Two major themes emerged as to whether non-immunized or partially immunized children should be admitted to school based on the philosophical exemption. Very generally, one side said the health risks were exaggerated or incomplete arguing for a parent’s right to make informed choices about their children’s health.  The other side did not deny this right, but argued that this did not give them the right to put others at risk for serious preventable disease.

Each side was passionately presented, backed by philosophy, statistics, history and rights that I will not go into here.  Both sides seemed baffled by the position of the other.  The Health Care Committee dug deeper into the issues, taking testimony from over 100 individuals and groups.  Throughout this process, many of us came to believe that simply removing the philosophical exemption was not likely to be the silver bullet so many desired and might do damage in the process.  Ultimately, attention turned to the data on vaccination rates in Vermont, and the government’s role.

The House found shortcomings in the Department of Health data collection mechanism. A child exempt only for chicken pox, for example, is simply tabulated as “unvaccinated.” In addition, a school’s vaccination rates are based only on kindergarten statistics in the beginning of the school year.  Low kindergarten numbers can therefore skew data in either direction. The House also found two different vaccination schedules were being reported and referenced, further muddying the waters.

A call to Shelburne Community School revealed that of the 765 children enrolled in pre-k through 8^th grade, two students are admitted with medical exemptions and none with religious exemptions.  Eleven have philosophical exemptions for one or two vaccines while nine have exemptions for all.  This represents 2.9% of the student population who have some form of exemption for vaccines.

Forty-two additional students or 5.5% are enrolled in school under “provisional” admittance.  These students are either behind schedule or missing a booster but within the 11-month grace period to bring these up to date.  When these numbers are disaggregated, it is easier to determine 1) if a school has a problem and 2) where effort is needed to bring a school up to the recommended 95% of the population immunized.

The House-passed bill addresses this by making changes to the way data are collected and reported.  Schools would see the following changes:  1) Philosophical exemptions are moved from a one-time event to a yearly requirement in which educational materials are reviewed.  2) Students under provisional admittance will need a signature from a physician indicating they are in process.  3) Someone who is authorized to give vaccinations must sign off on medical exemptions.  4) Schools will make immunization rates available to the public.   5) Extra resources will go to areas with low immunization rates, likely not Shelburne.

These reports should help to determine whether the increase in philosophical exemptions is a trend or a short-term balloon.   As several school nurses told us, first time parents often become more comfortable with vaccines through contact with their child’s successfully vaccinated peers.  It is unlikely the Senate will agree with these changes.  It is expected that the final version will be sorted out in a committee of conference.

One issue that drew debate was the change in taxation for Vermont Yankee.  Vermont Yankee has been subject to two memoranda of understanding or MOUs under which it has made payments to the state that range from $3-8 million per year.  These payments have funded the Clean Energy Development Fund or CEDF and the last payment will be made in March 2013. To replace these payments, the tax on electrical generation and property was increased to bring a projected $6 million in annual revenue to the state. This revenue will be split between CEDF, the Education Fund, and a new economic development fund for Windham County to prepare for post-VY closure.  While opponents called it a tax increase, supporters saw this as generating similar amounts through a different means.

Nothing in this bill addressed cloud computing, which the Ways and Means Committee will be discussing in the coming weeks. This issue has come to the Legislature following reaction to a 2010 bulletin from the tax department stating that software accessed remotely from the cloud was not all that different from software customers downloaded or purchase in a store, thus subject to a 6% sales tax.  Because this is an evolving technology, both vendors and customers have been understandably unaware of this fact.

Many in the business and tech communities have taken issue with the bulletin, claiming it was issued without legislative oversight or public input.  They also take exception to tax and penalties going back four years and fear that this tax could put Vermont at a competitive disadvantage.

Proponents cite a recommendation from the Blue Ribbon Tax Commission addressing the 21^st century economic shift from bricks-and-mortar retail to an Internet service economy.  As the state sales tax erodes, revenue needs to be found in new areas.  One-third of this revenue is used to offset increases in the education property tax.

This issue is more complex than it first appears and will be subject to continued scrutiny in the Ways and Means committee.

