The Douglas administration unveiled their Challenges for Change proposal last week to a chorus of discontent from every imaginable sector. The Chamber was among those wishing to have been spared the possibility of reduced funding. The concept of shrinking government’s size while increasing its effectiveness is a wonderful one until a pet program is the one being gored. This is no different today than it was in 1994 when, in a previous life and in a previous administration, I was among those attempting to do the same thing. Our ideas were met with disdain, many were dropped and a few lived to prove themselves out. We missed huge opportunities back then and we stand to lose opportunities now if we allow the process to be derailed. It is time to come together as Vermonters and make this work.

That said, could the administration worked with constituency groups to craft, or at least review, the proposed changes before launching them? Probably. Would an inclusive process run the risk if devolving into a ‘process for process sake’ exercise that has become the hallmark of the bureaucracy today? Probably. Would the suggestions have been markedly different? Pretty Likely…. Could we have, with legislative and executive leadership, commitment and fortitude driven an inclusive process that met the financial and time constraint benchmarks? Yes. However, as the saying goes, “it is what it is.”

We are faced with a Hobson’s Choice: accept what has been proposed in the Challenges for Change and that is already marbled in the House budget that assumes the savings ($38 million) or cut a much less strategic $38 million out of that budget. To me the choice is clear.

It is up to all of us, whether we are in the economic development, environment, human services or protection sectors, to work to make the best tasting lemonade we can.