The Giesen Perspective--Crossover is Dead Ahead

 

DATE:              February 10, 2006

 

FOUR WEEKS TO GO

 

The Assembly is scheduled to adjourn “sine die” on Saturday, March 11.  That leaves four weeks for the legislators to finish their work for the 2006 session of your General Assembly.  There are now some observers who question whether this will happen.  Practically everyone is speculating on how the three parties (The Governor, the Senate and the House) can come together on the BIG issue–TRANSPORTATION– in that period of time.

 

APPROACHING CROSSOVER

 

The next big “deadline” for the delegates and senators is the day when they have to finish work on the legislation introduced in their own house and start considering bills from “the other house.”  This cross-over will happen at midnight on Tuesday, February 14. As noted in the Feb. 3 G.P., Valentine’s Day may be very appropriate for this year’s cross-over date. The Senate and House have had a pretty easy time with their own bills.  Very few really raucous debates on the floor of either body.

These discussions may come as they start dealing with the other body’s legislation.  Then, too, the Budget Bills will come to light on Sunday the Nineteenth and with the varied approaches on the transportation issues, these are likely to look very different.

This weekend is an historical one.  In forty-eight years of observing and participating in the legislative process, this weekend is the first weekend prior to Crossover that I remember when the House of Delegates will not have to have a full session.  Every committee has finished acting on the bills on which they are required to act. (The money committees have an extension on revenue and appropriation bills.  They can be reported next week.)  Legislation has flowed more quickly from the committees to the floor, and the calendars for Monday and Tuesday will be very manageable. It is anticipated there will only be day sessions both days.

This is also the first time in the memory of most of us oldsters at the capitol, that the House Courts of Justice Committee, which receives the largest number of bills to consider, finished its work by 6:30pm Friday.  This committee has been referred to in the past (and still is by some) as “the committee of the long knives.”  A favorite way for a chairman of another committee to dispose of a bill which he or she didn’t want to vote against but really didn’t want to see passed (oh, yes, such things do happen on occasion when a friend is carrying a “bad” bill) was to have it re-referred to the Courts Committee where it might be considered late on Sunday night on Crossover weekend.  The only people in the committee room at that time would probably be most of the very tired committee members and the more weary staff.  My father use to say, “There’s more than one way to skin a cat.”  I always wondered about that saying, since I never saw him skin a cat!

In the early years of my service in the House of Delegates (remember this was in the dark ages of the mid-nineteen sixties!) there were long sessions on the Saturday and Sunday before the Crossover day, and on Crossover day itself, sessions could run into the early hours of the next day.  The latest we ever adjourned was about 4am on Wednesday.  Of course in the House Chamber it was still only 11:58pm Tuesday, since the main clock had been stopped by the Clerk of the House at that time. With this action, any vote on a piece of legislation was valid.  Later it was ruled by a more reasonable Speaker of the House that “the legislative day began when the House convened and ended when it adjourned.”  The actual calendar day made no difference.  Thus, any legislation passed that “legislative day” was valid. 

This session the historic situation for this final weekend before Crossover has been dictated by the decisions of the House GOP leadership under the guidance of Speaker Bill Howell.  As you have read in past Giesen Perspectives, subcommittee meetings have been starting at 7 and 7:30am and others as late as 6 or 7 pm.  The delegates have been working 12 or 14 hours Mondays through Thursdays.  In addition, the rules this session have allowed subcommittees to kill bills.  If the majority of members in a subcommittee voted to kill a bill (the actual motion is to “pass by indefinitely”), then the bill was dead.  The full committee to which the bill had been assigned did not take up the bill without a specific action by the committee chairman to allow the committee to take up the piece of legislation in question.  This procedure stopped some of the duplication of long debates over a measure which had already been heard and killed by a subcommittee.

This session a bill which any subcommittee voted to “recommend to report” was still put before the full committee and was open to discussion and amendment.  Even here however, most committee chairpersons, took a harder stand on the length of these debates and the amount of testimony they would allow.  They frequently questioned a presenter as to whether he/she had been present at the subcommittee meeting when the bill was presented and debated.  With this process time spent on many pieces of legislation by the full committee was shortened considerably.  Measures moved to the floor move quickly and the final days approaching Crossover were not clogged with controversial bills over which debate could take many hours before a vote was taken.  It is much easier to get concurrence from 5 to 11 subcommittee members than it is 22 or 24 members in a full committee. 

The efficiencies in the legislative process have created a smoother flow of  passage of legislation by the House of Delegates. The Senate, having fewer members and fewer bills, have had a much easier time completing their work prior to Crossover.

More On The New Rule

An interesting concern about these new rules of the House has been expressed by some of our Virginia political and government historians -- and now by at least one Legislator.  The question goes, “Is the democratic process of having the public fully heard on a piece of legislation well served by this push for efficiency?”  There certainly needs to be a balance. 

