Representative Heidi E. Scheuermann

Tax Rate Grows Ten Percent Despite Level-Funded Budget – The Barton Chronicle, January 13, 2010

School Budget Drastic Measures – Morrisville News and Citizen, January 21, 2010

Teachers Save Day for Stowe Budget – Stowe Reporter, January 21, 2010

Town Teachers, Board Unyielding in Impasse – Rutland Herald, January 22, 2010

Cuts Loom for Teachers, Programs – Colchester Sun, December 17, 2009

ACSU Schools Tighten Spending – Addison Independent, January 21, 2010

These articles are merely six recent examples of the increased focus on our state’s education system, and the situation in which our state, our schools and our communities now find themselves.  There are countless others throughout the state – stories of the slow dismantling of our schools, program by program, in order to address the skyrocketing property taxes that Vermonters are paying.

Vermont now spends over $1.4 billion on education, an increase of over $600 million since 1997, and net education property taxes have nearly doubled.  This combination of rapidly rising costs and unbearable tax burdens underscores the unsustainability of our current education system.

Simultaneously, Vermonters are increasingly asking if our schools are able to provide the highest quality education for a knowledge-based global economy that requires more, not less, in terms of educational opportunities and resources.  Doing better with fewer resources requires that we use our educational dollars more wisely, facilitate the sharing of resources between schools more efficiently and effectively, and re-think our educational delivery.

The time is now for an Educational Transformation in Vermont.  The State Board of Education realizes this and the Commissioner of Education has spoken eloquently about the need to transform our delivery system to expand opportunities for our children and improve outcomes.

The passage of Act 60 in 1998 was to make certain the State provide “substantially equal educational opportunity” to all Vermont students.  Since that time, the Act’s principal goal of ensuring the equalization of funding has been realized.  Communities that were not able to afford certain tools, programs, and services prior to Act 60 now are able to provide them.

With this goal arguably accomplished, the equalization of funding is no longer the issue at hand.  Its impact on quality and cost during this economic downturn and beyond is the next obvious challenge.  As schools throughout the state become casualties in a race to the bottom in order to simply reduce costs, the question now is how we can provide a first rate education to students across the state so that they are able to compete successfully in the knowledge-based global economy of the 21st Century.

School districts and supervisory unions throughout Vermont already collaborate well on a number of things, including the services provided by speech pathologists, and psychologists.  This is done in an effort to eliminate duplicities and to save costs, and has been a positive development over the years.

It is now time to build on that collaboration and cooperation.

I am, therefore, proposing a plan this week that will bring together our educational communities in order to expand educational program and service opportunities for all of our children and do so in a cost effective way.  The plan builds on one of the proposals from the State Board of Education to replace the current 63 Supervisory Unions with 14 or 15 Educational Districts that boundary the current Regional Technical Centers.  It also eliminates the statewide property tax and replaces it with an Education District Property Tax to be raised by and distributed within the Education District, with an assurance that the state continue to provide “substantially equal educational opportunity” to all Vermont students.

This is a very brief outline of the proposal.  To see more details, please contact me at 253-2275 or heidi@heidischeuermann.com.  Or you can visit my website at www.heidischeuermann.com.

The Vermont General Assembly convened two weeks ago for the 2010 legislative session.  With this convening came the extraordinary challenges of dealing with a $150 million deficit in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget and the seemingly unending increases in property taxes.

It was clear last year that an economic recovery was not coming soon, but rather than any kind of structural reforms to state government in general, and education spending and funding specifically, we instead relied heavily on federal stimulus monies and tax increases to patch the Fiscal Year 2010 budget.  At this time, therefore, we have found ourselves even deeper in the hole.

I continue to serve on the Judiciary Committee, where our priority is judicial restructuring.  A commission was appointed last year to recommend legislative changes to our judiciary in an effort to not only save a bit of money this year, but to put our state’s judiciary on a track of efficiency and sustainability.  This commission, on which our own Dick Marron served, worked diligently to meet these goals, while ensuring our constitutional and moral obligations are met and access to justice for all Vermonters is improved.  Our committee is now hearing about the recommendations from the report, and determining how best to progress on the proposals put forward.

