Reporters at Vermont Gov. Phil Scott’s press conference Thursday might as well have been tossing pebbles at a brick wall. The governor was immovable in the face of tough questioning about his school funding plan, the cold shoulder it’s received from the legislature and the apparent mistakes in the plan’s numbers. He called for consensus and “coming to the table,” but he insisted that any compromise would have to be “within the plan.”
He asserted that the legislature is on track to raise taxes by as much as $83 million, including a projected $58 million increase in property taxes. “This approach is not acceptable to me,” he said.
The legislature, in truth, is doing nothing to enact the property tax increase. That was the result of voters approving more than 95 percent of school budgets on Town Meeting Day. Those votes determined the property tax rate, which by law must be set to provide enough money for all those local budgets.
Scott dismissed the overwhelming approval of school budgets, arguing that people don’t realize the property tax consequences of their votes.
“I don’t believe voters went into the booth and considered that their property taxes were going to increase next year and voted for their budgets,” he said. “I just don’t believe that.”
When pressed on whether voters might realize that approving higher budgets would mean higher taxes, he stuck to his guns. “I just don’t think that people do that kind of math,” he said.
This, despite the fact that state law requires school ballots to clearly indicate the full dollar amount of the budget, the per-pupil amount, whether the budget is higher or lower than the previous year’s and by what percentage. Voters actually have quite a bit of information.
Scott talked of a mutual effort with the legislature. “There’s so much that we could do if we could work together and look at what we’ve already passed, each body has already passed in some respects, and fold it into one plan,” he said.
But even as he acknowledged the legislature’s progress on key cost-control initiatives, he defended administration officials such as chief of staff Jason Gibbs, who have claimed that the legislature has “effectively ignored” money-saving ideas until very recently.
“They haven’t passed anything,” Scott said. When reminded that lawmakers have been working steadily through the session on cost-saving plans, he replied, “But what have they passed? … I’m sure they’ve been working on something, but they haven’t passed anything.”
His professed ignorance of the legislature’s work seems a bit disingenuous.
There appear to be no active negotiations between the Scott administration and the legislature. That’s not surprising, given the fact that the governor is not ceding any ground.
“We need the whole plan together,” he said. “We need all the provisions within the plan.”
Scott is insisting the plan must include $58 million in one-time money to keep property tax rates level, no rate hikes for the next five years and a set of proposals designed to pare back school spending over that time.
So where’s the compromise?
“Within the plan,” he said. “They may want to go more years. They might want to go fewer years. There’s areas that we can compromise within that plan.”
The operative words being “within the plan.”
Lawmakers are moving toward adjournment as soon as Saturday. Scott is unbending. A cynical mind might conclude that he’d prefer a standoff to a resolution.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
As Ive said before, there are three options on the table. The Houses plan is smoke and mirrors, it simply moves costs away from the property tax on to the income tax. The Senates plan deals with the problem the old fashion way, simply raising property taxes by $58 million without blinking and eye. Scotts 5 year plan uses surplus money to avoid a tax increase, creates about $300 million in cost saving opurtunities that will allow for investments in early childhood education, tech ed and higher ed. All this after repaying the $58 million back first. WHY IS THIS SUCH A DIFFICULT DECISION?
Bob – perhaps its because Vermonters are smart voters and they realize that someone claiming to save 300 million and invest in education is blowing smoke.
Regarding the comparisons of costs across states, take a look at what’s going on in the states with terribly low education spending. Massive teacher strikes are forcing these states to adequately fund their schools. You know what does to the average cost? It brings it up. And that makes Vermont’s spending look less expensive. Problem solved.
A large part of the Education Fund is not part of K-12 education and was not approved at school meetings by the voters. During the Shumlin Administration the Education Fund was opened up for other programs that now total over 40 million dollars and make up much of the gap. In addition in 2015 the income sensitivity threshold was raised by 50% and now includes incomes up to $147,500 and individual payments of up to $8,000.
Use 40 million of surplus to match non-K-12 spending and fill the rest by lowering income sensitivity payments for those with the most wealth.
“Massive teacher strikes are forcing states to adequately fund their schools”
Key word- Adequately. Vermont schools are BEYOND “adequately funded.” The strikes A_Trout is referring to are taking place in Oklahoma and Arizona, where they spend $7,566 per pupil. Here in Vermont we spend over 3x that at $23,557. The unions in those states are calling for 20% increase in spending over the next 3 years; that still won’t put them in spitting distance of $24k.* Under Gov Scott’s proposal our school spending would still be well north of Massachusetts.
I agree 100% that we need to adequately fund our schools. Unfortunately that is not the case presently. Adequate doesn’t mean bloated.
*Per pupil basis, rather than per “equalized” pupil: http://www.nea.org/home/70716.htm
Paco – the idea of bloat at local school is ridiculous. Go to a school board meeting, sift through the budget, and identify the “bloat.” Identify which teacher needs to go. Identify which program needs cutting. Identify which students won’t get attention. Argue the case. You will lose at the board meeting. Take that argument then to the Town/School Budget Meeting. Stand up and do the same. You will lose there, too. In many of our schools, the staffing is bare bones already. Our numbers are exaggeratedly high simply because we have low student populations.
The bloat is our 8.6 student/teacher ratios and 5.15 student/educator (including para, excluding special ed) ratios. The bloat is not in salaries or benefits. It is in headcount. Our schools are fat on staff.
School boards have no incentive to downsize and reduce their headcounts (due to a variety of factors such as how both homestead and non-res property taxes are calculated and income sensitivity provisions).
What we have is a tragedy of the commons. School boards will never act in a responsible manner the same way individual countries will not be able to significantly reduce CO2 emissions without multilateral agreements like the Paris Accord. We can not expect districts to act on their own and reduce the pressure they are imposing on the Education Fund. The only solution is for the to state enact strict financial controls on the education fund and clawback $58m from those “voter approved” budgets. Sure, the voters approved them, but the state can not afford them and it would be fiscally irresponsible to give the school boards they money they have asked for.
Paco – like I said, take that idea to your school board and your annual school budget meeting. Let me know how that turns out. Oh wait, I already know. It’s a losing argument. How do I know? Because I see it every year at meetings in my community. I talk to people in surrounding communities. They report the same thing. In abstract debates behind the keyboard, sure, you get thumbs up. But in the real world, the ideas of arbitrary thresholds are tossed aside.
BDE, I agree 100%. I dont know anything about John Walters other than he works for Seven Days, a paper owned by Senator Ashes partner. He seems to do an awful lot of Ashes dirty work through his arrogant writings.
Walters isn’t anti-Scott. He’s anti empty-suit, no matter which party is wearing it. Sure, he tends to focus more on Republicans, but that’s because those clowns put on the suit more often then Dems do.