 bagels from Myers, many thanks to Myers Bagels for feeding us this morning. We've got cream cheese and all kinds of good stuff. And coffee in the back. I'm Ann Galloway. I'm the founder of BT Digger and welcome. Thank you so much for coming on such a cold morning. It couldn't be colder. Well, it could be colder, but you don't want to think about that. It's bad enough, right? I wanted to let you know that we have 48 questions for Senate President Pro Tem Tim Ash, and I'm grateful to our readers. 48? Don't worry. We're not going to ask them all. Talk fast. I'm so delighted that Tim agreed to be with us today. Tim's been in the Senate for a long time now. Ten years? A decade? Just at the same time I started Digger. He started at the State House. So, Ann, with no more ado, I will start asking some questions, unless you want to say something to start with. Well, I just say good morning. I'm glad you've all braved being here. The record low today for me on the drive down was negative 13 in Richmond, so that's according to my car thermometer. Oh, well, that's about what it was in Hartford this morning, so interesting. Okay, so we have a question from Jim Coates of Swanson Rock and Winifred McCarthy of Burlington. They want to know, would you support a two-tier wage that would allow employers to pay a lower minimum wage to students? Well, it's an interesting question. One that is often overlooked by the public when they think of the minimum wage. We already do have a separate minimum wage under Vermont law for students during the summer breaks. And so many employers, particularly those who might operate a seasonal summer business, are able to offer a wage which is lower than Vermont's conventional minimum wage. So, to me, that system has been working for decades, and so I would stand by that. I guess I would reaffirm our current policy. While we're talking about minimum wage, could you broadly and briefly outline where you think a minimum wage bill would go? I mean, how it would work, the mechanics of it? Well, last year, as your readers will no doubt remember, the legislature passed a minimum wage increase to $15 that would have been by 2024. So a six-year rolling phase in of an increase in the minimum wage. The status quo, if we do not vote to raise the minimum wage, is that the minimum wage is targeted to an inflationary amount. So the minimum wage is going to go up whether we increase the minimum wage in a new law or not. We believe that it should accelerate the growth by passage of the new law. Right now, there are literally tens of thousands of people who would benefit if we raise the minimum wage despite common misconceptions. Most of those individuals are adult full-time workers. These are not college kids or high school kids. They're not all starter jobs. So the challenge this year, we come back after the Governor vetoed that legislation to decide what to do now. My feeling is that the Senate ought to and will vote to increase the minimum wage once again. But we do have five new faces in the Senate and to respect their participation, two new members of our Economic Development Committee where that bill would originate. The precise details of the bill would let the committee discussion and play out. Obviously, having lost one year in that time frame that was envisioned last year in the legislation means we have to revisit. Do we keep on the exact same schedule, which would actually be a little bit more compressed, or do we go up to 2025 now? And those are all things that the committee process will hash out. Thanks for explaining, Wynton. The next question is from Allison Anand from Richmond and she asks, in the light of controversies and lawsuits regarding Act 46, would you support appointing a committee to research the status of existing mergers regarding fulfillment of their promised better education at less cost? In other words, would you be evaluating whether the mergers have saved any money? Well, I guess I would say that the formation of a new special committee is probably premature. For those of you who don't know the creation, the passage of Act 46, which those of us in Montpelier we use terms like Act 46, but outside the building it might be more commonly known as the school district reorganization law, is now in year four or five of implementation where the lawsuit that you is referenced in the question is an indication that we're at the tail end of the reorganization of districts. When we passed that law, it was pretty well understood that it would take perhaps years to be able to fully evaluate both the educational quality differences, if any, and the financial savings, if any. So the legislative committees should of course themselves, the ones we already have, be evaluating how things are going. But I think it's too soon to do a how did the law work analysis. My feeling is that we will probably best be positioned to do that in about five years. In the meantime, we have to make sure that the law is rolling out the way it was intended. We do know that in some districts where they've merged in my own community, Essex and Westford, there have been organizational and operational changes as a result. So we can probably do some case by case presentations, but just like the districts who are currently suing the state would articulate, every single merged set of districts is different. Some of them would probably see the financial savings sooner than others. Some of them would see the kind of educational opportunities expand sooner than others. So a few years from now, I think, will be a better time to create a more comprehensive analysis of the law's results. So that would be some kind of study. It could be a study. It could be the agency of education doing its job and doing an evaluation of how it's been working. But again, I think we're a few years out. One of the problems with the legislature in general is we pass a law and then we expect to come back the next year. And the world has completely changed and everything has been rolled out. Changing major policies, reorganizing dozens and dozens of school districts is not something where you see the full results of implementation overnight. So I think we're really a few years away. Another question along these lines from Andy Davis of Brattleboro. He says, I'm not anti-act 46 but I'm appalled at the way the law has been implemented. Do you believe