Ox Road South

School Daze in the Senate

2010-03-09T17:46:00Z

The Senate just spent a full day debating three bills sent down by Governor McDonnell regarding charter and alternative school issues.

These bills include SB 736 (establishing College Lab schools), SB 737 (relating to charter schools) and SB 738 (relating to on-line curricula). All three of these bills recognize a reality that education in this century will be markedly different than the desk and blackboard instruction of my youth.

There has been tremendous opposition to these bills. Some of it is substantive and some is symbolic. Either way, people have strong opinions about public schools, how they're funded and how the students are orgnanized. All the historic divisions of this Commonwealth are invoked.

On the other hand, President Obama himself has endorsed these concepts -- especially charter schools -- as a means for improving schools, especially in under-performing districts. His "Race to the Top" program allocates nearly $5 billion to states based upon their participation in innovative programs. A few days ago, Virginia learned it would not join fifteen other states in receiving those funds. While our weak "charter school" law was not the definitive reason for this failure, it was a relevant factor.

Here's how the process played out today ...

SB 736 (College Lab Schools) would have permitted our universities to set up "lab schools" in the community in conjunction with their Schools of Education. Here's the problem: our colleges don't have enough money to educate their own students. And now they're going to open an elementary school? I voted "no." Regardless, the bill passed 25-15.

SB 737 (Charter Schools) actually was mostly symbolic. The pared-down version of the bill only changed the law in permitting the State Board of Education to play an advisory role in a charter school application. The final decision still rests with the local School Board. This bill passed 27-12. I sit on the Board of a non-profit that is considering applying for a charter school. Therefore, I recused myself from this vote pursuant to Senate Rule 36. If I had voted, I would have voted "yes."

SB 738 (On-line schools) will have the most impact. This legislation set up a system for the Board of Education to evaluate and regulate on-line curricula and those school divisions which establish on-line programs. Schools are already moving this way.. This bill is a catch-up. The bill passed 35-5. I voted "yes."

These bills will pass the House and go to the Governor.

Justice Rolls Like a Mighty River (Monday's version)

2010-03-09T14:53:00Z

Yesterday in the Courts Committee we took up a number of House bills which covered areas we had not previously addressed. Here are some of the votes:

HB 15 (Marshall): Would have prohibited Virginia from holding anyone accused of terrorism in its prisons. Where else are we going to hold them? In our schools? Thankfully we killed this bill.

HB 166 (Pogge): Expanded the death penalty eligible crimes to include the killing of a fire marshal in the performance of his duties. While I usually vote against death penalty expansions, I did vote for this bill since fire marshals have "felony arrest" powers but are not otherwise covered by the statute. The bill passed.

HB 502 (Gilbert): This bill revisited the "triggerman" rule but with a slightly different spin, i.e. it eliminated the rule only for the killing of law enforcement. However, all the same issues apply, e.g. how do you prove that an accomplice had the intent to commit murder when he's sitting in a get-away car? And he didn't actually kill anyone? Treating all defendants the same may give the prosecution leverage but it's not justice. We defeated this bill.

HB 513 (Rust): Permits the impoundment of the vehicle when an unlicensed driver continues to drive in violaton of the law. For reasons I can't quite fathom, this bill has been hotly contested. I voted "yes" and it did pass this time.

HB 728 (Albo): Limits the conditions of pre-release for those convicted of a felony. This bill became a huge "turf battle" as pre-release personnel lobbied against limitations on their taxpayer-subsidized services. Commercial bail bondsmen, on the other hand, supported the bill. I co-sponsored Albo's bill thereby earning mention in an hysterical Roanoke Times editorial (fyi, editors, my donor history is at www.vpap.org). In its pared-down version, the bill was a wash in terms of saving taxpayers. Regardless, it was "carried over" on an 8-7 vote.

