 Hello and welcome to Channel 17's Town Meeting Television. I'm Matt Kelly with Part 3 of 3 of our 2018 Chittenden County Democratic State Senator Candidate Forums. I'm pleased to be joined on the stage tonight by Chris Pearson, Democrat State Senator from Burlington, also former Richmond Select Board Member, Steve May, and Ginny Lyons, Select Board Member, current Chittenden County Select Board Member. Senator. Senator. Excuse me. I'm from Williston. A reminder that this is a live call-in show, so if you do have questions for our candidates, please feel free to dial in and ask your questions directly at 862-3966, whether you have questions about increasing property taxes, the opiate crisis, or whatever concerns may be on your mind. Now is your chance to dial on in and ask those questions. We do welcome those viewers joining us online at ch17.tv slash live. Our format this evening is very simple. We'll do an opening statement from each candidate, and then we'll go to a round robin question and answer where we'll ask each Senator one question, the other two will then have the opportunity to respond. And we begin with Senator Chris Pearson of Burlington, your opening statement, please. Thank you, Matt, and thanks to Channel 17 for having us in this event. I think it's really important for viewers to get to talk to us directly if they call in or whatever. I'm motivated to serve in the state Senate. I was in the state house, legislature for many years before that, because I look at state government and I'm frankly frustrated that it's not representative of us. I mean, we own government. It is meant to be representative. That's why we have a representative democracy. But I'm one of three out of 30 senators that's under 50, for instance, so young people's voices aren't represented very well. We have a real problem of poverty in Vermont. There is not very many low-income voices in the legislature at all. And you look at the climate crisis. This is staring us down the barrel. We're tiptoeing there. These are issues that I don't think are being brought forcefully enough to the forefront. And I'm frustrated by the economies is leaving too many people behind, wages have stagnated for a great majority of Vermonters. No class is struggling. All of these issues need to be brought to the table and not just plopped on the table but forcefully advocated for and brought through the legislative process. That's what I've tried to do. I'm proud of some of the successes. This year we put a $15 minimum wage bill on the governor's desk. I introduced that bill, I think, going back four years ago in the house. So it takes time. These battles take a while. But those are the issues that motivate me. I'm proud to be finishing up my first term on behalf of the Chittendon County Senate and I hope voters will send me back. Very good. Thank you, Chris. Steve May, your reasons for running and your candidacy. Matt, thank you. And thank you again for Channel 17 hosting this event. So my name is Steve May and I am running for state senate. This moment is really about crisis and a sense that when we talk about affordability, that that gap is too wide for too many folks. When the governor talks about affordability, we've seen that he's talking about not ordinary Vermonters but his buddies, his business cronies that are second home owners that are doing just fine. And the rest of us are struggling. The moonlighting in Vermont economy is problematic for too many of us. We live in a place where the real economy has 3% unemployment, but we know too many of us are working two and three jobs to make ends meet. That's not there. It's not just, it's not right, and it's not the Vermont way. I'm focused in particular on the opioid crisis because I'm a clinical social worker and for 15 years, I've been honored to serve addicts and alcoholics and their families and I've seen some real progress from the legislature dealing with the opioid crisis. We've constricted the flow of painkillers, but there's a much bigger issue in terms of pain management and being able to actually engage a real conversation about what addicts, alcoholics and their families need coming home from rehab and recovery. I hope to be able to lead that conversation if I'm fortunate enough to serve in the legislature next year. Very good. Thank you, Steve Mayn. Ginny Lyons, your opening statement and what qualifies you to run for reelection. Thanks a lot, Matt. It's a real pleasure to be here. I also want to thank Channel 17 for this opportunity. It means a great deal to the citizens of Chittenden County and the voters of Chittenden County as it does to us as we move toward the primary election on August 14th. I bring many years of experience as a college biology professor at Trinity College where I taught a number of non-traditional students who had and continue to have struggles with meeting ends, meet student loans, taking care of kids, keeping a job going, all the things that we worry about today. So I understand their experiences and I think many experiences of people today who are looking for necessary child care and other supports that state government can provide as necessary. I also served as select board chair in Williston for most of my 14 or 15 years on the select board and during that time gained a great deal of understanding about land use planning among other things. My own background lends itself to water quality, to land use planning, to energy issues and also to healthcare where we have made some significant strides toward opiate addiction prevention. And so going back to the legislature for me is really absolutely critical as we can try to turn the corner so that we can help people recover, so that we can put money into prevention and put our efforts into a system of care for folks. This is an