Johnson, Jaye From: Smith, Kendal Sent: - Tuesday, June 6, 2017 3:46 PM To: lohnson, Jaye; Young, Susanne; Gibbs, Jason; Kelley, Rebecca; tatour, Ethan Subject: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST FW: Update Re H.518 and H.509 Attachments: Education Savings Briefing 05 19 17.pdf Further down on the thread i just sent. This has our timellne attached. From: Smith Kendal Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017' 4: 02 PM To: 'Katherine Levasseur ; 'Peter Sterling Cc: 'tashe@leg.state.vt.us Hmjohnson@leg.state.vt.us Subject: FW: Update Re H.518 and H.509 Hi Katherine and Peter, The Governor completed a press conference at 3:00, where he articulated that he will be definitively vetoing the budget and the yield bill. i want to make sure that the Speaker and the Pro Tern are notified. The Governor plans to reach out to the Speaker and the Pro Tem next week to continue discussions and find a path forward on the available education savings At the press conference, we also handed out the attached timeline of action on this Issue. As always, please contact me with questions and I hope we can all get some rest this weekend Best Kendal Kendal Smith Director QfPoiicy Development and Legislative A?oz'rs Of?ce of the Governor, 109 State Street, Montpelier VT 05609?0101 Of?ce: 802-828-3333 Front Smith Kendal Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 3:56 PM - To: Smith, Kendal Subject: Update Re H.518 and H.509 Hello All, First, i enjoyed getting to know many of you who i did not have a. previous relationship with coming in to my role with the Administration, and also was happy to continue to strengthen prior relationships. I look forward to continued work with everyone and am grateful for the help, support, and advice members provided to us throughout the session. For awareness, the Governor held a press conference this-afternoon and officially announced that he will be vetoing the budget and the yield bill. To shed light and public awareness on the negotiations to date to find a resolution on available education savings, we have released a timeline of key events and meetings please see the attached. Retognizihg what 1 is at stake for taxpayers from this unique opportunity, the Governor has stood firm on his three principles of maximizing the savings, keeping educators whole andparity of coverage, and relief for the school boards. Within that framework, the Administration has offered multiple paths forward to ensure this opportunity does not pass as by. We will continue to work toward a resolution with ieadership in the coming weeks. As always, please reach out to me with questions. i will stay in communication with any updates on this issue leading up to June. I hope everyone has a great weekend. Best, - Kendal Kendal Smith Director ofPolz'cy Development and Legislative A?airs Of?ce of the Governor 109 State St1eetMontpeiie1 VT 05609 010] Of?ce: 802 828- 3333 Status of Negotiations on Education Savings and Property Tax Relief in April, after weeks of stakeholder discussions, Governor Phil Scott presented a proposal to maximize the bene?t of an estimated $75 million in savings from changes in healthcare plans for'educators that are going into effect in January 2018.- The Governor?s proposal Would achieve savings through a statewide health plan where the state is the bargainer with school employee unions for the health benefit only. This proposal reinvests nearly $50 million back into school employees to keep their out~of?pocket costs the same, and would use the remaining savings up to $13 million in Fiscal Year 2018 and up to $26 million a year moving forward to benefit taxpayers. Governor Scott?s original plan has broad support from the Vermont School Boards Association, the Vermont Superintendents Association, Republicans, Independents, and Democrats, as well as everyday Vermonters. His plan was built on three principles designed to maximize the benefit of this once-in~a~lifetimie opportunity for taxpayers, while protecting teachers and school programs. Those were: 3.. Maximize Savings An alternative must maximize the savings opportunity of the transition to these new healthcare plans and achieve ongoing savings; 2. Keep Teachers Whole and Provide Parity An alternative must not require teachers to pay more and provide parity and uniformity across the system; and 3. Simplify Negotiations for Districts An alternative must reduce the burden currently on school districts negotiating these new, more complex insurance plans. The following addendum shows a timeline of the cenversations regarding this savings opportunity and the Administration?s proposals and coonterproposals, to demonstrate the Governor?s efforts to date to reach a resolution that puts taxpayers first. ADDENDUM: OVERVIEW OF THE OF KEY LEGISLATIVE *Note that this is not meant to be an alt-inclusive list of every conversation or meeting, but to provide an overview of key events. a January 24', 2017 -- Governor?s originai 80/20 premium split for savings in the school ernpioyees? healthcare presented in his budget. a ianuary 25, 2017 Representative of the Vermont Education Health initiative testifies in the House Education Committee regarding the details, and savings opportunities, of the new plans. Source: statewide? ianuary 27, 2017 Representative of the Vermont Education Health initiative (VEHI) testifies in the Senate Finance Committee regarding the details, and savings opportunities, of the new plans. 0 Throughout February 2017: The Administration meets with stakeholders to refine its proposal. 0 There are meetings with majority and minority leadership in which Administration officials point to the savings that can be achieved from the transition to new plans and that alternatives for capturing the savings shouid be evaiuated. . in response to media inquiries, the Governor repeatedly notes there is an opportunity to find savings in the transition to the healthcare plans and that his Administration is reviewing options and would like the Legislature to do so. 0 The Vermont School Boards Association (VSBA) briefs House and Senate leadership on savings opportunities. Source: eiierm I ??The health insurance proposal came out of this working group and was unanimously endorsed by our board of directors. We shared it not only with the governor, but with House and Senate leaders in February,? Mace said. a February 7, 2017 - Representative of the Vermont Education Health initiative testifies in the House Ways and Means Committee regarding the details, and savings opportunities, of-the new plans. a February 10, 2017 Representative of the Vermont Education Health Initiative testifies in the House Appropriations Committee regarding the detaiis, and savings opportunities, of the new plans. February 15, 2017 - Representative of the Vermont School Boards Association (VSBA) testifies in the Senate Finance Committee regarding the detaiis, and savings opportunities, of the new plans. 0- March 17, 2017 House Speaker iohnson and the House Minority Leader are briefed in separate meetings on the framework of the Governor?s education savings proposal. I a First week of April 2017 Senate receives House?passed property tax yield bill, which does not account for savings from plans. 