 Welcome back to Capital Beat. It's Friday, February 5th, 2016, and it's week five in the legislature. We are going to talk a little bit about paid sick leave and some other issues. And joining me, as always, is Vermont Press Bureau reporter Josh O'Gorman and Senator Phillip Baruth from Chittenden County. Thanks so much for being here. Thank you. The paid sick leave bill we thought was coming to a close this week with passage in the Senate on a 21 to 8 vote. The Senate made some changes, defeated an amendment that would have allowed for a small business exemption. And then we got to Thursday, and there was a little bit of development. So maybe you can sort of set the stage for us of what transpired this week and what will happen next week. Sure. Just so people know, the paid sick leave bill is designed to help people who work in jobs and who have historically worked in jobs in retail mostly, food service mostly, where they have no paid time off at all, no vacation time, no combined time, no sick time. And what that means is that these people, often at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, they have no ability to stay home with a sick child. They themselves are sick, they can't stay home. So when you go through the drive-in window at your fast food place, you may be served by someone who is contagious, but they had to make that choice. Can I afford to lose a day's wage or should I stay home? Right. And they made the decision to serve you your burden. Right. So that's who the law was designed to help. At the last minute, there was a move to carve out businesses with five or fewer employees. The problem with that is that's a third of the group we were trying to help. In addition... About 20,000 people. Exactly. In addition, those five or fewer are overrepresenting the population who don't provide the benefit. So it was really, as I view it, a move that struck at the very heart of what we were trying to do. And so all the way through the committee process, all the way onto the floor, we had managed to do many, many other things to help small business, but avoid that. And this is a kind of final procedural move to try to get that. So it's my understanding that the bill that you passed in the Senate kept in place what the House passed, which was three earned sick days allowed in the first two years of employment, which would then bump up to five days after that. With an important caveat. Yes. So as I say, in the Senate, we were very concerned about small business. So my colleague, Senator Ballant, added an amendment to protect new business, startups. So you have an extra year if you're a startup. One year from the day you hire your first employee. Yes, exactly. And then the other thing that was done is my colleague, Senator Snelling, who is a business-minded Republican, but somebody who has typically spoken as well to issues like this. She put in an amendment to have any business with five or fewer employees have that same ramp-up period of two years. So with those caveats, that was the bill we were looking at. As I mentioned at the top, it was a 21 to eight vote on Wednesday, and the amendment you mentioned from Senator Brian Campion, a Democrat, failed on a 14 to 15 vote, but it did have at least five or six Democratic votes in favor of it. So we fast forward to Thursday when Senator Bill Doyle of Washington County asked to reconsider his vote, and that triggered a whole new process. Perhaps you can break the rules and the process down for folks who may not be familiar what happens at that point. So just so you know, when the framers put the system together and the people who wrote the rule books like Mason's and other people, their overriding ideas that it should be very hard to pass legislation, and it should take a long time, and I think that was a wise way to set it up. So for instance, a motion to adjourn is always preferred and in order. So no matter what's going on, if you say everybody should go home, the rules prefer them, and when you think about it, it's a very good way of slowing the process a little bit, making sure that we're sure of what we're doing. So Senator Doyle used a very little used procedure, which is if you vote with the winning majority on any issue, within 24 hours you can ask to reconsider. I think that's fair enough. The question is, having reconsidered that question, do you open up the entire debate again to a myriad of other questions? And that's where we're still trying to get clarity from the Senate Secretary among others. So Bill Doyle asked to revisit the final vote on the bill and the vote on the Campion Amendment, and that's his right. But my feeling is that we should be limiting ourselves to that, not redoing the entire debate that produced the 21 to 8 winning vote. So how common is this for somebody to move to reconsider their vote and reopen up something that had been finished really more or less the day before? It's not common at all. It's usually used when everybody in the chamber thought they were doing something and a piece got dropped out. And so most everyone wants this piece in. One of the easiest ways to do that is to have a senator reconsider their vote very quick, you put in the amendment and you move on. That's the way it's usually used in a sense with the will of the body moving in one direction. It's very rare, as in this case, to have a 15-14 vote and then to have somebody use it strategically to get a new vote. Now if you go back to the death of dignity debate, as you remember, incredibly hot button issue, we fought for years, usually 15-15 or 15-14, those kind of votes. So after two days of debate, we managed to pass the death of dignity bill. And then I don't know if you remember, but Bob Hartwell, who was actually Brian Campion's predecessor in that seat, said he wanted to reconsider his vote and after an hour or so of discussion, he pulled that back. But that's the last time I remember it being used in that way by effectively the losing side and going to someone on the winning side and saying will you reconsider so that we