 Vermont PBS in cooperation with Orca Media and the Vermont Press Bureau presents Capital Beat, the Week in Review, from the Vermont State House. Here's host Neil Goswami. Welcome everyone to Capital Beat. I'm Neil Goswami with the Vermont Press Bureau. We're very happy to have you with us here as the legislature works to wind things down. As we sit here in tape on Friday, things are very much in flux. The Senate is currently debating a proposal that they hope will lead to adjournment, but there's a long way to go yet and we're not sure when that might be. I am very pleased to welcome back Don Turner, the House Minority Leader. Thank you. And Jill Kroinski, the House Majority Leader. Thanks for being here. Thank you. Thanks for being here. I'd like to just sort of get a sense of where we are in this process. Things are in flux and they have been in flux for several days now. Last week, last weekend, you had all hope to adjourn. That wasn't the case. Jill, can you get us up to speed about where we are, what's left to be done and what the pathway might be to achieve it? Sure. So right now we have the budget still open for negotiations and we are waiting for our colleagues in the Senate to join us at the table to finish negotiations around that and to wrap it up. In addition to the budget conversation, we also have a really fantastic economic development bill that is now also connected to the budget in a way that will not get wrapped up until the budget wraps up and those are two very, very key pieces of legislation that I think is important to all of us to get across the finish line to go home. But while these conversations have been happening, the Governor has put out a proposal around creating a statewide teacher contract for healthcare and we had a lively debate in the House with several proposals to say should we move forward towards a statewide contract and if so or if not, what do we do with the savings from that because those negotiations around healthcare are already done or already happening at the local level. So we took a position in the House and now, as you said, the Senate is also debating a different type of proposal. Representative Turner, we have been discussing this issue of the teacher healthcare savings for a couple of weeks here in this building. Are you aware of any progress made toward a resolution? And my understanding is that Democratic leaders in the House and Senate do not want to tinker with the collective bargaining of teachers. The Governor has held somewhat firmly on his position which is the best way to achieve savings through the changes in teacher healthcare plans is by creating a statewide benefit and having teachers negotiate directly with him. Number one, where does the House GOP caucus stand? And number two, have you heard of any progress? Well, we have been very firm. Our caucus has been supportive of the Governor's position. We ran the last several elections on the affordability issue, property tax increases, education costs, the unsustainability there. So we feel that the Governor's proposal is probably the only way we're going to maximize those savings for property taxpayers and provide some ongoing savings and out years by having the negotiation very complex healthcare negotiations at the statewide level. We think it's imperative. It's probably the most important part of the negotiation at this point. So we are firm on that. Our caucus has positioned itself with the Governor. It's likely we will stay there throughout this process. We're hoping there may be some negotiation as far as a mechanism that would allow that to happen. But as of this point, there doesn't seem to be a lot of momentum to move in any direction except for each party staying where they are. Yeah, digging in a little bit. The Governor has said he's all ears in terms of a proposal that doesn't include a statewide benefit or statewide negotiation. Have you heard of any proposals that meet the Governor's needs but don't include that? At this point, I have not. Our caucus position is with that collective bargaining. We feel that strongly that school boards are just outgunned. They're outgunned on the local level. We feel it's absolutely essential to bring it at the state level. We could entertain maybe having a board or commission of local school board members negotiating at the statewide level. We have parity across the state, and we capitalize that return or those savings while maximizing the benefit to property taxpayers. So we're open to things like that, but statewide negotiation is a critical piece from our perspective. Representative Kerensky, House Democratic leaders and Senate Democratic leaders have been trying to come up with something for a few days now that would satisfy both chambers and potentially bring the Governor on board. Do you feel like you have made progress on that front? Well, I think that we have made progress in having an open line of communication with our colleagues in the Senate to be going back and forth and ideas to get something to the table. And one thing that we have heard from constituents time and time again is that they want property tax relief. And so our proposal back to the Governor in conjunction with the Senate was to say, well, what if we took those savings from the local level that these local negotiations are taking place and say let's put all those savings towards three pennies off of the property tax rate for residents in Vermont. And that's a starting place for us. I think one thing is clear is we are in constant communication about other ideas to bring people to the table to get something together. But I think the clear message is that getting involved with collective bargaining is a non-starter for a lot of people. And so I think for us it's looking at where we can find compromise on the savings. Okay. The Senate, as I noted, is currently debating a proposal that moves the process forward. They have opted to move forward on this without knowing if the Governor is going to sign off on it. It does, it would sort of mandate $13 million