents across the state expressed strong opposition to this shift. These issue, along with my concern with Administration’s near elimination of the Vermont Housing Conservation Board led me to vote for the override.

After reading the Governor’s budget, however, some valid concerns came to light. First, the Legislature’s attempt to close some capital gains loopholes would be tough on farmers and loggers.  Many of us objected to this so it was corrected in the Companion Bill.  Second, Administration wanted to see tax credits for research and development so this was added for FY 2011.  Third, the Administration raised concern about the lack of accessibility to college scholarships.   The Companion Bill thus transferred $1.5 million out of the Higher Education Trust Fund to the Next Generation Fund, making money available to be split among the Vermont State Colleges, UVM and Vermont Student Assistance Corporation.  Fourth, Administration’s concerns about the nearly bankrupt Unemployment Insurance fund resulted in limitations for the near term and creation of a 12-person study committee to work toward a permanent solution for the future.  These and others measures were built into the Companion Bill which currently awaits the Governor’s signature.

Although an official compromise was not reached, the outcome last week included remedies for those oversights identified by the Governor while keeping the Education Fund transfer and Vermont Housing Conservation Board off the table. I believe it is not good practice for either a governor or a legislature to go it alone.  It is the hope of many of us more moderate Democrats, that sections of the Companion Bill will provide an opening for more collaborative efforts for FY 2011.

I will be around most of the summer and value your input.  I am keeping data on calls and emails I receive.  Do share your concerns with me.  When possible, include your reasons why it is important to you or your suggestions for solution.  KLWebb22@mac.com

Let’s face it.  The budget is a moving target and anything I write today will be old news by Thursday.  So let’s talk about something completely different:  safe drinking water and H.80: An Act Relating to the Use of Chloramine as a Disinfectant in Public Water Systems.

Here is where everyone agrees: The importance of clean drinking water for our health and well-being cannot be underestimated.  It is our country’s commitment to clean water that eradicated such water-born epidemics as cholera and typhoid.

The Champlain Water District or CWD, serves a variety of towns in Chittenden County including Shelburne and has been a leader in the field of clean and safe water.  It was the first to receive the “Excellence in Water Treatment Award” for safe water and after ten years, is still only one of six in the country to retain this title.

The drinking water used by the CWD is drawn from Lake Champlain, 2500 feet out and 75 feet down. The treatment facility, located in Queen City Park serves 68,000 people.  To keep the drinking water clean and safe, the CWD treats the water in ways that meet the health and safety guidelines set by the EPA.  Not only is the district required to disinfect the water at the treatment plant, it must also insure that the water remains disinfected all the way down the miles and miles of piping.

The CWD used chlorine as a primary and secondary disinfectant for many years.  But chlorine alone has its problems.  First, when combined with organic matter in water, disinfection byproducts or DBPs are produced.  Two of these DBPs are regulated by the EPA as they have been linked to an increase in cancer, reproductive and developmental health risks.  Second, free chlorine is not stable enough to last down the line, leaving houses at the end of the line less protected from harmful bacteria it could pick up along the way.

Because of these problems, the EPA developed more stringent regulations to reduce disinfection byproducts in drinking water. These regulations would be implemented in stages.  In anticipation of Stage II regulations scheduled to go into effect in 2012, the CWD became the first public water system in the state to use EPA approved chloramine as a secondary disinfectant.  Chemically, chloramine is simply chlorine plus ammonia and is fourteen times less volatile than free chlorine.

Chloramine (specifically, monochloramine)  met the needs of the CWD in several ways.  First, it reduced the health hazards related to the two regulated DPBs.  Second, it was stable enough to remain in the water line all the way to the last house on the block.  Third, it was cost-effective.  Fourth, it carried the EPA stamp of approval.

So what was the problem?

Almost immediately, people began calling, saying they were experiencing health changes since the switch to chloramine.  Over the last 3 years, more than 80 people have reported their concerns to the water district.  Problems reported were of three varieties from mild to severe:  skin rashes, gastrointestinal problems and respiratory difficulties.  These problems all seemed to go away when the individuals stopped using the water.  Symptoms returned with water use.

Sufferers contacting the Department of Health were sent to their physicians for intervention.  Physicians were unable to make a differential diagnosis linking their problems to chloramine due to the dearth of research on chloramine and human health effects.

