I was pleased to read that Democratic Speaker Shap Smith is supporting a bill  designed to give the private public a greater voice before the public service board.

Heretofore, small advocacy groups who wished to have a place at the table, but did not have the personal resources of their corporate challengers, had to rely on the pockets of organizations like AARP to represent them, en masse.

In an era when the individual’s opportunity to gain relevance in the process has grown steadily smaller, while the corporate megaphone has grown exponentially louder, we can only hope that this signals a change in direction that will not be effectively negated by the increased opportunity to stuff candidate’s pockets with “wish money.”  Sometimes, the schizophrenia of our Legislature really gives one pause!

Over the past decade or two, one of the most popular campaign platforms of the Republicans, has been a promise to “reform” the permit process, which we came to understand means limiting the opportunity for those annoying citizens to participate and potentially throw a monkey wrench in the well-greased wheels along the fast track to commercial development.  Even our Democratic governor appears to have fallen under the spell of the Republican argument; because, as the mantra goes, only continual “growth” is good.  

Nevermind the restraining concept of sustainability; it’s become the fashion to pay it lip-service while rationalizing policy that is anything-but.

Citizen participation that slows the process may be annoying to the big players, but it is, after all, one of the main reasons why Vermont did not suffer as greatly in the recent real estate bubble collapse as did other states.

Please give us more of the same, Mr. Speaker.  

Since my last post had the unfortunate side-effect of giving my colleague Sue Prent a sad, here’s a little something to bring cheer to the heart of any St. Albans Democrat.

Ah, here comes our old frenemy Dustin “Dustbin” Degree, former Jim Douglas fartcatcher and one-term Republican State Representative, to enlighten us all on the status of Vermont politics by way of a commentary posted on VTDigger. Hint: Everything is terrible, and it’s all the Democrats’ fault.

This week, the Legislature sits and as it has since 2009, the Democratic supermajority will once again control every single aspect of the legislative process.

Hey, Dustbin: ya don’t like it, WIN SOME ELECTIONS.

…the supermajority will impose its will on Vermonters with little desire for compromise or acknowledgment of those who, often vehemently, disagree.

Yes, the legislative supermajority elected by a supermajority of voters will conduct its business without compromising with a party that’s fallen into a black hole of political irrelevance due to its own disorganization and rabid conservatism.

Damn voters, anyway. Ingrates! They reject the wisdom of Our Greatest Living Citizen:

For eight years, the Douglas administration warned of the consequences of rising taxes, increased spending and burdensome developmental permitting.

And after eight years, the voters were fed up with the Douglas administration’s constant hectoring and lack of new ideas or coherent policy.  

Doomster Dustbin goes on to cite carefully selected employment numbers purporting to show how our state is going straight to hell in a Democratic handbasket. He then concludes that “the Democrats’ experiment in single party rule has failed,” which makes it sound like the Dems seized power in a coup rather than prevailing in a series of free and fair elections. In part because of their appeal to voters, and in part because of the Republicans’ lack of appeal.

I realize you’re too young to remember it, Dustbin, but about the time you were pooping your Pampers (b. 1985 per Wikipedia), Vermont was a solidly Republican state. Maybe instead of castigating the Democrats for daring to beat your party, you should look in the mirror and ask, “How did we manage to blow it so badly? And what can we do to reconnect with the voters?”

In the absence of such an honest reappraisal of, by, I can understand why you so energetically present this disaster-porn of a prediction — why you seem so eager for economic catastrophe. Your only hope for regaining power is for Vermont to go so far off the rails that your self-marginalized party will start to look like a reasonable option.

Finally, a couple more howlers from Dustbin’s conclusion:

We must demand that the allegiance of our senators and representatives lies with the people, and not the praise or preference of party leadership.

Uh, er, are you talking about “the people” who knowingly and enthusiastically elected all those damn Democrats? I guess in your fantasy world, those elections somehow didn’t count (ACORN?), and our elected representatives are somehow out of touch with the very people who’ve repeatedly endorsed their policies through multiple election cycles.

