Tim Maciel is a longtime teacher, a former college administrator, and an education consultant.
BRATTLEBORO-Recently, Sen. Bernie Sanders spoke in Brattleboro about national politics and said something that stuck with me: "The status quo ain't working."
He was talking about Washington, not Vermont. But after 10 years of Gov. Phil Scott, I find myself wondering: Is the status quo working for Vermont?
I don't ask that because I think Scott has been a terrible governor. His handling of Covid was, by most reasonable measures, a success. He acted decisively, listened to public-health experts and communicated regularly with Vermonters. He also deserves credit for welcoming refugees from Afghanistan and elsewhere after the fall of Kabul.
Those accomplishments matter.
I have never voted Republican, so I won't pretend to be politically neutral. But nor do I believe it is useful to dismiss everything a governor has done simply because we disagree with his politics.
The question is what Vermont needs now.
After a decade, housing remains increasingly unaffordable, healthcare costs are crushing families and state government, young people are leaving the state, workforce shortages persist, and our aging infrastructure is increasingly vulnerable to severe weather events.
Perhaps it is time to ask whether the strategies that brought us here are the strategies that will take Vermont where it needs to go.
I don't think they are. That is why I support Amanda Janoo for governor.
* * *
Consider economic development.
In Brattleboro, a 60,000-square-foot reminder of the limits of "mainstream" economic development sits in plain sight on Putney Road: the former Home Depot. It opened in 2004 and closed only four years later, leaving behind a massive building that still remains empty.
The lesson isn't that outside businesses are unwelcome. They can bring jobs, investment, and useful services. But attracting a large corporation is not necessarily the same thing as building a durable local economy. I imagine that our local hardware stores would agree.
The St. Albans dairy facility raises a different but related question.
For more than a century, the cooperative was rooted in the community and owned by dairy farmers. After merging with Kansas City-based Dairy Farmers of America in 2019, the St. Albans facility is now dormant, putting roughly 80 jobs at risk while a dispute between the company and its union over the circumstances of the closure moves toward arbitration.
Home Depot and the St. Albans dairy facility are obviously very different stories. But both raise an important question: Who makes the decisions about Vermont's economic assets, and who ultimately benefits from those decisions?
Economic development should be judged by what it leaves behind. Did it strengthen local businesses? Create good jobs that allow Vermonters to remain in their communities? Increase local ownership? Strengthen the local tax base? Protect Vermont's environment? Keep more wealth circulating in our communities?
* * *
Amanda Janoo offers a different economic strategy. Her campaign emphasizes using public investment to strengthen businesses, farms, workers, and cooperatives already rooted here; expanding local purchasing; encouraging employee and community ownership; and keeping more wealth circulating in Vermont.
In a recent gubernatorial debate, she argued that Vermont should focus less on what it lacks - people, investment or large corporations - and more on the businesses, skills, and innovation already here.
That makes sense to me.
The debate over large-scale data centers raises the same question. Gov. Scott vetoed legislation establishing requirements for sustainable data-center development, arguing that Vermont should not discourage investment and jobs in emerging industries. The Legislature subsequently sustained his veto.
The larger question, however, is not whether data centers are good or bad. It is whether Vermont should simply compete for outside investments or we should establish clear conditions for determining whether that investment serves Vermont's long-term interests.
* * *
This is the larger difference I see between Scott and Janoo.
Scott often asks how government can cost less. Janoo asks a different question: How can government work better for the people and communities it exists to serve?
That distinction matters.
Phil Scott has given Vermont 10 years of leadership that included genuine successes as well as consequential disagreements. But this election should not simply be a referendum on whether Scott has been "good enough." It should be a conversation about what Vermont needs for the next decade.
We cannot keep doing what we have been doing and simply hope the results change.
The most important question is: What kind of Vermont do we want to leave to our children and grandchildren?
Amanda Janoo is offering a fundamentally different vision - one that puts greater emphasis on investing in Vermonters, local businesses, workers, schools, and communities rather than assuming that attracting outside investment will, by itself, produce the Vermont we want.
Voters should read her platform, scrutinize her proposals, demand specifics, and challenge her assumptions. That's what elections are for.
But after 10 years, Vermont deserves a genuine choice about its future. For me, that means thanking Phil Scott for his decade of service - and voting for Amanda Janoo and a new direction for Vermont.
This Voices Viewpoint was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at voices@commonsnews.org.