Yesterday Bennington County Assistant Judge Jim Colvin reported to both judiciary committees as required by H. 470 on the effects of restructuring on county budgets. He began by saying that the November elections resulted in 12 new assistant judges- an unusually high number. Naturally, much training needs to be done to bring them all up to speed and he credited the judiciary, especially Pat Gabel, for the efforts made to so that. He did hand out an interesting report that showed that the savings predicted during the debate last year actually happened. For example, due to the transfer of county employees to the state payroll county budgets have decreased by $2 million. The counties lost about $450,000 in small claims revenue so the result will be a reduction in county taxes of about $1.5 million. All things considered, the promises made were largely fulfilled. There are now eight assistant judges hearing judicial bureau cases; five hearing uncontested divorces; and four hearing small claims. Of the twelve newly elected judges, eleven have indicated an interest in taking traffic and uncontested divorce cases.
The House yesterday selected its members to the Judicial Nominating Board. They are Representatives Tim Jerman; Joe Acinapura; and Bill Lippert. They join our members- Walter Judge; John Kellner; and Peg Flory. I believe the governor has selected his two appointments although I do not have those names yet; the Senate has yet to appoint its three members.
At last nights’ retention public hearing most of the judges under consideration heard nothing. Judges Corsones, Bent and Wesley never heard their names mentioned. The same was true for Justices Dooley, Skoglund and Johnson. Chief Justice Reiber was praised by Environmental Division Docket Clerk Kathleen Loot for his handling of the restructuring process last year. She told the committee how he presided over a “open” process where everyone was treated with respect.
Two relatives (sister and sister in law) of a criminal defendant tried for the third time and recently sentenced to a long sentence criticized Judge Michel Kupersmith for his “bias” and the way in which he handled a jury that claimed to be deadlocked. He is said to have repeatedly interrupted the defendant’s testimony and one of the witnesses complained that the judge not only told the defendant that he was in denial but apparently said “your family is in denial too”. Finally, a father who lost primary parental rights and responsibilities raised issues with the Supreme Court’s knowledge of family law, alleging they do not understand the complexities of family relationships. He urged them, and particularly, Justice Burgess to take some training in family law. He also complained about the role of the Vermont trial Judges’ Association participation in recommending trial judges to sit on the Judicial Conduct Board. Lastly a victim of a crime complained about the conduct of the proceedings he was party to, even though the presiding judge has now retired. The Chair of the committee, Sen. Alice Nitka, was very patient with letting this witness tell his story. He ended by connecting it to the present group of judges standing for retention by saying that there is a “culture in the courts” that continues and allows people such as he to be mistreated.
That pretty much sums up the news. As you know the session will be in recess next week for Town Meeting. That’s a good time for any of you that may run into senators and representatives at Town Meeting or just around town to let them know that extending the sales tax to legal services is harmful to access to justice.
Thanks for reading this blog.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Here’s the follow up from yesterday’s hearing in House Appropriations. The court’s budget request is in line with the governor’s proposal for 2012. The request is a budget of $39,348, 918. As all budgets in departments and branches do, it contains a line item labeled “vacancy turnover savings”. That line should total $2,999,180 in order to make the budget meet its target. The court, however, said it would fall short of that target by $167, 180. That shortfall is a result of the restructuring bill of 2010 (H.470) which was not fully funded. The largest part of the savings line-$1,113,000- comes from the 12 furlough days the court has scheduled for FY12. So, we know that each court day costs about $100,000. Justice Dooley told the Appropriations Committee that if the court could add anything to the budget it would be to “buy back” some court closing days.
There was much discussion of the results of restructuring and its effect on staffing. Bob Greemore told the committee that before restructuring the judiciary had 356 state funded positions and 43 county paid positions for a total of 399 employees. Now it has 358 positions, all paid for by state funds. Most of the county staff merged into the state employee pool with a few exceptions: 2 resigned; 19 took voluntary retirement; and 5 were demoted into lower positions than they previously held. None were laid off.
As far as filling vacancies go, it is unlikely that an authorized judicial spot that has never been filled will be anytime soon. There are open positions in Windham County (probate register) and one in Chittenden (caseload coordinator). The position held by recently retired Judge Katz will likely not be filled before July 1 at the earliest if then.
Bennington County Assistant Judge Jim Colvin will be addressing both Judiciary Committees later this morning about the AJ’s report on restructuring; I’m planning to get to both presentations and will update you later. Don’t forget that tonight is the second and last public hearing on the retention of the justices of the Supreme Court as well as Judges Cortland Corsones, Robert Bent and Jon Wesley. It’s at 7PM in Room 11.
Two bills of interest will be introduced today. The first, H. 327 is the uniform principal and income act. The second, H.325, amends the procedure for small claims. Here is its statement of purpose:
Statement of purpose: This bill proposes a number of measures intended to simplify and reduce the costs associated with small claims procedures. The bill proposes to require that: (1) the plaintiff send a demand letter to the defendant specifying the amount of compensation sought before filing a small claims lawsuit in court; (2) the summons to the defendant include the date of the initial court hearing, which must be at least 21 days after the date that the summons is served; (3) the defendant be served with the summons and complaint, although all subsequent transmissions of documents in the case may be sent to the defendant by first class mail; and (4) the court enter default judgment for the plaintiff if a defendant who has been served with notice of the lawsuit fails to appear at the hearing.
This one is brand new to me; I’ll see where it goes from here.
There was much discussion of the results of restructuring and its effect on staffing. Bob Greemore told the committee that before restructuring the judiciary had 356 state funded positions and 43 county paid positions for a total of 399 employees. Now it has 358 positions, all paid for by state funds. Most of the county staff merged into the state employee pool with a few exceptions: 2 resigned; 19 took voluntary retirement; and 5 were demoted into lower positions than they previously held. None were laid off.