Please join Joan Lenes at me at Bruegger’s on Tuesday mornings from 7:30-8:30 am or by appointment:  klwebb22@mac.com or 233-7798.

Q. What does H.559 do?

 A.  H. 559 covers a range of topics.  Here are the important ones:

• Insurance market reforms compliant with the federal Affordable Care Act
• Integration of Medicaid with the Exchange, renewal of Global Commitment, and pursuit of a plan to integrate health care for individuals eligible for Medicaid and Medicare
• Creation of the most viable and dynamic exchange possible that  also supports Vermont’s long-term health care reform goals
• Refinement of the hospital budget process, certificate of need process and rate review functions of the Green Mountain Care Board

Q. What are the insurance market changes in H.559?

 A.  H. 559 proposes these changes related to the exchange:

• Defining small groups to include 100 employees or less beginning in 2014 rather than 2016
• Requiring all individual and small group coverage to be sold in the exchange
• Allowing grandfathering for groups of fifty or less and for associations (but under federal law all plans will continue to lose grandfathered status when benefits or cost-sharing provisions are materially changed)

Other insurance changes include:

• Ending the use of discretionary clauses
• Prohibiting annual benefit limits and capping out-of-pocket payments for pharmaceuticals

Q. Why define small group as 100 employee lives or less rather than 50 or less in 2014?

 A.  First of all, if we choose 50 we are only postponing for two years the federal requirement that small groups include 100 employee lives or less in 2016.

Vermont’s goal of a single payer health care system requires the incremental merger of existing insurance market segments.  This decision merely begins promptly a process Vermont committed to in Act. 48.

By bringing more groups into the exchange we will have a group that is about 36% larger than otherwise.  The largest possible population in the exchange means a more stable rating group, better predictability of rates, fewer rate spikes and lower per capita administrative expense.

Q. Are we going to eliminate consumer choice if there is no small individual or group insurance market outside the exchange?

 A. Having the very limited range of plans that federal law allows outside an exchange really won’t increase meaningful consumer choice because all plans, inside the exchange and out, will have to meet certain federal rules:

• All must have the same covered services (“essential benefits package”) chosen by Vermont from a number of options mandated by federal law.  These options are:
  • The existing commercial  plan with highest enrollment in small group market
  • A managed care plan with highest enrollment
  • A State employee plan
  • A Federal employee plan that may not include Vermont’s mandated benefits
  • All plans must meet the actuarial cost-sharing levels required by the ACA (silver, gold, platinum) that determine how much on average is paid by the insurer versus how much is paid by the purchaser/employee.
  • All small group plans have limits on deductibles of $2000 for an individual; $4000 for a family.

So, while there can some variety of covered services and cost sharing, under federal law–from which Vermont cannot depart—they must be relatively similar.  Plans outside the exchange would offer a choice with very little difference.  A two-marketplace model is an invitation to adverse selection that is so harmful to those most in need of care.

There will be choice inside the exchange:

• There will be multiple insurers in the Exchange.   Act 48 requires two insurers in 2014.  Federal rules for small groups call for two issuers as well.  That’s exactly how many small group carriers operate in Vermont right now!  In addition, there will be two national health plans, which may be run by new insurers (or by existing Vermont insurers).  So there will very likely be more carriers selling in the exchange than are selling small group coverage in Vermont today.

.

• There will be a minimum of eight plan choices within the Exchange and there could be more.
  • two insurers with plans at 3 levels = 6 plans
  • 2 national plans

The administration is working with small employers to determine how many plans is the right number.

Many employers have said they don’t want lots and lots of choices – they want a manageable number of real options to compare to choose from.

• Requiring marketing and sales of plans outside of the Exchange results in two separate administrative processes:  one for plans sold by the Exchange, one for plans sold by insurance brokers. This is a needless expense.
• Individual premium tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies are only available inside the Exchange.  We want the largest possible number of Vermonters to receive federal support.
  • Small business tax credits are only available in the Exchange between 2014 and 2016 to employers with 25 employees or less w/ average wages under $25,000.

Q. Could HSAs be offered in the Exchange?

A.  Yes.  An HSA (health savings account) is a savings account that an employer can set up for its individual employees to put aside money pre-tax to pay for high-deductibles.  These are regulated by the IRS.

