Last night there were some protesters outside of the Autumn Harvest fundraiser at the Old Labor Hall in Barre, an annual event for Vermont Democrats. I get it. A lot of them live around the proposed Swanton Wind project on Rocky Ridge. I sympathize with them, and the project has come under some legitimate fire lately from Democrats, Republicans and many locals in between.

Their messaging and tactics were pretty off-putting though. There was a large bass drum that was continually pounded for much of the program, including speeches by Peter Welch and Patrick Leahy. Every time someone went outside and opened the doors of the Hall, the bass drum over-powered the speaker. Annoying, but not a terrible tactic if your point is about (alleged) noise-pollution from wind turbines.

On my way past the protesters, I stopped for a moment and said “How are you all doing?” I expected one of the organizers to say something to me, or come over and give me their plea for some policy change at the PSB re: Wind Siting. Instead a woman shouted at me that I was destroying our state and then a guy said, “You’re both young,” to me and my wife, “you’re going to have a family someday!” We already have a young daughter thanks a bunch, and I think renewables make the world a safer place for my family, but my wife will be flattered that you think we look young.

I don’t understand why they would treat everyone going to a Dems’ event as hostile to their cause. Plenty of folks in there are opposed to ridgeline wind projects, or at least open to a dialogue about siting standards. Gov. Shumlin (a pretty prominent Dem, no?) came out last week as being opposed to the Swanton Wind proposal. Makes me a little suspicious about who organized the protest.

The one thing that really got under my skin about the protest was a woman bellowing “VERMONT LIVES MAAAAAATTERRRR!” over and over. Trying to co-opt the Black Lives Matter messaging when you’re a white person who is primarily concerned about the aesthetics of a renewable energy project hurting your property value? Yuck.

Political parties are so often the “bad guy”, but last night my appreciation for people who come together to support candidates with shared values was renewed. I stepped aside from being the Chair of the Franklin County Democrats after four years, handing the gavel off to my dear friend, Ed Ballantyne.

Parties are about so much more than hand-wringing and gridlock. They provide the opportunity for a few small voices to come together and be amplified to change the world. In a democracy, we can accomplish so little alone. Together we are mighty.

Parties are the places where activists and advocates become candidates. When the time is right, and an opportunity to serve is undeniable- parties provide the people power to knock on doors, make phone calls, throw events and all of the other functions that a campaign needs to turn a passionate citizen into a leader. This is especially true of Vermont House and Senate races, where an Independent candidate would have to build so much from scratch, that it is nearly impossible to mount successful campaigns.

I’m a Democrat, and I’m proud of it. No party is perfect, but this party cares about working people, supporting families and protecting those who are most vulnerable. We advocate for the needs of others and help smaller voices be heard over those that are more powerful in our political process. Democrats care about the planet,  support Main Street businesses over Wall Street and protect civil rights and freedoms for everyone.

Even though I won’t be chairing a County Committee, I’ll continue to work to help get Democrats elected in Vermont and to help our candidates be better legislators and leaders. Before you think about resorting to bashing political parties, just remember that democracy is a team sport- none of us can do it alone.

Republican gubernatorial hopeful, Bruce Lisman likes to style himself a big proponent of transparency in government, but well before Lisman fledged in the Vermont political sphere (rather UN-transparently as a ‘non-partisan’) Secretary of State Jim Condos (D) had that advocacy niche all sewn-up.

Condos is now midway through his third Statewide Transparency Tour, in which he brings the principles of open government right to the local public officers who are charged with upholding those principals and the citizens who depend on them to do so.

Being a veteran attendee of two of these tours, I can tell you that the subject never grows old for me, and there continues to be a pressing need, at least in my county, to revisit the subject over and over again. ‘Wish that weren’t so, but there it is.

To quote Secretary Condos:

“Good government is open and transparent government! The tour will not only allow me to assist Vermont’s public officials who must abide by these open meeting and public record laws every day, but also explain these laws to citizens who are looking to hold their governments accountable.”

There is an opportunity for questions, and answers and for public discussion. Ever questioned the decision-making process in your town? This is your opportunity to speak up.

I hope we’ll see more elected officials in attendance this time around.

If you haven’t had a chance to hear Condos on one of his transparency tours, I urge you to take advantage of the remaining opportunities in the current schedule:

(All events run from 6-8 PM)

Tues. Nov. 3 at the St. Albans Town Hall at 579 Lake Rd.

Wed. Nov. 4 at the Stowe Free Library, 90 Pond St.

Mon. Nov. 9 at the Brattleboro Town Hall, Selectboard Meet. Rm, 230 Main St.

Tues. Nov. 10 at the St. Johnsbury Middle School Auditorium, 257 Western Ave.

Thurs. Nov. 12   Lisley Public Library, Community Room, 43 Portland St. Midlebury

Mon. Nov. 16 at the Bennington Fire Facility, 130 River St.

Tues. Nov. 17 at the Rutland Free Library, Fox Room, 10 Court St.

