Amy Ligay, executive director of the Children's Early Learning Center, stands with Sen. Peter Shumlin in 2010. Ligay, a member of the American Federation of Teachers, said childcare workers would campaign for Shumlin.

Childcare providers wearing blue t-shirts with the slogan “kids count on me” filled the hallways of the Statehouse Tuesday in support of a bill that would give them limited collective bargaining rights with the state.

The primary focus of the lobby day was H.97, a bill that passed the house last session and has yet to see any discussion this year.

The bill would allow child care providers to band together and bargain with the state on childcare subsidy payments and professional development and training.

Cathi Ste. Marie, a registered home provider from North Troy who has become a spokeswoman of sorts for the organizing effort, said the goal is to “change the law so we can have collective bargaining rights to be able to make those decisions that directly affect our program, our children and our profession as a whole.”

Ste. Marie is working with the Vermont Early Educators United, a member union of the United Professions of Vermont, which is affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers. The early educators union represents childcare providers who prepare children for kindergarten.

The problem for many early educators, Ste. Marie said, is limited funding for subsidies that allow low-income families to pay for child care while the parents work. The ability to bargain, Ste. Marie says, will encourage a better program all around.

“It helps everyone because there’s a certain quality that needs to be maintained in a program to help a child be ready for kindergarten,” she said. “Quality costs money, and it needs support and it needs professional development support.”

Childcare workers received welcome encouragement from Gov. Peter Shumlin, who recounted his personal story of overcoming dyslexia and learning to read.

Shumlin said the bill was a “beginning in ensuring you have a seat at table in building a system where all educators are paid equally.”

“That should be our goal,” he said.

The bill also received support from Senators Tim Ashe and Anthony Pollina, Rep. Chris Pearson and Phil Fiermonte, outreach director for U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ office.

The bill that passed the House last year was the subject of fierce criticism from some childcare providers who say they do not want a union to represent them. Large child-care centers also lobbied successfully to have their employees removed from the bill.

Currently, H.97 is sitting on the wall in the Senate Rules Committee. Senate Pro Tem John Campbell, who chairs the committee, said there is little chance of it coming off the shelf.

Campbell told VTDigger.org last week one of the primary issues for not taking up the bill are the aggressive tactics used by members of the union to pressure childcare providers and himself to support the legislation.

Campbell was not available for comment Tuesday.

In his remarks, Shumlin said, “I am putting as much pressure as I know how on the Senate to pass the bill this year.”

Amie Matton, stood in the hall with her 12-week-old daughter Scarlet in between events.

Matton, who works at Little Ones University in Essex Junction, said she came to the state capital to educate people about the early education field and the work she does.

“If we don’t get out and talk to other people about the work we do, people in general don’t understand why we might need things like the subsidy,” she said. “Without the opportunity to get out and educate others, people making decisions on our behalf are not doing so with info they need.”

Matton said her field sees a high turnover rate in part because of the long hours and low wages.

“You’re expecting people to work long hours under really hard conditions with excessively high expectations and you’re not willing to pay them,” she said.

Despite the outpouring of support for collective bargaining Tuesday, opponents of the bill, many of whom are childcare providers, fear it will unleash a parade of horribles.

Elsa Bosma, a child-care provider who is informally leading a counter-effort against the bill, told VTDigger it will cut off the direct line of communication she has with the state by requiring exclusive representation, likely from the union.

Bosma and other providers say they too have experienced pushy tactics from the union pressuring them to support the bill.

VTDigger

Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Deb Katz, executive director of Vermont Citizens Action Network, an anti-nuclear group. http://www.vtcitizen.org/

How can a judge get it so wrong and the will of the people be so right?

On January 19 Judge Murtha issued his controversial decision to support a rogue corporation in its evisceration of state’s rights. When Murtha ruled that Entergy was no longer bound by contracts it signed with the state of Vermont in 2002, and until 2010 repeatedly sought state approval for its actions, it undermined Vermont’s authority. When the judge further ruled that the Vermont legislature could not determine its own energy future, he eviscerated the democratic process.

