By Heidi Scheuermann, June 2019

Travel Matters.  That was the motto of this year’s National Travel and Tourism Week (May 6 – 10), a week Vermonters should use each year to celebrate the industry that is absolutely critical to our success as a state - economically and otherwise. From the millions of dollars in tax revenue the industry generates ($391 million in FY 2018) to the thousands of Vermonters whose jobs and salaries are supported by tourism (32,000 jobs in FY 2018), the economic impact of the industry is over $2.8 billion.

Unfortunately, far too often, leaders in Montpelier simply don't recognize this importance.

In fact, while the limited dollars provided for statewide tourism marketing have been invested wisely and have succeeded in maintaining and increasing the value of our brand, we have had to fight repeatedly against efforts to curtail funding for tourism marketing, in addition to fighting against policy initiatives that would be incredibly detrimental to the industry (i.e.: $2.00 occupancy fee, outdoor recreation waiver/consent law change, just in the last year alone).

To be clear, in the tourism industry, we are competing in an ever-increasingly global market. In order to grow and increase our market share of those global tourism dollars, we cannot lose sight of staying economically competitive.

Toward that end, a number of legislators, from across the state and across the political spectrum, have introduced a piece of legislation that is designed to bring greater attention to, and investment in, our state's tourism industry.

House Bill 298 would provide for a dedicated fund for tourism marketing.  Following in the footsteps of the State of Maine, this bill would take a percentage of the revenues generated from tourism (2% of the revenues generated from the rooms and meals tax), and direct that percentage into promoting and marketing Vermont as a tourist destination.

While there are many who argue that investments in tourism marketing are wasted investments, I submit that the real impact is exactly the opposite.

In fact, the first year that Maine instituted a dedicated fund paid for by 5% of the revenues generated by the lodging and meals tax to promote its tourism, the State saw a $20 million (15%) increase in gross receipts from the lodging and meals tax. And in Fiscal Year 2019, the gross receipts from the lodging and meals tax was $208 million (155%) more than they were when the dedicated fund was instituted in 2004. While the overall tax rate in Maine increased from 7% to 9% in later years, thereby impacting the revenues further in recent years, the impact of the dedicated fund for tourism marketing is clear.  Investment in tourism pays back in spades.

The time for this important change to tourism funding is now.  And, I am pleased that a number of legislators and stakeholders have begun the process of passing, during next year’s legislative session, legislation that would create a designated fund to market and promote Vermont as a tourist destination.

In the final analysis, Vermont must follow the lead of the State of Maine and other states.  We can no longer sit idly by and watch as our competitors spend millions more than us to promote tourism in their states.  After all, we are competing in an ever-increasingly global market.  In order to grow and increase our market share of those global tourism dollars, we cannot lose sight of staying economically competitive.


By Heidi Scheuermann, Commentary

The 2019-20 legislative biennium is well under way, and my primary focus these first three weeks has been doing all I can legislatively to provide a one-year extension of the July 1, 2019, involuntary merger deadline in Act 46.

Toward that end, our Act 46 Legislative Working Group — made up of dozens of legislators from across the political spectrum — is working diligently to educate members of the House and Senate Education Committees and the legislative leadership about why this extension to July 1, 2020, is so important.

First, given the three lawsuits in process right now, it is absolutely critical that we allow some time for the courts to weigh in. While I am not too familiar with two of the lawsuits, I believe strongly that the Elmore-Morristown and Stowe lawsuit against the state is a very strong one. And, if we are required to merge, and that merger is followed by a decision in our favor, it will be virtually impossible to unravel the newly merged district.

For that reason, it is important we allow time for the court to determine the validity of the decision by the State Board of Education to merge our districts.

Second, the merger of two districts, especially coming on the heels of a so recently merged district (Morristown and Elmore), takes time to do well, and to do right. We have two very strong, capable school boards, both of which have the best interests of all of our students at heart. A shotgun merger will do an incredible disservice to those exact students.