that the legislature has a role in relieving problems caused by forced mergers? Of the 23 towns and women counties, seven are involved in the appeal against the state board of education. The legislature created this law. Does it bear any responsibility for easing the current problems? Well, the legislature passed the law so it has responsibility for its entire implementation in partnership with local school districts. Two years ago our education committees as a result of better appreciating the implementation challenges felt at the local level basically put out a call to every school district in the state that was seeking to merge or in the process of merging and said, if you're having unique challenges, challenges unique to your set of school districts, come to us so that we can consider whether we can adjust the Act 46 law so that your community can successfully fulfill the goals of Act 46. The legislation which I believe was called Act 49, all the acts get a little confused in my head, provided accommodations to many districts throughout the state to ease their transitions. We now have the last batch of districts who are going through their unique challenges. And so I would say that if there are accommodations that are needed to allow them to successfully fulfill the vision of Act 46, the legislature is all ears. I do know that some districts have asked for a delay in the timeframe by which they would have to have articles of agreement and new operating procedures locally. The legislature is debating that right now. We've got some districts who say we must have a delay, otherwise things will be very bad at the local level. We have other districts emailing me all weekend. I received emails from superintendents and school board members and others saying, you must not delay because that's going to throw other districts into turmoil who are more ready. So the legislature has to figure out under what circumstances it delays the actual law itself. But in terms of accommodations to ease the transition, we were all ears. I was wondering what TIN stands on criminal justice reform is. Specifically, how he feels about the use of out-of-state private-for-profit prisons to house our overflow. And if it's possible, that good time might be reinstated to reduce our overflow to thereby eliminating the need for out-of-state warehouses. Well, the question is a very good one. And in terms of criminal justice reform, the good news is that Vermont's not faced with the question of whether we should embark on criminal justice reform or not. It's whether we should continue on the journey of criminal justice reform. When I arrived at the Senate in 2009, we had about 675 inmates who were out-of-state in privately owned prisons. Today that number is down to about 215. So we have more work to do per the question, but we have made significant strides in reducing our inmate population. We have a few initiatives that are underway which they're not going to steal headlines, but they aren't exactly the type of thing that drives down the long-term inmate population. One of them is juvenile justice reform. Juvenile justice reform basically means that instead of treating younger people who commit a crime like hardened adult criminals by putting them through the adult courts, that we would put them through the family court where they receive a broader array of opportunities for restorative practices and restorative justice and allow them to get on with their life without an open criminal record. This is something that we are in year two of the unfolding of that law. It puts us on the fan guard nationally when it comes to the way we treat young offenders. There are going to be implementation issues here too, which we have to work through. But to me that's a tremendous opportunity. Another area in recent years is medication assisted treatment in our facilities. One of the things we know is people, whether they're serving short or medium term sentences, if they had addiction issues prior to being incarcerated, that they were being basically forced to go cold turkey once they got into prison. The moment they're sentenced and they get out, they're back to the old habits. And one of the gravest problems of that, one of the worst outcomes of the failure to treat people while they were in prison, is that the tolerance for drugs that the individual had built up outside the facility makes them go back and try the same volume at the same strength when they get out, leading to a greater likelihood of overdoses. So by providing medication assisted treatment, which is now finally after months of pushing the administration to fulfill the law as it was intended, we have hundreds of people receiving treatment who previously were not. That will help also reduce the recidivism levels. In terms of the very basic question, should we have people out of state? Our goal should be no, we're on a path to get there. But I don't think people want to build additional prison capacity at this moment in Vermont. So I think our goal should be to reduce that 215 individuals who are currently out of state rather than be building new facilities here in Vermont. Are you comfortable with inmates in Mississippi? And how long will it take to basically eliminate the out of state population? Well, so this is an interesting one. Currently, the 215 Vermont inmates who are housed out of state are in Mississippi, not a state known for very forward-thinking correctional facilities. And it's privately owned by one of a company that has been pretty shady and has helped lead to large rates of incarceration around the country by encouraging laws which like mandatory minimums and things like that. The inmates themselves were more concerned when they were at a Pennsylvania state-owned facility where there were fewer job opportunities, there were not classes and other kinds of programming where they had to pay co-pays to go to see the doctor at the infirmary. So the irony is by housing them in a state with not a great record on these issues and in a prison operated by a company with a pretty bad track record, at a minimum at least we can dictate the terms of the contract we're in Pennsylvania. We had to take the terms that Pennsylvania dictated to us which were very unfavorable to our inmates. So I don't know how long it will take to drive down that out of state population to zero. It will not