This Governor Scott faced pushback this week over his decision to transfer Snap recipients personal data to the Trump administration.

We are entering into a sacred trust with our state government.

We are making that deliberate choice to share our data.

But I don't think that any of us have an expectation that then that data is just going to be freely available to any government agency.

Plus, a look at how state lawmakers are utilizing legislative reports and study groups and unsheltered homelessness spikes in Vermont.

All that and more ahead on Vermont this week.

From the Vermont public studio in Winooski, this is Vermont this week, made possible in part by the Lintilhac Foundation and Milne Travel.

Here's moderator Mitch Wertlieb.

Thank you for joining us.

I'm Mitch Lieb.

It's Friday, August 8th, and with us on the panel today, we have Calvin Cutler from Wcax, Hannah Bassett from Seven Days, and Kevin McCallum also from Seven Days.

Thank you all so much for being here.

The big story that we're going to start with at the top is what you, heard referred to there in our open, Governor Phil Scott, giving information to the federal government for Snap recipients, personal data, sensitive information.

Here's what the governor had to say about why he felt it was okay to do that.

If people don't trust the federal government at all, then we're in big trouble.

If their counting on the little state of Vermont to protect them from everything the federal government does.

I just think I don't believe they're being realistic.

Okay.

There is quite a lot to unpack there.

And what the governor said, the reaction to all of this has been, swift and pretty forceful as well.

Kevin, let me start with you.

The governor is saying there that, you know, the federal government has a right to this data.

And he's also saying that if we can't trust the federal government, then we're in trouble.

But isn't it the case that people, at least in Vermont, and those folks whose information is over, are not trusting the federal government?

That's that's right, that's right.

No, I think there's definitely a sense that people had no expectation that their data, their names, their addresses, their Social Security numbers would be something that the state of Vermont would ever turn over to the federal government to, as some critics have said, be weaponized against them.

And, you know, Governor Scott says, look, this is a federal program.

This is food assistance for low income people who need it.

It's federal money.

We manage it for the federal government, but they have an absolute legal right to that data.

It's the only way they're going to be able to audit the program.

It's the only way they're going to be able to ferret out waste, fraud and abuse.

And so we didn't have the ability to say no to them when they asked for this information.

And so, he has a solid legal ground to stand on to say that they didn't have a choice to turn over this information, but the blowback and the reaction to the news that there was going to be this all this information for 64,000 low income people in the state of Vermont turned over to a federal government that people, as you say, it's no longer trust in many quarters to actually do the right thing with that information that really set off a bomb in the state.

And you had reaction from all quarters saying that this was just unconscionable, you know, and we're also looking at it's actually more than 64,000 people because this goes back five years.

Right.

So it's really more like, I think 140,000 people, with this information.

But there's even questions, Kevin and Kelvin, you can get it to this as well.

And everyone should be talking about this questions as to whether or not there really is a legal right for this.

There are attorneys general, at least 20 states, I believe, that are challenging this in court.

Vermont could have been one of them.

Yeah.

It's true.

And, you know, as Kevin mentioned, Governor Phil Scott says that, the federal government has the right to this data.

He points to changes that were made under the 2018 farm bill, which members of the congressional delegation also voted for at the time.

That's the governor's basis, basically saying that the federal government has a right to this data.

But at the same time, we have 20 other states, blue and red states, both suing to keep this data private.

So we'll see where where this goes and how that is, is settled out.

But as Kevin mentioned, I mean, this is really touching a nerve with a lot of Vermonters, a lot of politicians as well.

And this is just one of many instances that we've seen in recent, recent weeks.

Of of you know, what is the Scott administration's response from, you know, from the federal government intervening or doing actions here in Vermont?

I'm thinking, you know, our contract with Ice at state prisons or whether Ice will be able to use the Burlington International Airport to deport individuals or, you know, whether we're going to have the Vermont National Guard as well assist immigration authorities.

To be fair, the governor said no, on that one.

But, it really is in some ways raising these deeper questions about, you know, state government, its role and responsibility and its interaction with the federal government.

There was the voluntary nature of this to go ahead.

And I'm sorry about that.

