I was asked by the St. Albans Messenger a series of questions that will continue each week until the election on November 6th. This is the eighth question:  The period for voluntary mergers under Act 46 is coming to a close, and some communities facing a mandated merger of their school district are deeply unhappy. Should the state continue on the course it set when Act 46 passed, particularly since districts across the state merged voluntarily under the rules established with Act 46, or should changes be made to accommodate those who are unhappy over potential district mergers?

Act 46 was an attempt by the legislature to address rising property taxes across Vermont by merging school districts.  First voluntarily with a tax incentive and then what we are now seeing playout through forced mergers.  What most people don't talk about is that Act 46 initially had a spending threshold which would have penalized high spending districts which were removed by the legislature less than a year after its original passage.  Meaning Act 46 as it stands today has zero cost containment mechanisms in it.  

Without cost containment, there is no real reason to continue to pursue the ends of Act 46.  What are they trying to address through forced mergers?  If the Vermont legislature wanted to get serious about any type of consolidation in our education system, we should discuss supervisory unions.  I do not believe there is a need for 65 superintendents in Vermont. 

I was asked by the St. Albans Messenger a series of questions that will continue each week until the election on November 6th. This is the eighth question:  The period for voluntary mergers under Act 46 is coming to a close, and some communities facing a mandated merger of their school district are deeply unhappy. Should the state continue on the course it set when Act 46 passed, particularly since districts across the state merged voluntarily under the rules established with Act 46, or should changes be made to accommodate those who are unhappy over potential district mergers?

Act 46 was an attempt by the legislature to address rising property taxes across Vermont by merging school districts.  First voluntarily with a tax incentive and then what we are now seeing playout through forced mergers.  What most people don't talk about is that Act 46 initially had a spending threshold which would have penalized high spending districts which were removed by the legislature less than a year after its original passage.  Meaning Act 46 as it stands today has zero cost containment mechanisms in it.  

Without cost containment, there is no real reason to continue to pursue the ends of Act 46.  What are they trying to address through forced mergers?  If the Vermont legislature wanted to get serious about any type of consolidation in our education system, we should discuss supervisory unions.  I do not believe there is a need for 65 superintendents in Vermont.