There is no doubt this will be a difficult year.  We have serious issues to address, and it will take a bold agenda to address them.  We must redefine state government – redefine its purpose and how that purpose is met.  And, we must do so in a way that protects our most vulnerable citizens while encouraging self-reliance, economic growth, and prosperity.

Key to this transformation is reforming education itself and throwing out our broken education funding system.  Over the past decade, net education property taxes in Vermont have more than doubled, from $450 million to $900 million – and that is merely two thirds of what Vermonters actually spend on K-12 education.  Of the total education spending, eighty percent is spent on personnel, and since 1997, staffing at Vermont schools has increased by 23%, while the number of pupils has decreased by over 10%. 

Clearly this spending trend is unsustainable for Vermont, and the skyrocketing property taxes will destroy Stowe and Vermont.

Last year, Governor Douglas took his case to the Legislature, and in his Inaugural Address said, “Act 60 and 68 are fundamentally broken and beyond repair … Now is the time to build a new system – one that is fair and equitable, and respects the voice of voters, the pocketbooks of taxpayers, and the potential of our students.”

Unfortunately, the legislature ignored the Governor’s call for action, so another year has come and gone.

Governor Douglas has once again made clear his intention to reform the system, and I am hopeful that this critical issue is not ignored again this year.  The fact is the system is structurally flawed and cannot continue as it is if we are to make it through this economic crisis and emerge a stronger state.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns you have.  I can be reached at 253-2275 or heidi@heidischeuermann.com.

By Representative Heidi Scheuermann

The Committee on the Financing and Effectiveness of the Vermont Education System, the most recent in a long line of committees established over the years to address the significant failures of our education funding system, has now met three times.

Given there are just three meetings that remain, as an observer of the last two and fierce proponent of education funding reform, I feel it important to share my thoughts.

This committee was established in the 2010 budget bill of last session.  Its mission is “to examine potential improvements to the structure and funding of the Vermont educational system in light of the state’s limited financial resources.”

Families and businesses in Stowe and throughout Vermont have known for some time that our education system, as it is now structured, is unsustainable.  After twelve years of Act 60/68, our education spending has increased by almost 100% at the same time our number of pupils has decreased by 10%.

For over ten years, our property taxes have skyrocketed.  At the same time, fewer and fewer people are actually paying their full property taxes.  And, now Vermonters all over are struggling in this very difficult economy.  Economics 101 tells me that this is unsustainable, that we are on a sinking ship, and that we must take action now in order to ensure high quality education for our children at a cost we can afford.

For that reason, the committee’s second meeting was frustrating, as they could not even come to consensus that there was a problem with education spending or funding.  As some members shared their very serious concerns about the affordability and sustainability of our education system, others made it clear that they were not there to cut education spending at all.  To her credit, Senator Susan Bartlett tried to move things forward by presenting a consolidation plan to the committee, though the reaction was less than enthusiastic.

Happily, the most recent meeting seemed to be more productive.  While it is not clear that there is consensus yet on the problems we face or how we address them, there was additional discussion of reform in the form of consolidation.

The State Board of Education also has a committee whose mission is to transform our education system into a 21st Century one.  While this committee continues to work, a draft of one section of their report was shared with the legislatively created committee.  In it, the State Board committee is recommending that Vermont’s 51 supervisory unions, 12 supervisory districts, and 284 school districts be consolidated into 14 education districts.  The committee states, “forming these larger districts to expand learning options is critical to the success of education transformation for a new generation of learners.”

While I continue to have questions about consolidation, I do believe it is a necessary step in our effort to address education spending, and am hopeful the legislatively created committee moves forward in this way.  This does not, however, take away the need for education funding reform.  Given the committee’s mission of examining potential improvements to our funding system, I am hopeful they will do that as well.

