Blog

/ /

Clarification on UVM Enrollment Data

The thing about data is that you can cherry pick points within a longitudinal view to make just about any argument you want to make. I’ve been keeping track of responses to my proposed legislation (H.311) that would cap UVM enrollment at current levels until the housing crisis in Burlington improves. This legislation would also require UVM to stop absorbing their enrollment increases by simply forcing students, three to a room, into rooms that have historically housed only two students. Some of the more puzzling responses encourage the reader to look at the data between 2009 and 2019. Viewing the data between these oddly suggested parameters might suggest there is no real concern. This is disingenuous at best.

It appears, instead, to be deliberately evasive.

When considering whether or not it would be prudent to allow UVM the necessary zoning exemptions to build more on-campus housing, we cannot simply look at a block of time between 2009 and 2019. The concern, as expressed countless times by the City Council as  well as just about any resident who lives near the university, is that UVM has a clear and documented history of building new housing, increasing enrollment beyond capacity, and then requesting exemptions to build new housing.

When you consider how enrollment has increased within the five years following the two most recently completed on-campus residencies for first and second year students, the pattern is clear. The City of Burlington has asked that UVM come to the table prepared to discuss its enrollment plans and to commit to limiting its growth. Given the clear pattern, this is a very fair request.

/ /

Town Meeting Week Legislative Update

As we arrive to Town Meeting Week, the break allows me an opportunity to reflect on the first half of the legislative session, re-center myself for the work that will need to continue next week, and provide you an update with regard to the critical bills I feel we should be watching for the second half of the 2023 session.

I remain so incredibly grateful for the opportunity to work with and represent you as we collectively determine our next best steps that will allow us to improve our community with a commitment grounded in intersectional principles of social, racial, economic, and environmental justice. I will be attending NPA meetings this week and look to hear from as many of you as possible. Please take note of the meetings for your Ward:

Ward 1
Wednesday, March 8th | 7:00pm – 9:00pm
Friends Meeting House, 173 North Prospect Street

Wards 2 and 3
Thursday, March 9th | 6:30pm – 8:30pm
ONE Community Center, 20 Allen St.

As an update to my most recent blog entry, H.97 was reverted to it’s original draft and the Miscellaneous Changes to Elections Law became H.429 — ultimately passing out of the House after much debate. The bill is now headed to the Senate and I continue to have significant concerns. While the final version of the bill allows candidates who are endorsed by more than one party (fusion candidates) to continue to identify their candidacy according to personal affiliation, I remain very concerned with how the new bill would inject money into the campaign and election process. I also remain very concerned how the bill would give the power to any major party to prohibit individuals who lose a primary to then run as an independent. I don’t think any party should hold that type of gate-keeping power. My hope is that the bill will die in the Senate.

In addition to the bills listed below, I will be especially mindful of tracking the conversation on UVM’s willingness to engage with City Council with regard to the impact their enrollment strategy will have on our housing crisis. I’ll also soon have the opportunity to impact the conversations about whether or not to commit a bonding obligation to the construction of a new women’s prison. I will talk in more detail about my final committee vote and the philosophy I bring to that decision with my next blog update.

I do look forward to meeting with you this week if you are able to attend the NPA meetings. If not, you can track the following bills by going to the General Assembly home page and simply input the bill number into the search engine.

 

Bills to Watch:

Workforce
H.66 – An act relating to paid family and medical leave insurance
H.92 – An act relating to expanding eligibility for unemployment insurance
H.116 – An act relating to miscellaneous employment protections and standards
H.217 – An act relating to miscellaneous workers’ compensation amendments (Passed to Senate)
H.218 – An act relating to requiring good cause for termination of employment
H.219 – An act relating to miscellaneous employee and collective bargaining rights
H.144 – An act relating to exempting unemployment compensation from income tax
H.415 – An act relating to increasing the minimum wage, eliminating exemptions from the minimum wage, and creating a grant program for certain employers

Human Rights/Safety
H.22 – An act relating to sexual exploitation of a person who is being investigated by law enforcement
H.28 – An act relating to diversion and expungement (Passed to Senate)|
H.40 – An act relating to nonconsensual removal of or tampering with a sexually protective device (Passed to Senate)
H.41 – An act relating to referral of domestic and sexual violence cases to community justice centers (Passed to Senate)
H.45 – An act relating to abusive litigation filed against survivors of domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault (Passed to Senate)
H.72 – An act relating to a harm-reduction criminal justice response to drug use
H.88 – An act relating to reducing the imposition of cash bail
H.93 – An act relating to Reach Up benefit levels
H.94 – An act relating to removing the Reach Up ratable reduction (Passed to Senate)
H.98 – An act relating to firearms crimes and procedures
H.148 – An act relating to raising the age of eligibility to marry (Passed to Senate)
H.190 – An act relating to removing the residency requirement from Vermont’s patient choice at end of life laws (Passed to Senate)

