I am writing to respond to Vermonters’ concerns that we do the best we can to keep our communities safe and appropriately address the problem of sexual violence. This discussion has occurred in response to the recent tragic death of Brooke Bennett.
In last week’s article, my district-mate Representative Anne Donahue addressed the question of if the Legislature should have an emergency session and adopt measures such as Jessica’s law, the death penalty and civil confinement. In looking at these issues, Rep. Donahue quoted United States Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.’s statement that “Hard cases make bad law.” According to Rep. Donahue, Justice Holmes “meant that the most difficult situations – terrible tragedies, extreme horrors, and examples of the worst in us – can result in laws with unintended consequences that go far beyond what we might otherwise consider just and appropriate.” Representative Donahue also eloquently explained that “every session, about one third of the legislature turns over. A special session would be asking for one third of the body to act without any testimony or deliberation”, noting that the Legislature has made significant changes to our laws in the past years. I concur with representative Donahue for the reasons below.
I think that before the Legislature is called to an emergency session, there should be:

1. An immediate investigation into what happened in this case;

2. Examination of how have the laws changed since Mr. Jacques was first sentenced and released that better protect our communities;

3. Determination of if those laws are being implemented; and

4. Consideration of what can be done to protect our communities either by internal agency action or new legislation.
Such an investigation and gathering of information of each of these questions will begin in the coming weeks through hearings conducted by members of the Senate Judiciary committee, myself, and the chair of the House Institutions Committee. We will hold a series of six hearings between August 7th and the end of September. I think it is imperative to hold these hearings first and gather the information before we hold an emergency session. I will report about these hearings and welcome you to attend them and testify at the public hearings.
The first of the hearings will be held August 7, from 10AM until 4PM and August 8, from 9AM to 3PM, both in Room 10 of the State House. The meetings will be open to the public and there will be several public hearings when the general public will be able to speak. The first of the public hearings will be August 28 at 5PM in Room 10.
The first of these hearings will focus on why the Corrections staff advocated for the early release of Mr. Jacques and will investigate the Department of Corrections' standards, parole proceedings, job cuts, and policies regarding sex offenders.
The second series of hearings will focus on sex offender treatment, where we will hear from national experts. We will also look into the status of the special investigative units (SIU’s) the Legislature passed and funded 2 years ago. Questions such as are they fully funded as we directed, are the necessary staff such as detectives on board are things I am very interested in knowing. SIU’s are integral to the prevention, investigation and appropriate sentencing of sex crimes and offenders.
Finally, we will look at existing laws and if and how they are being implemented and other proposals.
As vice chair of the House Judiciary committee and member of that committee for eight years, I know that we have passed very tough legislation in recent years that addresses the issues of sexual violence and punishment of sex offenders that makes Vermont one of the strictest states in the country in dealing with these crimes.

0 Comments

2004 -2007 Legislative Acts Regarding Sex Offenses



H.148. AN ACT RELATING TO THE CHILD ABUSE REGISTRY AND
INCREASED SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY REQUIREMENTS (2007)


• Established heightened sex offender registry requirements for persons designated noncompliant high-risk sex offenders by the department of corrections. These offenders are automatically subject to lifetime sex offender registration and community notification, must report to the department of public safety within 15 days after their release and every 30 days after that, and must inform the department of any changes in name, residence, post-secondary education status, or employment. They must also provide the department with identifying information about their vehicles, and are prohibited from operating any other vehicles at any time. An offender violates any of these heightened registry requirements is subject to a prison sentence of not less than five years and a mandatory maximum of life. The sentence may not be suspended, and the offender cannot be eligible for parole or other early release, unless the offender is placed under intensive supervision by the department of corrections.




NO. 192. AN ACT RELATING TO ENHANCING SENTENCES FOR AND PREVENTING RISKS POSED BY DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS. (ALSO KNOWN AS THE
“SEXUAL VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT.” (2006)


• Established a sentencing system, called "indeterminate lifetime sentencing," which mandates lifetime maximum sentences for most sex offenders. For most offenses, minimum sentences are not mandated and will therefore vary according to the circumstances associated with the crime. This means that, after the offender's release, he or she will continue to be under the supervision of the department of corrections for life and will be subject to the underlying lifetime maximum term of incarceration if he or she re-offends or violates the terms of probation. Additionally, the offender must complete sex offender treatment and programming in order to be eligible for release.

• For lewd and lascivious conduct with a child, established a presumptive minimum sentence of five years of incarceration for a second offense and ten years of incarceration for a third or subsequent offense.

• For aggravated sexual assault, established a presumptive minimum sentence of ten years of incarceration and a mandatory minimum sentence of five years of incarceration.

• Permitted arrest without a warrant for failure to comply with sex offender registry requirements, and increased the penalty for knowingly failing to comply for more than five consecutive days to a five-year felony.

• Required high risk offenders to report to the department of corrections within 36 hours of any change of address instead of the standard 72 hours for other sex offenders.

• Added all recidivist sex offenders to the internet sex offender registry, as well as offenders who commit lewd and lascivious conduct with a child if the offender is determined by the department of corrections to be high risk.

• Increased public access to sex offender registry information.

• Required the department of corrections to conduct pre-sentence investigations, which may include psychosexual evaluations, for all sex offenders, and to develop a release plan and a community reentry support team for all high risk sex offenders.

• Required the department of corrections, prior to the release of a sex offender, to give careful consideration to the proximity of the offender's residence to any risk group associated with the offender.

