In early March, Minority Leader Don Turner issued a response to an Editorial Opinion issued by Paul Sands, the President and General Manager at WPTZ. You can view the one-minute response below.
Filed under: Featured | Comments Off
Video: Rep. Turner’s Response to WPTZ Editorial
Posted on April 12, 2012 by VTHouseGOP
Minority Plays Critical Role in Protecting the Integrity of House Re-Apportionment
Posted on April 12, 2012 by VTHouseGOP
The following editorial written by Minority Leader Don Turner was submitted for publication in newspapers across the state of Vermont.
The Vermont House of Representatives had planned to finish legislative reapportionment last week, ending the grueling process to establish new legislative districts in Vermont for the next decade. However, due to a last minute maneuver by House Democrats, final action on the bill was postponed until Tuesday 4/10/12.
Just one day after the House gave overwhelming support to the new and final legislative representative districts by a vote of 123 Yea’s to 9 Nays, the Democrats and House Legislative Leadership brought forth a last minute amendment to modify the plan. The section targeted by the amendment was one that had been approved by the Burlington Board of Civil Authority and the City Council in accordance with all guidelines established by the legislature earlier this session. The House Government Operations Committee (committee) had been working in a non-partisan manner on this issue since last fall. They sought and received recommendations on where the district lines should be drawn from all communities that were represented by two or more representatives. Prior to this maneuver the concept of local control and local people knowing their community best was embraced. These local recommendations were all incorporated into, what we thought would be, the final map.
However, after the vote on Thursday, rumors started swirling that the House Assistant Majority Leader would be proposing a plan to manipulate the city of Burlington’s ten legislative districts. Reality resulted in the plan surfacing as an amendment on Friday. This was met with significant resistance since a similar proposal was opposed by the committee on a vote of 3-8 however, after some coercion by leadership we saw the committee reverse its previous decision on a vote of 6-5.
The original vote upheld local control, and withdrawing from such appeared as detachment from the commitment outlined in the law we passed earlier this session. As the minority leader, this was very disappointing to me and many other members of the House. Up to this point, the product of this relatively non-partisan process could have been a model of redistricting for the country.
General consensus led me to believe that the local input was valued. I supported the original bill on Thursday and was proud to have been part of the tri-partisan process. However, when blindsided by the super-majority by this amendment on Friday it was a mere representation of the reality that partisanship would enter into the process at some point.
The intent of the proposal would dictate the new and final legislative district boundaries to Burlington residents, replacing the plan which had been approved and submitted by Burlington’s board of civil authority that’s value earned a House vote of 123-9. I was very disappointed that at the last possible minute members of the majority party and leadership attempted to sabotage the integrity of the House reapportionment process and circumvent local control in one “minor” amendment.
Vermonters value local control and deserve fair representation, and this partisan action forced us in the minority to stand our ground. Our opposition to this maneuver resulted in leadership postponing action on the bill and the proposed changes until Tuesday.
Over the weekend, numerous exchanges took place between parties to come to an agreement. Our only acceptable route was to support the original plan which preserved local control. On Tuesday we stood strong on our position, and after hours of discussion leadership advised us that the amendment would be withdrawn. The bill then passed the House on a vote of 126 in favor with 13 opposed. I explained my yes vote as follows:
“Mr. Speaker: Local control, the integrity of the Government Operations Committee and the House legislative re-apportionment process in its entirety was preserved by the minority today. Thank you.”
This maneuver is just one more example of the risks associated with single party rule. Single party rule does not produce the best legislation, is not good government, and is bad for Vermont!
Filed under: Leadership Spotlight, Press Releases | Tagged: Don Turner, Reapportionment, Vermont | Comments Off
Press Release: House Republicans and Progressives Raise Concern with last Minute Maneuver by House Dems
Posted on April 7, 2012 by VTHouseGOP
House Republicans and Progressives raised concerns yesterday with a last minute maneuver by House Democrats and legislative leadership to manipulate the Burlington Representative Districts. Minority Leader Don Turner issued the following statement:
Just one day after the House gave overwhelming support to the final legislative representative districts by a vote of 123 Yeas to 9 Nays, the Democrats and House Legislative Leadership brought forth a last minute amendment to modify the plan.
The section targeted was approved by the Burlington Board of Civil Authority and City Council in accordance with all guidelines established by the legislature earlier this session. The committee had been working in a non-partisan manner on this issue since last fall. They sought and received recommendations on where the district lines should be drawn from all communities that were represented by two or more representatives. The committee prior to this maneuver had embraced the concept of local control and local people know their community best.
