Sometime in late August, very quietly, the Kurn Hattin Homes for Children released an astonishingly vague statement about allegations of child abuse within its walls. Repeatedly referring to itself in the third person, Kurn Hattin announced that some number of allegations about Kurn Hattin turned out to be true, while some other accusations about Kurn Hattin were not. Yep, that’s about it.
VTDigger reported the statement on September 8, but it was posted on Kurn Hattin’s website at least two weeks earlier without notice. I’m sure that Kurn Hattin would very much like us to accept this statement at face value and turn our attention elsewhere. Any elsewhere will do. HEY, LOOK! SQUIRREL!
But I’ll tell you, this had better not be the last word on the subject. Kurn Hattin needs to be held accountable. Department of Education? Agency of Human Services? Attorney General’s office? Legislature? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Well hey, here’s something. The U.S. Department of Education’s Civil Rights Office is investigating the Vermont Agency of Education for violating the rights of students by limiting school districts’ authority to enact public health measures during the Covid-19 epidemic and, in the Office’s words, “discriminating against students with disabilities” who were at heightened risk of serious illness.
Yes, that would be the Agency of Education then helmed by the mask-averse Dan French, labeled in this space as the Inspector Clouseau of the Scott administration. I’d suggest that the feds could have assembled quite the dossier simply by reading this blog, but doubtless their investigation has been more thorough than that. And to judge by the reaction of French’s successor Heather Bouchey, I’m guessing the feds have got the goods. In her reply to the feds’ probe, as reported by VTDigger, she didn’t claim there was no discrimination. She simply said the agency had no intention of discriminating.
“The AOE devoted significant effort throughout its COVID-19 pandemic response to ensure the equal educational access of students with disabilities including students with disabilities who are at an elevated risk of severe illness from COVID-19 exposure. If the AOE erred in its responses, guidance or otherwise, it is eager to address the error and make corrections for the benefit of students.”
That word “if” is the giveaway. Bouchey didn’t defend her agency’s performance; she tried to frame any offense as inadvertent, not intentional. And she laid out a glidepath to future surrender by saying the agency was “eager to address” any errors “and make corrections.” And don’t overlook her emphasis on “equal educational access” rather than, say, the health and safety of students. Gotta keep those disabled kids in class so they get “equal access,” you know.
But in case you needed any more evidence that the agency, under French, went too far in pressuring school districts to moderate their public health measures, let’s take a little walk down Memory Lane.
The event took place at the Elks Club, where a modest but impassioned crowd of 25 attended with several left-wing protestors outside.
“Modest but impassioned” is a well-meaning attempt at making lemonade out of some dried-up rinds.
Those words were typed by one Mike Bielawski, the QAnon-adjacent “reporter” who formerly plied his trade at True North Reports, and has now apparently sold at least one article to Guy Page at Vermont Daily Chronicle. He’d been dispatched to cover an all-day meeting, and I do mean “all-day,” designed to spread conspiracy theories among the True Believers of Vermont’s tiny contingent of ultraconservatives.
Yep, “tiny” sure does check out. “Impassioned crowd of 25” indeed.
In allowing a universal school meals bill to become law without his signature, Gov. Phil Scott adopted an interesting philosophical position. Take it away, VTDigger:
He noted that the program will fund free meals for even wealthy students.
“That’s not progressive education funding policy, it’s regressive policy that hurts the very families we are trying to help,” he said.
Oh yes, heaven forbid that an undeserving child should receive a free lunch. That would be an abuse of the public purse and — follow closely here, things get a little thick — a punishment on the kids who really need a handout.
As the kids used to say, “lolwut?”
This is another case where the governor can’t say the quiet part out loud — that he doesn’t want to provide free school meals despite their proven benefits — but he still has to register his disapproval, so he comes up with transparently phony arguments like “free lunches hurt poor kids” and “a veto fight would distract me from my neverending fight for better schools.” As if we can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.
I wouldn’t mind if he were in the least bit consistent in this position. But he’s not. In fact, this is the only issue where he argues that a non-means-tested government benefit is a bad thing.
So remember when Vermont State University rid itself of its inconvenient president and announced it was putting a hold on the plan to close the system’s libraries?
All good, then?
Uh…
Well, the library plan is on hold, but layoffs of library staff are still going ahead.
So reports Sophia Buckley-Clement of the Rutland Herald/Times Argus, who writes that the word came in a delightfully roundabout way: over the weekend from a lawyer for the university system following an inquiry from the Vermont State Employees Association. I guess a Friday newsdump was just too much exposure for them.
For those keeping score at home, VSU began by announcing library closures… then they said there would still be “libraries” but they’d be, in the words of the Monty Python cheese sketch, unencumbered by books… then they said there’d be quite a few books actually, chosen by a process that seemed awfully tedious and unworkable…. and then they gave Grewal the ziggy and said all decisions were on hold…
… and they are, except for the fate of the library staff.
A fond farewell to Parwinder Grewal, the president of Vermont State University who didn’t even make it to the first day of VSU’s existence.
Grewal has “resigned for personal reasons” without further explanation from himself or anyone affiliated with the nascent university. I can think of two ways this might have gone down, and neither is flattering to the VSU board.
First, Grewal realized he had an impossible job and decided to GTFO. He was tasked with merging three institutions into one while imposing severe spending cuts and somehow making the thing more attractive to students, but couldn’t count on the backing of the board or Vermont’s political class. In fact, he’s the guy who was encouraged to go out on a limb only to turn around and realize all his friends are wielding saws.