important issue. There are other financial issues obviously that we've been working on and I look forward to taking a step back into the Senate and representing all the towns of Chittenden County as I have in the past. Thank you. Very good. Thank you, Jenny. Now we move to our question and answer period here in a reminder. If you have a question of one of the sitting senators or candidate Steve May, you're asked to dial in at 862-3966. We'll begin here with you, Mr. May, kind of building on your opening statement here. What do you feel is the most immediate crisis for this state of Vermont and what bill would you immediately introduce if you were to go to the state Senate in order to try to rectify that problem? Well, I thank you for the question because it really is a critical moment in terms of I use the word crisis and I don't use that word lightly. When we talk about the opiate crisis, one of the things that has become increasingly clear to me as a practitioner over time is that the underlying concern for patients we never addressed. And let me be even more specific. The vast majority of folks who came into care for an opiate problem started with a pain issue. They went to their doctor because either they were struggling with oral health issues, maybe they had a molar pulled and they struggled or they were a weekend warrior and they banged up a knee. They were in pain and they went to their doctor for pain relief and that pain relief never got addressed. They got a script. They got a script for Dilaudid or Oxycontin and that script, the doctor was promised that they were prescribing something that was less habit forming, less addictive than ibuprofen and aspirin. That's literally the language that was used by pharma sales reps. So I think we need to take and have a full scale inquiry into the practices of big pharma and look at systemically what happened in this crisis. The attorney general will be deciding on some litigation, whether or not to join with other municipalities around the country to pay or recapture some of the costs associated with treatment. And that's entirely appropriate, but that is really just limited to making the state of Vermont and the different towns whole. Families deserve some sense of propriety. We need to wrap this up. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Steve. Ginny, your priorities for the upcoming biennium, what do you see as the main concern facing most of Vermonters and what would be your first priority to enter in terms of a bill to try to address them? You know, this is a tough question to answer simply because there are a lot of reports coming back to us regarding mental health, regarding adverse family experiences, adverse childhood experiences, systemic changes to the child care system in Vermont. And those recommendations and reports will be coming to us between October and November. I am very interested in some of the information that we'll be getting from our mental health folks in the state as well as our folks working on adverse family experiences. I'm sort of reserving judgment on that, but there is one bill. I know a couple bills that I know I will either be introducing myself or co-sponsoring. Certainly, it's time for us to have a water quality bill that has funding source, a robust funding source, and a systemic way of deploying those funds. We're way past time with that. And so, I will be looking at that bill and perhaps some other bills on prescription drugs or opiates, but as I said, I have a lot of interest as we go forward. And I'm reserving my first bill for some of the reports. I do have one bill that will ask for a constitutional amendment, an equal rights amendment that will be based on allowing for equal rights, regardless of sex, gender, gender identity, race, creed, and so on, religious affiliation. This is a bill that will take at least two biennial for completion. And we'll follow up on that in another question, Ginny. Thank you. Chris, the question back to you that we started with. What are your main concerns that you see that are facing the Vermodgers? And what are your priorities for the biennium? Sure. I'm glad you didn't ask me to file just one bill. You know, we all have, I think, Echo Center Alliance, a broad range of interests. And it's hard to pick one crisis. We can talk about the lake. That's clearly a crisis. If I'm only picking one, it would be $15 minimum wage. The best thing we can do to stimulate our economy, help rebuild our middle class, and give working families a leg up is to put more money in their pockets. And we did pass that bill this year. It was going to be phased in over five years, I think it was. Now our minimum wage is $10.50. Massachusetts just passed a $15 minimum wage. We need to make sure working Vermodgers are keeping up and have an economy. I mean, basically, you work 40 hours a week. You should not live in poverty. That's not a, I don't think, a very controversial idea. And that means we have to increase our minimum wage. So that would be the one I would go to. But Senator Lyons mentioned water quality. I agree. This is something that's a vital community resource that we have not done our due diligence to protect over many, many generations now. And we have to come to grips with that problem, face it head on. I also authored small business bills to boost small businesses. These are basically consumers in our economy and in our society that too often get overlooked as we chase large corporations who promise us a lot of number of jobs and really too often exploit our workforce. So that gives you a little taste of some of my priorities, I guess. Very good. Jimmy, we'll go to you for the next question. Press release was recently put out that the Democratic state senators for Chintin County are running as a slate