Health Care/Harm Reduction
H.89 – Shield Laws: An act relating to civil and criminal procedures concerning legally protected health care activity (Passed to Senate)
H.112 – An act relating to opioid use disorder response services

Education
H.106 – An act relating to the academic freedom of educators.
H.311 – An act relating to University of Vermont and State Agricultural College residential living space

Environment
S.5/H.96 – An act relating to affordably meeting the mandated greenhouse gas reductions for the thermal sector through electrification, decarbonization, efficiency, and weatherization measures (Passed from Senate to House)
S.59/H.328 – An act relating to the replacement of heating systems owned or controlled by the State

Passed to Senate that I Oppose:
H.429 – An act relating to miscellaneous changes to election laws (Passed to Senate)

/ /

Urging Action on Proposed Campaign and Election Changes

I’m writing to explain my intended vote on what I perceive to be a poorly constructed bill that has been voted out of the House Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs. It is very likely that we will be voting on this bill as early as Wednesday, March 1st. If you wish to take action by contacting other State Representatives, it will be critical for you to do so within the next day or two. I’ll link an action step option for you at the end of this blog.

It’s also important to realize that the Committee leadership created this bill by striking out the existing language on another unrelated bill to insert these edits to existing campaign and election processes. I know there are a few co-sponsors who chose to sign on to the initial bill before these edits were strongarmed into place. At least one of those co-sponsors has expressed frustration with the fact that they now remain listed as a sponsor of this completely different bill. This is an unfortunate example of how others with personal agendas distort and misuse the process.

The bill is listed on the Committee on Government Operations landing page as Draft No. 3.3 – H.97. This is one of the more confusing bills I’ve had to decipher and I do not believe that is unintentional (anything struckout is language proposed for removal; anything underlined is language added for consideration). This is not merely a case in which the legal language necessary to create a new statute is confusing to the outside observer. This is also a case by which a supermajority party is seemingly adding deliberate complicated schemes to our campaign and election processes. My interpretation is that this only serves the party in control by consolidating power and closing access by which anyone else might wish to join the arena. This is a clumsy attempt at a power grab. A pet project.

I campaigned and ran as a Progressive/Democrat candidate. I could spend an entire separate blog entry to discuss why those affiliations accurately capture my candidacy. This is how I choose to affiliate and present myself. I believe that freedom of affiliation is a critical component of the process by which we select those who represent us in Montpelier. I am thankful and grateful to the Democratic Party for giving me a landing spot as I was leaving a very conservative small town and finding my path to progressive action. Upon arrival to Vermont, I was so thankful to find that the Progressive party was a thriving and active political community. I am a Progressive/Democrat and I’m open to any continued conversation on how I define that.

H.97 is problematic for a few reasons. First, H.97, as written within this draft, is undemocratic. If passed, the state (as identified by the supermajority party) would be governing how other major parties may choose to identify themselves. Even if I identified purely as a Democrat, I would have significant problems with the party resorting to control methods similar to which we’ve seen and have always been justifiably critical when implemented from other parties.

At a time when nearly one third of all seats were won uncontested, we should be drafting legislation to make it easier for candidates to appear on the general ballot, not harder. This is critical to a functioning democracy. Instead of spending time on such unnecessary and unrequested legislation, the Committee could have used this opportunity, if they really cared about democracy, to develop avenues for the public financing of elections and ranked choice voting.

But why spend any time on considering the benefits of the public financing of elections when you can simply create legislation that allows your party to hoard more wealth? If passed, H.97 will pump more money into politics by raising the maximum limit on contributions from a political candidate to a political party. That limit is currently set at $10,000. If passed, H.97 would increase the limit to an absurd $100,000. This also allows the party to then transfer an equal amount to any other candidate.

Every Progressive candidate commits to refusing corporate money. We believe that grassroots organizing is the key to winning elections and building strong coalitions – not money and TV ads. I have written before about my early realizations that our processes already contain far too many economic barriers for anyone who might wish to serve but doesn’t have the means to begin a campaign. H.197 increases those barriers exponentially.

The House Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs has a place in our process that would allow them to pass so much critical legislation that would serve the people of Vermont. They’ve got such an opportunity to do good work. Pet projects and power grabs are not good work. H.97 only serves the party in charge.

