Statehouse Update-

 APRIL 20,2010

With Vermont experiencing the same economic downturn as the rest of the nation, business as usual is just not possible in our private lives or in the public domain of  state governmeent.The economy is slowly turning around, butprojections are  that it may be 4 years  before the economy - and state revenues- make it back to the levels we saw in 2008.

For state government , it means we have to try and do more with  less.

A framework for this ideal has been pulled  together by the Legislature and Administration.

The Challenges for Change asks government to rethink how we deliver services, looking for effieincies and innovation.

Below is  a summary of where , at this point in time, this process  is;

SUMMARY OF CHALLENGES FOR CHANGE

Challenge 1 Charter Units: 

Section 2 – Information Technology Investments – This section relaxes the statute that requires the secretary of administration from obtaining a second opinion (audit review) when purchasing technology over $500,000 in value and only in conjunction with the Challenges.  The intent is to get new technology and changes to systems moving faster.

Section 3 – Task forces involving more than one agency – The purpose is to allow and encourage planning and collaborating between stage agencies to implement the challenges.

Section 34 – 36 Publication of proposed rules- This section has the Secretary of State’s Office publish notices of proposed rule changes on line. The public hearing and comment period has been increased from 10 to 30 days following the published notice.  We asked that a 6 month transitional period take place from July 1^st until January 1^st to allow for interested parties to be aware of the change to on line publication.  During the transitional period a consolidated advertisement will appear in newspapers in different parts of the state which will include a statement that as of January 1, 2011 notices of proposed rules will no longer be published in the newspapers.  The savings for the first year is estimated to be $65,000 with the consolidated publication and $100,000 thereafter.

Section 65 – Government Accountability Committee – This section places this committee in statute instead of session law so that it will be an ongoing committee of the legislature. The committee’s function remains the same since its inception three years ago. The committee make-up is altered to include eight members total from the following House and Senate standing: Institutions, Appropriations, Ways and Means, Senate Finance, and Government Operations. The four House and Senate members shall not all be from the same party. In addition the Governor shall appoint a non-voting liaison to the committee.

Sec 4:  Department of Liquor Control (DLC):  The General, Housing & Military Affairs committee saw an opportunity to increase general fund revenues through innovative changes in the administration of sales of alcoholic beverages.  The intent is not to increase consumption, but to reclaim sales lost to neighboring states and increase sales to out-of-state consumers who would otherwise make their purchases in other states.  This goal would be achieved by creating new approaches for marketing and more flexible strategies in pricing and taxation.

To achieve this goal, DLC is directed to take the following steps:

1)      Create its proposed gift card program, which is projected to be revenue neutral in FY11 and is expected to generate revenue in FY12 and beyond.

2)      Take steps to create more flexibility in pricing, to the extent allowed by current law.

3)      Analyze how coordinated changes in taxation and pricing could lead to increased sales and increased revenue to the general fund.

4)      Evaluate the effect of DLC’s policies on substance abuse.

5)      Report to GHMA on sections 1-4 above by January 15, 2011

Challenge 2: Performance Contracts:

This challenge does not appear in H. 792 but has the potential of saving 2.6 million.  The goal is to convert $70 million of contracts and grants into performance-based contracts in the first year. 

Challenge 3:  Agency of Human Services:

We wanted to be sure that all interested parties are at the table from here on out, so the bill reads “The agency of human services shall engage the direct participation of service recipients, their families, service providers, and other stakeholders in the identification and development of new proposals and the thorough evaluation and ongoing design and redesign of all of the proposals contained in the agency of human services addendum to the Challenges for Change…”.

