YCQM - Sen. John Campbell - March 18, 2012 - WCAX.COM Local Vermont News, Weather and Sports-
Member Center:
March 18, 2012 -- Sen. John Campbell, D-Vt. President Pro Tem, joins Kristin Carlson and Darren Perron to discuss issues the Vt. Senate is facing.
TRANSCRIPT:
>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
I'M DARREN PERRON.
>> AND I'M KRISTIN CARLSON.
>> OUR GUEST IS SENATE PRESIDENT
PRO TEM JOHN CAMPBELL.
THANKS FOR JOINING US.
>> GOOD MORNING.
THANK YOU.
>> ONE OF THE BIGGEST ISSUES HAS
TO DO WITH A BILL THAT SOME CALL
PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE.
IT WOULD ALLOW A TERMINALLY-ILL
PATIENT TO END THEIR LIFE.
WE HAVE HEARD THIS WON'T GET OUT
OF COMMITTEE.
YOU OPPOSED THIS BILL.
WERE YOU PART OF THE EFFORT TO
KILL THE BILL?
>> NO.
WHAT WE DID -- AND I'LL GO INTO
WHAT HAPPENED TODAY, BECAUSE IT
WAS UNIQUE, BUT AT THE VERY
BEGINNING, WHEN THIS BILL WAS
GOING TO BE BROUGHT IN, I SPOKE
WITH BOTH SIDES, THE PROPONENTS
AND THE OPPONENTS TO THE BILL,
AND I EXPLAINED TO THEM THAT,
YOU KNOW, I HAVE PERSONAL ISSUES
THAT, FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS,
WHICH WE HAVE COVERED HERE ON
CAX --
>> YOU'RE CATHOLIC, YOU'RE
OPPOSED TO THIS.
>> YES, AND ALSO, ACTUALLY, ON A
DEATHBED ISSUE, THIS WAS NOT
SUPPOSED TO COME OUT, BUT IT
DID, IT WAS A PRIVATE ISSUE, I
SPOKE TO SOMEONE ELSE WHO
RELEASE {TD} TO THE MEDIA, SO
THERE FOR I DON'T SHY AWAY FROM
TALKING ABOUT IT, BUT IT WAS AN
ISSUE REGARDING MY MOM ON HER
DEATHBED, MADE A REQUEST,
BECAUSE SHE FOLLOWED THE THINGS
THAT WERE HAPPENING IN MY
CAREER.
HOWEVER, EVEN THOUGH THAT'S MY
PERSONAL REASONS, THERE ARE
OTHER REASONS FOR THE BILL
ITSELF THAT I HAD ISSUES WITH
THAT I THOUGHT WERE NOT FOR
THOSE THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO DID
OPPOSE IT, I THOUGHT I WAS
REPRESENTING THE WILL OF A LOT
OF PEOPLE, NOT JUST MY OWN
PERSONAL ISSUE, BECAUSE AS AN
ELECTED OFFICIAL, YOU CAN'T MAKE
A VOTE ON YOUR OWN PERSONAL
VIEW, YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO
ACCOUNT WHAT YOUR CONSTITUENTS
WANT AS WELL.
SO THIS MORNING, WE ACTUALLY HAD
THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
WITH SENATOR SEARS AS OUR CHAIR
WAS GOING TO TAKE A VOTE WITHIN
THE COMMITTEE TO SEE WHAT WOULD
HAPPEN IF THEY WANTED TO GO
FURTHER, AND UNFORTUNATELY LAST
NIGHT THERE WAS A FREAK ACCIDENT
WITH SENATOR SENATOR SNITKA, AND
SHE FELL {OOPS} AND INJURED HER
SPLEEN SO.
SHE IS CURRENTLY IN THE HOSPITAL
IN CENTRAL VERMONT.
{OOPS} SO THERE WERE ONLY FOUR
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, AND
OUR LAWS DID NOT ALLOW US TO
HAVE A VOTE BY PHONE.
SENATOR SEARS HAD ALREADY POLLED
THE INDIVIDUALS, AND THE VOTE
WAS GOING TO BE 3-2 AGAINST
HAVING THE BILL COME OUT.