And we must restore the sacred concepts of cooperation and compromise to our legislative process.

In other words, the Democrats should voluntarily relinquish their freely-won political mandate; instead, they should water down their policies to mollify the 30-35% conservative dead-enders.

Just like the Republicans have done in places where they have the majority, eh, Dustbin? Florida, Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio? Would you hold up Paul LePage or Rick Perry or Jan Brewer as models of “cooperation and compromise”?

I guess you’d reject the words of George W. Bush after his extremely narrow (and disputed) 2004 victory, when he said “I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.”

Well, Mr. Bush had earned a mere fraction of the political capital accumulated by the Vermont Democratic Party. Can you blame the Dems if they want to spend a little of it?

Well, a reasonable person couldn’t. But Dustin Degree can.  

(​originally included within a blog post on the subject matter posted to Vermont Watch, here; as well as since cross-posted to iBrattleboro, here)

For the sake of full disclosure: Morgan W. Brown is a newly appointed member of the Vermont Council on Homelessness, however the opinions expressed within this particular commentary are solely his own and represent none other.

What people living in poverty truly need most is real political power.

​This means, as well as begins with, being allowed to speak for and represent themselves as well as have ample opportunities afforded in order to meaningfully participate in any policy making and other decisions made about them at various levels, whether political or otherwise, and, either as individuals or as a group.

What people living in poverty do not need any more of is having others speak and making decisions for them, most especially not those who have their own or an organization’s agenda and interests at stake.

Regrettably, Governor Peter Shumlin’s newly established “Pathways Out of Poverty” initiative falls seriously short of what is in fact required and, additionally, has all the appearances of merely being a new version of the same old thing and not much else.

This is yet another well-meaning initiative and council that, as usual, has more to do with funding programs as well as aiding certain political agendas and interests than it has to do with helping people most in need.

Rather than being “pathways out of poverty” as is purported, this will likely only lead to additional dead ends and could be just another setup for failure, ironically, of which the person living in poverty will typically be found to blame.

Unless and until people living in poverty have a real and meaningful say about any and all policy as well as programs intended to help them out of poverty, nothing will ever truly change, no matter how much funding is found and dedicated to the effort.

Only real political power in the hands of people living in poverty will ever make a difference and create lasting change.

Anything else is a poor substitute. Nothing else should be acceptable. Those in power and authority should know better. As those of my peers within the disAbility community are fond of saying: Nothing about us, without us!

Morgan W. Brown

Montpelier

Sunday, January 5, 2014

For the sake of full disclosure: Morgan W. Brown is a newly appointed member of the Vermont Council on Homelessness, however the opinions expressed within the above commentary are solely his own and represent none other.

Well, I don’t know if that’s what they’ll call it — probably not — but Our Governor is the clear and obvious winner in a backdoor maneuver to fast-track a new campaign finance bill. And I mean extremely fast track.

I know, the Legislature isn’t even in session yet. But, per Paul “The Huntsman” Heintz, the fix is in.

One of the Vermont legislature’s first acts upon reconvening this week may be to vastly increase the amount of money in state politics.

After failing to reach compromise last spring over competing campaign finance bills, House and Senate negotiators narrowed their differences during the legislative off-season and are scheduled to sign off on a final bill Tuesday morning. Both houses could pass the new version by the end of the week and send it to Gov. Peter Shumlin.

The campaign finance reform issue was an embarrassing flameout in 2013. It began with broad tripartisan support, and ended with the State Senate going into a Four Corners offense and running out the clock with nothing accomplished.

And, during the long recess, it appears as though the Long Knives came out and gutted the legislation of anything meaningful whatsoever.

At present, candidates for statewide office can raise $2000 per two-year election cycle from any individual or corporation. That would double to $4000 if the current draft is passed.

Political action committees that donate directly to candidates would be able to raise up to $4000 from any individual or corporation, up from $2000. And political parties would be able to raise $10,000 from such entities, also up from $2000.

