Bleary eyed lawmakers left the state House shortly before midnight last Friday.

But not with a deal on the education bill that's dominated the 2025 legislative session.

And this is a, it's a big deal with education transformation.

And, we if we need a little extra time to take care of that, we need to take it and make sure we get this right.

Plus, marathon talks over a potentially historic reform package failed to yield a compromise in Vermont.

Lawmakers postponed adjournment until mid-June to give negotiators more time to work.

During this lull in legislative action, we're going to pull back the curtain on the inner workings of the state House to discuss some often overlooked players who influence the bills that make it to the governor's desk.

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.

Hi, and thanks for joining us on Vermont this week.

I'm Mitch Wertlieb on the panel today.

We have Pete Hirschfeld from Vermont Public and Hannah Bassett investigative reporter from Seven Days.

Thank you both.

So much for being here today.

Really appreciate it.

And we've got a lot to talk about with what's going on.

Everyone's been talking about the action or inaction of the legislature, Pete, and bring us up to date.

Where are we now with this education reform bill?

We know that it did not get passed.

When can we expect lawmakers to get back and possibly pass something?

Well, that heads up until very recently been a bone of contention between House and Senate lawmakers when they called off talks late Friday night.

I think a lot of us were under the impression that rank and file lawmakers would be going home, but the House and Senate negotiators would be returning early this week to resume those talks and, avail themselves of this two week period between then and when House and Senate rank and file lawmakers will be coming back of to vote on the bill to iron out their differences.

That that's not what happened.

Instead, the House sent a letter to the Senate and they said, hey, how about if we come back together next Thursday?

This is just a few days before lawmakers will be returning to the state House.

The Senate said that does not sound good at all to us.

We think we should be meeting as early and as often as possible so that we can come to a deal.

And they had some pretty harsh letter in a language back to the house.

In response to that proposed schedule, they said it seems like it would be likely to leave them without an agreement in hand when lawmakers do come back.

And they also said, and this is a direct quote, Vermonters would have every reason to believe that we were not taking our work on education transformation seriously by waiting that long.

The House responded by saying, well, okay, we'll meet.

We'll start meeting next Wednesday instead of next Thursday.

So, huge differences over this education reform bill still.

But but still these disagreements over process, over how to go about the business of doing these negotiations.

And, Pete, is it reflective of the fact that, you know, the Senate seems to want to move quicker, as does Governor Phil Scott on this?

The House seems to want to pull back a little bit and say this.

These are complex things.

We need more time.

Is that fair to say?

Yeah.

And I think there's also still disagreement over the substance of the bill.

When this session started, I think all of us thought that the major points of contention on education reform would be between the democratically controlled legislature and Republican Governor Phil Scott.

That's really not how it sugared off the the most intense tension right now is between House and Senate leadership.

So they have they have a lot to work out between now and, next Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, when we may or may not get a vote on the final bill.

This is such a big, complex issue, and it's so important for the state of Vermont.

Hannah Bassett, I want to talk about, really fascinating article you wrote for seven days about sort of the machinations of all of this getting into Ways and Means Committee and the role that lobbyists play here.

They're important.

Why are they important to this process?

You know, in a citizen legislature, there is not a tremendous amount of professional resources that the legislators can lean on.

There are, attorneys in the Office of Legislative Council in the Joint Fiscal Office that, legislators can turn to.

But in many regards, the folks who are in the state House drafting these bills that become our laws, they're not subject matter experts.

They don't have a tremendous amount of time during the legislative session to get big policy reform done.

And in some ways, these lobbyists and advocates are a welcome resource to a lot of these legislators.

They are folks who often are subject matter experts.

They're eager to get in the room and put their finger on the scale and their, constant presence in the state House.

And we've seen that with, education reform in particular.

It's been a long journey for this education bill.

Obviously, that journey is still continuing.

Lobbyists are involved in so many issues.

Pretty much every issue you can think of that is, is up for discussion in the state House, but it's certainly been one that, that has been shaped in large part by the lobbyists in the education space in Vermont this year.

Yeah.

You know, you mentioned putting their fingers on the scale.

So there's kind of a dual role here.

And I'm sure you've seen this too, where the lobbyist.

Yes, they're bringing very important information for these legislators to know how to craft an education bill.

But they've got an agenda too, right.

Oh of course.

