To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.
And actually, now I've checked, she's running straight at Progs. David Zuckerman and Chris Pearson. Is that why the video is issue-free -- there aren't many places to differentiate on actual issues?
I hope Kesha Ram will get her own video up on YouTube soon and that it will provide something a bit more solid to base a vote on.
NanuqFC In a Time of Universal Deceit, TELLING the TRUTH Is a Revolutionary Act. -- George Orwell
Unfortunately, you can't include everything into a 3-min piece so I am sure that Rachel (the producer) had to cut some footage out that I would have like to see. However, you got see and hear Kesha talk about her experience, why she decided to run and what inspired her to do so.
Although Dave and Chris may be "good" on the Livable wage issue, I think that a fresh perspective in state government on the overall issue of higher education funding is necessary and desperately needed. Having a person of color in the Legislature, representing one of the most culturally diverse communities in the state is not a bad thing, folks, and she does provide a prospective on young people that many people can relate to.
If you have questions for Kesha, I am sure that she would love to talk to you about your ideas and the issues driving you to vote this November.
And Doug, while I cannot speak for Kesha, I did serve with her on the Executive Committee on the UVM Student Government and was involved with the JFO issue that you are referring to. What Doug fails to bring up is that during this time, students with SLAP instituted a hunger strike just days before the Ram Administration took hold. While I was not involved with the JFO discussions as I was dealing with student issues surrounding safety -- Kesha had to walk a very fine line between the numerous bits of info being presented to her by ALL sides of the issue. I know for a fact that Kesha was incredibly professional in the way she dealt with the issue and maintaining constant communication with all parties was critical. Furthermore, Kesha, as I did, had a responsibility to represent ALL UVM students, and that is tough when there was a shooting at Virginia Tech and safety issues were renewed at the University; a hunger strike for livable wages was underway and finals were being administered.
Here are some issues that I worked on in my role as Chairman of the Legislative Action Committee (which deals with UVM students, the City of Burlington and the State of Vermont) that Kesha and I worked on together:
-We conducted a comprehensive audit on our City Streets and held the Kiss Administration accountable for their response to the issue. We pushed the issue so hard that we were able to convince several City Councilors to join us and it forced the Mayor to create a City lighting group to evaluate the lighting on city streets and see what needed improvement.
- Kesha, myself and several other Senators, worked on helping Summer U (at UVM) lower it's tuition. We provided vocal support for Continuing Education's efforts and were successful in getting the BOT to approve a reduction in tuition.
- We helped create the Think-Care-Act Safety Campaign at UVM which focused on creating a safe community that was open and respectful. The campaign later became a Presidential Commission and focuses on many issues that college students deal with everyday around the issues of personal and community safety.
- We spoke out forcefully towards the Legislature for more funding for UVM to help offset the dramatic increase in college tuition. Currently, UVM is ranked one of the most expensive state colleges in the country and the ONLY state University in New England that has more out of state students than in-state students? On more than one occasion, Kesha and I worked together on this issue.
The list of work that I did and Kesha worked with me on goes on. I am sure that if you emailed her and asked for her input and ideas on all sorts of issues, you will find her to be a strong and realistic individual on the issues who is well experienced and well versed on issues facing the district.
No question. But how were the students served by NOT having access to expert opinion on the matter?
"Kesha had to walk a very fine line between the numerous bits of info being presented to her by ALL sides of the issue."
Walking a fine line should not mean limiting access to information. She unilaterally decided to share info. from the administration and JFO but not from me (on behalf of SLAP).
Kesha never did anything unilaterally. She worked with her Cabinet to present information, that in our opinion, was fair and balanced and I do know that there were many in the Senate that felt that information presented by SLAP would be one-sided as would information from the Administration be one-sided.
"She unilaterally decided to share info. from the administration and JFO but not from me (on behalf of SLAP)."
You're making it sound like Kesha vetoed your efforts for livable wages and I can tell you that Kesha was incredibly vocal in her support for livable wages for all Vermonters. She did not, I did not nor did anyone in the SGA Senate. It was the Fogel Administration that stood in the way of your efforts, not us. I sat in dozens of meetings with her and she shared how much she felt about the issues. However, many people on the Executive Committee were concerned that each side would present information that wasn't completely clear or accurate. We had an issue in the past when a representative from Vermonters for Livable Wages came to the SGA Senate when I was still a Sophomore and present information that we later found out was not accurate and untrue. The President and the Vice President, along with the Executive Committee, thought the JFO was the best source of the real information. In response to her not including YOUR info, I cannot answer to that but people should know that nothing malicious or mean-spirited was done to hinder your efforts and you still had options to present your information to the general student body, such as the school newspaper. In fact, if you search under "Livable Wages," the search brings up nearly 8+ pages of information on the livable wages issue.