The Dept. of Mental Health may:

-- serve children “at risk” for having a “Severe Emotional Disturbance” as well as those who already have that diagnosis

 -- continue to support improvements for individuals with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse conditions (this isn’t new)

-- allow physician assistants and nurse practitioners to sign off on case management and treatment plans so the process doesn’t get held up waiting for a psychiatrist to be available to do that

-- develop best practices protocols to be used by health care professionals regarding the use of child psychotropic medications and multiple psychiatric drugs by adults– we suggested that AHS evaluate using existing data tools to help monitor this

-- support collaboration between the designated agencies and federally qualified health centers to enable expanded participation in the 340B drug pricing program, which allows prescription drugs to be purchased at a lower cost

-- allow designated agencies and specialized service agencies (our centers that provide mental health services and /or services for those with developmental disabilities) that have had quality assurance measures evaluated and certified through a national quality review and accreditation process to not have to duplicate that in their state review

The Dept. of Mental Health (DMH) and Dept. of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living (DAIL) may create an interdepartmental team to serve DAIL clients who have mental health needs. DMH, DAIL and Corrections may use a consolidated and coordinated approach to AHS employment services under a single entity called Creative Workforce Solutions (CWS) led by Vocational Rehabilitation (Dianne Dalmasse).

Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living may:

--develop a process for providing an individual with DAIL services (such as Choices for Care) while eligibility for those services is being determined

-- look at developing 24/7 service options for elders and adults with disabilities similar to the concept of developmental homes (where one or several individuals live in a family’s home)

Dept. for Children and Families (DCF) may:

-- continue the modernization of the eligibility determination system where Vermonters apply at a call center or via web access for benefits such as food or fuel assistance, health care coverage, Reach Up and general assistance

-- allow the office of child (OCS) support to pursue collections related to medical support from families between 185% and 300% Federal Poverty Level (FPL)  (OCS collects for this from families below that level now)

-- establish pilot programs in up to three service areas for contracts to a single community partner in each area to deliver and /or coordinate delivery of  child development services; the pilots are to be developed where the communities to be served want to try this

AHS shall not implement the following proposals earlier than March 15, 2011, which will give us time to review the details and decide whether the proposals should be implemented:

--create or require the designated agencies or another entity to create a “1-800” statewide mental health crisis service telephone line for afterhours needs  - we feel we need to know what happens after the phone call

-- expand the list of available providers of home- and community based care services, other than for case management or self-directed services, to include providers other than home care agencies certified by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services – this is to avoid entities cherry-picking the “easy” care needs, a practice which could seriously destabilize the agencies we need to provide the not-so-easy care.

-- reduce funding to individual service plans for Vermonters receiving developmental services.

For the following proposals, we require that AHS “engage the direct participation of service recipients, their families, service providers, and other stakeholders” and provide us with detailed new and revised proposals and demonstrate how the proposals will result in more effective and efficient service delivery and achievement of the specified outcomes before the proposals are implemented:

--possibly removing eligibility definitions from State Statute and instead place updated process in rule

--possibly amending or suspending Developmental Disability Act Regulations for an individual up to the age of 22 until updated rules can be put in place for children and family

--potentially removing from statute characteristics of Woodside as a detention facility so that Medicaid funding could be gotten for services there

--paying parents to stay at home with their physically disabled child

--consolidating child care referral services for families by changing from 12 local service providers to one statewide entity supported by modern web-based technology

--integrating currently separate adult mental health programs into one continuum of care based on levels of functional need.  The concept is positive but there could end up being consumers who couldn’t get services – the devil is in the details…

--developing web-based data on mental health outcomes to better track improvements of clients and assess use of inpatient and crisis services

--training of DA providers and related private providers in core and expert             services to improve outcomes for all Vermonters and decrease use of inpatient and other out of home care – we certainly support training, but we believe current training practices are already achieving desired outcomes, so we need more info to tell us how this will improve outcomes yet cost less

--redesigning the delivery and financing system to have home and community based providers in the long term care system receive bundled rates based on consumers’ needs and preferences

--expanding the service menu and flexibility for home-based consumers

Challenge 4: Corrections

All the changes are oriented towards keeping expensive prison beds for the offenders who must be incarcerated, diverting nonviolent offenders from prison to community justice centers and reparative boards or drug treatment as appropriate, and when releasing offenders ensuring that housing and support services are available. We will do this in a way that both protects community safety and saves money. The savings come from reducing the total incarcerated population since that allows us to pull offenders back from out of state, saving $23,000 per bed. The targets are $10 m overall, with $3m re-invested, and net savings of $7 m. With the provisions of H. 792 we have probably saved about $3 m but we have re-invested the same amount in order to realize future savings.

