Dear fellow readers:

Yesterday, the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee passed H.125, an act relating to reporting on the energy transition, on a 5-3-1 vote. It is now on the House floor for further action. This bill requires the Secretary of Natural Resources to compile a long laundry list of data with pretty charts to help the committee understand the economic impacts of the energy transition. 

The Global Warming Solutions Act and its companion bills have been regressive policies that harm Vermonters. We’ve seen this with comments on the Governor’s veto as each of these bills was passed and then overridden. We’ve seen it with testimony from fuel dealers when Act 18, the (un)Affordable Heat Act bill, was in committee. We saw it again in the final report mandated by Act 18. Earlier this week, Vermonters turned out in force for a Repeal Act 18 rally at the State House. We’ve seen the PUC say that the Renewable Energy Standard raises rates for Vermonters. We’ve seen the PUC say the Clean Heat Standard is not suitable for Vermont. 

Numerous bills have been introduced this session to fix the damage caused by these laws. H.16 seeks to repeal the Affordable Heat Act. H.52 seeks to revise the Global Warming Solutions Act and change mandates to goals. H.62 is similar and seeks to abolish the Vermont Climate Council. H.65 seeks to break Vermont from California’s electric vehicle mandate. H.159 seeks to repeal the Renewable Energy Standard. H.289, supported by Governor Scott, seeks to add nuclear power to Vermont’s acceptable energy sources and eliminate the GWSA mandates. All of these bills were introduced by Republicans. None of these bills made it off the wall of the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee. Instead, they demand more data—because they don’t like the data they already have. 

The answer is clear: we need to challenge Representative James, Chair of the House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee, and Representative Siblia, the Ranking Member, with strong candidates in the next election. It’s the only way they will listen. 

-Joe Gervais, Arlington

To the Editor:

I was tremendously disappointed when I read of the suppression of the First Amendment right of free speech in the State House last week. 

 One Group had reserved a room in the State House for a brief period to present a message the group felt was important.  Another group that opposed the message came in and hooted, hollered, and made enough noise that the first group was drowned out.  After a few minutes, the Sergeant at Arms ordered both groups to leave. 

 First, I am disappointed in the second group’s actions in preventing the first group from speaking.  The principle underlying our First Amendment right of free speech is that everyone gets his or her say, and those who disagree may respond later in an orderly manner. 

 Second, I am disappointed in the decision of the Sergeant at Arms to evict both groups.  Our State Constitution guarantees access to the State House for all persons who behave decently.  In this case, one group was behaving decently (or trying to), and the other group was not, but the Sergeant at Arms did not distinguish between the two.  

 We cannot allow First Amendment rights to be cancelled by mob rule, and I hope the legislature takes actions to preserve the course of free speech in the future. 

-Donald T. Koch, Barre Town

An open letter to Senator Nader Hashim:

Senator Hashim,

I attended a presentation last week in Morrisville given by Lamoille State’s Attorney, Aliena Gerhard, in which she told us that deep backlogs of caseloads have been reduced dramatically, if not throughout all Vermont courts, then at least in Lamoille County. Therefore, the concern you raise about offenders having a cavalier attitude about consequences also would seem to be proportionately diminishing.

To your point, I would submit to you that it is not backlogs, but a lack of moral will and courage on the part of Vermont’s legislators which has created a literal “get out of jail” free attitude embraced by those who continue to commit crimes here. And not to throw our legislators completely under the bus, there are also rogue prosecutors and judges in some of our counties who do not have the will to prosecute or incarcerate; their emphasis is so focused on rehabilitation that they neglect the retributive or punitive components of the criminal legal system to the detriment of habitual offenders, serial arrestees, their victims, and the public safety of our communities. Why is this?

As you are probably well aware, H.380 did not survive crossover. This is an unfortunate, but tragic indication of the lack of moral will, courage, and passion on behalf of our legislators to work for common sense reforms in our criminal legal system. H.380 is merely a bare bones attempt at attempting to break this inertia to begin the process of restoring sharp teeth back into consequences for serial arrestees, and yet it’s dying on the wall. Why is this?

To illustrate this cognitive dissonance, in a complete non sequitur, H.381 was then proposed which would prevent law-abiding citizens from owning certain types of firearms related to their features, capacities, and perceived aesthetic dangerousness. This is absurd. When have criminals, lawbreakers, and those intent on brazenly harming and killing others with guns ever respected or obeyed the law? Why do Vermont legislators continue to seek to disarm or otherwise steadily erode the rights of law-abiding citizens, while refusing to even try to reinforce stricter consequences for serial arrestees and habitual offenders?

And this “raise the age” proposal? Thank God it has been delayed for two years. Please let it die on the wall where it needs to stay in perpetuity. Do our legislators seriously believe that if we simply no longer consider eighteen year-olds as adults, we have then eliminated the problem of their committing crimes? Why is it that eighteen year-olds are considered responsible enough to marry, vote, purchase and carry firearms, and be drafted or enlist in our armed services, and yet not be considered old enough to be held responsible for the crimes they commit? In fact, there was a frenzied push by some legislators a few biennia ago to lower the age of voting!

This alteration of terminology is as ridiculous as if we were to say, for example, that we have now eliminated the crime of fentanyl or heroin possession from our court dockets because we will now allow those who would normally be charged with those crimes to participate in “harm reduction” or “safe injection” sites. We only need consider the ivory tower detachment from reality of US Senator Peter Welch and his utter disdain and disregard for the citizens of Vermont. Welch touts himself as championing the campaign to “tackle the opioid epidemic in our communities” and “combat illicit fentanyl,” even as, out of the other side of his mouth, he voted against a bipartisan bill targeting fentanyl trafficking! Welch’s hypocrisy is staggering.

I’m imploring you, Senator Hashim, to use your authority and influence as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to make sure any legislation is given priority which upgrades to felony status the penalties for violations of conditions of release and failures to appear, as well as any legislative proposals for bail reform.

And please don’t say that this is a partisan or Republican issue. It was because of the courage and concern of two Lamoille County Democrat representatives, Dan Noyes and Dave Yacovone, that the common sense H.380 was even drafted.

What are you going to do to advance the cause of public safety in Vermont’s communities? How are you working for genuine and robust reform in our criminal justice system on behalf of those you are ostensibly representing? What legislation are you proposing, or for which you are strongly advocating, which restores to their proper balance the presently anemic retributive and deterrent aspects of sentencing in Vermont’s criminal cases? Why has the rehabilitative component consistently been disproportionately overemphasized?

If you’re concerned that these points being raised seem to lack compassion or mercy, please try to remember that, first of all, common sense justice and public safety are for the benefit of all our citizens. And secondly, sometimes the most compassionate thing we can do is to stop giving the benefit of the doubt to those who boldly and habitually continue to break the law and endanger our communities.

-Martin Green, Morrisville