The first few months of the 2012 legislative session were largely devoid of disputation and controversy, as the Legislature disposed of some pretty serious issues — Irene cleanup, the budget, the Vermont State Hospital and state office complex replacements, the next step on health care reform.

But in the last few weeks, things went sideways. And the lion’s share of the dysfunction was in the State Senate. Which raises the question: What kind of job did John Campbell do as Senate President Pro Tem? And should he be given another chance in 2013?

Some facts are inarguable: the House maintained a good pace and moved through a lot of legislation more or less on time, while the Senate played a frantic game of catch-up in the closing days of the Legislature. Most of the visible conflict came on the Senate side. And, where there were differences between the two bodies, the House won out on almost every issue.

In a look-back on the past session, VTDigger’s Anne Galloway concluded that Speaker Shap Smith had emerged as the dominant force; she quotes one lobbyist who said that Smith is “in charge of the building.” On the other hand…

Lobbyists and lawmakers say Campbell, who is well-liked, had difficulty controlling the Senate calendar. Instead of marching through the day’s orders, no one knew what legislation he was actually going to take up on a given day. They say he came across as too eager to please, disorganized and willing to change his position on a whim.

That’s pretty damning stuff, evidence that Campbell was failing at basic tasks of leadership.

After the jump: amendments, subamendments, and a horse’s ass.

Galloway then noted, in Campbell’s defense, that the Senate is full of strong personalities, “many of whom are newbies,” particularly Peter Galbraith, who “showed an unrivaled penchant for grandstanding.” But Galbraith aside (this guy used to be a diplomat??), I saw a lot more disruption from the old guard, particularly Dick Sears and Campbell himself. Methinks the Senate vets are used to doing things their own way, whether it makes sense (or even follows the rules) or not.

And besides, it’s Campbell’s job to ride herd on strong personalities. If he can’t do it, maybe someone else should try. And there’s no excuse for a lack of control over the calendar. More Galloway:

Important bills got stuck in committee and then appeared as amendments to other bills that were eventually ruled germane, or not, depending. …This led to long days of debate on the Senate floor because senators were concerned that bills hadn’t been fully vetted for prime time. Hallmarks of the debate included constant points of order, amendments to amendments and subamendments, and recesses at the sign of any conflict (sometimes as many as seven in a single session).

One of those recesses featured a compelling example of Leadership In Action. This is from the Vermont Press Bureau, published May 3, story hidden behind the Herald/Times Argus paywall. (I subscribe. You’re welcome.)

Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell and Sen. Dick McCormack butted heads on labor legislation that would allow childcare workers to form a union and collectively bargain with the state.

Campbell, a fierce opponent of the bill, has repeatedly passed over labor-related bills on the Senate floor that McCormack could have attached his childcare union amendment to.

McCormack rose on the Senate floor and asked whether Campbell intended to “run out the clock” on the labor bills to block the childcare union legislation.

Campbell took offense at the suggestion, and Sen. Dick Mazza asked for a recess.

After Campbell and McCormack left their seats and came together on the Senate floor, Campbell told McCormack: “You’re such a horse’s ass.”

McCormack fired back: “Don’t call me a horse’s ass.”

Wonder if there were any school groups in the gallery that day. I’m tempted to give Campbell a new nickname: Senate President Pro Tem John “Horse’s Ass” Campbell. But I’m a forgiving type (snort), and I’m sure Campbell was driven to extremes by McCormack’s brazen insistence on pushing a piece of legislation that Campbell was unilaterally blocking in a fit of pique over union lobbying tactics.  

The disarray in the Senate was bad enough that some are talking of a possible challenge to Campbell. Anne Galloway:

Campbell last week declared in no uncertain terms he will be running for the Senate and the Pro Tem position again, but a number of Statehouse mavens interviewed for this story said his leadership of the Senate could be challenged come next January.

…The other names bandied about for the top job? Claire Ayer, Ann Cummings, Tim Ashe. Cummings, in an interview, said she was interested in the top job before and would be again. The others demurred.

Usually, Vermont tends to be a “go-along, get along” kind of place that will put up with shortcomings in its incumbent officeholders (cough*BillSorrell*cough). For there to be this kind of open talk about Campbell, you know this is serious.

The name “Tim Ashe” is an interesting one. Some Statehouse observers saw numerous examples of the Prog/Dem cozying up to the Old Lions of the Senate, which seemed rather uncharacteristic at the time. If he’s pondering a move against Campbell, the cozying suddenly makes more sense.

(And if he does grab the gavel, won’t Seven Days just be littered with disclaimers?)

So… should Campbell stay or should he go? And who should take his place?