Legislative Report 3/21/2016 - The Doyle Poll 2016

Once again the Doyle Poll proved to be popular at Town Meeting with 213 voters taking the time to fill out the survey. Here are the results for your consideration.

Q#	Question	Yes	No	Not Sure	Blank
1	Should cities and towns have a voice in siting industrial energy projects in their communities?	89%	4%	6%	1%
2	Is it important for Vermont to encourage people and jobs to move to Vermont in light of the population loss?	79%	14%	6%	1%
3	Do you believe water quality is a major issue in Vermont?	77%	14%	8%	1%
4	Should Vermont legalize marijuana?	47%	34%	17%	2%
5	Are you concerned about the increased use of opiates in Vermont?	96%	2%	1%	0%
6	Should Vermont require paid sick leave?	70%	18%	10%	2%
7	Are you satisfied with Vermont's health care?	36%	46%	16%	2%
8	Are statewide cell service and broadband important to the future of Vermont’s economy?	77%	13%	10%	0%
9	Does Vermont have too many school districts relative to our declining student population?	60%	19%	21%	0%
10	Do you believe that Vermont's political campaigns are too costly?	48%	17%	34%	1%
11	Should Vermont have a 4 year term for governor?	60%	23%	16%	1%
12	Does Vermont rely too heavily on property taxes for funding education?	77%	9%	13%	1%
13	Should we reduce Vermont's prison population by using alternatives for non-violent offenders?	85%	6%	8%	1%
14	Is Vermont a business friendly state?	29%	43%	26%	2%

There were five questions that appeared in last year's survey (Q3. water quality, Q4. marijuana, Q5. opiates, Q8. cell service and Q9. school districts). The opinion favoring marijuana legalization fluctuated from 48% to 42% to the current 47% over the last three years, while the opinion against moved from 42% to 45% down to 34% indicating a significant shift to undecided. While still an overwhelming majority, a smaller percentage of respondents felt that broadband is important (84% last year). Water quality, concern about opiates and the opinion that Vermont has too many school districts remained nearly the same year-to-year.

Vermont's handling of the health care issue remains in a negative light as problems persist with the Vermont Health Connect system. The slow progress made in addressing the problem of the “change of circumstance” function has been less than satisfactory in the eyes of both the public and the Legislature which is continuing to monitor the situation and consider alternatives. Likewise, high property taxes as the major source of education funding continue to be a general concern.

The overwhelming consensus is that municipalities should have a greater say than they do now in siting renewable energy projects. A lot of work has been done by the Senate in their bill S.230, which has now been assigned to the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee. We have already begun to review the bill which has great potential to provide a path forward to make the siting process more transparent. It will give towns more influence as they develop local renewable energy plans in conjunction with Regional Planning Commissions, while continuing to move Vermont away from fossil fuels and toward a stronger renewable energy economy.

As your representative in Montpelier, I appreciate your input on these and other issues. Your comments help me look at issues from several perspectives, and that is a valuable opportunity for me. You can always contact me by phone at 802-425-3960 or email me at myantachka.dfa@gmail.com.

The Word in the House 3/14/2016 - Managing Our Forests

Vermont's forests are vital for humans and the ecosystem. They protect water, soil and air quality and provide rural jobs and a multitude of useful forest products, as well as flood protection. When European settlers first came to Vermont, the land was almost completely forested. Settlement led to clearing 80% of the forests until the 20th century when they began to grow back. As recently as 2011 Vermont's landscape was back to 80% forested, but latest measurements have shown a decline to 75%. Furthermore, significant parts of existing forests are becoming fragmented, that is, disconnected islands of forests which isolate or exclude wildlife.

Vermont's Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation (FPR) has focused on developing policies to promote and protect forest health and maintain the value of Vermont's working forestlands. For the last month, my colleagues and I on the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee have been working on several bills to achieve the objectives stated by FPR. Weeks of testimony from FPR, foresters, loggers, landowners, environmental organizations and our Legislative Council, have allowed us to craft legislation with unanimous committee support. As of this writing, two of the bills, H.857 and H.852, have won passage by the House and three others are being reviewed by other committees.*

H.857 allows FPR to collect timber harvest data and assist landowners with proper forestry practices and fair payment for harvested timber. It sets up a voluntary program that encourages landowners to notify FPR when a timber harvest will take place. Upon notification FPR can provide advice on the value of the timber as well as information on proper harvest management and best practices for logging operations to protect the landowner from substandard work. Proper harvesting can provide lasting value to the landowner by maintaining a healthy forest well into the future.

H.852 updates regulations and fees for maple sap collection on State lands. The current fee schedule is based on the quality of the syrup produced based on the obsolete grading system. H.852 simplifies the fee schedule by charging a per tap fee set by the Commissioner of FPR. The bill also exempts land acquired by the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) from the land use change tax which is assessed when privately held land is taken out of "current use." Without this exemption, the state would be taxing itself. Finally, the bill sets up a study committee to develop recommendations for a statewide program to encourage succession planning by forestland owners. As the landowner population ages, we want to encourage keeping forestland intact well into the future through conservation incentives.