At the same time the debate over education spending occurs, we must present options for reforming the funding system.  Clearly, there is no shortage of ideas.  One such option recently put forward in Bennington County, and proposed in the past, is to eliminate the statewide property tax and institute a county-wide tax in its place.  While I have not seen specifics, as the committee discusses consolidation ideas, it would be an opportune time to discuss this and similar ideas.

The next meeting of this committee is on October 14th from 10:00 AM – 4:00 PM.  There is a public comment period of 1:15 – 3:15 PM, so if you are interested in giving your thoughts or ideas, contact Jill Remick at Jill.Remick@state.vt.us.

I encourage anybody with an interest to attend.  We must ensure our leaders know how our current funding system has been detrimental to families, communities, economic growth, jobs, and even educational outcomes.  We must do all we can to reform our system to ensure high educational quality for all Vermont children, tax equity and fairness, and financial sustainability.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 253-2275 or heidi@heidischeuermann.com.

By Representative Heidi Scheuermann

Last week’s Stowe Reporter editorial made a plea to all of us in Stowe, and throughout the region, to be heard in the latest development on education funding and property taxes.

The editorial was an important one and I write to reiterate the plea.

The Committee on the Financing and Effectiveness of the Vermont Education System is the latest in a long line of committees appointed to address the significant failures of our current education funding system.  Arguably there has been little progress on the many efforts at change in the past, and the cynic in many of us might believe that this will be the case again.

That said, given our economic situation and what we currently face as a state, this could very well be the opportunity for which the people of Vermont have been hoping.

As indicated in the Reporter’s editorial, I am not a member of this committee – not, however, for a lack of desire.  In fact, I offered my services to the Speaker to serve on this committee, as I thought in many ways I could bring a different perspective to the conversation and the real desire to craft a solution.  Unfortunately, I was not chosen, but rest assured I will be involved.

The Committee can meet only up to six times, and they have already met once for organizational purposes.  The second and third meetings are September 1 and September 25, respectively.  And, the committee must report its findings and recommendations by December 15, 2009.

Again, I plan to be involved.  In order for me to be an effective voice for you, however, I would like to build on the paper’s plea.  I need to hear from you!

I am inviting everyone to send to me an explanation of what our current education funding system has meant to you.  Whether you are a family trying to save money for college, a retiree struggling to keep your home and land, a business owner trying to make payroll and invest in your business, a teacher purchasing your own supplies for classes, a parent doing your best to provide educational opportunities for your child, or a second home owner feeling the significant burden of high property taxes here in Vermont, in addition to your expenses at home, I ask that you send to me a 100-200 word summary of what the current system with its statewide property tax has meant to you.

This committee must hear real stories from the people of Vermont.  They must hear how our current funding system has, in fact, been detrimental to families, communities, economic growth, jobs, and even educational outcomes.  Theoretical philosophies and number crunching only go so far.  And, little is accomplished when special interests and various constituencies have their heels dug in.  We all must participate and be heard in this process in order to reform our system to ensure high educational quality for all Vermont children, tax equity and fairness, and financial sustainability.

What It Has Meant To Me
(100-200 words)
Send to: Heidi@HeidiScheuermann.com
Or:

Heidi Scheuermann
P.O. Box 908
Stowe, Vermont 05672

Note: Most likely, pieces will be shared with Committee on the Financing and Effectiveness of the Vermont Education System

If you have and questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 253-2275 or heidi@heidischeuermann.com.

North Country Union High School board members were stunned Tuesday night when they learned that despite holding 2010-2011 spending at this year’s level the tax rate for the school will rise by 10.33 percent.

School Budget Drastic Measures – Morrisville News and Citizen, January 21, 2010

Due to lower state revenues, declining enrollment, and property values that are remaining high in comparison with the rest of the state, the Morristown School Board would have to cut about $1 million from its K-12 budget in order to keep property taxes at the current rate.

Teachers Save Day for Stowe Budget – Stowe Reporter, January 21, 2010

Before the teachers agreed to contract concessions, the cost of preserving most existing programs and staff members and covering rising costs for such things as special education would have raised the school-tax rate 10 cents for primary homeowners, or $100 per $100,000 of assessed value. That would have added $400 a year to the bill for a $400,000 house.