… The new $10,000 party limit is actually far higher than either of the two versions passed last spring by the House and Senate. The House had proposed limiting contributions to parties to $5000, while the Senate had proposed $3000.

The spending limits wouldn’t do much for the vast majority of candidates. But it should vastly increase the size of gubernatorial war-chests. Well, one war-chest in particular, since Peter Shumlin is the only guy who’s been maxing out a whole lot of donors. (Incuding quite a few Republicans, as Heintz has previously reported.)  

This bill would make it even harder for anyone — Republican, Progressive, Independent, Lismaniac — to mount an effective challenge to Shumlin, who goes into this campaign with something like a million bucks in the bank.

Of course, that advantage depends on Shumlin’s — or successor Democrats’ — ability to appeal to Vermont’s monied class. Which tilts the balance toward “moderate” stances on, oh, stuff like tax reform. If that seems like a stretch, recall the words of Barre’s Republican Mayor, Thom Lauzon, who maxed-out his (current) donation limit at a November fundraiser for Shumlin:

“It was all Republicans!” jokes Lauzon, who says he and his wife, Karen, donated $2000. “Certainly with Republicans, one of our issues is we don’t want to see broad-based taxes increased. The governor’s probably led that charge as well as any other governor has.”

OTOH, the (so far hypothetical) person who’d lose the most under the new campaign finance scheme is Your Next Progressive Candidate for Governor, who’d have an even harder time competing with a well-funded Democrat (or Republican, if or when the VTGOP regains its bearings).

So, there you have it: the Peter Shumlin Bailout (and Screw The Progs) Act of 2014.  

Shap is sheepish about legalization. Two years ago at Town Meeting about this and he said (paraphrasing): “We’ll set up a panel to study decriminalization for a year, and look at their findings in the session after that.”

Well, Shap, you are now two years behind the curve.  Two states have legalized it, several other have demcrimmed.  Please, Shap, come join us in the 21st Century and legalize MJ this term!

Vermont’s number 2 cash crop – or is it #1 now? – is MJ, and the state is getting none of that action.  And the state is LOSING money by persecuting MJ users & growers.

Colorado made $1M on it’s first day of legal pot!  Why, oh why, doesn’t Shap want in on that action?

You may have noticed the little Internet kerfuffle over last Friday's column by David Brooks. Brooks is the resident conservative at the New York Times, and at the Times, and on Fridays on NPR and McNeill-Lehrer he uses his amiable, slightly self-deprecating shtick to advance his slightly out of the mainstream conservative views.

 Friday he was on marijuana legalization, and in an eminently mockable column he expressed his opposition to legalization, anchoring his opposition to legalization to a youthful experience in which:

 I smoked one day during lunch and then had to give a presentation in English class. I stumbled through it, incapable of putting together simple phrases, feeling like a total loser. It is still one of those embarrassing memories that pop up unbidden at 4 in the morning.

I'm not sure why the lesson of this experience is “never smoke pot ever again” instead of “never get high before you have to give an important presentation”, but I'm not David Brooks.

As I said, the column unleashed a stream of mockery on the Internet, the Twitterverse, and elsewhere, but that's not what I'm here to talk about.

The substantive key to his argument, though, is this:

 I’d say that in healthy societies government wants to subtly tip the scale to favor temperate, prudent, self-governing citizenship. In those societies, government subtly encourages the highest pleasures, like enjoying the arts or being in nature, and discourages lesser pleasures, like being stoned.

 It is this point, though, that makes the argument for continued prohibition not only incoherent but even inconsistent with conservative ideology.

Let's take a look at how Brooks's argument fits in with conservative ideology. If you've been paying attention at all in recent years you've seen that one of the greatest evils that the conservatives have been trying to protect us all against has been the National Endowment for the Arts. That was exactly what Brooks thinks we want: the government “subtly encourag[ing] the highest pleasures, like enjoying the arts . . .”

That's also the agency that conservatives use to stir up their base, threatening to defund the endowment in the guise of fiscal responsibility. If they ever succeed maybe it will enable the Pentagon buy more paper clips or something. 

