Looking Back on That Important Vote: Where Was Your Representative?

There was an important vote taken in the House back in 2005.  It only meant a few hundred dollars to Vermont's non-union teachers.  Of course, it meant a good chunk of change to Vermont-NEA.  But the average Vermonter didn't really care about the issue of whether non-union teachers would be charged a fee by their local unions.  No, the "agency fees" vote wasn't a particularly high-stakes vote.  Instead, the importance of it was that it revealed the character of Vermont's House members.

The bill passed on a voice vote.  But the important vote was a roll call vote on an amendment made by Rep. Kilmartin (R-Newport).  The amendment would cap the fee at one-third of the normal dues, thus making everyone pay their share of negotiating expenses but not subjecting everyone to making contributions to political causes they didn't support.  (There was even a provision in the amendment for the union to exceed the one-third cap if they could demonstrate to the Vermont Labor Relations Board that more money was required to cover the actual negotiating costs.)  There could be no philosophical objection to voting for this amendment.  The only motivation would be loyalty to the greedy people at Vermont-NEA who wanted all of the money.  The amendment failed 93-38.

Fear was probably the motivation for most of the 18 House members absent for that vote.  But fear is not why Governor Douglas signed the bill into law.  He knew he couldn't win the battle and saw no sense in spending the time to fight it.  But there's a difference between a governor having to sign a bill he's not thrilled with and a legislator shirking his/her consititutional responsibilty to vote.  No, it was not a proud moment for those that shirked.  But it was a shameful moment for those voting "Nay" on this reasonable amendment.  They were:

Allaire of Rutland City

Allard of St. Albans Town

Ancel of Calais

Aswad of Burlington

Atkins of Winooski

Audette of S. Burlington

Barnard of Richmond

Bohi of Hartford

Botzow of Pownal

Brooks of Montpelier

Chen of Mendon

Clarkson of Woodstock

Condon of Colchester

Copeland-Hanzas of Bradford

Corcoran of Bennington

Darrow of Dummerston

Deen of Westminster

Donahue of Northfield

Donovan of Burlington

Dostis of Waterbury

Dowland of Holland

Edwards of Brattleboro

Emmons of Springfield

Evans of Essex

Fallar of Tinmouth

Fisher of Lincoln

Frank of Underhill

French of Randolph

Gervais of Enosburg

Grad of Moretown

Green of Berlin

Haas of Rochester

Head of S. Burlington

Heath of Westford

Howard of Rutland City

Howrigan of Fairfield

Hunt of Essex

Hutchinson of Randolph

Jerman of Essex

Jewett of Ripton

Johnson of South Hero

Keenan of St. Albans City

Keogh of Burlington

Kiss of Burlington

Kitzmiller of Montpelier

Klein of East Montpelier

Koch of Barre Town

Kupersmith of S. Burlington

Leriche of Hardwick

Lippert of Hinesburg

Lorber of Burlington

Maier of Middlebury

Malcolm of Pawlet

Marek of Newfane

Marron of Stowe

Martin of Springfield

Martin of Wolcott

Masland of Thetford

McAllister of Highgate

McCullough of Williston

McFaun of Barre Town

McLaughlin of Royalton

Milkey of Brattleboro

Miller of Shaftsbury

Miller of Elmore

Minter of Waterbury

Molloy of Arlington

Monti of Barre City

Mook of Bennington

Nease of Johnson

Nitka of Ludlow

Nuovo of Middlebury

Obuchowski of Rockingham

Orr of Charlotte

Parent of St. Albans City

Partridge of Windham

Perry of Richford

Peterson of Williston

Pillsbury of Brattleboro

Potter of Clarendon

Randall of Troy

Reese of Pomfret

Rodgers of Glover

Rusten of Halifax

Seibert of Norwich

Severance of Colchester

Shand of Weathersfield

Sharpe of Bristol

Smith of Morristown

Sweaney of Windsor

Trombley of Grand Isle

Valliere of Barre City

Zuckerman of Burlington

Comments

[Anonymous]

Curtis, Question 1) did this bill only concern teachers or was this bill about agency fees for other union and labor groups too? Question 2) Do you belong to the teachers union (I take it that you don't but perhaps I am wrong)? Question 3) Do you accept your raises that are granted because of the collective bargaining process?

[Curtis Hier]

Answers to Anonymous's questions:

1) The bill applies only to teachers and some school administrators.

2) I belonged for over ten years. I no longer do. I probably paid in enough to cover negotiating expenses for a long time.

3) I benefit from any raises we get. But I believe we could get raises just as well if our local became unaffiliated or became affiliated with someone else. So I led an effort to decertify the NEA-affiliated local. We got 30 percent of the vote. The teachers who don't belong to the union but voted against decertifying, well, they are truly "free riders." And there were a few.

Also, I believe that Kilmartin's amendment addressed the "free rider" concern. To say that one-third of the dues go to negotiating expenses is more than generous. A Pennsylvania Court in 1997 found that negotiating costs only represented 25% of the union dues at that time.

While I'm on this subject, I want to respond with another point on George's argument that unions are within their free speech rights when they spend money to defeat ballot measures. I then argued about agency fees, which started this whole thing. But also I'd like to point out that unions are not within their rights when they refuse to make required financial disclosures and then drag their feet when ordered to do so.