Giesen Perspective

The 2007 Session of Your General Assembly Wraps Up--

At Least until April 4^th

DATE: Wednesday, February 28, 2007

THE FINAL DAYS

In the final four days of the 2007 Session of the General Assembly the Legislators completed their committee work (Tuesday, the twentieth), extended the deadline for the budget conferees to report the Appropriations Act (HB1650) from Tuesday midnight until Friday the twenty-third at midnight, acted on over 200 pieces of legislation on the floors of their respective chambers on Wednesday and Thursday, put some 70 of these bills and resolutions into conference, acted on all of the conference reports on Friday and Saturday and adjourned sine die at 6:03 pm on the scheduled day the twenty-fourth. It is the first time in four years that your senators and delegates have headed home on the evening of the scheduled adjournment date.

THE TWO BIGGIES

The two “biggies” under consideration on Saturday created the most interest for those observing the final countdown of this session. The Transportation Bill -- HB 3202 -- had been reported from conference committee on Friday afternoon and the Budget Bill -- HB 1650 -- about 1am Saturday morning. Legislative Services worked diligently, and completed copies of the 103 page HB 3202 conference report were ready by Saturday morning.

The staffs of the House Appropriations and Senate Finance Committees worked all night Friday night, went to their respective homes, slept for a couple of hours and returned to the General Assembly Building in mid-morning to proof the “half-sheets.” Thus, the 208 pages of amendments (more than 400 different amendments) which made up the conference report were ready for the legislators by late Saturday morning.

With the two big conference reports circulating and dozens of other conference committees meeting hurriedly and staff members hustling to get the conference reports reproduced and signed by the conferees, you can imagine the difficulty lobbyists were having keeping up with what was going on. The action on the floors of the two chambers was in an almost constant “hurry up and wait” mode. There were numerous recesses by both houses as they waited for another conference report to be completed.

THE FIRST OF TWO BIG SURPRISES

Amidst all of this, the Democrat House Caucus held a meeting which provided one of the two major surprises for the day. Delegate Frank Hall, D-Richmond, was first elected to the House in 1975. He has served in the House of Delegates for almost 32 years. He is the ranking House Democrat in terms of service and only Independent Delegate Lacey Putney and Republican Vince Callahan have served longer than Frank. He has been the Minority Floor Leader since 2002.

In that time, the Democrats have started their resurgence in the House moving from a low of 34 members in 2002 to their present strength of holding 40 seats. In the meantime, the Republicans have gone from their high mark of holding 64 seats (following the 2001 redistricting) to having 57 GOP delegates -- the independents have grown from two members to three (although the three are very different in their independent status). To help garner the Democrat House victories during the last five years, Delegate Hall had helped raise some $500,000 which he put into house races. Sounds like a winner, doesn’t it? But apparently his colleagues weren’t impressed. So on Saturday morning the Democrat House Caucus voted Delegate Ward Armstrong their Minority Floor Leader by a reported 27-12 margin!

Ward, a Duke graduate with a law degree from T.C. Williams School of Law, has served in the House since 1992. He has a stronger floor presence than Frank and has shown an ability to be confrontational on major issues. However, he mixes his confrontational comments with enough humor that there are rarely raw nerves or ill feelings when he finishes his debates. It will take some more digging to determine exactly how this “coup” came about, but having gone through several of these when I was a member of the “minority party in the House of Delegates,” I can tell you no matter how hard the leadership pushes, or what changes are made, the rank and file members don’t think the progress is enough. Then there are always those with some ambition that think they can do better. When enough of those with like thoughts enter the discussion, a coup is the result.

The Second Big Surprise Of The Day

The Actions on the Conference Report on HB 3202—The House…

Timing can be very important in the legislative process. The leadership of both houses kept this in mind as Saturday afternoon drug on and the two major bills remained in the wings. Finally, the House took up “The Comprehensive Transportation Funding and Reform Act of 2007” (that’s the Speaker’s designation for his HB 3202). There were some sharp words from the minority side of the aisle. “This is a 105 page, complicated bill,” Delegate Jim Scott stressed. “We’ve had less than 30 minutes (the House had taken a 30 minute recess for the caucuses to review and discuss the bill) to study this bill and now you (the Republican Leadership and the majority) want us to vote on one of the most important, if not THE most important bill of this session?”

The Majority Floor Leader Morgan Griffith — he handled the bill for the Speaker who continued to preside — in response to this question, reminded the house members this bill had been under discussion since its introduction on January 19^th. “While the conference report makes some changes, the basics of the bill are very similar to the bill as introduced. It is the best transportation package we can achieve. Hopefully, the Gentleman from Fairfax and the other members will recognize this and vote for the Conference Report.”