It’s no surprise that schools and property taxes are on the minds of Vermont voters. Act 46, with it’s school budget spending caps, mandatory consolidation timelines and new, larger districts is only the latest in a long line of controversial laws that seek to steer Vermont’s rural schools toward higher quality at a lower cost. The call for “something” to be done about property taxes during the  2014 campaign season was nearly universal- especially with declining enrollments in the last decade now putting Vermont’s number of students in K-12 schools below 90,000.

Vermont’s self-appointed savior, Bruce Lisman, was quick to trash Act 46 on VPR’s Vermont Edition and at last night’s first meeting of all five declared gubernatorial candidates. “They asked for change and got a bill that hurts them” he was quoted as saying in Terri Hallenback’s coverage of the event. Voters certainly wanted change, but I think Act 46’s impact on taxpayers and schools varies widely. If you’re a small school like Fairfield Center School, worried about the big impact from a change of one or two students- Act 46’s consolidation can be a boon and smooth out the year over year equalized pupil impacts on tax rates of the current system. If you’re a relatively high-spending school like Saint Albans’ Bellows Free Academy then the spending caps like 1.7% can seem unfair- especially in the face of 8% increases in staff health care costs.

Democrats Matt Dunne and Sue Minter were more nuanced in their criticism of the education reform legislation than Lisman, but clearly would change the spending caps and potentially delay school district merger deadlines. House Speaker Shap Smith defended the law, while leaving room open for tweaks after House Education hears from local Boards and administrators. Lt. Governor Phil Scott supported changing the bill in the new legislative session as well.

This generation’s struggle with efforts to reform the state’s education system began with the Brigham decision and Act 60. “The Equal Educational Opportunity Act” of 1997 sought to equalize school spending across the state, making it possible for schools across the state- especially schools in poor districts- to afford the kinds of opportunities that so-called “Gold Towns” could more easily afford.

The moral imperative to give equal opportunity to every student in Vermont traces its routes back to the state’s Constitution. Section 68 of the Vermont Constitution states “… a competent number of schools ought to be maintained in each town unless the general assembly permits other provisions for the convenient instruction of youth.” 

Clearly, we have a responsibility to provide quality educational opportunities for every Vermont student- even if that may not be at all convenient. The Brigham decision established that those opportunities need to be equal and since 1997 we’ve understood that equality as a kind of spending equity from district to district, town to town. Setting up a statewide financing mechanism so that poor towns can now spend more like rich towns satisfied Brigham’s call for “equality”. As the nearly 20 years since Act 60 have passed, we haven’t come to terms with the idea that equality in spending may not be as closely tied to equality of opportunity to learn and succeed as we had hoped. Act 46 does take real measures to address the disparity of actual learning opportunities- AP classes, languages, music and art that larger school populations can afford and small districts can’t or won’t be able to provide on their own.

When I was in the Legislature in the 2013-2014 session we constantly talked about trying to divorce the financing conversation from the quality side. A Republican Senator once said to me something like “We talk all of the time about property taxes, but the thing we Republicans don’t want to admit most of the time is that our schools are actually pretty good.” There is the rub- we want schools to be cheaper without sacrificing quality. There are some big challenges (and opportunities) here:

1. The Illusion of local control: Every Vermont school has its own Board and moving to bigger districts would erode a long tradition of local control. Unfortunately federal mandates, like special education requirements and testing, have a lot more control over school budgets than local board members. The percentage of school budgets that really are discretionary at the local level is small. Having a statewide financing mechanism makes this even worse- making the decisions by local school budgets largely disconnected from local property tax rates. Act 46 is an attempt to call a spade a spade on this one.
2. Income Sensitivity: Most of us don’t pay the full freight of property taxes. Those who own non-residential properties, especially second homes pay the full published penny-rate on those properties but fully two-thirds of Vermonters pay based on income. Someone else pays for the increases when we vote YES on school budgets. The spending caps in Act 46 will make the “pain” of budget increases felt at the district level but it’s unclear to me that this will really act as a deterrent or incentive for voters (See Item 1.).
3. Small is Beautiful: It really can be- small class sizes are way better for students, and some smaller schools spend less per pupil and perform better than others. Still we have a student to staff ratio that is starting to get laughably small in Vermont. Those very small schools with low per pupil costs typically have favorable demographics (i.e. less families who qualify for free or reduced lunch, parents who are involved in their students’ education). I heard Shap Smith make the case last week that small schools who merge into a district can share teachers, and that will be a cost-savings. I think that’s the biggest thing Act 46 does have going for it.
4. Healthcare (and other) Cost-Shifting: If Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements were up then we wouldn’t be seeing the 8% increases in private carrier premiums that schools and anyone else who is insured by private carriers is seeing. One of the best cases (that never was made effectively) for Single Payer was that we would stop using property taxes to fill the holes in our healthcare financing system left by lack of support for our publicly-financed payers. There are a ton of non-education expenses built into per pupil costs, and the schools who really get punished are trying to provide services (counseling, health services) that go far beyond the original scope of K-12 spending. Cynthia Browning would probably be surprised to read this but I agree with her repeated lament that we should put non-education costs in the General Fund and get them out of the Ed Fund. Act 46 doesn’t really address this. How could it?
5. School Choice: Many districts tuition their students to neighboring schools, giving families in those towns school choice. Consolidation may end this practice for many towns/districts, although there are attempts being made to craft hybrid districts that still have tuition options. Act 46 seems to have self-contradicting elements that require some clarification on this issue. Perhaps this lack of clarity belies a muddled legislative intent?