The Progressive Party of Vermont has made it very easy to reach out to any State Representative if you feel the desire to impact this vote. Please consider reaching out to voice your concern.

/ /

Bill H.311 — An act relating to University of Vermont and residential living space.

I’ve spent the past few weeks informing our district that I would introduce a bill with the intent of holding the University of Vermont accountable for playing a deliberate role in addressing the Burlington Housing Crisis. That bill now has a reference number (H.311) and has been assigned to the House Committee on Education.

While I’ve been hesitant to initiate legislative action on this issue that should most certainly be resolved between the City of Burlington and UVM, I worry that the University administration has provided consistent indicators that it remains unwilling to bargain that resolution in good faith. When all possible attempts arrive at gridlock, it becomes important to consider all possible tools that might be available to us to keep the conversation going. This is my attempt.

As I see it, here is the primary concern:

UVM’s Enrollment has increased by 813 students since completing the Central Campus Residence Hall. This is the continuation of a very familiar cycle. UVM builds new housing, then fills that housing beyond capacity within 5 years, and then seeks approval to build more housing to relieve the capacity issues. Meanwhile, 30% of UVM on-campus students are told to anticipate being housed in “forced triples” – a scenario where three students are assigned to a room that has historically been a double room.

Enrollment increased by 245 students in the past year alone. These students will lock into leases as early as August of this year for June 2024 housing. If each student lives with three others, that’s an additional 61 housing units needed since last year and an additional 203 units needed since 2017. This is not sustainable.

H.311 proposes that we apply a brake to UVM’s enrollment increases according to the following measures:

  1. UVM must cap enrollment at its current level until the Burlington rental vacancy rate rises to a more healthy 5%.
  2. UVM must guarantee all on-campus students a minimum square footage of living space more in line with Burlington’s zoning requirements.
  3. Any new UVM residential housing must first be used to relieve the overcrowded conditions by de-tripling residential students.
  4. UVM must utilize any rooms that do not meet the square footage minimum to accommodate students with documented medical need for a single room.

I do not know how many of my fellow legislators would answer the question about whether or not this would be considered legislative overreach. Even the Burlington legislators are not in consensus about this approach. Of the 11 Burlington Representatives, 5 of us have signed on as co-sponsors.

If you feel this bill aligns with solutions you think are reasonable, please consider reaching out to the Chair of the House Committee on Education urging him to allow me the opportunity to introduce this bill on the record. At the very least, this would allow me to define the problem to a larger audience. It is not at all inappropriate to contact any of the committee members with the same request. You will note that we have Representatives from Burlington and Chittenden County on that committee. Please be respectful as you tell your story about why you think it is important for UVM to come to the table. We get a lot of emails. Mention the bill number in the subject line, identify yourself as a Burlington constituent, and tell your honest story. If you are a UVM student, discuss the impact you have felt as you’ve lived on campus and, if relevant, what you experienced as you transitioned off campus. If you happen to be a UVM staff member, talk about the impact our increased enrollment has had on your ability to serve students.

As always, please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions, concerns, or continued dialogue. I’ve already begun conversations with many of you and feel it is important to note that this issue seems to resonate with all demographics of our district – long time residents and students alike.

/ /

Week Four: Budget Adjustment, Trust in our Teachers, Alarming Worker Conditions

I write today’s update a few days following Groundhog’s Day … providing, perhaps, a notable analogy to the legislative work we do that seems to perpetually repeat itself (sometimes seemingly without any tangible end or prediction in sight). I landed in Montpelier just one month ago and I’m already feeling as though I’ve begun to find some secure footing as I navigate the processes and relationships that should help me instigate changes that truly serve those who have elected me.

This week’s most noteworthy legislation passed as H.145, The Budget Adjustment Act (BAA). The BAA provides the Scott Administration an opportunity to offer adjustments to the budget of the previous biennium prior to the close of the fiscal year. The Legislature then offers any edits that better reflect our policy priorities. With this Act, the House added to the Governor’s proposed adjustments by leveraging an unprecedented amount of federal dollars that remain available following the pandemic, along with revenue increases from favorable projections and the carrying forward of various savings and funds that have gone unused. This is a last look at the budget put in place by my predecessors before the close of the fiscal year at the end of June.

