Vermont Secretary of State faces a federal lawsuit for defying a Trump administration request to turn over personal voter information.

Plus, the president has yet to nominate a new U.S.

attorney for the state, creating vulnerabilities in the court system unless lawmakers take action when they reconvene in January.

A 12% hike in property taxes is on the horizon.

That is more ahead on Vermont this week.

From the Vermont Public studio in Winooski.

This is Vermont This Week, made possible in part by the Lintilhact Foundation and Milne Travel.

Here's moderator Mitch Wertlieb.

Good evening everyone.

It's Friday, December 5th, and joining us on the panel today, we have Kevin McCallum, the reporter with Seven Days.

Also from Seven Days, Colin Flanders and Howard Weiss-Tisman, a reporter at Vermont Public.

Thank you all so much for being here today.

We've got a lot to talk about, as usual, some big stories are hitting the state.

Kevin McCollum, let's start with you.

Vermont Secretary of State Sarah Copeland Kansas is being sued by the federal government for withholding data.

What is going on here?

That's right.

So Vermonters by this point are probably pretty familiar with the idea of Vermont suing the federal government.

Our attorney general, Trudy Clark, has done that.

I think, almost 30 times now.

But this is the first time that the federal government has filed a lawsuit, in my memory, against the state.

And they are going after, the secretary of state for refusing to turn over the vote rolls of the state of Vermont.

And she did so twice.

She did so verbally when they when they made a statement that they wanted the state to do that.

And she said, no, that's not the policy of my office.

The law of the state of Vermont says we do not share the information in the way in which you are asking for it, and they follow it up with a very stern and formal written demand for that information in September.

And it was very clear that if the Secretary of State stuck to her guns and held to that position, that there could very well be consequences.

And that's exactly what happened in a lawsuit filed on Monday.

Now, that's interesting.

You say a demand.

Second, at first it was a request, right, that we requested that data.

Now it's a demand.

That's right.

No, it was very clear the letter was from their legal division.

The civil rights division of the Department of Justice.

And it was very clear that they were starting to cite legal precedents.

They were trying to explain what they were doing and why and, what the consequences of may very well be if she chose not to.

And she, she, she reiterated after that that she wasn't going to do it.

What about the why?

Why would the federal government want this voter data information?

So the stated explanation of the Department of Justice for for this and we're not the only state that they're requesting this data from those states all over the country.

Some have complied, some have not.

Some have been sued.

Some have not.

Is it they are concerned about the integrity of the voter rolls.

Right.

The the elections are ru by the states in this country.

But the federal government obviously has a as a as a role, and has a say in the integrity of those elections.

And so that the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice is charged with making sure that elections are fair and and done with integrity.

And so one of the ways that they can do that is they can make states, check their voter rolls and make sure that their voter rolls are kept up to, up to snuff and that they're accurate.

And so the stated explanation is that they want to make sure that Vermont is properly maintaining its voter database.

But the overwhelming consensus on the left, I think, fair to say, is that there is almost certainly an ulterior motive here by the federal government in seeking this kind of information.

I think there was, documented proof in somewhere else in the nation that some of the information that they were able to get from a different state was turned over in part to homeland security.

So there's a very significant concern here that the federal government may not can't be trusted essentially, with this data.

It's got driver's license information.

It's got last four digits of people's Social Security.

It's got birthdates, got addresses.

Who knows how that information could be used by the federal government if it were seeking to, let's say, engage in mass deportation efforts.

So that's the real concern.

And I think, that's one of the reasons that the law in Vermont is structured in such a way to make the bar very high for the federal government to get this information.

And, we'll see where it goes from here.

Yeah, that was my next question.

Where it goes from here?

Will Charity clerk, the, you know, Vermont's attorney general be involved?

You know, so we asked charity clerk about this, but it was before she had even been served.

Colin actually was the one who originally spotted the lawsuit in the courthouse, forwarded it to us.

And the, secretary of state and attorney general hadn't even seen it yet.

So they were not able to make any substantive remarks.

But the the one hint I don't remember exactly how she phrased it, but she definitely charity clerk said something to the effect of we haven't seen this yet.