• Created an “age gap," exception to some sexual offenses when both parties have consented to the sexual conduct and one of the parties is a minor. Under the age gap exception, no crime is committed if a person is charged with lewd and lascivious conduct with a child, luring a child, or statutory rape, and the person is less than 19 years old, the child is at least 15 years old, and the conduct is consensual.

• Directed the antiviolence partnership at the University of Vermont to convene an education task force on sexual violence prevention.

• Expanded special investigative units, which specialize in investigating sex crimes, to all regions of Vermont.




NO. 193. AN ACT RELATING TO ORDERS AGAINST STALKING OR SEXUAL ASSAULT, NO CONTACT ORDERS, AND ESTABLISHING A VICTIMS' RIGHTS STUDY COMMITTEE. (2006)



• Created a process for obtaining an order against stalking or sexual assault that is closely modeled on the procedures for obtaining a relief from domestic abuse order. A person who was the victim of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child, sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault may obtain an order from the court directing the defendant to stay away from the plaintiff and his or her children. A violation of the order is a crime, and upon conviction, the court may order the defendant to participate in mental health counseling or sex offender treatment approved by the department of corrections.





NO. 79. AN ACT RELATING TO CRIMINAL ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND
EXPLOITATION OF VULNERABLE ADULTS. (2005)



• Increased penalties for lewd and lascivious conduct with a child. Maximum life in prison for recidivists.

• Prohibited a person who is convicted of aggravated sexual assault from being eligible for early release or furlough until the expiration of the minimum sentence imposed. Crime is punishable by up to life in prison.

• Streamlined process for designating an offender as a sexually violent predator, requiring, prior to sentencing, a presentence investigations and a psychosexual evaluation on person suspected of being a predator.

• Appropriated $50,000.00 in FY 06 to the department of corrections for the purpose of funding psychosexual evaluations as a part of presentence investigations conducted by the department in cases involving a petition to have a person designated as a sexually violent predator or in sentencing for the crimes of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child, aggravated sexual assault, and second offense use of electronic communication to lure a child. Required DOC to include this money in all future budgets.




NO. 83. AN ACT RELATING TO COMMUNITY SAFETY. (ALSO KNOWN AS
“THE SAFE COMMUNITES ACT.” (2005)



• Established a new voyeurism crime, commonly known as a “Peeping Tom” law.

• Amended the stalking laws to include harassment of a family member and eased standard regarding fear of physical safety or emotional distress. Increased the penalty for stalking while in the possession of a deadly weapon.

• Required the posting of pre-1996 sex offense convictions for offenders listed on the internet registry because they are recidivists.

• Affirmed the right of law enforcement to engage in active community notification if law enforcement believes a particular sex offender poses a risk to members of the community.

• Required the department of corrections to identify all sex offenders under its supervision who are high-risk and to designate them as such so that their information will be available on the internet sex offender registry.

• Authorized special investigation organized and operating under current law for the investigation of sex crimes, child abuse, elder abuse, domestic violence, or crimes against those with physical or developmental disabilities units to obtain and disburse grant money in furtherance of their duties.

• Required all felons to submit a DNA sample upon conviction.




NO. 157. AN ACT RELATING TO SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND
COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION. (2004)



• Established an internet sex offender registry.

• Increased public access to registry information through telephone or other contact with law enforcement agencies or the registry.

• Required sex offenders who attend college in Vermont to keep the registry informed of their enrollment status at a particular campus. Campus police would be notified that a registered sex offender is attending classes as a student.

• Required persons who are convicted in federal court of a sexual offense to register as sex offenders in Vermont if they are living in this state.

• Permitted homeless registrants to make arrangements with the registry to keep their information current even though they do not have a permanent fixed address.

• Permitted the department of corrections to evaluate and designate certain sex offenders as high risk, which would subject such offenders to increased notification procedures.

• Increased immunity for law enforcement and corrections employees in connection with the release of registry information provided that the actions were not the result of gross negligence or willful misconduct.

• Required the department of public safety in cooperation with the department of corrections to develop a comprehensive training program to inform and instruct law enforcement and corrections personnel on the operation of the sex offender registry and the administration of this act.

• Required the Vermont center for crime victim services in collaboration with the Vermont network against domestic violence and sexual assault and other appropriate agencies to develop a comprehensive plan for public education regarding sexual violence in Vermont.

0 Comments

The sad case of Brooke Bennett has again raised the question of whether or not Vermont's laws on child abusers are tough enough. Here is some background on where we are, the changes made in the last biennium, and why the Democrats don't support Jessica's Law, with mandatory minimum sentences.