I was more than pleased to vote in support of the BAA which adds $83 million for statewide housing initiatives, including a continuation of the emergency housing vouchers paired with accompanying wraparound support services for Vermonters most in need and currently unhoused. We also approved an additional $9 million in support of Vermont’s Organic Dairy Farmers. These funds will assist us in preventing any additional losses of these critical family run businesses. Finally, the bill provides an additional $30 million in support of expanding broadband high-speed internet access to our underserved rural communities along with $3 million for additional rural infrastructure assistance. These are critical advancements that will allow us to mend the gaps we’ve discovered as a result of our need to rely more and more on technology as we step into various hybrid plans for work and school. The bill passed 107-33 via roll call vote.

I began my week responding to a request from the House Committee on Education to provide a brief walk-through of H.106, the bill I introduced that intends to protect our public educators (pre K-12) and their autonomy to teach on topics of diversity, equity, and inclusion. I was grateful for the opportunity to hopefully convince the committee of jurisdiction that this step is critical to the recently passed Act 1 (2019) that offers recommendations to the Agency of Education resulting from the Ethnic and Social Equity Standards Advisory Working Group. All testimony, including mine, is logged on each committee’s  page via YouTube. I welcome any critique, concerns, or feedback. I was also pleased to receive support from VT-NEA, our teachers’ union. Colin Robinson, Vermont-NEA’s Political Director responded by stating “we know that the standards established by the Act 1 Working Group, assuming they are adopted, will be significant not only in substance and practices but will likely result in significant and important conversation in classrooms in the years to come.  In many ways, the concept raised in H.106, could be a belt or suspenders to assist/protect districts and educators as they embark on the process of implementation of the Act 1 standards.” Again, please do not hesitate to contact the Committee Chair or any of the other members should you wish to offer support or thoughts on the progression of H.106. All contact information can be found on the committee’s landing page

This week, we also received notice of the Senate’s much anticipated child care bill. S.56 is a robust bill that seeks to expand the availability of pre-kindergarten child care options. I was thankful to read that Let’s Grow Kids, Vermont’s most impactful early childhood education advocacy group, remains supportive and enthusiastic about the bill. Please stay connected with Let’s Grow Kids for ways to remain active as we advance this legislation. I have already signed-on to the House bill that will partner the process in support of these endeavors and look forward to its first reading on the House floor, hopefully this coming week. I’ll update with more information once I have a bill number for the House legislation

In committee, I was both grateful and saddened to continue the conversation on the status and morale with our state’s corrections workers. In my last blog update, I provided some initial thoughts on what I was learning about the general state of our incarcerated population. Since then, we’ve received multiple days worth of testimony that unpacks the more general concerns to offer a more detailed look at the data. I’m grateful to a partnership that has recently developed between the Vermont Department of Corrections, Independent UVM Researchers Professor Kathy Fox and Professor Abigail Crocker, and the Urban Institute. The partnership results in the Prison Research and Innovation Network (PRIN) and the Vermont 2022 Prison Climate Surveys. I urge you to review the results presented to our committee via the slide deck found within the documents of our committee page. I will warn you that the data from this longitudinal study highlights that our corrections officers are highly stressed and report being at an undeniable breaking point with their stress and morale. An alarming 30% of these workers recently responded ‘yes’ to the question: “At any time in the last 12 months did you seriously think about trying to kill yourself?”.

Following that presentation, our committee asked our Chair to continue the conversation. After hearing testimony from the Vermont State Employees’ Association, the union representing our corrections officers, we have arrived at an intersection between two conflicting viewpoints – those held by the Commissioner for the Department of Corrections, who expresses optimism for recent recruitment and retention strategies, compared to those held by the union leadership who reports continued concerns from their employees who feel unheard, unvalidated, and disregarded. As I write this update, that conflict has not been resolved and I can only assure you that I will continue to seek as much information as I can with the hopes of improving conditions.

I also want to provide an update to pending legislation regarding my attempts to hold UVM accountable for playing a role in alleviating Burlington’s housing crisis. I have requested a draft of legislation that would attempt two things. First, I think we have arrived at the time to cap UVM’s enrollment at current levels until Burlington’s rental vacancy rate improves to 5%. Additionally, we need to apply light to the methods by which UVM continues to masquerade its moratorium on tuition increases by bringing more and more out-of-state students (paying more in tuition) and then simply warehousing those students, along with our Vermont students, into more and more forced triple rooms that have historically only housed two students. My proposed legislation will also require UVM to guarantee a minimum amount of floor space per student based on the current average sized double room. Any newly constructed residential facilities would first need to serve that requirement. This would also likely free up more rooms to accommodate students who have medical needs that require a single room. Once that bill draft is complete, I’ll update with a bill number and urge you to follow its progression through the committee.