In the past, I can attest, long hours and lengthy debates by very weary legislators created some bad legislation (thank goodness for a bicameral legislature).  So the efficiencies instituted by the current House leadership have decreased the number of late hour committee and floor session meetings. 

The fact that it has been harder for citizens (and their advocates) to follow just where certain bills are in the process has been a drawback.  Subcommittee reports have not been on the electronic Legislative Service Web Page.  People have to contact the patron of a bill, a staff person, or a member of a certain subcommittee to determine actions taken on a bill if it was killed in the subcommittee.  So the system may need some tweaking to make it more balanced, despite the view by some capital pundits who like to go home at usual business hours seem to feel the system is working.

 

THE BUDGETS

 

While legislation has been moving quickly through committees and the House and Senate, the money committees have been attending to the bills before them first and then hearing presentations from members on budget amendments.  Both the House Appropriations Committee and the Senate Finance Committee have a major task this year.  As noted in an earlier Giesen Perspective, when there seems to be more money to spend, the job of the “spending committees” becomes more difficult.  Everyone seems to want a piece of the pie.  Now isn’t that a great surprise? 

On a serious note, the staffs have been struggling hard to get all the information they can accumulate on each amendment offered.  Then they will prioritize these amendments according to what the members of each subcommittee have indicated are their greatest concerns. Next week, after the latest “official revenue forecast” from the Secretary of Finance and the Governor is received, and the subcommittee chairmen have met and discussed their needs, and the “redistribution of funds” has been determined, then the subcommittee members will have what some would call the “push and pull” private meetings to decide on the final allocation of funds within there area of responsibility. 

On Sunday, February 19, the reports will be made.  Each committee will made its decisions known to rooms full of people.  It is an anxious day for many!

 

TRANSPORTATION

 

Today, Friday, February 10, the Republicans in the House of Delegates unveiled their long awaited (well, it seemed like a long time. They’ve been talking about it for a month) “Reform Initiative on Transportation.  Now we have the expected three different programs for “solving Virginia’s transportation crises” on the table.  In the opinion of many capital observers, “solving” may be too strong a word.  All of the plans take a stab at “addressing” the problem; however, the scope of the transportation problems–highway congestion, deteriorating bridges, lack of reliable rail service, underfunded mass transit systems, crowded port facilities, undersized airports–makes it very difficult to come up with a fully comprehensive, long term solution.

The House Republicans are touting their plan as “a balanced, 3-part plan integrating new ideas and traditional common sense.”  The first part to their plan includes better cooperation between localities and VDOT   Bills already introduced and passed by House Committees are designed to promote sensible growth management tools to allow localities better to incorporate transportation into land use decisions, to allow localities to better coordinate these comprehensive plans with VDOT, to allow practically all localities to request cash proffers from developers to help pay for the cost of roads and other services, and to provide localities with the opportunity to apply for state matching funds under an expanded revenue-sharing program.

Secondly, the GOP House Caucus–it appears all 57 House Republicans have signed on to this plan–are stressing the need to “fix an outdated system for better results.”  To accomplish this phase of their plan they have passed additional legislation to increase opportunities for the state to partner with the private sector and local governments; on procurement methods; to expedite deployment of new technologies, to mitigate traffic-causing accidents by making the most dangerous drivers who abuse transportation systems pay their shared costs; and to gain greater accountability from and oversight over the transportation agencies.

The third part of the House Republican 3-part plan was introduced for the first time at the Friday afternoon press conference.  Their “common sense investment” program champions “innovative financing and additional funds.” The additional funds include two sources endorsed by the Governor–dedicating 1/3 of the Insurance Premiums to the Transportation Trust Fund and imposing large civil penalties on abusive drivers (see above).  In addition, the House plan would (1) dedicate $40 million per year from the Recordation Tax Revenue to transportation; pay the debt service on 2003 issued FRAN bonds from the General Fund ($37.40 million per year); and appropriate $552.6 million in FY 07 for “one-time capital type investments.”  The Governor’s budget has one-time general fund appropriations for $339.0 million.  The House plan would take another $212.6 million from the General Fund in the first year of the up coming biennium. 

The major emphasis of the presentation by several of the Republican House members was the fact that their plan did not include any new taxes.  Speaker Bill Howell stated rather strongly, “...the plan shows we are not willing at this time to compromise on tax increases.”  Another statement by The Speaker gave additional impact to the commonly held position of most of the House Republican Caucus, “Raising taxes in a time of growing state revenues would be wrong for commuters, wrong for tax-paying families and wrong for Virginia’s economic future.”