Vermont has a comprehensive set of laws in place to prevent sexual violence.
These laws are specifically designed to prevent the offender from committing any further acts of sexual violence.
While serving a jail sentence, presumed to be at least 10 years, the offender must successfully complete a rehabilitation course.
The offender is automatically placed on the sexual offender registry, which is on the internet and can be accessed by the public. This registry ensures that the offender will be under supervision of the Department of Corrections for the rest of their life.
It is important to remember that Vermont is one of the safest states in the nation with one of the lowest crime rates per capita in the country.
While it may seem counter intuitive to argue against long mandatory minimums, these long mandatory minimums often result in the offender bringing the case to trial. Sexual violence cases are difficult to prove and under this process half of the perpetrators are released onto the street having served no jail time, received no treatment, and without their names being placed on the sex offender registry. The bottom line is, long mandatory minimums actually end up making communities less safe from sexual violence and that is why, in general, victim’s advocates (including the Vermont Network Against Sexual and Domestic Violence) do not support longer mandatory minimums.
What do we have in place to protect Vermont’s children:
Vermont’s laws have two main components – special sexual crime investigative units and indeterminate lifetime sentencing. Special investigative units, with specially trained police officers and social workers, have proven successful in Chittenden and Grand Isle County at gaining confessions from sex offenders. The Chittenden SIU opened in 1997. North Windsor, Windham, Bennington, and Rutland now also have SIU’s. Through the work of trained investigators, SIUs bring more predators to prosecution, conviction, imprisonment and treatment. Abused children and their families receive treatment to heal the trauma and to help break the cycle created when untreated victims grow up to become abusers themselves.

Once the offender confesses, he will serve time in prison - presumed to be at least 10 years. He will also receive treatment as a condition of release, and, upon release, will become part of the sex offender registry. If the offender refuses to take part in treatment or violates conditions of the sex offender registry he can be pulled back into incarceration. He is under the supervision of the Department of Corrections for life.

During the 2006 legislative session we closed one last loophole for violent sex offenders who were imprisoned prior to passage of our new laws. Under this new change, if an offender who has refused to undergo treatment comes to the end of his maximum sentence, and if he is judged to be at high risk to re-offend, he will be subject to a heightened sex offender registry requirement. If he violates the terms of that tightened registry he will be re-incarcerated with terms similar to those of our more recently passed laws.

In 2006, Vermonters told their representatives that child sex offender sentencing was not tough enough. In response, the legislature enacted new, tougher child sex offender legislation, the “Sexual Violence Prevention Act”, which includes but is not restricted to the following changes:

An increase to 10 years as a minimum sentence for aggravated sexual assault, unless the judge deems a lesser sentence to be appropriate and goes on record with his reasoning. Now, anyone convicted of aggravated sexual assault must spend at least 5 years in prison, and as much as life in prison.
Offenders must stay in jail until they successfully complete a rehabilitation course, regardless of how much of their sentences they have served.
Vermont has expanded the sex offender registry, with stricter guidelines for previous offenders. Sex offenders will now be under supervision by the Department of Corrections, every day for the rest of their lives.
The public can now access the online sex offender registry without having to login or provide personal information. All repeat sex offenders will appear on the internet registry, as well as all high-risk lewd and lascivious offenders.
The legislature expanded Special Investigative units specializing in sex crimes to serve every region of the state. (Note: the legislation gave the year 2009 for this to occur. During the next fiscal year SIU’s will be expanded to Washington and Lamoille. A planning grant has been submitted for an SIU to cover Orleans, Caledonia, and Northern Orange. Addison County will then be the only country without an SIU.)
Prior to the passage of this law, offenders would choose to max out their sentence rather than receiving sex offender treatment. During the most recent legislative session, legislators again worked to improve our laws around child abuse. After findings showed the state could more effectively manage the way in which it handles children who either commit delinquent acts or who are badly abused or neglected, the legislature rewrote our laws that guide our state’s response to child abuse and neglect. The legislation emphasized the need for family members to be considered before a child is committed to state custody and extra support services for families were created in cases of reported child abuse. The legislature also obtained written assurance from the administration that staff cuts would not reduce services to Vermont’s children at risk of abuse or neglect.

What about Jessica’s Law?
What distinguishes our laws from the so-called “Jessica’s Law” is that our laws are more effective at keeping our communities safe from sexual violence.

The Vermont Network Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, a victims’ advocacy organization, supports Vermont’s laws and does NOT support Jessica’s Law. And, that may be why the National Council on State Legislatures has informed us that fewer than 20 states have adopted Jessica’s Law. According to the Center for Sex Offender Management, a program of the U.S. Department of Justice, there is no data or evidence that high mandatory minimum sentences improve public safety.
Sexual violence is a horrible crime that we all want to eradicate from our communities. It sounds counter-intuitive to argue against long mandatory minimum sentences for sex offenders. But, if the accused faces a mandatory sentence of 25 years, he is much more likely to take the case to court, requiring a trial. Sex crimes, especially those against children, are hard to prove. There are few witnesses and often victims are unwilling to stand at the trial – it’s like going through the crime all over again. As a result, generally only half the court cases are successful. The other perpetrators go free, with no jail time and no need to register on a sexual offender registry.
Helpful Facts:

Child sexual abuse is a national problem, both serious and widespread. Estimates say 1 in 7 boys and 1 in 4 girls has had some experience with sexual abuse.

The most recent US government statistics show a rate of overall child abuse at 11.9 victims for every 1,000 children. In Vermont, the rate was 8.4 – placing Vermont in the safest third of all states.

Nationally, the vast majority – possibly as high as 90% -- of child sexual abuse is committed not by a stranger, but by someone the child knows and trusts – a parent, grandparent, sibling or other family member, a teacher, coach, clergy, camp counselor, scout leader, or neighbor.

Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates per capita in the country, for 2004 and 2005 ours was the third safest state in the U.S. Indeed, Vermont is among the safest states in our nation for children to grow up in and for families with children to visit.

The legislature is committed to maintaining this high standard of safety and will continue to seek ways to further prevent child molestation in our state and to bring offenders to justice.