Within hours of expressing my intended legislation to the other Burlington Representatives, I was contacted by UVM’s legislative liaison to discuss the proposed bill. It appears I’ve got their attention which will hopefully keep the UVM administration at the bargaining table with our City Councilors. I received nearly unanimous verbal support from the other Burlington Representatives with the exception of one – a Representative who also serves on the UVM Board of Trustees. You can read that Representative’s thoughts in a recent VTDigger Op-ed. I do not share the optimism expressed within the article, and will continue to proceed with the legislative process I’ve begun with my draft request. Updates will follow.

As always, please do not hesitate to contact me in any number of ways to discuss these issues or if there is any way I can improve upon my service. I appreciate the faith you have all put in me to represent you.

/ /

Week Two Legislative Update. Capital Bill and Corrections 101.

I have not yet determined if it will be feasible to provide an update every week. At this point in time, however, I’ve got the capacity to offer a summary following the second week of the legislative session. Before I provide that, allow me to alert you to the fact that the House and Senate Progressives have a press conference scheduled for this Tuesday, January 17th at noon. Following the press conference, we’ll be posting our platform for the new legislative biennium. I’ll certainly post links for locating that document once it has been made public.

Week two began the real work of getting all new committee members up to speed on the general concepts and previous legislation that is likely to have an impact on our committee work. Given the fact that both the House and Senate are experiencing the largest turnover of legislators in history, these overview sessions are critically important. My committee, the House Committee on Corrections and Institutions, spent time learning about the 2022-23 Capital Bill as well as an overview of the Department of Corrections in anticipation of receiving the Governor’s proposed budget this Friday, January 20th. Jennifer Fitch, Commissioner for the Department of Buildings and General Services, along with Joe Aja, her Director for Design and Construction offered incredibly thorough presentations over the course of the week that outlined the history of the recent Capital Bill and some of the larger projects supported through those appropriations.

I urge you all to become familiar with the linked page that will take you to our committee landing spot. From there you have access to all meeting agendas as well as any documents we review. This will be especially useful should you wish to follow the anticipated topics surrounding the possibility of constructing a new women’s prison facility. This is likely to be an intensely debated topic that will likely impact the Capital Bill (the bill that dictates how the State can commit to any construction bonds) for years.

We also received an introductory presentation on the current status of the Department of Corrections. Commissioner Nicholas Deml facilitated the presentation and, although it was a very broad look at our current state of incarceration in Vermont, I’ve already realized that I’ll need to take a much deeper dive into some data that jumped out at me as alarming. Specifically, I was surprised and saddened to learn about the number of people we incarcerate that have not yet received any sentence. At the time of the presentation, 499 of our total 1346 incarcerated population are considered detainees. An astounding 50% of our 107 incarcerated women are currently detained without a sentence. This compares to approximately 36% of our incarcerated men. Additionally, many of these people currently detained without a sentence are likely to have been incarcerated for issues adjacent to a substance use disorder.

During the presentation, I encouraged our Commissioner to become more deliberate about how they survey for gender identity. You’ll note from the slide that the current data is not at all recognizing of a broader continuum of gender identity and groups people into an “other” category that only serves to reinforce an antiquated and restrictive gender binary. I also asked for more data pertaining to the racial demographics of our incarcerated population. That information was only briefly discussed during the overview. I have since received that additional data and will be evaluating them over the coming weeks. You can find the full set of slides used during the presentation by navigating to the Documents and Handouts section of the Committee landing page and then searching the “Other Documents” tab. It will be absolutely critical for us to consider the many ways we detain people that may not necessarily need to be incarcerated. These will be important questions as various advocates for building a new prison enter the conversation. Currently, the proposed construction estimates for such a facility would increase the total number of beds, may not necessarily add to any step-down options for people who are low-risk or approaching the end of their sentence, and may cost as much as 500 million dollars to construct. As always, I’d love to hear your thoughts and concerns as I represent you in the room where these conversations will continue.

I anticipate that my first bill will be introduced to the floor very soon. I am finalizing the process by which I gather co-sponsors and do not have a clear understanding of the timeline between the completion of that step and the point at which it becomes formally introduced. That bill, in general, will seek to protect our k-12 public educators from outside influence from far-right activist groups that seek to restrict curricula on matters pertaining to social justice. I am also in the initial stages of working with other Representatives from Burlington to introduce legislation that seeks to hold UVM accountable to building solutions for the housing and rental crisis in our city. I’ll have more details for you as they develop.

