How Skeptics and No-Voters Filled Vermont's Task Force to Bury Education Reform Act 73
The task force's 10-to-1 split meant the legislature controlled nearly all the seats, while the Governor—a primary advocate for mandatory consolidation—had minimal influence.
In June 2025, the Vermont General Assembly passed Act 73, a sweeping education reform law that called for mandatory consolidation of the state’s school districts. The law created an 11-member task force with a clear directive: recommend up to three new statewide school district configurations by December 1, 2025, with districts ideally containing between 4,000 and 8,000 students.
On November 10, 2025, that task force voted 8-3 to do something entirely different. Instead of producing the required consolidation map, the majority endorsed a 10-year voluntary merger plan that would incentivize—not force—districts to combine.
This wasn’t an accident. An analysis of who was appointed to the task force, and their positions before joining it, reveals how this outcome was engineered from the start.
The Two Competing Plans
By November, the task force had split into two camps with fundamentally different visions.
The Mandate Plan
Senator Scott Beck and Dave Wolk, Governor Phil Scott’s appointee, developed a proposal that followed the law’s requirements. Their “CTE Region Modified District Map” proposed 13 new school districts based on Vermont’s existing Career and Technical Education regions. The plan aimed to address what Act 73 identified as core problems: inequitable educational opportunities caused by small, isolated districts and unsustainable spending.
The Voluntary Alternative
Representative Rebecca Holcombe, Dr. Jay Badams, and Dr. Jennifer Botzojorns created a nearly 170-page counter-proposal that rejected mandatory consolidation entirely. Their plan would create five regional Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES)—entities that allow districts to share services like transportation and special education while keeping their local school boards intact. Districts would be encouraged, not required, to merge through incentives like access to state construction aid.
Dr. Badams stated publicly that forced consolidation “simply won’t work.” Rep. Holcombe argued the task force should tell the legislature its mandate was “actually not responsible” and offer alternatives instead.
When Dave Wolk challenged whether the voluntary plan met the legislature’s directive, asking “is it a map as directed to us by the Legislature?”, he was outvoted 8-3.
Who Controlled the Appointments
Understanding why requires understanding who chose the task force members. Act 73 divided appointment power among three entities:
Speaker of the House: 5 appointments
Senate Committee on Committees: 5 appointments
Governor Phil Scott: 1 appointment
This 10-to-1 split meant the legislature controlled nearly all the seats, while the Governor—a primary advocate for mandatory consolidation—had minimal influence.
The Lawmakers Who Voted Against Act 73
Of the six legislators appointed to the task force, two had voted against the law they were now tasked with implementing.
Representative Rebecca Holcombe
Appointed by the Speaker of the House, Holcombe had been an outspoken opponent of the bill. In explaining her “negative vote,” she called Act 73 “a rushed, politicized and inconsistent piece of work” with “the potential to do real harm.” She argued the law would “increase cost and reduce local engagement in our schools” in her region without improving learning opportunities.
Despite—or perhaps because of—this opposition, she became a primary author of the voluntary plan that ultimately prevailed.
Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Task Force Co-Chair)
Even more remarkably, Sen. Gulick had voted against Act 73’s final passage in the Senate on June 16, 2025. She was one of 12 senators who voted “no” on the final 17-12 conference committee vote that sent the bill to the Governor.
The Senate Committee on Committees then appointed her to co-chair the task force charged with implementing that same law.
The Pro-Mandate Legislators
Three legislators remained committed to the law’s original intent:
Rep. Beth Quimby was one of five original sponsors of the bill
Sen. Scott Beck voted yes on final passage and co-authored the mandate plan with Wolk
Rep. Edye Graning (the other co-chair) voted yes on the final conference report, though she ultimately presided over the task force’s decision to adopt the voluntary plan
One legislator, Sen. Wendy Harrison, voted yes on final passage but joined the voluntary plan majority—suggesting she concluded the mandate approach wasn’t viable.
The Non-Legislative Appointees
The five non-legislator members further tilted the balance away from the mandate.
Dave Wolk: The Governor’s Lone Voice
Governor Scott appointed Dave Wolk, a former superintendent and Vermont State Colleges president, as his single representative. Wolk co-authored the CTE consolidation map and consistently defended the mandate approach. His isolated position demonstrated how thoroughly the legislative appointees controlled the outcome.
Dr. Jay Badams: The Known Skeptic
Appointed by the Speaker of the House, Badams was described at the time of his appointment as having “expressed some skepticism about Act 73.” He was known to be politically aligned with Rep. Holcombe and became a co-author of the voluntary plan. He publicly argued that research on cost savings from consolidation was speculative.
Dr. Jennifer Botzojorns: The Rural School Advocate
Appointed by the Senate Committee on Committees, Botzojorns had led the rural Kingdom East School District and was praised by the Rural School Community Alliance (RSCA) upon her appointment. The RSCA had publicly urged the task force to “submit maps contingent on voluntary agreements” and to encourage BOCES—exactly the approach Botzojorns helped author.
Kim Gleason and Chris Locarno
The two remaining appointees—Gleason appointed by the Speaker and Locarno by the Senate Committee—had no documented public positions before joining. Both ultimately voted with the voluntary plan majority.
The Political Calculus
The pattern is clear: legislative leadership used its appointment power to create a task force predisposed to reject the mandate it was created to implement.
The appointments included:
A task force co-chair who voted against the law
A primary plan author who voted against the law and called it “rushed” and “politicized”
Two education professionals known for skepticism toward forced consolidation or affiliations with rural school advocacy
Only one clear mandate supporter from the Governor’s office, who could be easily outvoted
The final House vote on Act 73 was 96-45; the Senate vote was 17-12. The law had passed with clear majorities. Yet the implementation body was structured to produce the opposite outcome.
What Happens Next
The task force’s final report is due December 1, 2025. It will recommend the voluntary merger framework rather than the mandatory consolidation maps required by law.
The question now returns to the legislature: Will lawmakers accept a recommendation that contradicts their own statute? Will they revise Act 73 to match the task force’s voluntary approach? Or will they attempt to enforce the original mandate despite the task force’s refusal to implement it?
The legislature created this situation by passing a controversial mandate, then appointing a task force likely to reject it. Whether this represents pragmatic problem-solving or an abdication of legislative responsibility, Vermont’s education future remains uncertain—and the fundamental question of how to consolidate the state’s school districts remains unresolved.