Thursday April 15, 2010

I’d like to report briefly on a couple of things going on this week in addition to restructuring. As you are aware from news reports, the House will take up the Challenges for Change bill later today. It’s filled with controversy and will no doubt dominate both this afternoon and tomorrow on the floor. Then it goes to the Senate which will have to find an additional $11 million in savings to bring the total up to the $31 million promised. All that is still pending as of today cannot get done by Friday, April 30th. I heard a rumor that the President Pro tem has already authorized an additional week, bringing the session to a close on Friday, May 7th. That’s not confirmed but it seems likely, given that Senate morning committees are planning to meet next week. if that does not happen, more that just restructuring will die.
There are four things going on this week that I have been following. H. 590, foreclosure mediation, is set to be done tomorrow morning. There was a new draft presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday and that draft still has opposition and raised some new issues. Seven witnesses testified on that draft: Tom Candon, Deputy Commissioner of banking at BISHCA; Chris D’Elia, President of the Vermont Bankers Association; Warren Coleman, Vermont Mortgage Bankers Association; Joe Bergeron, President of the Vermont Credit Unions Association; John Hollar, American Financial Services Association; Elliott Burg of the AG’s office; and Chuck Storrow, representing VATIC, who offered an amendment (identical language from H. 476, introduced but not acted upon) supported by the Property Law Section and Vermont title companies. A lot remains to be done to bring all sides together and some closure to the bill. The committee chair gave the parties until tomorrow at 11 to bring the committee something they could vote on. Whatever the final product, the bill will be headed for a committee of conference.
The Senate Finance Committee reviewed H. 689, UCIOA, and worked with their legislative counsel to go section by section through the bill. I see this one moving fairly quickly as no one has stepped up to oppose any of it. In fact, the Vermont Association of Realtors weighed in saying it saw no issues with the bill. They added, of course, the proviso, that whenever a bill deals with real property there may be unexpected consequences! The committee will return to finish its work late Friday and I hope to see this on the Action Calendar next week.
This morning the House Commerce Committee began work on S. 263 relating to the Vermont Benefit Corporations Act. Unfortunately I was called out of committee to work on something else and was only able to hear the beginning of legislative counsel’s explanation of the bill. The Chair had asked committee members to hold off on asking questions until that was completed; so I don’t have any insight into how the committee feels about the bill. VBA Business Association Law Section Chair Tom Moody was able to testify today. Jerry Greenfield of Ben & Jerry’s also testified. The committee may return to this later tomorrow and I’ll try to get more information to you after that.
Those of you in the VBA’s Real Property Law Section may be aware of the proposal from the Tax Department in H. 783 for electronic filing of property transfer tax returns. The Tax Department is continuing to negotiate items of the bill with members of the Section and I believe there is either a conference call or in person meeting scheduled for some time tomorrow. As soon as I see the language of the final version I will point you to it.
So that brings me a report on judicial restructuring. Keep in mind that this is such a moving target what I write here will no doubt have changed by the time you read it. Yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee continued to hear witnesses, focusing again on side judges and probate judges.VLS Professor Cheryl Hanna told the committee that the House version of the bill which gave side judges the traffic docket would most likely pass a constitutional challenge. Karen Horn of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns wants to restrict the side judges’ ability to levy a county tax greater than one cent on the grand list. I’m expecting an amendment similar to the language in H. 641, a bill introduced but never acted upon that would set up a county committee to set the tax rate. Windham Probate Judge Robert Pu testified about his experiences on the bench and related stories of ‘real people” who use and need local access to probate courts. He spoke about the ‘rift” between the supreme court and the probate judges that has developed from this process. That caught the attention of the Chair and he wants to hear more about it. His testimony ended with a proposal to raise certain probate court filing fees in order to raise some revenue to support the salaries of the probate judges. Those figures were delivered later in the day to the Senate Finance Committee and were incorporated in H. 759, a bill relating to executive branch fees. (Yes I know we’re talking about the judicial branch here). The final witness was Commission on Judicial Operation member Steve Dale who is also the Commissioner of the Department for Children and Families. He expressed his concern for the loss of court time due to furloughs and closings. He also called the present way of doing business inefficient and asked the committee to give the supreme court control of the scarce resources it has. The committee will be hearing from Caledonia Probate Judge Toby Balivet tomorrow morning; I expect that to be about probate judge salaries. The Chair is looking for some concessions and compromise. I think that’s going to be hard to find. I’ll try to update you tomorrow after lunch. Thanks for reading.