HB 1197 (Iaquinto): Would require a mandatory ignition interlock device be installed on the vehicle of anyone convicted of driving under the influence. Right now, it's mandatory on second offense only. Otherwise, it's judicial discretion. This "all drivers" concept is complete overkill IMO and reflects what happens when single-issue advocates are allowed to dictate our criminal laws. (e.g. "abuser fees") The bill was defeated.

One More Week to Go

2010-03-08T12:42:00Z

Yesterday was the first "spring" day of the year. I had the family down and we spent most the afternoon exploring Richmond, including Shockoe Bottom and the State Capitol grounds.

In the afternoon, I ran down Grove Avenue to Libbie Avenue and back. For the first time, there were outdoor diners to heckle me.

Got into the GA office early today (about 6 a.m.) Lots of bills left to vote on in committee and on the floor. Also conference committees will be forming this week to deal with disputed bills. So far, I haven't been assigned to any but that will surely change.

Round 2 Against Health Care Mandates

2010-03-05T00:13:00Z

Several weeks ago -- it seems like a lifetime -- the State Senate passed a series of bills stating that no Virginian could be "forced" into purchasing insurance. After a long floor fight, the bills passed 23-17 and caused a mild shock in the political world, as the U.S. Congress was still apparently considering a comprehensive health care reform bill.

I voted against the bill and stated my opposition.

Of course, the bills have no effect against Federal legislation which supersedes state law. But that didn't stop us back then.

Today, having passed the House, the bills resurfaced on the Senate floor with "Governor's amendments." Ironically, the amendments covered the exact issue I raised on February 2nd, namely that the new law would strip away a court's ability to require parents in a custody case to provide insurance for their children.

The Governor sought to cure the problem. But even a good amendment can't cure a bad bill.

What about sports leagues that require insurance?

How about private schools?

How about outdoor organization, especially those for kids?

All kinds of organizations, whether state-run (e.g. colleges) or private, require insurance for certain activities. That is good for the organization and good for the individual.

These bills cause confusion and do the exact opposite of what we want -- which is to encourage people to get insurance, especially for their children.

Floor Fight Yields Rare Enviro Victory

2010-03-04T14:30:00Z

Yesterday the Senate took up HB 1300 sponsored by Terry Kilgore (R-Scott) which sought to limit the ability of our State Air Board to prohibit emissions trading in "non-attainment" areas.

The issue is complicated but let me take a run at it ....

The state Air Board issues "air permits" for power plants that emit carbons and other pollutants. These emissions, while necessary for industry, also deplete the ozone and significantly degrade air quality.

In northern Virginia, we are designated as "non-attainment," which means that our air quality, especially during the summer, does not meet the minimum threshold requirements set by the EPA.

As a result, northern Virginia local leaders have tried to limit emissions by local power plants, the most significant one being the Mirant plant in Alexandria. In 2006, the legislature did that by forbidding plants in those areas from buying "emission credits" which would allow them to expand their operations. That is the current state law.

Apparently the EPA is considering expanding its criteria for "non-attainment" so that more of Virginia might be impacted. That has left some business and industrial interests concerned that a major expansion could significantly cut back their access to power and raise the cost of doing business. Ergo, HB 1300 (and a companion SB 128).

A month ago, we held a Subcommittee hearing on this very issue. Representatives from the business and environmental communities were there, along with the City of Alexandria which has an understandably intense interest in the issue. After heraing all the testimony, our Subcommittee struck a compromise -- adopted into SB 128 -- which said that current non-attainment areas would continue to enjoy their existing protections, even if new EPA rules rendered the current policy impractical for the whole state.

Last week, in the Natural Resources Committee, the proponents of HB 1300 rejected that compromise and the bill came to the floor without any air quality protections for northern Virginia.

I filed a floor amendment reinserting the clause. There was a long debate and multiple votes. Opponents argued that rules should be uniform across the state and that the floor amendment would increase electric costs. My response was that this is THE EXISTING STATE LAW and we are only maintaining a public health status quo which is already below EPA standards.

Eventually, the "air quality in NOVA" amendment was adopted by a 21-19 vote. Here's the vote. The bill itself eventually passed the body on a 30-10 vote.