candidacy. Can you explain what that is and how that benefits Chintin County voters? So I would like to define what I talked about as I thought about the slate. I think one of the things that you learn when you're in the Senate is how well to work with other folks in the Senate. Our Senate delegation has worked very well together and we support one another. So in that sense, I think that's what I mean by slate. I do support the current senators who have worked very hard alongside of me and I appreciate the work that they've done. I don't see this as a block candidacy, which is what I think the word slate means to some folks, but it is really an opportunity to say, look, we've done a lot of good work together. We have represented Chintin County very well and we support one another. There are other very well qualified people running for the Senate and I encourage them to continue their efforts. But I'm disappointed that the word slate has been sort of used the way it has. But for me, it means people who are supportive understand one another and we have significant differences. We are not all the same. And you can hear that as you watch these different programs that Channel 17 has put together. Very good. Chris Pearson, slate candidacy, does it benefit Chintin County voters? Well, let me see. It benefits Chintin County voters to have the six of us who represent the county in the Senate. We're 20% of the Senate working very well together. And we have a broad range of interests. We have, we touch basically every committee in the building. So if you're interested in water and climate issues, I'm on those committees. Healthcare, Senator Lyons is on those committees. So Senator Ingram, you have Philip Baruth as a chair of education. You have Tim Ash as the pro tem of the Senate running the whole thing. So in many ways, I think we do a good job for the county. I like to think that we work very hard and we work well together. And on all the key votes, we are aligned. We will go at each other, we will test theories together, we will challenge each other. But when it really comes down to it, when the work is completed, we stand next to each other. And so in that way, we wanted to communicate to the county. Look, we support each other, we work well, we enjoy working together. But we're not, we are six individuals. The Senate is made up of 30 individuals. It's a very individualistic kind of chamber. You don't have people walking in lockstep and that's true with our delegation. But the bottom line is, I think we work very well together. We deliver well for the county and we're all trying to go back. Very good. Steve May, a question to you. Slate candidacy. Does it benefit Chittenden County voters? And does it allow for an upstart like yourself to come on in and have his voice heard in Montpelier? That's not a loaded question at all. Well, let's say this. I know all six of the incumbents and have various relationships with all of them, like them, by and large, all as individuals. And so this is not about any one of them. What I would say is, as I'm talking to people around the county, as I've been campaigning, folks feel like there's a lack of engagement. Because the debate that you would normally have in an at large field, they feel like they're not getting as much. And they experience a bit of a chilling effect, that the debate isn't as robust. It's not as engaged. There's going to be an NPA in the new North End. But this is the only meaningful forum that we have on the schedule between now and primary day. So I think folks are really thirsting for information. And they like to kick the tires. And it's harder to do that when folks have kind of, for better or for worse, have been perceived to kind of have like a non-aggression pack. Thank you very much. Chris, the next question is for you. What is wrong with the no new taxes, no new fees pledge of Governor Scott? Well, nobody is dying to pay more taxes. OK, so let's get that on the table. I think there's those of us who voted for tax increases over the years, you know, I think are sensitive to that. I have advocated to put more taxes on wealthy Vermonters. The economy has boomed for them. They've left it's left too many behind. So all tax bills are not equal. What is particularly damaging, though, about the governor's pledge is how it relates to our schools. We have a local control. We have voters around the state, almost universally approving school budgets. In this past year, the budget increases were below inflation, below the target that, in fact, the governor set for them. And then Montpelier responds to that vote of local local communities and says, OK, here's what your property tax is going to be. What happened because of some sort of broad campaign promise is there was no alternative. Well, what are we going to do? Are we supposed to ignore local communities who've just voted to spend a little bit more on their schools? And so this is a real interruption of local control and really puts Montpelier in a bind. The governor wanted us to spend a bunch of one time money. That's not dependable going forward that a lot of that had to do with the Trump tax cuts and the trickle down into state coffers. We can't depend on that next year. So what are we going to do next year? Next year, the governor is not going to say, hey, you know, we're out of that phase. Now he can raise property taxes. He's going to actually be asking us to cut school budgets. That's where we drew the line. We're not interested in weakening our schools. Vermonters are rightly frustrated with property tax as a mechanism to fund our schools. I've advocated for a shift to income tax to pay for schools for many years. I will keep pushing on this. The property tax is a problem. Vermonters also want strong schools. We want to educate