These local recommendations were all incorporated into the final map. However, after the vote yesterday rumors started swirling that House Assistant Majority Leader Willem Jewett D-Ripton would be proposing a plan to manipulate the city of Burlington’s ten legislative districts. This plan was proposed as an amendment today and met with significant resistance. The committee voted 6-5 to support this proposal even though last week they voted 8-3 to oppose a similar proposal in an effort to support the local board’s decision. Kurt Wright R-Burlington added the following, “the amendment proposed on the House floor today is disrespectful of the work of the Burlington Board of Civil Authority and local control. While the process had been working well, it is disappointing to see hard ball politics played at the 11th hour.” Chris Pearson P-Burlington had this to say when he voted yes on the bill yesterday
“This bill serves as a model of redistricting for the country. Members of all parties find areas to support and areas of disagreement. But local input was valued and neighborhoods respected if at all possible. I am proud to be part of today’s vote and the whole process.” Little did he or the City of Burlington know that they were about to be blindsided by the almighty Legislative super-majority of Democrats.
House Minority Leader Don Turner R-Milton stated “We approached this process knowing that it could become very partisan at any given time. This is exactly what occurred today when Willem and others choose to put forth a map that dictates the new final legislative district boundaries to Burlington residents. It ignores the plan that Burlington’s board of civil authority spent time and effort developing because the Democrats in Montpelier know best. Vermonters deserve to be represented in a fair manner and to have input on who represents them. On Friday, we did our best to preserve their rights by fending off a vote on this issue until Tuesday. It is unfortunate that the super majority refuses to work in a collaborative manner for the betterment of Vermont.”
Single party rule does not produce the best legislation, is not good government and is bad for Vermont!
Filed under: Press Releases | Comments Off
WCAX: “Busy week in Vt Legislature”
Posted on March 21, 2012 by VTHouseGOP
The following article was published by Susie Steimle at WCAX on March 20, 2012.
MONTPELIER, Vt. -The 2012 Vermont legislative session started with a huge thank you to all those who pitched in during the aftermath of Tropical Storm Irene and a swift reminder that the storm is not behind us.
“It’s been an extremely productive session. We knew we were faced with rebuilding Vermont as we entered the beginning of this session,” said Rep. Shap Smith, D-Vt. House Speaker.
Irene-related issues dominated lawmakers’ dockets during the past two months. After coming to consensus on the future of the Vermont State Hospital and the future of the Waterbury state office complex, Tuesday the House passed one of the least controversial Irene-related bills– the largest transportation budget in the state’s history.
“Part of it is because of the incredible amount of work we’ve had to do to respond to Tropical Storm Irene, but we’ve also increased our paving budget,” Smith said.
“We’ve seen with federal money it goes away, and we get dependent on it. We need to make sure going forward we’re living within our means and using this money for one-time expenditures,” said Rep. Don Turner, R-Milton.
House minority leader Don Turner says Republicans are on board with the transportation budget, which raises fees within the Agency of Natural Resources, so Vermonters will pay more for vehicle registration and fishing licenses. Where Turner expects controversy is the energy bill, which would move Vermont to 75 percent renewables by the year 2032.
“If it impacts business, it impacts all Vermonters. It’s going to impact all ratepayers. So we’re very concerned about that,” Turner said.
The speaker argues Vermont’s energy portfolio is already at 40 percent.
“That’s not even doubling it and I think that’s realistic given all the innovation that’s happening in this sector. I think it’s a really good thing that we have energy that is Vermont based and carbon neutral,” Smith said.
Turner says he doesn’t anticipate the fight will happen on the House floor any longer. With the lack of Republican support in the Legislature, he’s already focused on November.
“Single-party rule does not work and I think we’re seeing some of the results of that in this biennium this session. We need some balance,” Turner said.
The House will also vote on the budget and the appropriations bills later this week.
Filed under: In The News | Tagged: Don Turner, Elections, Energy | Comments Off
Legislative Update: March 20, 2012
Posted on March 21, 2012 by VTHouseGOP
Legislators really ‘hit the ground running’ returning to the statehouse after the Town Meeting break. Many reported having good contact with local boards and constituents and lots of feedback of legislative efforts. Legislators were extremely busy, many did not have time top prepare reports. Here are submitted reports for the week:
The General Housing and Military Affairs Committee had a busy first week back, reports Rep. Bob Bouchard from Colchester. The committee heard from Richard Reed, Director of Veteran’s Affairs, that the practice if giving a property tax exemption to disabled veterans is not legal if the veteran has not served in war or received a certain medal. The committee approved a bill to correct this, so all disabled veterans will be able to receive this benefit. The committee also took much lively testimony on green burials. More testimony is needed on this issue. A committee bill was approved that informs HUD that Vermont would prefer HUD section 8 projects be based on contracts that are administered by a Vermont Agency. Last, the committee received testimony of H.389, an act relating to union organizing. This bill prohibits organizations that receive state funding to use the money to assist, promote, deter or coerce union organizing.
