A bill gained traction this week in the House Government Operations Committee that would be a step backwards from a statewide comprehensive ethics framework. The bill, H.1, proposes to exempt the House and Senate Ethics Panels from the requirement to consult with the State Ethics Commission regarding any complaints referred to them by the Commission.

There was an attempt to fast-track the bill for a vote yesterday but fortunately we and other stakeholders stepped in to ask legislators to reconsider. The main argument for the bill relates to separation of powers - nothing new, as this argument has been at play since we introduced the first ethics bill in 2015. The reality is that current law does NOT provide full oversight, just a requirement to consult with the ethics commission; even that is too much for proponents of the bill.

The separation of powers argument is a red herring. Forty-three other states have found a way to give their ethics commissions full enforcement powers despite similar separation of powers constraints. Why? Because separation of powers constraints are meant to prevent one branch of government from exerting undue influence over another. Ethics Commissions are independent and do not answer to one branch of state government. Vermont's is no different; we intentionally designed it this way to maintain independence and credibility.

In reality, we should be moving towards a system that offers MORE oversight and accountability; this bill moves us in the opposite direction. Read our full analysis here.

Education Spending

The House Education Committee turned their attention to class sizes this week -- something we have been pointing to for quite some time. As our recent report indicated, managing class sizes and administrative overhead are the largest opportunities for cost-savings in our education system.

Administration officials also rolled out their "state guarantee" concept, which is meant to equalize funding for districts that choose to spend beyond the foundation formula provided by the state. The foundation formula is designed to cover the basic educational needs of all students, but districts can opt to raise additional funds for discretionary spending. The state guarantee would provide matching funds to districts with lower property tax bases, ensuring they have the same capacity to raise funds as wealthier districts. The match rate would be based on the average daily membership and projected grand list values of each of the five proposed districts.

Finally, a working group report from last week regarding school construction found that the average age of Vermont School Buildings is 61 years. Vermont had previously run a statewide school construction aid program that would fund up to 30% of construction costs. This program was discontinued in 2007 as the spending pressure from Act 60 began to put pressure on the availability of state dollars. Local school districts largely followed suit as increases in property tax rates made passing construction bonds more difficult, particularly in the absence of state dollars. Essentially, it was easier to defer maintenance and capital expenditures than curb spending in other areas (personnel). This has led to a crisis of sorts, as many school buildings are now at risk of failing.

Housing

The Vermont Housing and Conservation Board asked this week for an additional $16 million in state funding for their budget. Their current budget allocation is $21 million with a projected need of $37 million for anticipated project applications. These funds would cover activities such as preserving affordable properties (they pointed to 200 apartments currently up for sale), infrastructure investments for manufactured home communities, the farm worker housing program, and recovery residences. This request is on the heals of the revelation last week that "affordable" housing projects are costing over $500 per square foot for construction.

Administration officials pitched the downtown development tax credit programs as another way to increase investments in housing. One of the examples given was a $2.1M tax credit that leveraged $8.2M in private investment to yield 15 units of housing and a community space. Broken down on a per-unit basis, that is roughly $687k per unit. Perhaps that is development that would not have occurred otherwise, but the cost still seems too high to meet our affordable housing needs.

Health Care

There are a number of ideas floating around under the golden dome regarding how to deal with health care. One proposal is referenced-based pricing, which other states have implemented. Another is examining Medicaid payment rates for specific types of preventative care like home and community-based services. Yet another increases the threshold for Certificates of Need, which are meant to provide oversight of hospital investments. Other states have increased the dollar threshold for these because they increase the cost of service expansion for providers; the Green Mountain Care Board is advocating for this approach.

On behalf of Vermonters,