can have another bite at the apples. If the Campion Amendment is adopted, then who will benefit from this legislation? Is it, I guess, retail workers who work at chains, fast food restaurant workers who work at chains, but it sounds like it won't be like small independent workers, I suppose. Well, any business with five or fewer employees would not be obligated to provide paid sick leave. So I suppose you could say they gain, although they would be doing just what they do now. The people who lose are the 20,000 plus who literally have no option but to go to work sick. I have three girls and I work in a state house and it's in Montpelier and my wife is in Burlington. So when our girls get sick, she's the go-to person. I mean, if things here aren't crazy, I stay home with the girls and she goes and teaches. But that's because we have the liberty and the luxury of two incomes. You have a lot of single moms out there and that's who this disproportionately is. Single mothers, people on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale who have sick children. If you've got kids, this is a feature rather than a bug. Kids get sick. So this legislation is very, very business friendly at this point. We've carved out many things that were offensive to the business community. We've given them lots of ramp up time. But at the end of the day, the question is, will we mandate it? I believe, like the minimum wage, this is something that's a minimum for everybody and we shouldn't be saying, well, you work at a business with four employees so you don't get it. That doesn't make any sense to me. I spoke to Governor Peter Shumlin this morning about this very topic and he said he would like to see the original Senate bill passed without the small business exemption and to get to his desk quickly. So we know that on Wednesday, if Senator Doyle switches his vote, it becomes the amendment goes from losing 14 to 15 to potentially winning 15 to 14. So what happens between now and Wednesday? And what's your prediction on what will happen with that amendment? Well, I think Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell was very wise to put the question out a few days. And that gives us all time to rethink and reconsider. I think in large part, even when we're talking about it here, we're talking about the Campion Amendment as the small business exemption or the business friendly thing. What people need to hear again, I tried to make this point on the floor, but I think it's worth communicating as many times as possible. We have already done a great deal for small business, including Senator Snowing's amendment which gives them two full years before they would need to do anything. So communicating that is number one. Number two, there's a report in Vermont Digger this morning of some behind the scenes action, which personally I found troubling. And I think that that's something that needs to be looked into. I won't go into great detail except to say that it involved people from the other chamber, trying to work our chamber, things that we usually in a civil way try to stay away from. So that's another part is cleaning up our process, making sure that everybody's working in an above board and methodical way. To be fair, they did use rules that are available to any Senator at any time. There was no unethical behavior here from my reading of what happened. They simply, they- I don't know if you've read the Digger account. I have. So the question would be, is there reporting accurate? Is there reporting a full accounting of what happened? And I can't speak to those. But what I'm saying is that I found that account troubling in its presentation of what was going on to produce the motion by Senator Doyle to reconsider. I also think if the intention is to use reconsideration to open up a whole host of other amendments, to me that strikes at the heart of the process. So we will have passed a bill and then on one person's say so, we will then revisit the entire debate. That seems to me counterproductive and really not in the spirit of the rules as written. But again, not a violation of Senate rules. It's permitted under the rules and I would- We're seeking an interpretation of the second part. So you're right, reconsideration is allowed. And let's- But the rest is interpretation that we're still getting from the Senate secretary. We should point out that this is the type of lobbying effort that happens every day in this building by paid lobbyists, by lawmakers. I disagree. Well. If you look at the digger story, they're talking about an extraordinary form of pressure on a single member. And I think as they describe it, I just think it comes up to the line, if not crossing it in terms of behavior that you don't want happening every day in the state house. All right. So again, I can't speak to the complete nature of the reporting. Maybe you will provide another angle on the story. But I woke up to that this morning and it didn't help my breakfast. So we'll agree that the rule was used in a way that's allowed. Yes. How we got to that point, perhaps- And then what happens after that? Thereafter. Those are both cloudy, but you're absolutely correct on the rule itself. All right. Senator Baruch, thank you so much for joining us. Appreciate it. Yeah. Great. Thank you. Good to talk to you. And welcome back. We're now going to talk to Speaker Schap Smith. Thank you so much for being here. Hey, it's great to be here. Good. We chatted with Senator Baruch earlier about paid sick leave. Your chamber passed this bill last year. Pretty slim, margin 72 to 63, I think it was. The Senate has made some changes that they say are even more palatable to small business. I'm assuming you've had a chance to look at those changes. How are you feeling about those Senate changes at this point? Well, the bill in the House was the result of a pretty delicate negotiation between business interests and those who really felt that working for monitors needed some help. And that was a compromise that we felt pretty comfortable with. I have some concerns