“I truly believed we achieved something monumental, and I’m very proud of what we collectively accomplished this session,” Scott said.
The adjournment of the veto session Wednesday evening put a period on what many agree was an unusual legislative session that began almost six months ago, with new people in every major leadership position. In January, Scott was installed as the new Republican governor, Progressive Democrat Tim Ashe was elected Senate President Pro Tem, and Mitzi Johnson, a Democrat, became House Speaker.
Through the early months, the year seemed to be characterized by uncommon levels of tripartisan unity. Proposals for the next state budget cleared both the House and Senate with unprecedented levels of support.
But in April the unity frayed when Scott, backed by legislative Republicans, announced that he wanted lawmakers to adopt a statewide teachers health insurance plan that could save the state up to $26 million a year. Democrats balked and accused the governor of attacking collective bargaining rights.
After a protracted battle that extended the legislative session by three weeks, the governor vetoed both the state budget and the bill that sets property tax rates. Further backroom meetings led to a deal for capturing savings on the eve of Wednesday’s veto session.
The House speaker, Senate president and governor touted it as middle ground that all parties could live with. While many Republicans were elated as they left the Statehouse Wednesday evening, many across the aisle were left with a bitter taste.
Eric Davis, a pundit and retired Middlebury College political science professor, said Thursday that the compromise lawmakers adopted was nearly identical to a proposal spearheaded by Pro Tem Tim Ashe. The House didn’t have an opportunity to vote on the language at the end of the session.
“I wonder if they had stayed around a couple more days in May that they couldn’t have come out in a similar place where they came out yesterday,” Davis said.
Though lawmakers have resolved their business for the year, it is likely not the last Vermonters will hear about the issue, Davis said.
The governor and Republicans will be able to say they stood up for property taxpayers. Democrats can say they held their ground on keeping collective bargaining local, rather than moving it to the state level as Scott wanted.
But way the plan plays out in school districts may have an impact on voters next year, Davis said.
There could be some political liability associated with the outcome of the agreement, he said, “if a consequence of this is there’s going to be programmatic cuts in the school budget that otherwise would not have been there.”
However, Davis said the extended end-of-session drama in Montpelier is not likely to register strongly for many voters, who generally are more focused on policy changes coming out of Washington, D.C., right now.
Lobbyist Andrew MacLean, of the firm MMR, who has worked in the Statehouse for about 25 years, said this year was “unusual.”
MacLean believes the session was strongly shaped by Scott’s vow not to raise new taxes or fees. The final budget met those conditions.
“I think that was the single biggest determinant in how the session went,” MacLean said.
Others in Montpelier expect to see backlash.
Amy Shollenberger, a lobbyist for Action Circles, said the final agreement between lawmakers and the administration seemed to be a true compromise in that nobody walked away with a full win.
“They say a good compromise is when nobody gets anything good,” Shollenberger said. “It seems like everybody gave in in a certain way, although I do think the governor got more of what he wanted than anybody else.”
She said it remains to be seen how the compromise proposal will play out on local levels and how school boards respond.
Shollenberger said the budgeting process played out differently than in past years because lawmakers early on rejected a key piece of Scott’s budget proposal, involving a delay in local school budget votes. This administration also seemed to have less of a presence in legislative committee rooms than others did in past years, she said.
Meanwhile, another factor hanging over Vermont lawmakers is the impact of possible budget cuts in Washington, D.C.
“The wild card is still the federal budget,” she said. “I think that’s a big piece of what made this year so weird.”
Conor Casey, the executive director of the Vermont Democratic Party, said lawmakers didn’t need to go back to Montpelier for a veto session.
“I think it was a bunch of malarkey that (Scott) vetoed the budget to begin with,” he said. “It was political. It was playing games with a $5.8 billion budget.”
Casey said the party is gearing up for 2018 and expects to field strong opposition to Scott in the wake of the somewhat tumultuous close to the legislative session. Casey said Democrats held firm on the issue of collective bargaining. However, he said, nobody emerged a clear victor.
“I don’t think anybody’s spiking the football on this one,” he said.
Vermont Republican Party Executive Director Jeff Bartley disagrees. The final agreement in the legislative session, he said, was firmly in his party’s favor.
“I think it’s a win for Republicans and more importantly, Vermonters,” he said.
In Bartley’s view, the agreement on teachers’ health care and the state budget is a sign “we are really starting to change the culture of Montpelier” to shift away from raising new taxes.
He feels the Democrats will bear any political consequences of the battle.
“I think the fallout is going to be on their end,” Bartley said.
