Legislative Wrap-up: Bills we could see next year

Morgan Brown protests a Taser hearing outside a Montpelier public forum on March 11, 2013. Photo by Nat Rudarakanchana
Morgan Brown protests a Taser hearing outside a Montpelier public forum on March 11, 2013. Photo by Nat Rudarakanchana


An attempt to regulate police Taser use and training more closely stalled, despite calls from advocates and relatives of victims of Taser use. The House Government Operations Committee decided it needed more time to address the concerns of police, who feared regulators would micromanage the use of an effective weapon.

Related stories
Bill would create uniform standards for Taser use
Disability advocate criticizes Taser misuse
Taser victim’s mother, girlfriend testify

Campaign finance

Momentum for campaign finance reform, spurred by 2012 elections featuring Super PACs from inside and outside Vermont, ultimately fizzled this year, making it several years in a row. The House and the Senate couldn’t agree on controversial provisions regarding Super PACs and donation limits, amid the threat of a legal challenge to a Super PAC cap. Although lawmakers will take up the issue again in 2014, fresh regulations won’t come in time to affect the 2014 election cycle.

Related stories:

Wright’s legislation increases filings, requires donor disclosures
Slow progress on campaign finance reform
Donation caps could edge upwards
Senate’s reform ends corporate donations
Senate backtracks on corporate money ban
VLS professor Hanna speaks to lawmakers
House panel opts to cap donations to Super PACs
House to debate cap on Super PAC donations
House reforms campaign finance rules
Senators want constitutional amendment to override Citizens United
Disagreements delay campaign finance reform
Campaign finance reform failure means cap on donations unlikely

Child care workers testified in force at a Statehouse public hearing on Wednesday evening. Those in red represented the Vermont Workers Center, while those in blue supported the legislation, and those in white opposed it. Photo by Nat Rudarakanchana
Child care workers testified in force at a Statehouse public hearing on Wednesday evening. Those in red represented the Vermont Workers Center, while those in blue supported the legislation, and those in white opposed it. Photo by Nat Rudarakanchana

Unionization for child-care workers

Allowing child-care workers to unionize faced yet another year of little progress, as the issue failed to reach a Senate floor vote. In a surprise development, legislation died in committee on a 3-2 vote. Senators also ruled a floor amendment out as non-germane, so the topic didn’t receive substantive debate on the floor. Advocates vowed to return next year for a more vigorous push, and Sen. Dick McCormack, the bill’s chief champion in the Senate, showed no signs of backing down.

Related stories
Unionization legislation will get another shot in Senate
Senate committee votes down bill
Senate to consider unionization as amendment
Activists try one more time
Procedural squabble derails unionization effort
Advocates vow to return next session

Deputy state’s attorney union

Deputy state’s attorneys, who prosecute criminals for the state, sought the right to form a union. But the bill, pushed for by the state employee union VSEA, never cleared either chamber. It reached the Senate floor for debate, but some senators preferred to wait for the results of an ongoing study into working conditions for all state-employed attorneys. It could see action next year.

Related stories
Deputy state’s attorneys try to unionize
Union bill unlikely to pass
Advocates vow to return next session

Social media privacy

A bill designed to protect job applicants from employers snooping around inside their social media accounts, like their Facebook accounts, didn’t make it very far. Lawmakers instead formed a committee to study social media privacy for employees and job candidates, due in January 2014. The key issue is whether businesses can force people to turn over their social media passwords, as a condition of employment or otherwise.

Related stories
Flynn requests state trooper exception
Bill tabled for further study

Pre-K access

The House passed a bill to expand pre-K access. The Senate Education and Finance committees both signed off on it, but Senate Appropriations did not review the bill before the end of the session. They will take the issue up when the Legislature reconvenes.

The bill requires school districts to pay for at least 10 hours per week of pre-K education for 35 weeks a year.

Parents are currently limited to the pre-K program in their district of residence, and about 40 towns don’t have public pre-K programs. H.270 gives parents the option of enrolling their child in a private or public program in a different district. School districts could, however, choose to limit choice within certain predefined geographic boundaries.

The Joint Fiscal Office estimates that H.270 would increase spending from the Education Fund by between $1 million and $1.5 million in FY 2016.

Related stories

Pre-K bills are in motion, price tag is main concern

Pre-K bill stirs constitutionality questions

Backers work to resolve obstacles on bill expanding pre-K education

Publicly funded pre-K bill passes in House

Alicia Freese also contributed to this report.





If you read us, please support us.

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harrassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Comments should be 1000 characters or fewer.

We moderate every comment. Please go to our FAQ for the full policy.

Nat Rudarakanchana

Recent Stories

  • The regulation of drones is also likely to come up next year. Rep. Kevin “Coach” Christie, D-Hartford, introduced a bill (H. 540) late in April to prohibit drone surveillance without a warrant, except in emergency situations. He was joined by two dozen other representatives from across the political spectrum — Democrats, Republicans, Progressives, the right, the left, and the center. Many high-tech tools are being adopted, or already have been adopted, in many states. The original intent of these tools may not be to build a surveillance society, but that’s where they could lead if their use is not strictly regulated. The automated license plate reader bill (S. 18) adopted this session is the first legislative regulation of police use of a sophisticated technology system. As was heard when the bill was debated, some lawmakers think these new systems need much closer scrutiny and perhaps shouldn’t be used until their implications are better understood.

    Allen Gilbert, ACLU-VT executive director

  • S. 109, the bill to ban the docking of dairy cows’ tails, remains in Senate Agriculture Committee, and many of us certainly hope we see it next year.

    Amputation of cows’ tails persists in Vermont, in spite of the conclusions drawn by veterinarians and years of scientific research determining that tail docking is painful and unnecessary. You don’t have to be a farmer to see that a cow waggling a docked tail stump is deprived of her natural ability to swat flies.

    The industry at large is getting the message: The Association of Bovine Practitioners, the AVMA, Dairy Herd Management, the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Protection and others recommend against it. Even the leading magazine, Hoard’s Dairyman, admits that tail docking “doesn’t really benefit the cow, employee health, or product quality,” and is “one practice whose only place should be in the annals of history.” NOFA-VT has written a letter of support of S.109, and support from Ben & Jerry’s on the subject has been requested. California, the largest US dairy state, and most European countries have legislated against it. It’s high time for Vermont to get on board.

    As veterinarian Holly Cheever writes, “If a practice produces cruelty to animals, we cannot wait for a recalcitrant industry to self-regulate on the theory that the members need to be ‘educated.’ Cruelty is cruelty and should not be perpetuated one more minute.”
    Producers who spurn public opinion and that of their own industry are simply defending an indefensible status quo, and that’s not the kind of dairy industry that the market—consumers or visitors to Vermont—wants.