our kids well and we need to find a better way to pay for it. OK, Steve, your response. What is wrong with no new taxes and fees? The governor's pledge. Well, for starters, it takes a one-size-fits-all approach. There will be times when a tax increase is prudent. It's good economic policy. You know, I remember the quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes, a liberal Republican, who said that taxes are the thing that you need to do to live in a civilized society. And nobody revels in a tax increase. Certainly as a select board member, I always tried to bring our budgets in under 2%. And I know from years of dealing with both Chris and Jenny that they've been incredibly prudent in terms of financial policy. And to Chris's credit, the bill he's talking about that he and Senator Polina have been trying to move through the legislature would be a game changer in terms of elders and making sure that the property tax doesn't leave folks house poor as they hit their golden years. So I think being really prudent in terms of tax policy means being able to look at taxes and revenue generation on a case-by-case basis. Okay. Very good. Thank you, Steve. Jenny, what's wrong with no new taxes, no new fees policy? Well, first of all, there's good news and bad news about it. So the bad part, I think, is that we have a number of needs in the state. And we, how do you assess all the needs that we have? And some folks have done that in terms of the human services area and found a serious set of unmet needs. And that begins with an opiate and substance misuse issue, department of children and families trying to move money into supporting kids in need, children in need of support. And we did something about that without raising taxes and fees. And that was some good news. And that was good news because we were able to identify systemic changes that could be made within. So in the system, make some changes in the organization that would relieve money in one place and move it to another. On the other hand, there are places where those unmet needs can't be met in that way, either by systemic changes or by shifting, you know, shifting resources. And so we do need to keep the door open for new fees. And I think I go back to the water quality issue. That was a real bummer for me. I think it's really a shame that we didn't aggressively go after some funding for water quality. In terms of the work that we did on finance committee with education and income tax, we did a huge amount of work. We tried to relieve people of the federal tax changes and provide money back. We changed the income tax categories and rates. We and and we are very cognizant of the property tax issue. We are one of the I think we're the only state that has such a high property tax burden. Move and all of our sales and use taxes are going into education as well. But we know that our local school boards are working really hard and they're working really hard to hold the the line down. So all of that to say an assessment is needed. Looking at needs assessment. And then we have a study in the in the budget that was finally passed without signature. And that study will give us some information about how better to how to improve our tax system. There's a there's a lot more to that and not the least of which is we should not be taking extra monies and putting it into operational expenses. The way the governor has suggested we do and we acquiesced a little bit to that. That's really poor fiscal management. We heard that from the National Council of State legislators and others, including our treasurer. So this is a huge issue. And I just like folks to know that we're very aware. We're going to stay in state government and Steve made this question next one is for you. Democratic state auditor Doug Hoffer has just released a report that is somewhat critical of some state programs that they these programs aren't showing verifiable or quantifiable results. As I understand the report, can you speak to the inefficiencies of government and how that speaks to what the average citizen has to pay for taxes as we talk about tax and spend fiscal policy here? Sure. The auditor. Have you read the report? I have not read the report. I've heard of the report this morning. As I understand it, Doug Hoffer was was saying that several of the business incentive programs that the state has job training, we're talking millions of dollars in these programs that are being spent. He can't he can't determine whether or not they're actually delivering a return on investment for Vermont taxpayers. And I think that's incredibly frustrating. I think that if you're going to if you're going to say to taxpayers that we owe it, we are going to use some of this money to generate revenue to to seed businesses, you need to be able to also turn to them and say, here's how we did well and here's how we did poorly. And learning from that experience, this is what we should do going forward. Doug also made a really solid point this afternoon on on VPR that in terms of return on investment, investing in large scale capital projects like affordable housing provide a much better bang for bang for the buck as opposed to kind of the mercenary two year two year grant the out of town business owner that comes in, takes your tax credits and then has no connection to your. So my question is what is your policy? What is your belief on those programs? Would you continue funding them? Would you not? What is your position? So the way I think about incentive programs. I think where they've worked best is when they've been clustered around a certain area of development. So renewable energy. If you are going to have a special development zone or a incentive, I would want to create an incubator kind of environment where the the the