/ /

Reflections on My First Week as a Legislator

This week was largely ceremonial, but I want to pause and let you all know where I’ve landed now that the new biennium has begun in Montpelier. I remain so grateful for the support and engagement I’ve received already from so many of you in the Chittenden 15 district. And, before I find my tangents with this blog post, I want to be certain to let you all know that I’ll be at the Ward 1 NPA meeting this week should you wish to grab some of my in-person attention. Additional legislators for our district will also be present and I’m thankful to Carol and Tom for putting the agenda together to discuss your legislative priorities. The NPA will meet at 7:00 pm at the Friends Meeting House at 173 North Prospect. I hope to see you there.

On Wednesday, I was honored to witness the election of Representative Jill Krowinski from our own town of Burlington as Speaker of the House of Representatives for another term. I align well with her platform and look forward to working with the rest of the House to pass some progressive legislation that will serve the working families of our district well. Shortly following that we were all sworn in and then officially seated before receiving our committee appointments. You can find me at seat 54. I’ve got essentially a front-row view of anything happening from the Speaker’s podium.

I’ve been appointed to the House Committee on Corrections and Institutions. Our committee is led by Representative Alice Emmons as Chair. Rep. Emmons is also currently the longest serving member of the House, so I’m grateful to have landed in a spot that should foster mentorship from such a committed and experienced legislator. This committee considers policy matters relating to the Department of Corrections and the appropriation of funds to maintain public buildings and State lands/property. If I’m being fully transparent, I had not listed Corrections and Institutions at all on my list of top five preferred committees. That being said, the corrections policy work should align well with my commitment to restorative justice as we seek to impact our current approach to incarceration. I know that Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun will be reintroducing what was bill H.296 from the last biennium. Rep. Bos-Lun co-sponsored the bill with my predecessor and amazingly supportive friend and mentor, Rep. Selene Colburn. The intent of the bill is to prohibit cash bail for misdemeanor crimes that would be ultimately eligible for expungement. The cash bail system disproportionately impacts our most impoverished Vermonters, often resulting in individuals spending months in jail awaiting trial for the sole reason that they are unable to afford even a $200 bail. The legislation did not make it out of committee last biennium, but I am assured that there remains a lot of positive energy in support of the bill. I intend to add my support to the bill.

On Thursday, I “enjoyed” my front row seat to the Governor’s inaugural address. For me, the highlight of that ceremony was listening to François Clemmons sing our national anthem. As I’m sure you know, François played Officer Clemmons on Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood. I had an after school ritual as a child where my mom would give us carrot sticks to eat while watching the show. When I saw him in the audience I had such an wonderful moment of gratitude for the amazing presence and energy he adds to our Vermont community. But, as I indicated, that was the high point.

By no means do I disagree with our Governor’s most strongly stated point that we must bridge the economic divide that remains between rural and urban Vermont. I just wish he would end his tendency to put our communities at odds with one another with the rhetoric he uses to make that point. The Governor mentioned Burlington at three separate times during his address, each time pointing out an unfair dichotomy with another more rural town. As identified well by this tweet, the Governor would be better served to realize that, when you zoom in on his over-generalized Chittenden County, our district’s median household income is far more aligned with the more rural communities he compared us against than we are with the rest of Chittenden County. The essential workers that drive the economy of this city can no longer afford to live within walking distance of their employers. And while our Governor applies his entire focus on the infrastructure that will certainly be needed to transition our communities into accommodating electric vehicles, he completely overlooks the public transit gaps that would serve our working class communities (who will be the very last to afford electric vehicles) in the meantime. I am thankful to belong to a cohort in the House that is full of forward thinking colleagues. We’re a younger chamber and a more populated by left-leaning legislators that we have been in a very long time. Despite my critiques, I am nothing but optimistic.

I’ll close with a “what I learned”  moment from the week. On Friday, I attended a workshop sponsored by the Ways and Means Committee that was designed to help new legislators better understand our tax system. To make one of their points, they explained that groceries are exempt from sales tax. As they should be. That’s an equity issue. But we have had debate on whether or not candy should be considered as groceries. Or does it make sense to tax candy? If we decide that we’re cool with taxing candy, we’ll need to define candy. Are marshmallows candy? Here’s my a-ha learning moment of the week: Those that make such determinations have decided that if a food item contains flour, it’s not candy. So Twix and Kit Kats are not candy. Enjoy accordingly.

/ /

Of Which People? By Which People? For Which People?

