It seemed, if not scintillating, at least simple: “The administration shall develop and publish annually for public review,” according to Vermont law, “a current services budget, providing the public with an estimate of what the current level of services is projected to cost in the next fiscal year.”
And so organizers of a “Building Vermont’s Moral Economy” campaign lobbied Gov. Peter Shumlin for months to calculate and circulate such a report — all in hopes the Legislature, for debate’s sake, could see the real cost of meeting the full demand for public programs, rather than just start its annual negotiations with an already pared-down plan.
The Shumlin administration recently responded to the request. So why are campaign organizers asking for more facts and figures?
Officials estimated that current services — now at $1,469,800,000 — would cost $1,544,640,000 — or 5 percent more — this coming fiscal year.
“A current services budget,” an attached footnote says, “takes into account the impact of factors such as: inflation and other changes in the per-person cost of providing the programs and services; any expected changes in the number of people utilizing those services and benefits due to population growth or other factors; any previously enacted changes that have not been phased in, ongoing formula-based adjustments, and other factors that would require statutory changes to undo; and collective bargaining agreements.”
But it doesn’t consider any recent cuts to programs caused not by decreasing demand but instead by fewer funding dollars. That concerns campaign organizers, who point to Washington, D.C.’s Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and its recent report, “The Current Services Baseline: A Tool for Understanding Budget Choices.”
“It could be problematic to establish a current services baseline right after a recession, when current expenditures are well below the level required to adequately serve residents,” the report says. “As an alternative, a state could use the same methodology that is used to construct a current services baseline to compare current levels of spending with the cost of providing a pre-recession level of services.”
And so campaign organizers will ask legislative leaders to adopt language in this year’s state budget that expands the definition of “current services budget” to include all of the resources required to fulfill the state’s obligations.
“We’re grateful the administration made this first step — we just want more information,” says the Rev. Debbie Ingram, executive director of Vermont Interfaith Action, a grassroots coalition of several dozen Green Mountain religious congregations. “We’re looking for numbers that reveal the cost of fully funding what the state has committed to in statute. We’d appreciate a fuller picture of where we’re falling short.”
Vermont Interfaith Action is spearheading the campaign with the help of the Public Assets Institute, a nonprofit nonpartisan Montpelier-based think tank.
“What we’re looking for is, line by line, what it would cost to do what the state has committed itself to doing,” says Paul Cillo, the institute’s founder. “We’re not talking about a theoretical commitment to ideals, but commitments to deliver specific services to Vermonters. Is this budget actually true to the mission or the goal? If the answer is no, what would it take?”
Campaign organizers stress they aren’t expecting the state to approve that total figure, but instead hope the numbers shed light on the extent of demand and spark discussion on what could and should be done.
“At a minimum,” Cillo says, “what we want is more detail.”
In response, Andy Pallito, commissioner of the state Department of Finance and Management, said his office “is continually reviewing the process and, I expect, will refine it in future years as we understand the workload involved and how we can better present the numbers.”
“Going forward, I would expect that future administrations will continue to comply with the statute,” Pallito said. “However, how they choose to expand on this current services budget is probably up to them.”
Ingram hopes the campaign will establish the motivation and mechanics for that to happen.
“Our hope is legislators will see this information as valuable as they’re making difficult decisions,” she says. “Our goal is to have an open, honest and robust discussion of what our priorities are and how we can best meet them.”