about what I'm seeing coming out of the Senate. It's not clear to me that it would work in the House. Now, the Senate bill that passed out of committee and came to the floor was one that we were discussing, and we felt we were pretty comfortable with. I think that the five-person exemption could create some real challenges. How about the, so there were two amendments, as we briefly talked about earlier, the Campion Amendment to put in the five employer or fewer small business exemption, and then another one from Senator Dianne Snelling that essentially bumps out the waiting period until 2018 for small businesses with five or fewer. Is that something you all accept? So I haven't seen Senator Snelling's amendment, so I can't really speak to that. I was referring to the Campion Amendment, which I think would run into some real challenges in the House. Now, look, we resolve these challenges all the time. My sense is it would go to a conference committee and we would deal with it there and come back. Do you think it's headed to a conference committee no matter what, whether there is this small business exemption or not? I can't speak for the leadership of the committee I have talked briefly with Helen Head. I think that the bill, as it came out of committee, is something that we would be willing to look at and probably would be acceptable, although I can't say for sure. OK. All right. We'll move on to a couple of other topics. It's been a few weeks, about a month now, since the governor put out his plans for the session. What can you tell us about where some of these initiatives are at this point in the House, particularly with the budget and other funding mechanisms? So the budget, we are just starting to really dig into the budget. The Appropriations Committee got the budget last week and they're trying to understand all of the moving parts. The Ways and Means Committee is taking a look at the revenue that was recommended by the administration. And our evaluation right now is, is the revenue that has been proposed appropriate? Is the size of the box for the revenue appropriate? Is there a place within the budget that we could find some more savings? And what about the new proposals that have been put forward? So we're digging into that. Conversation has been good. Mitzi Johnson, who's the chair of Appropriations, was checking in on a daily basis and has his Janet answer. So I feel good about the process. Was there anything that's been ruled out already by your members? I'm sure you've had some informal polling and discussions with the Democratic caucus at this point. Well, you may assume more organization that really exists. No, we haven't ruled anything out. And frankly, I think it's hard for you to rule anything out unless you have got some sort of alternative. And so it's really important for us to fully understand what the budget is, where the spending is, and then we can understand, are there areas that we can change for the revenue side? One of the proposals that Governor Shillman offered was expanding attacks that's currently on hospitals and nursing homes to include doctors and dentists. So as to help close the so-called Medicaid gap, is that something that you would support at this point? I want to see how it works in other states. I do think that it's something that's open for discussion. I think the challenge there is that if we're going to raise that money off of the providers, we have to make sure that we're putting money back in their pockets in increased reimbursement. We don't want it to be a net loss for them. So that's what I need to understand fully in looking at the budget. Looking back, in hindsight, do you think that the 0.7% payroll tax that you proposed in 2015 would have been the right move in hindsight now to close that gap or what? I thought it was the right move last year. I was somebody who supported that idea. I do think that the challenge around that particular revenue source was making sure that people who were paying it felt like they would get a net benefit from it. In other words, the whole theory is that the Medicaid shortfall ends up being subsidized by insurance premiums. And so there's a hidden tax on insurance premiums. We needed to show businesses who were paying a payroll tax that that hidden tax was going to be reduced. And I don't think we did that effectively last year. The pop bill is working its way through the Senate right now. And it looks like it won't be voted on today by the Senate Finance Committee. It'll bump into next week. Are we really running out of time here for your side of the building to do its due diligence? Well, it's clearly going to need a lot of diligence in the house. It's going to be something that hasn't been really fully vetted in years past. So it's not something that starts from a building block already. I think it's too early to declare that we're running out of time. My hope is that a bill will show up in the house either at the end of February or shortly after we get down the town meeting break. Which end of the end of February, really. Right, shortly after the time break. But at that point in time, we can focus on it. I've been very clear with the governor that we won't look at the bill. I have also been clear with him that my read is that it doesn't have enough support right now in the house. I'm not saying that that will be the case later. But that people have real questions about it, not only about the substance of the bill, but about whether this is the time to do it. Yeah, I mean, there was a real conspicuous lack of applause during the governor's state of the state address when he announced that initiative compared with other things that he had announced. I didn't notice that. Look, I think that regulation of marijuana is something that is going to happen in the state of Vermont. And I think that it's something that we have to make sure we do right. And it's not about doing it quickly. So I'm curious to see what the Sears bill does. I haven't had a chance to fully look at it. I'm looking forward to briefing on it