Submitted by tim
on
by Representative Heidi E Scheuermann (R-Stowe) As we near the end of the 2019 Legislative Session, it is a good time to take stock of some of what we have done thus far. First, I am exceptionally disappointed in the decision by Judge Mello to dismiss all of the Stowe/Elmore-Morristown School Districts claims in our appeal of the State Board of Education decision to merge our two districts.
Act 46 is bad public policy, and legislation I fought fiercely against at the time. But, it passed only because the legislature included the option of "Alternative Structures," the legislative intent of which was to ensure school districts were able to determine what structure would be the best means of achieving the goals of Act 46. Indeed, there was a "Preferred Structure" outlined in the law, but it was not the only option to achieve the goals of Act 46. The State, in its arguments against our appeal, claimed that this was not the intent, and Judge Mello bought it.
While it is not clear what the next steps will be for our local school boards, it is clear that a one-year extension of the forced merger to July 1, 2020 is now a necessity if we want to do it right, and do it well.
To be clear, the Senate conferees, led by Senator Phil Baruth (D-Chittenden), have been working diligently and negotiating in good faith. In fact, they have come to the table repeatedly with fair compromises in an effort to get the legislation across the finish line. Unfortunately, that has not been the case with the House conferees. A display of their views came at their last meeting, when the lead House negotiator indicated his support for a bill that would include a few other items regarding Act 46, but would not include the opportunity for a forced merger extension. That is simply unacceptable, and is the definition of negotiating in bad faith.
Understandably, the Senate conferees are exasperated and have had enough. So this morning, they discharged their Senate conferees on H.39 to appoint new conferees in the hopes that the House will take this opportunity to appoint new conferees as well, and new negotiations can begin.
In the meantime, the Senate continues to display its commitment to passage of the bill by including the H. 39 language in another education bill that will be sent to the House for our consideration soon.
At this point, I thank the Senate for its work, and will continue my fight for this extension and remain hopeful.
|
Broadband Deployment
The bill passed the House with overwhelming support and is now in the Senate Finance Committee.
As I wrote about in an earlier email, far too often,
unrealistic promises to achieve 100% coverage within a certain number of years have been made by state leaders, yet no realistic plan has been put forward to do so. For that reason, our committee tried to tackle this in a realistic and responsible way.
1) How do we support our companies and assets currently in place doing the work and providing these services to Vermont families and businesses? How do we ensure they can continue to expand and upgrade their services throughout Vermont?
2) Might there be an opportunity - where other options are not readily available, for example - for our electric companies to offer services?
3) How can we support municipalities and regional entities in their quest to ensure service? Can we develop a kind of tool box for these rural municipalities and regional entities to explore and understand their options? Can we provide funding opportunities to them to deploy service?
I look forward to this legislation progressing quickly through the Senate and being signed into law shortly thereafter. |
|
Minimum Wage
This year's effort to increase the minimum wage to $15.00 continues in earnest. It is clearly one of the highest priorities of the legislative leadership, though it continues to face opposition form Governor Phil Scott.
As you are undoubtedly aware, this has been a recurring debate in the Vermont Legislature for the past few years. So, I have expressed my concerns about the legislation time and again.
To be clear, I certainly understand the challenges our working Vermonters face in terms of earnings, and want to do all I can to ensure our economy grows so that more, and better paying jobs in the private sector are created. In my view, however, this is not the way to grow an economy.
Specifically, I have concerns about both our tourism and hospitality industry and our state's small retailers.
While this is not a topic many of our friends and neighbors who are small business owners like to talk about in public forums, I can assure you that they have significant concerns about the impact this proposal will have on the future of their businesses, and their employees.
In some cases, there will be a reduction in force, reduced hours and reduced benefits. In others, automation will undoubtedly be brought in. And, in several cases, doors will close.
Keep in mind, in the tourism industry we are competing in an ever-increasingly global market. We cannot lose sight of the importance of staying economically competitive in that market. Artificially increasing wages is a good way to lose the competitive edge.
On the retail front, our small retailers are already struggling to stay competitive with online retailers. And, on this side of the Connecticut River, our border with New Hampshire, it is even more difficult. Not only are products and services less expensive there because of the lack of any sales tax, but imagine what will happen if we almost double the minimum wage of New Hampshire.
Finally, it has become abundantly clear that this increase will hit the state coffers hard as well. After all, many Vermonters who are paid by Medicaid funded services provided to our elderly and low-income Vermonters will receive these mandatory increases. So ultimately, the choice for us will be to either increase costs or decrease the services.
For that reason S. 23 has been sent to the House Appropriations Committee for its review and determination.
|
|
Tourism Funding
The bill would take a percentage of the revenues generated from tourism (rooms and meals tax) and direct that percentage into promoting and marketing Vermont as a tourist destination.
While our goal is to pass H. 298 next year, it would be an incredible boost to the effort if the bill were voted out of this committee favorably this year. It will certainly be a challenge to do so over the next three weeks, but it is certainly one I am willing and excited to take on.
|