I haven’t written about the Legislature’s newly reconstituted committees because there’s been a lot of other stuff going on. But there’s one committee that really caught my eye, and that’s the Senate Education Committee. Since education funding and structure are likely to be the dominant (and most contentious) issues in the new session, this panel will play a key role.

The Senate’s Committee on Committees chose to split the panel right down the middle — three Democrats and three Republicans. It’s pretty unusual. for the majority party to voluntarily relinquish its customary right to occupy most of the seats. Senate President Pro Tem Phil Baruth said the intention was to create a committee that would “put out bipartisan bills.”

Sounds noble. It also puts the Republicans on the spot. They can’t just sit back and vote “No” on Democratic proposals. If they don’t come to the table and negotiate, then nothing will get done.

Still, the Democrats are ceding power when they didn’t have to. Usually, a policy committee would craft bills favoring the majority’s agenda and then see the bills get watered down as they meander through the legislative process. In this case, the compromising will begin immediately. But that’s not what’s bothering me the most about the education panel.

No, what’s stuck in my mind is the new chair of Senate Education: Freshman Sen. Seth Bongartz of Bennington. It’s not just unusual for a newly-elected lawmaker to be given a chairship, especially in the seniority-conscious Senate; it might even be unprecedented.

Now, the Senate is moving people up the ranks at warp speed because there’s no other option. This year, 18 of the 30 Senators are either freshmen or sophomores. Some of ’em were bound to get influential positions. Two other Senate panels are being helmed by second-term senators who were promoted from vice chair: Nader Hashim of Judiciary and Anne Watson of Natural Resources and Energy.

But in the case of Education, the Committee on Committees bypassed a second-term senator and installed a newbie. In 2023-24, Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick was vice chair of Senate Education. But she didn’t get the top gig this year. Instead, she was moved out of Education entirely and onto Senate Finance. That’s not a bad consolation prize, and it’s possible that Gulick herself wanted the change. But I doubt it.

See, Gulick’s background is in public education. She’s been a schoolteacher and a school librarian, and is in her fourth term on the Burlington school board. It’s fair to infer that she has a high degree of personal interest in public education issues, and she definitely has a lot of relevant experience. If you’re the party of public education, why wouldn’t you want that person as your Education Committee chair?

Why would you get her out of the way in favor of a freshman senator with deep ties to Burr and Burton Academy, the deep-pocketed and well-connected private school — ooh, sorry, they don’t like that — “approved independent school”? Bongartz served for 19 years on the Burr and Burton board of trustees, stepping down in 2018 when he ran for a seat in the House.

Burr and Burton and its cohort are taking an ever-larger share of public education funds in Vermont, and they are grossly under-regulated. They spend big money on Statehouse lobbying to preserve their privilege. (In the 2023-24 biennium, Burr and Burton alone spent more than $100,000 on lobbyists.) Having a bespoke chair of Senate Education is just what they need.

And not what our actual public schools need, not in a year when Gov. Phil Scott is likely to put the screws to the system both financially and administratively.

Speaking of getting their money’s worth, I wonder what the teachers’ union thinks about this. Its political arm, the Vermont NEA Fund for Children and Public Education, regularly spends big in support of Democratic candidates like, for instance, erhm, Phil Baruth, who received a maximum donation of $1,680 for his re-election campaign last year. Not that I like it when quids and quos are tied together, but you might think the teachers could expect a bit more consideration from one of their chosen candidates.

Maybe Gulick was too toxic a figure after her close questioning of Zoie Saunders’ nomination as education secretary. Gulick and Hashim were the two “No” votes in the Education Committee on Saunders; then-committee chair Brian Campion was more than happy to join the panel’s two Republicans in approving her nomination. Gulick’s performance should have cemented her status as the next committee chair; perhaps it did the exact opposite. Baruth has declared his intention to compromise in this area. It might be inconvenient to have a public education firebrand in charge of the relevant policy committee.