HOWEVER, FOR THE REASON THAT
SENATOR NITKA WAS NOT THERE, AND
THAT SENATOR SEARS DID NOT WANT
TO BRING A NEGATIVE VOTE ONTO
THE FLOOR, HE MADE THE DECISION
THAT THE BILL WOULDN'T COME TO
THE FLOOR.
I SHOULD ALSO ADD THAT THE
LOBBYISTS FOR THE PROPONENTS,
WHO HAVE DONE A WONDERFUL JOB,
THEY'VE BEEN THOUGHTFUL, THE WAY
THEY'VE PRESENTED IT HAS BEEN
VERY PROFESSIONAL, WE HAVE
TALKED BACK AND FORTH ABOUT WHAT
THE VOTE COUNT WOULD BE, AND I
WON'T GIVE YOU THE NUMBER, BUT
IT WAS CLEAR IT WOULD NOT PASS
IF IT GOES TO THE FLOOR.
>> I'VE HEARD 16-14.
>> YOU'VE HEARD PRETTY GOOD.
YOU CAN PRETTY MUCH COUNT ON
THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN.
AND BECAUSE THIS IS AN EMOTIONAL
ISSUE, IT'S NOT SOMETHING WHERE
PEOPLE WILL BE SWAYED BACK OR
NORTH.
THE SENATOR SEARS AND MYSELF HAD
A CONVERSATION WITH THE GOVERNOR
AND EXPLAINED TO HIM, HE WAS
VERY DISAPPOINTED, HOWEVER, WE
WENT ON.
>> THIS MORNING BEFORE IT ALL
HAPPENED, THE GOVERNOR SAID,
"LET'S JUST LET THIS GET TO THE
FLOOR, THIS IS HOW DEMOCRACY
WORKS, IF THE VOTES AREN'T
THERE, WHY NOT THEN,
MR. CAMPBELL, JUST LET IT
PROCEED AND LET THE VOTE HAPPEN?
>> IT'S KIND OF IRONIC -- WELL,
I PERSONALLY OPPOSED THE BILL,
BUT AS I MENTIONED AND BROUGHT
TO SOME OF THE PROPONENTS, THAT
IT'S CLEAR THAT IN THE PAST WITH
BILLS OF THIS NATURE THAT IF IT
DIES ON THE FLOOR, IF YOU BRING
IT UP FOR A VOTE AND IT DIES ON
THE FLOOR -- AND DON'T FORGET,
WE HAD A VOTE IN THE HOUSE WHERE
IT DID NOT PASS TWO YEARS AGO --
GENERALLY NOW THAT YOU'VE HAD
BOTH BODIES VOTE, AND OURS WOULD
HAVE VOTED IT DOWN, THEN YOU
FACE A SITUATION THAT IT'S
UNLIKELY THAT THAT BILL WILL
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AGAIN IN THE
FUTURE.
AND SO FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO
ARE STRONG SUPPORTERS, AND THERE
IS A LOT OF STRONG SUPPORT FOR
THE BILL THROUGHOUT THE STATE; I
DON'T BELIEVE IT'S AS HIGH AS
WHAT THE POLLS SAY BECAUSE OF
THE WAY THE QUESTIONS WERE
ASKED.
I THINK THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME
ISSUES THERE.
HOWEVER, I JUST THINK THAT
CLEARLY, BY NOT TAKING A VOTE ON
THIS AND NOT FORCING IT, THE
PROPONENTS OF THE BILL WILL HAVE
AN OPTION TO GO FORWARD.
BUT THAT WAS MORE OF A CALL FROM
SENATOR SEARS, AS TO WHETHER HE
WAS GOING TO BRING IT OUT TO THE
FLOOR.
PERSONALLY, I WOULD NOT HAVE --
THE REASON I WOULD -- I WOULD
NOT HAVE HAD A PROBLEM WITH IT
ON THE FLOOR, IF THEY WOULD
BRING IT OUT, BUT I JUST THINK
THIS IS PROBABLY THE BEST WAY
RIGHT NOW.
>> I'M CURIOUS WHY IT WAS EVEN
BROUGHT UP AGAIN.
I MEAN, FROM THE GET-GO, SENATOR
SEARS, SEVERAL LAWMAKERS HAD
SAID THIS WASN'T GOING TO MAKE
IT OUT OF COMMITTEE TO BEGIN
WITH, YET IN THE LAST WEEK OR
SO, THERE ARE NEW ADS ON
TELEVISION, SUPPORTERS SAYING
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO
BE DONE, IT WAS BROUGHT UP AGAIN
IN COMMITTEE.