businesses that you are trying to nurture are all in the same field. And there's a kind of synergy going back and forth. OK. Jenny, Doug Hoffer's report unquantifiable results for millions of dollars being spent on the state programs. Yeah, excuse me. Yes, I have looked at the report. I haven't fully digested it yet. I probably will go back and look at it again. This issue is something that we have taken up in the finance committee in the past. And then I don't remember whether we asked Doug or I think we can't direct him as a separate office. But he has done an amazing amount of work in looking at programs like the TIF, Tax Increment Financing and VEGGI, which is an economic incentive program for jobs as well. And looked at whether or not those jobs would have come to the state but for the program. And that's the key issue. And we've been trying to deal with the but for now for a long time. One of the goals the legislature has is to identify programs that are data informed or database. In other words, based on research verifiable outcomes. And these, his report begins to tell us that we don't have the right criteria in place. On the other hand, I've been a really, I was a strong supporter for the TIF program, the Tax Increment Finance program, where there's an opportunity for development such as this happening in Bennington or as this is happening here in Burlington or South Burlington where investment money comes from initial property taxes. So that money can go back in. So we have we have some work to do. That's what I don't know that you just categorically end a program, but at least you take the report seriously. This is not this is very serious. If it's about jobs and some of our job incentive programs, that one is very concerning because we have so many people who are in underpaid jobs or have been trying to get into the workforce. If this isn't working, we need to change the tune. We need to look at what are what are the criteria that we're assessing. So I look forward to reading the report more fully. Chris, have you read the report? I haven't. I've read the summary of this report and I've worked with Otter Doughoffer a lot over the years. I call him Data Man and his themes are the themes that I echo to try to echo in the legislature, you know, that we have money that goes to businesses to retrain people who've maybe been pushed out of their jobs or businesses that are trying to bring new people, get them qualified in. But actually those dollars go to the same companies over and over and over. Or you look at tax credit program that went to Green Mountain Coffee, Keurig. You know, I think it was 10 million dollars over a series of years. Then they turned around and got sold for 14 billion dollars. And we're all going, hey, can we have that 10 million dollars back? We actually did. When I was in the house, we passed a law that would claw back those monies in the event of a sale that clearly demonstrates maybe they didn't need our tax dollar support. I actually would take the approach of ending this corporate welfare programs. And maybe I wouldn't be successful across the board, but make them come in and prove that these programs are working. The But 4 clause, what it means to Vermonters may not be aware, is we would not be able to create these jobs, these 10 jobs, these 200 jobs, but for these tax credits that the state is giving us. That's very, very, very difficult to prove. And actually I don't like the tests that we give them to demonstrate that they're answering the But 4 clause. I think it's sort of a widespread joke that we all recognize is not really working. And underpinning all of that and my concern and concern of others is that our small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy, that are creating jobs and are absolutely struggling to get capital. And they can't walk in and qualify for these tax write-offs because they're too small. And they can't walk into the bank and get simple, straightforward access to capital because they don't have the business history to prove that they're viable or what have you. So until we have more rigorous tests that really, really prove that these tax credits are essential, I think we need to end this program. We've got a lot of unmet needs in the state and we could spend it better. Very good. We'll move on to our next question here to you, Ginny. Property taxes, property tax notices just went out and there is a rather large snafu with that. This comes on the heel of last year refunds being delayed considerably. What's going on? Is state government actually functioning for all of Vermonters? The systems that Vermonters depend on on a day-to-day basis seem to be breaking down. This is a very good question. I cannot answer why the tax department hasn't done his job effectively. I know that they're scrambling right now to make corrections. The state government, by and large, from what I have seen is in some ways under people and there are insufficient resources put into programs that require a lot of work. I know when another governor was in the office, Governor Douglas, there were huge cuts to the agency of natural resources. There were huge cuts to agency of human services. There was reorganization. I don't know exactly what happened to the tax department with that. So, by and large, I am extremely supportive of the people who are in state government and I do not know, I can't answer your question about what is the snafu? What's the problem in the tax department? I do know that they're working hard to correct it. So, I plead ignorance on that one, but that's, yeah, just generally, I think we need to pay attention to the needs in the offices of state government and make sure that they're well peopled, resourced. So, Chris, to you, your point here, I mean, again, late