There are a lot of votes in Richmond but I take pride in this one. In my three years in the Senate, I can't remember a floor fight where we were able to overturn a committee decision based upon concerns of environmental impact. I trust this won't be the last time.

Eileen Wins, Bipartisan Redistricting Loses

2010-03-03T13:39:00Z

Big Day in Richmond yesterday. Let's review ...

News Items #1: The returns came back last night in the 41st House District special election which covers Burke Centre and Springfield. (I have a three-precinct overlap in the Lake Braddock area).

Democrat Eileen Filler-Corn won handily by thirty-seven votes out of about 11,000 cast. Gosh, makes you wonder why you waste time making phone calls and knocking on doors with that kind of margin?

Seriously, that is the second straight "photo finish" for that House seat (and third straight in the Burke area if you count the Marsden-Hunt Senate race in January). Each winning margin has been within 1%.

Said it before and will say it again -- our area of central Fairfax is 50/50 territory right now for D's v. R's. If you don't campaign for every last vote, you will lose.

News Item #2: The bipartisan redistricting bill of Senator Deeds was killed yesterday by a House Subcommittee. That was the LAST CHANCE to have a different approach than the ordinary "spoils system" for drawing legislative districts.

Having voted for and co-sponsored this reform legislation, it's a disappointment but not a surprise. We need more competitive districts in order to get better results in Virginia. While some areas are very competitive (see above), other areas are gerry-mandered so as to be 75% Democratic or 75% Republican. That helps no one.

News Item #3: Virginia Supreme Court Justice Barbara Keenan was elected 99-0 by the U.S. Senate to a seat on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Having supported her nomination, I am now proud to see this former Fairfax County prosecutor, private attorney and Circuit Court judge land one of the most prized seats in our profession.

She will do a great job. Why did it take the U.S. Senate so long to confirm this obvious choice who was nominated by President Obama many months ago? The rules of that body are baffling to me.

News Item #4: Am I crazy -- or did I just see Erik Estrada in the halls of the Assembly Building? I definitely saw Clifford the Dog yesterday in the Senate chamber. Either we're getting late in the session or I'm going delusional.

Taking a Knife to an Intellectual Gunfight

2010-03-02T16:04:00Z

That was the description today by Del. Albert Pollard (D-Lancaster) of our Attorney General's recent decision to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency so as to challenge the concept of "global warming." I stood with Albert today at a press conference organized by Democratic lawmakers to protest the AG's position.

Never mind that the U.S. Supreme Court -- that noted band of tree huggers -- declared in 2007 that carbon dioxide emissions posed a threat to human health and thus were under the jurisdiction of the EPA.

Never mind that our former President George Bush recognized the concept of global warming in his promotion by tax credit of alternative fuels and solar energy.

Never mind that Virginia's Climate Change Commission reached a bipartisan consensus in 2007 that reducing carbon emissions and promoting alternative energy was a critical step for Virginia, especially due to its unique nature as a coastal state.

All of this is now apparently "junk science." And we want out.

The Attorney General's petition, which is apparently unique in its challenge to the EPA, is not a costless decision. Litigating that matter all the way to the Fourth Circuit will take up substantial attorney time, perhaps $250,000 or more.

And all for a case which the Commonwealth is certain to lose -- as the EPA has clear jurisdiction to regulate air quality.

Who's going to pay for this legal bill?

Not the Tea Party. Not the Republican National Committee. Not the Club for Growth.

Instead, the Virginia taxpayer will pay. That ain't right. There are a lot better uses for our tax dollar than paying a team of attorneys -- not usually in Federal court -- to take on the Federal government, its lawyers and its environmental agency on an issue which has been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Make that a butter knife.

Door Knocking in HD 41

2010-02-28T16:15:00Z

I'm back in Fairfax this weekend. Yesterday I stopped by the campaign HQ of Eileen Filler-Corn and picked up some packets for door-to-door canvassing in neighborhoods I represent in Braddock.