WHY GO THROUGH THAT WITH SUCH AN
EMOTIONALLY CHARGED ISSUE?
WHY BRING IT BACK UP AGAIN IF IT
WASN'T GOING TO GO ANYWHERE?
>> WELL, IT TOOK ME BY SURPRISE,
AS WELL.
SENATOR SEARS HAD A MEETING WITH
THE GOVERNOR, WHO MADE A
PERSONAL APPEAL WITH HIM TO HAVE
A HEARING, AND SENATOR SEARS
TOLD ME HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A
HEARING.
THE RATIONALE THAT WAS PROVIDED
WAS -- THIS BILL, EVEN IF WE
DON'T TAKE IT UP ON THE FLOOR IN
THE REGULAR COURSE, THE WHOLE UP
AND DOWN VOTE TODAY WITH THE
BILL, {OOPS} THERE IS ALWAYS THE
POSSIBILITY THAT SOMEONE MIGHT
TRY TO PUT THAT ON ANOTHER BILL,
AS FAR AS TRY TO AAMEND THE
BILL.
IT WOULD NOT BE THE PROPER
PROCEDURE, FROM AN ETIQUETTE
STANDPOINT; HOWEVER, THERE IS
ALWAYS THAT POSSIBILITY.
SENATOR SEARS WANTED TO AT LEAST
BE INFORMED ENOUGH TO WHERE
SOMETHING LIKE THAT HAPPENED, HE
WOULD BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO
CERTAIN OF THE QUESTIONS.
>> THE OTHER BIG NEWS THAT CAME
OUT THIS WEEK, THERE HAS BEEN
SOME CONSENSUS AND DECISIONS
ABOUT THE COMPLEX AND THE
HOSPITAL.
LET'S START WITH THE OFFICE
COMPLEX.
THERE WERE, YOU KNOW, 1,500
PEOPLE OR SO WORKING THERE.
THE NEW PLAN, THERE WILL BE 900
OR SO WORKERS WHO RETURN.
HOW QUICKLY WILL THAT HAPPEN,
NOW THAT IT HAS BEEN AGREED
UPON, A VISION TO MOVE FORWARD?
>> WELL, THERE ARE A LOT OF
THINGS STILL TO DO.
QUITE FRANKLY, THE FIRST THING
WE NEED TO DO IS FIGURE OUT HOW
MUCH MONEY WE'LL BE RECEIVING
FROM THE INSURANCE COVERAGE.
CURRENTLY FEMA -- WE'VE ASKED
HOW MUCH THEY'LL PUT IN, BUT
THEY HOLD THEIR CARDS CLOSE TO
THE VEST AND SAY SHOW US A PLAN
AND WE'LL TELL YOU WHAT WE'LL
PAY FOR THAT.
QUITE FRANKLY, WE'LL HAVE TO
HAVE THE PLAN DESIGNED.
THE PLAN-B THAT HAS BEEN SPOKEN
ABOUT IS THE MIDDLE PLAN, AND IT
CALLS FOR THE -- A BRAND NEW
FACILITY IN THE CENTER LOCATION,
BUT THEN THERE ARE WHAT WE CALL
"SPINE" BUILDINGS, OUTLIERS,
THAT WILL BE RENOVATED AND
FLOOD-PROOFED AND ALSO MAKE SURE
THAT WE DON'T ANY TOXIC
SUBSTANCES THERE.
HOWEVER, EVEN A PLAN THAT WAS
PRESENTED, I BELIEVE IT WAS $134
MILLION, WHICH, IS, IN MY MIND,
WAY TOO EXPENSIVE, I DON'T
BELIEVE THE TAXPAYERS CAN AFFORD
THAT, AND I BELIEVE THE GOVERNOR
MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE FELT THE
SAME, THAT THIS WAS NOT GOING TO
BE AN ACCEPTABLE PRICE.
SO THAT PLAN-B WOULD BE A
MODIFIED PLAN-B.
WE WOULD REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE
CENTRAL BUILDING TO BRING BACK
ANYWHERE FROM 700 TO 800 -- I
DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER --
OF STATE EMPLOYEES.