9 April 14, 2017 Governor briefs Senator Cummings and Senator Kitchel, and the House Speaker, in separate meetings, on the education savings proposal and shares draft legislation. April 20, 2017 - Governor hosts meeting with the Vermont School Boards Association, the and the Vermont Superintendents Association to-discuss his education savings proposal. Senator Ashe and House Speaker Johnson attend. VT-NEA responds shortly after with a press statement condemning the proposal. April 24, 2017 Proposai that healthcare benefit be negotiated with the State is presented at press conference, hosted by Governor Scott with Vermont School Boards Association and Vermont Superintendents Association and their members. April 26, 2017 Representative ofthe Vermont Education Health initiative testifies in the House Education Committee regarding the details of the new, lower-cost plans. April 26, 2017 Representative ofthe Vermont School Boards Association testifies in the House Ways and Means Committee regarding the details, and savings opportunities, of the new plans. April 26, 2017 Representative ofthe Vermont School Boards Association (VSBA) testifies in the House Education Committee regarding the details, and savings opportunities, of the new plans. April 27, 2017 Degree amendment offered on the floor of the Senate. May 3, 2017 - Beck amendment offered on the floor of the House. Speaker casts re re vote to create tie, and thus defeat the amendment. The House, recognizing that there is an opportunity for the State to recapture savings, passes the Webb amendment. May 5, 2017 Governor suggests to leadership that bargaining of statewide benefit could occur with a party (such as VSBA) other than the State -- a proposal he later reiterates in multiple press conferences. May 9, 2017 Governor meets with the .VT-NEA, bargaining of the statewide benefit could occur with a party other than the State. Expresses openness to a counter proposal from the Legislature that will meet his principles. May 10, 2017 - Senator Ashe presents first 513 million ?Ashe amendment? proposal to the Governor. May 10, 2017 - Governor?s Administration responds to Senator Ashe?s proposal in writing. May 11, 2017 - Governor?s Administration suggests specific language changes that would allow the Governor to support Senator Ashe?s proposai. May 12, 2017 Administration provides Senators recommended changes to the language of the second Ashe proposai. May 12, 2017 Senator Ashe presents new language on the Senate floor. May 12, 2017 House Speaker Johnson indicates she is working on new language to substitute for the Ashe amendment. May 15, 2017 - House Speaker Johnson presents ianguage to the Governor?s office that she characterized to press as a ?a very rough draft.? Source: . May 16, 2017 - The Administration meets with House Speaker Johnson, Senate President Pro Tem Ashe and other members of Senate and House Democratic leadership to provide a formal counter proposal, and give an overview of, and answer specific questions about, changes proposed that would allow the Governor to support the Speaker?s proposal. May 3.6, 2017 At the House Speaker?s request, a poiicy anaiyst from the Governor?s staff met with 8 members of the Joint Fiscal Office (JFO) and Legislative Counsel to clarify details mid-afternoon. May 17, 2017 - Govemor receives a third Ashe proposal. May 17, 2017 Later in the morning, the House Speaker, Senate President Pro Tem and Governor meet. The Governor presents path for reaching agreement on the Speaker?s proposal. The new Ashe proposal, delivered iust 40 minutes earlier, was not discussed by the legislative ieaders. May 17, 2017 (12:00 pm.) House Speaker Johnson and Senate President Pro Tern Ashe hold a press conference, at which the Speaker declares an ?impasse.? May 17, 2017 In the evening, Governor and Senate President Pro Tem Ashe communicate an openness to continue discussions. May 18, 2017 At three separate meetings throughout the day, the Governor, the Senate President Pro Tern, the House Speaker and" Deans of the House and Senate discuss proposals from the Administration that offer paths for an agreement working from both the Pro Tem?s and Speaker?s proposals. The iast conversation was at 6:30 pm. and the meeting ends without agreeing on a soiution 93: a declaration of impasse. - May 18, 2017 (6:45 pm.) Statehouse press report leadership moving ahead without a compromise on a savings proposal. Legislative ieadership does not brief the Administration at any point prior to . moving H.509 or H.518 with detaiis of their pians after the last conversation. iohnson, Jaye From: Smith, Kendai Sent: Tuesday, june 6, 2017 3:46 PM To: Johnson, Jaye; Gibbs, Jason; Kelley, Rebecca; Young, Susanne; Latour, Ethan Subject: PUBBC RECORDS REQUEST FW: Update Re H.518 and H.509 Also per Aprii?s public record request. From: Smith, Kendai Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 4346 PM To: 'Peter Steriing? Subject: RE: Update Re H.518 and H.509 Hi Peter, We started mentioning the looking at the savings with the Senators in the Tuesday morning check ins with the Governor in Eebruary when those were at the Pavilion. Kendal Smith Director ofPoZicy Development and Legislative A?eirs Of?ce of the Governor, 109 State Street, Montpelier VT 056090101 Of?ce: 802~828?3333 From: Peter Sterling Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 To: Smith, Kendai Subject: RE: Update Re H.518 and H.509 Good reaming Kendai: Titania you to: sharing the attached doeomeot. {Zine eoii?tt i eouid Lise eiarit?ieatioo oh, it the admioistratioh is impiyir?ig that the Seaate was iavoivea. ihroughoot Fehraoty 3301?: ?There are meetings with majority and minority leadership in which Administration officiais point to the savings that can be achieved from the transition to new plans and that alternatives for capturing the savings shouid be evaluated.? it" you are sayirig the Seaate was invoived: when and with whom diet these meetings happen, ii wouid aeoteeiate an exaet reeord of these meetings thanks steam, Chief ot? ?ta?it Uttiee at? the Siartate the ?tempera t?i? State Street iviohtpeiier, ti"? 000-33 {eat} ease-ass Ieoisietureyermontdoy From: Smith, Kendal Sent: Friday, May 19, 20l7 4:02 PM To: Katherine Levasseur; Peter Sterling Cc: Tim Ashe; Mitzi Johnson Subject: FW: Update Re H.518 and H.509 Hi Katherine and Peter, The Governor completed a press conference at 3:00, where he articulated that he will be definitively vetoing the budget and the yield bill. i want to make sure that the Speaker and the Pro Tem are notified. The Governor plans to reach out to the Speaker and the Pro ?Fern next week to continue discussions and find a path forward on the available education savings. At the press conference, we also handed out the attached timeline of action'on this issue. As always, please contact me with questions and i hope we can all get some rest this weekend. Best, Kendal Kendal Smith Director of Policy .Deveiopmem and Legislative Affairs Of?ce of the Governor, 109 State Street, Montpelier VT 05609?010} Of?ce: 802-828-3333 From: smith, Kendal Sent: Friday, May 19,2017 3:56 PM To: Smith, Kendal <1 Subject: Update Re H.518 and H.509 Hello All, First, i enjoyed getting to know many of you who i did not have a previous relationship with coming in to my role with the Administration, and also was happy to continue to strengthen prior relationships. i look forward to