It’s official. With yesterday’s election, I’m headed to Montpelier to represent the Chittenden 15 district in the Vermont House of Representatives. In my most recent blog post I shared reflections on what it has been like to run as an uncontested candidate and some thoughts on the industry that has evolved to corrupt the campaign process. I am truly grateful for the opportunity to represent our district and I look forward to finding accessible methods to both keep you informed and to listen to your input (this blog being one way). Before I begin in January, I want to share a few more thoughts on what it takes to make this work from the perspective of our household budget.

Marianne and I are privileged to own a home (built on colonized land) in Burlington and to hold secure jobs. Our household income is well beyond the average for Vermont and this allows us the flexibility to maintain that home with upgrades, to travel, to contribute to each of our daughters’ weddings (one recent, one upcoming), and to enjoy all that our area offers for arts and entertainment. I am grateful to have a supportive partner who is the primary wage earner that allows me to consider this opportunity to serve in the legislature. I’ll see no interruption to health insurance coverage and, with some creativity, our household income should remain where it has been for the past few years.

Nonetheless I want to highlight the steps I’ve had to take and some sacrifices I’ll be making in order to pursue this opportunity. I acknowledge my financial privilege first in order to punctuate that I am not listing these sacrifices with any hope or need for praise. Rather, I want us all to begin to consider and find solutions so that the opportunity is truly available to everyone. If we’re only being represented by people who can afford to serve, we are truly not of, by, or for all of us. We are not truly representative government.

The Vermont Legislative Leave statute requires any employer to grant legislative leave to an employee who would need to leave that position in order to serve in the General Assembly. Additionally, that leave “shall not cause loss of job status, seniority, or the right to participate in insurance and other employee benefits during the leave of absence”. While this clearly identifies expectations of employers, I am certain not all employers would embrace an employee who expresses their intention to run for elected office with enthusiasm or unconditional support. I am grateful to work for a Director at the University of Vermont who immediately offered her advocacy for my decision to run with both enthusiasm and support. I am equally grateful to my co-workers within a small department who will graciously accommodate my absence for the spring semester.

Currently, legislative salaries total $742.92 per week during session. That’s less than what I make in my UVM job. It’s less than what most people make at $18.57 per hour (calculated for a 40 hour week). In order to keep our household income stable, I will not be taking a full leave from UVM. Instead, I’ll be working 10 hour days on Mondays at UVM and then an hour or two each day after the House is in session from Tuesdays through Fridays. I have always prioritized a work-life balance and this will be a significant departure from those priorities.

Additionally, meetings with the rest of the Progressive caucus have already begun. Because I ran unopposed, we’ve been able to begin the work of drafting our platform and our approach to the pending session. This, obviously, is unpaid work. I spoke in my last post about the privilege of not needing to “campaign” in the true sense of the word. However, many of my legislative partners are just now ending long, hard-earned campaigns – this is also unpaid labor. Consider who can truly afford to take that much time away from jobs and family in order to secure the opportunity to become a representative voice in Montpelier. Again, how representative are the systems we are building if only those who can afford to be there are those that are also drafting the rules?

On October 3rd, more than a month prior to Election Day, I received an e-mail that was sent to all candidates who would become new legislators asking that I block my calendar for four days at the end of November for new member orientation. I’ll be taking four vacation days from UVM in order to attend this orientation. The orientation is unpaid. If I worked a non-salaried position that did not offer vacation days, this would require me to forfeit 80% of my pay for that week. My guess is that you already hold opinions on employers who hire people and then require them to complete an unpaid orientation prior to beginning paid employment. Those opinions should currently apply to the Vermont Legislature. Please keep this in mind when you learn that I will be in full support of legislation to improve employment salaries and benefits for legislators. It’s always tricky to vote on legislation that will improve your own personal conditions. My viewpoint is that I am about to be in a position to create a system that may become more open to those who, currently, could not even begin to consider whether or not to run.

When we talk about structural and systemic inequity, this is just one example that relates to socio-economic class. Power and privilege will always seek to preserve itself and we have an obligation to interrupt that where and when we can. Access is equity. Who has a seat at the table matters. I intend to broaden access and to interrupt inequity however possible. As always, I welcome your input if you have ideas for how I can continue that interruption in ways that align with your own values. I’ll have a legislative e-mail soon enough. In the meantime, reach out via this web form to contact me.

/ /

… Any Club That Would Have Me as a Member: Thoughts From a Hesitant Politician

We’re less than four weeks away from the 2022 midterm elections and all indications are that I will be elected to represent the Chittenden 15 District to the Vermont State House of Representatives. I’ve been running unopposed since announcing my candidacy and, absent any well-orchestrated write-in campaign, it appears as though I’ll be heading to Montpelier in early January.

