(In keeping with GMD’s policy of promoting all gubernatorial candidates’ diaries to the front page, here is the latest from Matt Dunne – promoted by Sue Prent)

The Douglas administration has taken reckless advantage of the worst fiscal crisis in Vermont’s history to advance its own ideological agenda, using the Legislature’s well-intentioned “Challenges for Change” initiative as the vehicle to accomplish this.

I do not envy the position of my former colleagues in the House and Senate. We are facing the biggest budget deficit in history and at the same time Vermonters across the state are struggling. We need to rethink the way we do government so that we are using our limited resources as effectively as possible. However, in passing a budget that includes unnamed, massive cuts, the Legislature trusted that the Douglas Administration would come forward with recommendations that involved a thorough analysis of the implications and incorporated input from the affected stakeholders, and expected it to be clean of initiatives that smacked of partisanship. It is now clear that this trust was misplaced and the result is panic.

A family with an autistic child stopped me in the Statehouse, literally unsure how they can keep working at their jobs if support for their family is slashed as proposed. Communities are holding emergency meetings to determine how to fight the immediate closing of their schools. Planning commissions are poring over thick documents to find the policies slipped into the “Challenges for Change” plan that will gut environmental protections in the guise of “efficiency.”

Vermonters must engage with the Legislature now to assist in determining what is good policy, what are responsible budget cuts, and what is simply a “Trojan Horse” for an outgoing adminstration’s conservative agenda that could do irreparable damage to our valued way of life.

I have often been involved in difficult budget decisions during my 11 years in the Vermont legislature, my experience in business and academia, and my tenure as the head of AmeriCorps*VISTA (a 6,000 employee public sector organization). In my opinion, and based on these experiences, I believe that the Challenges for Change proposal represents:

1.) Radical change imposed under too short a timeline – With this legislation, neither lawmakers nor the public have sufficient opportunity to consider the wisdom and the impact of the proposed sweeping changes. With very short notice, entire programs with successful track records have been targeted for massive budget cuts or elimination.

2.) Penny wise and pound foolish government – The current fiscal crisis is being manipulated to privatize key aspects of state government and eviscerate important programs at a time when they’re needed most. For example, the state funding support for the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, which is a program that has actually created real economic growth and jobs, has been proposed for elimination. Beyond serving a need for effective economic development, this approximately $200k investment brings in well over $1 million of additional economic development support. Many other proposals to save money by “contracting for services” have no supporting evidence that this approach will achieve savings. Given the massive growth in temporary employees and contractors over the last few years, there is little confidence that this is anything but privatizing for its own sake. In fact, if history is any example, privatization may result in increased costs.

3.) Hidden agendas – Under the umbrella of “Challenges for Change,” the administration has pushed forward its long-envisioned proposal to massively restructure education in our state by super-sizing school boards, creating cookie cutter curriculum, and fundamentally destroying the relationship between the community and education that has long made Vermont’s schools strong. . . all to achieve only a paltry 1% cost savings. I commend the House education committee for standing strong on opposing mandates that will hurt children and our communities. There are many ways to reduce costs in Vermont education without rolling out a master plan for top down school consolidation and the elimination of the options parents currently have.

4.) Missed opportunities – There is not a front-line state worker who doesn’t have ideas on how to save tax dollars and run government more efficiently. The administration has clearly ignored recommendations that could reduce costs without cutting core services, leaving communities reeling, or destroying effective job creation programs. As just one example, over a year ago, VSEA employees and I recommended moving to cloud computing (http://bit.ly/2mwVfL) for our basic state business software. The cities of Washington D.C. and Los Angeles, both with larger populations than the whole state of Vermont, have switched to this efficient technology and saved millions of dollars. There are compromises with this kind of technology, but it can achieve back office cost reduction in a way that will not hurt the fundamental delivery of services. In fact, there is evidence that this kind of solution strengthens the ability for public employees to engage and serve the public.

5.) Dividing and trying to conquer – Cynically, the administration’s rollout of Challenges for Change has pitted state employees against the most vulnerable populations and economic development initiatives.

To reiterate, we absolutely need fresh thinking, transparency, and real change in the way we run government in Vermont. To make change happen, however, we need to engage stakeholders in the process, identify clear goals and then move towards those changes together. That is the Vermont way.

Moreover, if I learned anything from my nearly two decades of executive management experience, it is that in order to be successful in making effective transformational change, an organization needs to operate from a basis of trust; a belief that there are not ulterior motives, hidden agendas, or backroom deals. This administration and its process of rolling out the Challenges for Change proposal has damaged whatever trust might have remained between the Douglas administration and Vermonters.



There is no better example of why there needs to be change in Montpelier.