We haven't read it, but we're honored.

We were honored to defend the secretary of state, Sarah Copeland, Kansas, in this matter going forward.

So it's and again that's coming from someone who sued the federal government almost 30 times.

So it's no surprise that she's going to come out swinging.

She's going to stand up and defend the the the state of Vermont's right to maintain this information, keep this information, and prevent the federal government from having the kind of data that it could b personally identifying people.

And one more quick thing, you know, you're mentioning here that the federal government is saying this is about, you know, maintaining the integrity of the voter rolls.

There has been no and I'll throw this out to you, too.

Calling is no evidence of any kind of voter fraud in Vermont or anything like that, right, that they could point to.

I haven't seen anything, even from the secretary, the prior secretary of state going years back, tha whenever questions about voter fraud have come up in previous administrations, I haven't heard of it.

No.

Okay.

That's a simple answer.

There are.

And we'll stick with you, Colin Flanders, on this next story.

Vermont does not have right now a top federal prosecutor.

Explain why that is.

What that job entails and why it may be putting the court system at a hole in a vulnerable spot.

Yeah.

So, there are 93 districts in the U.S., split up on federal court systems.

Vermont has just one.

It covers the entire state.

And the job of the U.S.

attorney is kind of twofold to set their own priorities.

And recent, U.S.

attorneys have focused, for example, on, the, the, sale of drugs across state lines or on, gun gun crimes.

And so they also carry out, at the behest of the attorney general of the United States.

And it's an important position and one that, traditionally has been filled by people who are thought to have some higher career aspirations.

It's sometimes a political it's a political appointed position.

And obviously politics gets involved.

In this case, we had a U.S.

attorney right up until January 20th, Inauguration Day, which it's traditionally, if you're appointed by an outgoing president, you will resign and let the new president put somebody else in the position, which is what happened here, which is what happened here.

So Nicholas arrest, he was serving right up until January 20th.

He resigned and in his place was Michael Drescher, the first assistant of the office.

He was elevated to acting, and over the over the last, couple of months, handful of months.

Michael Drescher has carried out, the federal government's orders pretty well.

He stood up in court and made what were objectively kind of some tough, kind of flimsy arguments on behalf of, the government's attempt to, for example, imprison motion model.

We I think a lot of people remember that high profile case, also the case of the shooting of the border Patrol agent who died.

They are now seeking the death penalty.

He has also carried out that, but the problem is that you can only serve in an acting role for up to 300 days, when you're filled in the way that he was.

And on the 301st day, he immediately reverted back to his old title.

And now Vermont does not have anyone in that position.

We're only one of one of two districts in the entire country out of 93, 92 that don't have, acting U.S.

attorney.

Wow.

And what is the risk to the court system here?

Yeah, the problem here is a little difficult to know at the moment.

It's an open question of whether we're really vulnerable here.

I mean, we're seeing across the country challenges to Trump's, attempts to fill these positions with some of his own preferred choices and doing some kind of questionable legal numbers and trying to avoid the Senate confirmation process because he gets tied up there very often with some of his picks.

And we've seen challenges in California and New Jersey and a handful of other states where defense attorneys are saying, hey, wait a minute, this person is not lawfully serving in this position in any cases that they'r working on are now undermined.

And so my client should not have to sit in jail because they have a case brought by somebody who is serving in this position illegally.

Defense attorneys here in Vermont are keeping their cards close to the chest, but they are saying they are keeping close tabs on the situation, and they're going to do everything in their power, to give their clients the best defense they can have.

Really, what this might come down to is the Supreme Court is going to have to weigh in on the question of whether someone in Michael Drescher's position serving as a first assistant can fulfill the duties of a U.S.

attorney, and that could be coming pretty quickly.

We had a recent decision and an appeals court that said, no, you can't.

So the Supreme Court is going to have to weigh in.

And in the meantime, we're going to have to keep an eye out and see whether defense attorneys are going to mount a challenge.

But Trump would have to nominate Drescher, for example, and the president hasn't done that yet.

No, no.

And the way that typically works is that the highest ranking US senator and the highest ranking member of the president's party typically recommend a name.