In previous years, similar problems had been reported by people in San Francisco after a switch to chloramine.  San Franciscans formed a group called Citizens Concerned About Chloramine and began gathering information. In addition to skin, intestinal and respiratory issues, they also raised concerns about pipe line degradation, impact on the environment and unstudied effects of DBP’s produced by chloramine.  In 2006, citizens from around the country started communicating, comparing symptoms, sharing information and finding much in common.  Sufferers in Vermont organized and approached the CWD and the Department of Health seeking relief.  Finding none, they approached the legislature.

For the last two years, sufferers have sought legislation to place a moratorium on the use of chloramine.   They hoped that this break would give them a relief from symptoms while allowing time for the water district to find alternatives to chloramine.  In 2007, the issue was studied at length by the Senate Health and Welfare Committee.  In 2008, H.80 was introduced and assigned to the House Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources Committee on which I serve.

To determine whether a moratorium on chloramine was appropriate, we took testimony from several different sources.

We heard very compelling stories from individuals with People Concerned About Chloramine (PCAC) the group organized by Vermont citizens.  They described painful skin, intestinal or respiratory problems and complete relief from symptoms many experienced when on vacation or using water other than CWD.  Several provided very good data with controlled variables.

PCAC reported that over 300 people had contacted them describing skin, digestive or respiratory problems they believed were related to the water.  While filtering worked for some, others felt the faucet filters were not always effective and the whole house systems much too expensive.  In addition, a sufferer might be able to handle the problem at home, but what about in schools?  Restaurants?

Vermonters for a Clean Environment (VCE) raised concern that water system operators and state regulators were “putting compliance with well-intentioned but misguided regulation ahead of public health and environmental protection and even ahead of science itself?” They also provided testimony indicating that the research on human health effects and chloramine was scarce.  No epidemiological studies, no data on inhalation exposure exist.

The Department of Health, while acknowledging the suffering of the individuals, did not feel they could directly tie the symptoms suffered with the use of chloramines.  They remained skeptical about the correlation.  They reminded us that we must consider “degree of harm” not just for those describing symptoms, but for the rest of the 68,000 people who would be at risk for known effects such as cancer and reproductive problems from chlorine’s DBPs.  When asked about a health study, they stated that the complexity and rigorous standards for human studies and costs precluded this.

The Vermont State Department of Environmental Conservation, which issued the permit to use chloramine opposed a moratorium citing EPA guidelines and federal regulation. In addition, we heard from water managers who feared they would be out of compliance if the moratorium was imposed.

The Champlain Water District informed us that they spent tremendous hours and study to find the best solution to meet the 2012 EPA guidelines before the switch to chloramine as a secondary disinfectant.  We learned that 68 million people across the country use water from systems treated with chloramine.  Denver has been successfully using chloramine since 1917 as have 47 towns around Boston since 1932.   Although more than 80 people had contacted the CWD regarding symptoms, a number of those calls came from those on a different municipal water system not using chloramine. They reminded us that there was no “silver bullet” to clean water.  Clean water requires diligence in protecting the source of water; filtration and treatment; disinfection and maintaining distribution down the line.  They stated chloramine can be neutralized or removed using vitamin C or granular activated carbon filters.

After listening to testimony, neither the House nor the Senate committees could come to agreement on the moratorium.  After considerable discussion with stakeholders, it became apparent that we were not going to be getting an answer as to the true relationship between the symptoms of the sufferers and chloramine in the near future.   Instead, both bodies agreed that what we could do is determine whether other disinfection options exist, determine technical feasibility and identify costs of these options.

The EPA has committed to pay for and provide an independent consultant to conduct an engineering study to attempt to answer these questions.  All stakeholder groups were willing to accept this solution.  The Agency of Natural Resources will be reporting back results to the legislature in January, 2010.

It is Sunday night, less than 24 hours since the House adjourned.  By the time you get this, any information I have to share about last week will be stale.  Instead of content on the final decisions in the Legislature, I thought I would take a moment to share a few observations from the perspective of a first year legislator.  Here are a few:

THE FLOOR:  The floor of the house is where all the theatrics take place. Opportunities for great sound bites abound and the presence of VPR streaming is irresistible for some.  The rules of the House keep us in order for the most part, allowing all voices to be heard and keeping the speeches relevant.  For me, the first time I spoke on the floor, I had my 2-sentence introduction written out and was worried about making a mistake.  Friday night, I presented the Senate amendment to the compost bill, survived a difficult interrogation, added an amendment and got the bill through on a unanimous vote.  It felt like growth.