Act 160 passed unanimously by both houses of the Vermont legislature; Republicans and Democrats alike, and signed into law by Republican Gov. Jim Douglas. This law empowered the legislature to decide whether Vermont Yankee’s continued operation was in the public good not based on safety but on economics, reliability and the environment. Yet Murtha, by accepting Entergy’s cherry-picked record chose to determine what was in the hearts and minds of legislators based on comments of a few. He opted to second-guess 180 legislators rather than accepting the law as written. What is in the hearts of legislators is better left to confessionals and fortune tellers than to a federal court judges.

Catch-ww

Murtha stated that although legislators never mentioned safety in Act 160 that’s what they really meant; they really wanted to wrestle federal control — pre-emption of nuclear power out of the government’s hands. Entergy, with its endless leaks and lies, its systemic mismanagement at VY and its other plants, and duplicity is the poster child for what was wrong in the nuclear industry. Entergy’s failing record demonstrates the abdication by the federal government to actually address safety.

The NRC approved Vermont Yankee’s license for continued operation days before the core meltdowns at the Fukushima reactors, (sister plants to VY) and then reaffirmed days later that VY was “safe” to operate. Although the state had good reason to pre-empt the federal government in its blatant disregard for health and safety, it did not. Act 160 specifically addressed state’s rights and responsibilities upheld in a previous Supreme Court ruling.

It’s curious that the state’s act of defiance would go unrecognized by the federal government; the DOJ chose not to intervene in the case, and in fact NRC’s Chairman Jaczko stated that nothing Vermont was doing violated NRC rules or regulations. Instead of looking at the written law, Judge Murtha opted to buy into a conspiracy theory that a handful of legislators were able to manipulate not one, but two separately elected bodies in the legislature.

So did Murtha do anything right?

Murtha sent the case back to the Vermont Public Service Board, a quasi-judicial entity, to determine whether Entergy is entitled to a Certificate of Public Good to operate in the state after March 2012. Although he put some constraints on the state, he upheld the state’s ability to decide whether it was in the best interests of the state to have a rogue corporation operate and erect a high-level waste dump along the banks of the Connecticut River. The judge also issued a permanent injunction which permits Entergy to continue to operate until the CPG is granted or rejected.

What can citizens do to ensure that democracy prevails?

It is essential that the governor and the attorney general understand how important this issue is to all of us. We are asking Vermonters to contact Shumlin and Attorney General Bill Sorrell, and thank them for the good work they have done on our behalf and urge them to continue to fight this bad decision and this equally bad corporation.

It is essential that the legislators act to hold this slippery corporation accountable for its waste, its thermal pollution of the Connecticut River and it corporate irresponsibility. With Murtha’s ruling ,Entergy has grown bolder in its disregard for the state. Entergy is now refusing the state’s request to continue the testing of contaminated wells to determine the level of contamination. Entergy now is also requesting that instead of inspecting the ancient steam dryers for cracks every 18 months that they be allowed to do so only every 10 years!

We call upon the Vermont legislature to do what Judge Murtha refused to do, which is to hold Entergy accountable to its remaining commitments to rehabilitate the site to greenfield status and cease denigrating our environment.

VTDigger

CONTACT: Andrea Stander, Director
andrea@ruralvermont.org
802-223-7222 or 802-522-3284

RURAL VERMONT RELEASES 2012 REPORT ON RAW MILK PRODUCTION AND SALES

The report’s survey results indicate raw milk sales contributed approximately $1 million in gross revenue to Vermont farms during 2011

Montpelier – Rural Vermont has released its 2012 Report on raw milk production and sales. For the third year since the passage of Act 62, which enabled the direct sale of raw milk by farmers to consumers, Rural Vermont has presented an overview of how the law is working for farmers and the economic impact of raw milk sales.

The report was presented to the House Committee on Agriculture on January 24, 2012 and will be presented to the Senate Committee on Agriculture on Friday February 3, 2012. The report is available on the Rural Vermont website http://www.ruralvermont.org or by calling 802-223-7222.

The report is based on the results of surveys conducted by Rural Vermont, which reached 95 of the estimated 150 farms that are producing raw milk and selling it to consumers under the requirements of Act 62. The report provides an overview of how the law has been functioning, summarizes the data collected in the surveys and presents some recommendations for further adjustments to the law and the regulations.