MY CONCERN AND MY OBJECTIVE IS
TO FIRST OF ALL MAKE SURE THAT
WE HAVE A BUILDING THAT'S VERY
SAFE FOR OUR WORKERS, FOR THE
EMPLOYEES THERE, AND THEN ALSO
THE INDIVIDUALS WHO MIGHT COME
TO VISIT THE COMPLEX.
>> LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE
ABOUT THE SO-CALLED PLAN-B.
ROUGHLY 700 OR SO, UP TO 900
FACILITIES IN THIS NEW FACILITY,
YOU JUST MENTIONED NOW
FLOOD-PROOFING.
HOW ARE WE DOING THAT?
ARE WE TALKING ABOUT BERMS
AROUND THIS FACILITY?
A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE ASKING WHY
WE'RE PUTTING A NEW BUILDING IN
THE SAME LOCATION THAT CLEARLY
FLOODED DURING IRENE.
>> I SHARED THAT PESSIMISM.
I UNDERSTAND WATER VARIES
FLIGHT, A LOT OF TOWNS WERE
AFFECTED IN SIGNIFICANT WAYS,
BUT WATERBURY WAS CLEARLY HIT
THE HARDEST, WITH THE EMPLOYEES
BEING THERE.
BUT AS STEWARDS OF THE ECONOMY
FOR VERMONT, I BELIEVE STRONGLY
THAT WE HAVE TO BE JUDICIOUS IN
HOW WE'RE GOING TO SPEND THE
MONEY, AND NOT TO PUT IN A
BUILDING THAT WAS -- EVEN THOUGH
IRENE WAS A FLUKE, IF YOU WILL,
IT WAS IN A FLOOD PLAIN, SO
THERE IS A CHANCE OF THAT
HAPPENING AGAIN.
I SUGGESTED THAT THE GROUND
FLOOR, WHICH WILL ITSELF BE
ELEVATED WITH -- BECAUSE THEY'RE
BRINGING IN AGREGATE AND OTHER
THINGS, {OOPS} WILL JUST BE A
PARKING GARAGE, AND THE ACTUAL
PHYSICAL PART OF THE BUILDING
WHERE PEOPLE WILL OCCUPY WILL BE
ABOVE THE 500-YEAR FLOOD PLAN,
AND HOPEFULLY -- IRENE WAS BAD
ENOUGH, BUT HOPEFULLY WE DON'T
GET SOMETHING WITH THE 500-YEAR
FLOOD PLAIN.
THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHERE WE'RE
AT RIGHT NOW.
>> 700 IS ROUGHLY HALF THE
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES GOING BACK
TO WATERBURY.
WHERE DO THE REST OF THE FOLKS
GO?
>> I BELIEVE IT'S THE HEALTH
DEPARTMENT FOLKS WHO WILL
PROBABLY REMAIN HERE IN
BURLINGTON, IN CHITTENDEN
COUNTY, SO WE'LL BRING BACK SOME
OF THE CORE SERVICES THERE;
HOWEVER, SOME OF THEM WILL BE IN
THE PLACE WHERE THEY'RE AT NOW,
IN CHITTENDEN COUNTY.
THE FULL PLAN, FRANKLY, HAS NOT
BEEN DECIDED UPON.
I BELIEVE THE TELECOMMUNITY, IN
AREAS WHERE PEOPLE ARE AT THEIR
HOMES, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING
WE SHOULD LOOK INTO, THAT WILL
BE, I BELIEVE, SAVE FUNDS FOR US
AND ALSO PROVIDE I GUESS A
BETTER WORKING PLACE FOR SOME
INDIVIDUALS.
>> SO MANY MILLION DOLLARS --
>> IT WILL BE LESS.
>> THERE IS A BIG NUMBER, I KNOW
THERE WAS STICKER SHOCK, WHICH
IS WHY THIS IS MODIFIED,
PLAN-{KBRKS}.
HOW MUCH -- WHY THIS IS PLAN-B.
YOU'VE SEEN THE BUDGET NUMBER.
ARE THESE TIGHT TIMES?
WHAT IS THE NUMBER?
>> I'M NOT TRYING TO AVOID IT, I
WISH I COULD GIVE YOU AN ANSWER.
