Dear Editor,
In her recent commentary for VTDigger, Nina Antin correctly identifies the coercive financial architecture underlying H.955’s voluntary language. For small rural districts facing existential pressure, her warning deserves serious attention.
The picture looks different in Chittenden County. The six Chittenden Central Cooperative Educational Service Area (CESA) members — Burlington, Colchester, Essex-Westford, Grand Isle, South Burlington and Winooski — are large enough to survive independently under the foundation formula. But they face a subtler risk: the merger study process fragments them before they’ve had time to demonstrate what regional cooperation looks like.
The conference committee report assigns these six districts to three different merger study groups — Essex-Westford alone in Group 14; Burlington, South Burlington, and Winooski together in Group 18; and Colchester and Grand Isle paired with non-CESA districts, including Milton, South Hero and Alburgh in Group 19. The CESA is the only structure that keeps all six working together.
H.955 requires business and administrative services as a mandatory CESA function. Agency of Education data show that substantial annual back-office savings are achievable for these six districts — whether or not they eventually merge. The Chittenden Central CESA board forms on July 1, 2026. If it prioritizes back-office consolidation before merger study activities consume its agenda, Chittenden’s districts negotiate future merger decisions from demonstrated strength rather than financial pressure.
The forced merger outcome Antin describes isn’t inevitable for Chittenden — if the CESA board acts first.
Sriram Srinivasan,
South Burlington, Vt.