happen overnight. I think if we were able to have a structural number of inmates that was down into the 1,500 range in the next five years, it would eliminate the use of out-of-state prisons. So I would say we're probably looking at a five-year horizon. Jeff Blow of Barrie wants to know if you believe that Vermont businesses can afford more directives from the Vermont legislature, i.e. mandated wages, mandated pay-to-pay time, etc. Well it's a tricky question because of course the legislature has to be sensitive to all of its actions and the impact it has not just on businesses but households. The legislature does some things which certainly add administrative and sometimes cost burdens on businesses. This has been the case not only in Vermont but around the country. When it comes to increasing the minimum wage, I would push back a little bit on the question. One of the consequences of Vermont's very low minimum wage at about $10.78 now is that many of the individuals earning today's minimum wage wind up on public benefits programs which requires taxpayers to pick up the tab for their health care sometimes for food and other nutrition programs programs like your income tax credit. So by virtue of a very low minimum wage and many thousands of people who earn that low amount some businesses are subsidizing the practices of low-paying businesses. So to me increasing the earned income of tens of thousands of people not only will stimulate our local economy helping small businesses but also reduces the amount of cross-subsidization by those who choose to pay less which is being picked up frankly by those who are really striving to do everything they can to pay a fair wage to their employees. Now there are some businesses who it is absolutely true are not choosing to pay a low wage there in ultra-competitive industries and we have to be sensitive to the way an increase in the minimum wage law would impact them. In my opinion and the research across the country has suggested that in areas where the minimum wage has been increased there have not been the doom and gloom scenarios that conservative economists like to suggest there would be instead there is usually fairly negligible employment effects sometimes slightly negative sometimes slightly positive but we know that in the meantime tens of thousands of people have more money in their pocket. Thank you Tim. Christine Stark of Holland and Reverend Lanker Techie of Derby Line ask us some questions about health care. They want to know why we're not exploring a regional health insurance network including New England and New York states that would be a Medicare for all people before profit systems. Well it's an interesting concept that my suspicion is that when we have had governors who have explored the universal health care program and really Governor Dean back in the 90's Governor Sheldon of course most recently in this decade my suspicion is the reason that as administrations who wanted to guarantee health care to every individual that they did not pursue such a regional approach is the tremendous difficulty in entangling the unique characteristics of each state's current health plans and health requirements. It's something that our committees can explore obviously a state like New York or Massachusetts are much more in line with Vermont in terms of providing a broad range of health services I'm not sure that I want to create a regional plan with New Hampshire on health care. Abby Ninkin of Brattleboro asks what is your plan for bold climate action in this legislative session? Specifically will you push for a ban on new fossil fuel infrastructure in Vermont? Will you push for carbon pollution pricing? Well I think it's no secret to anyone in this room that the future of our climate is in peril. Right now I think the most promising thing in terms of meaningful reductions in harmful emissions is the regional transportation compact being negotiated by our administration with eight other states and I believe Washington D.C. The collective economic might of these states that are looking at this combined regional approach to transportation related reductions I believe would make us like the fifth largest economy in the world. So the great advantage is that one has the tremendous power to cap transportation related emissions it also spreads the risk throughout a number of other states including some very big ones like New York and Virginia. So to me it's unsatisfying in some ways to those who want action next month because it's something that's being negotiated for the next year and it's a necessarily complicated negotiation that our agencies are working on. But to me that is the single most impactful thing that we can do. In the legislature this year it is my hope that our transportation committees will look at other strategies around smarter transportation whether it is finding some kind of Vermont scalable public transit models or building on what we have. It's a rural state which has always made it very challenging but we have to continue to see what opportunities we can pursue to get people out of their cars. The irony is as I speak Green Mountain Transit is worried about being able to continue to operate some of its shuttles here in Central Vermont especially the ones that bring workers to some of the ski areas or other large employers so we have to make sure we maintain what we have in addition to thinking about new strategies. So transportation sector to me is the primary objective. The specific issue of our carbon tax or carbon fee or carbon pricing all those things to me I would prefer the regional approach that I described which is an expansion of the Reggie program I don't mean to geek out but the regional greenhouse gas initiative which has been a real success story for emissions reductions and has been good for our economy extending that to transportation to me is a no brainer. So no carbon tax? I'm sure it'll be proposed by some. As I said I support a regional approach which I think is in the best interest of the state. We spend about $25 million a year on public transportation as I recall. Do you think we should be spending more? I think we should before I say we should be spending more we probably should be spending more but the first thing we have to do is find out we have to develop realistic strategies for how we would use those dollars. To me the