Priorities vs Power: Vermont’s Struggle to Balance Economics and Education

In his recent op-ed featured in the Manchester Journal, "Rhetoric vs Responsibility,” Mike Rice gave his rationale for voting to override the Governor's Veto on H.877, which raised property taxes by nearly 14% across the state. He indicated a strong preference for “a more collaborative process” in Montpelier, and reported that he, along with other representatives, have received divisive and even threatening responses after this legislative session.

I would like to go on record to unequivocally denounce any and all disrespectful, hateful, or violent language toward my opponent, or any of our representatives in Montpelier. The unfortunate dynamics of national politics have seemingly crept into our local legislative environment, which is very troubling. Having lived my entire life in this area, Vermonters have always been able to maintain and enjoy a strong but courteous civic culture. Our tradition of civility, common sense, and collaboration has created an atmosphere of decency and respect across the political aisle at the highest levels of government. It’s in that spirit I would like to address the property tax and educational funding differences that Mike and I have as we enter the general election campaign.

My opponent and I both agree that a high quality, equitable education for all our kids is extremely important. Where we differ, is our priorities and our experience. 

At a time when we are feeling the effects of high inflation, and watch as our neighbors struggle to afford the 20% increase in their grocery and fuel bills, the legislature chose to add to the education budget creating a new, expensive public commission (study). What’s hard for most people to stomach, is that this is the 39th such educational study in the last 27 years. It will take up to two years to complete with no certainty that it will transform the ways we pay for education. To me, these actions have had unintended consequences, eroding public trust, and have contributed to the overall sense that the current legislative supermajority – put plainly – is out of touch with working Vermonters.

Governor Scott recognizes, I believe correctly, that given the current inflation rates and heavy tax burdens, that it would be far better to soften the blow for taxpayers by spreading the educational cost increase over a period of 5 years – rather than all at once. While this is the more tempered approach, and Democrats could say it’s just “kicking the can down the road,” it’s the difficult, but manageable solution to a hard problem. Sometimes, you have to slow things down a bit, not speed up when trying to turn a sharp corner with a large vehicle.

It’s also worth mentioning that in 2024, according to census.gov, Vermont ranked 3rd highest in the nation for educational spending at $24,608 per pupil per year. US News & World Report published that the quality of our K-12 education ranked 11th – this is impressive given the size of our state and tax base. However, our costs are quite high compared to, for example, the state of Virginia, which ranks 9th in terms of quality of education yet only spends $15,059 per pupil. Clearly, there must be areas of opportunity for savings in our education budget that we need to potentially explore.

Rice also misleadingly asserted in his oped that we have “local control” over our individual school district budgets, and that “voters are responsible for approving them. Only then does it get sent to the legislature.” However, at Tuesday's Taconic & Green School Board meeting, his colleague, Kathleen James (D) from Manchester disagreed with him entirely when she explained to the Board that “the guise of local control” in school budgets “is accurate.” So which is it?

I was on the Dorset School board in 1997 when Vermont passed Act 60. I saw first-hand the centralizing of school funding away from local boards to Montpelier. While I completely support the effort to make Vermont education fairer and more equitable, I also recognize that as of 2024, Montpelier wields more control over school funding than it ever has had in history. To publicly say that we have “local control,” conveniently excuses legislators from their responsibility in the affordability crisis we now face. 

I would argue, it was a conscious choice to vote ‘Yes’ on a budget that disproportionately affects Vermonters living paycheck to paycheck. Just as it was also a choice to increase DMV fees by 20%, or to establish a new statewide payroll tax (the first in the country), or the new transfer tax increase when you go to sell your home. The constituents in our district have a choice this November as well.

Having served my community for over 30 years, I believe that experience and the ability to listen and understand your constituents are the key pieces missing in our current legislature. While Rice's commitment to education is commendable, his current policy proposals and decisions risk alienating exactly those he intended to help. As a community, together, we must demand more balanced solutions that will ensure an equitable, quality education without compromising the financial security of Vermont families who foot the bill.

Compromise is not a dirty word, it’s good politics. It simply means, as Mick Jagger put it, “You can’t always get what you want.”