Like Mr. Lisman said on VPR today “It’s complicated.” Vermont’s gubernatorial candidates would do well to stay out of the weeds on this one and talk about their values and the principles that will guide them as the great education debate marches on. Shap came the closest to talking about why he supports Act 46 at the value/principle level, citing his support for equal educational opportunity and real examples of disparities between Vermont schools. People don’t buy what you do, they buy why you do it. The conversation about how best to school our children and pay for it didn’t end with Act 60 and it sure as heck isn’t going to stop with Act 46.

Welcome to (kinda-almost) GMD Mark II. A few quick things to note before I not-quite-completely disappear (more on that in a sec).

First of all – why the change? No choice in the matter, as it turns out. The “Soapblox” network (more or less synonymous with the “50 state blog project”) is no more. The JSP platform that all the sites like GMD were built on has been folded up. In truth, it hadn’t been supported for some time (and is out of date, technologically), so this was a surprise to no one. All the different sites have transitioned to different platforms, most of them – like this one – to a WordPress host.

Where are the reader diaries? They’re coming, but its buggy. WordPress isn’t set up to do things the same way, but there is a version of user diaries that will appear soon (as in, days not weeks).

Is anything else about the site changing? Yes – something big. GMD was founded as a Democratic Party based website. As of now, we have officially completed the transition to a non-partisan, broadly left-leaning/li’l-p progressive site.

What are “Green Mountain Grit” and the “Mojometers” on the sidebar… and waddayamean “we?” Yeah, well… I left GMD due to its partisan nature, as I saw that as a conflict. Now that it’s not partisan, I’ll be lurking around the edges in my own corners, so as not to detract from the good work and new identity the current crop of contributors have created. GMG and MMs will be my personal sandbox where I can drop in and do some parody, and comment on the electioneering of the gubernatorial candidates, respectively. The former is just fun, and the latter sort of non-partisan critique and analysis is always what I had the most fun with anyway. Expect weekly contributions in each.

Thanks to our Phantom Webmaster, Green Mountain Daily is ready for its reboot.

We’re learning the ropes of a whole new platform, so please bear with us while we work out some of the kinks.

Vermont has a new motto, Stella quarta decima fulgeat, (May the 14th star shine bright), thanks in large part to State Senator Joe Benning (R-Caledonia). Senator Benning responded to Angela Kubicke, a young Latin student who was inspired to write a request that the state establishes a Latin motto.

The motto got a large boost in publicity and support after  being attacked by commenters on WCAX’s facebook page. Some confused commenters complained the motto was foreign (Spanish) and, why wasn’t it in English? VPO blogger JV Walters was the first to document the reaction.

It all ended well, the legislature bolted into action, acted quickly, and rallied in favor of the motto. Governor Shumlin signed the bill into law this past Friday at a festive Latin Day celebration at UVM.

Now make no mistake, Senator Benning did a good thing and deserves credit for it. However he appears to have forgotten a basic tenet for politicians. A Vermont Cynic photograph seen in VTdigger.com shows him at the celebration happily wearing a shaggy ivy crown. Perhaps he forgot or chose to ignore the widely recognized hard and fast photo-op rule #1: never put anything on your head.

 The rule’s origin dates back to 1927 when Vermonter Calvin Coolidge, who while vacationing in South Dakota was photographed wearing an Amercian Indian headdress. The taciturn president looked less than at ease in the exuberant headdress.

According to political observer Josh King, author of Dukakis in a tank:

Advisers warned Coolidge, who wore the headdress while being named an honorary chief in Deadwood, South Dakota, that he would look funny. “Well it’s good for people to laugh, isn’t it?” Coolidge [reportedly] replied.

It was later on this same vacation when he shocked the nation with the announcement “I do not choose to run for President in 1928.”

Correlation is not causation, and no one in 1927 blamed the headdress for Coolidge’s surprise decision. And for that matter Michael Dukakis’ defeat in his run for president was never explained away exclusively by his image in the tank. But why take chances? Some may recall that for years politicians and diplomats stopped carrying umbrellas thanks in part to Neville Chamberlain.

So, we had some laughs and Vermont has a nice new motto. As Coolidge quipped, “Sed quia bonum est populus risum annon?” In “American” Engish: “Well, it’s good for people to laugh, isn’t it?”

In the future, Senator Benning should abide by the old political adage :No ivy crowns during photo-ops, but tanks for memories.