Inside the Golden Bubble: Amendments, political statements and taxing debates

Rep. Oliver Olsen, photo by Josh Larkin.

Editor’s note: Inside the Golden Bubble is an occasional political column about the Legislature by Anne Galloway.

The amendment is a funny thing. It can be a vehicle for real legislative change, but more often than not it serves a political purpose.

A prime example? The Vermont House GOP’s decision last week to pull an amendment to waive all permits for a new psychiatric facility. The point Rep. Don Turner, R-Milton, et. al., were trying to make was: Following the rules, that is seeking environmental and other regulatory permits, sure can be time consuming and expensive. Act 250 and certificate of need approvals would add months to the construction of the facility, according to Turner, even though the governor has asked for an expedited process. Not to mention the cost. Wouldn’t it be more efficient if emergency rules, like those the Shumlin administration used during Tropical Storm Irene for streambed mitigation, were applied in this, and other, instances, Turner wanted to know?

The GOP minority leader knew the amendment didn’t have a hope of passage. The usual process questions came up: He didn’t consult with the chair of the committee of jurisdiction; the proposal was last minute; this was a matter of policy that needed due consideration, etc.

So why go through this exercise in futility? Milton scored political points, got the proposal on the record and garnered the attention of reporters. (The amendment was journalized for posterity.) What more could he ask for?

Sometimes ideas come up — Tom Pelham’s tiger team initiatives were one such proposal — that are initially rejected by the party in power (Democrats) — but then resurface in another form and are eventually adopted. A version of Pelham’s clinical utilization review board concept, for example, is a project now under way at the Department of Vermont Health Access.

A few weeks ago, the Democratic majority in the House adopted an idea, nearly whole cloth, from one of their GOP brethren.

Rep. Oliver Olsen, R-Jamaica, has tirelessly gadflied an issue that eventually got stuck in the ointment of the budgeting and tax writing process. Olsen was galled last year when lawmakers cut funding for the General Fund transfer to the Ed Fund by $27.5 million. The move was dubbed a “rebasing” of the transfer to 2008 levels, before the Great Recession, before the federal stimulus funds and before Gov. Peter Shumlin took power. Instead of transferring $309 million from the General Fund to the Ed Fund in fiscal year 2012, including inflationary increases, the transfer will be $282 million. The reduction is on average a roughly 3 cent property tax increase at the local level.

Olsen, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, proposed that the state divert 50 percent of any surplus funds (after the stabilization fund has been filled) toward the General Fund transfer to the Ed Fund, and more money into the per pupil funding formula. The mechanism would remain in place until the transfer and the formula have caught up with inflation. The Joint Fiscal Office would be required to issue a report on the plan every year.

Olsen has made filling the gap in the transfer his cause d’etre. He’s made fast friends across the aisle (Rep. Ann Manwaring, D-Wilmington), and he presumably got the ear of the House Speaker Shap Smith (his idea wouldn’t have advanced otherwise).

His amendment passed unanimously in the House several weeks ago, and perhaps more remarkably made a brief appearance in the other body (also known as the Senate).

The Green Room killed the provision, which was tacked onto the Budget Adjustment Act, but it surfaced again, this time with dual billing — Rep. Dave Sharpe, D-Bristol, is now named on the amendment, along with Olsen.

It was unanimously supported in the House a second time on Thursday, as an add-on to the standalone property tax bill, which raised the statewide rate by 1 cent. The amendment passed 140-0.

The fate of Rep. Cynthia Browning’s more radical proposal — that the Legislature simply repeal the rebasing of the Ed Fund transfer — split the body along partisan lines, with the exception of an handful of Democrats including Manwaring, and Peg Andrews of Rutand, Michel Consejo of Sheldon, John Moran of Wardsboro, Larry Townsend of Randolph and Linda Waite-Simpson. Independent Paul Poirier of Barre City also supported the amendment.

Browning, a Democrat, argued that the rebasing was a permanent change in funding that would have long-term impacts on schools and result in $300 million in reductions over a 10-year period. She said the cut in funding for schools was “too blunt an instrument.”

“I don’t think reducing the Education Fund transfer to the General Fund is the right way to help school districts control their budgets,” Browning said. “I suggest we find a different way to do it.”

Rep. Heidi Schueurmann, R-Stowe, a co-sponsor of the amendment, said the passage of the rebasing language last year was like a “magic show.” She accused members of the Legislature and Shumlin, a Democrat, of a achieving a feat of legerdemain, of passing a budget without appearing to raise broad-based taxes even though the rebasing move effectively raised local property taxes by 3 cents.

“I don’t think anyone thinks it’s not a broad-based tax,” Schueurmann said. “By approving this amendment we support transparency and a full, honest debate and we hold ourselves accountable for a bad decision.”

Sharpe, who opposed repeal, said necessary sacrifices have been made across state government, and the state’s educational system shouldn’t be excepted.

“Since the Great Recession started we have asked every department, every community, every agency to tighten their belts, to do more with less,” Sharpe said. “We are nearing the end of that. Signs are positive … we are recovering, but there is not $27 million in the General Fund to restore the transfer in one fell swoop.”

The amendment failed, 94-48, and perhaps won’t see the light of day again.

The Sharpe-Olsen proposal, however, will likely surface next in the Senate, in one form or another. Judging from the way the Brock-Flory amendment went down on Wednesday, it doesn’t look like the measure will have much traction in the other body. But the game of whack-a-mole inside the Golden Bubble is sure to go on anyway.

As for the governor, he’s sticking with the rebasing and no increase in the property tax.

Whatever happens in the Green Room, the Democratic majority in the House has inoculated itself politically for the upcoming election season when property taxpayers in many communities could be suffering from sticker shock. With 151 towns reporting budgets, spending rates are at 2.65 percent, or about 2.65 cents, and though the spending increase could dip, the Joint Fiscal Office has run calculations for a 3.5 percent jump. Add to that the 3 cent rebasing amount and you’ve got yourself a noticeable hike.

Correction: We originally omitted the names of the following Democratic representatives who supported the Browning amendment: Peg Andrews of Rutand, Michel Consejo of Sheldon, John Moran of Wardsboro, Larry Townsend of Randolph and Linda Waite-Simpson. Independent Paul Poirier of Barre City also supported the amendment.