Lisa Kaiman of Jersey Girls Farm in Chester participated in the survey and commented; “Being able to sell raw milk has done a lot for my farm, not just financially, but community building and job appreciation – for both me and my cows. Since Irene, these sales and community interaction have been even more of a support to my farm than ever before. I continue to feel restricted by the seemingly arbitrary 40qt limit/day and the unreasonable labeling and testing regulations.”

In general, the farmers who participated in the survey were enthusiastic about the benefits of being able to sell raw milk. Jonathan Falby, owner of Symphony Farm in Washington said, “Protecting the raw milk law ensures that citizens have the freedom to choose who makes the products that are put in their bodies, where the product is made, and how the product’s production effects their land, community and economy. ”

Rural Vermont’s recommended changes are focused on improvements to the law and regulations that were identified by the farmers who responded to the survey. These changes would further enable farmers to respond to the skyrocketing consumer demand for raw milk and value-added products made from raw milk such as cheese and yogurt. Being able to meet this consumer demand offers a significant economic benefit to Vermont’s growing community of small, diversified farms.

VTDigger

Vermont AG William Sorrell, right, said his office lacked the evidence needed to bring criminal charges against Vermont Yankee Officials. At left is Asst. Attorney Gen. John Treadwell. VTD/Josh Larkin

Entergy Corp. filed a motion with the U.S. District Court on Friday to recover $4.6 million in legal fees for its lawsuit against the state.

The Louisiana company prevailed in federal court on Jan. 20 when Judge J. Garvan Murtha struck down two state laws that required Entergy to seek approval from the Legislature to continue operating Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant past its 40-year anniversary and to store high level nuclear waste at the plant site.

The state has 30 days to appeal the decision.

Entergy says it is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees because it also prevailed on its claim under the Commerce Clause.

Chanel Lagarde, spokesman for Entergy, said in a written statement that “the law allows for the prevailing party to seek recovery of attorney’s fees.”

“We believe this is the appropriate next step for our company in this case where we were compelled to challenge several Vermont state laws that we believed were unconstitutional and were in fact found to be unconstitutional,” Lagarde said.

Download the motion Entergy Attorney Claims 2-3-12.

Vermont Attorney General Bill Sorrell said he expected Entergy to request attorneys’ fees.

“I was certain it would be all of seven figures, I just didn’t know how far into seven figures it would be,” Sorrell said. “It’s a little higher than I thought.”

Sorrell said “they threw a lot of legal horsepower at us, they went into the record extensively and they charged New York City rates.”

Entergy hired Kathleen Sullivan, the dean of Stanford Law School, to litigate the case. Sullivan was on the short list of candidates for Obama’s recent Supreme Court appointment, and she has been described as “one of the most trusted advocates before the United States Supreme Court.” Sullivan unearthed a detailed record in which she said lawmakers made references to safety as justification for a decision to deny Entergy a permit to continue operating the 40-year-old nuclear plant for an additional 20 years. States can’t regulate the safety of a plant under federal law; safety is the purview of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The state can challenge the amount of the fee, Sorrell said. “This is a long way from over,” he said.

Sorrell said his office can question whether the lawyers’ hourly rates and the amount of time they spent on the case was reasonable. Entergy can’t claim relief for any legal work related to the questions about the reliability of the nuclear plant, he said.

It’s not unusual for litigants to go through a mediation process and retain experts to review attorneys’ fees, according to Sorrell.

“It’s not that they get to say this is what you give us,” Sorrell said. “There’s a lot of lawyering to be done on a request of this magnitude.”

Sorrell pointed to the prescription datamining case as an example of how the state has negotiated with other litigants. The state lost the case against IMS, a drug datamining company last summer in proceedings before the U.S. Supreme Court. The attorney general said he couldn’t reveal how much IMS is requesting for attorneys’ fees, but he said the state is negotiating with the company to reach a settlement. The state has already settled with one of the litigants in the case, Pharma, an advocacy group affiliated with IMS for about $1.75 million.

Will Entergy’s $4.6 million request affect Sorrell’s decision to appeal? “Not really,” he said.