No, as you just discussed, obviously, Vermont did not join the other attorneys general's in this, but, Attorney general Charity Clark did speak to kind of the concerns that the Trump administration's actions have raised in all of these other steps that they have taken, as Kevin was laying out there and, you know, she spoke to it there, that history is really pushing the boundaries of the norms around data privacy.

And this is just another example of, kind of that pushing of trust that, folks are experiencing once again here.

Kevin McCallum, this is not the first time that the attorney general and the governor have had something of a disagreement over this.

Is it?

No.

That's right.

She and the governor have taken very different positions about whether the state of Vermont ought to be essentially resisting the Trump administration here.

Obviously, the attorney general has taken every opportunity to push back, and sign on to virtually every significant lawsuit against, a policy initiative on the Trump administration that she views as, potentially harming Vermonters.

And, and she has expressed some frustration, I think, that the, the Scott administration has been much more hesitant to do so.

And we've seen this for months now.

Right?

Scott has been trying he's a he's a Republican governor, right.

So he but he is not a fan of Trump, and he is trying to figure out a way to push back when necessary.

Right.

But not get in the line of fire by pushing back too hard or too often.

And at the press conference the other day, he said, look, we cannot be constantly signing on to every lawsuit and pushing back on the administration at every opportunity, because it's just going to make what does he say?

It's just going to make for a really challenging three and a half years, if that's what we live under.

But but I find it I find it fascinating that these two top state officials have taken such diametrically opposed views on how to push back on Trump.

And for there's a good example where, where, you know, Charity Clark, signed on to, a lawsuit from, to try to get back some EV funding that the federal government is trying to claw back.

Right.

And she's she she's actively suing the government to try to make sure that we get $17 million of money so that we can build EV chargers and infrastructure that we all say has to happen.

And yet the Trump or the Scott administration doesn't cooperate with her.

It doesn't help with the lawsuit, doesn't, have its officials sign or, you know, attest to the big problem that that would cause for the state.

And so the judge says, oh, well, if you don't think it's a problem, then I don't think you should get the money.

And we didn't get the money, or at least we haven't yet.

So there's just been this disagreement between these two about the way to proceed, how to resist, when to resist, or if to resist at all that I find fascinating.

Yeah.

What I find fascinating, too, Calvin, let me ask you about this, and I want to get to your point first.

But again, it's the voluntary nature of this.

Scott didn't have to do anything here.

He could have sat back and seen how this played out, but he they asked for the information.

He said, yes, here it is.

Take it.

Yeah.

I mean, I think the governor is walking a fine line on this one.

I think, you know, if I'm Phil Scott or if I'm Jason Gibbs, I'm thinking, you know, it's going to Kevin's point, what the governor said it's going to be you know, we've still got three and a half more years.

We don't know what potentially is coming down the pike.

And so, you know, the governor is trying to balance sort of you know, Vermont potentially has a lot to lose from from the federal government.

I'm thinking, you know, cuts that were in the are coming down from the big beautiful bill, Medicaid cuts, snap cuts.

You know, we as a state of Vermont, we are very reliant on federal support, federal money.

And we might be a little bit more vulnerable to to some of these, if, you know, the Trump administration were to directly go after Vermont.

I'm thinking, you know, Governor Janet Mills in Maine, I think she, you know, a few weeks ago or months ago said, you know, to the president, we'll see you in court.

And took him on directly.

I was talking with, our one of our former attorney generals this week, and I guess Vermont or Maine has seen some, some blowback as a result of that in their education funding.

But regardless, you know, I think the governor's trying to walk a really fine line here, but politically as well.

And we can kind of get into the response to, this is one of, I think you mentioned, Mitch, one of the biggest sort of fault lines or cracks that we've seen in recent years in terms of, you know, political fallout.

That's the question I want to ask all of you, because this obviously, we're seeing a lot of Democrats respond to this pretty forcefully.

Are voters going to respond a certain way to this?

Again?

Governor Phil Scott, we have to emphasize, has been one of the if not the most popular governor in America, and he gets huge support from Democrats in this state, a very blue state.

But a lot of that was because of what you were talking about.

Kevin, before.

He's been, very vocal about opposing Trump in 2016.

And when he ran again, is this a crack here?

Is this something that that politically could be harmful for him?

Well, I don't know.

