Thankfully, the tide appears to be ebbing on the Great Statehouse Trans PANIC! of 2025. It’s been days since the Vermont Daily Chronicle could gin up any fresh angles on the ridiculous story. Which, as a reminder, featured a group of Christian conservatives whining — inaccurately — that their free speech rights had been trampled by a handful of trans folk dancing around a Statehouse meeting room. As we previously noted, there is no First Amendment right to deliver speech in a given location or on a given medium.
But before we consign this fiasco to the dustbin of history, we should take note of two particularly ridiculous attempts to exploit this mildest of contretemps. First, a tiny extremist “parental rights” group unwittingly exposing the absurdity of its own claims. And second, the head of the Vermont Republican Party claiming that state lawmakers have a solemn duty to maintain a perfect attendance record.
This will involve a bit of exposure to the rantings of SPEAKVT, a group of far-right rabble-rousers in the Essex-Westford school district. The group’s president Marie Tiemann put out a statement about the March 12 “detransitioning” event sponsored by SPEAKVT and the Vermont Family Alliance. Funny thing, her statement is kind of a self-own.
Gov. Phil Scott has dug in his heels on the General Assistance emergency housing program, and it’s not a pretty sight. He used his Wednesday news conference to decry the Legislature’s failure to “come to the table,” but the real meaning of that phrase, in his mind, is that they failed to do precisely what he wanted them to do.
I’m sorry, but that’s not coming to the table. That’s jumping up and down on the table and holding your breath until you turn blue.
Look. First, the Legislature adopted a Budget Adjustment Act that included at least 90% of the governor’s proposal plus a few additional items that were almost entirely offset by savings in the Treasurer’s budget. Scott vetoed the bill. The Legislature then passed a new BAA that stripped away almost all their adds on one condition, and only one: That Scott agree to extend winter eligibility rules for the voucher program from April 1 to June 30. By the Legislature’s revised reckoning, the Department of Children and Families already has enough money to make that happen.
“Governor Nice Guy” is having a bit of a tantrum. The cause: legislative Democrats are making him look bad, and he doesn’t like it.
At issue, naturally, is the General Assistance Emergency Housing program, familiarly known as the motel voucher program. The Legislature passed a Budget Adjustment Act that would have extended winter eligibility rules through the end of June, thus preventing a mass unsheltering when the winter rules expire on April 1. Scott vetoed it, largely because he cannot stand the voucher program and would do absolutely anything to kill it once and for all. Except, you know, proposing an alternative.
Or, as House Appropriations Committee chair Rep. Robin Scheu put it, “We have been asking the Governor for four years to develop a plan to transition away from the hotel/motel program and create a long-term solution to homelessness. For four years we have received nothing from the governor or his administration.”
Anyway. Legislative leadership then made a counter-offer: They’re willing to drop virtually all of their (relatively minimal) spending adds from the BAA if the winter eligibility rules are extended. They say the Department of Children and Families already has enough funds to make that happen.
And ‘Governor Nice Guy” has shown them the back of his hand. Nope, not gonna do it.
The contest for “Stupidest Veto in the History of Phil Scott Vetoes” is a richly competitive one, with numerous contenders for the honors among the [checks notes] 52 vetoes he has unleashed upon Vermont’s normally placid and communitarian political life*. But the next one he threatens to cast may prove to be the winner.
*Obligatory reminder: Scott has racked up 52 vetoes, more than twice as many as any other governor. He long ago surpassed Howard Dean’s second-place total of 21, and Dean served three and a half years longer than Scott. “Governor Nice Guy” indeed.
Scott is now promising to vetoH.141, the Budget Adjustment Act, because the Democratic Legislature dared to spend a little more money on sheltering the homeless than he wanted to.
Honestly, why he has such a bug up his butt about the motel voucher program, I don’t know. He’s bound and determined to kill it, willing to go to almost any length to do so. Any length short of, you know, proposing an alternative, which he has never managed to do. Well, there’s permitting reform, which would likely increase the overall housing supply years from now.
It’s almost as big a bug as the one lodged in his rectum over universal school meals. Limiting free meals to schoolkids is, after all, his one and only concrete suggestion for cutting the cost of public education. “Governor Nice Guy” indeed.