“Some have speculated that we would be intimidated by the amount not to go further with an appeal,” Sorrell said. “Others have said it reinforces the reasonableness of an appeal because if the decision is overturned we don’t pay a dime. We’ll look at the appeal on its own merits.”

Cheryl Hanna, a professor at Vermont Law School and an expert on constitutional law and the U.S. Supreme Court, said the judge ruled that the state of Vermont violated Entergy’s constitutional rights and that entitles Entergy to legal fees.

“As a general rule, we allow that,” Hanna said. “We want to give incentives to enforce constitutional rights even when there is no money involved.”

Vermont doesn’t have to pay damages, she said, but “we allow for requests for attorneys’ fees so that lawyers will take these (constitutional rights) cases.” Hanna said fees are requested for a wide range of cases whether the litigants are inmates or multi-million dollar corporations.

Hanna says it will be up to court to decide how much to award.

“Unless the state prevails on all counts, we will probably end up paying for Entergy’s lawyers,” she said. “We don’t get a discount rate because we’re in Vermont. The court will force us to pay New York rates.”

Last year, the Shumlin administration pushed for a “billback” provision that requires Entergy to pay the state’s legal fees. Sorrell advised the Legislature to move ahead with the change in statute, which would make Entergy Corp. liable for the state’s legal expenses, including responses to public records requests and the preparation of litigation in the case.

Whether the court would honor this provision, in light of the judge’s dismissal of the state’s authority in matters of pre-emption, is an open question.

Editor’s note: This story was updated 5:40 a.m. and again at 6:25 a.m. Feb. 4.

VTDigger

Montpelier, February 2, 2012: Vermont Early Educators United-AFT (VEEU-AFT) will hold its annual Lobby Day at the state capitol on Tuesday, February 7th. Home and center based providers from across the state are coming to the capitol to ensure that their elected officials address the challenges facing the early childhood education and care system in Vermont. This year early educators will be joined by Vermont Parents United.

Early educators in Vermont have been organizing for over two years to have a seat at the table when decisions are made that affect their profession. H.97/S.29, a bill that passed the House of Representatives last year by a vote of 90 to 54, would recognize their right to organize and to have a voice in decisions. The bill is currently in the Senate.

The impact early educators are having on the public policy conversation in Montpelier was evident this week, as key lawmakers began to discuss increasing funding for the state’s child care subsidy program. This has been a top priority among providers and parents, and having it under discussion in Montpelier is an important victory. “Knowing the needs and struggles of the families I serve, an increase in subsidy will prove greatly beneficial in maintaining high quality care for all children,” Claire Berry, a registered home provider in Hardwick said. “It is no accident or coincidence that after decades of allowing subsidy rates and eligibility guidelines to fall behind, the legislature is addressing this issue today,” she continued. “They are paying attention because we are organizing.” 

Early Educators and parents will spend the day at the State House and Capitol Plaza meeting with lawmakers to discuss these issues and others that impact young children and the adults who care for them. Elected officials and supporting organizations will join early educators at 11:30 am in State House Room 11 for a press conference.

VTDigger

Date: February 2, 2012
Contact: Agatha Kessler
Phone: 802-828-2271
Fax: 802-828-2424

Public Hearing on Vermont Senate Reapportionment Proposal

Montpelier , VT – The Vermont Senate Committee on Reapportionment will hold a public hearing to take comment on a proposed draft 2012 Senate Reapportionment Plan. The draft proposed attempts to institute the minimal number of required changes to the current Senate districts necessary to bring the districts acceptable deviations.

The public hearing will be on Wednesday, February 8th, 2012 from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. in Room 10 of the Vermont State House at 133 State Street in Montpelier .

Members of the public are invited to attend the hearing and to provide oral or written testimony to the Senate Committee on Reapportionment. Written comments on the draft plan must be submitted by February 8th, 2012 to the attention of the Senate Reapportionment Committee to the address provided above or by e-mail to akessler@leg.state.vt.us. Please include the phrase “Reapportionment Comments” in the subject line.

After taking into account the comments and concerns from the public, the Committee will finalize its proposal in a matter of weeks for submission to the full Senate. Once both chambers of the General Assembly have approved a proposal in the form of a bill, it will be presented to the Governor for his signature. The legislature is working to complete the Reapportionment project by April.