• In 2011, to be a high deductible plan, the deductible must be at least $1,200 for a single person and not more than $5,950, and for a family at least $2,400 and not more than $11,900.
• In 2014, federal law requires all small group plans to limit deductibles to $2000 for an individual and $4000 for a family regardless of whether the plan is purchased inside or outside of the Exchange.

Employers choose whether to offer HSAs to employees and how much to contribute to them.  Vermont can neither prohibit nor require employers to contribute.   Silver and even gold plans in the individual and small group markets could be high-deductible plans and could be offered in the Exchange.

Q. Has the federal government offered any guidance to states regarding products that can be offered outside the exchange?

A.  Yes, but not much.

The ACA states that all plans sold inside and outside the exchange must comply with the same rules regarding essential benefits (which the federal government is now allowing the states to define), cost-sharing levels and deductible limits.

Federal law does not require a market outside the exchange.

Federal law allows non-qualified plans to be sold outside the exchange but the requirements for being qualified have little to do with benefits or cost-sharing, the key components of insurance plan design.

The ACA state that “qualified plans” (the only kind that can sold in an exchange) can also be sold outside, but they must be sold at the same price inside and outside the exchange.

Q. If I’m the employer of a group smaller than one hundred what’s to keep me from dropping coverage and sending my employees to the exchange for a better deal?

A. Nothing.  There has never been any legal requirement that an employer offer health insurance coverage to employees other than to complete coverage in a given benefit year or a collective bargaining agreement.  If an employer ceases to offer coverage, employees become eligible for tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies in the exchange.

Q.  So, when the exchange is up and running, won’t employers be tempted to cease offering health insurance altogether and direct their employees to the exchange?

A. It is possible, and that may be a good thing for employers and employees.

Employers would be relieved of one of their biggest financial burdens, the ever-growing cost of purchasing and managing health insurance benefits.  They would also no longer have to do as much paperwork related to employee health benefits.  Some employers may wish to drop coverage but continue making a reduced contribution to the cost of employee health insurance by raising salaries.

Affected employees would all be eligible for coverage in the exchange–in many cases more comprehensive coverage than they have today–and would get a significant federal tax credit to offset a part of the cost.

Overall, the combined cost to employers and employees would be reduced.  Our challenge will be to create a financing system in 2013 that is equitable for all employees and all non-employees too.

Q.  Is there a penalty for an employer that drops employee coverage?

A.  There is no penalty for an employer simply because he or she ceases to provider coverage.  Beginning in 2014, however, there will be per-employee penalties for all employers with fifty or more employees who require employees to contribute more than 9.5% of salary to the cost of coverage or contribute less than 60% of the cost of covered services or have at least one fulltime employee in the exchange and qualified for a tax credit.  It is generally thought that the size of penalties would be smaller than the cost to employers of providing coverage.

Hidden under those bills is H.464, a bill addressing enhanced extraction of natural gas, aka hydraulic fracturing or “fracking.” It brings to light the need for us to carefully balance our hunger for viable energy sources with our need to protect our natural resources, in this case, clean, drinkable water. I offer here a small window into the legislative process.

So what are the concerns of hydraulic fracturing in Vermont?

Governing Magazine identified fracking as one of the “issues to watch in 2012.” Although Vermont does not appear to have a good source of recoverable natural gas, there are some shale deposits in the northwest corner of the state that could be of interest for extraction in the future. Of note, neighboring Quebec has found some economically viable sources of natural gas.

Hydraulic fracturing (differentiated from benign hydro-fracturing for well water) involves injecting millions of gallons of water in a mixture of approximately 90% water, 5% sand, and 5% chemical additives in order to direct pockets of gas trapped in rock into extraction wells. A decade ago, only about 1% of natural gas around the country came from fracking. Today, it is about 30%.

One of the major concerns is the high volume of fresh water being used. Depending on the size this can be 2-8 million gallons at a time. The water is then mixed with some 600 different possible chemical additives, some known and some kept secret by companies for “proprietary reasons.” The second major concern revolves around what to do with “flow-back” water, or the 30-70% of contaminated water that flows back out of the wells, picking up naturally occurring radioactive compounds from bedrock along the way. Add to this, a connection to mini-earthquakes, habitat destruction, ground water and air pollution in other states.

