In a dramatic turnaround, the House will vote on marijuana legalization after all, House Speaker Shap Smith (D-Morristown) said Friday. 

The chamber will cast votes on the issue Monday, Smith said, probably on two different proposals. Whether either of them passes is still very much in question.

“People legitimately want to understand what level of support’s out there,” Smith said Friday.

Smith said he expects at least two votes. One will be on a Senate bill that allows sale and possession of marijuana. The other is on a House Ways and Means Committee proposal to legalize home-growing of two marijuana plants.

The House Judiciary Committee walked a tightrope Thursday in recommending its version of a bill to protect personal privacy.

The legislation sets guidelines for how and when the police may use drones, and it reauthorizes police use of cameras that capture photos of license plates and establishes the procedures that law enforcement agencies must follow to gain access to electronic communications.

“What is important is the balance between protecting individual privacy and enhancing public safety,” said Rep. Maxine Grad (D-Moretown), chair of the committee.

When the Senate passed an energy siting bill earlier this year, a vocal group of wind-turbine opponents walked away disappointed. Their hopes that the bill would require continuous sound monitoring of wind projects were dashed.

History suggested their chances of doing better in the more renewable-energy-friendly House were nil.

“Over the past few years I’ve been here, nothing has ever gotten better in the House energy committee until now,” said Mark Whitworth, president of Energize Vermont, an organization that has been fighting large wind projects.

So it was an odd sight this week as wind opponents cheered the unanimous passage of a revised energy bill in the House.

“All seven towns that I represent in my area have had wind impact,” Rep. Vicki Strong (R-Albany), said on the House floor Tuesday. “Their voices are being heard. I appreciate that.”

With time running out in the legislative session, supporters of marijuana legalization launched a sneak attack Wednesday from the Vermont Senate in hopes of forcing a reluctant House to weigh in on the matter.

By a 16 to 12 vote, the Senate moved to send its languishing legalization bill back over to the House, where it has stalled in committee for weeks.

“I thought there ought to be at least an opportunity for House members to express their support or opposition,” said Sen. Dick Sears (D-Bennington), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sears moved to attach the contents of a previously passed Senate bill to an unrelated House bill, H.858, which makes miscellaneous changes to the criminal code.

“I’m not surprised,” Speaker Shap Smith (D-Morristown) said of the move, adding that it would not necessarily force the full House to vote on legalization.

 The Vermont State Employees’ Association had hoped Tuesday to stop the Shumlin administration from outsourcing work now done by state employees in the Office of Risk Management — but came up two votes short in the Senate.

The Shumlin administration has been exploring whether it could save money if it contracted with a private company to process worker compensation claims and advise on work safety. Secretary of Administration Justin Johnson said state officials solicited information about the cost and services that private companies might offer. The responses suggested potential savings ranging from 35 to 55 percent, Johnson said.

The state subsequently requested bids, he said. The binding offers submitted reflected the same levels of savings, he said. The bids are under review.

The state spends $1.8 million to operate the Office of Risk Management, Johnson said. The office has a dozen employees, he said. Privatizing the operation could save the state at least $500,000 a year.

That is the amount of savings that the Senate Appropriations Committee included in its version of the budget to run state government next year.

The Vermont Retail & Grocers Association has been shopping two changes to the law that mandates labeling of products containing genetically modified ingredients to smooth the law’s implementation.

One change would prevent consumers from suing should they find non-labeled products on store shelves during the 18 months immediately after the law takes effect. This change would allow retailers time to clear their inventory of products that were legally distributed without labels prior to July 1, said Jim Harrison, president of the retail and grocers association.

The second change would give an exemption to the labeling of food prepared in stores — such as potato salad, sandwiches and baked goods, Harrison said. 

“It wasn’t our feeling that these materially change the law,” Harrison said.

The Vermont Right to Know GMOs coalition has opposed any changes to the law. Andrea Stander of Rural Vermont said retailers have had plenty of time to work out how to deal with inventory and comply with the law.

“This is all part of a national effort to undermine the Vermont law,” Stander said. For example, national grocery and snack food organizations have sued the state, challenging the legality of the law. The lawsuit is pending.

The Senate Appropriations Committee included a provision in the budget bill that would delay the date when consumers could sue over the lack of GMO labels, but not for as long as Harrison wanted. The Senate proposed ending the protection a year after the law takes effect.

“It is a way to protect our small retailers,” said Senate Appropriations Chair Jane Kitchel (D-Caledonia). Product turnover isn’t always speedy in small stores, she said, noting that “a lot of items like pasta have long shelf life.”

Kitchel added, “In no way would this alter the underlying labeling requirements.” The Senate budget bill doesn’t address the exemption for food made in stores.

