As I write this article for the Mountain Gazette House of Representatives is considering replacing the so-called "two-vote" provision that was designed at the end of last session with a more effective means of containing school spending. The vote represents an effort to improve, not repeal, cost containment.

The two-vote provision would have taken effect a year from now in districts with above average spending where spending is proposed to increase by a high amount. In those cases the budget vote on town meeting day would be presented in two parts.

Legislators, and in particular the Education Committee, have been listening to Vermonters' concerns about the two-vote provision and initially considered whether new wording would improve it. The committee determined that dividing a budget vote into two articles is potentially confusing to voters, regardless of the wording. The committee voted to replace it by tightening the current high spending threshold instead.

Confusion is not cost containment. If Vermonters choose to vote down a school budget based on good information, school boards can respond appropriately. But if they turn down a school budget due to confusion, Vermont students lose out.

The high spending threshold works. Since the passage of the threshold in 2005, the rate of increase in education spending has dropped steadily. School boards and administrators have testified that the threshold is very much in their minds as they build their budgets. In fact, very few districts exceed the threshold, an indication that this cost containment mechanism is indeed working.

The change will be debated as the committee's response to a floor amendment to completely repeal the two-vote provision. The repeal amendment was offered by several legislators from different political parties. The Education Committee is offering the alternative cost containment mechanism in place of an outright repeal.

In other work this session the legislature is addressing the real cost drivers for school and municipal budgets by initiatives to contain health care and energy costs, as well as by carefully examining mandates and reporting requirements and by avoiding state budget choices that increase pressure on property taxes.

As always, if you have questions on these or other issues, you can contact me at gsym@together.net.