As far as filling vacancies go, it is unlikely that an authorized judicial spot that has never been filled will be anytime soon. There are open positions in Windham County (probate register) and one in Chittenden (caseload coordinator). The position held by recently retired Judge Katz will likely not be filled before July 1 at the earliest if then.
Bennington County Assistant Judge Jim Colvin will be addressing both Judiciary Committees later this morning about the AJ’s report on restructuring; I’m planning to get to both presentations and will update you later. Don’t forget that tonight is the second and last public hearing on the retention of the justices of the Supreme Court as well as Judges Cortland Corsones, Robert Bent and Jon Wesley. It’s at 7PM in Room 11.
Two bills of interest will be introduced today. The first, H. 327 is the uniform principal and income act. The second, H.325, amends the procedure for small claims. Here is its statement of purpose:
Statement of purpose: This bill proposes a number of measures intended to simplify and reduce the costs associated with small claims procedures. The bill proposes to require that: (1) the plaintiff send a demand letter to the defendant specifying the amount of compensation sought before filing a small claims lawsuit in court; (2) the summons to the defendant include the date of the initial court hearing, which must be at least 21 days after the date that the summons is served; (3) the defendant be served with the summons and complaint, although all subsequent transmissions of documents in the case may be sent to the defendant by first class mail; and (4) the court enter default judgment for the plaintiff if a defendant who has been served with notice of the lawsuit fails to appear at the hearing.
This one is brand new to me; I’ll see where it goes from here.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Here is a quick update on the licensed lender issue. We had a very short hearing at the Senate Committee on Economic Development last evening. Although it was to begin at 4:30, the Senate scheduled a floor session for that time so we waited until about 5PM. Then, three of five senators had to leave so the hearing was abbreviated. BTW, thanks to Tom Dailey who offered to drive up from Bennington; I’m glad he didn’t as it was hardly worth the effort. Anyway, I was able to briefly present the problems as you have been discussing them on the list serve. I was followed by Tom Candon of BISHCA who was accompanied by Steve Knudson. Their main point was compliance with the SAFE Act and any state deviation would result in federal licensing of mortgage servicers. The committee seems anxious to solve the problem, maybe trying to be a test case or maybe just taking the gamble that nothing bad will happen. They are definitely interested and will continue to work on this. Steve said that many of the problems you are facing come from a lack of understanding the current law! So here’s where things ended: I was asked and am now asking everyone one of you to share your experiences with failed conveyances or delayed conveyances with resulting increased costs because of the current law. I need to collect your stories this week or at the latest early next week; share them with BISHCA; and return to committee during the week after the Town Meeting break. Feel free to email me directly (bpaolini@vtbar.org).
Today began with the Senate Judiciary Committee returning yet again to S. 38, the collateral consequences bill. Since its last hearing, the Office of Professional Regulation at the Secretary of State’s Office has voiced some concerns that licensing boards may lose some of their authority. There is also controversy over who should be delivering information to a defendant. The bill leaves that to the prosecutors; they objected arguing that it would be giving advice to an opposing party. So today’s draft asks the court to do it; they now object! The Attorney General’s Office appeared today and objected to being named as the host of a website where all collateral consequences would be listed; their objection- increased workload. They argued further that it will increase the workload and the number of hearings for the courts. Committee chair Dick Sears will return to consideration of the bill after the Town Meeting recess, most likely on Wednesday, March 2nd. One of the committee’s issues to resolve will be the effective date of the bill; there may be talk of delaying it a year. Much more to come on this.
I just returned from the House Appropriations Committee where the Chief Justice, Justice Dooley and Bob Greemore presented the judiciary’s FY12 budget. they were well received. I’ll post more detail on that tomorrow.
Today began with the Senate Judiciary Committee returning yet again to S. 38, the collateral consequences bill. Since its last hearing, the Office of Professional Regulation at the Secretary of State’s Office has voiced some concerns that licensing boards may lose some of their authority. There is also controversy over who should be delivering information to a defendant. The bill leaves that to the prosecutors; they objected arguing that it would be giving advice to an opposing party. So today’s draft asks the court to do it; they now object! The Attorney General’s Office appeared today and objected to being named as the host of a website where all collateral consequences would be listed; their objection- increased workload. They argued further that it will increase the workload and the number of hearings for the courts. Committee chair Dick Sears will return to consideration of the bill after the Town Meeting recess, most likely on Wednesday, March 2nd. One of the committee’s issues to resolve will be the effective date of the bill; there may be talk of delaying it a year. Much more to come on this.
I just returned from the House Appropriations Committee where the Chief Justice, Justice Dooley and Bob Greemore presented the judiciary’s FY12 budget. they were well received. I’ll post more detail on that tomorrow.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Friday February 18, 2011
After resting in the House Judiciary Committee for nearly four years, the new child custody jurisdiction and enforcement act (H.88) is on its way to the Senate. Later today the judiciary committee will return to H. 79, the adult guardianship bill. Uniform law commissioner Stephanie Willbanks will return and present what we hope is a work out of the objections/questions raised last Friday.
For those of you that practice in the area of medical malpractice you should be aware of H.266 introduced yesterday. It’s a bill that would establish screening panels to review med mal claims upon filing. The bill bears reading; it can be found here.
The real property bar had a small victory this week when the Tax Department re-posted the fillable PTTR on its website. It’ll remain there and can be used until March 31st. Please attend our Mid Year Meeting for an important session on use of the ePTTR effective April 1st. on Tuesday next at 4:30 the Senate Economic development committee will set aside some time to address the licensed lender issues many of you have either had first hand experience with or are trying to understand. I do have a copy of a draft bill that is not on the legislature’s website yet as it has no bill number. I can send anyone a copy if you’d like to read it. Also, today, S. 77 was introduced by the Senate Natural Resources Committee; it would require private well testing as a condition of sale.