Town Teachers, Board Unyielding in Impasse – Rutland Herald, January 22, 2010

Rutland Town – As of Thursday, Randy Dewey, a negotiator for the teachers, said the teachers are still requesting a 4 percent increase on their base salaries for one year.  Stacy Chapman, chairman of the School Board, said the board is still holding firm at a 0 percent increase.

Cuts Loom for Teachers, Programs – Colchester Sun, December 17, 2009

The school board asked Waters for a budget that increases spending no more than 3 percent. To get the budget under that number, Waters has identified teachers, support staff and programs that could be eliminated.

ACSU Schools Tighten Spending – Addison Independent, January 21, 2010

The Addison Central Supervisory Union’s seven elementary school boards have all been preparing 2010-2011 spending plans reflecting less than a 2 percent bump in spending, but education property taxes are still pegged to escalate at a much higher rate — including by more than 19 percent in Weybridge.

These newspaper articles are merely six recent examples of the increased focus on our state’s education system, and the situation in which our state, our schools and our communities now find themselves.  There are countless others throughout the state – stories of the slow dismantling of our schools, program by program, in order to address the skyrocketing property taxes that Vermonters are paying.

Over the past decade, net education property taxes in Vermont have more than doubled, from $450 million to $900 million – and that is merely two thirds of what Vermonters actually spend on K-12 education.  Vermont now spends over $1.4 billion on education, an increase of over $600 million since 1997.  This combination of rapidly rising costs and unbearable tax burdens underscores the unsustainability of our current system of running and financing our public school.

Simultaneously, Vermonters are increasingly asking if our schools are able to provide the highest quality education for a knowledge-based global economy that requires more, not less, in terms of educational opportunities and resources.  Doing better with fewer resources requires that we use our educational dollars more wisely, facilitate the sharing of resources between schools more efficiently and effectively, and re-think our educational delivery.  We are not alone in this quest as schools and colleges across the United States are being forced to rethink their models and re-envision how they deliver services.

The time is now for an Educational Transformation in Vermont.  The State Board of Education realizes this and the Commissioner of Education has spoken eloquently about the need to transform our delivery system to expand opportunities for our children and improve outcomes.

During the last months of 2009, my close friend, the late Representative Rick Hube and I were discussing ways in which to accomplish these two critical objectives – how to continue to improve the quality of our education while ensuring the system is one Vermonters can afford.   It is clear the current system fails in both.

In 1997, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in favor of Amanda Brigham and made clear that Vermont must provide “substantially equal educational opportunity to all Vermont students.  As a result, the Legislature passed Act 60.   A controversial piece of legislation at the time – which continues to remain controversial – Act 60’s principal goal of ensuring the equalization of funding has been realized.  Communities that were not able to afford certain tools, programs, and services prior to Act 60 now are able to provide them.

With this goal arguably accomplished, we can be proud of our achievement.  The equalization of funding, however, is no longer the issue at hand.  Its impact on quality during this economic downturn and beyond is the next obvious challenge.  As schools throughout the state become casualties in a race to the bottom in order to simply reduce costs, the question now is how we can provide a first rate education to students across the state so that they are able to compete successfully in the knowledge-based global economy of the 21st Century.

School districts and supervisory unions throughout Vermont already collaborate well on a number of things, including the services provided by speech pathologists, and psychologists.  This is done in an effort to eliminate duplicities and to save costs, and has been a positive development over the years.

It is now time to build on that collaboration and cooperation.

The proposed plan will bring together our educational communities in order to expand educational program and service opportunities for all of our children and do so in a cost effective way.  No longer will schools be forced to eliminate needed classroom teachers, or programs like middle school athletics and high school band, as the flexibility will be there allow schools to collaborate and cooperate with one another.  No longer will the addition of two or three students with special needs cause a large unanticipated tax increase or reduced programs.  And no longer will we face a funding system that pits neighbors against neighbors, towns against towns, and school districts against school districts.