biggest opportunities is connecting larger employers to where the workers are actually coming from. So I was without a car for a couple months this fall and I was taking the Green Mountain Transit Shuttle down from Burlington to Montpelier. Obviously it's from one population center to a place where there are a lot of jobs. I wish and I hope that we will work on trying to find more opportunities like that which yes will take more money. Thanks I'm going to jump to one of Sandra's questions as Sandra's our political reporter, Sandra Wanda. In his inaugural address the governor said he wants to collaborate with legislators to reverse the state's demographic issues. Where do you see the greatest potential for compromise between the legislature and the Scott administration this session? Well that's a bit of a combined statement slash question because it started with demographics and then said will you work well with the governor? The short story is we will work well, how embarrassing. We will, that was Anne's phone, not mine. It's actually called. So we will work well with the governor every opportunity we get. When the governor, I would characterize what he said as saying that he hopes for a reset with the legislature and kind of restarting the relationship so that it is off on a positive note from day one and certainly that's very welcome. The real test will be if the administration unlike the last two years actually sits in committee rooms and engages with legislators from all the different political parties trying to work on the big problems. That's what we did not see the last two years and I think helps explain why things were brought to tipping points at the end of the session. One of the advantages, and I've served now under three governors, under the Douglas and the Shumlin administrations, the agency commissioners, secretaries and staff, they'd be in the committee room. So no matter what the issue was over the course of the year, even if they didn't like what you were doing, they were trying to work with you to make sure that whatever past could be implemented and would advance broadly shared goals. What that does is by the end, when emotions are fraught and people are stressed out and everyone's trying to adjourn, you've been practicing compromise every step of the way and then those last changes that have to be made to reach the finish line are much easier because you've got the muscle memory you're used to compromising. If there's no engagement until that moment, what happens is you haven't rehearsed compromise and you get to the brinksmanship that the administration brought to the table in the past. Regarding demographic trends, I think there's interestingly the day of the speech, the Wall Street Journal had an article about demographic trends throughout the United States and governors from every state in the Northeast and large swaths of the Northern United States could have all been delivering the exact same address about population issues, particularly young people leaving for cities and things like that. What I hope we will focus on is not just trying to signal that Vermont is a welcoming place to people who don't live here today but I want us to redouble our efforts on people who already live here and who are falling through the cracks. Frank Coffey, who runs an organization called GBIC which is, it's like the Economic Development Corporation for Chittenden County, has looked at a lot of the demographic trends. What he articulates is that each year several thousand young people, especially young men, they get out of high school and they don't go on to any education and they are not attached to any employment. They just sort of fall off the map. In my opinion, the most successful strategies that we can and should deploy would to revisit that demographic that already lives here, that already falls through the cracks and winds up either on different government programs or just off the radar to reconnect to those individuals and say, Vermont is going to be a place where you can succeed. The legislature and governors especially with two year terms are always thinking about new shiny objects and new programs and initiatives that will serve two people here and five people there. I think we need to focus on the thousands of people who are already here but who are not for whatever reason being able to fulfill successful life. Thanks. You mentioned two-state voluntary paid family leave plan with New Hampshire's Governor Chris Sinner here. You've said you don't support a voluntary paid leave program that you don't think it will attract the participation needed to keep paid leave insurance affordable. But now that he's put a proposal on the table, do you plan on working with him on a paid leave plan that reaches some sort of middle ground? Well, I actually want to say that the fact that the governor brought forward this plan is actually a very good sign. Not only is it a good sign because he appreciates the need for the type of benefits that the legislation that we passed last year would bring to people, whether it's to be home during after childbirth or with a loved one who's sick or dying. But it also shows that the governor is stepping up to try to engage on policies that he knows the legislature has prioritized. So in terms of working with the governor on this, I hope we can find some kind of compromise and finish line on that just as I do on the minimum wage. The issue of a voluntary social program is one that once the administration puts out the need of their proposal will perhaps have a better sense of its strengths and weaknesses, but just in general, social benefit programs that are voluntary in terms of participation historically are very unlikely to have enough people voluntarily making the payment so that when the individual needs to actually receive the benefit that the money is there for it. And that is why, whether it's Social Security or Medicare, these are programs which everyone pays into and everyone benefits from. So the idea that we would leave it to the select group who decides to voluntarily make the contribution to fill the coffers of this program so that anyone can get the benefit, it just doesn't seem like it could work, but we will reserve judgment until the details are out and I do want to recognize that this is a good first step for the governor to be at the table. Thank