I am confident our hard-working school boards can do this work well, but they deserve to be given proper time to put a merger together in a way that makes sense for all of our students and our dedicated faculty.

In addition, it is important that, as we move forward with a merger, our communities understand precisely the process, what a merged district will look like, and how a merged district will specifically work. As someone who has a great deal of experience trying to engage families and communities on issues of importance, I can assure you that, to do this right, this process will take significant time.

I can also assure you that if our communities do not understand what is happening, and don’t have time to digest this incredible change, we will find even more disillusionment and frustration with government than we see now.

I am pleased to report that the House Education Committee and the leadership in both the House and Senate have agreed to consider our request, and I was invited in to testify in the House committee last week. By the printing of this column, I will have testified again, in addition to both Penny Jones of the Elmore-Morristown board and Cara Zimmerman, the chair of the Stowe School Board, the Lamoille South Supervisory Union School Board, and the Transition Board. So, I continue to be hopeful that we will be successful, though the very tight timeline is a challenge.

As the Act 46 work continues, so too does other important work.

Governor Phil Scott's Budget

Gov. Phil Scott last week outlined his fiscal year 2020 budget — a no-nonsense one focused in large part on addressing the demographic crisis and our state’s fiscal health. But, while in past years there has always been considerable consternation after a budget address, the tone of the governor’s speech this year was a collaborative one, so it was relatively well-received by the Democratic legislative leadership.

Of course, there are going to be significant disagreements in various policy areas throughout the next weeks and months, but I’m hopeful the budget address kicked off a new commitment to working together on the important issues facing out state.

Among other items, the governor’s budget proposal includes the following:

  • Applying the 92 percent tobacco tax to e-cigarettes.
  • Removing, over time, the income tax on pensions for retired military members.
  • Raising the estate tax exemption to $5.75 million, thereby encouraging more affluent Vermonters to remain in Vermont. (Vermont is only one of 12 states to have the estate tax at all.)
  • Eliminating the land gains tax.
  • Creating a paid family leave program for state employees, which would be open for all Vermont employers and employees to enroll into. (The Democrats have proposed a mandatory program paid for by a payroll tax on all employees in Vermont.)
  • An additional $1 million in funding for last-mile broadband.
  • An additional $7 million in funding for child care subsidies for low- and middle-income Vermonters.
  • An additional $3 million in funding for Vermont State Colleges.
  • Funding our clean water efforts by using $8 million of our estate tax revenue.

As always, as our legislative session progress, please feel free to contact me at anytime. I can be reached at 253-9314 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..  Please also be in touch if you are interested in receiving my more in-depth, regular email newsletters.

By Heidi Scheuermann, Commentary

The Vermont General Assembly returned to Montpelier last week, ready to get to work.

In 2017, House Speaker Mitzi Johnson determined (correctly, in my view) that a standing committee in the House was needed to focus solely on energy and technology issues facing our state. Prior to this time, these critical issues were the jurisdiction of other committees whose work encompassed other significant issues, like the environment and economic development in general. As such, energy and technology items didn’t receive the proper attention.

While during its first biennium this new committee faced some growing pains, I am very pleased that the speaker appointed me to it this year, and am excited to work diligently on one of the priorities of our Stowe community, and the state in general — the issue of ensuring high-quality, reliable cellphone and broadband coverage.

It is absolutely critical to our state’s economic growth to put into place policies that will ensure coverage is developed and deployed broadly, efficiently, and effectively.

School Mergers

The other item on which I am focusing much of my effort at this time is the invalidation of the forced mergers that were part of Act 46, including the Stowe and Elmore-Morristown merger. I am pleased that there is a tripartisan group of legislators — legislators from across the political spectrum — who share my concerns about these involuntary mergers put into place by the State Board of Education, and we are working together diligently to educate our colleagues of these concerns.