taxes, notices that are incorrect, thousands of dollars that are having to be spent in terms of man hours to answer the questions of Vermonters who have received incorrect notices. What's the solution here? Well, I hope you'll ask the governor this question. I mean, he runs the tax department, he staffs the people, he picks the people that are in charge of the tax department, but that's not a very satisfying answer. Part of what's going on also, in addition to what Senator Lyons mentioned, is that our research on computer systems running the software and the actual hardware running state government is decades old, you know, like floppy drive era here. So, that's a realistic challenge, and we have to balance when we're writing budgets, do we want new computers or do we want to address the opioid crisis or do we want to keep our kids in school? Or, you know, it's very difficult, but it's also, I think, emblematic of the fact that we had a budget come together later than we've ever had in state history. I mean, it was dependent on the five days that the governor has to not sign a bill that then becomes law, and day five was June 30th, the fiscal year starts July 1st. So, the tax department couldn't get the jumpstart. We passed virtually the same budget six weeks earlier, that would have given the tax department lead time, and this comes about, I don't want to pick on the governor too much, but for two years now, he's been governor for two years, and two years now, basically in early May, he's put humongous rewrites of education funding, education proposals on the table with two weeks in the legislative session to go. We've been working for four months at this point, and we only work for four and a half months of the year, like we're not working now until January. A lot of Vermonters don't know that, it's very part-time. If he's going to keep playing these games and put us huge proposals on the table May 1st, these are not essentially not serious proposals because of the timeline, that has ramifications, and Vermonters need to understand that these things are connected, and maybe he scores some political points because he beats up on us because we're interested in raising taxes, as though that's what motivates us. Actually, strong schools motivates us, but these games have ramifications, and right now you're seeing it come out in snafus on property tax bills. Property tax bills, late tax refunds, Steve, is state government serving Vermonters at its best? Well, I think you'd have to say no, but I think for all of the reasons that Chris and Jenny laid out, you have an infrastructure that is aging, you have a job core that is insufficient to actually deliver the service. I do have one other thought about this. I've had the opportunity to work in my career in a bunch of different places, and on the Canadian side of the border, they actually have something called Service Canada, which is kind of a one-stop shop for the 30, 40, 50 most likely service interactions that the general public would have, regardless of department. It's kind of like your DMV meets your town hall, but you can go and get your fishing license, and you can also go and get permits if you're in construction. And being able to say to Vermonters that part of the bargain that we're going to make with you is that, yes, we are going to collect taxes, we are going to run a government, but we have an expectation as the people who run that government that that government's gonna run lean and that it's gonna provide you a quality product as inexpensively as possible. That's what we owe the general public. Very good, Steve. Chris will move to you for our final question before we get to closing statements here. Ginny had talked about constitutional amendment. Tim Ash on Wednesday had mentioned that he possibly would like to introduce a constitutional amendment making the governor's term four years. Can you speak to that constitutional amendment, the one that Ginny wants to make, which we'll give you that time to speak about, and constitutional amendments in general? Well, sure. So the four-year term, did Senator Ash say that that was only for governor or legislature as well? He was saying for the governor. Yeah, we're one of two states, I think at this point, New Hampshire being the other that has a two-year term. I support a four-year term. I don't think Vermonters want more campaigns, but you want to balance it with Vermonters. We also have an expectation that we get to meet candidates, talk to them directly. So you got to balance that. The reason I think it's probably time to move to a four-year term is we have big problems. And the reality is in Montpelier, every other year is an election year, and the nature of elected folks is it's an election year. Maybe we won't dive it to this controversial thing. I think our problems are significant enough, whether you're looking at the lake or healthcare or property tax reform, that we need more than a year to really come up with solutions. And in that way, I think a four-year term, it's working, every other state except for New Hampshire has a four-year term for governor. I think that's probably a reasonable solution. What I like about the constitutional amendment is it's not just up to the legislature. We kick the tires, we figure out how it could work, and then voters get the chance to weigh in. So ultimately, voters are gonna have the say in this question, and that's totally appropriate. Steve, constitutional amendments in general, and then in particular, four-year term for governor? So I'm a big fan of constitutional amendments for the reason that Chris just pointed out. I believe that in a state that makes town meeting into a holiday, it's a tradition that we hold dear, the least we can do is consult the public. It's why I've supported