Representatives from the American Petroleum Institute (API) see fracking as a source for an independent energy future for our country: good for jobs, energy and reduced green house gasses. They see the risk to clean water as slight, and believe contaminated flow-back water can be stored off site. After many hours of testimony, they suggested we set in place standards to protect our water and they would work with it.

The committee considered three options: do nothing, create a ban, or set a moratorium. We rejected the do-nothing option knowing that interest in hydraulic fracturing is burgeoning. There was enough testimony to convince us to consider a ban on fracking. Supporters reminded us that a ban now could be lifted by future legislatures should the risks become better managed. The majority of the committee rejected this option, finding a ban too strong.

In the end, we were able to get full agreement on a 3-year moratorium. Why 3 years? The EPA report on the effects of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water is due in 2014. Pressure is being put on the industry to develop non-toxic solutions for extraction and to better manage toxic waste. Vermont will use this time to develop appropriate regulation should fracking become economically viable in Vermont.

Please join Representative Joan Lenes and me on Tuesday mornings at Bruegger’s from 7:30-8:30 am. It appears that I will now be able to make most of these gatherings rather than Mondays. I am also available most Monday mornings or by phone 233-7798 or email: klwebb22@mac.com.

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS: The bulk of committee time will be devoted to reapportionment, aligning the 150 House and 30 Senate seats with changes in population identified in the 2010 census. October through December, the committee held community meetings around the state to hear response and recommendations to the August Legislative Apportionment Board report (chaired by Shelburne’s Tom Little). I still find it somewhat odd that we do apportionment in this way. Shelburne’s House seats will likely remain the same.

FISH, WILDLIFE AND WATER RESOURCES: We are developing two major bills, one related to river corridor management; the other, which I will be spearheading along with Representative Bob Krebs, will address Lake Champlain. These bills will capitalize on the large amount of learning gleaned from the 2011 spring flooding and Tropical Storm Irene.

NATURAL RESOURCES and ENERGY: The committee has begun a wide-ranging discussion on how to achieve more aggressive, renewable energy goals that reduce carbon emissions while growing a robust, green economy. Waste management is also on the docket as we are running out landfill space. The committee has started work on solid waste management that promotes reduction of waste disposal; encourages the use of sustainable materials; limits adverse environmental impact including greenhouse gasses and expands recycling of materials not currently being recycled.

JUDICIARY: The fall-out from Irene also brought forth a variety of property related legal questions. What happens to taxes and mortgages on property no longer there? What happens to property lines when river boundaries are substantially moved? Who is responsible for clean up of unclaimed debris on private property? The committee will be listening to recommendations of the Post-Irene Property Law Task Force to determine how to handle flood-related foreclosure, liability and real property issues. The report can be found at https://www.vtbar.org?New?Details.aspx?NewsId=79

WAYS AND MEANS: Last year, the Vermont Tax Department was tasked with a feasibility study to see whether the education tax should be collected through the current system of municipal billing or switched to a state billing system. Among the positives, this system would grant taxpayers greater privacy, simplify cash flow for the tax, and reduce confusion with municipal taxes and rate calculations brought on by the Common Level of Appraisal or CLA. Yet to be resolved are concerns regarding one bill with two payments, delinquent tax collection, abatement processes in emergencies, locally voted exemptions among others.

COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY: The committee is reviewing progress on last year’s Jobs Bill and the build-out of broadband and cell phone coverage prescribed in the Telecom Bill. They are also looking at how public and private insurance and philanthropy performed during the two flooding. Expect also to hear more about the Green Mountain Power and CVPS merger, particularly in relation to ownership and control over VELCO, the state’s electric transmission company. The committee has heard from the Public Service Board on its plans for a “full and fair” assessment of the merger and impact on consumers

In December, I was elected to the position of Deputy Assistant Majority Leader. As a result, I will be spending extra time in Montpelier making it a challenge for me to attend every Tuesday morning coffee at Bruegger’s. Instead, I will be available to meet most Monday mornings from 7:30-8:30 at Village Wine and Coffee but not February 14th or March 19th. I am always available via email at KLWEBB22@MAC.COM or by phone: 233-7798.