And so in this case, that would be Senator Bernie Sanders and Governor Phil Scott, Phil Scott's, spokespeople say that they have not heard anything from the federal government about this, Senator Bernie Sanders.

People have not gotten back to us despite repeated requests.

But I would imagine that there is some tension.

And, obviously, Senator Sander and the president don't always see eye to eye.

And so we have absolutely no indication of when a name might come up and how easily that person might get confirmed.

Okay.

Well, we're going to keep following your reporting on that.

Thank you for the update.

Let's move on to a story, which I'm going to just open up to the whole table here.

But I'll start with you, Kevin McCollum, because you wrote about this recently.

In seven days, Vermont is staring down the possibility of a 12% hike in property taxes.

This has to do with the complicated issues with schools like 73, etc.. And the task force that was, tasked with recommending what to do about school consolidation has decided to not follow through with forced consolidation.

Let's put it that way.

Governor is not happy.

What's going on here with this whole kerfuffle?

That's right.

So on Monday the Department of Taxes issued what's called It's December 1st letter.

They do this every year to give everybody a heads up about what the likely upcoming tax increase may be, if nothing else, changes between now and next year.

It's a very preliminary letter.

It's subject to a great amount of interpretation and questions.

Right.

There's the letter comes out and some people dismiss it as not really accurate.

It's only an estimate.

But this letter has been a lightning rod.

I mean, it's been a big deal in the last two years in Montpelier because as you well recall, two years ago when this letter came out, it showed an 18.5% property tax hike.

People went berserk.

I mean, that was a huge, huge problem.

It transformed state politics because everybody stopped and we're like, oh my God, like, this is not sustainable anymore.

We have to do something different now.

They were able to get that tax rate, the education tax rate, down to a little over 13%, 14% that year.

So it is true that this number and this in this letter is not written in stone by any means.

There are lots of things that can be done.

But after that, first the two years ago it went from 18.

Then they finally got it down to 13.

Last year it was get this letter came out and it said the tax rate increase was going to be around 6%.

Lawmakers and the governor got together and said, we can't have that.

We can't have that happen again.

On top of an 18 increase or 13%, 14% increase.

So they bought down that debt.

They bought down that rate to just around 1%.

So most people didn't see a significant increase in property taxes this year because of that.

But now this letter comes out again this year, and we've got a 12% projected increase in education, propert taxes in the state of Vermont, which are not all your property taxes, but it's a really big chunk about three quarters.

And if we don't do anything, if the state doesn't do anything, if the legislatur and the governor can't come to gether and figure out a way to reduce this, it's going to be 12%.

But they almost certainly will.

They almost certainly will try to find something, to get this number down.

And the number is a little bit misleading because the 12, if they did the same thing they did last year would be six.

So let's just assum they find another $100 million to put into the education fund.

The the increase would be 6%.

But I think Vermonters are not going to tolerate even a 6% increas on top of all that's happened, because I think in five years that would be 40% increase.

So it's a few things.

You know, there's a lot going on here.

As you mentioned, getting that number down to 1% meant taking about $118 million out of the general fund.

That's right.

Buyin that down, as you said.

Right.

If and again, if the if they did that again this year it would get down to about 6%, which is better than 12.

But is there any indication that Governor Scott is willing to do that, take more money out of the general fund, assuming it's even there?

And buy down the rate again to about 6%.

The there's been any indication that he has the stomach for that?

We have asked him and his administration officials that question multiple times over multiple days.

And the answer continues to be, we're still putting together our budget.

We don't know if we'r going to be able to or want to buy down in a similar fashion or to a similar amount.

And I think the huge question is, do they have it right?

Do they have that kind of money again in building their budget for next year?

And if they are going to pull 120, 180, $60 million out of the general fund again to try to soften the blow to taxpayers where's it going to come from?

And so that those question are all up in the air and they remain to be seen.

But what it's really doing at this moment is, is putting tremendous pressure on the legislature and the governor to do something.

And as you said earlier, it's putting a spotlight on that task force's decision.

Not that long ago to not draw boundaries for consolidating school districts.