continued work with everyone and am grateful for the help, support, and advice members provided to us throughout the sessidn. - For awareness, the Governor held a press centerence this afternoon and officially announced that he will be vetoing the budget and the yield biil. To shed light and public awareness on the negotiations to date to find a resolution on available education savings, we have released a timeline of key events and meetings please see the attached. Recognizing what is at stake for taxpayers from this unique opportunity, the Governor has stood firm on his three principles of maximizing the savings, keeping educators whole and parity of coverage, and relief for the school boards. Within that framework, the Administration has offered multiple paths forward to ensure this opportunity does not pass us by; We will continue to work toward a resolution with leadership in the coming weeks. As always, please reach out to me with questions. i will stay in communication with any updates on this issue leading up to June. 5 hope everyone has a great weekend. Best Kendai Kendal Smith Director ofPofz'cy Development and Legislative A?airs Of?ce ofthe Governor, 109 State Street, Montpelier VT 05609-0101 - Johnson, Jaye I a From: Smith, Kendal Sent: Tuesday, June 6 2017 3: 57 PM To: Johnson Jaye; Gibbs Jason; Young Susanne; Latour, Ethan; Kelley, Rebecca Subject: RE: Re: BFP Pubiic Records Request Attachments: . Attached as one document with page numbers From: Smith, Kendal Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 3. 43 PM To: Johnson Jaye ; Gibbs Jason ; Young, Susanne Latour, Ethan Kelley, Rebecca Subject: Re: BFP Pubiic Records Request Hi All, Attached please see screen shots of all my text messages with Peter Sterling from Friday, May 19th (day after adjournment) to date re: a VEHI meeting. Not sure if these fit within the parameters for the public record request, but here they are for the record and your review if needed. Kendal Smith Director QfPolz'cy Development and Legisiarive A?oirs Of?ce of the Governor, 109 State Street, Montpelier VT 05609?0101 Of?ce: 802?828~3333 \th M??m in325?"; . wm '5 7451? (W, -: 5E :3 3 h? no. . ?g pf .gg. - m- 3a.? be 9.1? ?533?? 5539? Susanne From: Mazza?Paquette, Melissa Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2037 12:54 PM To: Petersterling@leg.state.vt.us Cc: Young, Susanne; Smith, Kendal Subject: Letter from Susanne Young . Attachments: Negotiation Leadersh?p signed b&w LTR Good oflemoon, Alloched please see 0 leller on beholf of Secrelory Young. Would you pleose be so kind es lo poss olong lo lhe Speoker on'd Senole Pro Tempore? Pleose lel us know if you hove ony queslioos or concerns. Thonkyou, Melissa On beholfofsecrelory of Adminfsl?ro?on, Susanne R. Young-from:- Melissa Mazza~Paquette Agency of. Administra?on 109 State Street, Floor Montpelier, VT 05609 ph: (802) 828-3322? 12$ Susanne From: Katherine Levassew? Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017' 1:33 PM To: Mazza~Paquette, Melissa; Peter Sterling Cc: Young, Susanne; Smith, Kendal Subject: Re: Letter from Susanne Young Good Afternoon, Thank you for your message. We forwarded the attachrnent to the Speaker. Kind regards, Katherine Katherine Levasseur Chief of Staff, Office of the Speaker 115 State St, Montpelier, VT 05633 8028282245" . .. 802.735.3799 From: Mazza?Paquette, Melissa Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 1:12:49 PM "Fe: Peter Sterling; Katherine Levasseur Cc: Young, Susanne; Smith, Kendal Subject: Letter from Sosanne Young Good oftemoon, Altoched please see 0 letter on behalf of Secretory Young. Would you pleose be so kind as to poss oloog to the Speaker ond Ste-hole. Pro Tempore? Please let us know if you hove om} questions or concerns. Thonk you, Melisso On behalf of Secretary of Administration, Susanne R. Young, from: Melissa, Mazze~Paquette Agency of Administration 109 State Street, 5th Floor Montpelier, VT 05609 . ph: (802) 828-3322 _.,Susanne From: Mazza~Paquette, Melissa Sent: Wednesday, May 81,2017 1:42 PM To: Katherine Levasseur; Peter Steriing Cc: Young,'Susanne; Smith, Kendaf Subject: RE: Letter from Susanne Young Thank you very much. Melissa Mezzo-Pad ue ?e {802) 828?3322 From: Katherine Leyasseur Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 1:33 PM - To: Mazza-Paquette, Melissa Peter Steriing Cc: Young, Susanne Smith, Kenda! 14 Moving Negotiations Forward . . It is encouraging that the Legislature?s and Administration?s views on this matter have evolved. over the past several weeks. It is clear that there is agreement on the opportunity to save millions of dollars from the transition. to the new Vermont Education Health Initiative (VEHI) plans. While the Administration first and foremost prefers a negotiated statewide health benefit, its position regarding the level at which bargaining should occur has become more ?exible, and some Of our previous proposals included options that could preserve bargaining at the local level; The Administration has also agreed to return 100 percent of savings to taxpayers, rather than reinvesting equal portions into early childhood education and higher education, shoring up the Vermont State Teachers Retirement Health Insurance Program, and tax relief as was originally proposed. It is worth noting that at adjournment we were very close. to an agreement but the various proposals considered have not been publicized. Prior to a meeting, it would be most appropriate for legislative leaders to brief at least - all members who will be attending future meetings on the details of these proposals and the status of negotiations._ This will allow for discussions to move forward more productively towards a compromise that meets the Governor?s core principles on this issue. We are agreeable to sharing the different frameworks discussed over the course of the previous negotiations more broadly with all legislators, and with the public, if that will assist in this regard. I - Nevertheless, from the Administration?s view, the key areas upon which there is agreement include: 6 Savings There is agreement that these savings are real and as school employees transfer to the new, less expensive plans capturing those savings is a pelicy. Returning the Savings to Taxpayers There is an agreement to return 100% of the savingsto taxpayers, but we have not yet settled on. the most effective recapture'vehicle to achieve that goal. Despite this progress we have not yet reached agreement that meets the Governor?s core principles of maximizing the savings for taxpayers presented by the move to these plans; ensuring employees are not required to pay more; and simplifying the negotiations of health care plans. - The Administration has been willing to consider negotiations remaining at the local level, but has been clear that it will'reqtiire a policy mechanism that mandates the parameters of the bene?t plan, or provides a strong and equitable ?nancial incentive for both. school boards and unions to reach settlements that are within the constructs of the Gold CDHP VEHI model. That model includes an 80/20 premium split with at least the first $400 out'of pocket cost borne by the employee. The Governor?s proposal also provided for up to $49 million of the Savings from the plans to be used by employers to purchase either HSA or HRA plans for the