Another NOVA delegate, Vivian Watts, the Secretary of Transportation during the Baliles administration (the last time there was a major infusion of revenue into the transportation system), explained the facts of life to her colleagues as far as what the bill did for Northern Virginia. She stressed that in the bulk of the bill, “…there is at best $80,000,000 for Northern Virginia. Then you will ‘allow’ us to raise $400,000,000 through local efforts including raising our taxes.”

She then gave a personal reference to playing poker with her grandchildren and noted that she tried to require them to anti-up $3 for every one of her dollars (all “monopoly” money, mind you), “This is not fair, Granma!” “Well, ladies and gentlemen of the House, this bill is not fair to Northern Virginia! We have sent money down state for decades and decades. We have given and given, and now you turn your back on the economic engine of the state.” She then reminded the delegates of a comment made by Delegate Harvey Morgan during an earlier transportation debate, “If you jump start your car but don’t have any gas in it, it doesn’t do any good…” She concluded, “This bill doesn’t provide much gas. It’s only a political jumpstart. It’s a band aide at best. You should vote against it.”

As you know the train was on the track and the oratory was not going to slow it down in the House. The 65-34 vote was not a big surprise, but the way the vote split was a little surprising. Five Republicans voted against the plan with one of the two recorded as “not voting” announcing he intended to vote nay. Twenty-eight Democrats joined in the no vote along with independent Watt Abbitt. Fifty of the majority GOP party delegates were joined by twelve Democrats and two independents to make up the 64 aye votes.

…and The Senate

The second big surprise of the day to most of the capitol watchers was when the State Senate passed the conference report on HB 3202. The vote came after almost two hours of debate with the full knowledge that the House had already acted positively on the report on a 64 to 34 vote. You will recall the conferees on this bill were heavily weighted toward the House position on HB 3202. While the conferees did make some changes, the final version of the bill contained most of the significant features of the bill as introduced on January 19.

The use of General Funds was reduced from $250 million per year to $184 million plus or minus (depending on the recordation tax revenue); the land use portion of the bill was modified some what (to the relief of smaller local governments—larger localities will still be subject to “devolution”); the estimated $64 million per year (a suspect figure) from the “uncommitted general fund surplus” remained in the bill; and the amount of bonds to be floated for transportation was increased from the $2 billion level to $2.5 billion over eight years (what’s a little more debt for an extra interchange or two?). As you can see the principles of the conference report were relatively close to the bill as it originally was reported from the House.

A Side Bar…

The estimates of revenue raised by the various parts of the bill were also in line with what the original negotiators used in their forecasts. There are others, including the staff members of the Senate Finance Committee, who disagree with the figures used in the “spread sheets” issued by the conferees. Yours truly and my other associates (Sue Rowland, Eldon James, and Jane Woods) have discussed these “statistics.” We have concluded they require a much closer look. Look for a later collaborative G.P. in which we will give a more in depth and historical analysis. After all, this is a 105 page complicated bill. It takes more than 30 minutes to study it in detail!

…And Back to the Senate’s Actions…

Earlier in the session, on this legislation (HB 3202) the Senators had defeated a similar version of this bill on a 23-17 vote and passed its own version. The so-called Watkins substitute included a $150 per transaction, vehicle titling “fee” to raise money to avoid any on going commitment of general funds to transportation. Four moderate Republican senators spoke about the parts of the conference report they didn’t like. Each in turn stressed, however, that it was the only game left in town. With the notation that something needed to be sent to the Governor, who they anticipated would modify it extensively and send it back to the General Assembly in April, they encouraged their colleagues to vote to pass the report. These Republicans — Senators Blevins, Hanger, Hawkins, and Watkins — all voted to accept the conference report. All four had voted against a similar bill five days earlier.

The vote was recorded as 21 ayes and 18 nays with Senator Saslaw not voting. As noted, the conference report had revenue included in it as well as the authorization for the floating of bonds. Since no revenue bill “…shall be passed except by the affirmative vote of a majority of all the members elected to each house…” (Article IV, Section 11 (d) of the Constitution of Virginia), Saslaw’s vote could be recorded as a nay even if he hadn’t already spoken against the bill and indicated while he was recorded as “not voting,” he intended to vote “nay.”

So the bill goes to the Governor’s desk for his consideration.

THE POSTURING BEGINS

Now everyone is posturing to make as much political hay as possible out of the passage of this HB 3202. “This is the most significant legislation to address this core service approved since the special session of 1986.” The Speaker.

“At all levels for rural parts of the state, there is very little money for them.” Gov. Kaine

“Republicans initiated and came together behind a comprehensive reform and funding plan.” The Speaker.

“My main concern is an excess of general-fund dollars to support massive borrowing.” Governor Kaine.

“Not only does this bill increase the funding for our roads, railways, and public transit, but it includes some of the most significant reforms to update the Commonwealth’s approach to land use and to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the manner in which we deliver transportation services. And by giving our two most congested regions, Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, the ability to raise and retain funding for their unique needs, we have provided those regions with the tools they need now.” The Speaker.