Growing Our Economy
We are entering a hopeful time. Our state and national economies are showing signs of a sustainable recovery. Economic growth and expansion are real possibilities for the first time in years. And, we are already seeing results in increased tax revenues and forecasts. It is still a delicate time, so we must be careful to encourage and support continued growth.

The House worked this year with the new administration, our industries and advocates to lay plans to support our economic future. Working on a broad range of initiatives, we were able to form a strong tripartisan consensus on sustainable ways to help our economy grow.

We want to grow more food and more cell towers. We want to grow more business capital and grow more jobs and job skills. We want to grow new opportunities for our veterans and the unemployed. And, along the way, we want to grow consumer protection – for both individuals and businesses.

The keystone of our work this year was returning agriculture to its rightful place as an economic development priority of our state. Significant provisions of the jobs bill will grow the farm-to-plate movement, community-supported agriculture, and value-added enterprises that transform farm products into consumer products.

We also recognized that our future economy will rely heavily on broadband internet access and cell phone coverage and stability. The telecom bill focuses on our agreed goal of reaching universal broadband access and cell phone coverage by the end of 2013. This is a challenging goal, and
accommodations were made to expedite the permitting of cell towers and coordinating the significant federal telecom resources that are now flowing into Vermont.

This was a good year for Vermont’s consumers. We adopted several important bills that extend and enhance consumer and business protection for Vermonters. Most notable was the propane bill that improves competition in the industry and prohibits many practices that were unfair and expensive to consumers. We fully expect this bill will lead to better service and pricing for propane customers.

Other areas included workforce training to support our changing economy; means to improve access to capital for job creation and support of specific industries and more careful and coordinated planning for our economic future.

Palliative Care

Three years ago Aetna, a health insurance company, conducted a pilot project that provided expanded hospice care to a subset of their subscribers. Two groups of patients with a terminal illness, i.e. with six months or less to live, received two different amounts of hospice care. Both groups had trained nurse care managers providing care management services to meet the comprehensive needs of the patients at the end of their lives. One group met the Medicare life expectancy requirements for hospice, with six months or less to live, and had to give up curative care. The second group was allowed access to hospice earlier, with a life expectancy of 12 months, and, if needed, continuation of curative therapy while on hospice.

Hospice utilization increased in both groups with high patient and family satisfaction. There was a decrease in the use of acute care, intensive care, and ER services, particularly in the Medicare group. In the enhanced hospice group the increase in hospice utilization and decrease in acute care represented a net cost decrease of 22%. Overall, not only were the outcomes better, but they cost less.

The Vermont legislature passed a bill that encourages all health insurers operating in Vermont to provide this type of service and asks the state to apply for a Medicaid waiver so expanded hospice services can be a part of the state insurance plan. As health care cost continues to increase at $1 million a day, with end-of-life care a substantial portion of this cost, providing expanded hospice care makes sense.

Investing in Our Technology Infrastructure

Whether it allows students to use state-of-the-art learning tools, seniors to make purchases from the comfort of their own home, or companies to communicate halfway across the world, the legislature and Gov. Shumlin recognize broadband coverage as a vital need for all Vermont residents, businesses, and schools. In 2010, Vermont received $174 million in federal grants and loans to fund major broadband initiatives.

The 2011 Telecom Bill streamlines the permitting process for developing communication technology infrastructure like cell towers and fiber optic lines, which ensures that this stimulus money is utilized effectively over the next two years. The bill also allows for wireless Internet and cellular providers to apply for permits for multiple towers at once rather than permitting them individually. This helps get more Vermonters connected faster. The Telecom Bill also includes a reorganization of the Vermont

Telecommunications Authority Board, allowing the oversight body to better coordinate state efforts to bring broadband to the last mile and bring cell phone service to targeted highway corridors. The state has committed $10 million in capital construction funds to further the goal of providing accessible, affordable cell phone and broadband Internet service to all Vermonters by the end of 2013.