employees to assist with out of pocket and. noncovered expenses. - As you recall, the Governor proposed a modi?cation of. the concept advanced. by the Speaker and remains open to alternative mechanisms for maximizing savings in local negotiations. it is important for us to acknowledge, however, that reasonable parameters on the benefit levels and/or incentives for meeting savings targets are essential to reaching agreement. Establishing the Principles of a Productive Negotiation . To ensure that our discussions are conducted productively and in good faith, it will be essential to agree to a framework in which they are conducted. Establishing a framework will be particularly important in light of the number of legislative participants currently contemplated. Please consider the following proposals: 8 Clearly De?ned Negotiating Committees Each branch will designate its negotiating team that will not to the extent possible, change as the discussions proceed. The Legislature?s negotiating committee should be empowered and obligated to speak on behalf of the legislative leadership, not just one chamber? leadership. 5 6 De?ne the Goats of?re Negotiation We should agree on the goals of the negotiations. In the Administrationis view, the goal is to reach an agreement on the budget and yield bills prior to the veto session currently scheduled for June 21?. Should the Legislature have different goals .. or alternative language for defining them it is important and necessary that they be clearly defined and agreed upon prior to meeting. 6 Include the Deans of?re House and Senatew Recognizing that conversations were progressing for much agreement was withinrcach, we request that the Deans of the House and Senate, Representative Emmons and Senator Mazza, continue to participate in all meetings to provide continuity. 1 In~Person Meetings Preferable - Whenever possible, all meetings should be conducted in person. Large conversations with multiple participants on the phone are not a productive way to negotiate these critical issues. - 9 Bring Speci?c, Written Counter Proposals to the Table The Administration believes it is very important that each side offer feedback and reactions on an ongoing basis to each proposal and counter propesal. The date, put multiple acceptable. paths ferward, and. in writmg, including eptions that: keep- .negetiatiens. etthe lee-ail level. The AdminiStra?-on "wee else the" last party be present a-prepesel to the Legislature. We Legislature?s; negetie'ting eemmittee provide a . new mitten eeunterpmpesel for t0 the Administrefion. We request that all. prepesals be previded-in. writing in advance Of our meetings. a Be?ne- Cigar Geo-tend R-zafesfer Keeping tit-e Public Ii?vrmed We suggest that we make this phase of ?egetia?one available te- the public. We-Tbelzieve Vermm?ers lm?v?f? a right 1:0 knew what ideas are being . offered. ancl. by Whom. In. addition, we believe we could-iron out the few remaining details more ef?ciently - and. will). mere "tethe- pee-gale we serve if we agree to 3. meeting seize-duke and. a deadline "for reaching an. agreement that is shamed. with the public. Ila-weaver, if this eppreaeh is not one the Legislature can suppert?, we request that you. propose gmund rules for keeping the public- infermed. mee- Uhfieetiens: 1:0 the Current Budget- Yield Bill First, ?to clarify some concerns raised about the emmeetien between. the two bills, we feel. strengly that the lendgetan? yield bill are intrinsically linked. The apprepria?em made from the Educatien. Fixed in the budget . are. contingent upon ?the revenue provided. by the yield If the funding raised through. the yield "bill Changes, the alleeatioz} of funding in. the buciget neede 1:0 be updated. ?to re?ect a. change in the amount ofavazilable feeds. The-Governer has been clear that, given the eppertueity' seve- tax payers- milliene ef {lollers through. the new health. care plans, the education in. the budget would need it} be adjusted. by" the amount sch-eels Will save by a?eesitimling to the VEHI. plans. . the budget "reduces the "Educating Fund?s stabilization. re-eewes by $9.2 millien te its stammry minimmn. Thisdecisien exposes taxpayer's- re the risk 0f am increase in preperty tax rates} could. be e-f eoncemte the rating agencies, and is dif?cult to understand in a pelitieal climate where- federal funding for 'seheoidietficts could. be drastically reduced?. This-issue. alone is suf?cient: to- justify a ?rearm. in ?ze Seem-?feels- View. Tia-Le use the. Stabiliza?ei} Life-serve with. the continual reliance on one'w'time'?mcls predicated. en'prier year reversiens that may net'materieli-ze in. future ?scal years, prevlc?les cause to save 11th $226-mi11ien. in the current. 332d. future- years to. avoid, at at least mix?mize. future property tax increases. we. leek fe-rwerd to your response-?10 the abeve proposals- fe-r'previding a frame-work wi?zzi?. which we Q2111 work: most. productively. to reach a reasonable cempremise 'b'e?e?eiel be all. Vermonters. The Administration. is available-1e meet as early as temezrew and. as often as necessary {0 reach reseletion. "Please send yew? response Kendal 81:11:11: as I will be travelling today and. will. not. have access, to email er my phene 13b? certaie. times (3f . the-day. . Thank you. fer censisdering the Adimnis?iratien?s thoughts on. hew to praise-ed. Sincerely, I. I. I ?Seganne Young Secretary ef?gdminietratien Susanne From: Young, Susanne Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 2:17 PM To: ?mjohnson@legstatevtus? Cc: - Tim Ashe Subject: Moving Negotiations Forward Good afternoon Speaker iohnson, Thank you-for'returning my eariier call in foliow up to yesterday?s ietter. As i mentioned, right before you called back, I iearned that Peter Steriing had reached out to confirm a meeting for this afternoon despite communications yesterday that scheduiing a meeting was premature. As was conveyed in the letter and to the pro tern?s office yesterday, we are awaiting a respOnse to our request that iegisiative ieaders provide a counterproposai for our consideration and an agreement to a framework in which to have our first meeting. Having a concrete proposal that has sUpport from your leadership teams ahead of a meeting and a dear negotiation framework within which to discuss it is, in our view, the most productive and expeditious path forward to a reasonabie .. resoiution. Also, this is to confirm that you understand that the characterization that Tuesday?s meeting was canceiied by the Administration was not accurate. We look forward to a response so we can put together a schedule of meetings to reach resoiution. Regards, Susanne Susanne R. Young, Secretary Agency of Administration 109 State Street Montpelier, VT 05609 (802) 828-3322 Young, Susanne From: Katherine Levasseur Sent: Thursday, June 2017 4:46 PM To: Young, Susanne Cc: Mitzi Johnson; Tim Ashe; Peter Steriing Subject: Letter from Speaker johnson and Senate President Ashe Attachments: Memo to Governor 6.1.1 13361?? Good Afternoon Susanne, Please find a letter to the Governor from Speaker Johnson and Senate President Ashe attached. Regards, Katherine Katherine Levasseur Chief of Staff, Office of the Speaker 115 State St., Montpelier, VT 05633 KLevasseur@ieg.state.vt.us 802.828.2245 8027353799 Susanne From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Thank