VT Lawmakers: After Equifax, please ban consumer fees for security/credit freezes

After the Equifax security breach, I put a security freeze on my credit reports with the big three credit reporting agencies. Equifax waived the fee but the other two charged $10

each. These fees are set by state law and in at least six states (including Maine and New York) there is no fee. Vermont lawmakers from the Upper Valley, please take note. Amend 9 V.S.A § 2480h, so that no fees are charged to consumers for placing or removing a security freeze on his or her credit report.

This is not the first time credit bureaus have experienced a security breach.  As observed  at the website Krebs on Security: "The credit bureaus - which make piles of money by compiling incredibly detailed dossiers on consumers and selling that information to marketers - have for the most part shown themselves to be terrible stewards of very sensitive data." Protecting my identity should be their cost of business.  Allowing consumers to freeze and unfreeze their credit reports for FREE is a good but small step.



LINK: KrebsOnSecurity [no affiliation with website].

Part II - Unpacking the Fact Finders Report for the Marion CrossTeachers Contract

Part II of II

Here is my summary of the Fact Finders Report discussed some on the listserv. 
I broke my summary into two parts to avoid an extremely long listserv post.  
The Fact Finders Report is an important document regarding the labor impasse 
between the Norwich Teachers Association and the Norwich School District. 
Note that this collective bargaining dispute involves only the Marion Cross 
School, its 296 students and 35 teachers. 

In all, the Norwich Fact Finding Report And Recommendations addressed five 
issues, with Issue Number 3 and Number 4 being the big ticket items of salary 
increases and health insurance. Part I addressed those big ticket items. This 
Part II addresses the remaining three issues. 

Issue Number 1 dealt with bereavement leave. Teachers currently get up to 3 
days “per occurrence” for the death a person within a broad definition of 
“immediate family”. The teachers proposed up to 3 days “per occurrence” 
because of “a death”. The teachers said the proposal was to account for 
non-traditional families. However, the proposal seem to allow bereavement 
leave for death of anyone, including the March death of rock n roll legend 
Chuck Berry. The recommendation of the Fact Finder was to add a death of “a 
person living in the teacher’s immediate household,” Report at 7, although I 
think the use of “immediate” in household might create confusion with the 
broad definition of “immediate family”. 

For Issue Number 2, the teachers wanted to expand from 5 to 15, the number of 
accumulated sick days the father of child of a newborn could use for parental 
leave, in addition to the days allowed under the Vermont and Federal family 
leave laws. The Fact Finder side with the School District, finding that the 
use of 5 sick days “already exceeds what is available to teachers in 
comparable districts.” Report at 9.

Finally, Issue Number 5 addressed college course reimbursement for continuing 
education and advanced degrees. The School District wanted to reduce the 
benefit from $40,000 per year to $30,000. Although the Fact Finder agreed 
with the School that the benefit was “generous”, was not convinced that it 
“should be reduced at this time.” Report at 25.

Unpacking the Fact Finders Report For the Marion Cross Teachers Contract - Part I

Part I of II

Here is my summary of the Fact Finders Report discussed some on the listserv. 
I broke my summary into two parts to avoid an extremely long listserv post.  
The Fact Finders Report is an important document regarding the labor impasse 
between the Norwich Teachers Association and the Norwich School District. 
Note that this collective bargaining dispute involves only the Marion Cross 
School, its 296 students and 35 teachers. 

In all, the Norwich Fact Finding Report And Recommendations (“Report”) 
addressed five issues, with Issue Number 3 and Number 4 being the big ticket 
items of salary increases and health insurance. This Part I addresses those 
big ticket items. 

With respect to salary increases, the School District offered “new money” 
increases of 2.2% and 2.16% in years one and two respectively, arguing that 
the the Consumer Price Index has “averaged between 1.0% and 1.4% over the 
past eight years.” Report at 10. The Teachers proposal amounted to 3.85% in 
“new money in year 1, 3.56% new money in year 2, and 3.46% new money in year 
3.” Report at 11. From context, I assume the term “new money” includes the 
step increases teachers receive each year.  

The Fact Finder recommended a two-year contract with “new money” increases in 
salary of 3% in 2017 and 2018. He stated that 3% was the average salary 
increase in “recent teacher settlements” and acknowledged that salaries for 
Norwich teachers are at the “top tier of teachers statewide”. Report at 12. 
Early in the Report, the Fact Finder observed that Norwich had the highest 
education tax rate in Windsor County. Report at 13. In his analysis, he 
concluded that no “unusual economic pressures” hindered the School District 
ability to increase wages. Report at 13

For health insurance, the Fact Finder agreed with the School’s proposal that 
teachers pay 15% of premiums in year 1 and 16% in year 2. Report at 20. On 
the issue of the out-of-pocket maximum, he sought protection for teachers and 
recommended $400 for individual plan and $1200 for the family plan, reasoning 
that the School would still save about $24,000 or more, even after the 
penalty imposed by the State. Report at 22-23.

The penalty arises from recent Vermont legislation. The law assumes that 
teachers will pay 20% of health insurance costs. State funds are withheld 
from school districts based on this assumption. Report at 4. School districts 
that pay more than 80% in essence lose state funding. Under the Report’s 
recommendation, Norwich will lose over $56,000 in state funds. Report at 21.

In the news lately is the settlement that Burlington reached with its 
teachers, after a four-day strike. The WCAX website reports that the new 
contract gives teachers a 2.5 percent pay boost in the first year, and a 2.75 
percent increase the second. Teachers will pay 19% of health insurance 
premiums in year one and 20% in year two. The out-of-pocket limit is a 
maximum of $800.

Onward to Part II. 

Keep the current lister/assessor mode

The Selectboard is discussing whether to keep the current lister/assessor model. I hope the Selectboard keeps that system in place. The proof is in the pudding - the current system has resulted in fewer disputes about property values, which means property owners think it is fair. The Common Level of Appraisal (CLA), as calculated by the State, remains high. A high CLA is good for all taxpayers when the State determines the Norwich school tax rate. The Town has also been smart to budget for regular town-wide reassessments, rather than expect Listers to keep pace on a piecemeal basis with changing real estate values.

Let's not forget how we got here. The increased reliance on a professional assessor came about because our elected Listers came up short.  In 2008, we saw the Bragg Hill Neighborhood Reassessment litigation, which the Town settled on terms very favorable to the taxpayers, but only for those who fought their reassessments. There was also the not so well-known dispute with the State over the practice of “sales chasing”, which the Town handily lost before an administrative board in 2011. I have reviewed in detail the public record in those cases,including the deposition testimony of the Listers regarding the Bragg Hill matter.   My view is that the Listers were in way over their head, lacking expertise and staff. Having been victimized by “sales chasing” (or more precisely, in my case, chasing real estate listings), I think the Listers action were appalling, particularly because the Listers chose to ignore direct guidance from the State. I got my money back in 2016, after three years of pro se litigation that few could afford. Many taxpayers in the same boat -- our neighbors -- got screwed and paid more than their fair share of property taxes. 

In Vermont, many towns’ Board of Listers hire outside firms to conduct town-wide appraisals. These firms employ their own staff and use proprietary software to create the Grand List. If such assistance is allowed by the statute, then I argue that the Norwich lister/assessor model is also permitted.
The statute is clear that the Selectboard cannot impose this model on the Listers against their will. Here, the Norwich Selectboard is willing to pay for the contract assessor and the results are good. What is not to like?