And you know what's interesting about watching lobbyists move through the building is, just getting a sense for the depth of the relationships that they've been able to cultivate with individual lawmakers.

There's lobbyists that have been working in Montpelier for decades in some instances.

And a big part of their process is not just what goes on in the halls of the state House, but meeting with folks outside the confines of the Golden Dome to, become real friends in some cases with these folks.

And, you know, there are people lobbying for things like the education reform bill, or Housing Vermont specific issues, but there are lobbyists who are representing national interests in some cases.

Google has seven lobbyists in Monmouth contracted in Montpelier.

Airbnb has nine people that could work on its behalf.

DraftKings, the sports betting site, has seven people.

It has registered as lobbyists in Montpelier.

So, no matter the issue, you can be pretty sure that if there's going to be a bill that affects operations in any way, there's going to be a lobbyist standing by to try to get a word in edgewise with a lawmaker.

They outnumber legislators 3 to 1, just about.

So they're not all there every day in the state House, but they are, as as Pete said, they are on every issue.

But what's interesting to Hannah Bassett is that, you know, as Pete was talking about, you've got these the outside influences for sure, but then there are players that Vermonters would be more familiar with.

You wrote about in your article, what you call the three V's, in lobbying here.

Who are we talking about when we talk about the three V's and their influence on this debate about education reform in education?

These are the V's are kind of colloquially known in the education space and in the state House is three, advocacy groups, lobbying groups that have been particularly involved this year and in many years on this education bill, in particular, though, it's the Superintendents Association, the School Boards Association, and the Principals Association, we saw them particularly active when the education reform bill was moving through the House.

If you kind of watched the content of that bill shift and evolve between when the language was introduced from the how the Scott administration first, entered that bill into the House and how the bill passed out of the House, a lot of the reforms that were, in the final version of that House bill really echoed the reforms put forward by the V's.

And the V's kind of came together.

They recognized that they had more collective influence.

Advocate together.

And, you know, that's, a common strategy with some advocacy groups instead of kind of pulling in different, slightly different directions, they they realized that they could be more effective if they all rode in the same direction as their collective bargaining.

They were.

Yeah.

So, of course it's that was just kind of one half of the bill's evolution so far.

Then it moved to the Senate where, there were kind of different players involved.

The committee chairs in the Senate have different, different perspectives that they were more receptive to.

They brought in slightly different, groups and kind of the perspectives that ended up represented in the Senate version as it when it got to the Senate floor for a vote, reflected those differences.

More independent school voices, for example.

So, these lobbyists, these advocates, it's, it, it can shift in chamber to chamber, committee to committee.

But the influence is undeniable right in and these organizations and individuals that are advocating and lobbying for or against these bills are going to play an outsized role in what we see happen with this education reform bill during this final stage here, if an organization like the Vermont NEA decides that it can't abide this legislation, it can really gum up the works in the House, especially and, sort of break apart this very uneasy alliance that may or may not be forming to get this bill across the finish line.

So, these 11th hour negotiations are sometimes when lobbyists are be able to, are able to be most effective at either getting something done or making sure it doesn't get done.

I really briefly want to go over something that Hannah Bassett talked about with, you know, how the bill changed from what, say, Governor Phil Scott would like to have seen after the three of these sort of had their influence on it?

We're looking at things like consolidation was a major concern, right.

The districts the size of the districts, what changed?

What were they able to to sort of gain, to, to pull back from Governor Scott's vision of what he wanted to see?

I think, the these and other people in the education community more broadly were really concerned about the governor's proposal, insofar as it would have seen Vermont spend 180 or $200 million less.

I think it was on education.

The governor sees this as a cost cutting measure, as that being one of the chief goals for this bill.

The House is very worried about educational opportunities, and they feel like less money means less opportunity.

And so one of the big changes we saw in the Senate, was a reversion to some degree to fill Scott's position in so far, is it is it might not have spent as much as Vermont spends currently on education.

Now that's changed in the interim, but obviously still a lot of very substantive issues for them to work out.

But some of the class of things to Hanna, like, smaller schools in rural areas, they're concerned about those closing.

Did were those concerns brought up during these negotiations?

And did they have an effect on why we're still at this impasse?

That was certainly a big concern that was voiced when the bill came before the House for a vote.