initiative and referendum in Vermont, if we were to ever do initiative, it would have to be indirect initiative, but that would be a bill that I would consider introducing because I think we get interesting and solid policy when we let more voices into the system. And like Chris and Jenny, I also have a constitutional amendment that I would introduce, and it would be to create a right to healthcare that we should have a right to basic and adequate healthcare for all. Very good. Ginny, constitutional amendment, I know you have one, you spoke briefly of it, speak to that, and then a four-year term for governor before we do our closing statement. Sure. So constitutional amendments, I believe, are helpful, especially in the case of the elections process or an equal rights amendment, our constitution was written many years ago, so it's good to update it from time to time. The issue, remember, I don't know if people understand, but once a bill is introduced, it goes through a process for two years, the first biennium, and then it comes back and it has to be passed by the legislature another biennium, so that's a second vote on the same proposal, and then it goes to the voters. So constitutional amendment really goes through the ringer, so there's a lot of opportunity for people to learn about it and understand what it means. So I think we have a good process. The constitutional amendment that Senator Ash is introducing, and Chris has talked about, and Steve have mentioned, that proposal giving the governor a four-year term, I think for me, I think of three equal branches of government, and if we're gonna have an executive branch that has four years in office, then I think at least the Senate and possibly the House should have a crack at the same length of time. I'm hoping that that is a debate that will happen as that bill goes forward, so that's a big consideration, obviously. In terms of my own amendment, it is an equal rights amendment that goes beyond sex, it goes to gender orientation, racial background, ethnicity, and a number of categories that I think are underrepresented within our Constitution. The value of a constitutional amendment, in particular an equal rights amendment, is that it allows for the Constitution to stand on its own. We don't have to pass a right to marriage law. We don't have to pass equal pay for equal work, as I have done in the Senate, because those things stand underneath this umbrella of that equal rights amendment. So yeah, I think this will be a fun conversation, yeah. Very good, Ginny, thank you very much. Time now for our closing statements from each of our candidates. We'll ask each of them to take 30 seconds to sum up their candidacy and why they think they should be your next Chittenden County State Senator, and we'll begin with you, Stephen May. Well, I want to thank Channel 17 again for this opportunity. So I'm running because I'm concerned about wages, I'm concerned about student loans and a need for student loan relief. I'm concerned about healthcare and the need to bring about basic and adequate healthcare for every Vermonter. And if I am fortunate enough to be elected, I want to go to work and champion those causes for everyday Vermonters across this county and across the state. Very good, Steve May, thank you very much for your time tonight. Ginny Lyons, your closing statements, 30 seconds on why you want to return to the State Senate. Thank you, Matt. And thank you all for tuning in on this beautiful day. Let's hope it's still beautiful. I have a lot more to do in the Senate. I look forward to working on water quality, environmental issues, healthcare issues, prescription drug costs, and on and on, I really enjoy representing every single town in Chittenden County. And I know I've worked with many of you on different issues, whether you're from Westford or Essex or Richmond or Underhill or Burlington, Williston, South Burlington, Shelburne, Charlottes and so on, I know I've left out Hinesburg and Bolton and so you know what, thank you all for your confidence in me in the past and I really ask for your vote on August 14th in the primary. Very good, Ginny Lyons, thank you. Chris Pearson, your final comments on your candidacy for State Senate. Sure, I've been honored to be finishing up my first term in the Senate and I had served in the House. Serving in the legislature is an incredible job, it is very challenging, I'm learning all the time, it is maddening often, sort of wanna rip your hair out. The bottom line is the government works for all of us and our economy has left far too many families behind, people are working two, three jobs, people are working full-time, living in poverty, people are one broken down car away from being in real financial trouble or a health emergency away from being in real fiscal trouble and we have to, we can do better. We are unique in the advanced world to not giving paid leave, to not guaranteeing right to higher ed, to affordable medicines, pharmaceuticals, we've made some progress on that this year, the list goes on and on and on. We have to have a state government that works for regular Vermonters, for working families and this is the voice that I try to fight for day in, day out in Montpelier and I hope people will support me. Very good, thank you, Chris. Thank you to all of our candidates for joining us this evening and throughout these last three forums a reminder that the primary election is Tuesday, August 14th with the general election Tuesday, November 6th and here in Vermont you can register to vote up to and including election day. Head to our website, ch17.tv to check out a list of upcoming candidate forums before the primary election. For all of us here at Channel 17 Town Meeting Television, I'm Matt Kelly. Thank you for watching, goodnight.