The confrontation of the competing transportation programs is just around the corner.  Opponents of the House Republicans’ “Virginia Reform Initiative on Transportation” stress that the large bulk of the money in the first year of the plan (FY 07) comes from the General Fund – $552.6 million comes directly from the GF and $37.4 million for the FRAN debt service.  This money represents 70% of the $852.7 million total proposed for FY 07.  Discounting the GF commitment to pay the FRAN debt service and the dedicated monies from the Recordation Tax (which now goes into the GF),  the opponents argue, there is very little increase in dedicated funds for the other three years of the plan. There is also an argument about the sustainable revenue from the abuser driver fee increases.  Over the four years of the plan the House Republicans have estimated $590.15 million in income, while the previously announced Governor’s program only forecast a take of $401.4 million. 

Using the House Republicans’ figures for the abusive driver fees and the insurance premiums dedicated to transportation (these are the same as the Governor’s), the NEW money for transportation would be: FY08, $282.51 million; and FY 09 & 10, $326.42 each year.  These figures are quite a bit shy of the $1.0 billion per year needs of the system as estimated by the “experts.”  It is doubtful that the other parts of the House plan could make up the difference, so the opponents have stressed.  Others from local government see part of the House Republican plan as a means of again shifting a portion of the state’s responsibilities to the localities.

Several state senators, members of the same party as those endorsing the “Virginia Reform Initiative on Transportation,” have already stated they see the House plan as one which would incur the need for more bonds to build our highway system and thus would shift the burden to pay for them to “our children and our grandchildren.”

Others, both from the Senate and from various advocacy groups, are most concerned that the House Republican plan relies too heavily on GF revenue and would be competing for funds badly need by public education, the mental health initiatives, expanded medicaid requirements, public safety, environmental concerns, and the preservation of open spaces. 

Now it is interesting that the House GOP plan has several elements which are also in the Governor’s.  When asked about the other parts of the Governor’s plan – the increase in the Motor Vehicle Sales and Use Tax and the Motor Vehicle Registration and Titling Tax – the House Majority Floor Leader reminded the media covering the Friday press conference that the Governor had essentially said he would not raise taxes until the Transportation Trust Fund was in “a lock box and safe from future raids by the legislature to divert these funds.”  Therefore it was the Republican House Caucus’s position that the Governor would like its plan. Now isn’t that an interesting comment for one politician to make about another politician’s comments? 

When reflecting on these comments made during a political campaign, I came across a quotation from Shirley MacLaine that might be appropriate. As quoted in the Readers Digest, she said, “It’s useless to hold a person to anything he says when he’s in love, drunk, or running for office.”  While I would not hold that to be always true, you know, it does, on occasion, seem to be accurate.

On other reflection on the transportation debate, both the Governor and the State Senators, in announcing their separate plans on the transportation issue, stressed they would raise in the neighborhood of $4,000,000,000. What seemed to be missing in the reporting of these plans was the fact this sum was over a four year span – 2006 to 2010 or Fiscal Years 2007, 8, 9, and 10.  When one anti-tax group started running hard, hitting radio ads through out Virginia against any tax increase for transportation, they kept referring to these $4 billion dollar tax-increase plans after the state had a booming economy and a $2.0 billion surplus.  It sounded as if the Senators and the Governor want to raise taxes $4 billion dollars a year.  When one of the people working for the group sponsoring the ads was challenged on this point, the defense was that the programs had been touted as four billion dollar fixes for the transportation system with no indication that this sum was over a four year period. 

Maybe the ads have had some effect.  Now you hear about the Senate’s and the Governor’s “long-term, stable, sustainable” funding of the highway and transportation systems in the amount of about $1 billion per year. 

My dad, who had a lot of “wise sayings,” often said, “You know, Pete, figures don’t lie, but liars do figure!”  (Well, OK, I know a lot of other people have quoted that same adage, it’s just that I remember hearing it first from my dad!)  In the political scene it’s not liars doing the figuring, it’s the spin-makers putting the best face on the figures to make their point.

Will there be a compromise on the transportation issue within the next four weeks before the scheduled sine die adjournment?  That’s still a major question in this session of your General Assembly.  My bet remains on a special session, late summer or early fall. 

 

SOME PERSONAL REFLECTIONS

 

During the course of service in the General Assembly one makes many friends.  Some of these friendships become deep and long lasting.  Frequently these friendships cross political party and political philosophy lines. These friendships develop between members and between others connected with the legislative process.  Maybe because of my forty plus years of being in and around the capitol and observing the development of many such friendships, I was stunned when the House of Delegates, led by the Republican Caucus failed to approve Governor Mark Warner’s appointment of former Delegate Jim Dillard, a long time friend of mine, to the Board of Visitors of William and Mary College. Fifty-one of the Republicans voted to remove Jim’s name from the list of appointments, while five voted for confirmation along with all of the Democrats.