LET'S SAY THE INSURANCE POLICY.
THERE IS AN INSURANCE POLICY OF
$300,000.
THE INSURANCE COMPANY THAT
INSURES -- THAT PROVIDED THE
POLICY SAYS, "WELL, WE THINK WE
WOULD OWE YOU ONLY $13 MILLION
OF THE POLICY."
I REVIEWED THE POLICY, AND THERE
ARE OTHER INDIVIDUALS LOOKING
INTO THAT RIGHT NOW TO DETERMINE
WHAT THE MAXIMUM OWNERSHIP OF
THE CLAIM WOULD BE, AND SO IT'S
REALLY IMPERATIVE FOR US TO FIND
THAT.
AGAIN, YOU WOULD THINK $300 --
I'M SORRY, $300 MILLION, YOU
WOULD THINK THE INSURANCE
COMPANY WOULD PICK THE WHOLE
THING UP, BUT THERE ARE
EXCLUSIONS, SO THEY HAVE TO GO
THROUGH THAT AND IRON OUT AND
FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT WILL AND
WON'T BE COVERED.
I BELIEVE THE 13 FIGURE IS
WOEFULLY LOW.
I DO NOT, FROM MY REVIEW OF THE
POLICY -- I THINK WE ARE
ENTIGHTLED AND WILL BE ENTITLED
TO FAR MORE THAN THAT, {OOPS}
AND THEN WE HAVE FEMA.
SO THAT'S THE SITUATION.
ONE OF THE ISSUES, THOUGH, QUITE
-- AND, AGAIN, IF THERE IS A
SILVER LINING, AND I HATE TO SAY
THERE IS A SILVER LINING OF
ANYTHING WITH THAT STORM,
ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'VE LOST LIVED
-- IS THAT THE STATE HOSPITAL WE
HAVE -- IT JUST REMINDS ME OF
ONE OF THOSE FACILITIES THAT YOU
SAW BACK IN THE 1920s OR 1930s
WHERE YOU HAD THE SAN TAREUMS,
AND TO ME, I -- SANITARIUMS, AND
TO ME, I FELT -- THE MAJOR
PRIORITY WE SHOULD HAVE,
INDIVIDUALS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS,
THEY SHOULD NOT BE TREATED IN
SUCH A FACILITY.
THIS HAS PROVIDED US WITH AN
OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD A NEW,
STATE-OF-THE-ART FACILITY, AND
ALSO REALLY TO GO INTO THE TYPE
OF MODEL WE WANT TO DEAL WITH
MENTAL HEALTH, WHERE OUR
INDIVIDUALS WHO SEEK SERVICES
WILL BE TREATED, AND THAT IS A
COMMUNITY-BASED MODEL VERSUS AN
INSTITUTIONAL MODEL.
I BELIEVE THERE IS NO QUESTION
THAT FEMA WILL COVER THE FULL
NUT.
>> THE NEW CONSENSUS PLAN IS
THAT THERE WILL BE A 25-BED
FACILITY: THE GOVERNOR AND SOME
SENATORS HAVE BEEN PUSHING FOR
FEWER BEDS, THE HOUSE SAID 25.
WHY DID YOU VOTE FOR THE A25 IN
THE END?
>> WELL, I LED THAT WITH THE 16
BEDS, BECAUSE I WHAT I SAID
EARLIER, ABOUT FISCAL
CONSERVATISM, YOU HAVE TO LOOK
AT, WE HAVE 16 BEDS, IS THE
MODEL THAT CMS -- THE MEDICAID
SERVICES, FEDERAL THAT PROVIDES
REIMBURSEMENT -- THEY BELIEVE
THAT WE SHOULD HAVE THAT
COMMUNITY-BASED MODEL, AND IF WE
HAD LICENSE FOR ONE BED MORE
THAN 16, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE
REIMBURSED US FOR ANYTHING.
SO IF THAT WAS THE CASE, I
BELIEVE IT WAS PRUDENT FOR US TO
STAY WITH THE 16, AND THEN FIND
OTHER BEDS FOR THE ONES WE NEED
IN OTHER AREAS OF THE STATE.
BUT THEN ON WEDNESDAY, I BELIEVE
IT WAS, WE RECEIVED WORD FROM
CMS THAT -- TWO THINGS.
