( – promoted by JulieWaters)
When the “Challenges for Change” budget plan was unveiled earlier this month it was celebrated by the legislature and administration as a different and better way to cut costs.
Instead of just slashing budgets, the goal was to improve outcomes and save money by rethinking the way services are delivered. It turns out the process was neither different, nor better, and has led to another contentious budget process.
Challenges for Change is another example of why we must change the way we do things in Montpelier if we are going to get Vermonters working again and move the state forward.
First, it should not be celebrated that the state of Vermont is only now, eight months before the end of the governor’s fourth term in office, approaching the management of state government by looking at what we want to accomplish and then finding the most efficient and effective way to get the job done. Outcome based budgeting is what every successful business does and what I have done as Secretary of State for the past twelve years.
The fact that the budget cutting proposals were developed in secret, without public input on significant changes in public policy is more disturbing. The public was left largely in the dark. It was only when the Dover school board pushed to attend one of these secret meetings that the public even knew these discussions were going on. While the team selected by the governor to address education cuts eventually opened its meetings the remaining five teams, examining everything from mental health to regulatory reform, remained outside of public scrutiny.
[More after the fold]
So the fate of children’s health care, services for our seniors, the protection of our natural environment and even our job creation services were decided behind closed doors. The legislature, having voted on the plan without the specifics, is now in an unenviable position to either accept the administration’s flawed process or come up with alternatives in a matter of weeks.
One of the things I learned from working with every town in Vermont and with small businesses across the state is that top down decisions from Montpelier rarely work. When I first took office I traveled across Vermont and listened to the ideas small businesses had to improve the process of starting or expanding a business. I listened to professionals like nurses and real estate agents, engaged our state employees and talked with local officials. The ideas they came up with were central to the turnaround in the Secretary of State’s office, now nationally recognized for our innovation and customer service.
As the only candidate running for governor with executive experience in Vermont I understand budgets. I’ve managed an $8.5 million budget. I’ve made cuts, found efficiencies, eliminated waste and reorganized to do more with less – and I have also found ways to cut fees for small businesses and professionals.
As your Governor, we will do more with less, but we will not skimp on the services that make us a great state to live in-that keep us whole and prepare us for the future. I will carry a big ruler into office as governor and resize our government to put Vermont back on the right track. But I will do this as part of an open process, rather than through secret meetings.
I know that when we engage the best thinking of Vermont citizens, state employees, businesses and partner organizations we will come up with solutions that not only save tax dollars, but also better serve Vermonters.
I had no idea that Lt. Governor didn’t count as executive experience.
Since all the candidates are weighing in on CFC, could you each let the GMD community know if you would support the use of Rainy Day funds and, if so, how much (let’s guess there’s roughly $60-$70 million available)? Also, at what point in the coming weeks would you suggest to the legislature to trigger the release of the funds? Thanks.
let us start with truth in adverstising (and I am most definitely NOT referring to Ms. Markowitz in an way, shape or meaning here).
Remember Douglas in his final state of the state address to Vermont’s General Assembly?
(State of the State Address
January 7, 2010)
That’s right … all we want is the best of the best, but please make it at Walmart teaser prices.
Or how about where CHALLENGES FOR CHANGE: RESULTS FOR VERMONTERS asks the question ‘WHAT IS A “CHALLENGE?”‘ The answer might surprise you:
That’s right … these “Challenges for Change” geniuses use our nation’s run for the moon WHERE BILLIONS OF EXTRA DOLLARS WERE APPROPRIATED TO MAKE THE GOAL ACHIEVABLE as an introductory example in cutting back expenses.
Flash back to Opportunity to Learn. This is the report Vermont’s Ed commissioner Vilaseca as been touting as the main support for his push for a centralized command and control system over our (for now) local public school system.
The report opens with the following quote from a book by a Ken Robinson:
This quote talks about anything but centralizing schools, and even the most cursory reading and viewing of Mr. Robinson makes it obvious he doesn’t support Vilaseca’s push for centralizing command and control of our schools (see here and here for examples).
But there you have it: Douglas claiming all Vermonters want is something for nothing, others use an instance where tens of billions of dollars were pushed into a program as an example of what is meant by a reduction in expenditures, and yet another group uses a quote illustrating the importance of decentralizing and individualizing education as an introduction into a report pushing for less individualization and more centralized command and control of education.
Let’s start with truth in advertising.
Okay Gov candidates – If you don’t like CfC how would you meet the budget deficit? Could you please explain YOUR plans in DETAIL?