In a 6-3 vote, the Vermont Educational Health Benefits Commission recommended ditching district-by-district negotiations, though it gave no guarantee that such a change would save the state money.
Gov. Phil Scott began pushing the legislature for a statewide health insurance contract late last session, suggesting it would save $26 million. Democratic lawmakers balked, questioning Scott’s numbers and arguing that they needed more time to consider the proposal. The standoff led Scott to veto the budget and tax bills, prolonging the session into June.
As part of a compromise deal, the legislature created a study committee, with members appointed by Scott, House Speaker Mitzi Johnson (D-South Hero), Senate leadership, school unions, and the superintendents and school boards’ associations.
Scott praised the committee’s recommendation, saying in a statement: “Statewide negotiations will save taxpayers money, provide more equality to teachers regardless of their district and provide more predictable health insurance rates … This is an important step forward in our work to make the education system more affordable — so we can invest more in our kids — and I’m hopeful this report will inspire legislative leaders to support this change.”
The Vermont-National Education Association remains vehemently opposed, however.
“Here’s the news flash of the day: A commission stacked with supporters of the governor’s plan agreed with the governor’s plan,” communications director Darren Allen said. “This whole exercise was nothing more than politics.”
Correction, December 20, 2017: A previous version of this story incorrectly described the committee appointment process.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
It would be helpful, when writing about recommendations of a committee that were made on a 6-3 vote, to advise your readers of the make-up of the committee and the backgrounds of the competing voters. For example, when a Supreme Court decision is decided 6-3, you advise us which judges ruled which way, and it informs us about the weird alliances made in such a small body. Similarly, here, when we know that the governor has strong feelings about this issue and that he, along with school boards and others, made some of the appointments, it would be helpful if to know if that fact confirms or counters the comment made by Darren Allen, a comment that we can not otherwise judge based on the reporting done.