Rep. Stevens: Veto session convenes Monday

By Rep. Tom Stevens 

On Monday and Tuesday, June 17 and 18, the General Assembly will convene for a veto session. These dates were set in May, just before we adjourned the session. We will be considering voting to override up to seven bills that Gov. Phil Scott vetoed over the last several weeks. I will be voting to override each and every one of these vetoes.

To be clear, vetoing a bill is very much a part of how our democratic governance works, as does overriding a veto. The General Assembly — the House and Senate together — work separately and then together to find compromise on bills throughout the session. Many times, policy is shaped in consultation with the executive branch as well. When compromises cannot be found, willfully or not, this system breaks down and the policy conversation switches to politics. We see this in the veto messages the governor sends back to the House and Senate, followed quickly by fundraising appeals, or by not showing up to discuss fundamental policy with members of the House and Senate.

Keep in mind that the new fiscal year starts July 1. This has been a difficult year financially in the State House. The federal funds granted us — and all states — due to the pandemic have been spent, and we are transitioning back to using state tax dollars. The pandemic created several shocks to our systems, from inflation to supply chain difficulties to acknowledging and addressing our previous needs — universal school lunches, for example — that are benefits to us all. 

On top of this, the governor has pledged not to raise fees or taxes, to the detriment of the systems that provide us with basic services. Not raising certain fees, like at the DMV or for hunting licenses or for public safety essentially cuts those services for Vermonters. Saying that education should cost less ignores so many facets of budget building in exchange for “reasonable” sound bites. The bills passed by the General Assembly were, on a financial level, the result of compromises made by both sides of the aisle.

The policy bills vetoed by the governor address the world as it stands today. Vetoing the bills represents a desire to look backwards and imagine a time when we didn’t have to consider the insidiousness of climate change, or the insidiousness of the wanton use of our personal data, or the insidiousness of addiction. Delaying action on these bills is a message to all of us — that we don’t care to address any of these issues head on — one I do not believe in.

Here is what we will be considering. I don’t know, going into the veto session, how many of these bills “have the votes.” All I know is that we must override the rash decisions made to veto them.

  • H.706: This bill proposes to phase in limited bans on neonicotinoids over several years. Neonics, when applied to agricultural crops, affect the life cycle of bees and other pollinators, which of course affects the life cycle of the plants. The effort on this bill has taken several years and retains the support of a good percentage of farmers. Opposition comes from the manufacturers of the product.

  • H.289: The long-gestating renewable energy building standards. Again, another bill that has been crafted with a view on the reality that reducing energy use in housing and commercial buildings will benefit all of us in the long run. This is a climate change bill and is another compromised balance between the needs of our communities for growth and the responsibilities to do so in an economic and ecological way.

  • H.72: This is essentially an overdose prevention pilot program in Burlington, where those with substance use disorder will be allowed to use in a safe, well-lighted and supervised location, with access to services that will help keep them alive and, with help, to end or reduce their addiction.

  • H.645: This is another compromise bill that enables a more humane restorative justice program to be set up. Having a record is one of the most detrimental bars to recovery and rehabilitation we give to anyone who has committed crimes, whether to support substance use or to simply survive. This was a surprise veto, esp. after a long session discussing the balances of supporting the victims of these crimes and developing a rehabilitation program that can work.

  • H.887: The focus of much anger this year has been education spending and the property tax rate. The “yield” bill is, traditionally, the setting of the statewide tax rate after all school districts have weighed in with their budgets. As a reminder, the Legislature does not raise property taxes — it responds to the needs of the school districts. How that rate is eventually set, and the methods and math that result in the rate, is both simple and complicated, and it is the complicated portion that caused so much anger this spring. Attempts to work with the executive branch have failed, mostly because the administration has made proposals that are either returns to past, unconstitutional methods of raising revenue, or unworkable “fixes” that will negatively affect the school systems in the very near future. Without a bona fide plan, or participation in conversations with the General Assembly, the administration is choosing to irresponsibly play chicken with our children’s education.

  • H.687: This is our Act 250 and Housing bill. It offers many reforms to our Act 250 process for development that will promote building in the right places while protecting our environment from the overbuilding seen prior to the original passage of Act 250. Years of discussion shaped this compromise, and it reinvigorates and re-establishes the principles we have embraced of responsible development. The bill also includes funding for a number of housing programs that will continue the momentum we have established through the use of federal funding to help private and public developers build more housing that is affordable.

  • H.121: This bill, also a compromise, is our groundbreaking data privacy bill that will protect our personal data at a higher level than now, and will provide the tools to protect children in this brave new world of electronic access.

Please don’t hesitate to email with questions or concerns at tstevens@leg.state.vt.us.

Rep. Tom Stevens, D-Waterbury, is one of two state representatives in the Washington-Chittenden House district. He chairs the House General and Housing Committee.

Previous
Previous

Op-Ed: The veto session – a call to Waterbury’s legislators from a voting citizen

Next
Next

LETTER: In support of a Select Board resolution on Gaza