THE COMMITTEE ROOM:  The serious work of the House happens in the committee room.  For most committees, we drop our partisan politics at the door, roll up our sleeves and get to the work at hand.  Some committees are focused on finances while others spend more time on policy. Each bill begins with a problem and makes a stab at a solution.  Through testimony from stakeholders, experts and state agencies, we either refine the bill, seek more testimony, decide to drop it, or set it aside for another time.  “This is just a simple bill,” we laugh, knowing there is no such thing.  Of the thirty bills coming into our committee, twenty were discussed and twelve were voted out.  Eleven of these bills received unanimous bipartisan support.  The twelfth had only one dissenting vote.  I find the committee process fascinating and have developed a deep respect for the committee process.

THE PARTIES:  The camaraderie between parties is far greater than reported in the press.  When I survived that difficult interrogation, I got notes of congratulations from four Republicans signing it, “your buddies in Agriculture.”  I found if I wanted a real perspective on what was happening in committees, it helped to have reliable contacts across parties.  Although my vote usually aligned with the recommendation of the committee, I appreciated hearing about the process to get there. Most of the questions I asked had indeed been addressed in committee.

At the closing on Saturday night, the minority leader, reminded us of the need for more than one party.  “It is the majority’s job to guide the ship,” she said, “and the minority’s job to point out the rocks.”   On this, I do agree.

As a final note, I want to thank Joan Lenes for her considerable help this first year.  From logistics, to introductions, to explaining background, she has been a great resource and mentor.  I plan to be around most of the summer and will continue to do my best to get back to anyone who contacts me.

Sorry, my link did not seem to work.  To view the bill as passed out of the House:

1.  go to http://www.leg.state.vt.us/

2.  Under “Legislative Information Database,” click on “display current status”

3. enter H.446 (remember period) and “display status”

4.  you can view the progress of the bill on the table. Under “bill text” click on “as passed the house”

Here is a bit of history many probably do not know.  In the 1970’s a property on Popple Dungeon Drive in Charlotte was being considered as a potential site for a nuclear power plant.  I do not know the history as to why this site was dropped in favor of Vernon, the current home of Vermont Yankee.  I do not know who the decision makers were or what the community response was some 35 years ago.  What I can do is picture how different this community would be, how different our relationship to Lake Champlain would be, if Charlotte had been chosen over Vernon.  Popple Dungeon Nuclear Power.

So what decisions can we make today that we can look back on, 30 odd years from now and say, I am so glad we did what we did in 2009.  Or maybe it could have been called Charlotte Nuclear Power.

My reason for running for the legislature last year was clear. I wanted to be a part of creating the vision and implementing a plan that would keep this state beautiful, clean, safe and abundant in meaningful, not superficial ways.  I wanted to be a part of building a vibrant economy that was in concert with our respect for our natural resources and thoughtful way of life.  It is my hope, that the Vermont Energy Act of 2009, passing out of the House with a 2:1 vote on Earth Day, will be part of that experience.  Here is what H-446 is designed to do:

•    Promote the development and deployment of cost-effective, environmentally sustainable electric power and thermal energy primarily with respect to renewable energy resources and the use of combined heat and power technologies.

•    Jump-start the development of renewable energy. 89% of Vermonters want more renewable energy as part of their electric mix according to the Department of Public Service.

•    Encourage community-scale renewable energy development like solar, methane, wind and hydroelectric generation, by giving developers certainty in the return they’ll receive on their projects so they will invest in small Vermont projects.

•    Creates a pilot program that will allow Vermont’s biggest businesses like IBM to invest in their own energy-saving measures

•    Stimulate the Creation of 15 – 20 jobs in engineering, manufacturing, distribution, and installation per megawatt of installation every year

•    Expedite the delivery of $21 million in stimulus funds for green energy projects through the Clean Energy Development Fund

•    Aligns our building codes with federal standards so we can receive stimulus funding for weatherization

•    Provides tax credits that may be carried forward for homeowners and businesses who invest in renewable energy

•    Requires the Public Service Board to implement a standard, cost-based, long-term contract on behalf of Vermont’s utilities for qualifying types of renewable energy.

•    Allows the use of land under the jurisdiction of the Agency of Natural Resources to be considered for renewable energy projects.

This bill received support from IBM, Green Mountain Power and a wide variety of solar and wind business as well as the usual environmental non-profits.

For an exciting follow up on what is happening in the private sector and the 20 electric companies in the state, listen to the podcast of Vermont Edition for Thursday, 4/23.  It will take all of us: government, utilities, private sector, and consumers to bring our energy use into something that is abundant, renewable, sustainable, safe and clean.