0 Comments

This post is from Village Resident Donna Sutton Fay, who is trying to educate the public on changes to Catamount Health in 2008....

We are very eager to let all Vermonters know about
these very important changes to Catamount Health.
Anything you can do to let your constituents know will
be appreciated.
Thank you.

Donna Sutton Fay
Chittenden County Outreach
Vermont Campaign for Health Care Security Education
Fund
879-8604
www.catamounthealth.org


Important Expansions of Catamount Health
Catamount Health is Vermont's new health insurance
program for uninsured Vermonters. It offers
comprehensive coverage at affordable rates. Premiums
are on a sliding scale based on income. The
Legislature made two very important expansions to
Catamount Health this legislative session.

Vermonters in high deductible plans can now enroll in
Catamount Health. Vermonters with at least a $10,000
deductible plan for an individual or a $20,000
deductible for a family plan can now enroll in
Catamount Health. They must have had the plan for at
least 6 months. They must also pay the full cost of
Catamount for the first 12 months, which currently is
$393 month for an individual. After 12 months, they
can apply for the Premium Assistance program to help
pay their Catamount premium. Vermonters in high
deductible plans effectively have no coverage. By
enrolling in Catamount Health they will have
comprehensive coverage.

Vermonters who apply for Catamount Health before
November 1, 2008 will not have to worry about coverage
for pre-existing conditions. Under this new expansion
to Catamount, anyone applying for Catamount before
November 1 will have coverage for pre-existing
conditions without any limitation. Pregnancy will
never be considered a pre-existing condition.

For more information about Catamount Health, including
information on how to apply, contact the Vermont
Campaign for Health Care Security Education Fund toll
free at 1-866-482-4723 or visit our web site at
www.catamounthealth.org.

0 Comments

For immediate release: June 2008
Contact: Tim Jerman
41 S. hill Drive
Essex Jct., Vt 05452
878 2972


TIM JERMAN ANNOUNCES BID FOR RE-ELECTION TO VERMONT HOUSE



Tim Jerman, State Representative from Essex Junction, Chittenden 6-2, has announced his intention to seek a third two-year term in Montpelier.

“Stepping down as a Village Trustee will allow me to devote more time to Essex Junction in the legislature”, Jerman said. “I will continue to work on a tangible bi-partisan plan for education property tax reduction, as well as any other issues affecting the Village.” Examples include support for the Circ Highway A&B, tax issues between Village and Town, and working with the Trustees to insure a healthy Village Center.

“My experience as a Trustee has grounded me in local challenges we face as a result of high taxation. The Common Level of Appraisal (CLA) adjustment this year was a victory, but it does not change the new reality that homeowners now bear a disproportionate share of local property taxes compared to surrounding communities, particularly those with local option taxes.”

Tim has lived in Essex Junction for 26 years. He has two daughters, Kate and Jenna, finishing graduate school this year and next. Remarried in 2007, he lives at 41 South Hill Drive with wife Theresa and step-son Trevor, who is entering ADL in the fall. A three-term Village Trustee, Tim has served on both the House Education and Government Operations committees. He has been recognized for his work on a special pre-K study committee and represented Vermont on the National Conference of State Legislature’s Education Committee. He is proud to serve on the EBPA Memorial Day Parade Committee, and has held a variety of volunteer positions over the years since moving to the Junction in 1982. For more information, view Tim’s website at www.TimJerman.com.

0 Comments

Legislative wrap-up…


By now you have probably heard about the successful provision in the tax bill to give Essex Junction a tax credit of approximately $1 Million in 2008 for an overpayment of education property taxes in 2007. But the tax bill also contained a provision to allow a limited extension of the 2007 filing deadline for some individual tax adjustment claims. This applies to Essex/Essex Jct. because our first tax bills in 2007 were issued after September 4, 2007. So, if you think you were denied a prebate tax adjustment claim last year due to sickness, absence, disability, or other good cause, you may appeal to the state tax department before August 1, 2008.

In other Essex-specific actions, the capital bill contains a provision whereby the state will sell some lands adjoining the old tree farm (soccer fields) on Old Colchester Road to both the Town and Village to satisfy old debts. The land will be restricted in use to recreation or agricultural use. Could this be a possible site for a dog park, cross-country running trail, public gardens, or other public use? The Selectboard and Trustees will work with the state to finalize the transaction. Lastly, an Essex Junction charter change to end dual taxation for services provided by the village did not pass, and the local boards were again asked to work together to solve remaining governance issues.

Some important and detailed bills passed this year. I want to highlight a fire safety bill that will mandate photoelectric smoke detectors in some settings. This bill was pushed hard by the Barre Fire Department. Barre recently suffered tragic loss of life in a home fire in which the standard ionization smoke detectors (the kind we all have) did not go off because of the type of fire which broke out. Where there is a smoldering smoky fire, ionization detectors may not go off until it’s too late. While existing homes are not mandated to install photoelectric, it is a good idea to install both types of smoke alarm; they are available locally at reasonable cost. We have done this in our house and I urge everyone to take this safety precaution. Below is a thumbnail sketch of other actions…

