As afternoon turned into evening Thursday, 35 members of Vermont’s House Republican caucus gathered around a conference table a block from the Statehouse to plot their next move.
They had spent much of the day trying in vain to override Gov. Peter Shumlin’s veto of a renewable energy siting bill. They had stood together to block consideration of a substitute measure, which proponents promised merely corrected technical problems in the vetoed bill. But now the minority party had reached an impasse: While they had the votes to delay the substitute measure’s passage, they didn’t have the votes to stop it.
“What’s the end game here?” asked Rep. Kurt Wright (R-Burlington), a moderate Republican who often bucks his party’s leadership.
Perched at the head of the conference table, House Minority Leader Don Turner (R-Milton) suddenly seemed at a loss for words. The end game, he said, was to override the governor’s veto — a result, he acknowledged, that would never come to pass.
“We’re in a circular pattern,” Turner conceded.
But his caucus wasn’t quite ready to quit spinning its wheels. Its members marched back into the Statehouse at the dinner hour, pledging to fight on — for days, if necessary. Barely two hours later, they caved and allowed the substitute to pass.
Precisely what Turner and his fellow House Republicans were fighting for — or against — was never quite clear. When the bill in question passed in May, most of them had supported S.230, which was designed to give municipalities more control over the siting of renewable energy projects and to limit the noise that wind turbines could emit. Few, if any, House Republicans could explain Thursday what was so objectionable about the substitute, S.260, which Shumlin and his Democratic allies now proposed.
“S.230 was a compromised bill. We only supported it because it was better than nothing — and we spent the whole session negotiating,” Turner said in an interview earlier that afternoon. “We’re not compromising further.”
But Turner couldn’t quite say how S.260 differed, substantively, from the bill he and his fellow Republicans thought they had been voting for in May. Asked several times to identify what was so problematic about the legislative language, Turner demurred — relying instead on a procedural argument.
“I believe that the integrity of the legislative process is being undermined by what they’re doing,” he said, explaining that when a governor vetoes a bill, the legislature should return to Montpelier only to override or sustain the veto — not pass new legislation to fix it.
For some members of Turner’s caucus, their opposition appeared to come down to a matter of trust. House Republicans repeatedly suggested that the governor was acting as a puppet of renewable energy developer David Blittersdorf and his cronies, alleging that S.260 included some secret provision that would enrich the state’s clean-energy mafia. None could offer a lick of evidence to back up such assertions.
“I don’t care what they say to me. Quite frankly, I don’t believe what they say is in this new bill. I can’t trust anybody at this point!” Rep. Janssen Willhoit (R-St. Johnsbury) shouted at a mid-afternoon caucus meeting. “So I’ll be damned if I’m going to be lied to again! It’s not gonna happen.”
Turner, who is typically mild-mannered in public, echoed the sentiment with colorful language of his own.
“People are fed up with government because of shit like this!” he told his members.
Perhaps, but House Republicans appeared to be risking an awful lot to make a process point. Though passing S.230 had been “better than nothing” in May, Turner was now saying he was perfectly willing to scuttle new limits on renewable energy siting, if he failed to override Shumlin’s veto — and walk away empty-handed.
“I think that there is some political gamesmanship going on,” House Speaker Shap Smith (D-Morristown) suggested.
Indeed, though Turner denied it, it was hard to escape the conclusion that House Republicans desperately wanted the siting bill to go down in flames, so that they could blame Democrats and campaign on the issue during this fall’s election season.
They missed their chance for a number of reasons:
1. They simply didn’t have the numbers. To expedite passage of the substitute measure, House Democrats had to suspend the rules several times — a move that required three-quarters of those present to vote in favor. House Republicans had enough votes to block such suspensions, but the Democrats could simply wait them out — and remain in Montpelier for as many days as it would take to pass the bill under regular order.
2. They’re not very good at playing chicken. When Smith made clear Thursday afternoon that he was willing to wait them out, House Republicans failed to test his resolve. It’s hard to imagine that Smith, who is running for lieutenant governor, would have relished staying in the Statehouse into next week, costing taxpayers $60,000 a day to keep the legislature in session. We’ll never know. As soon as Smith issued his threat, Turner told his caucus he thought it prudent to call it quits and go home. That’s not how you win.
3. Senate Republicans didn’t have their back. House Republican leaders dug in early, holding a press conference Tuesday vowing to fight Shumlin’s veto, but their Senate counterparts largely held their fire. Several — Sens. Bill Doyle (R-Washington), Kevin Mullin (R-Rutland), Helen Riehle (R-Chittenden) and Richard Westman (R-Lamoille) — were persuaded that the substitute measure would achieve what they supported in May and voted with their Democratic colleagues, 22 to 7, to suspend the rules. When the underlying bill, S.260, came up for a vote, it passed the Senate 27 to 2, with just Sens. Dustin Degree (R-Franklin) and Phil Baruth (D-Chittenden) voting in opposition. Because an override of S.230 had to originate in the Senate, the House was left with two options: S.260 or nothing.
