Editor’s note: This op-ed is by John Zenie, a member of the Colchester School Board and Vermont State Representative.
It has been over three months since I announced that I would not be seeking a third term as a state representative and a month has passed since I was appointed to the Colchester School Board and I am still having people ask why I switched. The most common comment I get is about how “You are going from the frying pan into the fire.” I see it as going from one community job to another community job with each having their pluses and minuses and that it is the right move for me now.
Working at the Statehouse I found that the other legislative members are filled with great ideas and a strong desire to do good work for the people of Vermont. Where I had difficulty was that some of the members cared more about how to get re-elected then about how to make Vermont a better place to live. This guiding principle on getting re-elected translates to policy making where the emphasis is more on emotional and non-strategic issues rather than pragmatic and visionary policy making.
A couple of examples of this are (a) the recent changes in tax law regulations and (b) the way in which budget problems are handled. The first example had to do with capital gains taxes and estate taxes that were changed in 2009 and then changed back again at the last minute of the 2010 session. A great deal of time and resources were applied in 2009 to make the change and then it was quickly reversed in 2010. Consistency in any policy decision is a fundamental requirement for any citizen so that they may be able to plan for their future, and the Legislature needs to consider how these changes affect constituents in the short and long term.
The second example was that during the 2010 session a plan was devised to cut the general fund and the education fund by millions of dollars. This plan is called Challenges for Change. This “creative” method of balancing the budget required that dollars be taken out of the budget and then later on figuring out how the lowering of the budget would impact state services. If I ran my budget at IBM that way I would have been fired. This “creative” way of balancing the budget will continue into the 2011 session and I did not want to have to deal with it again. I will talk more about C4C in my next article.
The way in which the Statehouse operates is a mismatch to my skills and background but even though I made the decision not to run I do want to stay connected to my community and continue to help make Vermont even a better place to live. Several of my friends in the legislature are also school board members. I have listen to them with great interest on how they work so hard to make their schools great for the children and cost efficient. They are very happy with their mission but sometimes not happy with some forces that are beyond their immediate control.
Investments in our children reap huge rewards in many ways but it requires everyone to be involved. It is more than just teachers and students doing their part. It requires the administration to find cost-effective ways to deliver the best for the students. It requires the federal and state governments to deliver funding along with necessary mandates. It requires that labor unions go beyond just salary and benefit increases to being more sensitive to economic times and taxpayer supported budgets. It requires the community and each student’s family to be involved with our schools which shows how we care about our children.
In the short time that I have been on the school board I find that everyone involved is focused on the singular mission of putting our children first. I want to be a part of a team with this very important mission. My hope is that I can be part of a transformation that goes from a world of No Child Left Behind to a world where Every Child Will Succeed.