you very much Katherine. Regards, Susanne Susanne R. Young, Secretary Agency of Administration 109 State Street Montpelier, VT 05609 (802) 8286322 Young, Susanne Thursday,Juee 1,2037 5:50 PM 'Katherine Levasseur? Mitzi Johnson; Tim Ashe; Peter Sterling RE: Letter from Speaker Johnson'and Senate President Ashe From: Katherine Levasseur Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 4:46 PM . I To: Young, Susanne Cc: Mitzi iohnson Tim Ashe Peter Sterling Subject: LetterfromSpeakerJohnson and Senate President Ashe Good Afternoon Susanne, Please find a letter to the'Governor from Speaker Johnson and Senate President Ashe attached. Regards, Katherine Katherine Levasseur Chief of Staff, Of?ce of the Speaker 115 State St, Montpelier, VT 05633 KLevasseur@ieg.state.vt.us 802.828.2245 802.735.3799 11-15 STATE STREET PHONE: (802) 328?223?? MONTPELIER, VT 05633~5801 FAX: (802) 828?2424 I 3mm UFVERM om GE NE A8535: MBLY To: Phillip SCOEE Pram: Mitzi. Speakhr of the Home Tim Ashe, Frasi-dant Pro "Pampers of the Senate CC: Susanne Young, Secretary of Date: J-uhe I, 2017 Baa? Govemar Scott, At this time: we believe the most productive path forward is; far you? Administratian t0 raceive and review our lhgislative acEicm H. 509 anti Eat yeii i?ak? 5/th declsiozl ahciut whather t0 Sign the hill into haw As your staff has requesteci mare famial camunicaticm 0E1 {his your signatuEe 01 reasoning Outlined a vath letter Shall same: as the next Step WE are disappointed that two matings this weak did 310?. came: E0 fruiticn. HOWEVEE, if and when we. receive the veto letter we look forward, tc: productive meetings in adv-mice of Line 2 I St. Sincarely, if If I I Tim Ashe Spcaker the House Senate Presidhnt Pm Ta-mppre Susanne From: Mazza?Paquette, Melissa Sent: Friday, June 2., 2017 4:26 PM To: Peter Sterling; Katherine Levasseur Ce: Young, Susanne; Smith, Kendal Subject: Letter from Secretary Young Attachments: Negotlatlon sighed LTR 6w2??l7.pdf Good oflernoon, Alloched oleGSe see 0 leller on beholf of Secrelory Young. Would you pleose be so kind as To poss olong lo Speaker Johoson ond Senole Pro Tempore? I Pleose lelus know if you hove any quesllons or concerns. Wishing you 0 greo?r weekend,- Melissa On behalf of Secrefory of Adminisfrofion, Susanne R. Young, from: Melissa Mazza-Paquetie Agency of Administration - 109 State Street, 5th Floor Montpelier, VT 05609 ph: (802) 8283322 State of Vermont. {phone} 802-828-3322 Susanne Young, Secretary Agency of Administration {fax} 80282823320 Gf?ce of the Secretary Pavilion Of?ce Building 109 State Street Montpelier, VT 05609?0201 streams 13$}ng June 2, 2017 Dear Speaker Johnson and President Pro Tempore Ashe: Thank you for your letter to Governor Scott and delivery of H. 509,_An Act Relating to Calculating Statewide Education Tax Rates. You will receive the Governor?s veto message on or before the constitutional deadline of Wednesday, June 7. Today, we requested delivery of H.518, An Act Relating to Making Appropriations for the Support of Government in. order to address these bills together. I, too, regret that meetings did not come to fruition this week, and look forward to meetings next week following your reply to our May 31, 2017 proposal to establish principles of a productive negotiation and the designation of your team. I understand the scheduling challenges you. face and propose that We all hold time in our respective schedules for meetings for next week after the veto message is delivered. To this end, please send dates and times that will Work best for your negotiating team and the Deans. We will be sure to con?rm those meetings in writing once we have an Opportunity to check against schedules here. Prior to ?nal commitments to those meetings, I trust the three of us can work out details for their framework. It appears from yesterday that you have decided to attend the meetings personally, have invited the Deans to attend, and will hold the meetings in person. That is very much appreciated and resolves our concerns about negotiating authority and continuity. If this is not the plan moving forward please let me know in writing. The remaining questions from our perspective are as follows: as Do you agree that the goals of the negotiation are to reach. agreement on the budget and the yield bills prior to the veto session? e? Do you agree that it is. important to provide feedback on an ongoing basis to proposals and counter proposals, and that those be in writing, so there is no doubt or confusion about What is under consideration at any given time? a Do you agree that we should make this phase of negotiations available to the public? . I am available at your convenience to discuss further except for early afternoon on Tuesday. Thank you'for again for your letter. Enjoy the weekend. also I Sosanne R. Young Secretary of Administration Susanne From: Mazza-Paquette) Melissa Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 4:49 PM To: Peter Sterling; Katherine Levasseur CC: . Young, Susanne; Smith, Kendal Subject: H.509 and H.518 - On behalf of Secretary Young Attachments: - Veto H.509 and H.518 letter to Speaker and Pro Tempore 6w6?17.pdf; H509 Veto - Messagefull Package Legal Counsel Rejects House Clerk Arguments 6*6" 17.;3df . Alloched you wz'll ?nd 0 leller from Secrelory Young, lhe Governor?s velo rnessoge of and 0 copy of- leller senl lodoy from Governor?s Legal Counsel lo The Clerk of The House. Pleose poss olong lo Speoker Johnson and Senole Pro Tempore ond lel us know if you hove ony queslions. Thonk you, Melisso On behalf of Secrel?ory Susanne Young from: Melissa Mazea-Paquette 1 Agency of Administration. 109 State Street, 5th Floor Montpelier, VT 05609- ph: (802) 828?3322 A State ofVemont {phone} 802w828?3322 Susanne R. Young, Secretary - agency of Administration {fax} 802628-3320 Of?ce ofthe Secretary - Pavilion Office Building 109 State Street Montpelier, VT os?og?oaoi June 6, 2017 Dear Speaker Johnson and President Pro Tempore Ashe: . Today the Governor returned H.509, An Act Relating to Calcuiaz?ing Statewide Education Tax Rates, and H.518, An Act Reiaz?ing to Making the Support of Government, without his signature. I understand from your correspondence dated. June 1, 2017, that you believed the most productive path forward was to deliver H. 5'09 and allow the Governor to share his reasoning in a veto message, and that you looked forward to productive meetings after you received the message. Attached is the Governor?s veto message that outlines his many concerns with the approach taken in 1-1.5 09. I do hope that we can now meet to restart conversations on the best way to move forward to save Vermonters up to $26 million a year, without asking educators to pay more for healthcare. We are waiting on a response to my June for your thoughts in three outstanding areas prior to meeting: agreement on the goals of the negotiations, providing preposals and feedback in writing to the extent practicable, and how to keep the public informed on the status of reaching a resolution. As always, please reach out if you have questions regarding the Governor?s veto message. Sincerely, Susanne R. Young Secretary of Administration PHILIP B. SCOTT Governor State of Vermont OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR MESSAGE FROM THE. GOVERNOR A message was received from His Excellency, the Governor, by Ms. Brittney L. Wilson, Secretary of Civil and Military Affairs, as follows: Madam Speaker: I am directed by the Governor to inifom the House of that on the sixth day of June, 2017, he returned without signature and. vetoed a bill originating in theHouse of the following title: - H.509 An eel: relating to calculating statewi?e education tax rates Home Message #15 06/06! 