NO. 1, THEY SAID IF WE BUILD IT
FOR 25 BEDS NOW WITH OUR CURRENT
WAIVER THAT WE WOULD BE OKAY,
AND THEN THAT IF WE FOUND -- IF
AFTER -- IF WE DON'T RECEIVE THE
WAIVER IN 2014, THEN WHAT --
THEY WOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY
DISQUALIFY US FROM RECEIVING
REIMBURSTMENT, BUT THEY WOULD
ASK US TO RE-LICENSE TO 16 BEDS,
AND THEN WE WOULD GET
REIMBURSEMENT FOR IT.
>> WHY HADN'T THAT BEEN LOOKED
AT PRIOR TO?
THERE WAS A LOT OF BACK AND
FORTH ABOUT THE 16 BED VERSUS
25, AND IT WAS ALL BASED ON
FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENTS.
WHY WASN'T THAT LOOKED AT PRIOR?
>> WELL, IT ACTUALLY WAS, AND
IT'S KIND OF INTERESTING THAT
THE GOVERNOR HAD SEVERAL --
SEVERAL! -- CONVERSATIONS WITH
THE SECRETARY ON THIS ASKING
THAT QUESTION, AND IT WAS
CONSTANTLY -- WE WERE TOLD THAT,
YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'RE STICKING
WITH 16, AND IT WOULD BE HIGHLY
-- HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT WE WOULD
EVER GET A WAIVER.
SOME PEOPLE ON THE TOP -- IT'S
REALLY THE FOLKS DOWN ON THE
LOWER END THAT REALLY DO THE
NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE ACTUAL
WAIVERS, OR GIVE THOSE WAIVERS,
THAT WHEN THEY WERE -- WHEN THE
SECRETARY DISCUSSED IT WITH
THEM, WHEN THE GOVERNOR
{KLT}UALLY PUSHED TO SEE IF WE
-- CONTINUALLY PUSHED TO SEE IF
WE COULD GET A MORE DEFINITIVE
ANSWER, IT'S WHEN WE CAME WITH A
THUMBS UP ON IT.
>> WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A BRIEF
, ; , BREAK.
JOHN CAMPBELL WITH US AFTER
THIS.
.
>> WE ARE BACK WITH SENATOR
CAMPBELL.
LET'S GET A PROGRESS REPORT ON
THE BILLS THAT HAVE PASSED IN
THE HOUSE, 36 AT LAST COUNT, THE
SENATE 22.
WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE MOST
IMPORTANT PIECE OF LEGISLATION
TO COME OUT OF THE CHAMBER SO
FAR.
>> RIGHT NOW IT'S, OF COURSE,
HEALTHCARE.
THAT'S THE CENTRAL PRIORITY THAT
WE HAVE, BOTH THAT'S REQUIREMENT
FOR US TO GET THE EXCHANGE, THE
HEALTHCARE EXCHANGE.
I KNOW YOU'VE SPOKEN ABOUT THAT
MANY TIMES ON THIS PROGRAM.
TO GET THE HEALTHCARE EXCHANGE
SO WE CAN HAVE REIMBURSEMENT
FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
THAT ISSUE ITSELF WAS PROBABLY I
CONSIDER THE MORE IMPORTANT ONE,
WHERE TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE.
THE SECOND ISSUE, AGAIN, FOR ME
PERSONALLY, WAS GETTING THE
STATE HOSPITAL ISSUE IN ORDER.
AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN EVEN IF
IRENE HAD NOT OCCURRED.
I'VE BEEN WORKING -- I WAS ON
INSTITUTIONS FOR SEVERAL YEARS,
AND IT'S BEEN GOING BACK AND
FORTH ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT TYPE
OF FACILITY, WHAT TYPE OF
INTEGRATION DO YOU HAVE, AND I
KEPT ON SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW,
HERE IT IS.
WE, ON THE OUTSIDE, ARE SITTING
HERE, GOING BACK AND FORTH, AND
EVERYONE IS GIVING THEIR
OPINIONS, AND WE HAVE MORE
OPINIONS THAN CARTER HAS PILLS,
AND YET THE PEOPLE WHO REALLY
NEEDED OR WERE RECEIVING THE
SERVICES, THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE I
BELIEVE THAT ARE IN DIRE NEED OF
A NEW FACILITY AND DIFFERENT
MODELING.