"No question. But how were the students served by NOT having access to expert opinion on the matter?"
We did get expert information. It was from the Joint Fiscal Office of the State of Vermont. The office that helps write the state budget, coordinate all spending and advise the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor and the General Assembly on all matters in the fiscal realm.
In addition, we voted for a resolution which was hand delivered to President Fogel and signed by Kesha in support of the students who were fasting in favor of livable wages. This was one of the first resolutions that Kesha signed and can be found at the SGA Office.
Since Kesha isn't here to defend herself, I would encourage you to email her (again) and state your concerns to her. I do not know if you have done this but I would encourage you to do so as I have defended her on every point you have presented.
Her email is on her website as well as her phone number.
Now, I have to get back to work before my break is up. Have a great day everybody.
"Doug, I cannot, in good conscience, include your comments in my report...For the record, that decision came from me and me alone."
Apparently, she didn't even share my comments with the Executive Committee.
Furthermore, you said, "We did get expert information. It was from the Joint Fiscal Office of the State of Vermont."
But it was wrong. JFO does excellent work. Indeed, I am working with JFO and the legislature's economist right now as we prepare recommendations about the basic needs budget for a summer study committee of the legislature. But this exercise was not about the state budget. Perhaps if Kesha had shared my critique of JFO's work you would understand. In the end, you got what the UVM administration wanted you to see (and that's the point).
You said Kesha "worked with her Cabinet to present information, that in our opinion, was fair and balanced."
But if you never saw my comments (which exposed the errors in JFO's work), you could not have known what was fair & balanced and what was not.
You also said "I do know that there were many in the Senate that felt that information presented by SLAP would be one-sided as would information from the Administration be one-sided."
It's reasonable to challenge data from all sources. But - again - if you were concerned about biased information, why did you limit yourselves to only one perspective? Rather, why did Kesha limit your access?
Is is normal procedure to allow those involved in ongoing exchanges to rate each other's comments?
In this case, he may not like what I said, but why should a largely factual statement be rated "0"?
Obviously, it's not a big deal but I think it's the first troll rating I've received and I'm curious about the process (having never rated anyone's comments).
Be a shame to ban our token Tarrantcrat. They're a rare species, after all. undercaffeinated
Also, I'm not too rare. But I do like to be token, thanks Odum.
So you didn't intent to troll rate, is that what you're saying? If so, no harm no foul, but you should probably remove the rating immediately. undercaffeinated
I also find it very hard to believe that Kesha would limit any information that the JFO may have given to her since the VP, the SGA Treasurer and several other folks within SGA were privy to this information. This would have been physcically impossible since she was accompanied by several students. So are you trying to assert that there was some massive conspiracy to conceal "the truth?" I would also like to add that the SGA Treasurer, who supported SLAP, agreed with the JFO as well as several members of the Office Staff, who I would like to note, would have been affected by a livable wage increase. We talked about "your data" and although I cannot recall the finer points of your analysis, we agreed with Kesha not to include it because we simply did not agree that analysis was necessary. I remember very clearly that Kesha included all information from the Administration, JFO and you in an email to the Executive Committee. We felt that you're information was unnecessary and didn't pass our smell test and advised Kesha to act accordingly.
In addition, I find your assertion that the Senate was biased to be just ridiculous. We were incredibly supportive of SLAP's efforts but for you to say that JFO was wrong and you were right just makes you look foolish. I would rather take the information from a group of people that work with the states finances, have them crunch the numbers and present us with a more balanced picture than SLAP or the Fogel Administration. I mean, you are almost asserting that the Fogel Administration tried to convince the JFO to deliberately mislead us. Give me a break, this isn't Capitol Hill.
We had in-depth conservations and vigorous debates on the issue of livable wages. We discussed it and when presented with all the facts, we made a recommendation and Kesha concurred. Furthermore, we found that assertions made by SLAP were just as biased as the assertions made by the Administration. We went out to get our own information and we did and we made our choice. So, instead of blaming Kesha for not including your information in a campus wide email when there were dozens of other outlets to use to get the information out, why don't you keep trying and keep at it instead of leveling blame on a person who did a damn good job and acted accordingly. God, the next thing you'll tell me is that the Bush Administration told her to do it.