More importantly, though, think about the scale of things that the government can do to influence behavior. On one end of the scale we have almost entirely voluntary efforts, like Michelle Obama's efforts to encourage people to eat well and exercise. * You know, the stuff that conservatives call fascism. All those PSA's you see on TV about wearing your seat belt, not drinking and driving, or not discriminating against people? All ways for the government to subtly encourage people to behave responsibly.

From there we go to financial incentives, like tax-exempt status for educational and cultural organizations: if your local orchestra doesn't need to pay taxes on their they can charge lower prices, and then maybe more people can afford to go to classical music concerts, and rich people can get tax breaks by giving them contributions. Those grants from the National Endowment for the Arts fit in here.

Then if you want to go all the way to the most coercive, most violent method of influencing behavior, we have the criminal justice system. See someone doing something we don't like, throw them in jail. That's the approach we've been following with marijuana for decades, and we've figured out that it doesn't work that well at “discouraging lesser behaviors like being stoned”. Hell, it didn't even work for David Brooks when he was in high school, and I'm guessing he wasn't much of a wild rebel when he was growing up. (Okay, that's going out on a limb, so feel free to prove me wrong.)

So that's what Brooks wants to do: he wants to keep throwing people in jail for marijuana use, even though it doesn't work, apparently because it is government's subtle way of tipping the scales in favor of temperate, prudent behavior and subtly encouraging the higher pleasures.

But there's one more thing that David Brooks left out of his column: his experience of being arrested and going to jail for smoking pot. I'm pretty sure he left it out because it never happened to him. I have a very hard time thinking of a single one of my white friends that it ever happened to, either.

But it's a funny thing: it does happen to black people. Black people use marijuana at about the same rate as white people, and yet they are arrested for it at a tremendously higher rate. Depending on where you are, if you're black you may be three, four, five, or even eight times more likely to be arrested for marijuana use than if you're white.

So of course David Brooks didn't get arrested, and he really didn't have much to worry about. Some people do get arrested, though, and the odds are that those people are not white.

So when he tells us that we should keep marijuana illegal, what David Brooks is saying is that continuing to arrest black people for marijuana use is one of those ways that the government can subtly tip the scales to discourage white people from getting stoned.

Personally, I don't think the goal of keeping future David Brookses from smoking pot and blowing an English report is worth the price of locking up black people.

But maybe that's just me. 

 *CORRECTION: A reader has pointed out that in addition to the voluntary exercise and healthy eating programs promoted by Michelle Obama, legislation adopted in 2010 and regulations adopted in 2012have made mandatory changes to the school lunch program, including fruit, vegetable, whole grain, and other nutritional standards.

They say politics makes for strange bedfellows; and that is no more so than right here in Vermont where conservatives are fading like fireflies,  and the lion’s share of power and influence is carried in Democratic

hands.

All of which makes our particular brand of Republican-lite occasionally champion issues more usually associated with progressive thinkers.  When that happens, once in a blue moon, it behooves us to seize the opportunity to stand on common ground.

So it is with Bruce Lisman of the Campaign for Vermont, who is finally getting down to some respectable brass tacks.  After a couple of years of expounding vaguely about how Vermont policymakers should do “better,” in language straight out of the Republican playbook, Mr. Lisman is actually proposing some pretty radical stuff.

He wants Vermont lawmakers to adopt sweeping transparency rules in the interests of ending cronyism, nepotism and all manner of conflicts of interest.

And I say, “Why not?”

Obviously, Mr. Lisman proposes this from the conservative minority position, in the hope of reducing the huge advantage that Democratic policy enjoys in the state; but no matter what motivates the effort, its time has come.

Mr. Lisman points to the terrible marks Vermont gets for transparency, relative to the rest of the country; and he is absolutely right that we can improve that situation dramatically with a few simple rules.  