The Ways and Means Committee put finishing touches on the Miscellaneous tax bill, reports Rep. Carolyn Branagan from Georgia. The bill makes several changes to state tax law relating to tax equity and tax fairness, but does not raise any additional money. Overall the bill is revenue neutral. It redirects money received from Vermont’s only nuclear plant from the Clean Energy Development Fund to economic development of Windham County and to reducing the school property tax. This bill will appear on the House floor during the week of March 20, along with Fee Bill #2.
The House Human Services Committee started the week with a walk-through of the many changes in the Senate’s version of the mental health system restructuring (and state hospital) bill, and ended the week hearing from conference committee members that agreement in principle had been reached, reports Rep. Anne Donahue from Northfield. This came after the mid-week news that the administration had reached out to CMS to get some reassurances on federal funding, and therefore was willing to support the development of a 25-bed Mental Hospital in Central Vermont, which the House had recommended. During the week, the committee also passed a bill adding new protections to keep minors away from tobacco and to ban commercial cigarette rolling machines; voted its support for a Judiciary bill on supporting opportunities for 16- and 17-years olds charged with crimes to have cases heard in the family division, instead of the criminal division, of the courts; recommended minor amendments to a Judiciary bill creating the commitment process for the new secure residential recovery program [in the MH bill]; and passed a bill authorizing rulemaking for the opiod addiction program.
Rep. Linda Myers from Essex reports that except for time spent on the floor this week, Institutions and Corrections Committee members spent most of the week working on the Capital Budget Adjustment bill. Almost all committee time was spent on mark-up of the bill. On March 13, the Freeman French Freeman report on the proposals for the Waterbury Complex was presented to the House and Senate Institutions committees. FFF presented four plans for dealing with the destruction of the complex and the displacement of the employees. Almost from the outset, most of the legislators involved favored Plan B, a return to Waterbury with major changes in the complex. A consensus of House Institutions on Plan B took place Wednesday morning. In the afternoon, at the invitation of Lt. Governor Phil Scott, the chairs and vice chairs of both Institutions committees met with the governor, speaker and pro tem to come to an agreement on the preferred plan. The result was the Thursday morning press conference at which the governor announced both the plan for Waterbury and the plan for the new state hospital in Berlin. Rep. Myers expects to present a short run-down on the Waterbury Plan B at the Tuesday evening caucus meeting and can answer questions. During the week of March 20, the committee will continue mark-up with possible inclusion of some funding for the state hospital and Waterbury. The speaker wants the bill out of committee by Wednesday. As stated before, we shall see.
Rep. Jim Eckhardt from Chittenden reports crossover week had the Health Care Committee pick up pace to pass quite a few bills. The Telemedicine Bill H.37 passed on the floor. Then came the passage out of committee of H.157 (restrictions on tanning beds), creating a criminal offense for people less than 18 years of age to use a tanning machine in a tanning salon or other establishment. Rep. Eckhardt had concerns that the bill also makes it a criminal offense for the person under 18. It gives law enforcement the right to examine the records of tanning salons and file charges when appropriate. The case was made that tanning salons are a cause of skin cancer. Health Commissioner Chen supports the concept of the bill but finds the bill unenforceable. The committee chose to pass the bill anyway. Rep. Eckhardt did not support the bill as written as I wanted more of an educational approach rather than enforcement approaches to the perceived threat that tanning machines pose. Next theCommittee approved a Committee Bill on Midwives. Last year the legislature passed a law that stated that Health Insurance Companies will cover Midwife services, this legislation was supported by Rep. Eckhardt. Since that law was passed, not one birth was covered by insurance companies for these services. Upon examination it was determined that the Midwives did not carry liability insurance which is a requirement of the health insurance companies. All other health care professionals in the state carry liability insurance. The concern being if something went wrong during delivery what was the recourse of the parent in taking care of the future needs of a child with serious problems from childbirth. For those parents on Medicaid (approx. 60% of homebirths) their only recourse would be for the citizens of the State of Vt. to take financial care of their children. For those babies or mothers that were taken to the hospital for complications the issue was who picks up the liability when a midwife is bringing in an already distressed patient? The bill goes on to require midwives to have insurance within 2 years. The bill passed out of committee without the support of three members. H.498 is the mental health parity bill. This bill requires mental health to be treated the same as health care for insurance copayments. This is a very simple bill that easily won committee support.
Filed under: Legislative Update | Comments Off
