"Scribblings" - An Occasional Newsletter from the Legislature 
By Rep. Thomas F. Koch, Barre Town

The push for adjournment is on this week, and the danger to the people is seriously increased as a result. Several weeks ago, legislative leadership announced that they intended to adjourn the legislature for the biennium by Friday, May 2. That did not seem likely to me at that time, and it still does not seem reasonable to me today. Word is, however, that leadership is sticking to this timetable. The Speaker has instructed all conference committees to finish their work today, even though there are several conference committees in which the House and Senate are still far apart, a few members serve on numerous committees and find it difficult to schedule meetings, and we were still appointing new committees this afternoon.

The danger is that in working so fast, unintended mistakes may be made; but worse, personal pet projects can get inserted into final versions of a bill and then get adopted without even being noticed by the vast majority of members. Often, large and important bills are delivered to members’ desks only 20 minutes or so before votes on those bills are taken, leaving next to no time to read the bills.

It has been said that there will always be a "last day" for a legislative session, meaning that there will always be a rush of business and a lot of confusion as it becomes apparent that adjournment is approaching. One always hopes for an "orderly" adjournment, but what is orderly is relative. I hope that this year’s adjournment will be "relatively orderly" and free of unintended consequences, even if it means spending a few extra days in Montpelier. 

On the other hand, one is tempted to believe that the sooner the legislature leaves town, the sooner common sense can return.

We used to have a common understanding of the term age of majority. It was 21. Then we lowered it to 18. (Except for the drinking age, of course.) Now we seem to have different ages for different purposes. Without parental involvement, a girl can get reproductive medical care, including an abortion, at any age. A child can get mental health care without parental involvement at age 14. And in Vermont, a parent cannot arrange involuntary hospitalization for mental health purposes for that parent’s child without the child’s consent at any age.

This week we have dealt with two bills having to do with the age of majority. The first is intended to protect the confidentiality of persons who use public libraries, prohibiting library officials from releasing information about the reading habits of people unless such a release is ordered by a judge. As the bill was originally introduced, it also specifically prohibited parents from obtaining information concerning the books a parent’s child was reading unless the child was under 13. The bill was subsequently amended to raise that to 16, but the effect of the bill is to create yet another exception to our understanding of the term "age of majority," this time for public library purposes.

Interestingly, federal education law is clear that school library information can be obtained by a parent until the parent’s child turns 18, after which the child’s consent would be needed. So we have proposed to create two different standards—one for school libraries and one for public libraries. 

During debate on the floor, it was said that present law affords parents no right to obtain information on his or her child’s library records, so that the bill is actually increasing a parent’s right. I think that view ignores, however, the language of Vermont law that generally allows (with certain exceptions, some of which have been noted above) parents to have access to their minor child’s records "including but not limited to medical, dental, law enforcement and school records." In my view, parents generally have the right to control and supervise their children up to age 18, unless the law makes an exception for certain purposes, and we have just created one more exception.

It seems to me that we fault parents for not supervising their children adequately, but then we turn around and make it more difficult for them to do so.

A second bill passed this week is actually not a bill but a proposal to amend the Vermont constitution to permit a person who will attain the age of 18 by the date of a general election to vote in the primary for that election. For a presidential election, for example, a person who would turn 18 on November 1 would be eligible to vote in a presidential primary on Town Meeting Day in March. That person, however, would not be eligible to vote on other matters that same day, nor would that person be allowed to vote in a May town meeting such as Barre Town has. 

To me, this proposal is not intrinsically wrong, but it doesn’t really solve any problem. Any time there is a deadline, somebody will miss it and will be unhappy. That’s the nature of deadlines. It makes little sense to me to allow someone who is 17 years and 3 months of age to vote in a primary just because that person will be 18 in time to vote in the general election.

To become law, this proposal of amendment must be passed again by both houses of the legislature during the next two year session and then passed by the voters of Vermont at a general election. There will be plenty of time for additional debate.

The financial condition of the state has caused numerous budget cuts, advancement of fee increases, and other financial adjustments. Among these adjustments are pay freezes for many state employees. Numerous state employees, especially the higher-paid employees, have been "asked" and have "agreed" to forgo their scheduled wage increases for the coming year.

Members of the legislature, however, are scheduled to receive an automatic pay increase equal to the CPI next January, and I understand that there is no intention to pass a bill that forgoes our pay increase. This is wrong, and I will not vote for any bill that asks other state officials and employees to "share the pain" and accept a pay freeze, unless it also asks legislators to "share the pain" and accept a pay freeze as well. In the whole scheme of things, it’s not a lot of money, but in principle, we should not be asking people to do what we ourselves are not willing to do.