Editor’s note: The Vermont House heard a presentation on the Challenges for Change initiatives on Tuesday. Anne Galloway caught up with the Speaker of the Vermont House Shap Smith on Wednesday.
Q. What is your response to the Challenges plan presented on Tuesday?
Smith: We passed a bill (Act 68) that identified $38 million worth of savings that largely identified outcomes in particular areas and we asked the administration to go figure it out and show us how you’re going to do that, and to the extent necessary, tell us how you’re going to do and what you need for state authority.
We’re certain Challenges 2 (the sequel to Act 68) would include statutory changes that they had asked for and that we decided are appropriate. We’re trying to flesh out what else.
There is a form question: Do you place numbers next to each one of the identified new ideas? We haven’t really fleshed that out. How does the bill look? Does it look like an appropriations bill?
Traditional, line item budgeting doesn’t provide much specificity, either. This is an iterative process — we’re sort of approaching one day at time.
Q. Did you expect to see spreadsheets with the report?
Smith: No, but I don’t think that’s what we asked for. We identified savings within broad areas. It wouldn’t surprise me if we do see spreadsheets.
Q. Will lawmakers see another progress report before the end of the session?
Smith: Those are conversations we’re having internally right now in the House and Senate leadership.
I think there are some ideas that are really interesting; I think there are some ideas that are difficult and I think based on conversations I’ve had with committees of jurisdiction there are things that may not get out of the starting gate. One of the things I rely heavily is on the committees of jurisdiction to help me understand what is important.
As it was described yesterday, the administration is putting things out there that it knows might face resistance. Our obligation is to identify where that is and try to direct the administration to what were identified as outcome goals and suggest to them a different direction to take.
Q. Do you really have a say about that direction?
Smith: To a certain degree we do — to the extent we aren’t going to pass statutory changes (necessary to implement many of the administration’s proposals).
It’s not unlike the usual budget process. There is often a proposal put on the table by a governor of any party where the Legislature says no we’re not going to do that. But we always have to put forward a balanced budget.
Q. What are the proposals you’re uncomfortable with?
Smith: I think there always have been some concerns about some sort of mandatory consolidation for school districts and unions. We certainly have concerns around that. In particular, the question my colleagues have raised is, how does what has been proposed move forward with the outcomes we put in statute – a better education for kids and financial savings. We need to see how that works. One of the things I hear when I talk to people in the education community is not that consolidation doesn’t make sense, but that it doesn’t make sense in every instance.
Quite frankly, the idea of bringing ourselves to a (school) staffing ratio more reflective of the top tier states around the country is reasonable. How you get there, how do you ensure good quality schools? That’s what I’m particularly concerned about.
Q. What other areas might be difficult?
Smith: I know the issue of involuntary medication is fraught with concerns among many people. That’s likely to be a flashpoint. Estate recovery? That’s a concern for people, but it poses a legitimate question about what is the balance between what the state pays and what people who have assets pay.
Q. How do you assert control over those areas — by denying the statute changes the administration has asked for?
That’s our lever. It’s a pretty powerful one.
Q. What about the suggestion to eliminate the regional planning commissions? Did you expect that proposal?
Smith: The regional planning commission proposal wasn’t something I anticipated. My question is how does it meet the outcomes we set? If there’s a belief that regionalization is going to get better outcomes, then there’s a real question about whether we could get there in three months — even if we thought it was a good idea.
Is it a conversation we should have with regional economic development and regional planning commissions? Is it something at least worth considering? There’s one in every county. The answer may be we do keep them in every county.
Q. Do you have a concern about job losses?
Smith: Of course I do. We have consistently been concerned about that. We’ve tried to avoid job losses, but I will say that we need to figure out where the balance is, and we need to acknowledge we are going to have to spend $38 million less, and how is that going to happen?
In the end, we have a responsibility as people in leadership in the House to make sure we have a balanced budget, and we’ve always known in a year like this we’d have to make difficult choices. What this whole process allowed us to do is to think creatively about how we might make those choices. It doesn’t make it any easier though.
