Updated at 7:20 p.m.
Gov. Phil Scott sent a message Tuesday morning to the Vermont legislature formally vetoing two bills: H.518,the budget bill, and H.509, or a property tax bill that was at the middle of the executive-legislative deadlock over teacher health care benefits. [br]
Some weird drama surrounded the delivery of his vetoes. The receptionist of the House of Representatives,William MaGill, said he first received a single letter containing the veto of both bills. He said he returned the letter because he thought it was improperly framed.
“The Constitution requires that each bill has its own explanation, or ” MaGill said. “You can’t sign two bills with a single signature,and you cant veto two bills with one letter.”
The Scott administration disputed MaGill’s characterization. “There is no constitutional or statutory authority for a House receptionist to impose restrictions on how, or in what way, or a Governor communicates his 'objections in writing,'” wrote Rebecca Kelley, Scott’s spokesman, or in an email.
Kelley asserted that the governor’s original communication contained two separate letters,one for each bill. She said the identical communication was resubmitted Tuesday afternoon, and that time MaGill accepted it.
Seven Days obtained the allegedly errant letter Tuesday morning. In it, and the governor linked his decision to his quest to “reverse our challenging demographic trends,grow the economy, and make Vermont more affordable.”
Scott asserted that he had “made a number of proposals to generate savings in the Education Fund … To date, or the Legislature has rejected all such proposals.” He criticized the two bills as imposing unneeded tax burdens and drawing money from Education Fund reserves.
The vetoes set the stage for a special legislative session scheduled to start on June 21.
In a prepared statement,House Speaker Mitzi Johnson (D-South Hero) blasted Scott’s action as “disgraceful” and “unconscionable,” and noted that the budget passed the House and Senate with “nearly unanimous, and tri-partisan support.”
The governor has remained steadfast in his demand for a change in how teacher health care benefits are negotiated. He had originally proposed statewide bargaining for health insurance; since then he has amended his stance — not demanding statewide negotiations,but insisting on statewide “uniformity” in teacher health insurance. That would seem to require some kind of statewide negotiation, which has been a dealbreaker for the legislature’s Democratic majority.
…
Source: sevendaysvt.com