The draft 2012 Senate Reapportionment Plan is available on the Legislative Website at:
www.leg.state.vt.us/reapportionment

VTDigger

“This is a historic moment,” said Rep. Ann Pugh, D-S. Burlington, as she spelled out to House lawmakers details of the sweeping bill drafted to respond to the loss of the 54-bed state hospital in Waterbury, which was flooded and closed by Tropical Storm Irene.

By a 124-3 vote, legislators agreed with Pugh, chairwoman of the House Human Services Committee, that it was time to seize “this tremendous opportunity growing out of the crisis Irene gave us.”

“We’ve been talking about transforming the mental health system in Vermont ever since I’ve been a legislator,” said Pugh, noting the state’s extensive and futile effort in the past decade to plan and fund a replacement for the antiquated buildings that comprise the state hospital.

Lawmakers have been working feverishly for weeks with the administration of Gov. Peter Shumlin to draft legislation that addresses the mental health treatment crisis caused when the acute-care state hospital beds were removed from the system.

The governor launched the process in December when he declared patients would never go back to the Waterbury facility and set out a plan to trim acute-care beds, arguing for a comprehensive proposal that stresses treating mental illnesses in a spectrum of community settings instead.

Lawmakers in the House tweaked Shumlin’s plan and together with Mental Health Commissioner Patrick Flood filled in innumerable blanks on funding to come up with the consensus bill that won backing Thursday.

Flood said Thursday that the pricetag for the proposed system is around $174 million, roughly $20 million more than the fiscal 2012 mental health budget. However whether there is any actual cost increase to the state is unclear because of the complexities of extensive federal Medicaid reimbursements.

The one major dispute over the bill involved the size of Shumlin’s proposed new state hospital in central Vermont, which lawmakers decided needed to be bigger than the 16 acute-care beds proposed. The bill, H.630, proposes a 25-bed facility instead. Those beds are paired with a six-bed facility at Rutland Regional Medical Center and 14 beds at the Brattleboro Retreat.

The bill also calls for a secure five-bed acute-care facility for patients under department of corrections control.

Rep. Alice Emmons, chairwoman of the House Institutions and Corrections Committee, told House lawmakers her panel struggled with the complexities of deciding the right size for the new state-run hospital since Vermont doesn’t know how much FEMA and insurance money will be available for the $25 million facility. But she also said because the hospital won’t be built for “anywhere from two to three years,” stakeholders in mental health will have to time to make sure the 25-bed hospital is right-sized for the needs of Vermonters.

Pugh noted more than 70 individuals from psychiatrists and clinicians to mental health experts and consumers came before her panel, some urging no state hospital beds at all and others as many as 100.

“We spent over a month trying to weigh those different perspectives,” she said. Her committee eventually concluded by a 9-1 vote last Friday that a 25-bed facility was needed in the northern part of the state and formed the best “backstop” to meet the needs of Vermonters and provide a professional “staff to promote recovery.”

“We were not able to receive sufficient data that a 16-bed facility could do that,” she said.

The overhaul bill includes a range of other beds outside of the acute-care facilities: four short-term crisis beds designed to avert hospitalization, a five-bed voluntary non-coercive residence with peer support; and one 15-bed and two eight-bed facilities around the state providing for intensive recovery.

A wide variety of peer services provided by those who have had experience in the mental health system, crisis intervention teams, housing subsidies and mobile support teams are also provided in the bill. The community services, housing and the four-bed and five-bed beds facility are estimated to cost $8 million annually.

The bill that reached the floor included a provision to ensure that the 240 state hospital workers, who were dispersed to work at facilities around the state, will have extended and preferential rights for jobs when the new state hospital is built. Emmons said those provisions were agreed to by the Vermont State Employees Union and the administration.

Rep. Thomas Koch, R-Barre Town, rose to support the bill, humorously saying he felt like a member of the audience throwing flowers on the ice at the national skating championships. Noting he had “become extremely frustrated by the lack of progress” during the last nine years in reforming mental health, he praised the committees that slogged through the complex process and found consensus.