“I think it is unlikely Prince William would adopt those regional taxes. We are already building the roads the state failed to build.” Corey A. Stewart (R-Occoquan), Chairman of the Board of Supervisors.

“It is a difficult pill to swallow.” Gerald E. Connolly, Chairman, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors.

“I will consider amending the bill so the General Assembly, and not local governments, would be responsible for voting on whether to raise taxes in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia.” Gov. Kaine.

Aren’t the next five weeks going to be fun?

Just a few questions to consider. Does the Governor think this is a politically motivated bill, or a bill to really help solve the transportation problems of the state? Will he treat it “for political gain” or to fashion an appropriate (in his view) compromise? If he chooses the latter approach, does he have the political acumen and diplomatic skills to fashion amendments that will be acceptable to the Republican majority in the House? This statement assumes (a dangerous position to be in) His Excellency can satisfy the swing votes in the Senate with his amendments.

A FOOTNOTE: This is an addition on Feb. 28 am — the Governor is not off to a very diplomatic start in the debate. He has already made noises about vetoing the whole bill and sending down his own bill. This statement as he starts his “tour of the state to hear from the people on this issue.” In my opinion, this is an “off the cuff comment” that would have been better said later in the process. Again, maybe my assumption that the Governor would really like to get some kind of transportation bill through the whole process, is incorrect!

Delegate Kirk Cox comments, quoted in this morning’s Richmond Times Dispatch, are mild for him, but probably sum up the feelings of many of his colleagues. “I am disappointed that Kaine would threaten a veto this early (in the process)…I said repeatedly the transfer is less than 1%.” (Actually, the $184 million is 1.06% of the forecasted general fund (GF) revenue for 2008 and if you add the anticipated $64 million from the “uncommitted surplus,” the percentage of the GF goes to 1.44 %. This would change in the future as the GF revenues supposedly go up.) But I get ahead of myself for closer analysis of The Plan for transportation. As noted that’s the subject of a later, collaborative GP.

ANOTHER FOOTNOTE … “Does One Vote Count?”

This is a frequently asked question when one talks to constituents. Those citizens who have not registered are usually the ones to state, “One vote doesn’t really matter.”

In the Senate of Virginia one vote certainly does count. Note the 21-19 vote on the final passage of the transportation bill. At least one of the senators who changed his position to get the bill to the Governor was first elected to the Senate by a margin of less than two votes per precinct. So one vote at the polls and one vote in the chamber are equally important.

Another example on which I like to reflect was the final vote on the budget in the 1960 session. Governor J. Lindsay Almond broke with the Byrd Machine that year. A former supporter of the “massive resistance” position of the Byrd organization, Governor Almond realized the harm it was doing to Virginia and its young people. He introduced a budget with $35,000,000 for public education. This was enough to break “massive resistance” and reopen all of the closed public schools in Virginia. The Appropriations Act had gotten through the more moderate (now isn’t that a switch) House of Delegates, but the Senate Finance Committee (SFC), where the majority of the members were still loyal to the Byrd position on “massive resistance,” had the bill bottled up. (Remember there was only one budget introduced in those days, so all the SFC could do was amend the House Appropriations Act.)

The SFC was threatening to report the bill without the Governor’s recommended funding of public education. The parliamentary procedure adopted by the Governor and his moderate Democrat colleagues was to discharge the SFC from consideration of the budget bill and take it to the floor of the senate. This “discharge motion” is rarely used in legislative bodies but is available. On the key motion to “discharge” the Democrat Senators were split 19-19. The two lonely Republican Senators—James Turk from Radford and the senior Republican in the Senate, Sidney Floyd Landreth from Floyd—sitting in the far corner of the chambers, held the balance of power.

When The Gentleman from Floyd got up to speak, a hush fell over the senate. After a rather dramatic although brief floor speech (Floyd was an accomplished orator), he announced the two Republican Senators would vote in favor of the discharge motion. The Chairman of the SFC quickly rose and asked for a brief recess with permission for the committee to meet. This was granted and the budget was reported with the Governor’s public education funding in tact. The floor vote was, yes you guessed it, 21-19!

Yes Virginia, one vote does count, particularly in the Senate of Virginia!

Arthur R. Giesen, Jr., fondly known as Pete, served in the Virginia House of Delegates for over 30 years. He represented the citizens of the Central Shenandoah Valley surviving four different district realignments. During his career he represented Augusta, Bath, Highland and part of Rockingham County and the Cities of Staunton and Waynesboro.

Following his career as an elected official, Pete assisted Lt. Governor John H. Hager as his Chief of Staff.

Pete now keeps an eye on Virginia government and assists many clients with his unique perspective on the workings of the Virginia General Assembly and its relationship with the other branches of state government.

THE GIESEN PERSPECTIVE