Compromise and progress at the Vermont State House

As usual, the session came crashing to a halt with the fall of the gavel. Two solid weeks of finalizing legislation ended with an agreement between the House and Senate on the budget and tax bills, among many others. And, as usual, in the spirit of compromise, there was both much to like and dislike in what was done, or, in some cases, not done.

Rep. Ellis and I are working on a more in-depth report for next month, but here are a few highlights from the session.

Minimum wage

We raised our minimum wage from $8.73 to $10.50 over four years, which just about triples the current rate of increase. We had many discussions and arguments over what was prudent and what might be best for those who work at that level, and for employers. In the end, we reached this decision, and while it is not perfect, it is a start toward making sure everyone who works for a living can achieve a livable wage.

School governance

Rep. Ellis and I were in an interesting situation this year with respect to this bill. Huntington, for the most part, opposed it, and Bolton, for the most part, supported it. I was increasingly troubled by this split, and was troubled by the process in which the Legislature attempted to make the somewhat laudable goals work in a limited amount of time.

Supporters felt this bill would be the educational equivalent to the financial equity legislated in Act 60/68. That definition alone means it would not cost less money up front. It passed the House but did not pass the Senate, and I believe it will be taken up again.

In the meantime, I trust members of the Chittenden East Supervisory Union will do their best to understand and contemplate the pros and cons of the RED merger plans being readied for a November vote. The larger Harwood Union district was supportive, but the smaller schools opposed it.

School finance

We were able to restrain the property tax increase with costs spread out over the whole of the taxpayers — property owners, income tax payers and nonresidential property owners. We will face a similar problem next January, and I expect to see a proposal to change the way we raise funds for education.

The conversations about finance and governance should, perhaps, be tied tightly together, and there have been discussions about what form any changes to this system may take.

Earned sick days

This did not get a hearing on the floor of the House. It passed out of my committee, General, Housing and Military Affairs, on a strong vote, but ended up in Appropriations. Much work was done on this bill that would have achieved some real relief for many of the folks, mostly women, who work for employers who do not offer this benefit.

It is clear that our culture is changing in a way that, as children of elderly parents, or parents of small children, we need to offer these employees the right to earn time off in order to take care of their families without fear of losing wages or, worse, their jobs. While the bill did not pass, advocates feel the ball was moved forward, and it will be reintroduced next January.

Child care providers

The controversial child care provider labor relations act passed on a close vote, and the narrow margin showed the difficulty in passing laws that simply give voice to a group of individuals who do not, traditionally, have a seat at the table in negotiations with the state over child care subsidies. With a 40 percent turnover rate in child care providers annually, the state has a vested interest in retaining as many people in this important trade as possible.

The bill passed simply allows child care providers to vote to determine their immediate future. If a union is formed, we lay out the parameters for a limited set of bargainable items. This nontraditional union mirrors the labor relations act we passed last year for direct service home health workers, and both the workers and the beneficiaries are folks at the lowest end of our economic spectrum.

Flights of beer

Up until this month, selling “skis” or “flights” of beer, wine or liquor — several samples of beer served at one time — has been illegal. Yes, all those years of tasting brewpub beers après-ski has been against the law. The concept simply fell along the lines of the number of glasses in front of you, rather than the amount served.

This un-enforced prohibition became visible in a review of liquor law, and was changed to allow an individual to have multiple glasses of an alcoholic beverage in front of them as long as they do not contain more than the legally permissible amount.

Thank you again for your letters, emails and phone calls. It is an honor and a privilege to represent you in the Legislature. Feel free to stay in touch over the off-season. You may reach me on my cell phone, 595-0429.

Tom Stevens, a Democrat from Waterbury, is a member of the Vermont House of Representatives. He lives in the village with his family.