vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen

6.18.2007

Symington answers Adams

The date for the veto session is settled, but the political discord between House Speaker Gaye Symington, D-Jericho, and House Republican Steve Adams continues. Here's Symington's response to Adam's Friday response to her suggestion that the session be bumped up a couple of months to accommodate the scheduling conflicts of five Democratic House members.

Dear Representative Adams,

This is to respond to your email regarding changing the date of the veto session and your desire to pass new legislation on July 11. I need to clarify that I did not reverse a scheduling change decision. When you and I spoke I was seeking your input as to whether to postpone the date. As I said then, there were two reasons for considering a change. One, I felt it would be appropriate to allow more time for members to understand the Governor’s new suggestion regarding the weatherization program. Two, there are several members who cannot attend the vote on July 11th. When we spoke in person, your response was fairly casual so I continued to seek input from other caucus leadership. But based on your more forcefully negative response in the press, I decided not to make the change.

I am disappointed that the same courtesy that has been allowed in the past for members to be present for important votes cannot be offered to those for whom July 11 is impossible to attend. However, without cooperation the change would be logistically difficult and so we will meet as planned for the veto session on July 11.

The purpose of this session is to consider whether the legislature will vote in favor of H.520 and S.194, the Governor’s veto notwithstanding. Legislators will decide whether to vote for a comprehensive approach to addressing our energy future and whether to put reasonable restrictions on the influence of money in electoral politics.

You claim that the Senate’s work on H.520 is purely political and without merit. I disagree. I have made it clear from the start of our work on global warming that our work would be presented in one package that includes both renewable energy and energy efficiency proposals. I am not willing to pass only the parts you and your caucus claim are worthy of consideration, at the expense of really addressing the challenge ahead of us, and at the expense of the portion of the bill that will most reduce energy costs for Vermonters – the section the Senate developed. I would also point out that the new version of H.520 you are proposing includes a revised tax rate for wind relative to what the House passed. To claim that you are simply proposing what the House passed already, when in fact you are cherry picking those sections of the bill most to your liking, without regard for the comprehensive work of the final version of H.520, is disingenuous.

During the session I asked Governor Douglas whether H.520 could be modified to address his concerns. The conference committee made adjustments based on the governor’s concern for more accountability regarding the design of the energy efficiency utility. However, he never engaged in a serious conversation regarding the proposal. Now he has proposed some re-packaging of current programs, in the name of an alternative energy efficiency plan. The legislature will consider that proposal, but not on the fly, as we have scattered to our jobs and families.

If the veto of H.520 is sustained, we will do our due diligence on that proposal when we return in January. I refuse to take part in the Governor’s continued disrespect for the legislature by giving credence to a proposal cobbled together without full consideration and involvement of the legislature.

Just to repeat myself, the purpose of the July 11 session is to consider whether the legislature will vote in favor of H.520 and S.194, the Governor’s vetoes notwithstanding. I also understand the Government Operations Committee will present a new bill regarding the South Burlington Charter, consistent with the most recent vote in that community. If everyone is willing to move that legislation in one day, I will not stand in the way of that decision. It would not be my preference, but if there is no hassle over it, I am willing to have the bill considered. If hassles develop, we will consider it in January.

I hope you enjoy your summer and I’ll see you on the 11th.

Sincerely,
Representative Gaye Symington
Speaker, House of Representatives

--Nancy Remsen

posted by vt.Buzz | 3:24 PM |

Comments:

Ok, let's bicker more about Gaye's leadership style.

Better yet, let's take cheap shots at Shumlin.

How about a few posts that say, "Impeach Shumlin"

While we are at it, we can dis the governor ... we can call him some silly names ...

Then we can disrespect the Speaker some more ...

Follow up with a few more calls for Shumlin's impeachment ...

Ahh ... a day on the Freeps political blog ... just like Groundhog Day!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:02 PM, June 18, 2007

Isn't there someway to move Gaye Symington out of the leadership post without anything as harsh as
"impeachment"?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:07 PM, June 18, 2007

Yes, there are ways to get Syminton out of the Speaker's role.

1. If the Democrats take a major loss in numbers in the 2008 legislative election, it is possible that she would face pressure from the members to resign as speaker.

2. If she were to lose re-election in her own legislative district (Jericho), as unlikely as that may seem, then of course she could not be Speaker.

3. If the Republicans were to win a majority of seats in the 2008 election, then a Republican would be elected Speaker.

But be careful what you ask for. Assuming option #1, above, which Democrat would succeed her as Speaker? Someone less intelligent and even more partisan?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:24 PM, June 18, 2007

Warren Kitzmiller and Alice Miller are two of the five Democrats who said they couldn't make it on July 11. Does anyone know who the other three are?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:35 PM, June 18, 2007

Two D's with some common sense - why should they change their plans when, even with their attendance, there still aren't enough votes to override. Anyone who says otherwise is just plain wrong. Check out the numbers of D's who voted against the bill the first time around. 14 members are not going to change their votes - They's be putting politics above policy and you aren't going to find 14 people with so little integrity.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:21 PM, June 18, 2007

I've met a few of those D's. They said that they would vote for the bill but for the punitive funding scheme against VY. And there is money to be found elsewhere. But Shumlin (with Symington apparently under his Svengali-like spell) refuses to back down. So who's responsible for the death of this bill -- the several Ds with integrity, or the stubborn, maniacal Shumlin?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:57 PM, June 18, 2007

The Democratic senators made a fateful decision when they threw Campbell aside last fall and elected Shumlin their leader. I'd say that decision has turned out to be a disaster for them. They made a deliberate decision and they deserve their fate.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:08 PM, June 18, 2007

"Yes, there are ways to get Syminton out of the Speaker's role.