Prison reorganization: This is a major overhaul, which will close the Dale Women’s facility in Waterbury, and move inmates between several locations while beefing up drug treatment and transitional housing.
Energy efficiency: Expanded utility to include heating fuels to save $$ and create jobs.
Housing: created new incentives for affordable housing in designated downtowns
Juvenile justice: complete re-write of juvenile justice codes for better outcomes for youths.
Transportation: Agreed (finally!) to consider bonding for fixing deteriorating road/bridge infrastructure around the state.
Workforce training: Increased investment in workforce training for a stronger economy.
Prescription drug record privacy: Protects patient prescription drug records from data miners.
Electronic medical records systems: Moves toward a statewide e-medical records exchange system; gives Fletcher-Allen a go-ahead for an $89 Million system.
Immunization registry: Vermont Health Department will soon track and record immunization records for all Vermonters.
Communicable disease protections: Involuntary blood testing for certain communicable diseases will be allowed in limited circumstances to protect health and public safety personnel.
Enhanced drivers licenses: Rules were established for issuing licenses that can double as ID at Canadian border crossings.
Child abuse or neglect registry: A two-tiered system of investigating abuse complaints was established.
Election laws: passed a law to join with other states to elect the President by popular vote. Passed campaign finance reform and Instant Runoff Voting, but both vetoed by the Governor. I will report on these efforts in more detail in a future column.

Most of the bills passed this year were by concensus. Although the press focuses on controversy, 80% of committee votes to recommend legislation to the full House were unanimous; only about 5% were really partisan votes. And, we adjourned early, which was appreciated by all!

I am looking forward to an exciting presidential campaign this year, and unregistered local voters will probably find me on their doorstep with registration forms in hand! We may have an all-time high voter turnout in November, which helps keep our citizen democracy healthy. There sure is a lot of interest from activists who want to be delegates to the national party conventions later this summer! Again, please call on any issue, 878 2972 or e-mail at TJerman@leg.state.vt.us. Enjoy your summer!

0 Comments

The $1 Million overpayment of education taxes (scroll down for details) will be credited back to Village taxpayers in september 2008 as a result of the passage of H.888, the Miscellaneous tax bill. The Governor will sign the bill this week. Taking the Common Level of Appraisal to 100% from 93% for 2007 only will result in a substantial credit for Essex Junction taxpayers. Although many people assisted with helping to pass this legislation, it never would have survived in the House Ways and Means Committee without the staunch support of Speaker Gaye Symington, who recognized the inequity immediately and pledged to make the community whole for the error caused by the IBM devaluation after the recent property reappraisal.

0 Comments

From the Statehouse…..

It is “floor” time in the legislature, when the big bills worked on in committee all session come up for scrutiny by the full House and Senate. The House has recently passed a big miscellaneous tax bill, the 2009 budget, and the transportation bill. Still to come is the capital budget, which contains all the requests for bricks and mortar to support state services. The mood has been somber with passage of each money bill, because of hard choices made to cut services or put off needed infrastructure investments to meet the goal of a balanced budget. Recent downgrades in the state revenue projections will necessitate further budget cuts before adjournment.
With crossed fingers, I am happy to report that the miscellaneous tax bill passed by the House contains language to create a credit to return the school tax overpayment in 2007 caused by the IBM devaluation in the property reappraisal. The Senate now has the bill. There is also a provision in the bill to allow people who had 2007 tax filing problems related to income-sensitivity pre-bates to appeal to the tax department. More on all of this soon.
When not on the House floor, the Government Operations Committee has been immersed with helping the Institutions and Corrections Committee review a sweeping corrections reorganization plan. Rep. Myers has written often of her committee’s oversight role and alarm at the unsustainable rise in the cost of corrections. Vermont now spends much more on prisons than we do on higher education. In an effort to save money, there is a plan to shut down the Dale women’s facility in Waterbury. All female inmates, including those now at Windsor, would move to a renovated St. Albans facility, with some male inmates going out of state and some new less expensive work camps replacing some of the St. Albans beds.
Government Operations is looking at staffing and program issues, as many state employees will not likely be moved as a result of these changes, but many will have different job responsibilities. There are a lot of moving pieces to a change of this magnitude, and it is the legislature’s job to review the plans to insure that short-term cost savings don’t create problems which will lead to higher costs down the road. What we’ve learned is that nothing about corrections lends itself to easy solutions. At least there are promising ideas being implemented to provide better substance abuse interventions, better monitoring of probationers, and better protocols for non-violent offenders.
I was disappointed that the Governor recently vetoed our committee’s Campaign Finance Reform bill, again. We worked hard to find a compromise on a couple of contentious issues, but could not agree to uncapping national and state political party contributions. Vermont had a law in place for 10 years that worked well to keep the influence of money at reasonable levels in political campaigns. If the veto stands, we are very worried that Vermont may see a dramatic and unwanted increase in the amount of money spent on state and local races this fall.
It was great to see those who came out recently for village and school annual meetings. Best wishes and good luck to our new board members. As always, please don’t hesitate to call or e-mail about any issue you’re interested in….878 2972, TJerman@leg.state.vt.us

0 Comments

Legislative update:

I am writing this update during the Town Meeting week break, right after the primary. It was encouraging to see so many people come out to vote during this exciting presidential race. Norm Faunce turned 80 years young last week, and he is still presiding over a hardworking and effective election day team of volunteers. Thank you Norm and Marjorie!

At Town Meeting, it was great to see a big turnout and overwhelming support to give a property tax break to disabled veterans. This affects a small number of residents, but is a meaningful reduction which costs the rest of us about an extra dollar. The law was recently updated to allow a $40,000 subtraction of value, so that if home value is $200,000, the tax is figured on $160,000. There is a companion bill pending in the Government Operations Committee to lower the 50% disability requirement to 30%, and we will be taking further testimony on that this session.