you. Senator Baruth has proposed legislation to create a mandated waiting period for gun purchases and establish new storage requirements. House Judiciary Chair Maxine Gratt has proposed another that would create mandatory gun seizures when relief from abuse orders are issued. Senator has said he doesn't want to see any additional gun laws past this session. Which of these measures do you think can pass? Well, the issue of waiting periods is one that I know the Senate will be discussing this session. I don't know what the ultimate disposition will be, but we will be discussing that. And the interesting dynamic is the Fairhaven case, which really did change the history of gun laws in the state of Vermont, focused on the potential for someone to commit a large shooting. One of the areas that had been neglected for too long, but I think really bubbled to the surface as a result of this, was the issue of suicides by firearm. And I think one of the reasons that the waiting period concept might get traction this year is precisely because of the impulsivity for some people when they're going through very difficult times. And right now can easily access a firearm. A waiting period would certainly provide some buffer between what the person's going through and being able to purchase that first firearm with which they might commit suicide. So that one we will be discussing in the Senate, as I said, don't quite know where we'll head. The relief from abuse order, it sounds rather technical to those courtroom regulars. But in current practice, courts usually often will require that the firearms be relinquished. What this law would do is require that the courts do it. So it's effectively formalizing a practice, which is already frequently used. So I think knowing the house prioritization of that proposal, I'm sure that we'll see some movement there. I've heard less certainty at this point about the so-called safe storage piece, about the ability to enforce and other concerns that have been raised. So the waiting period issue is the one that I would see as most likely to advance. Thank you. So you think you have the political capital then and the legislature to continue with more reforms regarding gun laws? Yeah, I think that the merits of the waiting period issue will determine whether it moves forward. I think that what we've seen in the last couple of years is the timidity, the historical timidity to take on gun safety legislation has been broken through, if you will. So I'm not sure if political capital is the right word, but I believe if on the merits it should advance, it has a good chance to do something. Great, thank you. We have, we're just about done I'm getting the hand signals from Python in about 10 minutes. Okay, so we have more questions, but I wanted to see if anyone here has a question or two for Tim. I heard in the paper that you're intending to advocate for a four-year governor's term and I'd like to understand a little more what the pluses and negatives of that are. So for those of you who couldn't hear, the question is what are the pluses and minuses of a four-year term for governor, which is something that I've supported historically and would be advocating for this year. So right now there are only two states in America that have two-year term for governors, and that's Vermont and the Hampshire. My belief is that a four-year term for governor, instead of the two-year term we have now, would allow governors of any party to come in to make bigger, transformative bulls, whether it's cleaning up the environment, whether it's reforming our education system, whether it's healthcare, you name the issue. And think about it the way it is today. Governor gets elected, within a few months they're already preparing an agenda to get re-elected two years later. And we talk about two-year terms, but because of the election two years later, it's actually more like a one-and-a-half-year term because by the end of the second year of a biennium it's already go time for the campaign. So we spend 25% of our time now with gubernatorial campaigns. Governors come in, they typically offer relatively marginal changes to the status quo in large part because they fear, I think, proposing something that could go sour. Doing minor things, if it doesn't happen, the public doesn't care, maybe he doesn't even notice. So to me a four-year term would allow a governor to propose more bold, transformative ideas, allow them to work with the legislature if there's resistance to try to find some common ground, actually implement the law, go through some of those implementation transitions, bumps, rough patches, and then get to the other side of it so that voters can then decide whether they like what the governor has been proposing and doing with his or her administration. The minuses, since I'm an advocate for four-year terms, I'll be generous here, the minuses are some people believe that the voters want to have elections every two years and keep weighing it. And there is some merit to that, right? If a governor does something that's particularly toxic and voter attitudes swing really heavily, the question is should they have that opportunity within two years to send the person packing? That's for others to decide. In my opinion, the welfare of the state is aided more greatly by a four-year term. One of the hold-ups in the past is that if you extend a four-year term for the governor, that's a lot of leverage over the legislature. So the question is should there be four-year terms for at least some legislators and historically the view has been the state senate. Now I am a state senator, but the moment we propose four-year terms for state senators, 150 people who happen to be members of the Vermont House of Representatives say, what about us? And that's usually what does in proposals like this. So as introduced, the proposal just focuses on the governor because I think that's where Vermonters should first, you know, discuss whether our current system of two-year terms is adequate. I am certainly open to the issue of all the other statewide officials plus the state senate. Thank you. Do we have time for one more question or are we done, Peter? We're done. Okay. Well, thank you so much everyone for coming and thank you, Tim, for joining us this morning. Thank you. It's a great pleasure to have you all here and thanks for bringing the weather.