Vermont’s Transportation Program

Vermont’s road conditions rank close to the bottom in the nation. Commuters and tourist alike experience this fact each day. Our state roads and bridges managed to make significant progress with the assistance of the federal stimulus funds. Results moved our national rating from 46th to 42nd on the national picture. Our infrastructure condition requires us to make the correct investments.

Vermont’s $554 million infrastructure budget makes a strong investment in a safe, efficient and fully integrated system. Transportation investments work to expand economic opportunities and improve quality of life. They create many local jobs and improve our roads and bridges for residents and visitors. Town programs: Class 2 paving ($7.2 million) and Town Structures ($5.8 million) continue to be strongly funded in this budget, regardless of the evaporating stimulus funds. These record-high funding levels were established as policy and will become the permanent base level amounts going forward. An exciting new municipal sidewalk program struggled to be created, and in the end needed more time for review of funding sources, but it will be a good starting point for next year’s discussions.

Government Transparency – It is your right to know!

Under the Vermont constitution, all government officers are accountable to the citizens of Vermont. One way Vermont attempts to achieve this constitutional requirement for accountability is by providing open access to public records. This bill tries to address the balance between the public’s right to know and the boundaries of personal privacy.

Its central piece orders judges to grant attorney fees to those who are wrongly denied access to records. This should send a signal to local and state officials to keep good records and respond in good faith to requests for Information.

It also establishes a study committee to review the 215 exemptions to the Public Records Act. Some of the exemptions are difficult to understand or interpret, thereby creating confusion. The intent is to clarify whether a document is public or not.

Funding Home Renewable Energy Projects

Many Vermont towns have eagerly awaited the “Property Assessed Clean Energy Program.” This is a law that enables voters of a municipality to establish a special “Property Assessed Clean Energy” district, in which residents can make energy-saving improvements to their properties with funds borrowed through the town. Participating property owners then repay those loans over a period of up to twenty years through a regular payment as with their property tax bill, which allows them to spread out their payments and reap net annual savings at the same time. When the property is sold, the payments, like the annual energy savings, stay with the property until paid off. The bill provides strong safeguards to this program, including a system of loan loss reserve funds, underwriting criteria, project guidelines, and vital technical assistance for participating towns through Efficiency Vermont. This program is the first meaningful way for homeowners to afford important energy improvements, both electrical and thermal, in a time of sky-rocketing fuel prices. Twelve Vermont towns have already voted to become PACE districts, and we expect many more to sign up, especially with Efficiency Vermont now acting as an important facilitator.

Keeping our roads safe from drunk drivers

The challenge presented to the legislature to prevent harm to Vermonters and their families and friends by chronic DUI offenders was taken on in H.264. It is helpful to understand that it is a small but hardcore population that challenges us. While 50% of first offenders don’t offend again, larger percentages of second time offenders, and even larger percentages of third and subsequent offenders re-offend. These folks are the focus of this legislation.

An escalating scale of penalties has been set in place for these offenders. A third DUI conviction carries with it a term of imprisonment up to five years of which at least 96 consecutive hours of imprisonment must be served. For the conviction of a third or subsequent DUI offense with death or serious bodily injury resulting, a term of at least five years will be imposed and probation, parole, furlough, or any other type of early release will not be allowed.

Additionally, this legislation holds accountable anyone who allows someone who is under the influence of drugs or alcohol to drive his/her car. Anyone who violates this will be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than six months or both. Should death or bodily injury result, a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment of not more than two years would be imposed.

It is important to understand that efforts are made at each junction to avoid arriving at the second or third conviction by providing the CRASH program, alcohol and substance abuse treatment programs as well as new programs such as the ignition interlock device. In some very few cases, these initiatives are ineffective and result in the devastating accidents that prompted this bill.

We had a lengthy discussion that night about principled behavior vs. political theatrics and back room negotiating. Little did I know that the next morning, one of my bills was to go through some significant gamesmanship by a senate member who would attempt to finagle the bill into extinction through procedural maneuvers, a member of my own party, no less. My side was able to prevail by anticipating his moves and deploying procedural rules in response. Nothing here was illegal or unethical; just using the rules for one’s own agenda.