Eileen is running to represent the 41st House District, which was formerly the seat of Dave Marsden, now Senator. I've known her for many years and am proud to endorse her.

Spent most of Saturday door knocking for Eileen. There's a lot of snow still on the sidewalks, but the air was mild. I met the usual kaleidoscope of Fairfax County people: an R.N. just getting off the night shift, a Mom chasing after young kids, a law professor walking his dog.

There are few signs out for this special election, at least in neighborhoods. Snowmaggeddon pretty much killed the visibility. Turnout will be modest.

The 41st House District, like the 37th HD and 35th HD, were all central Fairfax districts that were Republican as of the last redistricting. In 2001, the seats were held by Dillard, Rust and Devolites respectively. By 2006, all three had swung to the Democratic column which allowed the Democrats to take a dominating position in the County as a whole.

Last year was a close call. In the 35th and 41st House races, our aggregate winning total for both candidates was about 500 votes (out of 40,000 cast). So the area is moving back towards 50/50.

If Eileen wins on Tuesday, the Democrats will continue to hold all three of these "swing" district in the heart of the County. If you're a voter in the 41st HD, please don't forget to vote Tuesday.

House Subcommittee Kills "Indexing" Bill

2010-02-26T14:54:00Z

Many months ago I wrote about the "Hybrid Effect" and how that was going to strip away our existing revenues for highway maintenance and construction in Virginia.

In a nutshell, the rapidly increasing fuel efficiency of vehicles means that Virginians (and others that use our highways) are purchasing less petroleum, even as they drive more miles. The effect is that our revenues from fuel taxes continue to drop and VDOT continues to wage a failing battle to maintain our existing road network -- much less expand it.

This year, I filed SB 405 which "indexed" our motor fuels tax using a math formula that included vehicle miles traveled and gallons of gas purchased. The purpose was to ensure that revenue increases as usage increases.

In the Senate my bill was "rolled into" SB 343 patroned by Sen. Hanger (R-Augusta) which got at the same goal, but with a slightly different calculation -- he used rising CAFE standards as the basis for the "index." As the senior member, he carried the bill that passed the Senate on a vote of 31-9.

Wednesday, Sen. Hanger's bill met an untimely death in a subcommittee on House Finance which recommended that the bill be "carried over" until 2011. The comments from the members indicated that it was "a good idea" but not at this time.

Ok, then when is a good time?

Increasing our Trust Fund means more money to invest in our infrastructure (repairing bridges, repaving roads, fixing potholes). That work needs to be done NOW in the after-math of Snowmaggeddon. That work also creates jobs.

And the revenue that supports these jobs? Over 1/3 of it is coming from out-of-state motorists that are using our highways.

Why not make them pay for this usage and put Virginians back to work?

Budget Debate Today on Senate Floor

2010-02-25T18:00:00Z

The Budget for 2010-2012 will be debated today on the Senate floor. I gave a summary earlier this week. Suffice to say that the Senate, like the House, is cutting back expenditures and temporarily reducing its contribution to VRS. There is no general tax increase.

In contrast to the House, the Senate makes a stronger commitment to public education, especially in northern VA (we retain the "cost to compete" funding which goes to high-cost jurisdictions). It also contains some fee increases missing from the House budget.

We'll be here most the day on this debate. The House will likely be in longer.

(update at 2:45 pm)

Clerk just finished reading about 200+ budget amendments in all sectors of the budget. Just rejected one amendment which reversed the "DRE ban." (what's that doing here?) Now dealing with payments to VA Beach to purchase land around Oceana AB. Thirty million?

(update at 3 pm)

Just added back in $2M for planning district commissions, which makes sense since they prepare grant proposals for smaller localities that can't do these on their own.

(update at 3:10 pm)

Budget just passed on vote of 30-10. No speeches against the Budget by the dissenters who are all Republicans. Perhaps they were disappointed that we didn't propose a tax increase?

Senate adjourns ....