THERE ARE SIX weeks left in this legislative biennium, with long days on the floor voting on bills and squeezing in committee time to review bills coming from the Senate.

Part of our bizarre budget process this year means that several weeks after we pass the main budget, we will receive the administration’s response to the “Challenges for Change” legislation which eliminated $35 million from the budget at the start of the session.

If certain departments get “double hits” between budget cuts and cuts from the “Challenges” we will have no real ability to realign a fair spread of cuts. We abdicated responsibility for final outcomes, which is why I voted against the “Challenges” bill earlier this year.

On the House Floor

The other big money bills will be on the House floor on their way to the Senate this week, including the Transportation budget and the tax expenditure bill, which is aimed this year at not raising taxes directly, but at reducing some tax breaks that reduce state income.

Also on notice is a school consolidation bill that proposes incentives rather than mandates to form much larger districts.

A terrific, bipartisan move occurred last week with rapid passage of the governor’s jobs bill after we received it from the Senate. This uses more of our federal recovery money to invest in strengthening business opportunities and in job training, and may turn out to be the most important bill of the session.

The fiercest debate was a bill that requires town listers to identify all rental housing units, to be turned over to the state for a registry for the Attorney General’s Office, the Health Department, and Public Safety to enforce codes.

This usurps town roles in favor of future statewide control, but it also puts the data collection burden on local towns as a unfunded mandate.

When word got out, a barrage of protest came from listers around the state, who had never been given notice or the opportunity to testify. The committee responded with a further hearing after it had already voted on the bill.

It became, regrettably, yet another mostly party-line issue. The Democrats overwhelming rejected a Republican motion to send the bill back for review by Ways and Means for a fiscal impact review. Then, the next day, when it came from their own motion, the bill was sent there.

Attention to good process is at risk when there are very lopsided numbers between parties, which gives little ability for the minority to object to how bills are handled.

We passed all parts of the highway safety bill last week, but only after an acrimonious process when the bill was presented with just a few brief comments in a somewhat arrogant assumption that because the votes to pass were already there, the usual bill reporting process was unnecessary.

The surprise action almost got the bill slipped through with no opportunity for debate. Republicans then forced the issue by dividing off each component to allow for separate debate and voting, and healthy discussion was able to move ahead.

I was opposed only to the ban on hand held cell phones by adults. I find the irony disturbing that a significant majority of drivers admit to using cell phones despite feeling it is unsafe, and a significant majority want a ban passed into law. Are we so irresponsible that we cannot control our own actions, and request that the government control what we do?

I supported the texting ban, the midnight to 5 a.m. operating ban for inexperienced drivers, and the junior operator cell phone ban.

I also voted for primary seat belt enforcement, despite being philosophically opposed to the underlying law. Choices in personal safety should be up to the individual. (Do we next enforce by law helmets for bicyclists? Ban skiing or other sports that create personal safety risk?)

However in this case the law to require seatbelts was passed many years ago. The issue was whether police can stop someone for breaking the law, instead of only enforcing the law if another law is also being broken. This concept of “secondary enforcement” is illogical.

I checked in advance that the right of homeowners to work on their own homes was preserved in a bill requiring licensed professionals to do all major electrical work.

We also passed a bill to support the sport of hunting, by allowing “mentoring”, which enables individuals to try out hunting without the full investment in a license and hunter safety course, if accompanied by a licensed hunter.

I helped get an amendment clarifying that the two hunters needs to stay within 15 feet apart, for safety purposes.

Another contentious bill was a new “Kindergarten through 16" Council to ensure that all students aspire for success through post-secondary education in order to create a more educated and engaged citizenry, and to develop awareness of the “economic, intellectual, and societal benefits of higher education.”

What about the value we have traditionally placed upon the “self-made” successful person whose life goals differ, or whose talents and ambitions are to become a mechanic or carpenter? Are they now second class citizens who aren’t able to be effectively engaged in society because they didn’t go on to college?

I’m hoping this well intentioned bill will be modified before third reading to remove the “one size fits all” tone. I also wonder, though, whether we should be establishing any new councils at this particular time of fiscal crisis, when we are at the same time eliminating many state committees.

Human Services Committee

My committee passed one new bill last week that annoyed me no end; we’re somewhat blackmailed into spending $12,000 as our share of administration of a newly revised Interstate Compact on Juveniles. Without joining, we cannot rely on cooperation in the return of runaway children, or collaboration for juveniles on probation who move to a different state.

We are developing input into the capital bill on the administration’s request for more planning money to close the existing state hospital.

The first stage is a $15 million new complex for 15 patients who need long term rehabilitation, not inpatient hospital care. The state has filed a state regulatory application for construction, but there is no money likely to be available in next year’s capital bill to actually build it.

In the same time frame, we could instead open 16 acute inpatient replacement beds for a little under $6 million at the Brattleboro Retreat. However the outgoing administration’s plan for phase 2 continues to be a $25 million new hospital wing in Rutland that will replace 12 state hospital beds.

We have several bills coming to us from the Senate and we will be too pressed for time to address them all. I hope we will pass the uniform anatomical gift act, which will bring our organ donor program in line with other states.

We have already decided that a low priority is the Senate bill to establish marijuana dispensaries for those eligible to use marijuana for symptom relief. This affects only a small number of Vermonters, and would place the state in direct violation of federal law.

Your contacts, inquiries, and opinions are always most welcome as I work to serve you. You can leave messages at any time via the Sergeant-at-Arms at the state house (828-2228) – these get delivered to me within the hour – or at my home phone

485-6431) or email counterp@tds.net).