I mean, there were two very prominent Democratic politicians who immediately fired off some of the sharpest critiques I've heard of the governor in a long time.

Mike Pejic is, you know, a member of the administration.

He's he's an elected official in the state of it's treasurer.

And he it's very rare to see a sitting, treasurer, you know, essentially attack the governor and saying this.

He thought this was the wrong decision.

He called it a betrayal.

And so, you know, a breach of trust.

Sorry.

He called it a breach of trust, which is a version of a betrayal.

And that's just very strong language coming from a sitting state official.

And there were also, there was also a very sharply worded, statement from former lieutenant governor Zuckerman, who called it a betrayal and, and talked about how, this information could be weaponized against people now.

So that's the that's the interesting thing is that the governor wants to view this, and I think probably does view it as just basic information.

It's in a database.

It's names, addresses, Social Security numbers.

The state and the federal government have these things all over the place.

What's the big deal?

We're sharing the information.

But the fear, the fear underlying this whole story is that this information is going to be used against people.

It's going to be used against immigrants.

You know, the the, you know, lawsuit that was filed by the 20 other states made it very clear that there's absolutely every reason to believe that the Trump administration's effort to get this information from states is politically motivated and, almost certain to be used in their effort to, you know, enforcement, mass immigration enforcement efforts.

So that scares people to the core, you know, and people who watch this show keep up on the news.

And I know that you can make your own, come to your own conclusions about whether or not there is, a reason to be fearful of what this information could be used for.

I want to move on to a story that Hannah Bassett wrote about in seven days, and this is about legislative reports and study groups.

Don't turn off your TV.

This is actually more interesting than it sounds.

And Hannah, it's about how many of these reports are made each year in various topics, what they're used for.

What was the gist of your reporting on this?

Trying to say that, you know, some people are saying there's just too many of these things.

Legislative reports have been a fixture of the citizen legislature here in Vermont for as many years as people can remember.

Oftentimes these are reports produced by either legislators themselves or working groups that are made up of legislators or members of executive branch agencies.

Those executive branch, agency staff members are often the subject matter experts on the issues that these reports are focusing on.

So these reports are really helpful tools that, legislators turn to for various reasons.

Often it can be when time runs out in a legislative session, they just don't have enough time.

And that's really a short amount of, months that they are in Montpelier during the year to dig into some really complex issues.

Sometimes they just need more sophisticated research.

So that's when these, agencies will dig into these issues for, more extensive data collection.

For example, sometimes they can be weaponized almost to kind of kill an issue.

If you don't want an issue acted on, kick it to a report, kick it to a working group.

So anyways, these reports can be used in a lot of different manners.

Folks have talked about them as being too plentiful though.

So looking at how these reports have been used over the years, there have been efforts to cut back on them in last year's, kind of some of the total reports submitted to the legislature.

It was an all time high in the last decade.

So despite their best efforts, it's not doing enough to cut back if that's their ultimate goal.

And they do cost money, right?

I mean, that's another factor of it.

Yeah.

They they come with a cost, monetary cost.

But it also comes at a cost of just the time taken away from other work that especially those executive agency, executive branch, agency staff, can't spend on other issues.

So I spoke, for example, with, some staff in the Agency of Human Services, that's the executive branch agency that's tasked with the most, reports in the last decade.

And the department, one department was saying, you know, any amount of time that they spend on author ING these reports, they can't spend on things like Snap issues or, you know, investigating really important, child, you know, malfeasance or child abuse cases.

So it's just there's always a limited amount of time, limited amount of resources that state agencies have to work with.

And if the legislature is not being really intentional with these report requests, that's where the frustration can come in with the agencies.

And that's kind of what, the agency staff were communicating.

They're happy to do this work.

They really see the value of it.

It's just, if they're going to be this plentiful, just needing to make sure that they're being used and, being acted upon.

Well, I do want to get into something that we're actually going to talk about now.

And maybe this is an example of a report that is quite useful and that is very informative.

Educational redistricting.

There was a task force that did a report on that, right?

Yeah.

So that's one that's ongoing right now.

This is working group that was created in act 73 that was signed into law, just last month.

This is the big education bill from this year.

So this is the school district redistricting task force.

This is a group of, I think 11 members of legislators, current, current and past school officials.