17 109 STATE STREET THE Flax/11,1013 05509-0101. wwnvemomoov. PHILIP B. SCOTT Governor State {1f Vermont OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR The Govemm has informed the House of Repmsen?zatives that on the: sixth day 010111118 2017 he mtumezd without signature and vetoed 13. 13711.1 migina?ng in the House of the following tide: 1 11.509 Am 21:11 reEating to cakmlafing statewide education. rates House Message 1 5 06/05/ I 7 109 1 THE PAVILEON MONTPELIER VT 05619 010: 1 WWVERMONT (10$ TELEFHONE: 802,828.33: 3 1t FAX1802 828 3339 1 TDD: 802 828 334.5 some a. SCOTT Governor I State of Vermont OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR. June 6, 2017 The Honorable William Clerk. of the Vermont House of Representatives State House Montpelier, VT 05633 Dear Mr. MaGill: Pursuant to Chapter II, Section ll of the Vermont. Constitution, '1 am. returning H.509, An Act .Refattng to Calculating Statewide Education Tax Rates Without my signature because of my objections described herein. Please note, the following also addresses obiectioos to H.518, An. Act ?Relating to Making Appropriations for the Stepper! ofGovemmeet, as the two bills are inextricably linked and their relationship factors heavily into my decision. to return both bills. H.518- will be returned to you in . a separate message containing the same objections. At the beginning of the session, I challenged the Legislature to give residents and businesses a break from new or higher taxes and fees in all bills passed this year. I also urged the Legislature to join me in the work of making Vermont more affordable in every way we can. H.509 and H.518 fail to achieve these goals and, as a result, I cannot support them as mitten. We must not be afraid to think, and. legislate, differently in order to reverse out challenging demographic trends, grow the economy, and make Vermont more affordable. I have made a number of proposals to generate savings in the Education. and, beginniog with my first budget presentation. To date, the Legislature has rejected all such. proposals and instead has passed H.509, which, together with and intrinsically linked to H.518, only worsens the unsustainable trajectoiy towards higher property taxes to support an education system with declining enrollment and extremely high per pupil costs. Instead, we have an opportunity to moderate those rates by rebasing school. budgets through the transition to new plans in. the Vermont Education Health Initiative and Without asking school employees to pay more for healthcare. Although H.509 appears to provide property tax relief for residential tax payers, it does so through an unequal allocation of the tax burden to other Vermont property taxpayers arid the - unsustainable, irresponsible allocation of onetime revenue sources. More speci?cally, H.509 increases the nonresidential property tax rate from $1.535 per $100 of assessed value, to $1.555. Property taxes are not only an impediment to living in Vermont, but also a barrier to creating jobs in our state. Most of the ??nom'esidential? tax actually falls on Vermonters, like employers, renters and canip owners. In fact, the Department of Taxes reports that about 60 percent of the 109 STATE STREET a Tea PAVILION a MONTPELIER, VT 05609-0101 a Fax:802.828.3339 The Honorable William M. MaGill June 6, 2017 Page 2 property that is classified as ?non?residential? has a Vermont owner. Small and medium sized businesses are the backbone of our economy, and we must make Vermont a more affordable and attractive place to do business to increase opportunities for all Vermonters. I remain determined to achieving level property tax rates for all. payer group's. Also concerning is that buying down the average residential rate from $1.527 to $1.505 in. H.509 is achieved in H.518 through two sources of onetime money. First, H.509 reduced the Education Fund's stabilization reserves by $9.2 million to the Fund?s statutory minimum. Second, $26.1 million in the unallocated and unreserved balance in the Education Food was applied as it has been over the past few years. Although the anallOcated/?anreserved balance in the Education Fund has been used in previous sessions to buy down tax rates, it has been done so under the assumption that the balance will not he guarmteed year after year. According to the Agency of Education, the majority'of this surplus was generated as the result of the consolidation of special education administration to the supervisory district level, from the local level, in 2010 through Act 153. Overbudgetirig for this expense created a surplus in the Education. Fund over the past several years. However, in H.518, the anticipated special. education expenditures were budgeted to more accurately reflect actual costs and it is unlikely the surplus, if any, will be realized to the. extent it has in the past, for use in future fiscal years: AChieving savings through the transition to the new health insurance bene?ts is critically important to filling the gap that will inevitably occur in Fiscal Year'2019 when this surplus is no longer generate .. - i This anticipated shortfall coupled with. the decision to use $9.2 million of onetime money from the Education Fond stabilization reserves creates a steep cliff for 'taapayers to make up in. Fiscal. Year 2019. These decisions, without a sustainable plan in place to fill the shortfall, expose taxpayers Lmnecessarily to the risk of an increase in property tax rates, could be of concern to the rating agencies, and are dif?cult to understand in a political climate where federal funding for school districts could be drastically reduced. This issue alone is sufficient to justify a veto. The use of the stabilization reserve coupled with the continued reliance 01} one-time funds predicated I on prior year reversions that may not materialize in future ?scal years ensures the likelihood of future property tax increases. 