Letters to the Editor (6/11/25)

Don’t Rush H.454

[Re “House and Senate Fail to Find Consensus on Education Reform Bill,” May 31, online]: We have great concerns regarding the education reform bill, H.454. This bill represents generational change for all Vermont children; it should not be rushed through in a last-minute effort to meet the self-imposed deadline of a single session of the legislature. This bill is seriously flawed, and it appears — from Seven Days and Vermont Public — that even legislators don’t really like it. More importantly, it appears that the only stated intention it achieves is Gov. Phil Scott’s long-held desire to consolidate school districts and put local education budgets under state control.

We are especially concerned with the last-minute, closed-door deal changing the way private school tuition is set. We cannot believe it was coincidence that two of the three individuals involved have long ties to private institutions. It is unacceptable for private schools to be treated more favorably than the public schools to which Vermonters have committed themselves throughout Vermont’s history.

There is also significant cause for concern over the minimum class-size requirement in this bill. When public schools are competing with private schools for students, and private schools can choose their own tuition levels and students, it puts our public schools at a serious disadvantage. In some cases, this could jeopardize their quality and even their existence. This is a far cry from supporting our public school system.

If the legislature is serious about reducing education costs, it should finally grapple with our failing health care system and the extreme costs of health insurance, which impact school budgets more than any other expenditure.

Peg and Bob Soule

Wallingford

Phone-Free

I was thrilled to read “Bye, Phone” [May 28], in which Alison Novak circled back to her cover story from the fall about a handful of Vermont schools opting to go fully phone-free this school year [“No Phone Zones: To Limit Distractions and Encourage Student Interaction, More Vermont Schools Are Restricting the Use of Digital Devices,” September 4]. It’s heartening to learn that even those at Harwood Union Middle and High School who were skeptical at first have come to appreciate it.

One element that didn’t surface in Novak’s story, perhaps because it is only shared more in close confidence, is that many students end up feeling less anxious because of these policies. The Thetford Academy principal told a reporter that one student had the self-reflection that she could actually breathe at school. Another student there told a parent friend of mine that she feels safer. Lots of adolescents live in constant fear of someone taking a picture or video of them during the school day and posting it online without consent. Imagine your most embarrassing moment of middle or high school. Now imagine other kids getting that on film and making it go viral. Instead of being embarrassed for a day or two, that moment can haunt you for the rest of high school.

I was so inspired by the story in the fall that I joined a grassroots network of parents, teachers, school social workers and others who are promoting similar policies in our local schools and at the legislative level. Anyone who wants to find out more or see student and teacher interviews about this policy can go to phonefreeschoolsvt.com.

Liza Earle-Centers

Montpelier

Questionable Ethics

Lt. Gov. John Rodgers’ support of a bill benefiting his private business is a sad reflection of the shameless grifting in Washington, D.C., and the ineffectiveness of Vermont’s ethics regulations [“Lt. Gov. and Weed Farmer Rodgers Pushes a Bill That Would Slash His Costs,” May 15].

The Vermont State Ethics Commission was established “to practice and promote the highest level of ethical standards and accountability in state government.” Unfortunately, the legislature forgot to give the commission any real authority to investigate or enforce ethical conduct.

Complaints are referred by the ethics commission director to the human resources office responsible for the person who is the subject of the complaint. The determination of the need for an investigation and conducting of an investigation are made within the agency/department where the alleged misconduct took place. The phrase “fox guarding the henhouse” comes to mind.

As an example, an ethics complaint was filed regarding a Fish & Wildlife Department employee who manages the program to implement nonlethal measures to address human-beaver conflicts. This person has a side business selling beaver fur products on Etsy. The initial review included the former Fish & Wildlife commissioner. Not surprisingly, after “careful consideration and review of the facts,” no investigation was even conducted. It was determined, not by the State Ethics Commission but by the Fish & Wildlife Department, that there was no violation of perception of conflict of interest or moonlighting policies on the part of its own employee.

Sadly, these types of instances will continue unless changes are made to provide a meaningful role and authority for the State Ethics Commission director.

Barbara Felitti

Huntington

Worse Than ‘Hard-Line’

In “Press Ahead” [From the Publisher, May 21], Paula Routly references President Donald Trump’s “hard-line immigration and border-control policies.” What is wrong with this language? Trump has not instituted mere “hard-line immigration and border-control policies.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, with Trump’s blessings, has been illegally arresting people, illegally detaining people and criminally disappearing people. Trump’s “hard-line immigration and border-control polices” are illegal and unconstitutional.

I am disappointed that Seven Days would report in this manner. Good journalism requires that the press stop treating this as a normal presidency and call every illegal and unconstitutional action for what it is. Please do not normalize what is happening in this country by calling it “hard-line … policies.”

Rachael Grossman

East Montpelier

Pro Passeggiata

That was a fascinating article about the evening stroll on Burlington’s Church Street in the unhurried, European manner [From the Publisher: “Walking the Talk,” May 28]! No power walkers, please — LOL. Serendipity led to many reunions among friends as well as networking leads for new connections. I can’t spell or pronounce the name of the organized Wednesday event, but this could be the start of something big, to quote the old Steve Allen song.

Andrew Day

Shelburne

Homeless View

As a micro-business owner and homeless person, I am deeply concerned about the Burlington City Council’s decision to move the lunch program [“Burlington Council Directs Mayor to Move Free Lunch Program,” May 20, online]. This program is a vital resource for many in our community, and its relocation would have severe consequences.

I urge the council to reconsider its decision and work with the mayor to find alternative solutions. Here are some potential approaches:

1. Keep the lunch program in its current location and collaborate with Howard Center’s Street & Community Outreach to enhance its effectiveness.

2. Establish group homes for individuals struggling with addiction, providing them with support and resources.

3. Partner with mental health and crisis teams to address the underlying issues affecting our community.

4. Develop temporary and permanent housing solutions to address the housing crisis.

5. Ensure that city council members work collaboratively with other stakeholders to find effective solutions.

By working together, we can create positive change and support those in need. I hope the council will consider these proposals and prioritize the well-being of our community.

Sequoyah Peace

Burlington

Message to Canada

In [“No Canada: Trump Insulted Canadians, and Vermont Businesses Are Bracing for the Consequences,” May 21], Derek Brouwer misused my quote in a rather specious way. I believe he ended it with something along the lines of “both sides have to suffer…,” which gave him a good lead-in for “That’s bitter advice for Hill Farmstead.”

What he didn’t mention was my point about why both sides have to suffer. We are suffering because the executive branch of government, aided and abetted by a slim House and Senate majority and a crooked Supreme Court, are enacting Project 2025. Canadians are suffering because of the added fillip of taking over Canadian resources, by hook or by crook.

The article promoted the idea that Vermonters are suffering because Canadians have reduced their trips across the border to purchase our goods, enjoy our nature and eat our delicious food. Brouwer neglected the most important message, which is that Canadians are resisting with their feet and their dollars and that we have to do the same. We have to boycott the corporations colluding with this corrupt government and practice mutual aid with our neighbors by purchasing local goods, where the loss of Canadian business is having the greatest impact.

“Make common cause,” as I was quoted, also means giving the Canadians the exchange, buying things at par. I did it again at the boulangerie in Stanstead last week, and the owner was delighted.

Miriam Hansen

East Montpelier