When ‘Working Together’ Means Falling in Line
, on Apr 28, 2026
On January 6, 2026, the first day of the legislative session, Governor Scott said we have “an opportunity and responsibility to lead by example,” emphasizing collaboration over “hyperpartisan activism and political division.” He called for putting “people ahead of partisanship, solutions ahead of slogans, and decency over divisions.”
The very next day, in his State of the State address, he drew a firm line: he would not sign a budget, education bill, or tax bill that deviates from Act 73, the education transformation bill passed last year.
Taken together, these statements raise a fair question: what does “working together” actually mean? Is it collaboration — or compliance?
A similar contrast appears in the Governor’s approach to Act 181 vs Act 73. Regarding Act 181, our Act 250 modernization law, the Governor highlighted concerns about the “road rule” and Tier 3 protections and urged the legislature to listen to Vermonters. Lawmakers did just that, heard the concerns, and are now adjusting the policy accordingly.
The very next day, in his State of the State address, he drew a firm line: he would not sign a budget, education bill, or tax bill that deviates from Act 73, the education transformation bill passed last year.
Taken together, these statements raise a fair question: what does “working together” actually mean? Is it collaboration — or compliance?
A similar contrast appears in the Governor’s approach to Act 181 vs Act 73. Regarding Act 181, our Act 250 modernization law, the Governor highlighted concerns about the “road rule” and Tier 3 protections and urged the legislature to listen to Vermonters. Lawmakers did just that, heard the concerns, and are now adjusting the policy accordingly.
But his response to Act 73 tells a different story. A redistricting task force conducted extensive public engagement, hearing from more than 5,000 Vermonters — parents, educators, school boards, and community members. The message was clear: there is strong opposition to forced school district mergers. In response, the task force proposed an alternative — shared services to reduce costs without mandating consolidation.
The Governor’s reaction was to say the task force failed.
That contrast is hard to ignore. When public input aligns with the Governor’s position, it’s a call to listen. When it doesn’t, it’s dismissed. Vermonters deserve better than this.
The same pattern shows up in the current budget debate. The Governor has proposed using $105 million in one-time funds to lower education property taxes in FY27. But that creates a $105 million gap the following year, with no clear plan to fill it—either through higher property taxes or cuts to essential services like public safety, Medicaid, mental health, housing, infrastructure, or water quality.
The House took a more gradual approach, spreading those funds over two years to avoid a sudden fiscal cliff. That’s a more sustainable path, and one that acknowledges the realities of FY28.
Meanwhile, the House-passed budget aligns with over 99% of the Governor’s original proposal. It also uses limited one-time funds to support critical programs Vermonters rely on — Meals on Wheels, mental health services, housing supports, and more—while being transparent that this funding may not continue in the future.
The Governor’s reaction was to say the task force failed.
That contrast is hard to ignore. When public input aligns with the Governor’s position, it’s a call to listen. When it doesn’t, it’s dismissed. Vermonters deserve better than this.
The same pattern shows up in the current budget debate. The Governor has proposed using $105 million in one-time funds to lower education property taxes in FY27. But that creates a $105 million gap the following year, with no clear plan to fill it—either through higher property taxes or cuts to essential services like public safety, Medicaid, mental health, housing, infrastructure, or water quality.
The House took a more gradual approach, spreading those funds over two years to avoid a sudden fiscal cliff. That’s a more sustainable path, and one that acknowledges the realities of FY28.
Meanwhile, the House-passed budget aligns with over 99% of the Governor’s original proposal. It also uses limited one-time funds to support critical programs Vermonters rely on — Meals on Wheels, mental health services, housing supports, and more—while being transparent that this funding may not continue in the future.
That is what compromise looks like.
Despite this, the Governor has threatened to veto the entire budget unless his preferred approach to education reform is adopted. That raises another fundamental question: how is that consistent with the call to “work together”?
There is also concern about the lack of direct engagement. While the Governor has urged others to listen to Vermonters, he has not personally participated in community conversations with educators, school boards, and families, despite repeated invitations over the past two years. Instead, he dictates his position from the podium at weekly press conferences.
Despite this, the Governor has threatened to veto the entire budget unless his preferred approach to education reform is adopted. That raises another fundamental question: how is that consistent with the call to “work together”?
There is also concern about the lack of direct engagement. While the Governor has urged others to listen to Vermonters, he has not personally participated in community conversations with educators, school boards, and families, despite repeated invitations over the past two years. Instead, he dictates his position from the podium at weekly press conferences.
Finally, the stakes of a veto are significant. Vermont has no precedent for a government shutdown, but without an enacted budget, the state cannot spend any funds — including federal dollars. That would disrupt payments to state employees, service providers, schools, and vulnerable Vermonters who rely on programs like SNAP and Medicaid.
The ripple effects would be immediate and severe, impacting everything from grocery stores to healthcare providers to seniors depending on Meals on Wheels. Longer-term consequences could include legal challenges and damage to the state’s credit and reputation. In short, the consequences are real — and avoidable.
If “working together” is the goal, it has to mean more than insisting on a single outcome. It requires listening, compromise, and shared responsibility for the decisions that affect all Vermonters.
Rep. Robin Scheu (D-Middlebury)
Chair, House Appropriations Committee
The ripple effects would be immediate and severe, impacting everything from grocery stores to healthcare providers to seniors depending on Meals on Wheels. Longer-term consequences could include legal challenges and damage to the state’s credit and reputation. In short, the consequences are real — and avoidable.
If “working together” is the goal, it has to mean more than insisting on a single outcome. It requires listening, compromise, and shared responsibility for the decisions that affect all Vermonters.
Rep. Robin Scheu (D-Middlebury)
Chair, House Appropriations Committee