The first goal is to obtain a delay in the July 1, 2019 merger deadline. Toward that end, I have two pieces of legislation for the House Committee on Education to consider. The first is a simple delay of the forced mergers until July 1, 2020, and the second is a moratorium on the forced mergers until the legal cases are adjudicated or July 1, 2020, whichever is later.

I hope the committee will agree to a hearing on one or both of those bills within the next two weeks. After all, considering the need to produce school district budgets now, we must move quickly.

Our legislative working group is also working on the Senate side, in the hopes that the senators, too, know and understand these very serious concerns, and address them accordingly.

Statewide Schools

Finally, following years of presenting education reform proposals that would reform both the education funding system and the education delivery system, I took a break from such proposals last biennium. Given the 2015 passage of Act 46 (without my support), and the State Education Plan that was to result from Act 46, I determined it was best to take a wait-and-see approach to the merger activities.

News last week, however, has returned my focus to this kind of reform. Specifically, a draft memo has been developed by the governor’s administration outlining a significant education transformation proposal:

  • Create one statewide school district with four regional school boards in place of all of our local school districts.
  • Provide for full school choice for students throughout the state.
  • Eliminate the State Board of Education.
  • Create one statewide teachers contract for all teachers, who would then be state employees.
  • Require a Parent School Committee for each school to advise the Principal on school operations.

While disappointing, this proposal comes as no surprise. This trend started with Act 60, the state takeover of the funding of K-12 education, and has continued each year as the Legislature — both Democrats and Republicans — have wrested more and more control from our local school districts and boards.

In fact, as this has happened each year, I have repeatedly argued that there are only two directions in which we can go with regard to education: a) the complete state takeover of education; or b) return some semblance of local control and local decision-making.

The administration draft memo puts the former on the table. I will do so shortly with the latter. Frankly, while I disagree with the administration on this, I am happy that we might finally have this debate about the direction of pre-K-12 education.

My alternative proposal will strengthen local school districts and local school boards; reconnect taxpayers to the budgets voted upon and money spent so that we have cost containment and property tax relief; and expand educational opportunities for our students.

We can, in fact, do these things, if we have the will to do so.

Of course, there are many more issues on which we will all be focused this session. If anything is of interest to you, please contact me with any questions or concerns. I can be reached at 253-9314 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Please also be in touch if you are interested in receiving my more in-depth, regular email newsletters.

November 28, 2018

I don’t recall a time during my service that I have been more ashamed of a governing body in Vermont as I am today of the State Board of Education (SBE).

I am grateful to SBE members Oliver Olsen, Callahan Beck, John Carroll and John O’Keefe for truly understanding the joint Alternative Governance Structure (AGS) proposal submitted by the Elmore-Morristown and Stowe School Districts, and for their support of it today. But, the final decision by the remaining members of the SBE to forcibly merge EMUU and Stowe — two very high-functioning school districts that both already separately meet, and even exceed, the goals of Act 46 in a cost-effective way, is as disappointing as it is wrong.

After all, following more than a year of study, both Stowe and EMUU districts agreed that the Alternative Structure is the best way to ensure the highest quality education for all of our students in the most efficient way. The Secretary of Education agreed, and recommended its approval. Yet, the State Board has now forced upon us a structure that is in neither of the school district’s best interests.

When Act 46 was proposed and advanced in 2015, this kind of action was my greatest fear, and why I fought so hard against the legislation. That Gov. Shumlin, his Secretary of Education, and the majority in the legislature in 2015 believed it was appropriate to give the authority to dissolve local school boards and local school districts to a body of nine unelected individuals, accountable to nobody, was exceptionally frustrating.

Rest assured, I will continue to do everything legislatively possible in the upcoming session to ensure we retain local control of our schools.

Finally, I want to thank and commend our districts’ School Boards and the Lamoille South Supervisory Union for their incredible work throughout this process. It has been a pleasure working with them since the beginning of this process, and by all measures, the AGS application should have been approved.

In addition to my upcoming legislative work to fight the forced merger, I look forward to continuing to work with the Boards as they move forward with legal action. I know we are committed to doing all we can to achieve results that are in the best interests of our communities and children.