THEY WERE, I THINK, SUFFERING
FOR THIS.
SO ONE OF MY PRIORITIES, IN MY
FIRST YEAR AS PRO TEM, WAS TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE MOVED FORWARD
WITH THE STATE HOSPITAL ONE WAY
OR ANOTHER.
>> ARE YOU RUNNING AGAIN?
>> UM, YEAH, I WOULD THINK, I'M
HOPING SO.
WE'LL SEE.
IT'S -- I REALLY -- THIS WILL BE
MY 12TH YEAR, AND I CAN'T TELL
YOU HOW MUCH I'VE ENJOYED BEING
THERE.
IT'S A WONDERFUL POSITION TO BE
IN, BECAUSE YOU'RE ABLE TO
REALLY EFFECT CHANGE IN PEOPLE'S
LIVES, HOPEFULLY FOR THE BETTER.
YOU AND I HAVE SPOKEN BEFORE.
A LOT OF MY ISSUES WERE VICTIMS'
RIGHTS ISSUES, CHILDREN'S
ISSUES, THAT'S WHEN I GOT IN,
AND THEN WHEN I THINK OF THE
THINGS SINCE I GOT IN, IN THE
PAST 10, 12 YEARS, I JUST FIND
THAT IT WAS PROBEBLY THE BEST
TIMES THAT I HAVE HAD, BOTH
PROFESSIONALLY AND PERSONALLY,
OR I SHOULD SAY MOST REWARDING.
AND THERE ARE STILL A COUPLE OF
THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO
ACCOMPLISH, SO WE'LL SEE.
>> THERE ARE SOME WHO MIGHT
CHALLENGE YOU.
>> WELL, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE
CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS WHO THINK
THAT MAYBE AS A DEMOCRATIC
LEADER THAT I MAY NOT HAVE BEEN
DEMOCRATIC ENOUGH, AND THE FACT
THAT SOME OF MY CALLS THAT I'VE
MADE WERE NOT TO THEIR LIKING.
QUITE FRANKLY, I'M SOMEBODY WHO
-- I'M VERY LOYAL TO THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY, I BELIEVE IN
WHAT WE STAND FOR; HOWEVER, I
WILL NOT GO INTO ANYTHING
BLINDLY.
I'VE CROSSED THE AISLE MANY
TIMES, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THERE
ARE PEOPLE -- NINE REPUBLICAN
SENATORS, AND I BELIEVE EACH AND
EVERY ONE OF THEM HAS BEEN
ELECTED AS WELL AS I HAVE, AND
THAT THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BE
HEARD, AND A LOT OF THEM HAVE
GREAT IDEAS, AND THE BEST WAY
FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD AS A
STATE, IN MY MIND, IS TO WORK
TOGETHER.
>> WHAT WAS THE ISSUE YOU'RE
THINKING OF.
>> AS FAR AS WORKING TOGETHER
WITH THEM OR THE OTHER PROBLEMS
THAT I'VE HAD?
>> THAT GAVE YOU SOME HEAT FROM
THE Ds.
>> WELL, THE EARLY-CHILDHOOD
EDUCATION ISSUE WHERE THE
GENTLEMAN FROM THE AFL/CIO
ATTEMPTED TO USE STRONGARM
TACTICS WITH ME, AND I'M NOT THE
TYPE OF PERSON WHO HANDLES THAT.
>> IS THAT THE ISSUE IN THE
SESSION?
>> NO.
I MUST SAY IT HAS RAISED THE
AWARENESS, AND I BELIEVE FOR THE
FOLKS WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND OR
KNOW THE ISSUE, IS THAT THERE
ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD
PROVIDE SERVICES FOR OUR
CHILDREN, EDUCATIONAL AND ALSO
TO CARE FOR THEM, BETWEEN THE
AGES OF 2 AND 4, 2 AND 6, AND
THEY DO AN INCREDIBLE JOB, A
VERY IMPORTANT JOB.
WE AS A STATE HAVE MADE, AND WE
SHOULD HAVE A POLICY DECISION,
SAYING WE ARE GOING TO SUPPORT
THEM.