While he had his own concerns about letting private institutions handle some of the former state hospital patients, he said lawmakers should be “extremely proud” of the bill.

“There’s been a lot of inaction, a lot of talk. We’ve done more in the last five months than we had done in the last eight and a half years,” he said.

The bill will have its final reading Friday and upon passage move over to the Senate for that body’s review.

Rep. Pugh was elated with the large margin for passage.

“I think a vote of 124-3 is incredible,” she said, especially considering how “controversial” replacement of the state hospital has been in the past.

Asked what is likely to happen in the Senate, she said she didn’t know and was just going to let the process work.

Emmons had the same response, calling the vote “terrific.”

“Now we’ll see where it goes,” she said.

VTDigger

Some mental health advocates and psychiatrists testified in hearings that it would be difficult for the state to create a therapeutic environment with 16 patients.

The federal government doesn’t like to fund institutions of mental disease, or residential psychiatric treatment programs that are larger than 16 beds. Though Vermont has a special waiver through 2013 that allows the state to operate a so-called IMD with 17 or more beds, if the government doesn’t renew the waiver operating costs associated with nine additional beds could be appreciable. A 25-bed facility under this scenario could be significantly more costly.

The political ramifications of House Dems backing a change to the bill that the governor, also a Democrat, appeared to be borne out in House Appropriations late Wednesday afternoon. The majority of members of the budget-writing committee grudgingly supported the bill with the caveat that they preferred a 16-bed option with room to expand if needed. Lawmakers said they were worried about the long-term budget impacts of a larger hospital.

Rep. Mitzi Johnson, vice chair of House Appropriations, said she preferred a 16-bed facility. The Democrat from Grand Isle said she is comfortable with the idea of going from a total of 54 beds (the capacity of the now-defunct Vermont State Hospital) to 41, including placements at regional hospitals. Under the new system, the state would create an additional 40 placements at other residential facilities that she said would help to take pressure off the institutional, acute care system.

“I’m frustrated that we have a plan we know is going to cost a chunk more money as soon as the doors open,” Johnson said.

Rep. Kitty Toll, also a Democrat and a member of House Appropriations, said she wanted a larger psychiatric facility. “For me, I’m committed to taking money within our budget,” Toll said. “We have to look across state government and have priorities.”

Other lawmakers worried that a larger hospital and accompanying costs would pull money away from the community mental health system, which they also view as crucial.

Anxiety over whether lawmakers were making an ideal decision under emergency circumstances in the wake of Tropical Storm Irene, were overridden, however, by a sense of relief that at least they were moving on after years of wrangling over what to do with the Vermont State Hospital, which given its difficult history had long been a source of angst for the Legislature.

“I think it’s high time we moved on this thing,” said Rep. Bob Helm, R-Fair Haven, and a member of House Appropriations. “If we don’t get the FEMA money we’ll be the first to know. I’m not afraid. I’m glad we’re finally getting this thing off the shelf.”

Conor Casey of the Vermont State Employees Association said a 25 bed facility is a step in the right direction and “it’s an improvement from the governor’s plan.”

“What’s regrettable is this debate is about community mental health versus in-patient beds, when really we need to fund both properly for an effective mental health system,” Casey said.

The bill, H.630, passed House Appropriations on a 10-1 vote. Rep. Philip Winters, R-Williamstown, was the sole dissenter. The bill has already advanced through the Corrections and House Human Services Committees, and the GOP has agreed to suspend the rules. The House will take up the bill on Thursday.

Editor’s note: This story was updated at 6:38 a.m. and again at 7:20 a.m. Feb. 2.

VTDigger

Some business owners are concerned that they will have to give up the health insurance plans they have worked hard to set up as the state transforms its health care system.

Others feel their costs of paying for health care are breaking the bank, and they want everyone to pay into a program that provides care for everyone.

Both camps gave testimony Wednesday before two legislative committees that will consider pending legislation to set the stage for health care reform in Vermont. By the end of the legislative session, lawmakers plan to have a road map for how they will set up a health benefits exchange.

The exchange is a federal mandate that requires states to set up virtual marketplaces for individuals and small groups to purchase health insurance. The 2010 federal health care reform law allows some wiggle room for states to tailor their own systems.

