Was the Vermont Speaker Ever Fully Committed to Act 73's Education Consolidation Mandate?

The bill passed the House with bipartisan support, 87-55, but appointing opponents to the task force—including one as Co-Chair—suggests that the law's most controversial provisions would not survive.

How Speaker Krowinski’s Task Force Appointments Shaped—and May Have Backfired on—Vermont’s Education Overhaul

The December Collision

On December 1, 2025, two documents landed in Vermont’s political landscape within hours of each other. The first was the state’s annual tax letter, forecasting an average 11.9% increase in property taxes—on top of the previous year’s historic spike. The second was the final report from the School District Redistricting Task Force, the panel created by Act 73 to consolidate Vermont’s 119 school districts into larger regional units.

The Task Force did not deliver the consolidation maps the law required. Instead, it proposed Cooperative Education Service Areas—voluntary partnerships that would preserve local school boards while centralizing some services. Governor Phil Scott immediately declared the panel had “failed” and blamed those “who didn’t fulfill their obligation” for rising property taxes.

For political observers who had tracked Act 73 from its passage, the Task Force’s direction was not a failure of competence. It was the predictable result of how Speaker Jill Krowinski chose to staff the panel six months earlier.

Krowinski’s Appointments: The Evidence

When Speaker Krowinski announced her appointments in July 2025, she selected three representatives: Edye Graning of Jericho, Rebecca Holcombe of Norwich, and Beth Quimby of Lyndon. A review of their voting records on H.454 (Act 73) reveals a striking pattern.

Two of the three appointees had voted against the bill they were now assigned to implement.

Rep. Edye Graning: Co-Chair and “Nay” Voter

Krowinski named Graning Co-Chair of the Task Force—the lead House position on the panel. Official roll call records show Graning voted “Nay” on final passage of H.454. She also voted against the procedural motion to send the bill to the Governor immediately—a common tactic to delay enactment.

As Co-Chair, Graning publicly described the Task Force’s mandate as a “herculean” task for which the panel lacked sufficient time “to do the work... with the quality and level of detail that we would all love.” Her skepticism about the timeline—evident in her original “Nay” vote—carried into her leadership of the process.

Rep. Rebecca Holcombe: The Policy Critic

Holcombe served as Vermont’s Secretary of Education from 2014 to 2018, overseeing implementation of Act 46’s consolidation mandates. She is widely regarded as one of the legislature’s foremost authorities on education policy. Her legislative record confirms she voted “Nay” on H.454 and against forwarding the bill to the Governor.

Holcombe’s opposition was not quiet. She publicly described Act 73 as “a rushed, politicized and inconsistent piece of work that has good elements, but also the potential to do real harm.” She argued the legislation rested on a flawed premise—that consolidation produces savings—and pointed to evidence that previous mergers under Act 46 had not delivered promised efficiencies. “Consolidation does not save money,” she argued, predicting that “Vermonters have never liked being told what to do.”

By placing Holcombe on the Task Force, Krowinski ensured that the administration’s core argument—that forced mergers would reduce costs—would face relentless internal scrutiny from someone with the expertise and credibility to challenge it.

Rep. Beth Quimby: The Lone Supporter

Quimby, representing Lyndon, Burke, and Sutton, was a primary sponsor of H.454. The bill passed the House 87-55 with strong Republican support, and Quimby was among its architects. Her appointment provided the pro-consolidation perspective on the House contingent—but she was outnumbered two-to-one by colleagues who had voted the other way.

The Contrast with the Senate

Senate President Pro Tem Phil Baruth’s appointments tell a different story. All three Senate members of the Task Force supported Act 73.

Senator Martine Larocque Gulick of Burlington, named Co-Chair alongside Graning, voted “Yea” on final passage. As Chair of the Senate Education Committee, she had helped craft the legislation. Senator Scott Beck of Caledonia, a Republican, also voted “Yea” and described Act 73 as a necessary “starting point” for reform. Senator Wendy Harrison of Windham, whose vote is contextually confirmed as affirmative, brought regional planning expertise aligned with the bill’s goals.

The pattern is unmistakable: Baruth sent loyalists to implement the law. Krowinski sent critics.

The Containment Logic

Why would the Speaker appoint opponents to lead a high-profile task force? The political context of spring 2025 offers a possible explanation.

Act 73 placed Democratic leadership in a bind. Governor Scott and fiscal conservatives demanded consolidation to address property tax increases. But rural Democratic voters, school boards, and teachers’ unions were organizing what some called a “rebellion” against forced mergers they viewed as an attack on community schools.