HOWEVER, A UNION CAME IN,
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS
FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., AND THEY
WANTED TO ORGANIZE, WHICH IS
FINE, BUT THEY WANTED TO ALSO
GET COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS
WITH THE STATE.
I HAVE NOTHING WRONG, I SUPPORT
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, HOWEVER,
THE INDIVIDUALS WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT HAVE NO DIRECT -- THERE'S
NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE.
THEY RECEIVE FUNDS FROM PARENTS
WHO RECEIVE A SUB{ZI}.
-- SUBSIDY.
IN MY MIND, IT'S BAD POLY --
POLICY.
IF WE WERE GOING TO PROVIDE
SERVICES FOR EVERYONE WHO
RECEIVES FUNDS THROUGH THE
STATE, WE WOULD BE COLLECTIVELY
BARGAINING WITH THOUSANDS OF
GROUPS.
I BELIEVE THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE
POLICY OF RFPs AND PUTTING OUT
CONTRACTS.
AND, AGAIN, IF WE BELIEVE, WHICH
I BELIEVE, AND IF THE
ADMINISTRATION BELIEVES THAT
THEY SHOULD SUPPORT THIS, AND
THEY BELIEVE IN THAT TYPE OF
THING, THEN THE MONEY SHOULD BE
THERE IN AN APPROPRIATION.
WHAT I HAVE PUT IN OUR
APPROPRIATION BILL THIS YEAR IS
THAT THE REIMBURSEMENT RATES FOR
EARLY-CHILDHOOD CARE FOLKS GO
FROM THE 2008 RATES, WHICH IS
WHERE THEIR I ARE RIGHT NOW,
WHICH IS WELL BELOW WHERE THEY
SHOULD BE, AND BRING IT UP TO
THE 2011 LEVEL.
>> WE SHOULD BE HALFWAY PAST --
WE SHOULD BE PAST THE HALFWAY
MARK.
ARE WE ON SCHEDULE?
>> YES.
WITH SPEAKER SMITH, HE HAS BEEN
A MENTOR TO ME, AND LAST YEAR WE
GOT OUT ONE WEEK EARLY.
>> IS THE STATE SO MUCH?
>> I BELIEVE IT'S ABOUT A
MILLION DOLLARS FOR EVERY WEEK.
I CAN'T GIVE YOU THE EXACT
NUMBER, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT -- I
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
GET OUT.
WE SAVE THE TAXPAYERS SOME
MONEY.
THE LONGER WE'RE THERE, MORE
TROUBLE SOMETIMES CAN HAPPEN.
>> WHAT COULD BE THE BIGGEST
STUMBLING BLOCK TO STOPPING AN
EARLY ADJOURNMENT?
>> I WOULD SAY IT COULD BE THE
WATERBURY COMPLEX, TO MAKE SURE
WHERE THE MONEY'S GOING TO BE,
AND WHAT THE SAFEGUARDS ARE
GOING TO BE.
THE ADMINISTRATION, I'M SURE,
WOULD LOVE TO SAY "YOU ALL GO
HOME AND JUST GIVE US THE
FLEXIBILITY AND DECISION-MAKING
ABILITY TO DO THAT," AND WE
MIGHT DIFFER FROM THE GOVERNOR
ON THAT.
>> WHEN WILL THE GOVERNOR GET
THAT BILL?
>> WELL, ALSO THE APPROPRIATION
-- THE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, WE
HAVE A SITUATION WHERE WE STILL
HAVE AT LEAST A $60 MILLION
SHORTFALL THAT WE NEED TO
ADDRESS.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF ISSUES.
THE GOVERNOR HAS SOME PRIORITIES
THAT I KNOW MIGHT CAUSE AN
ISSUE, SO I'LL HOLD THOSE CARDS
CLOSER RIGHT NOW AND TALK TO HIM
NEXT WEEK ABOUT THAT.
>> SENATE PRESIDENT PRO TEM JOHN
CAMPBELL, THANK YOU FOR JOINING
US.
IF YOU WANT TO REACH HIM, HE IS
AT THE STATE HOUSE.
>> SEE YOU SOON, EVERYBODY.
THANK YOU, SENATOR.
CAPTIONING PROVIDED BY CAPTION
ASSOCIATES, LLC
WWW.CAPTIONASSOCIATES.COM
 | 
WCAX-TV
PO Box 4508 |