As required by last year's act 73, which the governor and others have put all their egg in this basket right of here's how we're going to find a way to restore some educational equity and to reduce costs in the state.

So the first thing we got to do is consolidate the districts.

They form a task force, they go out and they they have these conversations about how to do that.

And they come back and say, actually, we don't think that's the best thing.

We don't think that's really going to reduce costs.

And the governor has called them and their effort a failure.

And so now the ball is on the legislature and their court to figure out what are they going to do.

We're not going to do these sweeping big consolidated school districts to save money.

And we're going to go with one of these more, smaller, more modest reform efforts to sort of create these, these service districts, consolidated service districts were where districts could maybe share their payroll and their transportation costs.

Then then that's rising to the top of what Democrats would like to do.

But it's going to create this profound clash in coming months between those two visions of how to actually reduce costs.

Do we stick with our guns?

Act 73 passed by the legislature, and call for these large districts to be formed, or do we go this other direction?

Yeah.

And no guarantee also that combining those districts consolidation would save the kind of money on property taxes.

We just don't know.

That's the number one criticism of the whole consolidation effort is there's no evidence that that's actually going to save money.

It's just going to create a lot of chaos is wha a lot of Democrats are saying.

Okay, I want to move on to some stories that you've been reporting on.

Howard West has been and by the way, wonderful to have you here in the studio live.

I think this is the first time that it was the first time, instead of having you move from southern Vermont.

Great to have you here as well.

Let me start by asking you about this story on Vermont small electric companies.

The state is reviewing finances of these small electric companies.

Why are they doing that?

And what does this entail?

Right.

So this is, there are two there are 14 municipal electric departments in the state.

And these are very small electric departments.

They have really interesting histories.

A lot of them came up late 1800s, 1900s, small towns trying to bring electricity to rural areas.

So they starte a lot of them have hydro dams, and that's how they got the electricity.

And, they've just survived through all these years.

Now, fast forward to now.

There are two department that are kind of in hot water.

Hyde Park, is about $4.5 million in debt.

They're basically insolvent.

Their rates are going up 20% to try to cover some of that.

And Burlington Electric as well is also facing some, problem with how they've been billing, some energy credits, etc.. So the Department of Public Service is going to look at all 14 departments.

They're looking at financial data, they're looking at electric grid reliability.

And they want to know a little bit about how the staffing is there.

Like all of industries in Vermont, the electric departments are facing workforce shortages.

They're also facing challenges.

And who's serving on the boards?

A lot of these departments have been around a long time.

So the Department of Public Service is trying to kick the tire kind of see how they're doing.

What's interesting, these departments, as I said, they started a long time ago, a lot of them are, about 2000 on average customers.

And the electric, industry has changed a lot.

And they're buying on the market.

They're facing technology challenges, climate changes bring in more storms.

They've got clean ups.

So it's a lot more complicated today than it was in 189 to run an electric department.

And so the Department of Public Service is just trying to see how they're doing.

That's probably going to happen at some point early next year.

Will recommendations come out of this and all?

Well we'll see.

They don't know.

They don't know what it's going to happen.

But but the electric departments at least the few I've spoken to, they're on board with this.

They're not really kicking and screaming about it.

They see the value of it.

There's still a little bit working out between the Department of Public Service, and, VIPs, the organization that kind of oversees them, and they're trying to figure out exactly what the state wants to see.

But, I think we're going to learn a lot about th health of them moving forward.

Yeah, we'll watch your reporting on that, too.

You know, we've been talking about the problems with schools and and where to find the money, etc.. One of the things that affects schools and property taxes in a way that isn't quite obvious at first.

And so off t the side is health care costs.

And one of the stories you've been reporting on is Brattleboro Hospitals difficulties.

Apparently, their CEO will not be returning for a bit of a mystery there.

What's going on here?

Oh, man, it's not good.

It's very bad.

So the CEO is kind of tangled up in this whole bigger issue that as a lot of our viewers probably know, the hospitals go through our budget process.

Every year starts in late spring.

In the summer, the hospitals go before the Green Mountain Care Board last year, the legislature gave the Green Mountain Care Board kind of added power to oversee this.

