"Challenges for Change" is a good idea gone bad.

 

The original idea as mapped out by the administration's consultants, Public Strategies Group,was to close a $38 million budget shortfall by challenging several state agencies to tell theLegislature how they would "deliver the same or better results" with the dollars remaining in the budget. The agencies that were issued the challenges included Human Services,Corrections, Education, Commerce and Community Development and Natural Resources.

 

A bipartisan committee of legislators and administrators convened and developed a series of"redesign options" for each agency and department. But in the end, the architects of the challenge created a false emergency, rushing what many refer to as a series of very vague proposals with potential for unforeseen consequences through the legislative process in the remaining two weeks of the session. Making monumental policy shifts at warp speed with little or no public input puts vital programs and people at risk.

 

The process has shocked and disappointed many who rightly expect their lawmakers to conduct thorough and transparent hearings on any serious proposal, especially this one which has so many potentially significant consequences. As Con Hogan, former head of the Agency of Human Services under Republican Gov. Richard Snelling, said last week: "…the Legislature is giving carte blanche to the administration to make these cuts without reasonable public review." Republican Rep. Ann Donahue of Northfield, in a recent news story, called the challenge process "an evisceration of representative democracy" (Times Argus, April 11,2010).

 

While health, safety and welfare issues at the Human Services Agency are significant and carry with them serious moral implications regarding our fundamental responsibilities to the most needy populations in this state, it is perhaps the proposed changes in the Agency ofCommerce and Community Development that are the least understood and would have even longer-lasting negative consequences.

 

The administration's "Challenges for Change" proposes "greater efficiencies" in the state's economic development programs by merging them with the 11 Regional PlanningCommissions. The idea is to consolidate several regional economic development, workforce training and employment offices into nine "Regional Service Centers." The planning commissions would be absorbed into these new regional development entities.

 

This proposal would at best weaken and possibly kill the last vestige of comprehensive planning for the future in Vermont, since the executive office long ago, sadly, rid itself of its important planning and coordination function.

 

But as any family, corporation, school or municipality will tell you, without adequate planning, you cannot balance your budget, coordinate vital functions or meet objectives — let alone save or plan for the future.  

 

The regional planning commissions help communities manage growth and development, plan for transportation needs, promote renewable energy development and energy efficiency, redevelop contaminated sites, plan for emergency management and hazard mitigation and serve as regional coordinators for communities.  

 

Fortunately, legislative leaders rejected the governor's plan. But the alternative they've proposed is still based on the premise that regional planning should be included in restructuring schemes that focus on economic development at the likely expense of planning functions.

 

Our state leaders are putting people and programs at risk by rushing major policy shifts through at the eleventh hour. With major planning functions gone at the state level — and the proposal to virtually eliminate them at the regional level — how can we possibly hope to avoid more of the consequences of not planning or poorly planning for the inevitable change?  

 

Please call your state senators now and tell them what you think about the "Challenges for Change."