1 cannot support a budget that. makes expenditure choices that lmowingly result in higher property tax. rates in future years. Moreover, the Legislature in H.509, Section 3, passed an additional one percent transfer of Sales and use tax to the Education Fund which creates a General Fund shortfall in Fiscal Year 2019 and beyond. In H.518, Section the Legislature budgets a one??time Fiscal Year 2018 food transfer of $3.3 million. Year after year the Legislature roast reconcile a growing gap between What we want to provide Vermonters and What We can afford based on our incoming revenues. Taking steps today that do not account for knots/7n future shortfalls puts the Legislature on a trajectory to increase the tax and fee burden on Vermonters. We should be taking steps to curb education spending instead of continuing to increase nodproperty tax sources in the Education Fund, which in Fiscal Year 2018 total $525.1 million. The Honorable William MaGill June 6 20l7 Page 3 Section 5 of H.509 creates a Health Bene?ts Commission thatl believe is set up to ensure impasse. Vermont?s school boards have clearly articulated over the past several months their need for a simpli?ed process for negotiating the increasingly complex health insurance system. Additionally, thus far the VT-NEA has shown great resistance to any change in the bargaining dynamic and to sending savings back to taxpayers. I agree it would be advantageous for these groups to be able to work through this issue without legislative interference. However, by including ?ve representatives from labor organizations and live representatives from school boards and superintendents? organizations, it is unlikely that these conversations will be fruitful. Additionally, the State will likely have a hand in administering a statewide health bene?t if legislation is introduced, and has no representation co. the Commission. While I appreciate the Legislature?swillingness in H.509 to revisit this issue in the future, such as receiving ?ndings from the Health Bene?ts Commission this November, and reopening contractsin" September 2019, Vermo'otfaces an immediate aridgrowingcrisis"of affordability, and recapturing the available savings without asking school. employees to pay more or cutting programs for kids can only happen during the unique set of circumstances at this moment. The reOpening of contracts in September 2019 will not allow the Legislature to revisit this issue comprehensively, as contracts thatsettle prior to July 1, 2017 will be exempt. As we have seen from settlements to date, there is a wide range ofhealthcare coverage, and. contracts range in length from i to 3 years Therefore, this IS setting up an unfair scenario for those negotiating parties that are crarently at, impasse, and an incentive for those who are still at the table to settle quickly. Without more explicit expectations set by the State, many agreements will likely the lode premium cost-sharing and out of pocket costs that eat away the available savings and, therefore, our ability to lower property tax rates It is essential to remember the alternatives which I have proposed, and which could have been talc-en up by the Legislature, to put Vermont on a new and more sustainable economic footing. Beginning with my recommended budget in January, I encouraged legislators to look for savings in the Education ligand specifically in health. care costs for school employees, to keep property tax rates for all payer groups level During the 20115 2016 Biennitim, 1n. the context ofAct 46, we heard it was nearly impossible to control education spending, despite declining student enrollments, due to the uncontrollable rising cost of health care for educators. This resulted in legislative action to remove allowable spending growth thresholds originally applied ll'l Act 46. Acknowledging healthcare costs are a driver in education. spending, in my proposed budget I included an 80/20 premium split to achieve savings it}. school employees? healthcare costs and introduce equity among public seettn employees. This is not on} the same premium split that out State employees and eligible tetii ed teachers pay, but would bring polity-?101 oss the system for all active educators and other school employees The Honorable William M. MaGill Jane 5, 2017 Page 4 My original mechanisms, level funding school budgets coupled with the premium split, to achieve savings in the Education Fund and level property tax rates, were met with much . resistance, as well as Opposition from stakeholder groups including the Vermont School Boards Association (VSBA) and the Vermont Superintendents Association (VSA). At the same time, my Administration began to learn more about a unique opportunity to save money in. the Education Fund through changes in the healthcare plans. it is important to note that is an intermonicipal trust made up of State municipalities, including school districts, and administers a standard offering ol?healthcare benefits to over 90 percent of Vermont schools. Vermont school employees constitute a single statewide risk pool insured through the offerings. healthcare plans offered. to school employees for Fiscal Year 2018 have been restructured to cost substantially less than the old plans to avoid the Affordable Care Act?s ?Cadillac Tax.? Discussions in the State House outlining plan changes, and. the opportunity for savings, began in the 20152016 Biennitnn with representatives from. VEHI testifying in the Senate Finance and House Education Committees. I After the introduction (if my recommended budget, legislators began asking my for an alternative, and began pointing to the opportunity for savings from these VEHI plan changes. Unfortunately, it became clear that neither the House nor Senate Appropriations Committees were planning to take'advantage of this cocaine-lifetime opportunity to rebase school budgets and save Vermonters millions on an ongoing basis. Therefore, to propel this conversation forward, I introduced a policy proposal through collaboration with the VSBA and the VSA that ensures there is a mechanism. to recapture up to $75 million in available savings. In my proposal, 1. recommend reinvesting nearly $59 million back: into school employees to make sure they don?t pay more for out of pocket expenses, and returning the remaining $26 million to all classes of property taxpayers to keep allproperty tax. rates the same as Fiscal Year 2017. I. also suggested investing in other education priority areas, such as early care and leaming, higher education, and shoring up the Vermont State TeaChers Retirement Health insurance Program. My proposal calls for the State to negotiate with the school employees? unions for the - health benefit. Other states, like Massachusetts which has an optnin state health plan, have started moving in this direction. My proposal does three things: First, it maintains the right of school employees to bargain this valuable bene?t through a. joint body representing all school employees with a single Voice and an oppornntity to maximize bene?ts for all school employees equally. Second, my proposal assumes sharing the cost savings with school employees through the creation of a health savings or health retirement accounts (HSA or HRA) funded with-a majority of the plan savings. Third, it creates a mechanism for recapturing the VEHI cost savings built into the existing school budgets and returning those savings to Vermont property taxpayers. This makes particular sense because school employees participate in a statewide insurance risk pool new. The-Honorable William M: MaGill June 6, 2017 Page 5 While my goal is not. a statewide teachers? contract, elevating bene?ts to the State level has been ?oated numerous times in the Legislature, as recently as 2014, when it was included in a December 12, 2014, report from then?Speaker Shep Smith?s Education Finance Working Group, which included current Speaker Mitzi Johnson and House Education Chair David Sharpe (see pg. 3, number 8: _?Have. the Agency produce a erode! teachers" contract that districts could use during labor negotiations. Explore the idea that district?s could apple to a statewide contract?). Under my proposal, local school boards would still bargain with school. employees over all other compensation and bene?ts. Healthcare benefits Would he bargained one time, instead of more than 60 times, which would give the maximum potential to realize up to $75-rnillion in savings (noting that contracts which have been rati?ed to date will not be reopened). Despite our differences, 1 remain fully committed to working with the Legislature on a solution in H.509 and H.518 that meets the following core principles: l. Maximize Savings Any alternative mast maximize the savings Opportunity of the transition to these new healthcare plans; 2. Keep Teachers Whole (it. Provide Parity Any alternative must hold educators harmless and provide parity and uni fortnity across the system; and - Simplg'?