savings at the local district level. It says it can be achieved through achieving a 80%, 20% split in premiums between teachers and school districts. It doesn't include a statewide negotiation. It may lead to cuts outside of the healthcare arena and perhaps facilities. It does dictate that it shouldn't come, the savings shouldn't come from direct student instruction. Don, I know this is all new. It's sort of being, things are evolving quickly here. Does that sound like from your conversations with the Governor and your caucus, does that sound like something that might potentially bring people on board? I don't, I can't really speak for the Governor's office on a meal, which I won't. The caucus, we discussed this at great length yesterday in a caucus and it was very clear that our caucus will not go along with that. This we feel, although we're happy that it's being acknowledged here that there is savings to be had in healthcare and we're all on agreement with that, which is much different than a couple weeks ago. So we have come a long ways in the last couple weeks in at least acknowledging that there is a substantial amount of money to be saved. The problem that we feel with this proposal is that it says it can come from healthcare, it doesn't say it has to, which is a very serious concern because we know that the state school board, the state school budgets almost all across the state have already been set. So now we're going to go back to the school boards who are trying to make it easier. We are trying to make it easier on school boards by having a statewide negotiation. This puts the burden back on those local school boards to try to find these savings. So if they were already a district that had 80-20 healthcare benefit package, where do they find the savings now that is going to be recaptured here? So that's a big issue for us. We want to make it easier for local school boards. This actually takes us back, most people remember at the beginning of the session the governor came out with a proposal that I thought we were going to get killed by the school districts when he came out with it and he corrected level funding and the school boards had to come up with a way to do it. This is taking us back to there instead of making it easier for them. The language used is a very significant point here and one that was discussed yesterday, Thursday by the governor and it's the language of savings can be achieved through the 80-20 premium split or savings shall be achieved. Now you and others have advocated for shall, which in my view, my reading of it and I'm not a lawyer, but that would essentially eliminate the negotiating process with teachers and so that would significantly change our way. That's another reason why we couldn't support this. We want to protect collective bargaining rights. We just want to elevate them to the state level, just like we did last week with state's attorneys and so on. We're going to negotiate at the state level. This proposal, if you say shall come from 80-20 split, there is no more negotiation. That's one of the reasons I can't support this. It needs to be reworded completely. You can't just change that word and I would buy it. I would go along with this. I just want to reiterate, any altering of collective bargaining at this point at this time is a non-starter for democratic leadership? Yeah, I would just say that after many conversations, people feel that if you start to open the door and start taking pieces of collecting bargaining at different levels, you can't go back. It's hard to do a one-time event. It doesn't really sound like a negotiation when you're saying we're going to go to a state-wide level and we're going to negotiate and guess what? Our line is 80-20. A sort of predetermined outcome. I would just say for us, we've been having, just like Don has with his caucus, lots of conversations. I think what is so important for us right now is to take a step back and say, what is the best thing for our kids? What can we do to best help our kids in hard-working families? I think that's where we are right now is just to take, as the Senate does their work for us to stop and just say, what is in the best interest of our kids right now and are we doing right by them? I think we are committed to doing our best work here and find a path forward so we can wrap up our budget, wrap up this really solid economic development bill, which actually does a lot for hard-working families by creating a public retirement fund that's an opt-in for families. I just think we have a lot of good things here for Vermoners, so we are eager to wrap it up and get home. Well, speaking of wrapping up, timing here is an issue. I spoke to you yesterday and you said more days of people sitting around doing nothing and waiting could be very problematic. It is now Friday, midday. There are... You never work on a Sunday because it's not really allowed, so Saturday of this week remains, or next week, where are we in this process and is there any potential to complete this session this weekend? Yeah, I would say never say never. So I think, you know, we... I still think we have a window to wrap up very, very, very late tomorrow night, but there's still several factors at play that, you know, it's hard to tell at this point, so it's going to be either really late tomorrow or we could potentially have to come back next week. But I think, you know, I don't want to jinx anything or speculate here, but that is what we are all working hard to do is figure out how we can wrap this up tomorrow. And Representative Turner, I know you are the minority leader, but the minority does play a key role here. There are House rules that require certain time elements to be respected when dealing with legislation, unless the House votes to suspend the rules, which I believe is two-thirds, three-quarters. So you do play a large role here. I know it's hard to say unless and until you're sort of in that position, but are you open to rural suspensions to help move things along and get people out of here? Absolutely. I