He does, however, focus primarily on statewide transparency issues, making it appear to be more of a Democratic failing.  In reality, the failure peculiar to Vermont has its roots in the intimacy of local politics, which generally falls outside traditional parameters of “Democrats” and “Republicans”  even when those labels are nominally applied.

As I have said on many occasions, that intimacy is both the strength of Vermont’s democracy and its greatest challenge.  The clannish nature of local influence blocks frequently obscures the process and discourages challenges of any sort.  Casual conflicts of interest are so common in many towns as to go completely unremarked.

But before a bright light can be shone on the manner in which conflicts of interest control the local process, it is first necessary that strict transparency rules be adopted at the state level, as a model of good behavior.

Mr. Lisman may have finally found a way to be relevant in Vermont; and, while I rather doubt that we will agree on much in the future, on the need to address conflicts of interest in the political process we seem to be of one mind.

Well, seeing’s how my most recent GMD diary touched off something of a shitstorm (durr hurr hurr), I’d like to present a few more thoughts.

Regarding the unfortunate acronym, POOP (Governor’s Council on Pathways Out of Poverty): my criticism of that is purely on political/PR grounds. It’s just plain stupid to craft an acronym with unintended connotations. It is, as they say in soccer, an own goal. The Council isn’t done any favors when it’s given a name straight out of Beavis and Butthead.  

I’ve also raised an objection to the underlying idea behind the name. It borrows from conservative rhetoric: that the purpose of social-service programs is to eradicate poverty. That’s part of it, to be sure; but some people will never escape the need for assistance. This is especially true in a society where the deck is stacked against the poor and working poor — and even the middle class are walking a tightrope above the chasm.

As for the work of the committee itself: Some very good things may come out of the simple fact of putting this group of people together on a regular basis. They may well spot systematic problems — the forest beyond their individual trees — that can’t be seen from any single perspective. But if their charge is limited to the social-services system, their ability to create anything as grand as “pathways out of poverty” will be limited as well. Social services fights against very strong currents of wealth and income inequality, the decimation of the middle class, many years of wage stagnation for the working poor, and tax policies that too often favor the rich.

That’s a lot to overcome. A close consideration of social-service flaws is useful, but it fails to address most of the equation.

I don’t know for a fact that the Council’s charge is limited to social services, but its membership points in that direction. I’d be happier if the Council included some progressive voices on broader policy questions. To pick a name out of my frontal lobe, how about Paul Cillo or Jack Hoffman of the Public Assets Institute?

As for the new antipoverty measures unveiled by Governor Shumlin this week: Chris Curtis is encouraged. I, the snarky blogger, am cynical. Based on past experience.  

The Governor’s January “priorities” have died a quick death before. In January 2013 there was a lot of lip service to, among other things, energy efficiency, social services, and early education. But during the actual legislative session, some items just didn’t seem to get a lot of push, and others failed when the Legislature balked at Shumlin’s preferred funding mechanism.

And the Governor has yet to say where he’d find the money for this week’s initiatives. Based on past experience, it wouldn’t surprise me if he dumped the whole thing in Doug Racine’s lap (“Here, Doug, cut something else to pay for these things”) or identified a funding source that’s unworkable (the ill-fated break-open tickets tax) or unpalatable (the ill-advised proposal to slash the Earned Income Tax Credit) or both.

One more thought from the blogger’s cynical brain. This wouldn’t be the first time Shumlin used a bunch of good people as a backdrop for a feel-good announcement that never went anywhere. I don’t blame any of the participants in this week’s event; if the Governor asked me to be part of his backdrop, I’d say yes. And I’d feel a little dirty afterwards.

So this week’s announcement was a good first step, but there’s a long way to go. And past experience doesn’t fill me with confidence.

And the Council, unfortunate name and all, is full of fine people — some of the state’s best and most dedicated. Indeed, maybe a measure of hope is the difference between them and me: They go out and fight the good fight, while cynical me sits in my metaphorical Mom’s Basement and writes commentaries.

I hope they prove me wrong. But for now, I remain skeptical.  