Instead, let's get to the issue over who is best equipped to represent Chittenden 3-4 in the Vermont House. You may think that Kesha lacks judgment because you came out on the losing side of an argument. However, having worked with Kesha for years, I can tell you she is best equipped and ready to represent UVM, the Hill Section and the Old North End in the House because of her hard work, her transparency and her belief that change is good for democracy.
As to your other points:
1. I never said anything about a conspiracy although I did imply that UVM administrators worked the system to their advantage. Does that surprise you? 2. I never said Kesha limited access to JFO data. Quite the contrary. She favored JFO data. 3. You said the exec. comm. "talked about [my] data and although I cannot recall the finer points of your analysis, we agreed with Kesha not to include it because we simply did not agree that analysis was necessary." This is an amazing statement. Given evidence that the JFO analysis was in error, you somehow thought it was best to keep the incorrect data and ignore a critique by a recognized expert? On what basis could you have determined that it was not necessary? 4. You also said "We felt that you're information...didn't pass our smell test and advised Kesha to act accordingly." Everyone has gut instincts. But if you are presented with new information about a subject unfamiliar to you, it makes sense to seek (and in this case distribute) more information, not less. In the end, your smell test was not very accurate. 5. You also said that for me "to say that JFO was wrong and [I was] right just makes you look foolish." Scott - you just don't get it. JFO was wrong. This is not a subjective matter. There is adherence to the methodology and then there's what JFO did. It really (really) is that simple. 6. You also said "we found that assertions made by SLAP were just as biased as the assertions made by the Administration." I don't know what assertions were made by SLAP. But if you thought the assertions made by the administration were biased, why did you distribute those? Or you could have provided another perspective. And if you're referring to my comments as biased SLAP assertions, you must not have read them because they clearly explained why JFO's data was flawed. Where was the bias except in favor of sound and defensible methodology? 7. You also said "We went out to get our own information and we did and we made our choice." Curious. You went out of your way to get info. from one source only; not from the Peace & Justice Center or from me. SLAP asked me to comment since the exec. comm. didn't. More importantly, why did you have to make a choice? You've already admitted that you didn't trust the administration. So when you were presented with more information, why not present it all and let the students decide? 8. You also said "why don't you keep trying and keep at it instead of leveling blame on a person who did a damn good job and acted accordingly." As I said, Kesha told me herself that it was her sole decision not to distribute my comments. And it should be clear that in my opinion she did not act appropriately. 9. And finally, you said "You may think that Kesha lacks judgment because you came out on the losing side of an argument." The loss was not mine. The real losers were the students who were not provided with critical information. Moreover, I did not "lose". The facts remain: JFO screwed up and you guys got hoodwinked by the administration.
While the details may be a little complicated, the core issue is simple. Don't limit debate by restricting the flow of information. I hope you can put aside your defensive attitude, own up to the mistakes made, and learn this lesson.
Scott, I'm sharing this with you because the quality of debate here on GMD has increased dramatically over time as many of us decided to keep the blog-flames at bay. I also share this with you as someone who just slammed another person yesterday and then decided I owed an apology as public as my knee-jerk rebuke. It's a bit humbling but if we can't find humility we can't rise to success.
You support Kesha. That's pretty clear. Hoffer isn't convinced based on an experience he had. That's clear, too. Here's where things are going astray: Hoffer asked some questions; you have yet to answer. Hoffer presented some evidence; you can't recall the finer points. Hoffer offers a perspective based on his expertise; you suggest that a group of people crunching numbers are the only source of "balanced picture." (Ummm.... you're not serious, are you? We've just gone through 8 years of "trust us, we know more than you do," governing policy, including the initial proposal over the weekend to give the Fed $7 billion no questions asked.)
Do you see what's going on here? You can talk about JFO, SGA, and SLAP until you're blue in the face. I posted the MTV vid because it's pretty cool and an interesting use of video that other candidates might use. But that doesn't mean Kesha's email to Doug meshes well with your
What does she mean by, "in good conscience?" What was in the report that was objectionable? Did that decision really come from her alone or did it come from a group decision as you suggest? Your reply above really opened up a can of worms. Nate Freeman Northfield, VT natefreeman@gmail.com
And "For the record, that decision came from me and me alone" could simply be a the buck stops here comment, along the lines of "I've consulted with the group, and they feel x, y and z, but as the Chair the decision rests with me and I take full responsibility for it, so For the record, that decision came from me and me alone"
I mean, who knows? The quote raises questions, but it doesn't answer them. For example, Doug jumps to the conclusion that "Apparently, she didn't even share my comments with the Executive Committee" when it sounds like she did. undercaffeinated
I never said (or meant to suggest) that her intent was malelovent. Moreover, it doesn't matter if she disagreed. That's not sufficient justification for limiting access to relevant information.
