SCANDAL SWEEPS VERMONT

TOP OFFICIAL DEFIES THE LAW

SNEAKY POLITICS SUSPECTED

OK, so it’s hardly Blagojevichian in scope or power. But we do have, right here in squeaky-clean Vermont, a senior state official who has…well, broken the law

With malice aforethought? Well, with forethought,  meaning he knew what he was doing. The malice part is debatable.

So rare is such behavior here that our major metropolitan dailies seemed not to recognize it. They handled it as if it were a policy dispute.

It is, and one in which the alleged perpetrator could have the stronger argument. But it’s more than that. It’s a political ploy, and so far, it’s working.

The “crime” is part of an intertwined legal-political-fiscal muddle too convoluted to explain-or absorb-in one sitting. Today, let’s just deal with the basics and the politics. The policy and the money parts can wait.

The alleged perp is Tax Commissioner Tom Pelham, who has no known priors. As required by law, on December 1, pelham wrote to the leaders of the Legislature reporting on how much money public schools are likely to spend next year, and how much the statewide school property tax is expected to raise for the Education Fund. What he concluded was that “the Education Fund in fiscal 2010 at current tax rates will generate an operating surplus of $20.5 million.”

Translating into the English, this means the statewide property tax (along with money from other sources that goes into the Education Fund) is going to raise more than the schools are planning to spend.

In that case, according to law (Title 32, Chapter 135, Section 5402b), the Tax Commissioner “shall recommend…a reduction… in the statewide education tax rates.”

He didn’t.

“Given the extraordinary fiscal choices before us, a recommendation from me regarding 2010 tax rates may be extraneous or even harmful to the flexibility you and the Governor need to craft an overall fiscal course for the state,” Pelham explained in his letter.

And in an interview, he said, “it’s worth leaving the issue of the tax rate ambiguous because there is no certainty in these tumultuous fiscal waters.”

Could be. But put this in context. Pelham is the appointee and  ally of Gov. Jim Douglas, especially when it comes to cutting property taxes. And here he is refusing to recommend a cut in property taxes even where the law requires him to recommend a cut in property taxes.

Granted it’s only a recommendation. Pelham has no power to set the tax rate. But just imagine what Republicans would say if a Democrat passed up the chance to propose lower property taxes.

No, don’t bother. No need to imagine. Go back almost four years, to February, 2005. Then as now the Education Fund was projected to be in surplus for the coming year. Douglas wanted to cut the tax rate by more than enough to bring it into balance. The Democrats said no, inspiring then Republican State Chairman Jim Barnett to issue a statement accusing the Democrats of trying to “increase property taxes.”

So are Democrats now taking similar advantage of this inconsistency on the part of the Douglas Administration?

Apparently not.

“Because these are such difficult financial times, (Pelham) doesn’t want to make promises to the schools that he may not be able to keep,” said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ann E. Cummings of Montpelier. Agreeing with Pelham that this is a “different year,” she declined to take political advantage of Pelham’s letter.

“We’re going to make an effort to do this in a bipartisan manner, which we can’t do if we start out throwing partisan darts at the governor,” she said.

We have here three possibilities: (1) Vermont Democrats (at least as compared to Vermont Republicans) are too responsible about governing to take cheap shots; (2) Vermont Democrats  (at least as compared to Vermont Republicans) are wimps with no taste for combat; (3) Both.

Just because the Democrats aren’t complaining doesn’t mean nobody is. In a joint statement, Vermont League of Cities and Towns and the School Boards Association called on Pelham to propose a tax rate based on the new numbers, a move they say could save taxpayers $18 million next year.

Without such a recommendation, said John Nelson of the School Boards Association, local school districts won’t be able to present their proposed tax rates to voters at least 30 days before town meeting day, as the law requires.

More strangeness. Just as Pelham could be expected to propose a low property tax rate, the school boards might like the increased revenue from the higher rate. So-you’d think-would the teachers union, the Vermont National education Association. But it attacked Pelham, too.

Less strange when we add a little more context, specifically that the Douglas Administration has some thoughts of filching from the Education Fund surplus to repair roads and bridges. Transportation Secretary David Dill came right out and said so.

That way the governor and his minions-with, quite possibly, the cooperation of the Democratic-controlled Legislature-can effectively raise taxes (certainly by Jim Bartlett’s definition), and still say to the voters, ‘What? Raise taxes? We din’t raise no stinkin’ taxes.’

If you think this is convoluted, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Because neither Douglas nor Pelham tried very hard last week to hide the rest of their political agenda here. They might not want to cut the school property tax rate just yet.  But they want to persuade, cajole, or embarrass the schools into spending less.

After all, they say, if just about every other government agency has to cut back, why shouldn’t the schools?

A valid question, though as with all comparisons, the appropriateness  of this one is open to debate.

To be explored on another occasion, “maybe not tomorrow,” in the immortal words of Richard Blaine, “but soon.”—Jon Margolis