    The changes in statutes included the following.

    ***The Commissioner of Corrections can release an offender 6 months before the minimum sentence has been reached. This will probably mean that about 10 offenders are released early from July to January 2010.

    *** The Commissioner was given the power to impose sanctions on offenders on probation for certain technical violations of conditions of release other than simply re-incarceration. This provision may mean that several dozen offenders remain under tight supervision in the community rather than occupying an expensive bed space.

    *** The authorized activities of the community justice centers were expanded to include the possibility that in addition to being diverted to such boards before adjudication or trial, an offender pleading guilty to an offense could actually be referred to the boards for sentencing instead of being under supervision of corrections.

    The bill includes language allocating about $3 m in possible savings to about $3 m in certain “investments”. These included support services for transitional housing, re-entry services, purchase of electronic monitoring equipment, staff for work crews or to supervise probationers, funding for community justice centers, and so forth.

    Of the investments referred to above, the bill provides that priority will be given to funding services, transitional housing, community justice centers, and so forth in communities that have high percentages of their population under the supervision of the department of corrections. The Commissioner of Corrections will also exercise care in the placement of offenders in those communities, and ensure that there are work opportunities for them.

    It is important to note that provisions of S.292 concerning additional reductions in the population of incarcerated offenders through electronic monitoring or home confinement of offenders or similar supervision of detainees awaiting trial, or through other mechanisms for early release of offenders, have not been addressed in the C4C2 bill. The House Institutions and Corrections Committee will be taking up S. 292, the possibility of additional savings, and how to achieve such savings safely while also avoiding any shift of costs to communities.      

     Our sections also included language prohibiting DOC from closing facilities or field offices or otherwise reducing services or staff during FY 2011.

Challenge 5: Regulatory: 

Challenge 6 :  Economic Development:

Bottom line: we rejected the Administration’s proposal and directed them to resubmit a proposal.  The Challenge for Economic Development is to create more jobs, more income, and more broadband.  The budget is $30.3 million, which is a reduction of $3.4 million.  In rejecting their proposal and measures, we adopted NO new statutory changes. 

Some have asked what the administration’s proposal would have done.  It aimed at strengthening regional/local delivery of economic development services, which is a concept we agreed to; however, it did so without the input of the agencies it affected, and without their thoughtful input.  It would have had other groups consolidate on their own and submit proposals to create up to 9 Regional Service Centers, combining all economic development organizations outside of the administration’s agency.  A particularly controversial part was that Regional Planning Commissions (RPCs) would have been included.  Traditionally, the RPCs have not focused directly on economic development, for the most part.   Another controversial part of the proposal was that the agency cut 100% of its spending to nonprofit partners, including the Sustainable Jobs Fund which does statewide planning.  A lack of meaningful, strategic planning, if you haven’t heard, is Vermont’s trouble-spot, according to so many of our business leaders.  Other problems of the proposal, like not addressing cost-savings within the administration, examining tax policies, and having measures throughout their agency were items that we addressed.

H.792 requires the administration to:

• Submit a revised proposal with clear measures by Oct. 1, 2010

• Collaborate with statewide partners as basis for plan
• Look for opportunities in all aspects of economic development, not just having the burden falling on statewide partners.  This includes putting everything on the table, including:
• Tax expenditures
• Broadband expenditures
• Administration agencies (ACCD, Dept of Labor, etc.)
• New or existing entrepreneurial revenues
• Measure all economic development programs, including administrative agencies

• Submit a telecom plan
• Submit a strategic proposal to invest $400,000 to ensure success with Challenges for Change

March 21, 2010  : Putney’s Report from the Statehouse

This wells week at the legislature, bills started moving from one chamber to the other .Senate bills are heading for House Committees and vice versa.