Comprehensive Education Transformation Plan:

1) Eliminates Supervisory Unions and replaces them with “Educational Districts,” boundaries of which are similar to the current Regional Technical Centers  (This has been proposed by many people throughout the years, but most recently by the State Board of Education)

a. Educational Districts would be responsible for the following:

i. All aspects of Special Education, including hiring of special educators, assignment of their services to schools within ED, development of IEPs in consultation with local special education instructors and administrators

1. Special Education Note: EDs will complete inventory of Special Education services provided and who provides them, and send information to State Department of Education.  State DOE will then create and maintain a Management Information Service to track expenditures, develop reference costs of IEPs for all disabilities, and develop criteria and guidelines for EDs to deliver special education services

ii. Purchase and distribution of supplies to all ED schools

iii. Financial and student data management of all schools within ED

iv.Transportation services

v. Hiring of all educators, administrators, and staff employed within ED, with contracts negotiated and executed at ED level

2) Students would have the option to attend any elementary or secondary school within their ED

3) Each ED would have a District Board with representation from each participating community (exact representation to be determined)

4) Replace current School Boards with Advisory Councils that would focus on academic policy and educational quality – would not focus on budgets, but would be the voice to ensure the allocation of the global budgets meets program needs

5) Repeal the Statewide Property Tax and replace it with Education District Property Tax

a. ED would develop ED-wide budgets and be empowered to assess a property tax within the ED to fund the budget.  Funds raised through this system would remain in, and be distributed by, the ED.

b. Non-property-tax funds would continue to go into the Education Fund to be used for categorical aid and to ensure “substantially equal educational opportunity”

6) Eliminate Common Level of Appraisal and replace it with rolling reappraisals within the ED

Cost Savings/Tax Implications

1) Cost Savings

a. The savings in education spending or significant curbs in spending increases for which people are looking will not be immediate.  This transformation will take some time to make.  There must be a transition period built into the plan in order to ensure it is implemented well.  Therefore, the savings should be outlined in two phases:

i. Phase 1:  When the Education Districts come to fruition there will undoubtedly be savings in Administration.  Exact savings are difficult to determine at this point, but with current supervisory union administration expenses at $155 million, savings are clearly attainable – just how much will become clearer as the proposal progresses.

ii. Phase 2:  As Education District Boards are developed, the opportunities for school, personnel, program, and service consolidation and collaboration within the ED will become apparent.  It is this phase that will bring us the long-term savings we desire and allow for the more efficient and effective provision of services.  Again, exact savings are difficult to determine at this point, but will become evident as we move forward.

1) Tax Relief

a. The elimination of the Common Level of Appraisal would have the most immediate impact on taxes.  It is clear the CLA is one of the major drivers of our skyrocketing property taxes, and something we must address meaningfully.

b. The savings in education spending resulting from administration reduction and consolidation and collaboration in schools, personnel, programs, and services within EDs will also undoubtedly contribute to tax relief across the state.  Again, this will not be immediate, but will put us on a path first to expanding opportunities for our children and improving educational quality, and second to system sustainability.

When the Vermont General Assembly began the 2009-2010 legislative session, the many who have long called for a complete overhaul of our education and educaiton funding system were met with a pleasant surprise.

Governor Jim Douglas took on the establishment in his Inaugural Address, by calling for a fundamental transformation of the way we do business, most importantly in education.

The Governor’s call for education funding reform is a welcome one to those of us in Stowe and in communities throughout Vermont.  “Act 60 and 68 are fundamentally broken and beyond repair … Now is the time to build a new system - one that is fair and equitable, and respects the voice of voters, the pocketbooks of taxpayers, and the potential of our students.”

Afterwards, in the Stowe Reporter, I applauded the Governor for taking on this very critical issue, and encouraged our legislative leadership to accept the Governor’s invitation to work collaboratively on it.  While the initial response from the legislative leadership was disappointing, there has now been a task force put together to work on this critical issue.

