by Amy Ash Nixon vtdigger.org A House committee Friday voted down a controversial bill that sought to take away what was characterized by its lead sponsor, Rep. Kurt Wright, R-Burlington, as the “nuclear option” for teachers’ unions and school boards — strikes and contract imposition. The House General, Housing and Military Affairs Committee voted 5-3 against the bill, saying it either did not achieve a better outcome or that it wasn’t ready for passage in its current form.
The bill, H.76, was passed out of the House Education Committee recently on an 8-3 vote.
Rep. Kurt Wright, R-Burlington. Photo by Amy Ash Nixon/VTDigger
Damien Leonard, an attorney from the Legislative Council, walked the committee through the bill’s key changes Friday and fielded questions about how a 1-cent tax penalty would be applied in communities where teacher contract disputes go longer than a year, and more. The most significant pieces of the bill were the elimination of the teachers’ right to strike and the ability of school boards to impose a contract if the two sides reach an impasse.
The bill also would have seen teachers not receive retroactive pay increases and benefits past the one-year deadline, unless a provision was built into the contract otherwise, Leonard said.
Reps. Tom Stevens, D-Waterbury, and Helen Head, D-South Burlington, listen to testimony during a hearing of the House General, Housing and Military Affairs Committee. Photo by Amy Ash Nixon/VTDigger
“We felt that the suggestions that were made to us did not bring the parties to finality, and that was a big concern, said Rep. Helen Head, D-South Burlington. “I think the question for me now is do we still agree with that decision, or is there something about H.76 as passed by the education committee that leads people to think differently?”
Rep. Mary Morrissey, R-Bennington, said she stood behind the House Education Committee’s bipartisan vote to support H.76.
“I will be looking to support their proposal going forward,” Morrissey said. “Strikes in a community are a no-win situation; its not good for the students or teachers, it’s not good for the teachers, so if there’s a way we can find a better way, hopefully, of doing this, of getting the parties together, that’s where I’m at.”
The Vermont National Education Association was vehemently against the bill; while the Vermont School Boards Association supported the legislation in testimony before the House committees.
“We are pleased that the majority of the committee saw this bill for what it is: an anti-teacher, anti-labor measure that has no place in Vermont,” said Darren Allen, spokesman for the Vermont-NEA. “The committee had already taken days of testimony on the issue and concluded that Vermont’s teacher collective bargaining process works.”
Rep. Brian Savage, R-Swanton, said a minority report would be coming from the three members who supported the legislation, himself, Morrissey and Rep. Job Tate, R-Mendon.
Others were opposed to the penalty.
“Why punish the taxpayers for a breakdown in negotiations?” Rep. Tommy Walz, D-Barre, asked. “I really find it strange when we’re trying to reduce property taxes, why we’re throwing in something to punish the taxpayers for something they didn’t do. I’m totally opposed to it.”
Casting the final vote, Head said, “I think the lack of finality … the lack of true understanding around the effects on taxpayers is concerning, so I do not support the bill.”