And this year, Brattleboro Memorial Hospital gave their budget numbers to state regulators.

And they were like, it doesn't add up.

It doesn't look good.

So their original budget was kind of level funded.

There's like a slight, a slight, you know, they were making a little money there about break.

And even the state said, this doesn't look good.

They resubmitted their budget last week.

They're actually $14.5 million in the hole, which is huge.

It's about 100 and $2,030 million budget, 10%.

It's bad.

And we're trying not to be hyperbolic here.

I live in Windham County.

I go, you know, I'm served by this hospital, but it's it's really bad, $14.5 million.

So what's going to happen?

I don't know, I don't know how you make up money like that.

You know, the state, Green Mountain Care Board is doing their best to figure out how these hospitals are going to survive.

I don't know how you get over a $14.5 million hole.

Yeah, I'm not sure a new CE would even solve that problem.

That's right.

So the CEO gave the original budget, and then after the state said we don't like the numbers, the CEO went on leave, we don't know why.

And then a couple of weeks ago, the hospital came out and said, actually, we're cutting ties with him.

And now two doctors from the hospital are kind of acting interim, basis.

The hospital's been very active on social media.

They're they're very transparent with what's happening.

They're asking the community for support, but it's pretty bad.

We've been thinking about Vermont hospitals for a while and wondering, you know, which one, might you know, they talk about bankruptcy closing the doors.

I don't think it would come to that because it's such an important part, but, they're in a hole.

I don't know, we're going to I know we're going to end up doing an entire show on health care at some point.

But I really appreciate the update you gave us on that.

Thank you.

Council leaders, I want to turn to story that you wrote about, you know, we know about the terrible story about the National Guard member who was shot and killed.

Another was severely wounded, by, an Afghan national who, you know, was in this country, you were writing about those Afghan nationals now living in Vermont who were kind of on edge after all of this.

Certainly after what, President Trump said and, you know, his inflammatory comment about who's going to be let in and what have yo what what are you hearing from the Afghan community here in Vermont?

Yeah, I mean, people are anxious, people are scared.

And and it's not just in Vermont, it's across the country.

I mean, there's more than 100,000 Afghan nationals who came over here after the U.S.

pulled out of Afghanistan in 2021 and all of those people are trying to rebuild their lives here.

And they're having some difficulty.

I mean, we did a story last year about Afghans living in Vermont an the challenges that they face.

One big one is bringing their families over here.

There are dozens and dozens of men who live in this state right now who have not seen their families since 2021 because they can't get them over here, even though the US government promised them tha they would be able to do that.

And let's not forget, some of these folks were those were interpreters were helping U.S.

soldiers that they all their lives to.

Yeah, some case, i many cases, I mean, there are, if you were eligible to come over here, one of the main reasons was because you worked on behalf of the US government in that work.

Put you at risk under the Taliban regime.

And so they are really nervous, one, that they're going to be blamed for something that, that they had nothin to do with but one individual.

Yeah.

One individual.

And so that the people who work with these communities are trying to really thread the needle here between condemning the act itself, but asking to not blame an entire community for this.

But the big fear now is, yeah, what's going to happen?

Trump's vowing a reexamination.

Nobody knows what that means.

A lot of people are here still on temporary statuses.

And again, they don't now they have no idea whether they'll ever see their families again.

And the fear is that a lot of men might conside just going back to Afghanistan despite the risks.

All right.

I want to thank you again very much for featuring that very difficult story.

And I want to thank our panel today, Kevin McCallum from Seven Days.

And also, Colin Flanders from Seven Days.

And of course, Howard Weiss-Tisman from Vermont public.

Before we go, we want to mention the passing of, a great folk musician and a wonderful person.

I interviewed many times, John Gilmore, who died at the age of 77 after a battle with leukemia.

He also wrote one of the great tunes about Vermont and Vermont's participatory government, A Town Meeting, too.

So we say goodbye to the late, great John Gilmore.

I'm Mitch, leave and I'll see you again next Friday for Vermont this week.

Fire and volunteers saving lives for all these years.

We support our heroes till the end.

Down from the mountain.

Up from the dam.