Over the past two weeks, the floor of the House has been a hotbed of debate.  Some of this debate has been deeply moving, some quite humorous, and some simply tri-partisan bickering.  Much of the time, however, I find the debate lively and engaging, emphasizing the need to have divergent points of view brought forward to help guide us toward thoughtful decision making.

By happenstance, the seat I picked on the first day of the session provides me with instant access to many of these views.  To my left, is a 5th term Democrat.  To my right sits the youngest member of the House.  Directly in back of me is the Republican leadership.  It has proven to be a great place as we work our way through these issues.

Last week, we passed the Marriage Equality Bill, the Budget Adjustment Bill and the Capital Bill.   These have been extensively covered in the news so I thought a quick update on other activities might be a relief.  Here goes:

Transportation:  H-438, the Transportation Bill, passed out of the House at the end of March and is now in the Senate.  The bill proposed a $120 million bond to be funded by a $.05 gas and diesel tax for the next three years.  Here is one way to quantify this:  if you drive 15,000 miles per year and your vehicle gets 20 mpg, a $.05 gas tax would cost you $37.50 per year. Compare this to the potential cost of damage due to potholes and it looks like a bargain.  Bonding also extends the use of ARRA (stimulus) monies where matching is required.

Here is where the Legislature and Administration now agree:  rail development is important to Vermont.  There will be a concentration of effort and money in getting rail from Burlington to Rutland.

Judiciary:  H-147, the Highway Traffic Safety Bill, comes up for third reading this week.  One of the more lively debates centered around the necessity and inconvenience of restricting young drivers.  This bill would keep junior operators off the road between 1:00 AM and 5:00 AM; restrict usage of cell phones and electronic devices; and would continue to restrict junior operators from carrying passengers for the first three months.  In addition, all drivers would be restricted to hands-free cell phone usage and not wearing a seatbelt would become a primary offense.  One outspoken opponent from a rural district said in a Patrick Henry sort of way:  “I will always vote for freedom over safety.  Why do we need laws to protect us from ourselves?”  A supporter noted that this law would likely save two lives, twelve serious injuries and $5 million dollars per year.  Another fact:  the age group least likely to wear a seatbelt is the 16-24 year olds.  Of the accidents which proved fatal for this age group, 58% were not wearing seatbelts.

Health Care:   Representative Maier, chair of the Health Care Committee has traveled to Washington and has been working with leaders from the Vermont Legislature, the Douglas Administration and our Congressional delegation on health care reform.  He believes that the prospects for national health care reform are looking better.  Legislation being drafted will address three key issues:  delivery, access and funding. For now, Vermont is well-positioned to receive more Medicaid and ARRA health IT money per capita than many states due to the excellent work that is already in place here.

Please join Joan Lenes and me at Bruegger’s Tuesday mornings from 7:30-8:30.  We have had some lively discussions.  We will be at Village Wine and Coffee on Monday April 28th from 4:30-5:30.  KLWebb22@mac.com.

(Note:  see Doyle Survey Results link above for a comparison of the Shelburne results to the full poll results)

The other day, I sat down with the Senator Doyle’s Town Meeting Day surveys and decided to “have at it.” What was on the mind of Shelburne voters and how did these surveys compare to the calls and emails I receive?  I counted each survey, all 201 of them, recording results, one question at a time.  I read longer responses on the back of the forms, then I entered the data onto an Excel spreadsheet and looked at the results.

Let us be very clear here.  The Doyle Survey is not a scientific poll. It is not set up to ensure a representative sample has been taken and the system for distribution is not standardized.  Since I tabulated the results myself without oversight, citizens must rely on my accuracy and integrity rather than standard survey protocol.

But the survey is not without merit.  As WPTZ noted last year,  “The Doyle survey is not a scientific poll, but a sampling of views of voters taking part in Town Meeting Day.”  After a quick call to my math genius friend John Huntington Smith, I learned that the survey may not be statistically significant but was useful in showing trends.  He said the survey has value, “you get a feel, it is not precise, but it is a feel.”   We talked about the inherent problems in the phrasing of questions, particularly question # 7.  He suggested that instead of showing the results in percentages, I should tabulate them by raw numbers (note:  this was presented as numbers in the Shelburne News article, however I recorded them in percentages here to compare with State results).

The danger, of course, comes in interpreting the data, but I couldn’t resist making comments on some of them and have converted those to percentages for easier understanding.  Please keep John Smith’s warning in mind.