So why didn’t Senate Republicans stand with their House brethren? For one thing, senators of all three parties rarely vote in an entirely partisan fashion. They listened attentively Thursday morning as a legislative lawyer, Aaron Adler, walked the entire body through the differences — and similarities — between the two bills.
Referring to a memo Adler had prepared, Mullin asked a simple question: “Is there any other change, whatsoever, to S.230 in the language of S.260, other than what is on this document?”
“No,” Adler replied.
When Senate Republicans gathered in the coatroom several minutes later to settle on a caucus position, Mullin sounded persuaded.
“At this point, somebody has to explain to me what we’re trying to fight for if this truly is a clarification,” he said. “Otherwise, I think we’re spinning our wheels here.”
After 10 minutes of debate, Sen. Joe Benning (R-Caledonia), the Republican minority leader, tried to wrap up the discussion and determine whether his colleagues supported the substitute measure.
“The decision really boils down to whether we want something or nothing,” he said, rubbing his eyes with both hands.
“Well, I want something, because, you know, my other hat is on the city council,” said Riehle, who chairs South Burlington’s governing body. “As a council and planning commission, we’d like to have some say. I think this is the only bill that gives us that kind of standing. And that’s really important to me.”
In the end, Riehle and her small band of Senate Republican allies got the “something” they wanted. Turner and his House Republican caucus didn’t get the “nothing” they appeared to crave.
Whether voters this fall reward one approach or the other — or simply don’t care — remains to be seen.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Paul, you could write a column about how Shap & Co. have jerked people around for six years on this topic. This was just a one day summation of the entire leadership by Shumlin and Shap to cater to the renewable industry. You are pointing fingers in the wrong direction, and I hope you will be fair and do another piece analyzing why Shap played this game of chicken and needlessly tortured all the people who were there all day.
What was this all about? It was about making sure that nothing happens to address renewable energy siting and standards. We got nothing. Sure, the spin is that towns get more say and sound standards will be developed. The actual situation is they have successfully punted both issues a year or more down the road, and insultingly they have established a process for the PSB to actually lock in the bad sound standards that the PSB has been using to cause harm to the neighbors of big wind projects.
The Ds shifted the focus to “the fix” when the focus should be on addressing the real problems we have in this state after more than a dozen years of House leadership avoiding addressing siting standards. Wind turbines produce noise pollution. Nobody will deal with it. Now it has risen to a state of emergency for yet more Vermonters facing wind turbines.
The whole purpose of “the fix” was to make sure nobody could claim there is an emergency. That’s what it was about, and the journalists who are trying to pile on blaming those who are actually trying to help people be heard is a pretty low blow. Read Leg Counci’s memo http://www.vce.org/Shumlin_Veto.pdf. There was no need for the “fix”.
This was never a partisan issue, but big wind turbines have been built in Republican districts so they understand. The Democrats have become the party of the industry, and it astonishes me how they have allowed themselves to be corrupted. But that is what we all witnessed up close and personal, it wasn’t the weakness of the Republicans, it was the corruption of the Democrats on full display for all of us to witness.
I’m sorry I have to post comments instead of a reporter taking the time to talk to me and explore the topic. I was there all day, Paul, you passed me numerous times and never bothered to ask what’s going on.
So I’ll tell the story here. The night before the veto session Sen. Chris Bray, who has risen to the top in the Senate as THE most untrustworthy of that body, sent out an email with the topic “helpful background information” that included three memos
PSB memo http://vce.org/PSB%20Memo%205.24.16.pdf
RSG memo http://vce.org/Engineering%20Assessment%20…
BED memo http://vce.org/Lunderville%20email%20RE%20…
Notably it did not include the Leg Council memo I posted previously.
The RSG memo is especially insulting, as it is misleading, inaccurate, and doesn’t mention that the Mass. noise standard is 10 dBA above ambient and has been used for decades, and many people in Mass. are complaining about the same sleep deprivation and health issues in Mass. as in Vermont. This was used to claim this bill would stop wind development, or that it would require turbines to be built closer. This is absurd on the issue, but it was basically “testimony” with no opportunity to rebut. I happened to get it all from one person the night before. It was sent to ALL legislators. And this is how they played their sick game, the D’s that is. Please write a column about that.
I am also surprised Paul that you failed to cover the other side of the issue. Seven Days should be doing an expose on the rampant conflict of intetest and revolving door going on between Shumlins crownies, lobbyists for the RE Industry, and regulators. Communities in Vt. Are being ignored and mistreated.