mean, we have, you know, we outlined to the Speaker and to Jill and the Senate, you know, not really conditions, we just want to make sure we give people a clear path of what the expectations are for rural suspension. You know, our goal is to make sure that everybody understands what they're voting on, has time to digest the information, and so on. I do see a path, like I agree with Jill, I think that we could get at it. We might even be able to get out of here late tonight if something happened very soon with some agreement around the V-High. If we came to some terms around there, the budget, I think, is ready to go. I think everything's ready to go, but we have to get to that point. With, you know, things coming altogether in the next hour, we could be out of here tonight, potentially. Even though we say 24 hours, we would, as long as we have time to read the information and go through it and make sure everybody understands what they're voting on, we can do that. Probably unlikely, but it is possible. The weekend, maybe, I don't know. You know, it's going to come down to this negotiation, and I think that the challenges that we face is our caucuses have taken some pretty firm stance. You know, I know we're my caucuses, and they're not going to budge on the collective bargaining, and I hear Jill, so I respect that. I don't know. It's going to come up to the governor. Right, so we have this Senate proposal that's moving through, and most likely Democrats have a large majority in the Senate. They will suspend the rules and send it right over, at which point the House will consider it. And absent any changes, it seems very unlikely the governor will support this idea. Are we headed toward adjournment with a veto session expected? You know, I've said many times I would support. We will sustain the governor's veto if we don't achieve this... What you can do along with your caucus. Our caucus alone can sustain the veto, and you know, we're pretty solid on this. I mean, we'd like to work this out. I mean, Jill and I, we get along fine. But this is very important to our caucuses. It's very important to Vermonters. We all came here trying to address the property tax situation issue. This is a once, from our perspective, once in a lifetime opportunity to set us on a different path, and that's why it's so important to me and our caucuses. Representative Krominsky, do you feel like we're on a path toward a veto and returning for a veto session? I would just hope that the governor will continue to work with us to find a path forward to avoid that. But as John, you know, said, we are slowly coming closer together, but we still have very clear philosophical differences on this issue. And so I just think I'd rather not talk about vetoes and just talk about solutions and how we can get a solution and go home. Can I just jump? I would prefer that we come to some agreement that we all could vote for. We've done some good work, I believe, collectively this session. We've worked well in a lot of ways. We've had some disagreements, but we have achieved some really positive stuff. So I would love to have us come together, have us resolve an agreement between the governor and the majority. We all resolve this thing today and that's what I would ultimately like. You're an optimistic man. Can't wait to tell the speaker. You just said that. A lot of other action has been going on, even though this teacher savings plan has consumed most of the oxygen and most of the attention of the media. Last week there was a bill or earlier this week, I suppose, it was earlier this week. It's been a long week. The House passed a marijuana legalization bill that already passed, and now it's on to the governor, which he has yet to rule one way or the other on whether he will sign it, veto it, or let it become law without a signature. This wasn't really a caucus position, but are you both satisfied with the process that played out here and do you believe it was done in a fair way? Yeah, we have been talking about this issue for a long time in this building and I think that what we have been, just like any other cultural change, we've been doing this step by step and so when it comes to marijuana policy in our state we've done some really great things around marijuana for symptom relief and we've been doing more to invest in prevention with highway safety and now with so many neighbors around us moving towards legalization it made sense for us to examine where we are and if we're ready for that step and we're not ready for a tax and regulate system here in Vermont, but I think the next step in which we heard a consensus on was that moving towards legalization is where we are and so the bill that passed does put this into effect next summer, not this summer which I think there was confusion about. Yeah, and it was sort of an untraditional path for a bill to take this year and it actually came back with a different number than it started out just because of the legislative process. Are you satisfied that it was a good process and everyone got their say? I think everyone had their say and I don't support it I was very vocally opposing it many of our caucus members did we do support medical marijuana I mean we've spent a lot of time I think Vermont has led the way in some of that and I think there's some good policy there we just didn't think about roadside safety checks and the public safety issue and that's my background there's no way I could support it and a lot of people were opposed because of that I think the process was fair the legislative process is always changing we had a chance to vote it went through the process and looks up what the governor decides to do with it if he vetoes it I think we'll work to try to sustain it because we had a majority of the caucus that opposed it I'm not saying that that can happen but I will do what I can to achieve what the administration is trying to do and what our caucus believes two main bills besides the budget still out there the economic development bill you mentioned and a housing