This was obviously a caucus position (although all of the House Republican caucuses are now in ‘executive session’– closed – unlike in years gone by when they were all open) with certain “friends” of Jim’s excused to vote their consciences.  The Privileges and Elections Committee with 22 members handles the resolutions for confirmation of Governor appointments and had approved Jim’s appointment on a 10-8 vote with two abstentions and two absences. There were three Republican members who voted for his appointment, but when the vote was taken on the floor they all voted “not to confirm.”     

There were several stated reasons for the action taken by House. Jim had supported two of his former legislative assistants during the past election cycle. Both had not only worked for Jim but both were “very close personal friends of many years.”  One ran in the Republican primary against a long time sitting Republican Delegate.  The incumbent won easily.  The other ran for the open seat which Jim had held for many years and from which he was retiring.  This friend ran as a Democrat, knowing he could not secure the Republican nomination because of the nomination process and the philosophy of those who controlled the process in his district.  So he sought and secured the Democrat Party’s nomination and handily won the seat in the general election.  Jim supported both of these friends.  He also supported a number of Republicans running in legislative races in Northern Virginia and around the state.  Nonetheless, many in the Republican House Caucus apparently felt very strongly about him supporting a challenger to a sitting Republican Delegate in a primary.

Jim had also been one of the 17 maverick/problem solving Republican Delegates who in 2004 broke with the House Republican Leadership and voted for a tax increase.  There are apparently still some in the Republican Caucus who are miffed about his position and the rather outspoken posture which Jim took during the debates on the tax increase bills. There are some Republican Delegates who feel Jim actually made a trade with Governor Warner and was guaranteed an appointment to the William and Mary Board of Visitors in exchange for his support of the 2004 tax measures.  Both Jim and Gov. Warner have flatly stated there was no commitment and no deal. Having known Jim Dillard for over thirty-two years and been a good friend for over thirty, I can state emphatically there was no deal made by him.  He voted for the tax increases because he thought it was in the best interest of the Commonwealth and he felt it was the right thing to do. 

Some other people have whispered their feelings that the Republican Caucus leadership was using this opportunity to make certain the freshmen and other recent members of the caucus “got the word–toe the mark or else!”  This is hard for me to believe. It seems more likely to me that some of the younger members may not have had the opportunity to form friendships with the deep meaning many of us formed in the past. Perhaps they have not learned an important lesson in life: friendships do mean more than politics to many people and that supporting “friends” running on the other party’s ticket isn’t really a cardinal sin.  The occasion of Governor Mills Godwin’s candidacy for Governor on the Republican Ticket in 1973 comes to mind.  Many of his “Democrat Friends” supported him and helped him become the second person elected Governor of Virginia as a Republican in the twentieth century and the only person to serve in that capacity as both a Democrat and a Republican. 

The bottom line seems to be that the motive for denying Jim a seat on the William and Mary Board – a position for which he is very qualified – was revenge for his support of friends in several elections or for his support of the 2004 tax increases. 

There is an ancient proverb (no, this isn’t one of my Dad’s) which goes something like this: “If you start on the course of revenge – first dig two graves.”  It has been reliably reported to me that some of the Senators have described this House action as “despicable,” “deplorable,” “unforgivable revenge,” “terrible politics,” and “remarkably un-republican.”  There is speculation Jim Dillard’s removal could carry over to the future negotiations on the transportation negotiations.  Let’s hope not! 

 

A GRATIFYING PRESENTATION–A PERSONAL COMMENT

 

At the Central Valley Legislative Dinner Thursday night, Delegate Steve Landes and Senator Emmett Hanger surprised yours truly with the presentation of a framed copy of House Joint Resolution 432, passed by the 2004 General Assembly.  It was a commending resolution for The Hon Arthur R. Giesen, Jr.  I was most gratified at the wording of the resolution and the comments made by the presenters.  I knew the resolution had been passed and that Steve was waiting for an opportune time to present it.  However, he, Emmett and their capable Legislative Assistants had kept it a real secret that this would be the occasion.  It was nice to have the resolution read before all of the elected home folks.  I was greatly honored.  

 

Links to Previous Giesen Perspectives:

Feb. 3, 2006 Jan. 27, 2006 Jan. 23, 2006 Jan. 16, 2006 Dec. 21, 2005 Nov. 9, 2005 Oct. 21, 2005 Sept. 16, 2005 Aug. 26, 2005 Aug. 19, 2005 July 7, 2005 June 8, 2005 May 27, 2005 April 7, 2005 March 10, 2005 February 21, 2005 February 14, 2005 February 8, 2005 January 31, 2005 January 15, 2005 December 23, 2004 November 19, 2004

 

 

© 2007 Eldon James & Associates, Inc.