You know, talking with legislators and lobbyists, a lot of people, discussed education as an issue that doesn't fall neatly along party lines.

It really something Pete Hirschfeld has been saying for weeks now.

Yeah, he had defined this in the traditional way.

It really confounds that, dichotomy.

And so when, when representatives on the House floor were, were speaking their, concerns or advocating for their the bill before taking the vote on the House floor, a lot of the, concerns that people voiced were about closures of smaller schools in their districts.

So, there was a, speaking of advocacy groups, there was a group that formed this year that made, a relatively big mark pretty early on, for new group, rural school Community Alliance that, was able to get, relatively notable traction for advocacy group that was newer.

You know, the views, for example, are very established.

They have, large membership groups, you know, these are known entities.

But, I think the, the rural school Community Alliance, like kind of that, that group was able to, pull on that concern that they were hearing from, from representatives and communities worried about that school closure.

Certainly at the time when the bill was through the House and I think, many members haven't let go of that concern now either.

Yeah, that seems to be a big issue all the time whenever education changes come up.

You know, we've talked a lot about the legislators having to burn the midnight oil here.

And, you know, they're going to have to come back.

They're working hard.

The Office of Legal Counsel, Peter Hirschfeld has really been working very hard.

So can you sort of describe what they do and why they've had to put in so many hours?

Yeah.

I mean, these are the workhorses of the legislative branch.

The House, House lawmakers introduced, I think, 551 bills.

The Senate, introduced another 150, 60, 70 bills.

And every one of those bills has to be drafted by a member of the Legislative Council.

It's not a huge staff, as Hannah has reported on.

Yeah.

When those bills start to get debated in committee, there are multiple drafts of each one.

When you get into the latter stages of the legislature, when House and Senate negotiators are talking well into the night, it falls to Legislative Council not just to oversee those meetings and answer questions, but also to go back to the office after lawmakers leave and make sure that there's a fresh draft ready to go the next morning.

There are fewer people in Montpelier who are working harder than the joint fiscal analysts and the lawyers for the legislature during this time of year.

And they they can't show it.

They have to keep their poise.

They have to keep their cool.

And even when they're getting incredibly frustrating questions from lawmakers, they have to keep a straight face and, you know, play the role of customer service.

So interesting.

How are they?

Are they staffed adequately enough, or these folks kind of in danger of burning out in a way based on what peaches described?

It's a question that is coming up more and more.

The office was established in the 70s, and it's grown since then.

Now it's the office of Legislative Council, for example, is staffed at just under 30 or so people.

And again, these folks work a tremendous amount, particularly during the legislative session.

They work year round.

But during DUR between January and May, now, June, as the session drags on, it's a full court press for these folks.

So there's a there's discussion and there have been studies into looking at whether the the office is sufficiently staff to meet that demand placed on them at the start of the session, there was, kind of request put out again to have that be continually looked at to see if perhaps more staffing could be added to reduce the demands, and also look at the compensation for the staff as well, to not only see if, if if compensation was sufficient to attract the the caliber of staff needed, but also to retain folks as as discussed, this is an incredibly demanding job and it's you need really sharp minds and you want to keep them.

It's an incredible amount of institutional knowledge that people develop over, just one session.

So former directors of the office have spoken about how important it is to keep these people on board.

Yeah.

The sausage getting made.

It's there's so much that goes into that.

And I'm really glad you're able to pull back that curtain a little bit and let us know a little more on that now.

Okay.

So we don't know what's going to happen with education reform yet.

We'll see if they can come to an agreement on that.

We do know Pete Hirschfeld, that, housing bill actually did get hammered out.

What's the practical effect on that going to be?

What can we expect to see, now that this bill is passed?

Well, that's the big question, Mitch.

What lawmakers are thinking here.

Is that just to step back for a moment, every time there's a new house built in a community, that house is taxed, right?

The homeowner is taxed.

And, a lot of that money goes back to Vermont's education fund to fund public schools.

What lawmakers have done is create a program where they say to municipalities, hey, if you build the infrastructure that's needed for all these new houses that Vermont needs to actually be built, then when those new houses come online, you get to keep all that tax revenue that would otherwise be going to the education fund.

And this bill specifically says that the legislature is willing to forgo up to $200 million in tax revenue a year over the next ten years, in the hopes that that will compel municipalities to take on the debt that's needed to build water and sewer lines and everything else you need for housing development, with the promise that the resulting development will, pay back or more than pay back what they've taken on in debt.