They actually met for the first time last week, and they are tasked with drafting up, as many as three different proposals for what the new configuration of school districts might look like for the state of Vermont.

It's a hugely important step in the process that the legislature is undergoing to reshape how the state governs and finances, the school district, kind of education system here in the state.

And Calvin Cutler, this this is a big deal.

This is going to be one of the huge flashpoints when they get back together to reconvene, right?

For sure.

I mean, this task force is going to put together 2 or 3 maps, and lawmakers are going to have to make a choice on it and vote one of these these maps.

But, you know, I talked with members of the panel and they're optimistic.

They're they feel good about this work.

They feel good about the collaboration.

But they haven't done of work in front of them, even this week, it's press conference.

Governor Phil Scott said that they had asked questions of AOC and sort of help us establish, you know, a baseline of, you know what?

What's right and what's wrong.

And he said some of the questions they were asking were outside of of sort of the policy prescription or outside of the the task of this task force.

So and they are I mean, this is they have four months to do this work, so it's very compressed.

You know, you talk with, you know, any of the people on the panel, Senator Scott back, he said that basically once they come back in January, he's not thinking that they're going to lawmakers are going to take this recommendation.

He thinks that, you know, come day one, the Senate's going to have its own maps or the House is going to have its own maps, and people are going to basically come up with their own ideas and not necessarily even take into account what this task force is putting forward.

At the same time, you've got Senator Martine Kulik, who is saying, you know, I feel good about this work and we'll see where it takes us.

But it's going to be an election year.

This is a ton of work.

It's going to be a huge political lift.

So I think, you know, members of the task force feel good about this.

But at the same time, everybody's really level setting their expectations about what's actually going to come out of it.

I have to ask briefly because this is something Hannah wrote about in her story that a lot of times these reports don't even get read.

And that can be a shame, especially for the folks who are putting this all together.

Are you saying that there could be, a mindset among many of these legislators that they already want the districts they want, and they're not they're going to ignore whatever recommendations are made, potentially.

I mean, this is the biggest redrawing of political boundaries that we've seen, potentially in over 100 years here in the state of Vermont.

This is hugely consequential.

And, you know, the political implications, will for for towns and the financial implications, the educational implications for kids, it's going to be profound.

So I think there is a real question of how is the legislature even going to vote on what comes out of this?

We'll see.

And it gets to Hannah's point about, right, these studies that they spend all this time and energy on.

And if the most consequential study that the legislature has called up, called for, gets, gets written, gets drafted, gets formed, and then they turn around, say, oh, we're going to we're not going to follow what you said.

It kind of it kind of makes Hannah's point in that her or her story, his point is that these studies are not essentially, you know, always as effective as they could be over the last few decades.

I think over the last 20 or 30 years, there's been something close to like 25 or 26 studies about education, about property taxes, about, you know, redistricting.

And that's, you know, to your point about, you know, kick it to a study and the issue will be off the front burner.

That has really happened.

But we're at this point now with property taxes and affordability and educational concerns.

You know, something has to happen.

What's going to happen?

Will anything come out of this?

We still don't know.

But voters did speak in November, and this is just another, you know, implication, another sort of this is where that that's been heading.

It's going to be fascinating to see what happens when they get back.

I want to stick with you, Calvin Cutler on this next story.

It's, every year, there's a cult of homelessness in Vermont and so called the point in time count.

Vermont has published the results.

Of the federally mandated point in time count of its unhoused population.

This year, it also published another metric unhoused Vermonters who are part of the state based Coordinated Entry System.

So, you know, what are we looking at for the numbers here?

I'm guessing they're probably not very good.

Yeah.

You can see just by the by the two of them, the point in time count about 3003, 3500.

The, coordinated entry data is about 4500.

And like a thousand more people, the data sets are a little different because, the point in time is, you know, one night you have volunteers that go out and talk to people and survey people in January, in January.

But it doesn't always capture all of the data, the coordinated entry that was actually a requirement that state lawmakers set into motion a few years ago.

As a result, I believe, of an audit from State Auditor Doug Hoffer.

Looking for information.

Who are these people?

Where are they from?

Age, demographics, etc..

So that's more granular, you know, more solid data.

