Tag Archives: Ann Cummings

Does Phil Baruth Survive This? (Updated With Additional Bullshit)

3 Replies

A couple of notes before we begin. First, the person most responsible for our education-reform brinkmanship is Gov. Phil Scott, who has insisted on creating a crisis atmosphere when what we really have is a situation that requires a carefully considered response. I don’t want this narrowly-conceived blogpost to divert attention from that fact.

Second, I like Phil Baruth, the Senate President Pro Tem. I really do.

However… I’ve been Observing Vermont Politics for 12-plus years, and I have never seen a blunder by a legislative leader as consequential as Baruth’s handling of education reform. We have yet to see how this issue will be resolved, but the question here is: Will this mark the end of his Senate leadership?

The thing that might save him, seriously, is the lack of alternatives in this most junior-ish of senior chambers. Well, that and Senate Democrats’ distaste for intra-caucus defenestrations. But it says here that while Baruth might remain Pro Tem for the rest of the biennium, I wonder if he’ll be leading the Senate beyond that.

Continue reading →

Senate Leadership Cooked the Books on Education Reform

5 Replies

You know what’s a really great indicator of success? When a legislative body takes on a vital issue, and comes up with a “solution” that everybody seems to hate.

Well, that’s exactly what we’ve got with the state Senate’s education reform plan, which was approved last week by the Senate Finance Committee. Better still: the people who hate it the most are in the Democratic majority. Seriously, the only Senators who have anything good to say about this thing are Republicans.

And their words constitute the very definition of “damning with faint praise.”

Take, for instance, Sen. Randy Brock: “everybody… is coming away somewhat or entirely disappointed,” but “doing nothing is even a worse option.” Senate Majority Leader Scott Beck favors the bill, but warns that it could bring substantial tax increases to economically disadvantaged communities. Great!

Democrats, meanwhile, could barely conceal their contempt. “This bill will be devastating to our education system,” said Sen. Ruth Hardy. “I’m extremely uncomfortable with all of this,” said Sen. Martine Laroque Gulick, about whom more later. Senate Finance Committee chair Sen. Anne Cummings, who held her nose and voted yes, “can’t remember ever feeling as bad about a vote as I do on this one,” and she’s been in office since 1997, so she’s taken a few votes. Sen. Thomas Chittenden, who voted for the bill in committee, said he might well vote “No” on the Senate floor.

To judge by the published comments, it’s quite possible that when this bill gets to the full Senate, it will get more votes among minority Republicans than majority Democrats. Which is a remarkable development for one of the most significant bills of the entire session.

Continue reading →

Well, At Least It Wasn’t the Most Violent Thing to Ever Happen in a Senate Chamber

8 Replies

Wow. Not only did the state Senate reject Zoie Saunders’ nomination as education secretary, it did so on a lopsided 19-9 vote. That’s a damning indictment of how out of touch Gov. Phil Scott was in choosing her. I mean, it’s still unclear whether a Vermont Senate has ever rejected a cabinet appointee, much less by a better than two-to-one margin.

And of course the governor immediately appointed Saunders as interim secretary, effectively flipping the bird at the Senate. This won’t do anything to improve his turbulent relationship with the Legislature, but I doubt he really cares about that. If anything, this might presage a flurry of vengeful vetoes that would vault Scott’s all-time record into permanently unbreakable Cy Young territory. Hooray for Governor Nice Guy!

And, well, if condolences are ever in order for someone who just “won,” it’s for Zoie Saunders. She takes on a daunting challenge with an understaffed Education Agency and with the entire educational establishment wishing she would just go away and with two-thirds of the Senate rejecting her. I am convinced she was not the best choice for the job, but man, she’s sitting at the poker table with a deuce-seven off suit. Brutal.

Continue reading →

Time for Another Great Idea to Be Quietly Smothered

7 Replies

It’s a good thing that Vermont’s left-leaning advocacy organizations are so inured to disappointment, because it’s about to happen again.

On Thursday, a coalition of groups announced they are banding together to promote a surtax on the wealthiest Vermonters. The Public Assets Institute estimates that a 3% surcharge on incomes over $500,000 would raise about $100 million to help meet Vermont’s needs, a substantial boost to the bottom line at a moment when we need serious public investment across a number of fronts.