Really the main focus of this week for me has been on judicial retention. On Tuesday evening Justice Dooley, and Judges Wesley and Levitt appeared before the committee to support their retention and answer comments made in the legislative questionnaires. All judges use this process as a time of reflection on what they have accomplished and where they intend to go if retained for six more years. Justice Dooley spoke to the changes being made in the judicial branch and his increasing role in administration of the courts, including budgeting. He did point out that the supreme court has cut about one month off the time frame for releasing decisions in 5 judge cases. Approximately 50 to 55% of its caseload is, however, handled by 3 judge courts.
Judge Wesley responded to some criticism in the surveys that labeled him as “impatient”. He spoke at length of cases he’s seen that involved foreclosures. Judge Levitt had to respond to criticisms that she “prejudges cases”; that she is biased against criminal defendants; and that she is biased against men (in family cases). She readily admitted she could have handled a particular case differently. The night went quickly with no serious issues raised.
On Thursday night the first of two public hearings was held to give anyone the opportunity to speak to the committee about the candidates for retention. Last night the committee focused on the following: Judges Kupersmith, Keller, Levitt, Eaton, Rainville, Devine, and DiMauro. All were present except Judge Rainville. No comments were made about Judges DiMauro, and Devine; only passing comments of support for Levitt and Rainville. The focus of the night was the negative survey results of Judges Kupersmith and Keller and the 12 witnesses spoke to either or both of them. All were supportive of retention with one glaring exception: two pediatricians from FAHC accused Judge Keller of failing to protect a child victim of physical abuse. “He showed a lack of judgment in cases of abuse of children and puts kids’ lives at risk”, said the first doctor. The second witness presented the committee a letter opposing retention signed by 7 doctors; I haven’t asked to read the letter nor do I know much about the case or cases they were talking about.
The rest of the night was taken up by favorable testimony from lawyers and court staff; here’s a quick list. Dan Albert, Kurt Hughes, Jim Murdoch, court operations manager Barb Hungerford, victim services provider Ann Atkins and court officer Debbie Stevens supported Judge Keller. Superior Court Clerk Christine Brock supported Judge Kupersmith as did Maryanne Kampmann, Bud Allen, Superior Court Clerk Gaye Paquette; all also mentioned support for Judges Keller and a few added Judges Levitt and Rainville.
Thanks for reading; have a good weekend.
Update at 2:34:
H. 79- adult guardianship bill
For those of you that practice in the area of medical malpractice you should be aware of H.266 introduced yesterday. It’s a bill that would establish screening panels to review med mal claims upon filing. The bill bears reading; it can be found here.
The real property bar had a small victory this week when the Tax Department re-posted the fillable PTTR on its website. It’ll remain there and can be used until March 31st. Please attend our Mid Year Meeting for an important session on use of the ePTTR effective April 1st. on Tuesday next at 4:30 the Senate Economic development committee will set aside some time to address the licensed lender issues many of you have either had first hand experience with or are trying to understand. I do have a copy of a draft bill that is not on the legislature’s website yet as it has no bill number. I can send anyone a copy if you’d like to read it. Also, today, S. 77 was introduced by the Senate Natural Resources Committee; it would require private well testing as a condition of sale.
Really the main focus of this week for me has been on judicial retention. On Tuesday evening Justice Dooley, and Judges Wesley and Levitt appeared before the committee to support their retention and answer comments made in the legislative questionnaires. All judges use this process as a time of reflection on what they have accomplished and where they intend to go if retained for six more years. Justice Dooley spoke to the changes being made in the judicial branch and his increasing role in administration of the courts, including budgeting. He did point out that the supreme court has cut about one month off the time frame for releasing decisions in 5 judge cases. Approximately 50 to 55% of its caseload is, however, handled by 3 judge courts.
Judge Wesley responded to some criticism in the surveys that labeled him as “impatient”. He spoke at length of cases he’s seen that involved foreclosures. Judge Levitt had to respond to criticisms that she “prejudges cases”; that she is biased against criminal defendants; and that she is biased against men (in family cases). She readily admitted she could have handled a particular case differently. The night went quickly with no serious issues raised.
On Thursday night the first of two public hearings was held to give anyone the opportunity to speak to the committee about the candidates for retention. Last night the committee focused on the following: Judges Kupersmith, Keller, Levitt, Eaton, Rainville, Devine, and DiMauro. All were present except Judge Rainville. No comments were made about Judges DiMauro, and Devine; only passing comments of support for Levitt and Rainville. The focus of the night was the negative survey results of Judges Kupersmith and Keller and the 12 witnesses spoke to either or both of them. All were supportive of retention with one glaring exception: two pediatricians from FAHC accused Judge Keller of failing to protect a child victim of physical abuse. “He showed a lack of judgment in cases of abuse of children and puts kids’ lives at risk”, said the first doctor. The second witness presented the committee a letter opposing retention signed by 7 doctors; I haven’t asked to read the letter nor do I know much about the case or cases they were talking about.
The rest of the night was taken up by favorable testimony from lawyers and court staff; here’s a quick list. Dan Albert, Kurt Hughes, Jim Murdoch, court operations manager Barb Hungerford, victim services provider Ann Atkins and court officer Debbie Stevens supported Judge Keller. Superior Court Clerk Christine Brock supported Judge Kupersmith as did Maryanne Kampmann, Bud Allen, Superior Court Clerk Gaye Paquette; all also mentioned support for Judges Keller and a few added Judges Levitt and Rainville.
