Should Vermont Taxpayers Subsidize Local Media? Secretary of State Seeks Expanded Funding Without Disclosing Grant Details

Senator Andrew Perchlik, who secured the initial $50,000 appropriation, described the grants as a "vaccine to fight against the infection" created by the Trump administration's attacks on the press.

The Vermont Secretary of State’s Office is requesting nearly $2 million in state funding for democracy-media grants in the upcoming fiscal year, but has not publicly disclosed how many news organizations applied for previous awards, how winners were selected, or whether the inaugural program achieved measurable results.

Secretary of State Sarah Copeland Hanzas appeared before the House Appropriations Committee in late January to request $1.8 million for the Vermont Access Network and $90,000 for community radio stations for Fiscal Year 2027. The request represents a 33% increase over the $1.35 million appropriated for public access television in the current fiscal year.

The request comes as the office simultaneously distributes awards from a separate $100,000 Local Civic Journalism Awards program that provided grants to 16 news organizations in early February. Secretary Hanzas has urged legislators to expand funding for these journalism initiatives in the upcoming budget.

What Information Remains Undisclosed

The Secretary of State’s Office has not published several key pieces of information that would allow Vermont residents and legislators to evaluate the journalism grant program’s effectiveness or fairness.

The office has not disclosed how many news organizations applied for the inaugural Local Civic Journalism Awards. Only the 16 recipients were publicly announced at a February 4 press conference at the State House. Without knowing the total applicant pool, it is impossible to determine whether the program attracted broad interest or whether certain types of outlets chose not to participate.

The selection criteria used to evaluate applicants have been described only in general terms. The office has stated that awards were based on “audience service, civic engagement, journalistic integrity, and sustainability,” but has not published the specific scoring methodology, weighting of different criteria, or whether any applications were rejected and why.

No data has been released on how the 16 recipients plan to use the funds or what outcomes they are expected to achieve. While some outlets have indicated the money will be used to pay Vermonters to contribute to local reporting, no formal reporting requirements or success metrics have been publicly outlined.

Most significantly, the office has not explained what evidence justifies the expansion of the program. With the inaugural grants distributed just this month, no assessment of their impact has been conducted or presented to legislators who are now being asked to approve significantly larger appropriations for related media initiatives.

The Selection Process and Political Context

To address concerns about government influence over the press, the journalism awards were selected by an independent panel convened by the University of Vermont’s Center for Community News. The panel consisted of academics and former journalists not employed by any of the nominees.

However, the legislative advocacy for the program has been explicitly framed in partisan terms. Senator Andrew Perchlik, who secured the initial $50,000 state appropriation that was matched by the Vermont Community Foundation, described the grants as a “defensive response” to national political attacks on the press by President Donald Trump. Perchlik characterized the funding as a “vaccine to fight against the infection” created by these attacks.

This framing raises questions about whether a program justified as a response to a specific political figure can function as a politically neutral public service. While the UVM panel’s independence may have insulated the selection process from direct political interference, the broader rationale for the program as articulated by its legislative champions suggests an ideological dimension that may concern Vermonters across the political spectrum.

The Expanding Budget Request

The Secretary of State’s media-related funding requests have grown rapidly since the state first included the Vermont Access Network in the office’s base budget in Fiscal Year 2025.

The office initially requested $1 million for VAN in FY25, describing public access television as an “essential service.” That amount increased to $1.35 million in the current fiscal year. The new request for $1.8 million in FY27 continues a three-year funding strategy that projects a request of $2 million by FY28.

VAN represents 24 community media centers that provide public, educational, and government access television. These centers have historically been funded through franchise fees paid by cable television subscribers, but declining cable subscriptions have created what VAN describes as a $600,000 annual revenue loss.

The community radio request represents a new category of state support. The office is asking for $90,000 to support ten stations, most of which operate on budgets under $25,000 per year and are too small to qualify for federal Corporation for Public Broadcasting funding.

Questions About State-Funded Journalism

The expansion of taxpayer-funded media grants raises fundamental questions about the appropriate role of government in supporting news organizations.

Proponents argue that the state has a legitimate interest in ensuring communities have access to local information, particularly given the collapse of the traditional commercial news model. They point to the emergency communication role that community radio stations played during the 2023 and 2024 floods, when they provided real-time updates on road closures and emergency resources after internet and cellular networks failed.

Critics may question whether the state can distribute journalism funding without creating incentives for recipients to avoid coverage that might jeopardize future grants. Even with independent selection panels, the perception that government-funded outlets might be reluctant to aggressively investigate state agencies or criticize state policies could undermine public trust in both the funded outlets and the program itself.

The lack of transparency about the selection process intensifies these concerns. Without knowing how many outlets applied, which were rejected, and what specific criteria determined winners, it is difficult to assess whether the program operates fairly across the ideological and geographic spectrum of Vermont’s news landscape.

Budget Context and Competing Priorities

The media funding requests come during a constrained fiscal environment. Governor Phil Scott’s FY27 budget totals $9.4 billion across all funds, but the January 2026 revenue forecast downgrade was the first since 2017. The Governor has emphasized that maintaining current service levels will cost the state $139 million more in FY27 due to inflation.

While $1.89 million for combined media grants appears modest in the context of a $9.4 billion budget, it represents new ongoing commitments during a period when municipalities are implementing significant austerity measures. The City of Burlington, for example, recently had to cut 25 positions and eliminate a police academy class to close a $1.8 million budget gap—the same amount now being requested for VAN alone.

The Secretary of State’s Office is also requesting $1.1 million in General Fund support for election security, citing the reduction of federal Help America Vote Act grants. That request brings the office’s total new General Fund asks to approximately $3 million.

Access to Program Records

While the Secretary of State’s Office has not proactively published a complete list of journalism grant applicants or detailed selection materials, these records may be available through the Vermont Public Records Act. As a public agency, the office is generally required to provide access to records of state-administered grant programs upon request.

However, relying on individual public records requests to obtain information about how taxpayer funds are distributed places the burden on citizens and journalists rather than on the agency administering the program. Best practices in government transparency typically involve proactive disclosure of grant program details, including applicant lists, scoring rubrics, and program evaluation data.

What Happens Next

The House Appropriations Committee will continue its budget deliberations throughout February and March. Legislators will need to decide whether to approve the Secretary of State’s expanded media funding requests without the benefit of outcome data from the inaugural journalism grant program.

The committee could request additional information from the Secretary of State’s Office, including the total number of journalism grant applicants, the specific criteria and scoring methodology used in selections, and a detailed plan for evaluating program effectiveness before approving expanded funding.

Alternatively, legislators could approve the VAN and community radio requests, which support infrastructure and emergency communication services, while deferring expansion of the journalism grant program until the first round of recipients report on how funds were used and what outcomes were achieved.

The final FY27 budget will be negotiated between the House, Senate, and Governor’s office, with adoption expected before the fiscal year begins on July 1, 2027.

---

Editor’s Note and Disclosure: “Alas, your news outlet was not selected.”
Compass Vermont was built to provide Vermonters with complete information—grounded in primary sources and data—without speculation or editorial advocacy. In that spirit, the publication applied for this grant opportunity as much to observe how transparently the process and outcome were managed. Our rejection letter was short and devoid of any details, including the names of applicants or the qualifying criteria. The rejecting sentence simply stated, “Alas, your news outlet was not selected.”