The fundamental fact is that the system is structurally flawed and must be addressed if we are to make it through this economic crisis and emerge a stronger state.

I am hopeful this work will result in a higher quality educaiton system paid for in a more equitable way.  To ensure this issue remains a top priority, consider contacting your local representatives and senators, and/or writing letters to the editor of your local newspapers and statewide newspapers, and encourage your friends to do the same.

Stowe Reporter

News and Citizen edit@newsandcitizen.com

Waterbury Record

Burlington Free Press

Times Argus

Rutland Herald ]]> http://www.heidischeuermann.com/issues/education-and-education-funding-reform/feed http://www.heidischeuermann.com/press/governor-douglas-boldly-takes-on-establishment http://www.heidischeuermann.com/press/governor-douglas-boldly-takes-on-establishment#comments Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:27:58 +0000 Heidi http://heidischeuermann.com/?p=67 RECENT ARTICLES
Governor Douglas Boldly Takes on Establishment
By Rep. Heidi Scheuermann
Stowe Reporter, Jan. 15, 2009

The Vermont General Assembly convened last week to begin the 2009-2010 legislative session.  The House of Representatives has a new Speaker, Rep. Shap Smith of Morristown, and he came prepared.  In a surprise move, he appointed committees on the first day of the session – the message was clear “We are here for a reason.  Let’s get to work.”

I have been appointed to the Judiciary Committee, where I am looking forward to tackling issues like greater penalties for sexual predators and the restructuring of our judiciary system.

That said, my priorities remain real economic growth, education reform and property tax relief, so I was very pleased to hear Governor Jim Douglas’ 4th Inaugural message, “Today, I present a plan for Vermont to direct its own future, free from the ties that bind us to the status quo.  Rather than follow blindly, we will lead boldly.”

In his speech, the Governor boldly took on the establishment when he called for a fundamental transformation of the way we do business.

Recognizing that 63 cents of every tax dollar spent here is spent on K-12 education and Medicaid, and that over 50% of our combined state and local taxes goes to general education, he has called for a complete overhaul.  If the projections for Fiscal Year 2010 are accurate, statewide education spending will have increased by almost $283 million since 2006.  Over the same time period, school enrollment has decreased by 4,300 students.

It is clear this system is on a collision course, and I applaud the Governor for taking it on: “Act 60 and 68 are fundamentally broken and beyond repair … Now is the time to build a new system – one that is fair and equitable, and respects the voice of voters, the pocketbooks of taxpayers, and the potential of our students.”

For good reason, the Governor did not offer a specific proposal.  As we have seen countless times since the enactment of Act 60, when proposals are offered, they are quickly and aggressively discarded by the other side and the special interests.  It would have been unproductive to offer a proposal and the Governor realized this.

Rather, he called for a new way of doing business.  He invited the legislature to work collaboratively with him to set up a process for new thoughts and ideas.  He wants the best minds to work on this, and asked the legislative leadership for suggestions.

The is the challenge that has been put forward – one of which the legislature must take advantage.  I am hopeful leadership accepts the Governor’s invitation.  I am hopeful that the immediate Democratic response to the proposal – the response that has become standard throughout the years – of reform being an assault on our children, our teachers and our school boards is tempered with common sense and civility.  The fundamental fact is that the system is structurally flawed and cannot continue as it is if we are to make it through this economic crisis and emerge a stronger state.

Economic Development Focus Long Overdue
By Rep. Heidi Scheuermann
Manchester Journal, Dec. 19, 2008
Rutland Herald/Times Argus, Dec. 21, 2008
Burlington Free Press, January 5, 2009

As I prepare for my second term in the Vermont House of Representatives, the national and world economy is in peril.  Our government is bailing out industry after industry, layoffs are happening at a rate not seen in years, home foreclosures are skyrocketing, and a credit crunch is making it more and more difficult for our small businesses to survive.

Even as the “Buy Local” campaign in Vermont grows and Vermonters become increasingly aware of what a difference buying local can mean to their neighbors and local communities, we ca nnot ignore the bigger picture.  Vermont is inextricably linked to the global e conomy, as we’ve learned with AIG.  We are not immune to the larger crisis, and it is clearly not a situation from which we will emerge quickly.