Thanks for reading; have a good weekend.
Update at 2:34:
H. 79- adult guardianship bill
After last Friday’s hearing at which Stephanie Willbanks explained the bill to the House Judiciary Committee some questions were raised by a VLA lawyer with the Disability law Project. Those questions were discussed and settled between VLA, Professor Willbanks and Probate Judges Belcher and Balivet. A few minutes ago Section Chair Devon Green, appeared before the committee to present a few amendments that arose from that discussion. The committee approved the bill on a straw vote and will have a member of the committee meet with and explain it to the House Human Services Committee next week; then they will take a vote and send it to the floor. The straw vote was unanimous, by the way.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Today was an interesting day in the tax on services issue. After having been away last week, I returned to see that H, 243, a committee bill containing the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Tax Structure Commission was introduced by the House Ways and Means Committee. Normally when a committee introduces a committee bill, it goes directly on the calendar for action the next day. In this case the bill was introduced and then committed back to the Ways and Means Committee. Here’s the statement of purpose as it appears in the bill:
Statement of purpose: This bill proposes to begin the tax reform process
recommended by the Vermont Blue Ribbon Tax Structure Commission for
creating transparency in Vermont’s tax system by providing for a high level of
ongoing scrutiny of the multiple exemptions embedded in Vermont’s major tax
structures. This process would be implemented by an initial, prospective sunset of nearly all tax incentives in the personal income tax, sales tax, meals and rooms tax, and property tax. It is not the intent of the commission to actually repeal all of the tax incentives set out in this bill, but by these prospective repeals, to ensure that the legislature does scrutinize each of these incentives and make an active decision as to whether to continue each incentive. This bill also proposes to implement the commission’s recommendation to extend the sales tax to services provided at the retail level.
I understand that some members of the committee were not happy with signing on to the bill as it could be interpreted as their supporting various parts of it, including the tax on services. I’m still awaiting my turn to testify before the committee. There’ll be plenty more on this before May
It was just about two years ago when our legislature raised the homestead exemption to $125,000; well, now H. 253 would raise it to $300,000. That bill was just introduced today and it’s way too early to know whether it will even get a hearing.
On the Senate side, S. 68 was introduced today and it would establish an 80% rule for verdicts in civil cases. This is the same language that was introduced in the last two sessions but didn’t go anywhere.
I had the opportunity to sit in on testimony of two of our uniforms law commissioners today. Carl Lisman appeared before the House General Affairs Committee on H. 101, a bill that would authorize a common interest community to change the number of units in the community that may be leased upon a vote of 67 percent of the unit owners. Later in the day, Peter Langrock appeared before the Senate Finance Committee in support of S. 7, the uniform limited cooperative associations bill. This is the same bill as H. 21 being worked on in the House Commerce Committee. That in itself is pretty unusual- the same bill moving forward in each chamber at the same time.
The UCCJEA (H. 88) passed second reading in the House on a voice vote with no opposition. One more favorable vote and it’s off to the Senate. H. 79, the adult guardianship bill I’ve written about before is being worked on outside of committee and should be poised for a move soon- hopefully before the town meeting recess.
Tonight Justice Dooley, Judges Wesley and Levitt are scheduled to be interviewed by the Judicial Retention Committee. Tomorrow, Senate Judiciary will be returning to S. 38, collateral consequences. The licensed lender bill hearing expected for today will be delayed at least a week, while the child support bill won’t get any attention next week. it will most likely see action after the town meeting recess.
Statement of purpose: This bill proposes to begin the tax reform process
recommended by the Vermont Blue Ribbon Tax Structure Commission for
creating transparency in Vermont’s tax system by providing for a high level of
ongoing scrutiny of the multiple exemptions embedded in Vermont’s major tax
structures. This process would be implemented by an initial, prospective sunset of nearly all tax incentives in the personal income tax, sales tax, meals and rooms tax, and property tax. It is not the intent of the commission to actually repeal all of the tax incentives set out in this bill, but by these prospective repeals, to ensure that the legislature does scrutinize each of these incentives and make an active decision as to whether to continue each incentive. This bill also proposes to implement the commission’s recommendation to extend the sales tax to services provided at the retail level.
I understand that some members of the committee were not happy with signing on to the bill as it could be interpreted as their supporting various parts of it, including the tax on services. I’m still awaiting my turn to testify before the committee. There’ll be plenty more on this before May
It was just about two years ago when our legislature raised the homestead exemption to $125,000; well, now H. 253 would raise it to $300,000. That bill was just introduced today and it’s way too early to know whether it will even get a hearing.
On the Senate side, S. 68 was introduced today and it would establish an 80% rule for verdicts in civil cases. This is the same language that was introduced in the last two sessions but didn’t go anywhere.
I had the opportunity to sit in on testimony of two of our uniforms law commissioners today. Carl Lisman appeared before the House General Affairs Committee on H. 101, a bill that would authorize a common interest community to change the number of units in the community that may be leased upon a vote of 67 percent of the unit owners. Later in the day, Peter Langrock appeared before the Senate Finance Committee in support of S. 7, the uniform limited cooperative associations bill. This is the same bill as H. 21 being worked on in the House Commerce Committee. That in itself is pretty unusual- the same bill moving forward in each chamber at the same time.
The UCCJEA (H. 88) passed second reading in the House on a voice vote with no opposition. One more favorable vote and it’s off to the Senate. H. 79, the adult guardianship bill I’ve written about before is being worked on outside of committee and should be poised for a move soon- hopefully before the town meeting recess.