The House version of the budget didn’t include the provision delaying consumer lawsuits, so the two chambers will have to negotiate whether it is included in the final budget bill.

Todd Daloz, an assistant attorney general, said his office would prefer that lawmakers make no changes to the law so close to the time of its implementation. Daloz noted that the office of the attorney general had established a rule that gives retailers six months to clear their inventories of non-labeled stock.

“Our main goal in the first six to twelve months is enabling compliance,” Daloz said.

He noted that delaying when consumers could sue over non-labeling would not affect enforcement by the attorney general’s office.

Daloz said he opposed granting an exemption to products made in stores. Those could contain the same genetically modified ingredients as items made by big manufacturers, he said.

Attorney General Bill Sorrell wrote a memo in late March advising how his office would enforce the law. “Our enforcement priorities will focus on willful violations of the labeling law,” he wrote. “Thus even after January 1, 2017, we do not expect to bring enforcement cases based solely on a company’s failure to remove improperly labeled products that were distributed before July 1, 2016.”

Democratic leaders of the Vermont House sought to quash a resolution Friday calling on Gov. Peter Shumlin to publicly release emails his legal counsel attempted to delete. 

The non-binding measure, sponsored by Rep. Chris Pearson (P-Burlington), asks the administration to hand over email accounts belonging to five former Shumlin staff members who left state employ more than three years ago. Shumlin’s lawyer, Sarah London, asked a state information technology officer earlier this month to delete the accounts as part of its archiving process. Critics have questioned whether her request was prompted by a looming crackdown on two politically connected Northeast Kingdom developers — a charge the administration has repeatedly denied. 

Speaking on the House floor Friday afternoon, Pearson argued that the Shumlin administration could easily restore trust by handing over the emails. 

“The point is that there’s an assertion of no wrongdoing,” he said. “Maybe it’s perfectly standard. But we have the opportunity to verify that. We’ve gotta shine some light on this and make sure nothing suspicious is happening.”

Rep. Willem Jewett (D-Ripton), vice chair of the House Judiciary Committee and a former majority leader, disagreed. He said that Pearson’s request could interfere with ongoing federal and state enforcement actions against the developers, Ariel Quiros and Bill Stenger, who have been accused of fraud. 

“I think we need to stand firm and respect the investigations that are ongoing,” he said. “We need to acknowledge how serious this is and the harm this has done and will continue to do.”

The massive fraud case that has gripped Vermont for the past week is poised to enter the legislative arena. 

The Vermont House is scheduled to debate a resolution Friday calling on Gov. Peter Shumlin to release a batch of emails his legal counsel sought to delete earlier this month. The governor's critics have suggested the request was prompted by a looming crackdown on two Northeast Kingdom developers with close ties to Shumlin — a charge his administration has adamantly denied. 

Rep. Chris Pearson (P-Burlington), who heads the House Progressive caucus, says there's an easy way to put to rest any lingering questions.

"I agree with a whole lot of Vermonters that something seems very fishy here," he said. "But I'm not asserting anything. I'm saying: Show us the emails and prove it to us."

The federal prosecutor investigating expansive fraud allegations in Vermont's Northeast Kingdom has close ties to many of the political players touched by the scandal.

One of them is his wife. 

Soon after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Attorney General Bill Sorrell announced civil charges last week against developers Ariel Quiros and Bill Stenger, U.S. Attorney Eric Miller said his office would explore potential criminal charges. 

"We have been aware of the state and SEC civil enforcement efforts made public today," Miller said in a written statement last Thursday. "My office has been conducting, and continues to conduct, an investigation designed to determine whether or not there have been violations of federal criminal law in connection with EB-5 projects in the Northeast Kingdom."

Federal and state officials have said that Quiros and Stenger defrauded foreign investors of $200 million in what they call a "Ponzi-like" scheme. The two men used the federal EB-5 investor visa program to raise more than $350 million for a series of development projects at Jay Peak Resort, Q Burke Mountain Resort and elsewhere in the Kingdom. 

The state stopped billing Bill Stenger and Ariel Quiros for fees on their EB-5 projects last year because of growing concerns over misuse of investors’ money, Pat Moulton, secretary of the Agency of Commerce and Community Development, said Tuesday.

Developers are supposed to pay the fees themselves, Moulton said. “We were afraid the money was coming from investors,” she said.

The decision was made about nine to 12 months ago as state officials’ suspicions about the projects were escalating, Moulton told the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday.

Last week, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed civil charges against Stenger and Quiros in federal court, claiming they had misused millions of dollars raised from foreign investors through the federal EB-5 investor visa program. The program provides green cards to foreign nationals who invest at least $500,000 in approved economic development projects.