The only way, however, Vermont will emerge from this crisis stronger, and yield a brighter future for all Vermonters is through real economic growth.  Yet, many Vermonters would be surprised to learn that there is not a committee in the Vermont House of Representatives whose mission it is to concentrate solely on economic growth.

With this in mind, and with an opportunity for change in the leadership of the Vermont House, I have asked the current candidates for the next Speaker of the House to create a new committee, a House Committee on Economic Development, to tackle the issues that will lead to real economic growth.

Obviously, with the downgrades in our state’s revenue forecasts for this year and beyond, much of the focus in the Vermont General Assembly will undoubtedly be on the state budget and the very difficult decisions that will have to be made to protect our state’s most vulnerable citizens.  At the same time, however, it is imperative that the legislature not lose sight of our economy as a whole, as it is clear that families and small businesses in Vermont are struggling:

1) According to the non-profit, non-partisan Tax Foundation, in /Fiscal Year 2008 Vermont ranked eighth highest in the nation in total state and local tax burden

2) A study recently released by Families USA, “Premiums versus Paychecks” found that from 2000-2007, the average employer-based health insurance premium for Vermont families increased 74.9% ($7,045 to $12,340) and the premium for individuals increased 70.8% ($2,685 to $4,586).

3) Recently, the Burlington Free Press reported that Vermont ’s college graduates face the fourth highest average student-loan burden in the country at $24,329.

These are just a few of Vermont ’s worrisome statistics, and we cannot wait any longer to address the issues that drive them.  In order to do so, however, we must do all we can to create an environment where real economic growth can take place while preserving Vermont’s unique natural beauty; where Vermont families aren’t overly burdened by taxes; where health care and insurance is affordable and attainable; where entrepreneurs and small businesses can prosper; and where families can afford to send their children onto higher education.

I am hopeful the new Speaker will make economic growth the number one priority in the upcoming legislative biennium, and a new House Committee on Economic Development can be a catalyst to ensure that focus.  Charged broadly with examining structural reform in our tax policy, health care policy, education policy, and regulatory policy, and energy policy, while working in conjunction with the other House committees with similar jurisdictions, this Committee on Economic Development can bring a holistic approach to public policy – something that is desperately needed for economic growth in Vermont.

I urge Vermonters to consider this proposal and to encourage the current candidates for House Speaker to commit to establishing a House Committee on Economic Development.

A Hand for Heidi
Stowe Reporter Editorial, Oct. 16, 2008

If Heidi Scheuermann is not a born public servant, then someone has to rewrite the definition. We could dispense with an endorsement in the race for Stowe House representative, since Scheuermann is running unopposed. But this is an opportunity to thank someone who has devoted her entire professional career to serving her country, state and community. After the Peace Corps, she worked for Vermont’s senator in D.C. and then in Montpelier. Now, she’s running for a second term in the House and is in her fourth year on the Stowe Select Board, where she has served as chairwoman. If you thought that sounds like her days are full, Scheuermann is also president of her homeowners association, where she recently negotiated a loan for a major culvert replacement.

In her dual capacity in Stowe and Montpelier, Scheuermann is in a unique, effective position to serve Stowe’s interests and to speak with authority for this community. That is frequently quite challenging in a Legislature that has time for Stowe’s generous t ax revenues, but not its concerns. Thankful ly, Scheuermann is no shrinking violet, and her credibility as someone who understands the struggles of everyday Vermonters is only enhanced by the fact that she runs family and senior housing complexes in Stowe.

Scheuermann is Stowe’s only ch oice in the House race. For good reason.

<a href=”http://www.heidischeuermann.com/”>
<img src=”http://www.heidischeuermann.com/images/heidi1.jpg”
width=”200″ height=”54″ alt=”www.heidischeuermann.com/” border=0></a>

to make smaller change:

width=”180″ height=”48″ or

width=”160″ height=”43″