In what just might be its wildest press release yet, the governor’s office Tuesday afternoon sent out an email blast urging Vermonters to “GET YOUR VERMONT STRONG LICENSE PLATE AND DARN TOUGH SOCK BUNDLE TO HELP SUPPORT FLOOD VICTIMS BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE PUTS A STOP TO IT.” Yes, all caps.
For the uninitiated: The “bundles” in question refer to commemorative “Vermont Strong” license plates that Gov. Phil Scott relaunched this summer, available for sale alongside new, limited edition “Vermont Strong” socks manufactured by Vermont-based Darn Tough. Sales of the $70 bundles benefit flood recovery efforts in the state. According to the governor’s office, roughly $1 million has been raised.
With all of the urgency of your hometown used car salesman’s closeout commercial, the governor’s office said Tuesday that Vermonters should act fast to get their flood merch “before the Legislature bans bundled Vermont Strong plates and socks.” The only thing missing from the pitch was one of those wacky wavy inflatable tube men.
“Vermonters can still get Vermont Strong plates and socks while the remaining limited inventory lasts!” the office wrote, exclamation point and all.
So, why the sales pitch? According to Scott, the House in its recently passed Budget Adjustment Act proposed banning the bundled flood relief merch, “which would prohibit the State from selling the remaining plate-sock bundles.”
But that’s not true, according to Rep. Emilie Kornheiser, D-Brattleboro, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee. She told VTDigger Wednesday afternoon that the BAA as written would require that future, similar sales of charitable license plates or other merchandise be subject to legislative approval.
But as far as the already manufactured plates n’ socks go, they could still be sold, Kornheiser said. It’s not as though the Legislature will force the administration to trash the remaining inventory.
What the House-approved BAA does do is establish that “going forward, it’s not appropriate for the government to partner with private sector entities, one entity over the other… in a competitive marketplace,” Kornheiser said, referring to the administration’s pick of Darn Tough for a partnership.
“And we want to make sure that decisions about how revenues are appropriated are made by the General Assembly, because that’s our purview,” Kornheiser said, adding that her committee’s support for the language was bipartisan.
Tuesday’s press release follows a September letter legislative leaders penned to the gov, crying foul over the license plates’ launch. House Speaker Jill Krowinski, D-Burlington, and Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Baruth, D/P-Chittenden Central, in their letter expressed “our dismay that you have chosen to flout the separation of powers… by usurping powers specifically and uniquely granted to the Legislative Branch.”
Asked what she made of the tone of Scott’s press release, Kornheiser replied, “I don’t make things of tone and tenor.”
Rep. Conor Casey, D-Montpelier, one of the legislators championing flood recovery legislation, however, did weigh in, telling VTDigger, “All the lemonade stands and all the license plates in the world aren’t going to sort us out for flood recovery.”
— Sarah Mearhoff
In the know
With the average property tax bill projected to increase by more than 20% next year, lawmakers in the House Ways and Means Committee today began discussing possible new revenue sources that would lower the expected rise in property taxes.
New revenue would help the state “get our arms around property tax rates,” Chair Kornheiser said.
For reference, in fiscal year 2024, revenue sources (property taxes and other taxes into the ed fund) will need to garner $2.06 billion. For fiscal year 2025, those same sources are projected to need to bring in $2.37 billion.
Among the options on the table: an excise tax on sugary beverages ($15-30 million for the next fiscal year, possibly) and taxing candy ($3.7 million for the next fiscal year), which — wildly — is currently exempt from sales tax because it counts as a grocery item.
Another possibility would be also adding sales tax to the purchase of remotely accessed software. That would include software hosted on a server rather than a personal computer — things like Squarespace, TurboTax and Amazon Web Services. All in all, removing the current exemption could generate about $20 million in the next fiscal year if it went into effect July 1.
Lastly, the committee considered Vermont’s sales tax, which at 6%, is roughly middle of the pack for the Northeast (excluding those loony tax-free folks to our east). For every new 0.1% increase to the sales tax, Vermont could expect to raise about $9 million in the next fiscal year, according to the Joint Fiscal Office’s projections.
— Ethan Weinstein
Proposal 1, known as Prop 1 — a proposed amendment to the Vermont constitution that would allow the Legislature to set qualifications for county elected officials and create a mechanism for their removal if they fail to meet them — appears to be stuck in the Senate, at least for now.
Senators voted on Wednesday to suspend the chamber’s rules in order to send the amendment to the Judiciary Committee for further consideration and testimony. It has already been vetted by the Government Operations Committee.
That’s even after strong lobbying on Tuesday from Rep. Martin LaLonde, D-South Burlington, and Rep. Mike McCarthy, D-St. Albans City, the chair and the vice-chair of the House’s special impeachment committee. The pair told Democratic senators during caucus that they did not see a way to pursue the impeachment of Franklin County Sheriff John Grismore, despite behavior they both described as “egregious” that occurred prior to the start of his term and the loss of his police certification.
Sen. Pro Tem Phil Baruth, D/P-Chittenden Central, explained to his colleagues that “we have lingering questions from Senators” before making the motion that removed the proposed amendment from the floor. One question, specifically, is whether a constitutional amendment is truly the only option, he said.
— Kristen Fountain
On the move
Aaliyah Wilburn moved to Vermont two years ago and has faced more hair discrimination here than ever before.
A senior at North Country Union High School in Newport, Wilburn, 17, recalls being in line for the bathroom when the girl in front turned around and reached for her hair. Despite telling her not to touch it, Wilburn said the girl “grabbed” her hair.
“She then told me that I felt like a sheep and she imitated the noises of one,” said Wilburn, a leader with the Vermont Student Anti-Racism Network.
Wilburn and the student anti-racism network support a bill, backed in a landslide in the Vermont House on Wednesday, that would prohibit racial discrimination by hair types, textures and styles.
H.363 would expand the state’s anti-discrimination statute, which forbids discrimination at public places such as schools, stores and restaurants, in housing, and its fair employment practices law, which covers discrimination in the workplace. The bill was approved 132-5 in the House and will now head to the Senate.
— Auditi Guha
Visit our 2024 Bill tracker for the latest updates on major legislation we are following.
Corrections section
Tuesday’s newsletter used the incorrect hometown for Rep. Jubilee McGill. She resides in Bridport.
What we’re reading
Life without a post office leaves Montpelier residents scrambling, VTDigger
With citywide rezoning, Burlington considers how to grow, VTDigger
Jon Margolis, national political reporter and VTDigger columnist, dies at 83, VTDigger