The House has plugged away in the past few weeks on detailed legislation dealing with energy efficiency, reducing lead hazards, improving the Corrections system, and increasing affordable housing. There has also been lots of discussion about changing the way we pay for education. A public hearing this week will raise the profile of this issue. There are two new proposals on the table, both of which have as their centerpiece the elimination of the residential education property tax. I support H. 866, which eliminates the confusing pre-bate system and the income-sensitivity “cliffs” which so many village taxpayers fall off because they are just over the current limits. H.866 recognizes that we already have an income-sensitive property tax system and extends the income tax option to all homeowners. The tax rate is tied to local spending. The competing plan, “LEAF”, returns to local funding of costs over a base state-wide level, but has all the same inequity problems which rendered the old Foundation formula unconstitutional. For example, Stowe would only need a tax rate of $.01 to raise $100. per pupil. Fair Haven would have a rate of $.07, seven times higher to raise the same amount of money. These kinds of disparities are a step backwards. It’s hard to get two people in a room who agree on education funding, but one thing that is clear from Town Meeting school budget votes is that hardworking school boards across the state were rewarded for their local cost-control efforts by overwhelming support for their budgets with very few exceptions.

On a personal note, I have just one more Village Trustees meeting to attend as an active Trustee. It’s been an honor to serve these past seven years and I’m proud to say I never missed a regular meeting in that time. I’m also proud of the dedication of this Board of Trustees to the Village, and look forward to working with the new board and also the new Town Selectboard to move the communities forward. There are contested Trustee races in April, so I hope everyone pays close attention and votes on April 3, the day after Village meeting. It’s at the high school this year (preceded by a great community supper, so don’t miss it!) on April 2.

There is still lots of work to do in the legislature this year on the budget and many other bills. Don’t hesitate to call or e-mail, 878 2972, TJerman@leg.state.vt.us.

0 Comments

A better mousetrap…


The Free Press recently ran a negative editorial on a new education income tax-based funding plan. This closely follows the administration’s worries about any increase to the income tax—it’s too high already, it’s anti-business, it’s too volatile, there’s not a funding problem just a spending problem, etc., so don’t go there. The editorial went further to caution “unless the debate is bundled with the issues of what we want from our schools and how much we are willing to pay for it.”

Perhaps it’s time to take a deep breath and reconsider what is being proposed, which is simply a better way to pay for schools with a direct link to costs. Coupling any reform proposal to an endless debate on “what we want from our schools” is code for maintaining an inequitable status quo. Local communities are the best deciders of what they want from schools. There are actually two new reform proposals on the table in the statehouse (LEAF is the other) which have as their centerpiece the elimination of the residential education property tax. Repeat: elimination of the residential education property tax! No more confusing pre-bate calculations, no more confidentiality issues, no more escrow problems, no more two-tiered residential taxpayers. We could have a simpler, more transparent system.

Do the math for your own situation. Figure 1.8% of your adjusted gross income (adjusted upward for higher than average spending determined locally) and compare this to your current education property tax payment. You may be pleasantly surprised.

The current bill under consideration, H. 866, is far from final and it won’t make “crossover” for passage this year. But it will be the subject of a public hearing on March 13 at 6:00p.m at the Statehouse, and will provide a forum for those of us who believe our over-reliance on the property tax must be fixed with a fairer system based on ability to pay. Let your representatives know if further discussion of the idea is worth their time.


Rep. Tim Jerman
41 So. Hill Drive
Essex Jct., Vt. 05452
878 2972,
TJerman@leg.state.vt.us

3 Comments

2/01/08


Last week, all five Essex representatives participated in introducing H.527 to the House ways and Means committee. The bill would guarantee a floor of 100% Common Level of appraisal (CLA) following town-wide reappraisal. Retroactive to 2007, the bill would return over $1 Million to Essex Junction taxpayers in a credit on next September’s education property tax bills for what was essentially an overpayment in 2007. We will keep you posted on the progress of this bill.

The Government Operations committee I serve on has spent a lot of time analyzing a new campaign finance reform bill. This process has been complicated not only by last year’s veto by the Governor, but by the rejection of Vermont’s 1997 law by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court has also ruled that campaign expenditure limits are unconstitutional, so there will be no effort to cap what an individual can spend out of his/her own pocket. To date, Vermont voters have not been favorable to the few candidates who have been perceived as trying to buy an elective office with unlimited personal funds. Almost everyone wants some limits on the amount of money which can be contributed to election campaigns at the state and local levels in Vermont to preserve our citizen participation traditions. The trick is agreeing on how much is appropriate from individuals, groups, and political parties. Not only is the legislature trying to craft a good bill for Vermont, we are also trying to assure that the new bill will withstand further judicial review. The bill, S.278, may be voted on in committee by the time you are reading this. Since the Senate has already acted, a passed House version might go to a conference committee to iron out differences, or it could go directly to the Governor for signature.