Many, many, many words were spoken in Tuesday’s confirmation hearing for Education Secretary Zoie Saunders before the Senate Education Committee, most of them by Saunders herself. And then, after nearly two hours of jibber-jabber, her nomination was approved on a 5-1 vote, with Senate Majority Leader Kesha Ram Hinsdale on the short end of the ledger.
The full Senate will have the final say (its vote is scheduled for Thursday), but we all know where this is going. Saunders will be confirmed less than a year after the 2024 Senate rejected her on a lopsided 19-9 margin. Immediately following that vote, Gov. Phil Scott effectively overrode the Senate’s power to advise and consent by installing Saunders as interim secretary. And once the Legislature was safely adjourned for the year, Scott named her permanent secretary. That move was challenged, fruitlessly, in the courts, so she continued to serve. And she will continue into the indefinite future.
I can’t really blame the Education Committee for voting yes. It was a profoundly weird situation, having to confirm a nominee who’s already been in office for almost a full year without major missteps or scandals, at least none that we know about. It’s too long a time to suddenly decide she should be here at all, and too short a time for a true accounting of her tenure. (Nor was there any chance to hear from other witnesses who might have offered alternative views of Saunders’ effectiveness.) In a lengthy opening statement larded with the arcane language of bureaucracy, Saunders ticked off a laundry list of initiatives, every one of which was a work in progress with few if any measurables on offer.
Neither is there any evidence, in this very limited hearing, to kick her out. Ram Hinsdale’s vote was more a token protest than anything; it was clear from the opening stages of the hearing that a majority of the committee would approve Saunders. The only other possible holdout, Sen. Nader Hashim, made it clear in his first statement that he would be voting yes “unless something totally bonkers happens in the next 45 minutes.” Committee chair Sen. Seth Bongartz, the third Democrat on the six-member panel, said almost nothing until the very end of the proceedings, and then he opined that “The governor has the right to appoint the people he wants… unless something egregious emerges.” The fix was in, and had been from the moment the Senate’s Committee on Committees created an Education Committee evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, and brushed aside last session’s vice chair, Sen. Martine Laroque Gulick, in favor of the obviously pliant Bongartz.
The House Education Committee has set aside a fair bit of time this week for discussion of H.454, which sets out Gov. Phil Scott’s education reform plan in a brisk 194 pages. It is to be hoped that the committee’s deliberations will be centered first and foremost on what’s best for Vermont’s public school system. Because nobody else seems to be doing so.
Take the governor, for instance. (Please, says Henny.) He pays lip service to improving education, but his focus is clearly on cost containment. Radically centralizing the system is no guarantee of better quality. (It’s no guarantee of savings, either; the move to statewide negotiation of health insurance for public school personnel hasn’t prevented its cost from skyrocketing.) Doing away with local school districts in favor of five massive regional districts is clearly aimed at cutting administrative costs. And don’t get me started on the provision of H.454 setting minimum class sizes at 15 for grades K-4 and 25 for grades 5-12.
Those are minimums, mind you. What would the average class sizes be? 20 in the lower grades, or 25? 30 in the upper? 35? Cautious administrators will want a margin of error above the state-mandated minimums. And what happens when a school dips below the minimum? Does it close down? Put some crash test dummies in desks and hope no one notices?
Frankly, I wonder why any Republican who represents a rural district — which is the vast majority of Republican lawmakers — could support this plan as written. The class size provision alone would trigger a massive wave of consolidation that would hit rural Vermont especially hard. (Maybe that’s why H.454 has a mere five sponsors while H.16, the Republican bill to repeal the Affordable Heat Act, has 55 and H.62, to repeal the Global Warming Solutions Act, has 29. There hasn’t exactly been a stampede among legislative Republicans to sign on to the governor’s plan.)
When you’re proud of an idea, when you really think you’re onto something good, you showcase it to the world. You present it openly, in a way that maximizes its chances of coming to fruition.
On the other hand…
There are times when you roll out an idea like it’s a flaming bag of poop. You leave it on the doorstep and head for the hills.
Which brings us to Administration Secretary Sarah Clark’s latest proposal for addressing Vermont’s crisis of unsheltered homelessness — a crisis that’s largely the result of deliberate policy choices by the Scott administration and the Legislature.
