As expected, Governor Scott vetoed the Budget Adjustment Act (BAA) for the second time last Friday, April 4, after House and Senate leaders refused to allow the winter rules of the hotel voucher program to end April 1. Winter rules, which allow more people to stay in hotels at state expense, ended April 1, as agreed to in last year’s budget. It reminds me of that old cell phone commercial “Can you hear me now?” The veto was not a surprise by any stretch and the governor took little time to act after the Senate sent the bill to him.
Additionally, Senate leader Phil Baruth, D-Chittenden Central, asked the Legislature’s chief lawyer to write a letter questioning the constitutionality of Scott’s executive order to take care of the most vulnerable recipients of the current voucher program. In Brynn Hare’s letter to Baruth, the lawyer used words like “disturbing trend” and “flagrantly” regarding the governor intruding on the role of the General Assembly. In describing the trend, she referred to the appointment of Zoie Saunders as interim secretary last year, which the court ruled was within the governor’s powers. Using the Legislature’s non-partisan law office to produce a letter with inflammatory adjectives to make political points should be out of bounds for any legislator, including the Senate leader.
It is now looking like both the House and Senate Democratic leaders are taking the path of further studying education consolidation rather than beginning the process of reducing the 119 districts or 52 supervisory unions that Vermont currently has, in the coming year. The House bill delegates the job of drawing new district map proposal options to a study committee comprised of former superintendents. The governor’s plan consolidated down to five districts with school board elections set for the fall of 2026. The House plan anticipates holding off on school board elections until November 2028. This delay is likely to face another “Can you hear me now?” when it reaches Scott’s desk later this session. He has repeatedly said it is acceptable to delay reforms that will lower costs and property taxes soon.
The House Ways & Means Committee was expected to vote on the education bill Tuesday, April 8, with changes to the financing formula, including several new non-homestead classifications and a higher per pupil payment to schools than the governor’s plan had proposed.
Meanwhile, the respective House and Senate appropriations committees are beginning to look at potential ramifications to the state budget if there are significant federal cutbacks in aid or grants to Vermont. With over $3 billion in federal funding as part of the $9 billion state budget, any reduction could have serious consequences. The chair of the Senate budget committee has already suggested in one media report that we may have to forgo the transfer of state funds that were earmarked by the House for property tax relief. Some lawmakers have also suggested temporary income tax surcharges!
It is too early to know the full impact of federal budget decisions, but it remains possible that the recent House passed budget for Vermont could be null and void. Any budget, including our own personal spending plans, often contain many “nice to have” as well as “must have” items. If there are significant reductions in overall revenues due to federal cutbacks or a recession, many of the “nice to have” line items may have to go?
Other issues:
The House approved H.91, which will eventually shift responsibility for homeless shelters and the hotel program to each of the five community action agencies (BROC in the Rutland-Bennington area). The administration appeared supportive of the approach but concerned about the potential for increased costs to the state.
The House Corrections and Institutions Committee took testimony on H.191, which would end Vermont’s use of for-profit out-of-state prisons and prison services. The measure, supported by the Vermont State Employees’ union and others, would increase the cost to taxpayers of housing prisoners and require the building more prisons.
House and Senate Committees with jurisdiction over energy issues do not appear to be in a hurry to take up any of the governor’s proposals to mitigate some of the projected higher costs of laws enacted over his vetoes in the past few years.
The Senate sent back to committee the legislation that included a repeal of the Clean Heat Standard. Republican lawmakers have proposed repealing the unpopular Clean Heat law that was enacted over a gubernatorial veto two years ago. The future of a repeal this year is uncertain.
I’m afraid we are going to hear a few more “Can you hear me now?” over the next month and a half. When bills are passed without bi-partisan support, someone is not listening (or perhaps choosing not to listen) to find middle ground.
Jim Harrison is the state representative for Chittenden, Killington, Mendon, and Pittsfield. He can be reached at [email protected].