One of the more significant bills the House picked up from the Senate was in regard to “distracted  driving”. The Senate bill limited it’s  scope to texting while driving while the House bill included,” Hands-free” cell phone use for adults while drivers under 18 would not be allowed any use of cell phones or texting. After  the House passed it’s version of the bill, it goes back to the Senate. If they don’t agree to the changes, a committee  of conference will be appointed to reconcile differences.

The House also passed a bill to provide easier and wider access to programs that help those in need of food assistance.

Another bill vital to fulfilling our commitment to Vermont elders was passed out of House Human Services  Committee. It is the State’s responsibility to ensure that vulnerable adults - those who are elderly or have a disability - are free from abuse, neglect and exploitation. The vulnerable adults who live in Residential Care Homes or Assisted Living Residences have a right to expect their living situations to be safe and healthy environments. Two units of the Department of Disabilities, Aging, and Independent Living’s Division of Licensing and Protection (DLP) are charged with dealing with these issues. 

• The Adult Protective Services (APS) Unit receives and investigates complaints of abuse, neglect, or exploitation of vulnerable adults.

• The Licensing Unit is responsible for inspection and licensing of long term care facilities. The unannounced inspections are known as “surveys” and include evaluation of the physical conditions of the facilities and the care being given there. Federal law requires that nursing homes be surveyed annually, but residential care homes and assisted living residences do not come under that federal law.

Those facilities used to be surveyed annually, but in recent years that has not been the case. More than a quarter of these facilities have not been surveyed in four years or more. H.698 requires that by 2013, each residential care home and assisted living residence be surveyed at least once. Thereafter, each facility is to be surveyed annually unless a facility meets a high standard in its survey, which would allow it to do a self-inspection the following year. H. 698 also calls for an independent evaluation of the Adult Protective Services Unit if funding becomes available to do that. The purpose of this is to ensure that we maximize the effectiveness of our protective services.

 This week the House unanimously passed S.288 a Vermont Jobs Bill: This bill:

·  makes significant investments in our workforce through the Vermont Training Program, which helps workers and helps our businesses sustain themselves, position themselves for recovery and take advantage of new entrepreneurial opportunities

·  helps businesses grow through better access to capital through VEDA interest rate buy down, through an investment in the Seed Capital Fund and in proven micro-lending strategies

·  tackles the problem of bringing broadband to the last mile, one of our most challenging problems

·  helps 4 season tourism and marketing in promoting the Vermont Brand

·  supports Agriculture by helping farmers through the Ag Credit Corporation and makes investments in diversified agriculture initiatives

·  Finally the bill helps our friends and neighbors who were severely impacted by the sudden closing of the Champlain Bridge.

This week the House Appropriations Committee is planning to submit it’s budget proposal,in response to the Governor’s proposal. With a $150 Million deficit, there will be many necessary spending cuts. In many areas though, we disagree  with the governor’s proposals and the details will be forthcoming this week.

Feb.22, 2010

Here's a  sampling of what various House  committees  are up to;

Health Care

Although we were spared having to struggle with the Challenges for Change, we’ve spent a lot of time addressing the cuts to health care programs in the governor’s proposed 2011 budget.  On the basis of much testimony, we’re in the process of making recommendations to Appropriations about which cuts we believe will cause the least harm—or at least only temporary, not irreparable harm. Some of the cuts arguably may even advance our goal of ensuring that all Vermonters have access to affordable, high-quality health care.

