Scheuermann: Start paying attention

by Representative Heidi Scheuermann (R-Stowe) With two weeks left in the 2017 Legislative Session, it is time for Vermonters to really start paying attention. After all, this is the time that just about anything can happen. The most recent dust up came late last week when the Vermont NEA, the statewide teacher's union, blasted Governor Phil Scott for working with the Vermont School Boards Association and the Vermont Superintendents Association to develop and propose a new Statewide Health Benefit for teachers and school employees that will provide $26 million in savings to Vermonters.

The proposal would create a new Vermont Education Health Initiative (VEHI) plan for school employees that would cost substantially less than the current plans, while ensuring that all teachers and school employees would not pay more. In the end, the proposal would save Vermonters $26 million to invest in other priorities.

At present, most school employee labor contracts are open and health care plans are changing because of the Affordable Care Act, so this is a once in a generation opportunity of which to take advantage.

To be clear, this is a Win-Win-Win proposal.

1. It's a Win for Vermont Taxpayers

   1. This plan would capture $26 million in annual savings without requiring school employees to pay more. These savings can be invested into other priorities like property tax relief; pre-K and higher education; tourism and marketing; other economic development initiatives; and more.

2. It's a Win for our Local School Boards

   1. The plan simplifies the bargaining process for Boards with school employees. This will free up time and energy to focus further on other education priorities;

   2. School Boards would continue to bargain other benefits, like salaries and days off;

   3. The plan ensures parity in health care costs for school districts throughout the state.

3. It's a Win for Teachers and School Employees

   1. Employees will be held harmless and will not pay more under the new VEHI plans;

   2. It maintains collective bargaining rights )though it does change the dynamic) and school employees right to strike locally, AND it creates a new statewide strike option that doesn't currently exist;

   3. It achieves some cost containment in K-12 education.

While the timing of the Governor's education savings proposals in his budget was problematic, he has been talking about these possible VEHI savings for some time now. Given the support for the proposal from the Vermont School Boards Association and the Vermont Superintendents Association, I am hopeful that the Legislature sees the wisdom in enacting this statewide health benefit plan at this time as well.

Act 46 Update
S. 122, an act relating to increased flexibility for school district mergers, will be up for action on the House floor this week.

Here is S. 122 as passed the Senate

Here are the amendments being offered in the House (starts on page 1161 of today's House Calendar).

Given the challenges that many Vermont school districts are having under the school district consolidation law known as Act 46, this bill was developed with the purpose of providing a bit more flexibility under the law. It essentially provides a few more tools for school districts to use to be able to comply with the law.
As part of this process, the non-partisan Act 46 Alternative Structures Working Group of which I am a part, put together a proposal for consideration by the House Education Committee that would be helpful to those districts like Stowe seeking an Alternative Structure under Act 46.
I am pleased to report that we were successful in adding three provisions to the bill, and I am hopeful for passage in the House this week.

1) The combined average daily membership for all member districts would be reduced from 1,100 to 900;
2) Under the Self-Evaluation section of Act 46, the November 30, 2017 deadline for submission of the Alternative Structure Application would be replaced with either six months after the date the Proposed Rule 3400 take effect, or January 31, 2018 - whichever is earlier.
3) A new provision will be added that makes it clear that the "State Board may adopt rules designed to assist districts in submitting alternative structure proposals, but shall not by rule or otherwise impose more stringent requirements than those in this act."

While our Alternative Structures Working Group would have preferred to see H. 15 progress this year, it was clear that that legislation did not have the support necessary to do so.But, S. 122 will certainly help in any case.

Meanwhile, at its meeting last week, the State Board of Education adopted Rule Series 3400 regarding the creation of Alternative Structures. The Rule Series now goes to the Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules for its review and approval.

Pregnancy Accommodations
While I was unable to support H. 136, the Pregnancy Accommodations bill as it emerged from my committee and the House, I am pleased to report that the Senate completely rewrote the bill to allay my concerns, and the concerns of others, so I will be supporting it when it comes up for action this week.
I voted against this legislation earlier for a very simple reason - it was an extremely poorly crafted bill.

The intent of the bill was admirable: to ensure that employers provide reasonable accommodations to an employee with a condition related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition if needed.

My years of working for Senator Jim Jeffords on education and disability policy taught me a great deal about "reasonable accommodations." The purpose of existing state and federal laws requiring reasonable accommodationsis to remove barriers for individuals with disabilities. This is so that a disabled individual can work - can perform the essential functions of a job and, therefore, enjoy equal opportunities for employment.

H. 136, as it passed the House, would have greatly expanded these provisions in law. It would have essentially given pregnant women greater protections than any other employees, including individuals with disabilities.

Under current employment law, reasonable accommodations must be provided to a qualified employee with a disability if it will enable that employee to perform the essential functions of the job. H. 136, as it passed the House, didn't require the reasonable accommodations in order for the employee to perform the essential functions of the job. In fact, it might have even required a wholesale change in the job altogether.

Even more, the bill as it passed the House, would have required employers of all sizes to provide, potentially, unlimited/indefinite amounts of leave to employees for any condition related to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.

To be clear, I absolutely support the ability of pregnant employees to continue working. But, the House version of this bill essentially established a whole new class of worker - a pregnant woman - and would have provided rights to pregnant women above those for any other employee, including individuals with disabilities.

As the bill was being developed, and even after it passed the House, I expressed these very concerns. I even met with the Assistant Attorney General to share them, and ask that their office help to redraft the legislation to ensure it does not have any of these unintended consequences.

Once again, I am pleased to report that, in fact, with the help of the Attorney General's office, the Senate realized the failures with the House version of the bill and wrote a completely new version of it. That new version allayed my concerns, and I am happy that I am now able to support it.

Liquor-Lottery Merger Update