By Heidi E. Scheuermann

October 4, 2018

I feel compelled to respond to the letter in last week's Stowe Reporter from Melissa Sheffer in which she falsely accused me of voting agains the pregnancy accommodations bill, as this is simply not true.

In fact, I supported the bill as it passed and was signed into law.  Even more, I worked with the Attorney Genera's office to ensure the bill, which was a poorly crafted bill as it passed the House, was fixed before final passage.

Indeed, I was unable to support H.136, the Pregnancy Accommodations bill, as it first emerged from my committee and the House of Representatives for a very simple reason: It was an extremely poorly crafted bill.

The intent of the bill was admirable: to ensure that employers provide reasonable accommodations to an employee with a condition related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition if needed.

My years of working for U.S. Sen. Jim Jeffords on education and disability policy taught me a great deal about “reasonable accommodations.” The purpose of existing state and federal laws requiring reasonable accommodations is to remove barriers for individuals with disabilities. This is so that a disabled individual can work — can perform the essential functions of a job — and, therefore, enjoy equal opportunities for employment.

H.136, as it passed the House, would have greatly expanded these provisions in law. It would have essentially given pregnant women greater protections than any other employees, including individuals with disabilities.

Under current employment law, reasonable accommodations must be provided to a qualified employee with a disability if it will enable that employee to perform the essential functions of the job. H.136, as it passed the House, didn’t require the reasonable accommodations in order for the employee to perform the essential functions of the job. In fact, it might have even required a wholesale change in the job altogether.

Even more, the bill, as it passed the House, would have required employers of all sizes to provide, potentially, unlimited/indefinite amounts of leave to employees for any condition related to pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions.

To be clear, I absolutely support the ability of pregnant employees to continue working. But the House version of this bill essentially established a whole new class of worker — a pregnant woman — and would have provided rights to pregnant women above those for any other employee, including individuals with disabilities.

As the bill was being developed, and even after it passed the House, I expressed these very concerns. I even met with the assistant attorney general to share them, and asked that their office help to redraft the legislation to ensure it does not have any of these unintended consequences.

So, I was pleased that, with the help of the attorney general’s office, the Senate realized the failures with the House version of the bill and wrote a completely new version of it. That new version allayed my concerns, and I was happy to support the bill that became law.

Our campaign is exceptionally disappointed in these tactics of using false allegations to smear us. The information is all out there, readily available, and transparent, so there is no reason for this kind of false accusation.

... the fiscal year 2019 state budget is winding its way through the process, and without much debate at all, if any, passed the Senate earleir this week.  While I supported the budget as it emerged from the House of Representatives, I have some concerns about the Senate version of the bill.  Specifically, two of the investments I most want to see pass are not funded in the Senate-passed bill.

We simply cannot make it more difficult for these small Vermont businesses to achieve success.

From what I understand, from the perspective of proponents of the mandated increase, the underlying goals are simple, and include: 1) reducing poverty; 2) reducing income inequality; and 3) putting more money in the pockets of low-wage workers so that things are more affordable for them.

Indeed, these are all very worthy goals. Unfortunately, this proposal will do little to address them.

After a great deal of consideration in the House General, Housing, and Military Affairs Committee, H. 710, a bill I co-sponsored that reforms Vermont's beer franchise laws as they apply to small brewers, passed the full House overwhelmingly last week.

A number of items continue to progress in the Vermont Legislature as we head toward Town Meeting Day Break.

The House General, Housing and Military Affairs Committee, the committee on which I serve, will soon be taking up the #1 priority of some of the Democratic leaders in Montpelier: the increase in the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour.


This legislation passed the Senate two weeks ago on a 20-10 vote.  Specifically, the bill proposes to increase the minimum wage to $15.00/hour over the course of the next six years.  While the implementation is now over six years, rather than four, this is still a very problematic proposal for our local small businesses.