For example, we have agreed to limit reimbursement for emergency room visits to 12. This affects about 200 people, and better health management should make these visits unnecessary. What this means in plain English is that we believe that the people who care for these 200 souls can do a better job of keeping them out of the E.R.—by coordinating efforts, following up after the hospital visits, monitoring the patients’ drugs, this sort of thing—and that this better serves the patients and will save the state money.

Another example: We think, too, that we can reduce the number of urine tests that Medicaid pays to two a week, without harming any person or program.

But what about the bigger issues, like raising the deductible and increasing co-pays in Catamount?  In an effort to honor the intent of this program while acknowledging that it has lower deductibles than the plans of most Vermonters, we’ll likely agree to raising the deductible a little, and maybe increase the co-pays a little, while keeping the premiums low. A study from the New England Journal of Medicine this month showed how increasing premiums just a few dollars resulted in more hospital visits. We’re trying to avoid this.

Finally, in addition to the budget, we’ve looked at several dozen small-to-medium-sized bills in the past two weeks and will take up a handful, dealing with the Blueprint, insurance coverage for hearing aids, tobacco cessation programs, and more. You’ll see a bill next week having to do with home health agencies and transportation to medical centers.

If you’re wondering about the really big issues—the public option for insurance, global budgeting for hospitals, the so-called single payer bill, i.e. bills that someone might actually ask you about—know that we’re working on giving you something next week. It will be readable, easy-to-digest-and-repeat, and completely fascinating. Maybe even in poetry form, perhaps a sonnet or a villanelle…

House Commerce & Economic Development

Jobs. That’s where we’re focused.  We’re not waiting for the Senate to send us their first cut of the big Jobs Bill.  We’ve discussied at great length how to best allocate $8.67 million in ARRA funds for this fiscal year (2010) and stimulate the economy.  We’re focused on two issues:  more broadband and good-paying jobs.

We also know that to get to those good-paying jobs, businesses and municipalities need access to more capital.  In your mailboxes and email you’ll find an invitation to a workshop we’re presenting on Wed., Feb. 24 at 11:15 am to noon in the well of the House.  The workshop explains ways that businesses and your city or town can save money and get low-interest loans and bonds.  This will be done in conjunction with VLCT, so many of your local leaders will be there then.

We’re also giving preliminary consideration to other policy bills that don’t require us to spend money, in order to evaluate their potential for having a positive impact on commerce in Vermont.  Their topics have included banning ticket scalping, a bill of rights for condo-owners and others in home associations, eliminating mortgage hurdles for homeowners living on private roads, instituting fair labor laws that ensure proper classification of employees vs. private contractors, nurturing the buy local movement, and supporting Vermont’s banks against the vagaries of federal statutes, to name just a few.

We also will shortly be passing a fix to the problems in the unemployment insurance trust fund.

Transportation Committee

The Transportation Committee works nearly the whole session on a Transportation Bill. The Bill includes all the projects: paving, bridges, structures, maintenance, etc on all the State’s roads and highways. We give money to the cities and towns in the form of town highway grants for them to use on their structures (bridges and culverts), class 2 roads, and town highways.

Because of the ARRA funds we were and are able to get more projects done in FY10. One emphasis was on town bridge work. VTrans has reached the town bridge goal of having below 16% structurally deficient bridges. This does not include State and Federal bridges. The design of the new Crown Point Bridge is moving along under New York State’s jurisdiction with strong oversight by Vermont. Our State’s share of the money is about $ 225 million. 

Last year legislature instituted a tax on gas and diesel fuel. We put this tax into a special fund called the Transportation Infrastructure Bond Fund (TIB Fund).  This money can be set aside and used to Bond so that we can improve our bridges and structures, only long term improvements should be bonded.  The committee is reviewing the many pros and cons of bonding in FY11.

House Transportation had several bills reported on the floor and passed this past week.  The stand alone high speed rail funding bill H.761 sailed through the House and provides for the appropriate changes to the agencies project book and budget in enough time to allow for 2010 expenditures to start on the New England Central Railroad federally awarded grant ($50 million).