bill in terms of economic development one of the issues out there is the TIF districts tax increment financing districts and it allows municipalities and developers to come together and developers can get a property tax break on certain development areas do you see final resolution to this I believe the house was at five new TIF districts the senate was around seven so there's maybe a chance there's a chance they come together at six I don't know are you both comfortable with expanding TIF districts here in Vermont in fact I believe the education fund through the different property tax structures is this a good step forward for the state yeah I think that the work that they have been doing in the various committees in vetting these proposals has been really well done and really well thought out and I do hope that we can come to a compromise on this because I think this economic development bill will do a lot of great things for Vermoners including what I mentioned and coming from Burlington we've definitely benefited from TIFs and so I think there are other communities who also want to be able to have access to them I know my hometown of Bennington is very eager to receive a TIF district are you comfortable with this absolutely and full disclosure Milton has two TIFs existing and it's worked well it's worked as good as can be expected they're still market driven we had the infrastructure in place and the economy was tanking but the TIF has been a benefit to the community and like Jill I agree that other communities in the state should have that same opportunity we have very few tools for economic development in Vermont and this is one I think has proven to work in both our communities on the housing bill the governor very much wants a $35 million housing bond for more affordable housing there are some differences between the housing and the housing there's a lot of difference in it on how that would be funded they both use the property tax surcharge transfer tax surcharge that was put in effect a couple of years ago resolution forthcoming on how to do that you know I think that is a conversation that is ongoing with those conference committee members I would say that we had support for the bill in the house and when we talk about economic development and when we talk about ways that we can help keep and bring new families to the state I think affordable housing is key to that and so we're going to remain at the table and do whatever we can to find a solution and our caucus is very supportive of that that was a great debate on the floor on that bill it's not that people didn't support it it was the funding mechanism that created the most controversy some misinformation that was out there that led to that but I think overall I'm very hopeful that we come to some resolution both the house and senate proposals use the property transfer surcharge to fund portions of the debt service on the bond it's just a matter of how long that transfer tax stays in effect the governor said he is willing to allow it to keep going beyond when it originally sunsets in 2019 I believe so there is there's a lot of room for agreement I think that you'll see resolution there and I think you'll see resolution on the economic development bill we have just a couple minutes left and I know many things are still up in the air here of the things that have passed and been completed so far representative Karolinski what do you see as the best thing so far in this session that has passed just out of the house well let's go with through both chambers and onto the governor okay I don't know if our the bill regarding post traumatic stress disorder coverage for our first responders has made it to the governor yet I know it's passed both of our bodies but you know one thing that we've heard from those who serve as first responders is that they're not able to access the help that they need especially mental health treatment for PTSD and I think that's incredibly important that we support our first responders and so that was a common sense approach to do one other thing to support them and help them be successful correct me if I'm wrong but I suspect you were going to point to Paid Family Leave getting through the house if I hadn't set those parameters yes you did set those parameters so I could not talk about the great work we did around Paid Family Matters well I'll give you a chance there representative Turner what do you see as I mean there's a lot of bills there's a lot of bills around mental health that we should be proud of everybody worked well on that my point would be the budget no new taxes no new fees that was critical we ran and we have been running year after year on reigning in state spending and not raising taxes and fees so I would say it's a great accomplishment that we've made it to this level we haven't got it all the way through that's the issue not done but I think that's probably the biggest issue from my perspective that we were able to achieve that in a way that we could actually support a budget I haven't voted for a budget in 12 years it's the first one I got the vote for I hope I get the vote for it again well and it wasn't that long ago that the budget did pass the house 143-1 yes any reasonable shot at finding that sort of common ground again with this V-hi thing hanging over us if the V-hi is not in it there's no way we can support it if that's not part of the deal we won't be voting for the budget are you optimistic at getting back to that unity I think that there are other places that we could even put this proposal so that we could get the budget through and move forward but again we're going to keep on talking and we're going to try to wrap this up so we can get out of here and go home to the most minority leader and thank you for watching Capital Beat we hope to bring you a wrap up of the legislative session next week depending on what happens and whether they are able to adjourn for now I'm Neil Goswami with the Vermont Press Bureau on behalf of Oregon Media and Vermont PBS thank you very much