Second, the board got cold feet and fired the guy. That would be a spectacular display of gutlessness. It’ll be interesting to see what kind of severance package he’s getting, all at taxpayers’ expense of course.
Look, I was loudly and repeatedly not a fan of Grewal’s plan to close the system’s libraries. In addition to all its flaws, it seemed unlikely to save any money. But the board thought enough of him to hire him in the first place, and then they balked at the first sign of trouble. I wonder what kind of luck they’ll have in their search for a successor. If you were a potential candidate with the kind of administrative chops needed to guide VSU into a successful future, would you want to step into this political briar patch? I don’t think so.
I don;t make it a practice to write about conservative commentators very often because that way lies madness and far too many words about Rob Roper and John McClaughry. But once in a while, an entry in this sad parade is just impossible to resist.
You may recall Gregory Thayer, failed candidate for lieutenant governor, organizer of a series of “educational” events exposing the dangers of critical race theory, co-organizer of a bus trip to the January 6 insurrection, and founder of Vermonters for Vermont, a seemingly defunct organization devoted to dog-whistling all the livelong day. Well, in the wake of yet another school shooting, Mr. Thayer Has Some Thoughts.
His message is that the Legislature isn’t doing nearly enough to protect our schoolchildren. His nifty five-part solution, left over from his lite-gubernatorial campaign: Turn the schools into armed camps full of metal detectors, surveillance cameras, lockdowns, active shooter drills, and guns, guns, guns everywhere.
Oh, boy. Former governor Jim Douglas is at it again, enthusiastically destroying what’s left of his reputation as a Nice Guy and a moderate Republican. He’s had a bee in his bonnet since 2021 about Middlebury College’s decision to remove the name “Mead” from what is now known as the Middlebury Chapel, the most prominent building on campus.
Douglas started complaining about this as soon as the name was changed in September 2021. In May 2022, he proclaimed loudly — in an essay not published in the Addy Indy or Rutland Herald or VTDigger but in the New York Sun, a conservative outlet that’s been described as having “a modest online presence” largely featuring opinion pieces — that he would not attend his 50th class reunion, so upset was he at the deMeadification of the chapel. At the time I called bullshit because…
Douglas may have skipped his class reunion, but he gave no indication that he would give up the “Executive in Residence” title he’s enjoyed at Middlebury since 2011, or that he would cease his part-time teaching role.
He still hasn’t given up his honorary or teaching roles, nor has he otherwise absented himself from campus activities, but now he’s filed suit against his employer and alma mater over the unMeading. Given the fact that he’s doing his best to turn Middlebury into a right-wing punching bag for its alleged embrace of “cancel culture,” it might just be time for the college to initiate a full separation on its own.
Obligatory First Amendment debunking. If Douglas did get canned, Middlebury would not be guilty of violating his free speech rights or “canceling” him. Douglas has every right to speak his mind. He does not have the right to avoid the consequences of his speech. I say this as someone who was once fired for using the word “dick” on Twitter.
What is an institution to do when it makes a decision that kinda blows up in their face? Well, one option is to stick with the decision but modify it just enough to quiet the critics. Or to put it metaphorically, apply enough lipstick to a pig and make people stop noticing it’s a pig.
As it happens, two august Vermont organizations are currently engaged in the messy business of searching for the minimum acceptable capitulation. Vermont State University is trying to figure out how many books it will have to preserve, not because it wants the damn things, but because it desperately needs to quiet the howls of criticism; and the Green Mountain Care Board is looking for a way to give away $18 million while convincing us that they’re not giving away $18 million.
VSU’s nascent leadership continues to fumble its plan to close the campus library system… sorry, create something better than libraries… no wait, they’ll still be libraries but unencumbered by books… oops, now we’ve got a “refined plan” that will select the most academically important volumes while disposing of the rest. (You can tell they’re proud of their plan because they posted it online last Thursday with no formal announcement or public event of any sort.)
Gee, it’s almost as if the original plan was thrown together in haste with minimal forethought. Which inspires no confidence in the ability of this administration to lead a troubled system out of its current straits and into a better tomorrow. The future of VSU’s library system is way down on the list of critical issues to be addressed. If they can’t handle this without it blowing up in their faces, how will they address a massive structural deficit when they’ve already squandered their credibility dicking around with the library plan?
And all the while, they insist they’ll implement this vaguely defined thing by the end of June, come Hell or high water.
We could view homelessness as a moral failure… or a failure of capitalism… or a failure of individuals to live productive lives… or a problem in need of resources we can’t afford to commit…
Or… just spitballin’ here… a waste of potential and precious human capital.
For this discussion, we’re leaving out the moral and ethical dimensions of the issue. We’re not declaring an obligation to protect our most vulnerable. We’re putting on our green eyeshades and considering homelessness from a purely bottom-line point of view.
To hear the Scott administration tell it, extending the emergency motel voucher program is kind of like taking a pile of money and setting it on fire. It produces a bit of transient warmth, but it’s otherwise a waste of resources. Legislative Democrats and even some housing advocates often fall for this: They tacitly accept the premise instead of making the economic case for (a) giving everyone a roof to sleep under in the short term and (b) ending homelessness in the longer term.
When you look at it that way, you find that we can’t afford not to end homelessness. There is abundant evidence that addressing homelessness is an economic winner — not just in the long term, but almost immediately. So let’s stop talking about whether we can afford $72 million for another year of motel vouchers or $31 million for a stripped-down version of the program or a few hundred million to provide enough housing for all. Instead, let’s talk about the economic positives of a humane policy choice.
(I don’t pretend that any of this is my idea, but it ought to be more of a factor in our policy debates.)
The Vermont Political Observer. 