That's a theory.

There are a lot of people who don't subscribe to that theory.

And so we're going to find out, there were a lot of people walking around the building after the deal was struck on this saying, amazing, $2 billion over the next two years for housing development in Vermont.

It's yet to be seen whether these small and smaller municipalities, specifically, are going to be willing to go into hock in order to, have this housing get built and hopefully get the money back.

They need depend.

Is that the concern you're talking about with those who are aren't so sure that the theory will work out the way they hope?

Well, they're also worried that there are, municipalities and developers with projects that are ready to go that don't need this tax incentive, that are just going to be there to collect it anyway, and that the legislature is foregoing revenue that would otherwise go to the education Fund.

And they're worried about the impact on property tax.

Right.

Less money going to the education fund means that everybody else has to spend more in order to fund public schools.

Yeah, we know that this year they were able to do keep the property tax rate sort of flat, you know, about 1%.

But again, that bill comes due next year.

We have to see what happens.

Then.

Things could change a lot.

We're talking about things like, housing.

You know, another thing you wrote about Hannah Bassett was sort of the the, ethics concerns at the state House.

And I know this dates back to 2019, but I found this kind of fascinating that 50% of state senators who were crafting legislation dealing with things like tenant protections were actually landlords themselves.

You know, are these concerns that folks are having about possible conflicts of interest?

Is is it's a citizen legislature.

So it's always a concern that the folks who are in the state House crafting these policies could stand to benefit from some of the policies that they are making.

There are ethics rules, ethics panels that are kind of watching over these to make sure that people do not abuse these powers.

There are also ethics disclosures that help shed light on, people's potential conflicts of interest.

What, their outside jobs might be if they hold a second job in addition to their role in the part time legislature?

The Senate also helps shed light, for example, on, outside investments that, senator might hold.

So there's information that, the public can look at if they are interested to, be more informed about what might be influencing or informing a legislator's vote.

But those disclosures can be a little tricky to access.

They can be a little sparse on certain, fields of information that can help shed light on that.

But landlords is a particularly, overrepresented, statistically, speaking, overrepresented group of people in the legislature.

I do want to emphasize again, that the article I was talking about, you were referencing 2019, that that was happening.

So that was a few years back.

I do want to get to this.

There was hope among, Vermont's cannabis growers, small growers, especially that they would be able to get some legislation passed saying they could sell directly to consumers.

That did not happen.

What's the update on that?

So I think the characterization, what they were looking for is direct to consumers is a bit of a misnomer, at least related to the provision that was in play at the later stages of the process, which would have allowed growers to accompany licensed retailers to a farmer's market and engage with customers, talk to them about their product, and the customer could buy it, but that that buyer would still be buying from the licensed retailer.

Right.

So it's not direct to consumer.

Quite direct.

Yeah.

I think, the white whale for a lot of growers is to get that direct to consumer law in place where somebody could go to their farm and buy directly from the person who grew that cannabis, and not through a licensed retailer.

We're a long ways away from that.

In Vermont.

Even the farmers market provision did not make it into the to the last version of the bill.

So even this summer, folks will not be seeing any cannabis sales at their local farmers market.

So the house said no to this, but did say they would be willing to revisit it in the future.

Right.

So it's not a done or totally done deal.

This is a young industry, right?

We're just a few years into it, and there's going to be enormous evolution in the coming years.

So so stay tuned.

With strong advocates in the state House who likely will keep bringing this up as well.

Absolutely.

Finally, I want to let people know that in Franconia, New Hampshire, a giant sculpture of a three foot long banana was stolen.

The police don't have any leads yet.

But don't worry, they're going to keep their eyes peeled.

Yes, I did save that for the bear in the show.

Thank you.

I had it had to happen this week.

We chose to do a deep dive about the inner workings of the state House.

And there was some, some stories we didn't get to.

We'll talk about them coming up on Vermont this week in future shows.

And you can always check out our reporting in Vermont public.

In the meantime, I want to thank our panelists today, Pete Hirshfield of Vermont Public, and Hannah Bassett, investigative reporter with Seven Days.

Thank you so very much for being here.

I'm Mitch Wertlieb, and we hope you'll join us again next week for Vermont this Week.