/ Negotiations for School Boards Any alternative must reduce the burden currently on school boards negotiating these new, more complex. insurance plans. I are encouraged there is agreement between the Administration and the Legislature that the transition to the new VEHI plans provides an opportunity to save mill-iOns of dollars. While I ?rst and foremost prefer a negotiated statewide health. benefit, 1 am willing to consider negotiations remaining at the local level. However, it will. require a policy mechanism in H.509 that mandates?the parameters of the benefit plan, or provides a strong and equitable financial incentive for both school boards and unions to reach settlements that are within'the constructs of - the Gold CDHP model. That model includes an 80/20 premium Split with atleast the ?rst $400 out of pocket cost borne by the employee through an. HSA or BRA. As noted earlier, I am also Willing to return 100 percent of savings to all classes of property taxpayers to further'bring down property tax rates, which is a primary advantage of seizing this opportunity, rather than reinvesting equal portions into early childhood and higher education and shoring up the Vermont State Teachers Retirement Health Insurance Program, in addition to tax relief, as was originally proposed. It is worth noting that at adjoarmnenton May 18, 2017, an agreement with-House and Senate leadership was within reach. . The Honorable William M. MaGill Jose 6, 2017 Page 6 Again, H.509 and H.518 are fundamentally tied. The appropriations made from the Educatic?m Fund in H.518 are contingent upon the revenue provided by H.509. If the funding raised through. H.509 changes, the allocation of funding in H5 18 needs to be updated to reflect a change in the amount of available ?elds. For reference, the speci?c line item in H.518 is 13.505, Education - adjusted education payment. It would also eliminate the need for the transfer ?ora the Education Fund?s stabilization reserves, as discussed above. Given the opportunity lhave outlined to save taxpayers millions of dollars through the new VEl-ll healthcare plans, the education payments in the budget should be adjusted by the amount of savings expected from transitioning to the new VEHI healthcare plans. I premised. Vermonters I would listen to any idea to make Vermont more affordable, and that is what I?m doing. We have been losing, on average, six workers from out workforce, and three students from our schools every day. We literally cannot pass up this opportunity to put a dentin property tax growth. My education Savings proposal allows us to bring down property tax rates .. . While not requiring education. entployeesto pay more or cutsto programs for kids. Under my proposal teachers will not be exposed to higher out of pocket costs and will still enioy robust healthcase plans with hlgher than average actuarial values. Neither H.509 nor H.518, as presented for my approval, takes any steps to provide a mechanism to recapture the available savings for the Fiscal Year 2018 budget, which could be as much as $13 million, or alleviate the property tax burden on all rate payer groups. I As noted, based on the outstanding objections outlined above I cannot support H.509 or 1-1.5 18 and must return both bills without my signature pursuant to Chapter II, ?ll of the Vermont Constitution. If the veto is sustained, knowwe can come to an agreement, and. when we do, H.509, H.518, and Vermonters will bebetter for it. Sincerely, Philip B. Scott Governor PBkap PHILIP s. soorr Governor ?g wm??h nosw State of Vermeer OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR. lune 6, 20l7 The Honorable William M. MaGill Clerk of the Vermont House of Representatives State House Montpelier. VT 05633 Dear Mr. MaGill: are writing to explain why the Governor is resubmitting his veto messages for H.509 arrd H.518. In rejeetiog the veto messages. you have claimed. that the Constitution, as well as Vermont House of Representatives ?custom. usage and practice? governs the contest of the Governor?s veto message and. that a Governor?s veto message may not make reference to another bill which has been presented to the Governor. There is no suppert for your opinion in the plain language of. the Constitution, in State law or my the Rules of the House or the Joint Rules of the House amt Senate. - Further vou have advised that the usage and practice? to. which you refer is not written. and IS in fact determined :11 your discretion The?provisioo applicable to the Governor?s Constitutional right of veto reads as follows: Every so; which shall have passed the Senate and House of?epresenrafives shall, before it becomes a law, be prayer/grad 3?0 rho Governor; y?t?he Govemor approve. the Goveraor shay Sign if; {foes the Governor shat! retort: it. with obieczirms in writing, to the Home in which shall? izave originated; which .9852]! proceed to reconsider 2'3; (Vt. Coast. CH II. 1 l; emphasis added.) This is a very unambiguous provisiorr requiring presentment to the Governor before a bill becomes law Ifthe Goveroor approves the Governor shall Sign the bill If the Governor does not. approve the Governor shall return the hill objections or writing to the oriainatiog, House The: Home has {he duty :0 proceed to reconsider the bill. This provision of the Constitution is an essential application of the principle that our constitutional. system of government is one of separate and distinct powers protected by cheeks and. balances designed to avoici usurpation ofpower b} any one brarreh roe Srars Smear 3 Tara Former?! VT 05609 8201 3 80.2 828 3333 FAX: 8o2. 828 3339 3 802 ..828 334.5 The Honorable William M. June 6, 2017 Page 2 There is no process for a House of the General Assembly to rejecf the written objections of the Governor or dictate the content of those objections. More speci? cally, the Clerk of the House has no authority to refuse to accept a. bill returned. by the Governor with written objections or in any way limit or restrict the Governor? authority to communicate those objections. The meaning of this Constitutional provision cannot he modi?ed or controlled by the practices of the Clerk of the House, regardless of Whether there is personal recollection of or historical practice for doing so. The Governor is, therefcreb rcsubmi?ing the messages for H.518, An Aer Refefizsg to Making Appropria?cnsfer the chcvemn-zem and H.509, Ale? Relcrizeg re Caleza?arz'zsg Siatewide Education Tax Rates without signatme because ofhis objections described in the attached messages. Ve trill Yours, . . Jaye Pershilzg Johnson Governor?s Legal Counsel . JPJ/lip (1: Speaker Mitzi Johnson Hesse Minority Leader Repfesentative Don. Turner