OMG! A. Smith! “Why didn’t the reporters talk to ME?! Why didn’t they interview ME?! I’m the most important person in the Statehouse! I’m the only one who knows what’s going on! Paul passed ME several times in the hall and never interviewed ME! Can you believe it?! Everybody should want to report about ME! ME ME ME!”
to knowyourassumptions, Paul didn’t talk to me or anyone else who took the whole day in the Statehouse to witness our democracy in action. No, it is not about me. Unfortunately the renewable industry has targeted me and caused me to be the subject of a criminal investigation by the AG, I didn’t go looking for that or any of the publicity afterwards. I will answer your question directly. No, it is not about me and never has been. I serve the people of Vermont who have sought my assistance in holding corporations accountable and having a voice in what goes on in our communities. I am more sorry than anyone when the focus is on me, and that AG investigation cost me money and interfered with my work on behalf of Vermonters. I passed Paul in the halls after the House vote on S.260 and said “we all got an education in how to railroad a bill through.” The memos I posted are not public, only legislators got them, and I happen to have them, so yes, in that sense I am posting and talking about me because I have information to share with the public rather than keeping it as inside info. Facts and information so people can make informed decisions, that’s my motto. I hope you can take your focus off me and turn it to the issues which are very important for our state, not just renewable energy but undue influence by special interests.
“No, it is not about me.”
That’s the definition of irony. Yes, apparently, it is about you. In your last post you used the words “me,” “I,” or “my” 22 times. It is completely about you.
You’re annoyed because the press did not want to hear from you. You are not a legislator. You are not an elected or appointed official. You are a member of the public who happened to be at the statehouse, like other members of the public. There was absolutely, positively no reason for any member of the press to talk to you.
Annette Smith understands the issues involved in more depth than any of the press so talking to her would enlighten them and they could then write more intelligent articles about what’s really going on. Instead, they prefer to accept and regurgitate the dishonest obfuscation from the Dems who are in bed with the renewable energy developers.
“Annette Smith understands the issues involved in more depth than any of the press”
She does indeed. However, she’s chosen to bend the conversation beyond reason or veracity in her zeal for her particular viewpoint. The press doesn’t bother with her any more because they know what she’ll say. She’ll say anything, no matter how ludicrous or pointless, that sounds (to her) like justification for her crusade. Lately, that includes vitriolic diatribes against anyone with a different viewpoint.
This may not have been a partisan issue, but it’s become one. That doesn’t mean a sharp division by party affiliation. (Thankfully, in Vermont, that sort of mindless lockstep is rare.) Increasingly, it’s a showdown between people who feel a duty to figure out together what to do and how to do it, versus those who want to do nothing, thwart everything, look away and cover their ears hoping nothing changes in the outside world.
Ms. Smith, in her frustration, has embraced the philosophy that bad outcomes mean an agent of evil engineered them, some bad actor is responsible and ill-informed or apathetic or venal confederates are conspiring to confound the divine inspiration to which she’s privy. She can’t comprehend how anyone looking at the same evidence she looks at could sincerely and intelligently come to a different conclusion. Her explanation is corruption. As her claims grow more outlandish and her language more defamatory, sincere, intelligent people are bound to pay less attention to her.
Plenty of people will pay attention to her, but antagonizing and denigrating everyone with whom you disagree quickly thins the ranks of an audience in Vermont.
“Precisely what Turner and his fellow House Republicans were fighting for — or against — was never quite clear.”
No one likes being told what to do, even when what they’re being told is reasonable or necessary. Pitching a fit when it’s time for bed is childish, but politicians sometimes value exercising their authority and accruing possible political advantage above any consideration of public benefit or simply doing their job.
Anger’s abroad in the land. It’s unfocused, inchoate, unpredictable. No one’s quite sure with whom they’re so angry, who did them so wrong, but they’re furious and ready to put ’em up with anyone who crosses them. It’s infected the entire political spectrum and provided fertile ground for all manner of uprisings, but inside Vermont it’s being exploited primarily by Republicans. This ridiculous reaction, battle stations over literally nothing more than legislative procedure, is why there’re only 53 Republicans in the House.
The assertion that a special session of the General Assembly may only override or fail to override a veto, may not propose or pass new legislation, was at best a peculiar point of view and pure wishful thinking. Making wishful thinking the basis for strongly-worded public pronouncements, fulminating against the rest of the Assembly for declining to subscribe to that peculiar point of view (in fact ignoring it as irrelevant posturing) is hardly politically astute.
Republicans might consider that they aren’t impotent because there are so few of them so much as there are so few of them because they are impotent, precisely because they consistently elect as their leaders the most emotional and least adroit among them.
“She can’t comprehend how anyone looking at the same evidence she looks at could sincerely and intelligently come to a different conclusion.”
Best description I’ve heard.
And so she demonizes anyone who disagrees with her. She has the only legitimate opinion, so her adversaries are not good people of different opinion; they cannot be. They must of necessity be evil, corrupt, or ignorant. And so now it’s become about her personally. She incessantly refers to herself in all of her postings.