soon. I think Senator Sears will appreciate you attaching his name to it. Do you think that the governor has the ability to sell it to the House at this point? Essentially, you and I have talked about this before. And you've said it's up to really one person, the governor, to sell it not only to the House, but to Vermonters. Well, is that possible still? So I think that the administration needs to work hard to demonstrate that this is a workable format. And the governor is going to be part of that. But it's not just the governor. It also has to be Vermonters. And I think that people's ambivalence is a reflection of many of their constituents. And I agree with the governor that the war on drugs with regard to marijuana has been a failed war. The question is, what would be successful, and is this it? And that's, I think, the real question. I had a group of kids come in from my son's middle level. And they came and talked to me about the legalization and regulation of marijuana. And they were split. And they were really concerned about whether this would increase access to marijuana among young people. But the thing that I asked them was, how hard is it to get marijuana now? And they all agreed it's actually pretty easy. At the middle school level. At the middle school. There were some middle school and high school. And so that tells me, and they said that it was easier to get than alcohol and cigarettes. So that tells me that we've got a problem on our hands already. And the question is, will this address that problem? Before we let you go, have you been following the presidential race? I have. Yeah. Do you have a prediction for the primary in New Hampshire on Tuesday? I think it's too early to call. Too early? Yeah. But I think that there's probably a good chance that a Vermonner might win the race. Fair enough. Very good. All right, and before we wrap up today's show, we're going to talk a little bit about our experiences on the campaign trail following Bernie Sanders. I was out in Iowa for the caucuses. I spent the weekend and a few days out there. And I've got to say, I very much appreciate our primary system and our ballot voting system. Yeah, tell us a little bit about the insanity that it is the caucus. Did you see anyone flipping any coins to decide new races? There were no coin tosses at my precinct that I was at. But it was, I won't even say controlled chaos. It was just straight up chaos. Hundreds and hundreds of people packed into a church trying to figure out how many Hillary supporters were there, how many Bernie supporters were there. And in the end, it wasn't going to make much difference because it was very clear that the Hillary people outnumbered the Bernie people. But the way they counted did seem a little haphazard. And I wonder how that might have impacted things if the count was closer than it really was. It's a sort of a throwback system of government. I'm not sure it's the most effective and efficient election system, but it is what it is. And as we all know, Bernie Sanders came in second place in Iowa, lost by 3 tenths of a percent to Hillary. We think there's some questions about, as I mentioned, the system. Bernie sort of clings to that at times. Other times, he says, yeah, Hillary won. So because of that showing, he took a lot of momentum into New Hampshire where you were this week. Tell us a little bit about what's happening on the ground there. Absolutely. So shortly after Iowa, I guess he flew into, I think, Nashwood about 5 AM on Tuesday morning. And there was a big gaggle of faithful who were there to meet him at the airport. And he had an event in Keen. And I talked with an 18-year-old who had spent much of the last night before putting up just Bernie signs all through town. So as soon as I rolled into Keen, I knew exactly where I was and where I was going. He was certainly welcome. And we should know that's kind of a college town with Keen State down there. Really strong Bernie country. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, this is how liberal it was. Rather than demonizing single mothers, when Bernie mentioned single mothers, everybody applauded. So that gives you an idea of what sort of people are coming out to it to his rallies. Interestingly enough, though, I drove about a 30-mile stretch of secondary highway. I didn't see a single Democratic sign at one point. I saw tons of Trump. I saw the occasional Jeb. I saw some Kasech. I did not see a Hillary or Bernie sign for about 30 miles. And so I don't know if that means that their people aren't supporting them or if there was an effort to take down the signs. Or maybe they were smart enough not to stop their car in a highway. Yes, I suppose that might be true. So we've seen the latest polling in New Hampshire. Bernie's up anywhere from 20 to 30 points. What's realistic in your view after seeing what's happening on the ground there? Well, Hillary's done well in New Hampshire in the past, but I don't think that history is really going to help her in this particular instance. Because Bernie has just, even though it's on the other side of the Connecticut River, he certainly has a lot of well-wishers there. Even before he ran for president, I imagine. So I think we're going to see a Bernie victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday. And we should say that that will be a fairly remarkable thing, given that Hillary Clinton ran there in 2008 and won the New Hampshire primary over Barack Obama then Senator Barack Obama. So a Bernie win this year, eight years later, would be a pretty mighty feat taking down the Clinton machine. Yeah, and hopefully it might give him a little bit of momentum going into South Carolina, where he is not leading by anything. And not likely to win. So we'll check that out in a few weeks. We'll leave the show there this week. Thanks again for joining us. And join us again next week on Capitol Beat, a joint production of Vermont Press Bureau and Orchimedia. And you can find the shows at orchimedia.net or brahmamprespiro.com. Thanks again. We'll see you next week.