The state's economic challenges were at the forefront of much of this year's legislative discussion, so some of the 60 or so other bills passed into law this year received little attention.

They cover a range from eligibility for the state's youth hunting program to receivership of long term care facilities.

I'll wind up this session's legislative updates with highlights of legislative action in the last two weeks of the session:

My bill to restore the organ donor law that was repealed in error last year ended up being combined into a "miscellaneous" motor vehicle bill. The miscellany included a very hot topic: a proposal to have young men's names automatically sent to the federal government for enrollment in the Selective Service when applying for their driver's license.

It was intended as a convenience for meeting the federal requirement, and there would have been an option to "opt out" and decline to enroll in that manner. However, many (myself included) felt it was an unwarranted intrusion of a federal requirement into state business.

That section was removed on a tight, 68-60 roll call vote, and the organ donor section moved ahead and made it into law.

The bill revising the sex offender registry came back from the Senate with some changes that I felt were detrimental to the strong, yet balanced measures the House had adopted. I raised my concerns on the floor, but did maintain my overall support of it.

An education bill that set a state priority to "take all measures necessary" to achieve a 100 percent high school completion rate by 2020 - adding new requirements for local schools and state oversight - was merged in the Senate with a second bill that revised education funding reforms from several years ago.

The funding bill creates a more neutral "two vote" budget question when a school district has exceeded the formula growth rate and must have voters approve the budget in two parts. It also allows districts such as Roxbury or Moretown to discount tuition expenses in calculating whether a budget increase requires application of the divided budget question.

Another section added the language from a bill I introduced regarding state-placed students (youngsters in foster care.) It sets standards for how decisions are made between the Commissioner of Education and the Commissioner of Families and Children regarding tuition payment and school attendance based upon the child's needs. A student who is moved to a new home in April, for example, might benefit from the stability of not changing schools until completing that year.

The most controversial part of the bill was a provision removing the cap on the number of prekindergarten students that could be counted in a school formula for state per pupil funding. An effort to strike it from the bill failed in the House, 52 to 80.

It seemed to be a classic example of some of the misalignments in our current funding system. A representative from Burlington urging passage said that her district provides all day kindergarten and wants to expand pre- K to all eligible students. Burlington is able to afford this as a "receiving" town that benefits from statewide taxes, while many other districts can't.

The Senate's version eliminated the change in the pre-K cap, and the revised bill was adopted by the House. This act became law with the governor choosing not to sign it.

The last "loophole" in banning all workplace smoking was closed in a bill eliminating the option of having any designated indoor smoking area. One exception was granted, on the request of the Vermont Veteran's Home in Bennington, for its smoking room for patients. It was noted that this was also the personal home of these individuals.

I found it very objectionable that a single exception would be carved out without regard for other people in the same situation in other long term care homes.

The renewable energy and energy efficiency legislation returned from the Senate with revisions. I had supported this bill in the House. It may create some utility cost increases, but I think our hands are tied on forward movement if we do not make direct investments in developing alternative energy sources.

However, I voted against accepting the Senate changes. I did not have objections to them, but there had been no time for a review when it was brought for a vote.

There had been rumors of a veto, and I lobbied internally against it; I would not have voted to sustain one. Fortunately, it has become law.

The Transportation bill was adopted with inclusion of an increase in the gas tax to invest in our infrastructure. It also included various fee increases to make up for other revenue shortfalls. A few samples: a 2-year car registration will go from $108 to $120; snowmobiles go from $15 to $25 and motorboats increase by $5 in each weight class.

The fee for business directional signs will increase from $75 to $175 - another hidden tax for small business.

The bill also includes a directive to permanently close four rest areas, including on I-89 North at Randolph and I-89 South at Sharon. A request is to be made for a waiver of the federal rule that prohibits commercial operation of rest areas.

A protocol is to be developed for requiring the use of chains on buses and trucks when road conditions warrant them.