As for the "buck stops here" scenario: if that was her point, she could easily have said she had discussed it with the committee and after due consideration had made an executive decision. She didn't do that.
And my comment that "Apparently, she didn't even share my comments with the Executive Committee" was based on the information available to me at the time. Scott didn't tell me the issue was discussed until the next exchange. And of course I qualified it by saying "apparently". Furthermore, knowing what we know now, it's even more inexcusable that the entire exec. committee agreed to limit debate.
Look, this has gotten way out of hand (and I'm at fault too). I have nothing against Kesha (although I wish she wasn't running against David & Chris). But the facts are clear. JFO screwed up; UVM successfully used both JFO and the SGA; and Kesha refused to distribute relevant information.
I prefer not to share the entire e-mail without Kesha's approval (I'm not asking!). And unless someone wants to know the details (I can send it privately), I will not provide my comments about JFO's work. It was a weird moment in time and I have no desire to diss JFO or their fine staff.
Personally, I'd like to move on.
so when she talks about wanting "change in this country", how exactly will she advance the cause by replacing either of those two sitting reps?
her web site includes this comment: "The wages of our lowest paid workers are being outpaced by rising costs of everything from food to fuel. Vermonters deserve a livable wage and the state should lead by example by providing all state employees with a livable wage."
I applaud her support for livable wages. However, an incident last year raises some questions in my mind.
I first encountered Kesha was when she was President of the student body; when the student group SLAP was advocating for livable wages for UVM staff, she joined the UVM administration in seeking info. from the Joint Fiscal Office about how to adjust the livable wage for UVM's benefit package; this is a reasonable question and I've done such work for a number of employers; but JFO had never done this and, inexplicably, did a poor job (unlike their typical professionalism); they deviated from the established methodology in a way that was very favorable to UVM [Note: without boring you with details, this is not a small matter; not because the methodology is sacrosanct, but because what they did violated the internal logic of the methodology]
subsequently, I was contacted by SLAP and asked to review JFO's work, which I did; the errors were obvious to anyone familiar with the methodology but none of the participants (including Kesha) had any experience with it; indeed, Kesha repeatedly referred to the methodology as "ideological"; while some choices in the methodology are subjective, it is not "ideological"; indeed, a tri-partisan leg. committee approved the methodology in 1999 and it was adopted in statute the following year
unfortunately, Kesha decided on her own NOT to share my analysis with the student body; in her message to me, she claimed her reason for not sharing my comments was to protect JFO, who she thought I had unfairly criticized; in truth, there was nothing "unfair" about my factual comments or my questions about why JFO had become involved (never happened before or since); and why should she care about criticisms of JFO? and in any event, why shouldn't the students have access to comments by one of the very few people in the state with extensive knowledge of the issue? she could easily have written a short preface with her own views and allowed the students to decide on their own how to weigh my comments; in the end, the entire episode was bizarre
she also stated incorrectly that the effort by JFO to estimate the value of UVM's benefits "was never before quantified"; in fact, a faculty committee had done just that a few months before but, apparently, Pres. Fogel wasn't happy with the results (hence the trip down to JFO where they hoped for and received a happier but incorrect analysis)
in any case, I found it curious that Kesha would side with the UVM administration on this issue rather than the workers (the upshot of JFO's faulty analysis was to reduce the effective livable wage for UVM employees); no doubt she would describe it differently but that is certainly the way I perceived it (as did the folks at SLAP); and it was curious that she agreed to UVM's choice to reach out to JFO but never contacted the Peace & Justice Center (sponsor of the livable wage work) or me, the author of the original Job Gap Study; apparently, she got sucked in by the suits, including a supportive message from State Sen. Susan Bartlett, who is not expert on this issue and may not have understood the details or the nuances
and it was especially odd that she would refuse to distribute my comments since her primary role (in her own words) was to provide balanced info. to the students
in fairness, it was a very contentious issue and it all happened in the run-up to the student's final exams; but in my opinion she did not act impartially in this matter and it made me wonder about her judgment
www.integralpsychosis.com
by that I meant that the result of the analysis was to show a lower effective livable wage on paper; it had no prescriptive value in the negotiations between UVM and the workers, although the goal of the UVM administration was to use it as leverage
sorry if that wasn't clear
Blog SEO Tools