Both of us had good intentions, I assume, just different. He was doing an end run to help a constituent who wanted to own an unknown number of white tail deer and moose held in a captive hunt facility. I was working to put all of our wildlife in the public trust, insuring that our wildlife could not be reduced to private ownership. So who was right? What is the balance between doing what local constituents ask of you when it may stand in conflict with values held by Vermonters outside of your community? At times, we are servants of two masters: our individual towns as well as our state as a whole. This is no more evident than in our ongoing debate about fairness in funding of public education.

In our small state, politics are at play, but not as strongly as in other states. I spoke with gentleman who had served as legislative counsel to the U.S. Senate and later as a lobbyist in the Massachusetts legislature. While politics were at play in Washington, this paled in comparison with Boston’s back room deals. He figured the balance was about 15% principle and 85% politics. In Vermont, I would say it is the opposite, 15% politics to 85% principle. Most deliberations happen in the open and only a small handful of legislators are constantly working to secretly manipulate the system.

Now that I have seen three legislative sessions adjourn, I am no longer innocent enough to assume that politics are not at play. At the same time, it is not my style, I don’t respect it and it will be unlikely that I will be the instigator of such behavior. That said, I also like to keep in mind the words of Otto von Bismarck: “With a gentleman, I am always a gentleman and a half; and when I have to do with a pirate, I try to be a pirate and a half.”

I will be returning to my work as a special educator in Williston this week, ending our Tuesday mornings at Bruegger’s. I am available by appointment and can be contacted at KLWebb22@mac.com.

The most interesting place to be right now is the Senate with the budget and the tax bill passing last week and the unified health care bill slated for this week. Parodying the voice of Hamlet: to tax dentists, or not to tax dentists; to increase taxes on the wealthiest Vermonters, or not to increase this tax; to increase the tax on cigarettes, (although “not to tax” was never considered) – by 27 cents as passed the House, or $1 as passed the Senate Finance Committee? Following seven amendments and heated debate, the tax bill passed, raising about $24.5 million in new taxes, which included a 53 cent tax hike on cigarettes and the dentists were, once again, spared.

In contrast, H.441, the appropriations bill, often referred to as “the big bill,” passed easily with only one dissenting vote, resolving the $176 million budget gap for 2012 with the largest cuts to human services.

These bills will return to the House this week where changes between the House and Senate-passed versions will be reconciled in the House Appropriations Committee for the budget bill and House Ways and Means for the tax bill. These committees will then have three or four options.

The first option is to concur with the Senate’s amended version and bring the bill back to the floor with a recommendation to pass the bill and send it on to the Governor for signature. The second option is to concur with further proposal of amendment. The bill goes back to the floor of the House where it must pass and then return to the Senate for approval.

The more likely option with bills that have undergone significant change would be that they do not concur with the version passed by the Senate. At this point, House Speaker Shap Smith and Senate Pro Tempore John Campbell will each appoint three members from their respective chambers to a “committee of conference.” A fourth option is to do nothing. As this is the first year of the biennium, the committee can hold the bill and pick it up again in January. In the second year, any bill that has not been sent to the governor dies. This is not true for the budget in either year, however. The Legislature cannot adjourn until a budget is passed and sent to the Governor.

I have found this process not to be for the faint of heart. This process is set either by the Constitution or by the Joint Rules of the House and Senate and I have not seen any other alternative to get this work completed in a timely fashion. Nonetheless, major decisions can be made by a small handful of legislators and if you don’t keep your eyes open, tricky things can happen. Even though these committee meetings are all public, it is challenging to be in several places at the same time, thus it is important to have a very good network of contacts who are closely watching the different conference committees.

The original adjournment date was slated for May 7th with the option to add Saturdays and Mondays to our schedule to meet this deadline. Although there is great pressure to complete the universal health care bill and many, many others, the only bill that could truly delay adjournment is the budget bill.

Feel free to email questions to me: klwebb22[at}mac.com and if appropriate, I will post answers on this website as they come in. Send to my email rather than replying on this site. Messages left on this site get lost in the hundreds of spam that come in.