2. If she were to lose re-election in her own legislative district (Jericho), as unlikely as that may seem, then of course she could not be Speaker."

Not true. The speaker does not need to be a member of the House. While that has been the case, she could lose her seat and be elected speaker. Not likely, but it could be done.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:39 PM, June 18, 2007

Pillsbury for Speaker! An Independent would be a refreshing change - might actually get something done.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:49 PM, June 18, 2007

Yes, elect one of the socialists as Speaker. Then they can't actually vote on stuff.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:57 PM, June 18, 2007

That's interesting. A Speaker who isn't actualy a Legislator. Do you have any proof for your statement?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:58 PM, June 18, 2007

Electing Shumlin instead of Campbell was bad enough but having Campbell become Shumlin's lapdog is
just downright discuting to watch!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:41 AM, June 19, 2007

"Anonymous said...
That's interesting. A Speaker who isn't actualy a Legislator. Do you have any proof for your statement?"

This is from the House Rules,
"2. (a) The Secretary of State shall make a roll by districts of the members whose credentials shall have been received and shall, at ten o’clock on that day, as presiding officer, call the House to order and call the names of the members on the roll. When a quorum of the House appears the Secretary of State shall direct the House to a choice of Speaker by ballot. The Speaker so elected shall take the chair and the duties of the Secretary of State in the organization of the House shall cease.

(b) The House shall then elect a Clerk who shall be sworn to the faithful discharge of the duties of the office."

As you see there is no requirement that the speaker be a legislator. In fact as you can see the clerk is elected right after the speaker in this case it’s Don Milne and he is not a legislator. Also if you look at the Representatives Hall there are 150 seats, not 149.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:22 AM, June 19, 2007

Thanks. Well done. Although it appears to be a strictly academic point.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:32 AM, June 19, 2007

Am I correct in remembering that when the Democratic Senate caucus elected Shumlin as pro tem last December, he insisted on a secret ballot vote and wouldn't let the press know the results? Who has he been taking lessons in democracy from - Vladimir Putin?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:37 AM, June 19, 2007

It's always a secret ballot.

Nice try.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:14 PM, June 19, 2007

The person before last was correct. The Shumlin secret ballot was held by the Democratic caucus to determine which Democratic Senator would be put forward in the full Senate vote. Since the Democrats control the Senate by a wide majority, the caucus vote is where the decision really is made.

A caucus vote can be conducted any way that the caucus chooses.

The official, full senate vote - is always done by secret vote. But because Shumlin was the only candidate, he obviously won.

The real question is which Senators sold out their soul to put that creap into a position of power.

Watch the appropriations bills over the next year and lets see what Bennington County gets out of the deal with the Devil.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:46 PM, June 19, 2007

Did you mean Bennington County? Neither Shumlin nor his only rival for the Pro Tem position, Campbell, are from Bennington County. Shumlin is from Windham and Campbell is from Windsor.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:36 PM, June 19, 2007

Yes, I specifically meant Bennington County. I am perfectly aware of the counties that Senators Shumlin and Campbell represent.

The winner of the President Pro Tem contest could not win without the support of the Father of the Senate Democratic Caucus. Oh... and what county does he live in?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:04 PM, June 19, 2007

Ok. I'm sure Putney Pete made promises to steal the Pro Tem job from Campbell. Sort of like what Neil Lunderville was accused of doing with the Rep. from St. Albans.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:07 AM, June 20, 2007

The "Father", as you call him was not the straw that broke the Campbell's back. It was a certain Senator who was promised a Chairmanship by the soon-to-be Senator from Windham... that he didn't get when he voted for the Shumma-luma. It was Shummy's first--of many--mistakes.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 1:40 PM, June 20, 2007

Hey, be fair. It must be difficult to keep all your promises and lies straight, when you make so many.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:03 PM, June 20, 2007

Shumlin make mistakes? Never!!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 2:13 PM, June 20, 2007

Those who voted for him are going to pay.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:09 PM, June 20, 2007

Find a way to accept Symington - you aren't going to get rid of her.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:28 PM, June 20, 2007

That is the sad truth.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:13 AM, June 21, 2007

Don't worry Rep. Pillsbury will take out Shumlin when he runs against him for the Senate in '08.

Even people in Windham are begining to see what Shumline is really all about.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:52 AM, June 21, 2007

I hope you are right.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:21 PM, June 21, 2007

But who will take out Symington?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:36 PM, June 22, 2007

She seems to be slowly working on that herself.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:09 PM, June 22, 2007

Will she step down from the Speakers job?