I can honestly identify myself as a once-reluctant candidate. I have had the privilege of being represented in Montpelier and in Washington DC by a long history of amazing people and the fortune of having those people align with my own beliefs. I’ve never really had to worry about my representatives acting in a way that did not feel supportive or in my best interest. This, along with a general hesitancy to interrupt my life of leisure, has kept me from ever really considering running for office myself. This is a tremendous privilege. So many people do not have their best interests supported by their representatives.

I align with the Progressive caucus of the Democratic party. I’m also fortunate to live in a state (and specifically within my city) where the Progressive party is a legitimate option. When asked to step into the role of State Rep by my local Progs, I ultimately came to the conclusion that it was time to step up to the task of actively keeping the caucus represented.

Running unopposed and as an absolute newcomer to the world of political campaigns has allowed me to develop what I feel is an objective viewpoint of the process. I’ve never done this before, so I’ve had no real need to do what has always worked or according to how things have always been done. While I feel an obligation to introduce myself within my district, I haven’t felt the pull to actually “campaign” from a persuasive “pick me” perspective. This, paired with a level of introversion and social anxiety to introduce myself out of the blue to strangers, has kept  me from really playing the campaign game at all. When you add the layer of a still very present COVID pandemic, I’ve been absolutely hesitant but nonetheless committed.

I’ve never understood a lot about how we approach the campaigns to elect our representatives and I don’t like what our perpetual campaign season has evolved to become. I deplore the concept of campaign lawn signs even though I put them in my yard. I think we use far too much paper and overwhelm mailboxes with mailers that, in all likelihood, end up directly in the trash or recycling bin. We require candidates to raise ridiculous amounts of money to battle one another with literature, t-shirts, and other forms of media. Countless text alerts and solicitations continue to show up until we opt out. It’s a broken system and, although it wasn’t part of my original platform, campaign finance reform is becoming a primary issue for me that I intend to question once I’m seated. I think everyone deserves the easy access that an unopposed candidate has.

Running unopposed means that I don’t necessarily need to play the game within that broken system. And I’m beginning to wonder if I have an obligation to actively and publicly disengage with “campaign strategy” in ways that are visible and transparent so that we can all begin to seek an understanding of what it might be like if no candidate had to play the silly games, raise the money, or respond to the aspects of the campaign machine that are unhealthy.
I’ve been overwhelmed with texts and e-mails from all over the country from those who would seek to profit by convincing me that I need their assistance to broaden my reach. I can’t figure out why an organization in an entirely different state should collect the money donated by my generous supporters just to overwhelm those in my district with more robo-texts. Similarly, I’ve been approached by individuals here in Vermont who claim that they can help me in a variety of ways with a workshop or coaching. The monetization of the campaign cycle is unfortunate and, in my opinion, entirely unnecessary. “Troy, we can guarantee delivered banners and video ads 1-to-1 to any segment of your voter universe. Our tech is by far the most efficient and most effective marketing spend in the final weeks before an election.” I pulled that from solicitation I received as I was writing this blog post. The area code of the person listed as my contact is for St. Louis. Headquarters for the agency who sent the e-mail are in Kentucky.

Shortly after my candidacy announcement, I began to receive questionnaires by countless organizations attempting to convince me that their endorsement would be necessary. I align well with some of these organizations, and my platform will serve their missions well. However, I have decided to disassociate my campaign from the click factory that this endorsement process has become. That cycle performs as follows: an organization reaches out to all campaigns and encourages us (often with repeated solicitation ahead of a deadline) to complete a questionnaire that will take anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes to complete. The solicitation is often pitched as leading to one of only a few coveted endorsements. Once endorsed, the candidate is encouraged to flood their own social media platforms with news of the prized endorsement, thereby driving clicks and follows to the organization. “Troy, please respond to the short survey sent to you on behalf of the Northeast Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association.” This was an actual pitch. I have nothing against hearths, patios, or barbecues … I have one of each … but please do not base your political decisions on who the NEHPBA is endorsing. The net result of candidates responding to this collection of pitches is that the legitimate issues are completely diluted from attention where it most certainly is warranted. We need a factory reset.

If you’ve read this far, thank you for hearing my thoughts. If you want to discuss my approach to what remains of this campaign, please reach out to me via this website (TroyHeadrick.com) or via e-mail at TroyHeadrickVT@gmail.com. Especially if you live within the Chittenden 15 district. Please know that, even if I am a hesitant (or still-reluctant) campaign participant, I am committed to serving you to the absolute best of my abilities once I hit the ground in Montpelier.

1 2 3