H.851 provides a right to conduct forestry just as there is a right to conduct agriculture in State law. It provides a list of specific forestry operations that are presumed not to create a public or private nuisance if the activity complies with the Accepted Management Practices for water quality on logging jobs as well as other applicable law such as the heavy cut law. It allows the operation to be contested by showing that it has a substantial adverse impact on health, safety or welfare, or significantly interferes with the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties. The bill also provides that municipalities cannot regulate forestry operations with certain exceptions related to land development.**

H.854, another landowner protection bill, relates to "timber trespass" or stealing timber. It clarifies the civil penalties for the unlawful removal of timber and makes it a crime for someone to knowingly and deliberately cut timber without the owner's permission. Under current law, such theft is considered a misdemeanor and is subject only to civil action brought by the landowner.

Finally, H.855 amends how town Forest Fire Wardens are appointed and updates their compensation from FPR, how towns are reimbursed by the State for the costs of forest fire suppression, and how permits are issued for open burning. Forest fires on land owned by the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) will have all costs incurred by a town reimbursed at a rate determined by the Commissioner. Fires solely on town land will be reimbursed at the discretion of the Commissioner who is directed to establish a policy for reimbursement. Fires partially on town land and ANR land will be reimbursed proportionately.

I welcome your thoughts and can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

*As of 3/18/16 all of these bills were passed by the House.
** H.851 was amended as recommended by the Judiciary Committee to remove all but the provision that municipalities cannot regulate forestry operations with certain exceptions related to land development. The Judiciary Committee wants to take a deeper look into the "rebuttable presumption" provision.

Legislative Report 3/7/2016 - Reflections on Town Meeting 2016

Since I moved to Vermont 38 years ago, I've attended every town meeting, eight in Shelburne and the rest in Charlotte, except for one during the year I spent in Germany. I love Town Meeting for its character and for the close relationship with local government it provides to citizens. I grew up in Pennsylvania where such a relationship did not exist. Even in my small town of Swoyersville people knew the names of their Town Councilmen, but didn't have much interaction with them. I heard over and over again that the reason people didn't bother to vote was because their vote didn't count, which became a self-fulfilling prophecy. My brief stints in Connecticut and New Jersey offered political experiences that were very different from Vermont's as well.

The results of this year's overwhelmingly positive vote on Article 9, creating a two step Town Meeting process, is encouraging to me because I believe it will enhance the Town Meeting process. Only three short years ago there was a move to change the vote on the Town Budget to Australian ballot, which would surely have meant the death knell for Town Meeting as we know it. While well-intentioned to give more voters a say in adopting the budget, there would have been no significant business to attend to at the meeting itself, and attendance would have dropped off just as it has for the School Meeting held on the preceding evening. The concurrence of the legislature with our Charter proposal is assured with the 1148 to 403 vote. Now we'll have a chance to satisfy those who want to continue having a say on the budget from the floor as well as those who can't attend Town Meeting but still want to be able to register their approval or disapproval of the budget. We'll have three years to evaluate the results, and if we're not satisfied, we will automatically revert back to the current format in four years as a result of the sunset clause.

More than 200 Charlotters filled out the Doyle Survey this year. Since I took a few days to visit my two week-old grandson in Connecticut, I still haven't compiled the results of the survey. I'll have them for a future article. However, I did get a few comments in conversations in the hallway. At least one person was frustrated with the quality of the questions. She felt that several were virtually meaningless and had predictable responses. While some of the questions may have been predictable, others, such as the one regarding legalization of marijuana, should provide meaningful insight into how much support the issue has in town. Based on my observations throughout the day I think the participation in the survey represents a good cross-section of the community who came out to vote, not only of those who attended the three-hour meeting.

Along with many other people in town, I was disappointed that so many elective offices had no candidates. I can understand that there is a lot of demand on everyone's time, which makes the commitment to serve a challenge. So I offer my praise and thanks to those who did step up in spite of that. They are folks who provide essential and valuable service to all of us in keeping our town running smoothly.

I also want to thank everyone who signed my petition to run for re-election this year. I always welcome your thoughts and can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

Lt. Gov Candidate Kesha Ram Interviewed

As we did with the Democratic candidates for Governor, The Chittenden County Democrats Show will be featuring the Democratic Lieutenant Governor candidates in the coming months.  Our first Lt. Gov. candidate appeared on the March 7th show with host Mike Yantachka, State Representative from Charlotte and Hinesburg.  Representative Kesha Ram of Burlington serves on the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee with Mike.  In this interview she lays out her reasons for running for the State's 2nd-in-Command position.

The Word in the House 2/29/2016 - Divestment, Voting and Protection

As I write this the weekend before Town Meeting, I’m looking forward to one of the great New England traditions where voters can get together in an exercise of direct democracy to make decisions affecting their local government. It gives me a chance to talk to constituents and find out what’s on their minds and get some idea of whether I am doing my job properly in Montpelier.