Tonight Justice Dooley, Judges Wesley and Levitt are scheduled to be interviewed by the Judicial Retention Committee. Tomorrow, Senate Judiciary will be returning to S. 38, collateral consequences. The licensed lender bill hearing expected for today will be delayed at least a week, while the child support bill won’t get any attention next week. it will most likely see action after the town meeting recess.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Now that I’m back from the ABA meeting I wanted to do a quick post and update you on what happened while I was away. Of course these reports are not first hand but appear as related to me by people in attendance. First, and perhaps the easiest to report, is that the UCCJEA (H.88) is out of committee and on the House Calendar for action on Tuesday. Also, another two uniform bills may be moving along almost as quickly. On Friday, Prof. Stephanie Willbanks testified on H. 79, the adult guardianship and protective proceedings jurisdiction act, while the day before Rich Cassidy returned to the Senate Judiciary Committee to continue his advocacy on S. 38, the uniform collateral consequences of conviction act. There are other uniform bills in the pipeline. The uniform limited cooperative association bill and, still in the drafting stage, the uniform principal and income act. It’s been a busy session thus far and will only get more complicated as the weeks roll on.
This Thursday will see the first public hearing on the judges and justices facing retention. The next hearing is the following Thursday; both begin at 7PM in Room 11. See my blog post of February 4th for the days each judge and justice will be the subject of the hearing. And please testify if you so desire.
Four of our members appeared before the House General Affairs Committee in opposition to H.57, the bill requiring energy audits before a property can be sold. Those speaking against the bill, so far at least, were Jeff Wick; Bill Dakin; Brian Amones; and Jeff Kilgore. I’ve heard back from some and here is an email that Jeff Kilgore sent me that I am reprinting with his permission:
“There were four of us who testified: in order, me; Brad Cook of Building Performance Services, LLC, an energy auditor from Warren; Peter Tucker, President of VAR; and Brian Amones. I was scheduled last went first. Unlike all that followed, I didn't sugar coat my dislike for the bill, didn't offer assistance. At the end of my presentation when I asked if there were any questions, there was just silence. When I sat back down the lobbyist-attorney for VAR said it was a good presentation-forceful. Cook was very good. Pointed out technical flaws from his professional vantage point. Explained there was a difference between ratings and audits. Almost seemed as if bill wanted a rating, a number you could shop around with (I've got a 8 for 250k, hmmm, I've got a 7 for 260k kind of thing). Said a decent audit was 400 - 650 at least. Forget about the ones for $200-$250. He said "audit going to cost too much money." Average repairs required approx $15k. He pointed out that FL energy legislation a bust; NV inspectors have no training; Austin TX, lots of audits; little in way of upgrading. Tucker of VAR very smooth. He smoothed over any feathers I have ruffled by saying VAR always wants to help; but came out against the bill. Then Brian added a more human touch explaining in his practice, it would have an impact on transactions. In the give and take with the three speakers that followed me it came out that it would take some 60 years at point of sale to audit all homes in VT. It should be made voluntary. Rep Bouchard said Efficiency VT should pay for inspections.”
This Thursday will see the first public hearing on the judges and justices facing retention. The next hearing is the following Thursday; both begin at 7PM in Room 11. See my blog post of February 4th for the days each judge and justice will be the subject of the hearing. And please testify if you so desire.
Four of our members appeared before the House General Affairs Committee in opposition to H.57, the bill requiring energy audits before a property can be sold. Those speaking against the bill, so far at least, were Jeff Wick; Bill Dakin; Brian Amones; and Jeff Kilgore. I’ve heard back from some and here is an email that Jeff Kilgore sent me that I am reprinting with his permission:
“There were four of us who testified: in order, me; Brad Cook of Building Performance Services, LLC, an energy auditor from Warren; Peter Tucker, President of VAR; and Brian Amones. I was scheduled last went first. Unlike all that followed, I didn't sugar coat my dislike for the bill, didn't offer assistance. At the end of my presentation when I asked if there were any questions, there was just silence. When I sat back down the lobbyist-attorney for VAR said it was a good presentation-forceful. Cook was very good. Pointed out technical flaws from his professional vantage point. Explained there was a difference between ratings and audits. Almost seemed as if bill wanted a rating, a number you could shop around with (I've got a 8 for 250k, hmmm, I've got a 7 for 260k kind of thing). Said a decent audit was 400 - 650 at least. Forget about the ones for $200-$250. He said "audit going to cost too much money." Average repairs required approx $15k. He pointed out that FL energy legislation a bust; NV inspectors have no training; Austin TX, lots of audits; little in way of upgrading. Tucker of VAR very smooth. He smoothed over any feathers I have ruffled by saying VAR always wants to help; but came out against the bill. Then Brian added a more human touch explaining in his practice, it would have an impact on transactions. In the give and take with the three speakers that followed me it came out that it would take some 60 years at point of sale to audit all homes in VT. It should be made voluntary. Rep Bouchard said Efficiency VT should pay for inspections.”
Friday, February 4, 2011
Friday, February 4, 2011
Here is a summary of the meeting between Jim Knapp, Liam Murphy, myself and the Tax Department that I mentioned in yesterday’s post. This summary was sent by Bill Johnson of the Tax Dept. I haven’t spoken with Liam but Jim Knapp agrees it is an accurate report of the meeting:
Seems to me that yesterday’s meeting was constructive. I think the following summarizes the results of the meeting.
• We would put back up the fillable pdf form (before it is made available again, we will put the disclaimer that the form is only valid until March 31, 2011). I will let Liam know when it is available again.
• Split the functions of the verify / submit button and create two buttons.
• Make it more apparent that they are able to print out a transaction before it is 100% complete and in a format that is the same as the final form (needs something like a DRAFT watermark).
• In addition, we can talk about additional changes including
• Give users an easier way to delete a second buyer (or seller, I would think) if one is accidentally enters.