As a municipal official, I am very concerned about the potential of state budget cuts to be passed along to municipalities and then find their way into local property tax increases. This danger is always present in education funding, wastewater treatment regulations, Medicaid reimbursements, and health care. But according to the Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT), the worst news of all in this year’s budget for municipalities is in Transportation. There is a 20.8% cut in state funds available to fix local bridges, coupled with a 30% reduction from two years ago in non-property tax funds for local bridge repair and a $1 Million cut to Class 2 highway and paving funds. I’m sure you have read recent articles about the coming infrastructure crisis, with almost half of state roads/bridges in unacceptable condition in just five years without significant action. I have signed on to a transportation bill which will start the discussion of the pros/cons of bonding for major road/bridge repairs. With heavy construction inflation of 18 and 20% in the past two years, the cost of doing nothing could be far more expensive than pro-actively working on infrastructure repairs before they become full reconstruct projects. More on this topic later….

January was not a kind month to some of our “greatest generation” octogenarian legislators. On my committee, Rep. Cola Hudson (Lyndon) passed away suddenly and Rep. David Clark (St. Johnsbury) was admitted to intensive care last week after not feeling well for weeks. Bud Otterman (Topsham) lost his wife to a long illness. The entire House is saddened by the illnesses visited upon these revered senior members.

As always, I encourage your calls, e-mails, and visits. Please keep in touch on issues you care about. 878 2972, TJerman@leg.state.vt.us

0 Comments

The legislature is in full swing. There will be major decisions on budget, health care, leasing the lottery, campaign finance reform, corrections, transportation, and other issues. Don't hesitate to contact me with your views on any issues you are interested in. I'll be posting articles written for the Essex Reporter and giving updates on upcoming votes. Keep in touch and let me know what you're thinking...

0 Comments

http://www.essexreporter.com/EssexReporter/Home.html

0 Comments

The following press release explains the "CLA fix we hope to pass the 2008 legislature quickly after the new year:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 3, 2007

FIXING THE C.L.A.

Five state legislators representing Essex and Essex Junction announced support today for insuring that Essex Junction and all communities around the state are treated fairly by education funding formulas following a town-wide property reappraisal.
New proposed legislation will insure that the Common Level of Appraisal (CLA) following town-wide reappraisal shall not be less than 100%. Essex Junction’s CLA was 93% after reappraisal this year, adding hundreds of dollars extra onto already hefty school and municipal tax increases. The proposed change means that communities which experience a large anomaly in grand list caused by the depreciated value of a single property will not be penalized by the formula which determines the CLA after reappraisal. Similar protective “circuit-breakers” existed prior to the passage of Act 68.
In 2007, the communities of Essex and Essex Junction experienced a dramatic rise in local taxes because of the town-wide reappraisal. Although almost all residential properties doubled in value from the last appraisal, a $44 million drop in the value of one commercial property, IBM, lowered the total new 2007 grand list below the 2006 value. A complicated “one-size-fits-all” formula to figure equalized values state-wide created an inequitable situation which could not be appealed through an administrative process because of timelines which ignored the realities of the IBM reappraisal deadlines. Further administrative remedies through the Departments of Property Valuation and Review (PVR) and the Tax Department were unsuccessful because of lack of legal authority of the agencies to correct the situation.
The proposed legislation is simple and direct. It provides a credit for the overpayment caused by the CLA formula and assures that all communities are treated equitably in the future. The Tax Department and PVR assisted with the crafting of the legislative language so that by fixing one problem no other problems would be created at the same time. Essentially, Essex Junction was overcharged due to a malfunctioning system which was never intended to produce a CLA below 100% after reappraisal, and would now be refunded the overcharge as a credit in the next year.
The proposal to fix the CLA has bi-partisan support in the Legislature and the support of the Douglas administration. The Essex delegation will work for quick action by the Legislature, which would provide tax relief for Essex Junction, at the latest in September 2008.

For more information:

Rep. Tim Jerman, Essex Junction, Chitt. 6-2 878 2972
Rep. Peter Hunt, Essex Junction, Chitt. 6-2 878 8406
Rep. Linda Myers, Essex Town, Chitt. 6-1 878 3514
Rep. Debbie Evans, Essex Town, Chitt. 6-1 878 4317
Rep. Martha Heath, Essex Town/Westford, Chitt. 6-3 893 1291

0 Comments

The legislature often sets aside time out of session to look at issues which don't get a lot of attention during the session. Usually these "summer studies" don't ramp up until the fall. My committee, Government Operations, is looking at several issues involving the "Pay Act", the annual legislation covering pay raises for all branches of government. Although annual compensation is arrived at through collective bargaining, each year the Pay Act is underfunded in the state budget. Depending on how serious each year's shortfall is, approved positions may go unfilled to make up the deficit. This may sound like a good annual cost control technique, but we heard many problems associated with underfunding.
In the Supreme Court's budget, for example, severe underfunding leads to personnel shortages, but legally mandated services such as prisoner transport must go on, so current staff wind up logging excessive overtime or travel to fill the gap. There are many examples to demonstrate that the current system is inefficient, but this is one of those cases where the practice has existed for so long it is difficult to change, and budget pressures make full funding of the Pay Act unlikely. Hopefully, we will come up with a better mousetrap to alleviate the critical concerns being expressed.
Gov.Ops passed over 40 bills last year, and there is no doubt the Committee will have it's hands full again this year.

0 Comments

The Essex reps are close to a draft of legislation which would bring the "CLA" to 100% from 93% retroactive to 1/1/2007. If passed, this would allow the Village to credit school tax bills in March and provide tax relief to many residents on this year's school tax bill.
The Village Trustees are awaiting the results of the Village Advancement Committee survey to see how residents wish to proceed with the whole issue of governance. I anticipate that a strong majority will not want to repeat the failed merger process of 2006 but will want us to actively pursue tax fairness initiatives with the Town Selectboard. Stay tuned...
More soon on the joint efforts with the Trustees and CVE board to arrive at an equitable "fair share" proposal for the Fairgrounds. Meetings between members of the boards are underway.