The debate on the farm-fresh milk bill (re-titled, for truth in advertising, the unpasteurized [raw] milk bill) was a truly refreshing one. It was intense and heartfelt, but no one was being pushed to toe a party line, so it was one of those rare occasions where different perspectives truly reflected personal convictions.

Some members had deep fears about risks not just to individuals, but to the Vermont brand reputation if something untoward happened. I was among those supporting the option of individuals to make the choice, as long as it was an informed choice. Under the bill as passed, unpasteurized milk can only be sold directly to individuals, and its risks must be prominently labeled.

There were three different roll call votes on amendments proposed for more stringent precautions than what the bill contained, but all failed. Rep. John Rodgers of Glover expressed the sentiments of many when he said, "I'm from Vermont and I drink what I want."

S. 48 is an effort to address the influence-peddling of pharmaceutical companies. It places tight limits on the kinds of conferences or educational activities that can be accepted and bans all direct gifts - including meals - to physicians and health care facilities.

Money spent that is still within the law must be reported by the companies, including who it was given to, all to be placed on a public web site.

There was strong controversy on the House floor over whether free drug samples should be included in the reporting requirements. Opponents (who won on the vote, 99-40) did not want to deter access to free samples for physicians to give to uninsured patients.

Those pressing for full transparency (myself included) were concerned about the pharmaceutical company use of samples to motivate prescribing of the expensive name brands.

Two other health reform bills passed. One was part of the ongoing adjustments to the Catamount Health Plan initiative in eligibility and other coverage aspects.

A bill on health care variability in spending and utilization is one of the first real cost containment initiatives to come out of the legislature in some time. One of the frustrating things about health care use is that it is often not driven by actual medical need. Some who need it don't get it, but there is also a great deal of overutilization: people receiving what they think they need.

The top researchers on the factors that cause this overutilization are neighbors of ours in New Hampshire. They've been telling us about it for years without getting much response, and in the meantime, their work has achieved national prominence. Most recently, a New Yorker magazine article increased awareness significantly.

They have identified the fact that the amount of use of many types of health care is governed by what the available supply is - but that in areas with high use of advanced treatment, the health outcomes are not better.

Under this bill we will be taking a more aggressive look at the variation patterns in types of procedures and their costs in Vermont (there are many wide variations) to identify overutilization.

This will build upon the rich data we have been gathering since Act 53 passed in 2003 - my first bill - directing report cards from all hospitals indicating their most frequent procedures and the listed prices (all available at www.bishca.state.vt.us.) The site includes comparison of quality indicators, such as inhospital infection rates, as well.

The bill will also start a pilot on "shared decision-making," based upon research showing that in decisions where patient preference is the determining factor in a choice between interventions, patients who are fully informed and involved with their physician in understanding the options are more likely to choose less invasive procedures.

The interesting thing is that if you read the definition of "shared decision-making" in the bill, it sounds like an exact description of good quality informed consent...what should be happening already all the time!

There was also a step forward in addressing persons with disabilities in our correctional system, in a bill I have been following and working on for several years. Existing law required special attention to inmates with serious mental illness, but it was narrowly defined.

Those being lost in the cracks included people with impairments such as mental retardation or traumatic brain injury.

S. 2 creates a new definition of "serious functional impairment" which focuses on the combination of a mental disability and its impact on a person's ability to function in the prison setting.

Two people in the past few weeks have expressed concern to me about hearing that we passed a law banning the use of clotheslines. It is so easy, based on a fleeting snippet overheard on the radio, to get a story backward

The actual law protects the "right to dry" so that aggressive condo or zoning requirements don't interfere with this highly energy efficient use of solar energy.

I mention it by way of saying, do feel free to ask. This overview of legislation touches on only a few topics among 60 bills. If you have a question about something you've heard or a bill you are interested in (whether it passed or not) I'm happy to look up details or find sources for you on Vermont laws.

Please stay in touch this summer and fall; you can reach me at counterp@tds.net; 485-6431, or at 148 Donahue Drive, Northfield. It is a privilege to serve you, and one I take very seriously.