YCQM - Sen. John Campbell - March 18, 2012 - WCAX.COM Local Vermont News, Weather and Sports-

YCQM - Sen. John Campbell - March 18, 2012

Posted: Updated:
BURLINGTON, Vt. -

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

  • Local NewsMore>>

  • Hinesburg man in custody after alleged shooting

    Hinesburg man in custody after alleged shooting

    Thursday, April 24 2014 11:56 PM EDT2014-04-25 03:56:35 GMT
    Police say a 71-year-old man is in custody accused of shooting a female relative in the hand and chest around 8:30 Thursday evening.The incident happened on Richmond Road. The Hinesburg police chief says the man was arrested without incident. He and the victim are long time residents of Hinesburg. Detectives are still investigating what sparked the shooting. But the chief says neither the victim nor the shooter have had any interactions with police before this. The woman was taken to Fletche...More >>
    Police say a 71-year-old man is in custody accused of shooting a female relative in the hand and chest around 8:30 Thursday evening.The incident happened on Richmond Road. The Hinesburg police chief says the man was arrested without incident. He and the victim are long time residents of Hinesburg. Detectives are still investigating what sparked the shooting. But the chief says neither the victim nor the shooter have had any interactions with police before this. The woman was taken to Fletche...More >>
  • Springfield police search for armed robber

    Springfield police search for armed robber

    Friday, April 25 2014 12:00 AM EDT2014-04-25 04:00:49 GMT
    Springfield Police need your help to find an armed robber. They say yesterday a white man carrying a semi-automatic handgun held-up the Jenny Wren Café on Main Street. The suspect is described as 19-29 with a slight build and no taller than 5-foot-9.Police say he had a dark buzz cut, acne, and was wearing a red Ecko hooded sweatshirt.If you have any information on the robbery call Springfield Police.More >>
    Springfield Police need your help to find an armed robber. They say yesterday a white man carrying a semi-automatic handgun held-up the Jenny Wren Café on Main Street. The suspect is described as 19-29 with a slight build and no taller than 5-foot-9.Police say he had a dark buzz cut, acne, and was wearing a red Ecko hooded sweatshirt.If you have any information on the robbery call Springfield Police.More >>
  • Arlington man facing an animal cruelty

    Arlington man facing an animal cruelty

    Friday, April 25 2014 12:03 AM EDT2014-04-25 04:03:45 GMT
    An Arlington man is facing an animal cruelty charge after police say they found a dead dog on this property.It happened at 2760 VT Route 313. Troopers were at Rick Thompson's home investigating a burglary involving a wood burning stove when they discovered the dog. Thompson told police the dog died from kennel cough but a vet later determined the dog had been starved to death. The 47-year-old is due in court next month.More >>
    An Arlington man is facing an animal cruelty charge after police say they found a dead dog on this property.It happened at 2760 VT Route 313. Troopers were at Rick Thompson's home investigating a burglary involving a wood burning stove when they discovered the dog. Thompson told police the dog died from kennel cough but a vet later determined the dog had been starved to death. The 47-year-old is due in court next month.More >>
  • Senator Sanders pushes for better access to primary care

    Senator Sanders pushes for better access to primary care

    Friday, April 25 2014 12:06 AM EDT2014-04-25 04:06:48 GMT
    Senator Bernie Sanders is pushing for better access to primary care for patients in Vermont and across the country.More >>
    Senator Bernie Sanders is pushing for better access to primary care for patients in Vermont and across the country. More >>
  • Burlington School budget one step closer to re-vote

    Burlington School budget one step closer to re-vote

    Friday, April 25 2014 12:09 AM EDT2014-04-25 04:09:20 GMT
    A new Burlington School Budget is one step closer to a re-vote in the Community.The Burlington School board voted in favor of a 67.4 million dollar budget. Dozens of parents and voters turned out Thursday night for public testimony on their thoughts and concerns on the new more expensive budget. A recent audit uncovered a 2.5 million dollar deficit forcing the board to slash about 2.5 million dollars in programming and staff. This new budget is 600-thousand dollars MORE than what was voted do...More >>
    A new Burlington School Budget is one step closer to a re-vote in the Community.The Burlington School board voted in favor of a 67.4 million dollar budget. Dozens of parents and voters turned out Thursday night for public testimony on their thoughts and concerns on the new more expensive budget. A recent audit uncovered a 2.5 million dollar deficit forcing the board to slash about 2.5 million dollars in programming and staff. This new budget is 600-thousand dollars MORE than what was voted do...More >>
  • Robber hits the same bank twice?

    Robber hits the same bank twice?

    Thursday, April 24 2014 7:01 PM EDT2014-04-24 23:01:18 GMT
    A security guard and bank manager at the People's United in St. Albans held a would-be robber until police arrived. And investigators think he is the same man who robbed the bank Monday.More >>
    A security guard and bank manager at the People's United in St. Albans held a would-be robber until police arrived. And investigators think he is the same man who robbed the bank Monday.More >>
  • Man shot by Vt. cop faces charges

    Man shot by Vt. cop faces charges

    Thursday, April 24 2014 7:31 PM EDT2014-04-24 23:31:24 GMT
    A man shot by an officer inside the Bennington police station faces charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.More >>
    A man shot by an officer inside the Bennington police station faces charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.More >>
  • Man charged in Vt. teacher killing wants confession tossed

    Man charged in Vt. teacher killing wants confession tossed

    Thursday, April 24 2014 2:29 PM EDT2014-04-24 18:29:39 GMT
    A Vermont man charged with killing a popular St. Johnsbury teacher is asking a judge to exclude from his upcoming trial a detailed confession he gave to police investigators.More >>
    A Vermont man charged with killing a popular St. Johnsbury teacher is asking a judge to exclude from his upcoming trial a detailed confession he gave to police investigators.More >>
Powered by WorldNow
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2014 WorldNow and WCAX. All Rights Reserved. For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.