• On form but not our back end system, include an option for multiple dates for acquisition of the property.
• Add school district name to the SPAN dropdown.
• In the Act 250 Disclosure section, allow users to mark multiple options for D2.
• Give users a button that allows them to go to comment field more easily.
As for these changes, the ability to print out a transaction prior to completion is a difficult one for us and while we will do this and do it in a way that makes it clear that people cannot file these as valid PTTRs, we will monitor how people use the draft form. If too many people actually decide to file the draft form with the Department as a return, we will need to change the draft form in some way that prevents this from occurring. Hopefully, this will be a non-issue. Also, I included the issue of deleting the second buyer/seller above. Because there is already a delete button for this (I believe there is anyway), I’m not sure that this really is an issue – we’ll continue to look into it.
From our perspective, most of the other issues from your memo have either already been fixed or represent educational issues. I think in the last part of our discussion we were able to explain why some of these things are technically non-issues and that when a person understands the system, the perceived problem like the closing date disappears (actually, I believe we structured the closing date logic to try to be responsive to comments that Liam made during our earlier meetings).
We also talked about scheduling the training seminars. Jim Knapp will be the principal instructor and Tom and I agree to have Grace and Michelle attend the two sessions and help Jim. Sessions will be in March. We will need to talk with VIC next week to understand how quickly they can make the two major changes from above.
*******
I’ve just been told that the House General Affairs Committee wants to take testimony on H. 57, AN ACT RELATING TO DISCLOSURE TO POTENTIAL BUYERS OF A BUILDING’S ENERGY PERFORMANCE. This is something we need to watch. I know the property law list serve has seen a lot of discussion about it and I’ve just been asked to recruit witnesses.
Today the Senate Judiciary Committee, as expected, returned to both child support and to S. 38, the uniform collateral consequences of conviction act. On child support OCS Executive Director Jeff Cohen and Bob Greemore presented the committee a summary of their research and ideas. They were able to respond to the idea of mandating support payments while a child was in college; no state does that. OCS proposed reducing the surcharge to 6% from the present 12%. They are also working on re-wording the “802 notice” to make it very clear that motions to modify can and must be made in a timely way. One idea that intrigued the chair was the waiver of filing fees if a parent were to apply to OCS for services (i.e. making all wage withholding IV-D cases). In that case, OCS, a state agency doesn’t pay the filing fee AND, better still, the federal government reimburses the state 66% of that fee. Everybody seemed to like that outcome!
Anyway, where things were left is that Jeff, Greenie and Michelle Childs, legislative counsel, will be meeting to work up a bill draft by Friday, February 18th with a hearing date on the draft set for Wednesday, the 23rd. This would be introduced as a committee bill. The process is a bit backward from the usual. Instead of a bill being introduced and committee to a committee, a committee bill is written in committee and sent to the floor. I’ve notified the Chair of the VBA’s Family Law Section to be on tap for that date.
Then the committee transitioned to S. 38, the UCCCA. They heard from Assistant AG John Treadwell and Defender General Matt Valerio; the committee ran out of time before hearing from Bob Greemore. The AG’s office says the collection and publication of the consequences of conviction is s good idea but, until a complete “list” is compiled, requiring that they be given to a defendant on multiple occasions will only create problems. He proposed actually compiling that list; that seems close to impossible. Matt Valerio told the committee that the VBA Board has endorsed this bill and he stressed the often lifelong consequences on young people. So, the committee agreed to return to the bill next week on both Wednesday and Thursday.
Finally, the House Judiciary Committee will review H. 78 next week. That’s the uniform adult guardianship and protective proceedings jurisdiction act that’s been endorsed by the VBA Board, the Elder Law Section, and the Probate and Trust Section.
I will be away next week (after Monday) attending the ABA Mid Winter Meeting and unable to report to you. I will be monitoring emails and will respond. Thanks for reading, as always.
Seems to me that yesterday’s meeting was constructive. I think the following summarizes the results of the meeting.
• We would put back up the fillable pdf form (before it is made available again, we will put the disclaimer that the form is only valid until March 31, 2011). I will let Liam know when it is available again.
• Split the functions of the verify / submit button and create two buttons.
• Make it more apparent that they are able to print out a transaction before it is 100% complete and in a format that is the same as the final form (needs something like a DRAFT watermark).
• In addition, we can talk about additional changes including
• Give users an easier way to delete a second buyer (or seller, I would think) if one is accidentally enters.
• On form but not our back end system, include an option for multiple dates for acquisition of the property.
• Add school district name to the SPAN dropdown.
• In the Act 250 Disclosure section, allow users to mark multiple options for D2.
• Give users a button that allows them to go to comment field more easily.
As for these changes, the ability to print out a transaction prior to completion is a difficult one for us and while we will do this and do it in a way that makes it clear that people cannot file these as valid PTTRs, we will monitor how people use the draft form. If too many people actually decide to file the draft form with the Department as a return, we will need to change the draft form in some way that prevents this from occurring. Hopefully, this will be a non-issue. Also, I included the issue of deleting the second buyer/seller above. Because there is already a delete button for this (I believe there is anyway), I’m not sure that this really is an issue – we’ll continue to look into it.
From our perspective, most of the other issues from your memo have either already been fixed or represent educational issues. I think in the last part of our discussion we were able to explain why some of these things are technically non-issues and that when a person understands the system, the perceived problem like the closing date disappears (actually, I believe we structured the closing date logic to try to be responsive to comments that Liam made during our earlier meetings).
We also talked about scheduling the training seminars. Jim Knapp will be the principal instructor and Tom and I agree to have Grace and Michelle attend the two sessions and help Jim. Sessions will be in March. We will need to talk with VIC next week to understand how quickly they can make the two major changes from above.