Survey Trends:

Survey takers overwhelmingly (91%) felt statewide broadband and cell services were important to Vermont and 89% supported mandatory seatbelt laws for adults as well as children.  A few thought this law was already in effect, so I asked one of my law enforcement contacts.  He said that a seatbelt violation is not a primary offense, however you can be ticketed if you are stopped for something else, speeding for example, and are not wearing your seatbelt.

75% felt that the Vermont prison population should be reduced through the use of alternatives for non-violent offenders; while 71% felt drivers should be prohibited from using cell phones while driving.  About 5 people suggested limitations on cell phone use rather than an outright ban.  62% agreed with the idea of a gas tax with a few people suggesting a limit of 5 cents. 55% thought Vermont was not an affordable place to live and 52% of responders opposed lowering the drinking age to 18.

Our toughest questions:

The most controversial questions in our community, based on the press and calls and emails to me, were the success of our schools, same-sex marriage, re-licensing of Vermont Yankee and the performance of elected officials.  Half of the respondents thought schools were doing a good job while 30% did not. The “no’s” often noted the time-eternal problem of cost.

Regarding same-sex marriage, of the 201 respondents, 110 supported same-sex marriage while 69 did not.  The remaining 22 were undecided.

Renewing Vermont Yankee’s license found 41% of respondents for re-licensing, 39% against with the remainder undecided.  One respondent who was unsure added, “Vermont Yankee needs to be studied for efficiency, cost effectiveness and safety.  This decision should not be influenced by popular opinion.”

Legislature and Governor

I was curious whether responses to the performance of the Governor and Legislature were related so I scored these questions in relation to each other and sent the data to John Smith.  After a dizzying conversation with John about the difference between non-parametric and parametric tests, quartiles, chi-square and rejecting the null hypothesis, John was able to tell me that there was a very high inverse relationship between approval of job performance for the Legislature and the Governor.  A “yes” to the Governor’s performance tended to produce a “no” for the Legislature and visa versa.

John thought these numbers suggested that survey takers “had a clear idea of what they wanted to say and it was consistent.”  He also thought this reflected the seriousness with which people completed the survey but also warned again that “this should not be generalized beyond the self-selected sample of Shelburne voters.”

In 2006, the Legislature established the Commission on the Future of Economic Development (CFED).  Made up of leaders in the private sector and government, CFED was charged with identifying those elements that advance or impede economic development.  It was also asked to develop goals believed to be most critical to Vermont’s future prosperity and vitality.

From this work, the Committee identified four principal goals to establish economic viability, security and opportunity for all.  These were:

1.    Develop a highly-skilled multi-generational workforce
2.    Invest in digital, physical and human infrastructure
3.    Take advantage of our small scale to create nimble, efficient and effective government and regulation
4.    Leverage our brand and scale:  our rural character, reputation for environmental quality, and entrepreneurial spirit.

“Bold and disciplined action is needed to accomplish these goals,” the report stated.  “The legislature, administration, and myriad of economic and community partners must work together with unerring discipline to focus our policies, regulations, programs and incentives on the critical interconnection between Vermont’s assets, our collective values, our capabilities, and the opportunities which will increase state revenues and the prosperity of all Vermonters.”  http://www.snellingcenter.org/cfed

This session, the House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development has been working on a bill to develop near-term and long-term economic strategies guided by the four CFED goals.  Near-term strategies focus on stakeholder collaboration for effective use of the stimulus monies.  An example of this would be writing unified proposals for competitive grants. Long-term strategies set a statewide framework for collectively realizing sustainable economic prosperity.  An example here would be the requirement that the legislative and executive branches align new programs and initiatives with the four CFED goals.

The bill includes legislation that would advance development or remove impediments in a variety of areas.  A list of these is as follows:

•    Green Economy Initiatives
•    Workforce development
•    Housing incentive program
•    Inventor and entrepreneur assistance
•    Licensed lender exception
•    Energy efficiency
•    Forestry and biomass
•    Motion picture business
•    Tourism infusion: excess meals and rooms revenues
•    Federal funds and smart grid
•    Digital business
•    Small business/technology loan program
•    Microbusiness and entrepreneurship

If you would like me to email a copy of the 68-page bill or the 6-page description of this bill, you can contact me at: KLWebb22@mac.com.  985-2789.

Please join Joan Lenes and me on Tuesday mornings from 7:30-8:30 am at Brueggers and the 4th Monday (3/23) at Village Wine and Coffee.