The legislation’s consolidation mandate—requiring new districts of 4,000 to 8,000 students by 2028—would mean closing schools and dissolving local boards across rural Vermont. Any map accomplishing this would be politically toxic ahead of the 2026 elections.

By passing the bill but appointing skeptics to the Task Force, Krowinski could satisfy the immediate demand for action while ensuring the outcome would not destroy the Democratic rural base. If the Task Force pivoted away from forced consolidation—as it did—the blame would fall on a panel that included prominent “Nay” voters, not on leadership that had ostensibly supported the law.

The appointments also provided political cover. A Task Force stacked entirely with consolidation supporters would have been dismissed by opponents as a “railroad job.” By including Graning and Holcombe, any recommendation carried the fingerprints of the skeptics, making it harder for the “rebellion” to reject the outcome entirely.

The Question of Commitment

The composition of Krowinski’s appointments raises a fundamental question: Was the Speaker ever fully committed to Act 73’s consolidation mandate?

The bill passed the House with bipartisan support, 87-55, and Krowinski allowed it to move forward. But appointing two “Nay” voters—including one as Co-Chair—suggests an understanding that the law’s most controversial provisions would not survive implementation.

Holcombe’s appointment is particularly telling. As a former Secretary of Education who had publicly dismantled the administration’s cost-saving arguments, she was positioned to undermine the consolidation mandate from within. Her presence guaranteed that the Task Force would not produce the “mega-district” maps the Governor envisioned.

The non-legislative appointments reinforced this direction. Krowinski appointed Dr. Jay Badams, a former superintendent who publicly questioned the savings claims and called the timeline “unrealistic.” These experts provided technical ammunition to support the skeptics’ position.

The contrast with Baruth’s Senate appointments—all “Yea” voters committed to reform—suggests the two chambers approached Act 73 with different levels of conviction. The Senate sent implementers; the House sent deconstructors.

The Backfire

The containment strategy was designed to prevent political damage from forced consolidation. Instead, it may have created a different kind of damage.

The December 1 tax letter changed the political calculus. With property taxes projected to rise another 12%—on top of the previous year’s historic increase—voters have little patience for nuanced policy debates about regional cooperation versus district consolidation.

Governor Scott’s narrative is simple: He provided a plan to cut costs. The legislature’s appointees refused to implement it. Now taxes are rising again.

The technical reality is more complicated. Even if the Task Force had drawn consolidation maps, Act 73’s implementation date was 2028. No amount of mapping in 2025 would have affected the 2026 tax bills. The 11.9% increase is driven by healthcare costs, inflation, and the expiration of one-time subsidies—factors unrelated to district boundaries.

But politics often operates on perception rather than technical accuracy. The optics are damaging for legislative Democrats: They appear to have spent six months dismantling the only cost-reduction plan on the table while costs spiraled upward. The CESA model proposed by the Task Force adds regional structures rather than eliminating overhead—the opposite of what the Governor promised and what taxpayers expected.

The containment strategy successfully avoided the immediate political crisis of forced school closures. But it may have traded that crisis for a longer-term liability: the perception that Democrats are unwilling to make difficult decisions on education costs, even as property taxes reach historic levels.

The Voting Record Summary

The verified voting breakdown of the Task Force’s legislative members:

House Appointees (Speaker Krowinski):

Rep. Edye Graning (Co-Chair): NAY

Rep. Rebecca Holcombe: NAY

Rep. Beth Quimby: YEA (Sponsor)

Senate Appointees (Pro Tem Baruth):

Sen. Martine Gulick (Co-Chair): YEA

Sen. Scott Beck: YEA

Sen. Wendy Harrison: YEA (inferred)

The House sent two opponents and one sponsor. The Senate sent three supporters. The Task Force’s ultimate direction—away from consolidation, toward cooperation—reflected the composition Krowinski created.

What Happens Next

The Task Force report goes to the General Assembly in January 2026. The legislature can accept the CESA model, amending Act 73 to replace forced consolidation with voluntary cooperation. It can reject the report and direct the Agency of Education to draw consolidation maps without Task Force input. Or it can pursue some hybrid approach.

Governor Scott has signaled he will continue pressing for structural cost reductions. With the 2026 elections approaching and property taxes at historic highs, Democratic candidates will face questions about whether their leadership sabotaged the state’s only plan to control education costs.

Defenders of the Task Force, including former legislator Brian Kinsley, argue the panel “didn’t fail—they listened” to communities across Vermont. The CESA model, they contend, addresses cost drivers without destroying local institutions.

Whether the containment strategy ultimately helped or hurt Democrats will likely be decided at the ballot box. Krowinski’s appointments ensured that Act 73’s consolidation mandate would not be implemented as written. The question now is whether voters will reward that outcome—or punish it.