This here administration has been desperately trying to kill the GA Emergency Housing program, a.k.a. motel vouchers, for years now. But it has never, ever proposed anything like a real alternative. Instead, it has put forward some notions that have managed to be totally inadequate and financially wasteful at the same time. The policy equivalents of flaming bags of poop, they are.
Its latest bag was delivered on Friday, because of course it was. Friday is newsdump day, don’t you know.
Gotta start using air quotes around that appellation for our chief executive, because he seems to be going out of his way to antagonize the Legislature and prepare the fields for another bushel of his administration’s chief cash crop, gubernatorial vetoes. It’s funny, after all that talk about coming to the table and working across the aisle, he’s back in his comfort zone: confrontational mode.
You know, if Phil Scott was a politician — which he continually insists he is not — I’d say he had absorbed the lessons of the 2024 election and decided the path to victory was in demonizing his opponents. It’s smart politics. But it’s anything but nice.
Exhibit A: VTDigger reports that the Scott administration has finally, belatedly, delivered its full public education reform plan in actual legislative language.
On February 25. Almost two months into a five-month session. Three days before the Legislature adjourns for Town Meeting Week. Little more than three weeks before crossover, when any policy bill must have been passed by one chamber if it’s to have any real chance of passing the other this year. It’s just not possible for lawmakers to give due consideration to such a massive reorganization in such a short window of time.
You’d probably have to be pretty deep in the weeds of Vermont politics, or perhaps a resident of Manchester, to recognize the name “Jim Ramsey.” (Pictured above with a slightly better known figure.) He’s only been involved in #vtpoli for a few years, but he’s been on a sharp upward trajectory that culminated on Saturday with his election as the new chair of the Vermont Democratic Party, replacing the prematurely departed David Glidden.
Well, technically Ramsey is the interim chair, filling out the remaining months of Glidden’s two-year term between now and November, when Ramsey will doubtless be elected permanent chair.
Members of the party’s state committee held a special meeting via Zoom on Saturday morning to choose Glidden’s replacement. Two people were nominated: Ramsey and former state senator Andy Julow, who was a late entry in the race.
If you needed any evidence that Ramsey had the inside track, you got it from VDP state committee member Susan Borden. In formally nominating Ramsey, she noted that he’d been endorsed by Treasurer Mike Pieciak, Attorney General Charity Clark, and Secretary of State Sarah Copeland Hanzas. The vote wasn’t close; Ramsey took 38 of the 45 votes cast. Julow received the other seven. In pre-vote remarks to the committee, Julow more or less acknowledged his longshot status. But even so, it’s telling that a former officeholder from the most populous region of Vermont finished a poor second to a guy from Bennington County who’d only been active in state party politics for about five years. It seemed clear that Ramsey was the choice all along.
And having heard his pitch to party leaders and learned a bit more about him, I can understand why.
The folksy Son of the Soil pictured above is Sam Douglass, senator-elect from the Orleans district. Or, as I find myself thinking of him, Senator Scofflaw. Because while he claims to be a “fierce advocate,” he was shockingly blasé about his legal obligations to report campaign finances accurately and promptly. Makes you wonder about his fierceness, not to mention his devotion to fiscal responsibility.
Because his campaign finance filings are the opposite of “responsibility,” and include numerous violations of state law. Fortunately for him, the penalties are laughably small and rarely enforced. Otherwise he’d be in a heap of trouble. As it is, maybe some Concerned Citizen will see fit to file a complaint with the Attorney General’s Office, for all the good that will do.
Let’s start with the fact that Douglass has yet to file his Final Report, which was due on December 15. And there’s a real need for a final accounting, because his most recent report leaves many questions unanswered.
His post-election filing, submitted on November 19, shows a serious imbalance between income and outgo — and not in the way you’d expect. The Douglass campaign has reported raising nearly $41,000 and spending only $27,460. Did he really leave one-third of his bankroll on the table in a race against Democratic Rep. Katherine Sims, who raised more than $76,000? Or has he failed to fully report his expenditures?
Vermont’s campaign finance law and the Secretary of State’s reporting system can be a challenge, but when you run for public office you are obliged to follow the rules. Besides, Senator Douglass is going to be responsible for writing the laws. Shouldn’t he be capable of obeying them?
The Vermont Political Observer. 