Updated, 1:15 p.m.
Gov. Phil Scott and Democratic leaders in the Vermont legislature have struck a deal that forces all school districts to collectively save $13 million during the next two fiscal years. They shared details of their plan for the first time at a press conference Wednesday morning, and the full legislature is expected to pass the proposal later on Wednesday.
The compromise plan closely resembles legislation that the Senate passed in an earlier attempt to appease the governor. Scott dismissed it at the time, advocating instead for a statewide teachers’ health insurance contract to capture savings.
But the specter of a government shutdown on July 1 — which arose because Scott vetoed the budget when lawmakers failed to adopt his proposal — made the idea more appealing.
The governor had previously insisted that savings come specifically from school employees’ health insurance plans. He’s now agreed to a plan that recommends that approach, but also allows school boards to make cuts elsewhere in their budgets. The state will use the $13 million to lower property taxes.
“In negotiations, everyone has to give something and that’s what we gave,” said Scott, when asked why he’d relented. He also acknowledged that he’d weakened his bargaining position by publicly declaring he wouldn’t let the dispute end in a government shutdown.
Fiscal analysts are still calculating the portion of the savings for which each district will be responsible. Senate President Pro Tempore Tim Ashe (D/P-Chittenden) emphasized that the property tax rate will decrease by 2.2 cents, as it would have under the legislature’s previous version of the property tax bill.
The agreement requires that new health insurance contracts expire in 2019, which will give lawmakers a chance to revisit Scott’s proposal for a statewide contract. School districts that have already settled on health insurance contracts are exempt from this deadline, but not from the mandate to find savings. And in the meantime, the agreement calls for a commission to study the benefits and drawbacks of a statewide contract.
Nicole Mace, executive director of the Vermont School Boards Association, said the new plan is “most problematic for districts that have settled their contracts. They’re in a tough spot.” But Mace also noted that the savings mandate may give some districts greater leverage. “I do think for places that are still bargaining, it does provide boards with some more tools in their toolbox.”
Throughout the stalemate that lasted more than a month, the Republican governor and Democratic leaders accused one another of recalcitrance, but by Wednesday both sides were touting their civil approach and ability to compromise.
“We’ve distinguished ourselves from D.C.,” Scott said.
Others suggested the opposite. “Unfortunately this is the product of a backroom deal that was spurred by, in our view, a D.C.-style government shutdown threat,” said Vermont-National Education Association’s communications director, Darren Allen. “We think this deal is actually going to make it harder for local school boards to do what’s right for their schools … and we also think that it foments more chaos because it reopens all contracts on health care in two years so we’ll be right back here.”
Disclosure: Tim Ashe is the domestic partner of Seven Days publisher and coeditor Paula Routly. Find our conflict-of-interest policy here: sevendaysvt.com/disclosure.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
I take great offense to Darren Allen’s comments that he felt it was a backroom deal and “a D.C.-style government shutdown threat”. In reality what happened here, was a political compromise, not the typical paralysis that occurs in D.C. The Vermont NEA just feels threatened because so many of it members have “Platinum” health care plans that, we the tax paying public, just cannot afford any more. We need to change that. Most Vermonters could only dream of having health care plans as lavish as many teachers in the state enjoy!
Let’s get this straight: School boards must make spending cuts but the state doesn’t have to do anything to cut the waste from its budget? Once again the tyranny of government in action.
Government is the best employer in this state! They just have to keep getting more creative and inflating their fees, taxes and regulations to pay for this awesome employer! They will tell you what to do and take your money right out of your wallet to do it.
I read on USA Today that the largest employer in VT is UVM Medical System and in NH is Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical System. Why are the legislature and GMCB not complaining about Dr. Brumsted’s $1.5 million salary? Costs drive premiums. They need to attack the supply side instead of balancing health care costs on the backs of working Vermonters.
You are right Jay-Man. The CEOs of most hospitals earns more than the governor of Vermont? How is that justified?
So as a voter, I voted to give our schools money from my property taxes so our schools can use it on our children’s education. Scott is now telling the schools to cut 13 million to give back to me in my property tax, which is the exact opposite of what we voted for. So he is undoing the democratic process by which we the people chose to give their money to education.
I assure the poster Jason G. I do not willingly fund public schools. I am forced to or I go to jail. Vermont schools are among the highest in the country in terms of cost-per-pupil, lousy national test scores, and a very large decline in student population over the past 20 years. How is THAT fair, especially to someone such as myself who chose to be childless?
This article talks about:
“Save…Save….Savings…..”
These are CUTS. This is cutting school funding, cutting teacher benefits. Shame on you, SevenDays, for such bias.