Nice thought, but it ain’t gonna happen.

Gov. Phil Scott is against it. The Democratic Legislature has a long and storied history of aversion to broad-based tax increases for one or more of the following reasons: They’re afraid of being labeled as tax-and-spenders, which is a laugh because Republicans beat that drum constantly anyway; the fat cats who’d usually support Republicans are open to the Democrats because the VTGOP is so batshit; and/or their bloated caucuses include a substantial number of centrists who wouldn’t back a wealth tax.

This proposal might get a polite hearing in 2024, but that’s about all.

Continue reading →

In Which Our Betters Finally Realize We Have a Housing Crisis On Our Hands

1 Reply

Note: This is a sequel to my previous post, reflecting the newly-released September figures for the motel voucher program and the official reaction to it all.

Some people could have predicted this as far back as January if not farther. But the Scott administration and the Legislature insisted throughout the winter and spring that everything would be just fine if we ended the emergency housing motel voucher program on schedule at the end of June.

They were wrong, of course, and they had to cobble together a last-minute extension that minimized the scale of the own-goal disaster. Those who were dumped from the program before June 30 were excluded, and new restrictions were imposed on the remaining clientele that seemed designed to encourage slash bully slash force them to leave the motels as quickly as possible.

Well, during today’s meeting of the Joint Legislative Fiscal Committee, it became clear that administration and Legislature alike now know they have a real, sizeable, thorny problem on their hands, and that many a vulnerable Vermonter has paid a stiff price for their earlier choices. Shocker, I know.

Continue reading →

Vermont Democrats Spend a Pleasant Tuesday Slappin’ Around the Most Popular Governor in the Country

Leave a reply

Well, that didn’t take long. The Legislature had scheduled a three-day session to try to override the eight vetoes delivered this year by Gov. Phil Scott. Turns out they only needed one single day.

In that day, the Legislature overrode five of Scott’s vetoes and deferred action on the others. They failed exactly zero times. They didn’t come close to failing. Five overrides in one day sets an all-time record and, as Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman pointed out in a post-session press release, “In Vermont’s history, there had only been 14 veto overrides. With these five overrides, the legislature has increased that number by more than 33%.”

All in a day’s work. Facing down the most popular governor in America.

Oh, and there was also the indignity of attaching metaphorical training wheels to Scott’s administrative bicycle. In the bill to extend the motel voucher program for some recipients, the Legislature imposed strict reporting requirements on Team Scott, as if lawmakers didn’t trust the admin’s ability or inclination to do its frickin’ job.

I mean, all they had to judge by was two years of administration failure on that front. No wonder they’re demanding receipts this time.

Continue reading →

The Cognitive Dissonance is Getting Thick Around Here

4 Replies

There’s a boatload of infuriating details in a story by VTDigger’s Lola Duffort about the ending of the motel voucher program. One of them stood out for me, not because it’s the most telling or most impactful, but because it’s so painfully ironic.

The story opens with Rebecca Duprey, a voucher client who’s struggled to regain her footing after years of evading a violently abusive ex-husband. Her motel stay has given her half a chance, but now she’s facing a return to living in her car with her two sons.

Duprey’s case strikes at the heart of the lobotomy-style disconnect between state policymaking and, well, basic humanity. As it happens, she’s had years-long relationships with two prominent lawmakers — Rep. Anne Donahue and Sen. Anne Cummings. Each has offered assistance to Duprey, and yet each has voted in favor of an FY2024 budget that will force her back on the streets.

That’s all bad enough, but here’s the topper.

When the two lawmakers learned that Duprey was back in Washington County and spending cold nights in her car, they did not reach out to administration officials or state workers, but instead to Brenda Siegel, an advocate and former gubernatorial candidate, who took over Duprey’s casework and found her the room she currently lives in.

That would be the same Brenda Siegel who’s been treated so shabbily by lawmakers personally inconvenienced by her advocacy. She has, in fact, become the face of the housing advocacy community because, due to her lopsided defeat in last November’s gubernatorial election, she’s an easy political figure to dismiss. Which makes the issue easier to dismiss.