Last week saw passage of several bills as well as a resolution on fossil fuel divestment in the Vermont House. The resolution, HR.13, calls on the State Treasurer working with the Vermont Pension Investment Committee (VPIC) to eliminate coal and ExxonMobil stockholdings from Vermont’s pension funds. The rationale for the measure included recognition that: climate change due to human consumption of fossil fuels is real and has significant negative consequences for our environment; given the recent bankruptcy of America’s largest coal company and efforts around the globe to curtail use of coal, investments in fossil fuels pose a threat to Vermont’s pension funds; and ExxonMobil specifically has been documented to have misled the public and its investors and funded climate change denial despite having evidence to the contrary from its own scientists. While it encourages divestment, it also recognizes that the pensions belong to the employees whose money is invested and that they, through the VPIC, have the ultimate responsibility to divest while taking care to invest wisely. The resolution passed on a vote of 76 to 57.

On the same day that the resolution was voted on, a bill that changes the “motor-voter” law, that is, the ability to register to vote when applying for a driver’s license, was passed. Today the applicant must choose to register on the form. This bill, H.458, now provides that the default is to submit a voter registration application unless the applicant chooses otherwise. Of course, the applicant must fulfill the requirements of U.S. citizenship, be a resident of Vermont, have taken or self-administered the Voter’s Oath, and attest to the veracity of this information on the form. While many other states continue to restrict voting privileges by erecting roadblocks to registration, Vermont continues to embrace the right of every citizen to vote and encourage them to do so. This bill passed on a voice vote.

Another important bill that passed was H.749, which allows a friend to file a relief from abuse request for a minor or for a person who lacks capacity to protect his or her interests due to psychiatric, intellectual, or developmental disability. It also allows a minor who is at least 16 years old to file a request on their own behalf if they are currently or were previously engaged in a sexual or dating relationship with the defendant. This provides a measure of protection for young people and vulnerable adults who are in a recognizably abusive relationship and may be reluctant to file the request themselves. This bill also passed on a voice vote. H.749 as well as H.458 will now be considered by the Senate.

I welcome your thoughts and can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

Legislative Report 2/22/2016 - Paid Sick Leave

Last year the Vermont House passed a bill, H.187, to require Vermont employers to provide a minimum number of paid sick days to their employees. However, the Senate did not act on the bill before the session ended in May. As this year began, the Senate took up the bill and made several changes after hearing testimony from business leaders, labor representatives, and many employees who do not currently have this benefit. The subsequent changes made it easier on small businesses to comply with the requirements of the bill. Last week I joined with the majority of my House colleagues to concur with the Senate's changes and pass the amended bill, which Governor Shumlin has indicated he will sign into law.

Why is this bill needed? While about half of Vermont's private sector employers offer some form of paid sick leave, less than half of employees working for companies with less than 20 employees have any paid sick leave. Around 60,000 workers have to take unpaid time off if they or their child or other family member gets sick. Since most of these workers are in minimum or low wage jobs, they can hardly afford to do so. In many cases they go to work sick or send their child to school sick. So this is a public health and safety matter as well as a labor issue.

Gov. Peter Shumlin signs the Paid Sick Leave bill into law

in the Vermont House chamber on March 10, 2016.

Beginning January 1, 2017, the bill requires employers to provide every employee at least one hour of paid sick leave for every 52 hours worked. Up to 24 hours can be accrued annually during the first two years of implementation. Beginning January 1, 2019, up to 40 hours can be accrued in a 12 month period. So, if an employee only worked 20 hours per week, they would accumulate 20 hours over the course of the year. An employer with a paid time-off program such as vacation or combined time off (CTO) that is at least as generous and can be taken for the same reasons as sick leave already satisfies the requirements.

Other provisions give employers flexibility in scheduling if an employee can give sufficient notice for their absence or can switch with other co-workers. Furthermore, an employer can require newly hired employees to wait one year before they can use the accrued sick leave. While the unused accumulated sick leave is to be rolled over into the next 12 month period, the employer can limit time off to the minimum required by law for that 12 month period. Employers can be more generous if they prefer.

In recognition of situations faced by many small businesses, several categories of employees do not fall under the provisions of the bill. Employers are not required to provide paid sick leave to employees who annually work less than 18 hours per week on average, work 20 weeks or less in a 12 month period, work on a per diem basis with no expectation of regular employment, or who are less than 18 years old. Substitute teachers, sole proprietors or business partners, and exempt state employees are also not covered by the bill. There is also a new employer exemption, which exempts a new business from complying with the law for a period of one year after the employer hires its first employee. In addition, the bill requires the Agency of Commerce and Community Development and the Department of Labor to develop a program that will assist employers with five or fewer employees with implementing a paid time off policy.

We recognize that there is a cost to our employers for this benefit, but we need to also consider the costs to workers, especially those at the low end of the pay scale, for not having this benefit. Costs are part of doing business. A business routinely invests in equipment that improves its operations. So too, businesses should be willing to invest in their employees who are a benefit to their business as well.

I will be available at Town Meeting on March 1 if there is anything you would like to talk about with me. I always welcome your thoughts and can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).