Spreadsheet: 174a123a-b730-4784-8753-600da4111155
Sheet: Robert Letovsky

[NAME]
Fair Share Fee: Those Who Don't Pay Their Fair Share
Disagree
Explain your fair share position, if you choose.
No response
Teachers' Retirement: Support in the State Budget
I'd like to explain my position
Explain your teachers' retirement position, if you choose.
I strongly agree with your general statement regarding the importance of the state meeting its funding commitment.
However, I also strongly believe that the wording of your question is incomplete, and does not address the core
issue:  In order to preserve the integrity of the commitments it has made to the State Teachers’ Retirement System
as well as to its state workers’ pension system, the state must have a robust and expanding tax base.  If it does
not, future pension fund contributions by the state can only be made at the expense of current program funding or
increasingly higher taxes.  The former threaten to provoke a potentially corrosive public debate about the equity of
having 95% of the population be required to pay for a benefit most of them do not receive, potentially at the expense
of current state services some of them expect or require.  The latter will merely exacerbate the outflow of young
people from our state by discouraging job creation and economic activity, thereby hastening precisely the type of
impossible trade-offs I allude to above.  So, the issue is not that the state should fully fund its obligations.  For that
matter, I am strongly against seeing any Vermonter go homeless or hungry.  That is not the question. The question
is “how” can we create an environment whereby the state of Vermont can sustainably fund its obligations
responsibly?  I would respectfully suggest that it is in your members’ interest that our state has a dynamic and
thriving private sector to pay the taxes needed for current educational programs and the ongoing obligations to
retirees.  In my experiences with educators, I have found that many appear to be quite distanced from the private
economy, and may not fully appreciate the intimate connection between having a prosperous private sector and a
robust tax base needed to fund schools (salaries) and other important programs.
Health Care: Continuing System Reform
I'd like to explain my position
Explain your health care reform position, if you choose
I agree with both of your points but would insist that they be extended to all workers – unionized and not – in
Vermont. That would be the only fair and just thing to do. I have stated repeatedly that the state’s health care/insurance
initiative threatens to further undermine our efforts to attract economic activity and job creation to Vermont.  To the extent
that it does, it will therefore worsen the exodus of young adults and young families from our state.  This exodus has
already resulted in a situation where our state spends almost 40% more on a per student basis than the national average.
This latter trend in turns is a serious threat to ongoing taxpayer support of public education in Vermont.  I do not think it is
defensible to grant a carve-out solely to NEA members for a public policy initiative which is so manifestly flawed for all
Vermonters.  So, to the extent that NEA members are a sub-set of our broader society, I agree with your points so long
as the same privilege is granted to all.
Teaching Career: Retaining New Teachers
I'd like to explain my position
Explain your teaching career position, if you choose
Once again, I agree with your general statement but feels that it lacks specificity.  I strongly support any initiative which
aims to attract high caliber young adults into the teaching profession.  I am especially focused on STEM teaching at the
K-12 level.  I would, for example, strongly support one-time signing bonuses for appropriately credentialed/certified new
teachers in STEM disciplines, as this reflects a state and national priority.  That said, I would be strongly opposed to
across-the-board significant increases in base pay as a way to attract STEM talent, as the kind of increases that could be
offered given the numbers involved would render the increases trivial and ineffective at attracting the kind of talent that’s
needed.  I also feel that the Vermont-NEA and school boards must work on some way to incentivize young teachers in lieu
of the existing system which grants across-the-board raises based on seniority.  Merely superimposing raises at the base
onto the current structure will have the effect of diluting the types of incentives that could be offered to truly excellent
teachers to the point where they will be ineffective.
Teaching Profession: Simplifying Professional Relicensing
I'd like to explain my position
Explain your relicensing position, if you choose
On the one hand, I must admit to a certain lack of expertise in terms of assessing Vermont’s regulations compared to other
states, so it is hard for me to comment on your position or offer one of my own on this issue.  On the other hand, I am also
confused about your reference to “relicensing” as it seems to preclude the notion of some kind of fast-track licensing for
people who are just entering the teaching profession – perhaps at a later point in their lives – but who may possess highly
valued skills and credentials (e.g. in STEM teaching).
Name | email address | Address | Office sought | Are you an incumbent? |  | County
[NAME] | [EMAIL] | RobertforVermont - P.O. Box 8307 - Essex Junction VT 05451-8307 | Vermont Senate - Chittenden | No |  | Chittenden