*******
I’ve just been told that the House General Affairs Committee wants to take testimony on H. 57, AN ACT RELATING TO DISCLOSURE TO POTENTIAL BUYERS OF A BUILDING’S ENERGY PERFORMANCE. This is something we need to watch. I know the property law list serve has seen a lot of discussion about it and I’ve just been asked to recruit witnesses.
Today the Senate Judiciary Committee, as expected, returned to both child support and to S. 38, the uniform collateral consequences of conviction act. On child support OCS Executive Director Jeff Cohen and Bob Greemore presented the committee a summary of their research and ideas. They were able to respond to the idea of mandating support payments while a child was in college; no state does that. OCS proposed reducing the surcharge to 6% from the present 12%. They are also working on re-wording the “802 notice” to make it very clear that motions to modify can and must be made in a timely way. One idea that intrigued the chair was the waiver of filing fees if a parent were to apply to OCS for services (i.e. making all wage withholding IV-D cases). In that case, OCS, a state agency doesn’t pay the filing fee AND, better still, the federal government reimburses the state 66% of that fee. Everybody seemed to like that outcome!
Anyway, where things were left is that Jeff, Greenie and Michelle Childs, legislative counsel, will be meeting to work up a bill draft by Friday, February 18th with a hearing date on the draft set for Wednesday, the 23rd. This would be introduced as a committee bill. The process is a bit backward from the usual. Instead of a bill being introduced and committee to a committee, a committee bill is written in committee and sent to the floor. I’ve notified the Chair of the VBA’s Family Law Section to be on tap for that date.
Then the committee transitioned to S. 38, the UCCCA. They heard from Assistant AG John Treadwell and Defender General Matt Valerio; the committee ran out of time before hearing from Bob Greemore. The AG’s office says the collection and publication of the consequences of conviction is s good idea but, until a complete “list” is compiled, requiring that they be given to a defendant on multiple occasions will only create problems. He proposed actually compiling that list; that seems close to impossible. Matt Valerio told the committee that the VBA Board has endorsed this bill and he stressed the often lifelong consequences on young people. So, the committee agreed to return to the bill next week on both Wednesday and Thursday.
Finally, the House Judiciary Committee will review H. 78 next week. That’s the uniform adult guardianship and protective proceedings jurisdiction act that’s been endorsed by the VBA Board, the Elder Law Section, and the Probate and Trust Section.
I will be away next week (after Monday) attending the ABA Mid Winter Meeting and unable to report to you. I will be monitoring emails and will respond. Thanks for reading, as always.
JUDICIAL RETENTION SCHEDULE
PRELIMINARY JUDICIAL RETENTION SCHEDULE 2011
Fri. 2/11 First Committee meetings with Justices and Judges
11:00 a.m., Room 11 11:00 a.m. -12:15 p.m.
Hon. Paul Reiber
Hon. Denise Johnson
Hon. Brian Burgess
1:00 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.
Hon. Cortland Corsones
Hon. Robert Bent
Hon. Michael Kupersmith
3:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Hon. Gregory Rainville
Hon. Theresa Di Mauro
Hon. Mark Keller
Hon. Harold Eaton
Hon. Thomas Devine
Tues. 2/15 5:00-7:00 p.m., Room 10
Hon. John Dooley
Hon. John Wesley
Hon. Linda Levitt
Thurs. 2/17 Public Hearing #1 7:00 p.m., Room 11
Hon. Michael Kupersmith
Hon. Mark Keller
Hon. Linda Levitt
Hon. Harold Eaton
Hon. Gregory Rainville
Hon. Thomas Devine
Hon. Theresa Di Mauro
Thurs. 2/24 Public Hearing #2 7:00 p.m., Room 11
Hon. Paul Reiber
Hon. John Wesley
Hon. John Dooley
Hon. Cortland Corsones
Hon. Justice Denise Johnson
Hon. Robert Bent
Hon. Marilyn Skoglund
Hon. Brian Burgess
Feb. 28-March 4 Town Meeting Week Recess
Fri. 3/11 Follow-up Comm. meetings with Justices and Judges
9:00 a.m. -10:30 a.m. Room 11
Hon. Justice Paul Reiber
Hon. John Dooley
Hon. Denise Johnson
Hon. Marilyn Skoglund
Hon. Brian Burgess
11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.
Hon. John Wesley
Hon. Cortland Corsones
Hon. Robert Bent
Hon. Michael Kupersmith
Hon. Linda Levitt
1:30 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
Hon. Gregory Rainville
Hon. Theresa Di Mauro
Hon. Mark Keller
Hon. Harold Eaton
Hon. Thomas Devine
Tues. 3/15 4:30 p.m Comm. Meeting to deliberate, vote and make reporting assignments
Thurs. 3/24 10:30 a.m. Joint Assembly
Fri. 2/11 First Committee meetings with Justices and Judges
11:00 a.m., Room 11 11:00 a.m. -12:15 p.m.
Hon. Paul Reiber
Hon. Denise Johnson
Hon. Brian Burgess
1:00 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.