And it really does continue to show just how prolific and how, just, you know, how big this problem is, 4500 people, you know, hundreds of of seniors, hundreds of kids as well.

And there's, you know, and this is also a direct result of the ending of or the winding down, I should say, of the state hotel motel program, which, you know, state lawmakers and the Scott administration have been trying to wind down, but we just haven't had an alternative.

So it's, the data, it's it's pretty stark of just how serious the situation continues to be.

Federal budget cuts, are they going to have an effect on all of this as well, because state lawmakers are responding to that now or pondering what's going to happen.

Yeah, the emergency board met earlier this week, and there was also the, Joint Fiscal Committee that they sort of got a first look as to what the impact of the big beautiful Bill will be.

Just in terms of Medicaid cuts over the next 5 or 6 years.

It's somewhere in the neighborhood of about $140 million that we're going to be losing.

There's also you talked about, snap benefits potentially ending.

We didn't even talk about section eight housing vouchers that are also going to be rolled back in some ways.

So the exact, impact of this on Vermonters, we don't know, but we're starting to get a, a view of it.

And basically a lot of these programs that are our social safety net that serve a lot of, you know, individuals who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, they could be at risk.

So, you know, the lawmakers are saying, you know, we need to look into this.

The Scott administration is saying these are going to be rolled out over time.

We've got some some time to implement our changes and prepare for these.

But people from, Senator Bernie Sanders as statewide director was a little bit more stark and says lawmakers, I do not envy you.

You are going to have a very difficult job over the next few years trying to plug these holes in the state budget.

We want to get to a story that Kevin McCollum has reported on.

The Public Utility Commission is looking at making a decision on a telecommunications tower in one of my favorite places, Vermont Lake Willoughby.

What's going on there?

Yeah.

It's a fascinating story where the little town of Westmore is putting up quite a fight over, the prospect of a 140ft telecommunications tower being built right on the shores of Lake Willoughby.

That is not the kind of place you would imagine the Vermonters would be okay with such a large, piece of kind of ugly infrastructure being erected.

But that is exactly what the PUC has said they think is actually appropriate.

They say, look, there is not great cell service up there.

The topography, it's a very rural area.

The topography creates all these gaps.

There's people who try to make phone calls in emergencies.

They can't get through to, first responders.

And this company from Massachusetts came in and said, look, we'll build this really big tower.

It'll have a radio.

Service on it.

And then if Verizon and AT&T want to come and put some some additional antennas on it, that'll be great.

We'll make money, everybody wins.

And then, lo and behold, this town which which prides itself on just being, you know, smack dab in the middle of one of the most gorgeous, natural areas in the entire world.

Really?

I mean, anyone who's been in Lake Willoughby just marveled at it.

Yeah, they have just, they have just banded together, like, and and fought back with all their power and, even, even yesterday, they were they were participating in, an oral argument in front of the PUC to try to sway the three regulators in charge of this, this process to to say no.

And it's an uphill battle.

I mean, the state wants better connectivity for people.

It wants the cell network to work.

It wants people especially lower income people who might not have $80 for high speed internet, but they've got a phone that works and they can communicate on it.

They can buy things, you know, on it.

And so they want those services to be equally distributed around the state, even to rural areas.

But but do you want it in the most stunningly beautiful place we've got.

And that's making people really very briefly, what's your sense of how the PUC is going to rule on this?

And if they rule in favor of the tower, is there a potential pushback there?

Yes.

If they rule in favor of this tower, I think the residents of that area are almost certainly going to find a way to to sue, to get that overturned.

I think they probably will sign off on it because I think, you know, there is a concern about public safety and generally speaking, when esthetics and public safety go head to head, they're largely going to probably side on public safety.

The last thing I want to talk about is saying, I told you that the Vermont Green FC was going to win their national championship in the USL League Two.

They did.

They beat Seattle 2 to 1.

And by the way, Maximilian Kissel scored the game winner in that one.

He also scored the game winner for UVM to bring them their first national championship in Division one.

Soccer.

Vermont has become a soccer haven that's going to have to do it for this week.

I want to thank our panel so very much.

Calvin Cutler, Wcax head of Best from seven days, and also Kevin McCallum from seven days.

I'm Mitch Wertlieb, thanks for watching.

Join us again next week for Vermont.

This week.