For businesses, the main issue is whether they will be required to buy an insurance policy through a health benefits exchange. Under House Bill 559, businesses with 100 or fewer employees must purchase health insurance through what will be the virtual marketplace.

Under the federal Affordable Care Act, the decision whether to treat businesses with up to 50 or up to 100 employees as “small” for 2014 and 2015 is up to the states. Starting in 2016 employers with 100 or fewer employees will be considered “small” and eligible for the exchange.

Some businesses have been rattled by the state’s decision to prohibit larger employers from purchasing insurance outside the exchange.

Nigel Mucklow, owner of New England Floor Covering in Burlington, said the plan he buys for his employees has a $2,500 deductible. He said the flexibility he has with his insurance provider enables him to keep costs down.

“We don’t want you to box us in to a certain category and a certain way of doing business,” he said.

Mucklow said he was skeptical of the state’s ability to control costs.

“We’re scared you’re going to make us have a product that costs a lot,” he said. “We are responsible people, and we don’t necessarily need you guys to tell us how to run our businesses.”

One consistent concern from many businesses is the lack of high-deductible, low-premium plans in which employers contribute to health savings accounts. These plans, which most likely will not meet the qualifications the legislation proposes, save business owners money.

Craig Fuller of the Employer Health Alliance, which lobbies on behalf of businesses, expressed concerns that such plans may be illegal under the administration’s proposal.

Tom McKeown, executive director of Business Resource Services, polled his business owner clients and he says more than 90 percent believe that so-called “bronze” plans should be offered in the exchange.

The concept behind the federal health care law, McKeown said, is to offer choices. He said businesses want more choice to choose their own plans, inside or outside the exchange.

“The current system is working,” he said. “Don’t disrupt what’s happening.”

Sara Byers, vice president of Leonardo’s Pizza, echoed that the state should be hesitant to move forward too quickly. Byers said the state should keep the exchange limited to smaller groups in order to avoid “unintended complications and kinks.”

The administration’s proposal will likely increase the costs of providing insurance for companies with 51 to 100 employees who “shouldn’t cross-subsidize smaller businesses,” Byers said.

But not all businesses think the state should put the brakes on health care reform.

Bram Kleppner, CEO of Danforth Pewter in Middlebury, hopes bringing larger businesses into the exchange will level the playing field.

Like many businesses, Kleppner said he has been forced to pass on high health care costs on to his employees.

“It has caused significant suffering for these people and their families,” he said.

Kleppner said he hopes bringing more people into the exchange will lower costs for employers collectively as more businesses share the costs.

Michael Roche, an arborist who owns Stowe Tree Experts, agrees. Roche employs five people. He says the cost of paying for their health insurance puts him at a competitive disadvantage against other employers who don’t offer the benefit.

Roche said even with the modest insurance plan he offers, he can’t charge enough for his services to cover the cost. With a $12,000 premium for each employee, Roche estimates it costs around $200 a day.

If he charges $1,000 for a service, and another employer who does not offer insurance charges $800, he said, “A customer might look at me and say, ‘Mike, I really like your social responsibility but I want the $200.’”

For this reason, Roche said he wants everyone to have skin in the game.

“I want everybody in because everybody’s got to feel the pain,” he said.

Some single-payer advocates have also expressed concerns that the state is “herding” small businesses into the exchange. According to John Franco, a Burlington attorney and proponent of health care reform, the mandate to require employers with 100 or fewer employees to purchase health insurance on the exchange will affect about one quarter of the 355,000 Vermonters with private insurance.

These individuals, Franco said, will be forced to cover the administrative costs of the exchange while large businesses and those with grandfathered plans will not be in. Furthermore, Franco asserts, more people in the exchange does not create a larger risk pool necessarily because each insurance carrier will have its own pool.

“The exchange is a shopping mall, not an insurance pool,” Franco said. Single-payer, he says, is a uniform benefit package provided through a single insurance fund. They are not the same idea, he said.

Franco said the whole point of the exchange as it relates to a universal health care system is to encourage individuals to enroll and receive federal subsidies for their health insurance. This will set the bar for a block grant that the state can receive in 2017 when it aims to request a waiver from the federal law to implement its universal system. Franco adds that he is not trying to attack the administration for its proposal but rather save it from a bad policy decision.

