In a low-key but brash show of elitism this session, the Democratic super majority defined a new citizen underclass, and cut back the ability of the disenfranchised to sparticipate in government.
Our legislative leaders affirmed that a person who is less educated is less capable of being an effective participant in a democracy.
The Legislature also intimated that Vermonters who are not computer literate or do not have access to a computer have no need to follow what is happening in the people's House.
And by an 81-51 vote, representatives determined that individuals with disabilities should not be included in the state's human services goal for individuals to be “engaged in and contribute to their community's decisions and activities.”
The Pre-K to 12 Education Council was created this year with a goal that every Vermonter go on to post-secondary education. Among the reasons: it is necessary in order to develop and maintain an “engaged citizenry.”
This degrades our skilled trades, our self-starters, and every Vermonter who is already successful in life without post-secondary education. It tells them they are of less value in civic life.
It presumes to say that more education is better, always, for everyone. It cheapens the contributions of those not a part of that class.
Next came a budget decision that limits access to public involvement for those not computer literate. If you come to the Statehouse and don't bring your laptop, you won't be able to follow a calendar or read a bill. Printed copies will no longer be publicly available.
Legislators can request a copy, and constituents can ask a legislator for one. I was once a new follower of state house action, and I wouldn't have dreamed of interrupting a legislator for so petty a task.
Finally, the “Challenges for Change” bill identified broad outcomes expected of the Agency of Human Services. The House had listed 12 outcomes, but the Senate opted to only apply those that it deemed relevant to each of three specific populations served: elders, children and families, and “individuals with disabilities, mental health needs, or substance abuse issues.”
The outcomes became directly aligned with each specific group, and the Senate removed the ones that it felt did not apply.
“Children are ready for school,” for example, was removed from being an expected outcome as related to services provided to elders, while “families and individuals live in safe and supportive communities” remained applied to all three.
“Children, families, and individuals are engaged in and contribute to their community's decisions and activities,” however, was removed as an expected outcome only as related to persons with disabilities.
It gives lip service to the principles of self-empowerment and recovery when people are told that they have less of value to contribute to civil debate, and there is no expectation that community involvement be a goal in their lives.
The mere thought of an amendment sent shivers up the spines of the leadership, because the bill needed quick sign-off. So despite attention brought to the gaffe, the House voted against restoring the language.
At a time when financial resources are at a low, there is an even greater need to protect and encourage the core constitutional right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Vulnerable users of our roads – bicyclists and pedestrians – gained protections this session. Vulnerable users of our democracy lost.
I have constituents who have no post-secondary education who contact me, know what they are talking about and express it well. I value their input.
Some of them don't even have computers.
I am a Vermonter with a mental health disability. I think I am an engaged contributor to the state.
It is disheartening to witness a legislature so cavalierly create second-class citizenships in our democracy.