H.607 amends the charter of CCTA (Chittenden County Transit Authority) and brings efficiency to the administration of this government service by taking the existing management structure between CCTA and Green Mountain Transit Authority (GMTA) and allows them to continue under one legal entity. Points of importance:  

      In 2003, at the request of the State of Vermont, CCTA began providing services in central Vermont when the previous provider went bankrupt.

      CCTA began operations under the name of Green Mountain Transit Agency in 2003 with approval from the Vermont General Assembly through an amendment to CCTA’s Charter expanding its service area.

      CCTA manages GMTA in all aspects through a contract that expires in 2011.

      CCTA’s auditor and the Federal Transit Administration have strongly encouraged the two organizations to merge or not renew the GMTA contract after the 2011 contract expiration.

      Municipalities that don’t choose to join CCTA will still receive service as they do now.

      Other Public Transit Authorities across Vermont supported this management change.

Judiciary

People who rely on guide dogs to afford them the freedoms to do the things that most of us do as a matter of course, sometimes encounter a situation which robs them of that freedom. This can happen when another dog encounters the guide dog and either interferes with the duties of the guide dog, or worse, attacks and maims or kills the guide dog rendering it unable to perform its duties. This leaves its owner in the immediate position of not being able to navigate and in a longer term position of dramatic restrictions while waiting for either retraining or replacement of the guide dog. This training is an extensive, precise and costly process.

H.524 approaches this by holding the owner or person responsible for the offending dog’s actions by imposing penalties ranging from $100 up to $3,000 depending on the severity of the attack and whether it was a repeat incident. A provision which has the guide dog owner alerting the owner of a dog “seen” to be a possible aggressor hopefully anticipates that unwanted encounters will not happen.

Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources VY water update

Radiologic Health Chief Dr. William Irwin continues to keep us updated on the water-related activities at Vermont Yankee.  

The source of the leak has yet to be found.  Excavators’ attempts to dig deeper in order to uncover and inspect pipes and collect samples came to a halt on Wednesday.  The discovery of cement structures (placed somewhat differently on old drawings) and boulders challenged their ability to safely install shoring.  A new method using prefab shoring should allow them to continue to work without disturbing electrical and fuel lines which would have violated industrial and nuclear safety standards required for safe shutdown in the loss of electrical power.  They hope to have the new shoring in place in a day or two and then continue excavating down to about 15’ below the surface to physically inspect the piping and ducts in that area. 

More importantly, Dr. Irwin stated that they had found nuclear steam and a pool of standing water in the AOG (Advanced Off-Gas) pipe tunnel.  This is of great interest as a potential source as it is capable of generating the high levels of tritium we have been hearing about.  In addition, a new well, GZ 15 sited somewhat on line between GZ10 and 14, has helped substantiate the line of the plume. Additional wells in the south area should help define the edge of the plume and any other flow characteristics. Initial analysis seems to indicate that there is an old creek bed under the surface that may be a possible channel for some contaminants. 

When asked what he thought the Legislature could do to help, he said he “appreciated keeping this on the front pages so that people are asking and asking right questions.  A lot is being done so that this corporation is being held at a very high standard for protection of public health.” 

As for our folks on the ground, we have 16 staff who have formed the radiological sampling team:  7 from Dept. of Health; 7 from Agency of Agriculture-food and markets; 2 from Dept of Environmental Conservation.  The NRC and EPA are currently comfortable with the work being completed by our state teams and continue to monitor and consult. 

February 6,2010

Legislators  Ask for Action on VY

As Windham County members of the Vermont Legislature we, like many of our fellow residents, have watched developments at Vermont Yankee over recent weeks with increasing concern.

During that time the level of radioactive pollution being sent into Vermont’s groundwater by VY has increased by 800 percent. That radioactive pollution now also has reached four times the federal limit for drinking water and it is continuing to grow.

Safety of nuclear plants falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government and therefore is outside our control.