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

Gov. Shumlin recently announced a new poverty reduction initiative. The total new state funding comes to about $2.5 million for homeless shelters, longer term affordable housing solutions, child care subsidies and case management/counseling services for low-income families. Together with federal matching money the total of new spending on anti-poverty programs tops $4 million.

This is a pretty big deal. I cannot recall a time in my almost ten years at Vermont Legal Aid where an initiative like this has been announced before the sitting Governor’s budget address. Having these commitments from the Governor secured in advance starts the conversation with lawmakers about priorities in an entirely different place. It signals an early commitment to anti-poverty programs that work. And, the establishment of a new poverty council signals a new commitment to communication and collaboration with low-income service providers and anti-poverty advocates. That is a welcome development from years past and prior administrations.

It’s also worth noting that many of the initiatives outlined by the Governor were recommendations made to him by an ad hoc coalition of low-income advocates who worked for months on a wide ranging report he requested in advance. Some of the recommendations are also echoed in a months long review of the Reach Up program required by the legislature (in which I also participated).

And, hopefully there will be more to come. Vermont Legal Aid’s poverty law project has created a legislative agenda focused on “Housing, Hunger, and Hard Work”. Many of the “housing” priorities are included in the Governor’s initiative (for example, doubling the Vermont Rental Subsidy program). But we hope lawmakers will respond to other issues we and others are raising as well. For example, holding low-income families harmless from food stamp overpayments that resulted from the state’s errors, not because of any fault of the families. And, making work pay for families on Reach Up by eliminating outdated asset tests and increasing earned income disregards so that work is rewarded, not punished. It would be great incentive if families knew they could keep every dime they earn for a period of time before grant reductions kick in instead of immediately losing support simply because they went to work. Other states are implementing these ideas. Vermont should, too.

The Council members (listed below) represent a wide variety of service providers and advocates well known for vigorous and able representation on behalf of their constituents. The new plan isn’t perfect, but it’s a far cry from no investment at all, or starting the year fighting new cuts to essential programs and services.

Certainly, the budget has yet to be announced and given the early reports of a $70 million deficit there are likely to be budget cuts forthcoming. It remains to be seen how savings will be acheived by the Administration. Certainly where proposed cuts might adversely affect the poorest Vermonters low-income advocates will once again speak out. That’s our job. On the other hand, today we have good news to cheer from the Administration in the form of significant new money for several programs and services many of us have recommended.

Taken together with the Administration’s willingness to listen to advocates over the summer before implementing emergency rules that would have overly restricted access to Vermont’s General Assistance program (which has resulted in the Administration going back to the legislature for more funds for emergency shelter – something the Council members support) these commitments represent real progress for the low-income Vermonters. It’s a good start.

I know I speak for the Council when I say we hope Vermonters will join us in supporting the Governor’s poverty reduction plan – and other initiatives designed to alleviate the symptoms and causes of poverty in Vermont. It’s a worthy effort.

***

Governor’s Council on Pathways Out of Poverty

(alphabetical)

Co-Chairs:

Christopher Curtis, Vermont Legal Aid

Linda Ryan, Samaritan House

Members:

Cary Brown, Vermont Commission on Women

Joshua Davis, Morningside Shelter

Erik Hoekstra, Redstone Commercial Group

Sara Kobylenski, Upper Valley Haven

Karen Lafayette, Vermont Low Income Advocacy Council (VLIAC)

Jan Demers, Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity (CVOEO)

Erhard Mahnke, Vermont Affordable Housing Coalition (VAHC)

Rita Markley, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)

Michael Monte, Champlain Housing Trust

Melinda Moulton

Marissa Parisi, Hunger Free Vermont

Joe Patrissi, Northeast Kingdom Community Action (NEKCA)

Elizabeth Ready, John Graham Shelter

Mark Redmond, Spectrum Youth Services

Sheila Reed, Voices for Vermont’s Children

Auburn Waterson, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence

Richard Williams, Vermont State Housing Authority (VSHA)

Council currently made up of 19 members (30 member maximum).