Hon. Cortland Corsones
Hon. Robert Bent
Hon. Michael Kupersmith
3:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Hon. Gregory Rainville
Hon. Theresa Di Mauro
Hon. Mark Keller
Hon. Harold Eaton
Hon. Thomas Devine
Tues. 2/15 5:00-7:00 p.m., Room 10
Hon. John Dooley
Hon. John Wesley
Hon. Linda Levitt
Thurs. 2/17 Public Hearing #1 7:00 p.m., Room 11
Hon. Michael Kupersmith
Hon. Mark Keller
Hon. Linda Levitt
Hon. Harold Eaton
Hon. Gregory Rainville
Hon. Thomas Devine
Hon. Theresa Di Mauro
Thurs. 2/24 Public Hearing #2 7:00 p.m., Room 11
Hon. Paul Reiber
Hon. John Wesley
Hon. John Dooley
Hon. Cortland Corsones
Hon. Justice Denise Johnson
Hon. Robert Bent
Hon. Marilyn Skoglund
Hon. Brian Burgess
Feb. 28-March 4 Town Meeting Week Recess
Fri. 3/11 Follow-up Comm. meetings with Justices and Judges
9:00 a.m. -10:30 a.m. Room 11
Hon. Justice Paul Reiber
Hon. John Dooley
Hon. Denise Johnson
Hon. Marilyn Skoglund
Hon. Brian Burgess
11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.
Hon. John Wesley
Hon. Cortland Corsones
Hon. Robert Bent
Hon. Michael Kupersmith
Hon. Linda Levitt
1:30 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
Hon. Gregory Rainville
Hon. Theresa Di Mauro
Hon. Mark Keller
Hon. Harold Eaton
Hon. Thomas Devine
Tues. 3/15 4:30 p.m Comm. Meeting to deliberate, vote and make reporting assignments
Thurs. 3/24 10:30 a.m. Joint Assembly
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Well, after not contributing to the blog for a couple days it’s time to catch you up on what’s been happening. It was really not an overly busy week for me on the issues the VBA is most interested in. Tuesday and yesterday the House Ways and Means Committee took testimony on the income tax recommendations in the Blue Ribbon Tax Structure Commission report. I’m on the witness list for when they get to extending the sales tax to services.
This morning the House Judiciary Committee took a huge step towards enacting H. 88, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. As I’ve written when it was introduced, this is a bill that’s been around for a few years but never acted upon. Vermont and Massachusetts are the only two states left to enact it. Uniform law Commission Richard Cassidy did a great overview of the bill as well as a section by section explanation that, I’m certain, left no doubt in the minds of committee members both what the bill does and why Vermont needs it. He was followed by Administrative Judge Amy Davenport who began her testimony by saying “no matter what else you do this session, please pass this bill”. She talked about her experiences with interstate issues and made it clear to committee members why the tools in H. 88 would help the process. The last witness was VBA Board member and President-Elect Nominee Amber Barber who spoke as a family division practitioner. She focused on the enforcement tools in the bill and how they will help move cases. Clearly the committee “got it”. They were struggling to find any advocates who might oppose it. The only witness they didn’t get to was a representative of the Vermont Network Against Sexual and Domestic Violence. They will weigh in a later date in full support of the bill. We may finally see this enacted into law!
I just returned from a second meting with Tax Commissioner Mary Peterson and other members of the department along with Jim Knapp and Liam Murphy. Jim and Liam traveled down to Montpelier again to discuss the ePTTR. I think their voices (and the comments many of you made on the Property Law Section list serve) were heard and I think you’ll be seeing some action soon. Liam and Jim will sum up what was accomplished; run it by the tax department; and get it out to the list serve. Since I’m on that list, I’ll copy over the summary here when I get it. BTW, I have a 9 page collection of issues taken from the list serve if any of you (not on that list serve of course) want to see it, just let me know. Also, the VBA will be planning a 2 hour training session at the Mid Year Meeting on March 18th about the ePTTR. We’ll make special arrangements to allow you to bring your real estate paralegal if you have one. We also want to reach out to the family and probate bars and encourage their attendance even if their exposure to conveyancing may be sporadic.
Tomorrow I expect the Senate Judiciary Committee to return to their discussion of child support and to S. 38, the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act. I’ll update after those meetings take place. Thanks for reading.
This morning the House Judiciary Committee took a huge step towards enacting H. 88, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. As I’ve written when it was introduced, this is a bill that’s been around for a few years but never acted upon. Vermont and Massachusetts are the only two states left to enact it. Uniform law Commission Richard Cassidy did a great overview of the bill as well as a section by section explanation that, I’m certain, left no doubt in the minds of committee members both what the bill does and why Vermont needs it. He was followed by Administrative Judge Amy Davenport who began her testimony by saying “no matter what else you do this session, please pass this bill”. She talked about her experiences with interstate issues and made it clear to committee members why the tools in H. 88 would help the process. The last witness was VBA Board member and President-Elect Nominee Amber Barber who spoke as a family division practitioner. She focused on the enforcement tools in the bill and how they will help move cases. Clearly the committee “got it”. They were struggling to find any advocates who might oppose it. The only witness they didn’t get to was a representative of the Vermont Network Against Sexual and Domestic Violence. They will weigh in a later date in full support of the bill. We may finally see this enacted into law!
I just returned from a second meting with Tax Commissioner Mary Peterson and other members of the department along with Jim Knapp and Liam Murphy. Jim and Liam traveled down to Montpelier again to discuss the ePTTR. I think their voices (and the comments many of you made on the Property Law Section list serve) were heard and I think you’ll be seeing some action soon. Liam and Jim will sum up what was accomplished; run it by the tax department; and get it out to the list serve. Since I’m on that list, I’ll copy over the summary here when I get it. BTW, I have a 9 page collection of issues taken from the list serve if any of you (not on that list serve of course) want to see it, just let me know. Also, the VBA will be planning a 2 hour training session at the Mid Year Meeting on March 18th about the ePTTR. We’ll make special arrangements to allow you to bring your real estate paralegal if you have one. We also want to reach out to the family and probate bars and encourage their attendance even if their exposure to conveyancing may be sporadic.
Tomorrow I expect the Senate Judiciary Committee to return to their discussion of child support and to S. 38, the Uniform Collateral Consequences of Conviction Act. I’ll update after those meetings take place. Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)