However, by statute, Vermont’s groundwater is a resource held as a public trust for the common good of all Vermonters. Its value to all Vermonters — whether as a source of drinking water, for agriculture, for food producers, or for other uses - simply is inestimable and damage to it may irreparably harm all of us.

Protecting Vermont’s groundwater thus not only is within our jurisdiction, it is of the greatest possible concern to us as legislators.

Despite the time it now has had to locate and stop its radioactive pollution of our groundwater, Vermont Yankee’s pollution not only has not stopped, it clearly is increasing not only in its level but in its scope.

Radioactive pollution now has been detected in two new test wells beyond the initial one. No one currently is able to even map the area of groundwater being polluted or to predict how far that pollution will spread. No one is able to say whether it will sink from its currently detected relatively shallow depths into deeper aquifers, which would greatly compound the complexity of even attempting any cleanup. No one can accurately estimate the cost of that cleanup or tell us how it will be paid for. And, finally, no one is able to predict when or if the source of this radioactive pollution will be identified and stopped.

In short, the existing situation is both uncontrolled and totally unacceptable. It is for that reason that we now are calling for consideration of having Vermont Yankee suspend its plant operation until the source of its radioactive pollution of our waters is both identified and stopped and until a preliminary plan for cleaning up that pollution has been submitted to and approved by Vermont’s Public Service Board.

We believe that Vermont and all Vermonters deserve no less.

Rep. Richard Marek, Sen. Peter Shumlin, Sen. Jeanette White, Rep. Mollie Burke, Rep. David Deen, Rep. Sarah Edwards, Rep. Ann Manwaring, Rep. Gini Milkey, Rep. John Moran, Rep. Mike Mrowicki, Rep. Michael Obuchowski and

Rep. Carolyn Partridge, Feb. 5

January 15, 2010

With the opening of the 2010 Legislative session, your citizen legislature has undertaken an agenda as vital and challenging as we’ve seen in decades.

Still feeling the effects of the worst recession since the end of World War II, Vermonters are looking to their state government to balance the ideals of fiscal responsibility with the ideals and responsibility of caring for the most vulnerable Vermonters among other affairs of the state.

A highlight of this week was a public hearing from Vermont citizens to speak their hearts and minds on Health Care in the state- and nation. The first testimony was offered by our own Sen. Sanders. While national debate on health care seems to question whether Congress’ plan goes too far, many Vermonters are saying it doesn’t go far enough.

Sen. Sanders expressed his sense of federal legislation as a step forward but not nearly what he’d like to see. He did offer that his continued support for community health centers for Vermont and the nation received support and Vermont should be able to add two or three more centers in Vermont to provide high quality health care for Vermonters. Sen. Sanders  further stated  that the Vermont legislature should continue its work in leading the nation towards healthcare reform- and hopefully  lead the nation towards caring more- and better- for all of its  people.

While there is much sentiment for continuing our move towards universal coverage it’s still not clear whether the budget will allow us the capital to create the necessary logistical capacity to make such wholesale change at this point in time. Stay tuned.

The other big news at the statehouse this week- and in Vernon was news that cooling water for the Entergy nuclear plant that contained tritium was leaking. It has been subsequently disclosed that the leaks are probably happening in some underground pipes on the site.

The import of this news was highlighted by everyone from the governor, legislators and public service oversight bodies, because it was stated under oath last year by Entergy officials that these pipes did not exist.

This lack of clarity and less than forthright articulation of this information has raised serious doubts about the accuracy of all information about the plant, emanating from Entergy. Legislative leadership has asked that the vertical audit to help legislators gauge the reliability of the plant be reopened and all results again be scrutinized.

In the comings week, the governor will present his budget proposal to the legislature. The next step in the process is for lawmakers to offer due diligence on the budget and reconcile the viewpoints of our constituents with the governors perception of the best direction to take Vermont.

-Rep.Mike Mrowicki