And these two prominent lawmakers turned to Siegel to help when they didn’t think anyone else would. Hmm.

Continue reading →

How Not to Hold a Legislative Hearing

2 Replies

Hey, remember when I wondered where all the other witnesses were? The ones who should be testifying on behalf of all the groups and institutions sure to be affected by the scheduled end of the emergency motel voucher program?

Turns out it’s just as well they didn’t show up, because the hearing was way too short even for the witnesses who did appear. The whole thing was kind of embarrassing, in fact. (It doesn’t help when lawmakers like Sen. Ann Cummings seem to be ostentatiously not paying attention, but it’s hard to resist the siren song of personal electronics.)

Wednesday morning, two Senate committees — Economic Development and Health & Welfare — held a joint hearing on emergency housing and, just as a bonus, the lack of housing and support services specifically for people with disabilities.

Either issue warranted a good bit of time. Instead, both were crammed into a single hour. Seven witnesses were on the schedule which [whips out abacus] means each of them were allotted less than ten minutes to make their case and answer questions.

Before I go on, lI should say that in the long run, this hearing will be a footnote. What matters are the discussions and negotiations around the FY2024 budget, and whether provision will be made for adequate housing and shelter for the 1,800 households who face eviction when the motel program is allowed to expire.

Continue reading →

Wet Arse, No Fish

3 Replies

It’s not exactly a surprise that legislative leaders have given up on passing a mask mandate bill, but the timing is curious indeed. Last Friday, we appeared to be one single grumpy senator away from committee approval. Now, less than a week later, the white flag is waving.

On Friday (per VTDigger’s excellent Final Reading), Ginny Lyons, chair of the Senate Welfare Committee, asked her members if they were ready to vote on the bill. Sen. Ann Cummings replied that she wasn’t. Which is pretty odd, considering that a mask mandate has been a hot issue in #vtpoli for months now. Had she given it no thought until that moment?

Lyons asked if the committee could vote on Monday, usually an off day. The not-terribly-energetic Cummings responded, “What’s the matter with Tuesday?”

The bill was on the committee’s agenda first thing Tuesday morning. But at that point, Lyons announced an indefinite delay. “Leadership continues to discuss the path forward for that bill,” she said. “It was scheduled for this morning, but we’re going to postpone our work and hopefully it’ll only be until tomorrow morning.”

“Hopefully.”

But the state Senate is where hope goes to die.

Continue reading →

Wanted: A Few New State Senators. Or a Lot.

Leave a reply
Well, I guess there’s at least one group with a worse seniority problem.

The Vermont Senate, as has been noted in this space, is a temple of tenure. It’s almost impossible to defeat a sitting senator; the only time we get a new one is when someone voluntarily retires. That rarely happens and, as a result, the Senate just keeps getting older and older.

How old? Average age of the 30 senators is 63.4 years. There are only five senators under age 50; there are 14 over 70, and 11 who are 75 and older. There are two others in their late 60s, which means we have a Senate majority past retirement age.

And the oldest wield the most power. The average age of the 11 policy committee chairs is 72.1. Brian Campion is the only policy chair under 64. Yep, that chamber loves it some seniority.

This has some unfortunate effects. First, there’s often an airless quality to the Senate’s work. It is an entity apart from the real world — or even those rambunctious young’uns in the House. (Senators often treat the House with open contempt.) Second, senators are often out of touch when discussing issues of concern to young people like digital technology, child care, substance use, rental housing, and workforce development. Third, well, it’s really hard to get the Senate to take a fresh look at anything or contemplate a change in How We’ve Always Done It.

Sure, tenure has its benefits. They know their way around the building, and that’s nothing to sneeze at. Some, including Dick Sears, Bobby Starr, and Jane Kitchel, bring decades of experience and deep knowledge of their policy beats.

But in any organization, you want a mix of young and old, new and tenured. The Senate is terribly skewed toward age and seniority. It’s long past time for some serious turnover. Will 2022 be the year we get it? I sure hope so.

After the jump: Naming some names.

Continue reading →