0 Comments

10/4/2007--The following article appeared in the Essex Reporter on 9/27. Since then, the second tax appeal by the Town has been denied. The Essex delegation of 5 reps. will work together to fix the CLA problem in legislation in January.

The “CLA” PROBLEM MUST BE FIXED!

By now, everyone has probably heard about the tax increases due in October caused by the huge drop in IBM’s appraised real estate value. Your new tax bill may contain total increases of more than 25%.

This would have been bad news enough, but the way education taxes are figured in a reappraisal year have made it much worse for village residents. Briefly, the state (Department of Property Valuation and Review, PVR) used an equalized value of $256 Million for IBM in 2006, added that to the 2006 Grand List, and then divided that number into the re-appraised 2007 Grand List which included IBM at the new lower appraised figure of $103 Million. This produced a Common Level of Appraisal of 93% for the Village, rather than a CLA of over 100% (the Town’s came in at 104%). It was never intended for a community to come in at under 100% after a re-appraisal and be penalized with a higher tax assessment.

The bottom line of all this confusing math is that the Village is being unfairly taxed by a formula that was not designed to work this way. So what can be done? We agree with the town attorney that current state law allows the Tax Commissioner to readjust the 2006 IBM assessment to a reasonable level, now that we know the value set by the re-appraisal is $103 Million, not $256 Million. This simple re-calculation, or one similar to it, would have a big impact on the total village tax increase, and would not transfer the burden to other taxpayers.

Many people are working on a solution to this problem. The Town Selectboard and staff deserve much credit for their prompt response and thoughtful (though as yet unsuccessful) appeal to PVR and now the Tax Commissioner to rectify this situation. We have written to the Governor asking him to help. The town Selectboard also held the current Town highway tax surcharge at the same level after reappraisal, which is a very positive first step toward equalizing the municipal tax burden between Town and Village residents by lowering the Village contribution to Town roads.
.
This particular CLA problem may be short-term, but what to do about the overall tax increases caused by the recent shift from IBM to residential taxpayers is a long-term problem, and one we’ll all have to work together to manage. We’re confident that we will. As community priorities evolve and spending is scrutinized at all levels, please make your voice heard by attending meetings, speaking up, and letting us know what’s important to you to keep our community strong.

Rep. Peter Hunt 878 8406 PDHunt@leg.state.vt.us
Rep. Tim Jerman 878 2972 TJerman@leg.state.vt.us

0 Comments

Everyone is enjoying the summer soccer season at the Tree Farm facility. Stepson Trevor is having a great time playing goalie and trying to ignore the coach (in the yellow shirt). Theresa seems to be enjoying the whole scene...

0 Comments

This is my daughter Jenna just before her first marathon and race of any kind in this year's VCM in Burlington. She did a great job! (Father ran 2 legs of the relay). Jenna's older sister Kate just won a Point Foundation Fellowship for her second year at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.

0 Comments

The 2007 session officially ended late in the day on July 11. The legislature failed to override the Governor's vetoes on H.520 and S.164, Energy -efficiency and Campaign Finance reform. As one of the few democrats voting no on H.520 because of the funding mechanism, here is what Rep. Evans (D-Essex) and I wrote for the Essex Reporter to explain our vote:

" Voting no on H.520--Light at the end of the tunnel?"

Last week, you may have gotten a flyer or phone message from VPIRG singling us out for our opposition to H.520, the energy-efficiency bill, and asking you to call to get us to change our votes. Some of you did call or e-mail, and we thank everyone who took the time to talk to us.
The vote is now over, and the simple fact is that the votes were never there to override the Governpr's veto--even if every democrat who voted no had switched, the veto would still have been sustained because some of the bill's supporters were absent on July, 11, and all the opponents were there at the Statehouse.
We voted no originally because of the controversy surrounding the Vermont Yankee funding source and the process which led to it. H. 520 is a good bill, with many benefits for the state. We're very encouraged that some of the divisive rhetoric is now cooling as the realization sinks in that we must act. A meaningful compromise passed by the Senate after the House veto vote which removes the Vermont Yankee tax as proposed and allows the Public Service Board to review the proposed energy-efficiency utility before implementation. This is a significant breakthrough and addresses our concerns. The bill received bi-partisan support in the Senate, and will be considered by the House when we reconvene in January.
So although we voted no in May and again last week (July 11), we remain confident that when the smoke clears Vermont will have an energy-efficiency bill we will all be proud of. Could all of this "showdown" politics have been avoided? Hindsight is 20-20, but hopefully the long public debate has convinced most of us of the serious environmental issues we face as a state and nation, plus the need to work together to solve the problem.
The "other" veto override vote, Campaign finance reform, S.164, failed by just one vote on July 11. As members of House Government Operations, we will go back in january and take another crack at it in committee. Failure to act will leave the state with no controls at all on campaign contributions after a decade of a very effective law which kept the money in Vermont politics at reasonable levels. But we'll also be looking to enthusiastically support a better version of H. 520 coming from Natural Resources and Energy based on the latest action of the Senate. Please call us if you'd like to discuss any of this further or have any questions..

0 Comments

Testing The News Subject.

0 Comments