Bill Driscoll, vice president of Associated Industries of Vermont, said the business community reiterated the concern with limiting choices and flexibility. He said he is concerned the state may do away with things like high deductible plans which have saved money for the past 20 years. Bringing in larger businesses, he said, could eliminate the benefit for some of the largest cost-savers.

Plans with health savings accounts, Driscoll said, help to decrease the costs of health care utilization because people have to pay for services out of their own pockets.

“We have to be able to have to link to some degree health care consumption choices with the cost of those choices,” he said.

Peter Sterling, executive director of the Vermont Campaign for Health Care Security, helps people get on plans like Catamount Health and the Vermont Health Access Plan. He said while these high deductible plans may save money for employers, he fields calls constantly from employees trying to get off them and onto the more robust state plans. The problem, he said, is that employees are not eligible in some cases because they have not met a requirement that they be uninsured for one year.

VTDigger

Rep. William Jewett and Legislative Council attorney BetsyAnn Wrask look over a version of the redistricting map. VTD/Josh Larkin

What a difference a weekend makes.

After a bruising battle at the end of last week over a redistricting plan that would have nixed a GOP House seat in Rutland County, lawmakers found love, peace and harmony on Tuesday morning.

That’s because they were able to split the baby three ways this time. In an amendment proposal that passed 8-3, House Government Operations members added a rep to the Burlington entourage and eliminated a House member in southern Vermont who would represent towns in both Rutland and Windsor counties, effectively cutting a half of a rep from each county.

The compromise was in striking contrast to the redistricting plan the committee approved on Friday. In that scenario, Democrats pitted three GOP members against one another in a two-seat district and carved Castleton State College out of the town of Castleton and added it to a competitive district. Republicans saw this shift as an attack on one of their strongholds. They used two words to describe the double-whammy: partisan and gerrymander.

Rep. Ron Hubert, a Republican on the committee, said on Sunday, “If I’d been told up front we were going to slug it out for three days, I wouldn’t have wasted three weeks of the people’s time. I feel this was the plan all along. Unfortunately, under single party rule there’s not much we can do about it.”

House Speaker Shap Smith said that fight was necessary. “We needed to have Friday happen to take a look at what the other possibilities were.”

The redistricting bill and the new amendment will be taken up on the floor of the House on Wednesday and Thursday.

“It’ll be impressive if it’s out of here by Feb. 3,” Smith said. “My hope is we’ll have bipartisan redistricting and I think we’ll once again show why Vermont is one of the few states to reach across party lines and get things done.”

Smith praised Reps. Eldred French, a Democrat, and Dennis Devereux, a Republican, for their willingness to run against each other in a new one seat district that would include Mount Holly, Shrewsbury and Ludlow.

“All you have to do is look at Texas,” Smith said. “I know the speaker in Texas, he’s a Republican, and he would have jammed it down the Democrats’ throats.”

Republicans were happy about the new plan, which Rep. Don Turner, R-Milton and House Minority Leader, said fulfilled their objectives to find a nonpartisan way to fairly represent districts statewide.

“I think it’s positive,” Turner said. “I’m happy the committee brought forward this amendment. It makes for fair representation in the House in it does it in a less partisan way.”

Turner’s comments on Tuesday are an about-face from his rebuke of the map the committee passed along party lines on Friday night. GOP House members complained that they had been operating under different assumptions for the first three weeks of the legislative session when a new plan from the Democratic leadership emerged just three days before the committee vote deadline.

Rep. Donna Sweaney, D-Windsor, said her stomach was “a mess” all weekend because she, too, was unhappy with the first map her committee approved.

“I wanted a bipartisan vote,” Sweaney said. “I wanted to prove it could be done.”

On Tuesday lawmakers passed an amendment that minimized the damage to incumbents in Rutland County, a Republican stronghold and made Castleton whole. This time, a Democrat and two Republicans voted against the amendment.

Sources say there will likely be additional amendments to address changes to Shaftsbury/Arlington and Johnson/Eden districts.

VTDigger