Editor’s note: This commentary is by Howard Fairman, of Putney, a native Vermonter who likes to study official public documents, presentations and acts, and share his findings with fellow grassroots Vermonters.
[D]uring the 2015-16 legislative biennium, our senators passed and our representatives defeated S.241: An act relating to regulation of [recreational] marijuana.
Since then, Vermonters have elected our General Assembly for the new 2017-18 legislative biennium, including new representatives and senators who did not consider, debate and vote on original S.241.
On April 21, 21 of our senators quietly resurrected S.241 and passed it off as a “proposal of amendment” to an unrelated bill passed by our House of Representatives (H.167: An act relating to alternative approaches to addressing low-level illicit drug use).
To do so, they suspended it to violate their rule of legislative procedure that an amendment must be germane to that bill (Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure, Sec. 402).
Roll-called out, they are Sens. Ashe, Ayer, Balint, Baruth, Benning, Bray, Brooks, Campion, Clarkson, Cummings, Ingram, Lyons, MacDonald, McCormack, Pearson, Pollina, Rodgers, Sears, Sirotkin, Westman and White (Journal of the Senate, April 21, 2017, p. 625).
Absent first reading, committee study, public testimony, public hearing and floor debate during this new legislative biennium, their “second” and “third” readings “passing” S.241 redux were shams.
How many state laws and other permanent rules of legislative procedure did they also violate during this legislative biennium?
S.241 redux did not appear on the Senate’s daily calendar (2 V.S.A. § 15; Permanent Rules of the Vermont Senate 33 and 34).
There would have been no first reading, committee study, public testimony, public hearing, second reading nor third reading of S.241 redux by the Vermont House of Representatives and Senate during this legislative biennium.
S.241 redux did not have a first reading (Rule 43).
S.241 redux was not referred to an appropriate committee (Rule 44).
S.241 redux was not reported by that committee for second reading (Rules 45 and 46).
Senate Rule 58, however, was helpful: “It shall not be in order to amend a bill from the House, but the motion shall be that the Senate propose to the House to amend.”
What if the House accepted S.241 redux as a proposed amendment to H.167?
House Rule 62: “If the Senate proposes to the House to amend, the question shall be: ‘Will the House concur in the Senate proposal of amendment?’ But it shall be in order to move that the House concur in the Senate proposal of amendment with an amendment, or that the House refuse to concur and ask for a Committee of Conference.”
If the House voted to concur in the Senate’s proposal of amendment, S.241 redux grafted onto H.167 would be sent to Gov. Phil Scott for his signature (confirmed by the Office of the Clerk of the House).
There would have been no first reading, committee study, public testimony, public hearing, second reading nor third reading of S.241 redux by the Vermont House of Representatives and Senate during this legislative biennium.
These 21 senators have forgotten their oath, including: “I will not propose, or assent to, any bill, vote or resolution, which shall appear to me injurious to the people, nor do nor consent to any act or thing whatever, that shall have a tendency to lessen or abridge their rights and privileges, as declared by the Constitution of this State.”
Sens. Ashe, Ayer, Balint, Baruth, Benning, Bray, Brooks, Campion, Clarkson, Cummings, Ingram, Lyons, MacDonald, McCormack, Pearson, Pollina, Rodgers, Sears, Sirotkin, Westman and White have abridged Vermonters’ 9and their new legislative colleagues’) rights and privileges to question and speak for or against proposed legislation in this legislative biennium.
