By Guy Page
The Vermont Senate decided Tuesday morning to avoid veto override votes on two bills, including the controversial legislative pay and benefits increase. By contrast, the Vermont House overrode all five vetos on its agenda and also passed a bill continuing ‘homeless hotel’ funding.
The Senate had two possible veto overrides to consider: S.6, banning manipulative, deceitful police interrogation of minors, and S.39, a controversial pay and benefits increase for legislators.
S.39 would give the next and every future Legislature a steep raise, plus adjournment pay, plus State of Vermont employee-level health care benefits, plus several other benefits that, when toted up, equal almost $50,000 (estimated) per legislator.
Supporters say it will increase the racial and age diversity of the General Assembly. Opponents say legislating should remain a part-time public service, not a well-paid part-time or full-time job.
Senate President Phil Baruth (D-Central Chittenden County) didn’t tell Senate colleagues Tuesday why he wanted to return S.39 to the Government Operations Committee. It’s likely the bill’s supporters – Baruth included – were unable to persuade any additional senators to vote yes on a bill that never gathered 20 “yes” votes during regular session roll calls. Rather than hold an embarrassing vote upholding Scott’s veto, the bill was instead returned to its committee of origin.
When Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman asked the ‘return-to-committee’ question, only a few senators voted “nay.” One of them was Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (P-Chittenden).
Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, P/D-Chittenden-Central District
Vyhovsky told her colleagues that serving in the Legislature has meant taking a pay cut from her social worker job, and that she lives “paycheck to paycheck.” “The barriers for service are astronomical, and for most Vermonters they are actually insurmountable,” Vyhovsky said. “I am deeply saddened that we can’t move forward.”
Baruth seconded her sentiment, and promised to get a pay hike passed – eventually. “It may be that it needs to be a slightly skinnier bill to get passage…either way we will come back to this issue until we get it right,” he said.
Scott vetoed S.6 because the State of Vermont is treating juveniles like adults in many other respects. Senate Judiciary will work on the bill off-session and have another version ready by January, Judiciary Chair Richard Sears said. He remains committed to the bill’s goals. “You shouldn’t lie to kids during an interrogation,” Sears said. “We need to pass a bill that all sides can live with.”
Before the vote, the Campaign for Vermont, a citizen advocacy group, suggested a non-legislative committee weigh the pros and cons of a pay and benefits hike. Shorter sessions and term limits also might legislative service more accessible, CFV President and former legislator and administration official Pat McDonald said.
“While we are all for making the Vermont legislature more accessible, legislators should not be voting themselves salary increases of this magnitude,” McDonald said. “Where else does someone get to set their own salary? This would be an appropriate use of an independent commission. Other options to increase diversity that should be considered include shortening or changing the structure of the legislative session to make it more flexible for people with outside employment. Additionally, term limits should be considered if compensations is raised to this degree.”
The House and Senate both overrode vetos on the following bills:
H. 217, Child care, early education, workers’ compensation, and unemployment insurance, 116 yes, 31 no.
Gov. Phil Scott vetoed the $120 million childcare bill subsidizing childcare centers and pre-K school programs because, he said, it relies on a slippery-slope payroll tax and ignores a cheaper, voluntary plan set forth by his administration.
H.305, raising fees for professional licensure, 109-38.
H.386, Brattleboro charter change allowing 16-17 year olds to vote and hold office locally, 110-37.
H. 494, the $8.5 billion state budget, 105-42. Democratic leadership feared 17 Progressives and Democrats might vote against the budget because it didn’t continue funding the ‘homeless hotel’ pandemic-era emergency housing program. However, before the veto override votes were held, the House amended a Senate adult services bill to restore ‘homeless hotel’ funding, albeit with eligibility restrictions. The bill directs the administration to find the funding from existing revenue.
H. 509, non-citizen voting in Burlington, 111-36.
Guy Page is publisher of the Vermont Daily Chronicle. Reprinted with permission.
When our forefathers founded this country, public service was intended as a temporary deal. You spend a few years serving and return to the private sector. I don’t imagine they had in mind to make a career with making more money, benefits and perks that the represented were getting.
Term limits! Until we the people push this, this will continue.
Hang on, I think I feel a tear for poor Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, is this the best we can
get for elected officials………….. what a pathetic sniveling display……..!!
If any of these pathetic legislators worked in the real world they would all be fired
because of them causing debt, by overspending, and unfunded liabilities, and with
this outrageous story, they have the audacity to ask for a raise……….. Fools.
In my working career, every raise was attached to a reduction in spending or and
increase in production…………… the circus is in town and it playing in Montpelier !!
Wake up people, Vermont deserves better.
The whole lynchpin on this isn’t the monetary increase, the key is they will provide all BENEFITS the State subsidizes. These are union, gold plated, full coverage, low deductible and SUBSIDIZED by the State. For an individual to get similar benefits, outside of a union group policy, would cost over $25,000. Seeing the legislature is a part time thing (zero benefits), provide State union benefits as if they are FULL TIME…the key for progressives to get a permanent majority in the Legislature. Because with full time union benefits , gold plated, the Dem Progressive legislator will have NO problem being put on the payroll, for the other seven months or so, from any one of the HUNDREDS of WOKE & well funded Enviro/Political NON PROFITS. Because all any non profit has to do is pay them a lowish wage and NOT PAY for any BENEFITS. This has been the DEM plan all along. It is HOW they will create a permanent Progressive Dem control over VT…and it all hinges on getting union full time benefits, much of which the State pays for and subsidizes for it’s employee’s. Basically the STATE will fund the benefits – so the Dems and Progs can fiscally & WOKE, destroy VT – from the inside.
Senator Tanya Vyhovsky doesn’t have a ‘real’ job. She is the consummate progressive Vermont social worker, always in search of a victim to serve (it’s a cookbook). Without a victim, she would have no raison d’être. In fact, Ms. Vyhovsky is the poster child for progressive hypocrisy. In her final analysis, we see that it’s all about her, her work, and her pay rate. It’s anything but her job performance. Ms. Vyhovsky recognizes that if she were successful in achieving her goal of helping those who can’t help themselves, she would be out of a job. And the only reason she can claim to be taking a pay cut when serving in the State Senate is because she is grossly over-paid by the failing Vermont public education system of which she is a part. The term ‘parasite’ comes to mind.
“Parasites are organisms that live in, on or with another organism (host). They feed, grow or multiply in a way that harms their host. However, they need their host for their survival. For this reason, they rarely kill their host, but they often carry diseases that can be life-threatening.”
Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (P-Chittenden).
Now we see what the (P) really stands for. The only reason the legislative pay veto wasn’t over-ridden is because the parasites determined that it might kill the host.