After Sen. Alison Clarkson (D-Windsor) on Thursday pitched her colleagues on legislation designed to protect tenants in Vermont’s 78,000 rental units, two senators argued against it — not on the grounds that the bill would hurt the economy or be ineffective, but because it would affect their personal finances.
The bill, S.163, includes the creation of a statewide database of all rental units, state funding for a new Department of Health staffer to oversee rental housing conditions and a requirement that residential building contractors register with the state in order to reduce home improvement fraud. Clarkson described it as a consumer protection bill.
Sen. Jeanette White (D-Windham) objected to some of the policies. She said a statewide list of rental units would include an apartment in her home that she rents out.
“I do not want my apartment listed,” White said during a debate on the Senate floor. “My apartment is in my house, and I choose who I rent it to.”
Sen. John Rodgers (D-Essex/Orleans), a building contractor, piled on. He said the state already imposes onerous restrictions on him and other contractors, and another would be unfair.
“I see no protections for the contractors” in the bill, Rodgers said during Thursday’s debate.
While both White and Rodgers openly spoke about their personal stakes in the outcome of the bill, neither they nor any other member of the Senate suggested that they might face a conflict of interest. Nor did they state an intent to recuse themselves from voting on the bill.
White and Rodgers aren’t the only ones with skin in the game. According to ethics disclosure forms filed earlier this year and available in a Seven Days database, 12 of the Senate’s 30 members make at least $10,000 a year from rental properties or real estate companies.
According to Senate rules, “No senator shall be permitted to vote upon any question in which he or she is directly or immediately interested.”
In an interview following Thursday’s debate, White argued that there’s nothing wrong with a senator voting on an issue in which he or she has a personal interest. White noted that in Vermont’s citizen legislature, lawmakers often weigh in on bills that affect their nonlegislative professions.
“Everything that we do is a conflict of interest,” she said.
Lawmakers, she argued, are only conflicted when a proposal “would impact you more than anyone in that class of people.”
The Senate rules don’t specifically state that, but the body is also subject to the rules in Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure. Questioned about her intent to vote on the bill, White led a reporter to her Senate desk and pulled out a copy of Mason’s Manual, flipping to a page marked by a sticky note. She pointed to an underlined passage.
“The right of members to represent their constituencies is of such major importance that members should be barred from voting on matters of direct personal interest only in clear cases when the matter is particularly personal,” the manual reads.
“Obviously, this rule is not self-enforcing,” the manual states.
According to those rules, White said, there’s no problem with her or the Senate’s other 11 landlords voting on the bill.
“This doesn’t impact me any more than it impacts any other landlord in the state,” she said.
White said the same applies to Rodgers, who wouldn’t be any more affected by the proposal than other Vermont contractors.
Clarkson opted to delay a final vote on the bill Thursday, giving senators more time to consider it, suggest changes and, perhaps, decide whether to recuse themselves.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
As a renter and a one-time contractor, I agree with Rogers & White: I don’t want the state mandating anything else to the property owner. Administration is expensive, as are renovations and rents will go up proportionally; same with contracting.
This is Vermont–enough with the mandates!
Upgrading the efficacy of small claims court (with enforcement criteria) may be a better approach that serves contractors and property owners when they are in dispute.
Having the State do an inventory of rental and other housing–town by town–is an important way to assess what we have and what we need. However, unless the state is going to leverage the money to pay for what they say they want, it will just drive out of state those low- and middle-income folks everyone likes to say their trying to protect. After all, shelter that may be less than perfect is better than homelessness. If the state is concerned about sub-standard housing, they would serve the common good better by fully funding programs to improve them.
Perhaps we need to elect more low- and middle income folks to office so they (we) can be more fairly represented.
For once I agree with what Donna says
So really, this Vermont is your REPRESENTATION. It requires your constant vigilance, to assure that YOUR legislator votes as you wish. If you elect someone to represent you, THAT’S NOT the end of it. You will be wise to continue to monitor and follow your representative, to assure they vote in your interest. If they do, then re-elect them, if they do not, then vote them out. Our government requires active participation, a lazy electorate want’s representatives who read their minds on every issue. This would be wonderful, but far from reality. We are FORTUNATE to have REAL PEOPLE represent us, as opposed to lawyers lawyers professional politicians and more lawyers, IMHO.
In other words.. If you’re a legislator landlord you will look out for your interest instead of the tenants.. You’ll vote for rules that cover your a$$ instead of the common people. I always thought that what the legislators did. lookout for their interest first…. citizens, oh they are just an after thought..
“Some legislators display an astounding disregard for conflicts of interest and a brazen willingness to legislate and vote for their own benefit.”
Stellaquarta has it right. Vermont’s legislature is a citizen legislature. They all have real lives and occupations outside of Montpelier. Ever legislator has a conflict to one degree or another.
Should legislators who are tenants (and many are tenants in Montpelier during the legislative session and some are tenants all year round) not be allowed to vote on any legislation that favors tenants?
Should certain legislators who are organic farmers not have ever voted on any legislation that benefitted or promoted organic farming?
I think many commenters here are missing the point. This isn’t about the legislation itself. The point is that 40% representation in a Senate vote when those 40% have a direct and significant financial stake in the outcome is a direct conflict of interest and is unacceptable, no matter the topic.