Gov. Shumlin recently announced a new poverty reduction initiative. The total new state funding comes to about $2.5 million for homeless shelters, longer term affordable housing solutions, child care subsidies and case management/counseling services for low-income families. Together with federal matching money the total of new spending on anti-poverty programs tops $4 million.

This is a pretty big deal. I cannot recall a time in my almost ten years at Vermont Legal Aid where an initiative like this has been announced before the sitting Governor’s budget address. Having these commitments from the Governor secured in advance starts the conversation with lawmakers about priorities in an entirely different place. It signals an early commitment to anti-poverty programs that work. And, the establishment of a new poverty council signals a new commitment to communication and collaboration with low-income service providers and anti-poverty advocates. That is a welcome development from years past and prior administrations.

It’s also worth noting that many of the initiatives outlined by the Governor were recommendations made to him by an ad hoc coalition of low-income advocates who worked for months on a wide ranging report he requested in advance. Some of the recommendations are also echoed in a months long review of the Reach Up program required by the legislature (in which I also participated).

And, hopefully there will be more to come. Vermont Legal Aid’s poverty law project is focused on a legislative agenda we’re calling “Housing, Hunger, and Hard Work”. Many of the “housing” priorities are included in the Governor’s initiative (for example, doubling the Vermont Rental Subsidy program). But we hope lawmakers will respond to other issues we and many others are raising as well. For example, holding low-income families harmless from food stamp overpayments that resulted from the state’s errors, not because of any fault of the families. And, making work pay for families on Reach Up by eliminating outdated asset tests and increasing earned income disregards so that work is rewarded, not punished. It would be great incentive if families knew they could keep every dime they earn for a period of time before grant reductions kick in instead of immediately losing support simply because they went to work. Other states are implementing these ideas. Vermont should, too.

The Council members (listed below) represent a wide variety of service providers and advocates well known for vigorous and able representation on behalf of their constituents. The new plan isn’t perfect, but it’s a far cry from no investment at all, or starting the year fighting new cuts to essential programs and services.

Certainly, the budget has yet to be announced and given the early reports of a $70 million deficit there are likely to be budget cuts forthcoming. It remains to be seen how savings will be acheived by the Administration. Certainly where proposed cuts might adversely affect the poorest Vermonters low-income advocates will once again speak out. That’s our job. On the other hand, today we have good news to cheer from the Administration in the form of significant new money for several programs and services many of us have recommended.

Taken together with the Administration’s willingness to listen to advocates over the summer before implementing emergency rules that would have overly restricted access to Vermont’s General Assistance program (which has resulted in the Administration going back to the legislature for more funds for emergency shelter – something the Council members support) these commitments represent real progress for the low-income Vermonters. It’s a good start.

I know I speak for the Council when I say we hope Vermonters will join us in supporting the Governor’s poverty reduction plan – and other initiatives designed to alleviate the symptoms and causes of poverty in Vermont. It’s a worthy effort.

***

Governor’s Council on Pathways Out of Poverty

(alphabetical)

Co-Chairs:

Christopher Curtis, Vermont Legal Aid

Linda Ryan, Samaritan House

Members:

Cary Brown, Vermont Commission on Women

Joshua Davis, Morningside Shelter

Erik Hoekstra, Redstone Commercial Group

Sara Kobylenski, Upper Valley Haven

Karen Lafayette, Vermont Low Income Advocacy Council (VLIAC)

Jan Demers, Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity (CVOEO)

Erhard Mahnke, Vermont Affordable Housing Coalition (VAHC)

Rita Markley, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)

Michael Monte, Champlain Housing Trust

Melinda Moulton

Marissa Parisi, Hunger Free Vermont

Joe Patrissi, Northeast Kingdom Community Action (NEKCA)

Elizabeth Ready, John Graham Shelter

Mark Redmond, Spectrum Youth Services

Sheila Reed, Voices for Vermont’s Children

Auburn Waterson, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence

Richard Williams, Vermont State Housing Authority (VSHA)

Council currently made up of 19 members (30 member maximum).