If the Burlington City Council and the Mayor’s office are any metric, the Progressives are indeed coming in to their own as a Major Political Party by engaging in the same sort of bunker mentality politics that the Republicans and Democrats engage in when they get caught screwing up. There have thusfar been no “mistakes were made” moments over the financial scandal rocking the Queen City, as the Council’s Progressives along with city hall seem to be stuck spinning their wheels on the first stage of grief.
(Note: If you just got back from the Negative Zone, Burlington Chief Administrative Officer Jonathan Leopold cut a $17 million loan from the City’s general funds to Burlington Telecom (the city-run telecom entity) without seeking approval from the Board of Finance or City Council. As a result, BT is now violating its “certificate of public good” issued by the state by not repaying the loan within 60 days – as well as by not expanding its network as promised).
While the revelation that Prog politicians are every bit as human as Dems and Repubs may not be worth mentioning – the potential consequences of continued denial are. The line from Kiss and company has not simply been to avoid the subject of the actual breach of ethics and the terms of BT’s operating certificate entirely, but to try and change that subject. Here’s an example of the rhetoric that has been coming from Kiss and the Council Progressives of late (emphasis added):
The Council Progressives and the Mayor have seemed to be on the same page – and that page is to make this scandal all about Burlington Telecom itself rather than a lack of transparency, a breach of public trust, and rule (law?) breaking. Presumablely they’re banking on the notion that a referundum on BT will go their way, so a deflection of the topic is in their favor.
But they’re wrong.
This scandal is a big, big deal that’s not going to drift away, and there will come a point that some of their opponents will recognize the opportunity and gladly oblige these Progs by helping to make the conversation about BT. Why? Because if the Progs are successful in linking the two conversations, the results could be devastating for the fledgling, publicly-run information infrastructure experiment. It could bring it all down.
The rational thing to do at this point is to show some humility. In this case, an overabundance of pride could well go before a very big fall.
One of the bad raps on the Progressives collectively has been the idea that they are all about – and only about – building their Party. That nothing else really matters to them. An insistence on a strategy to avoid responsibility for an ethical breach at the expense of one of their finest legacies will go a long way towards cementing that bad rap.
Let’s be clear; I’m not concern trolling. I’m not a member of the Progressive Party and likely never will be – but as a little ‘p’ progressive, I have a stake in Burlington Telecom. I want to see it succeed. And using it as a stalking horse in a political scandal is not in its best interest. I also know that there will be some Progressive politicians who will have no problem with continuing such a strategy, even if it looks to drag down BT.
But I also have faith in some of those folks to be smart and do the right thing. GMD readers will not only recognize the Council Progressives’ paid staffer, Doug Hoffer, but will likely join in my confidence in him to be one of those smart folks based on the quality of his contributions to this community. I genuinely have faith that Hoffer, and others like him who are in the midst of the storm, will ultimately see the bigger picture and keep Burlington Telecom from being sacrificed on the altar of political cover (or at least, that he will have some appreciation for the growing concerns on the matter).
Link this GMD about ANR and the secretive development of the proposed all terrain vehicle rules to what transpired in Montpelier to what is going on in Burlington.
The common thread is hubris and a lack of accountability and transparency. (I could throw Williamstown’s selectboard into this mix for a recent incident that had a selectboard member representing the selectboard at a public hearing held on an issue that involved purchasing property from the presenting selectboard member … but those first three do the trick I think).
In all reality I don’t give a crap about the party affiliation under these circumstances. What happened in all three (four) circumstances was wrong. Period.
This is about governance … not party politics.
You can almost hear the splutter: “But we did it for a GOOD REASON!“
That’s what I imagine they’re thinking. Results over process. Democracy is so-o-o messy. Rules are for the bad guys, we’re good guys. Or, conversely, rules are instituted by the bad guys to keep us from doing what is best.
So well-intentioned, I’ll give ’em that.
NanuqFC
The decadent international but individualistic capitalism … is not a success. It is not intelligent. It is not beautiful. It is not just. It is not virtuous. And it doesn’t deliver the goods. ~ John Maynard Keynes
http://www.7dvt.com/2009scapeg…
As more details come out, I think that it is clear that
1) Jonathan has come clean and said he needed to be more clear in his reporting,
2) that he did actually inform the council (all of them) through the budget and through an executive meeting in May (18th),
3) that BT is at greater risk of collapsing (and becoming a financial burden for the taxpayers) if it is required to sell at a firesale price because some councilors (Shannon and others) think it is better to stop hook-ups while the rest of the details are figured out,
4) That Jonathan went to the DPS (and yes…he should have gone to the PSB as well), last Nov., and O’briens boys indicated to the City that the buildout (condition 17) was what they should focus on and that they would/should come back to condition 60 (shared pool) later as it was not a big deal (in their opinion). While the shared pool was a violation of the CPG, it was not seen by the consumer advocate branch of state government as a big financial risk, which it is not, unless BT is forced to sell under duress.
5) I am not trying to say that nothing was done improperly, but the scale of attack does not pass the straight face test since 1) all of the councilors have known about this since May…so why the “sudden” outrage? and 2) the attack that it was “hidden” until after the elections is also ludicrous since it was taken to the DPS (in Nov.) and around a dozen city people knew, including the legal team on the matter which has a history of being far more D than P, so it would have taken quite a conspiracy to keep it secret…if it was such a big deal.
Again…read Shays piece this week.
http://www.7dvt.com/2009scapeg…
Dave brings up some interesting points that are not really worth debating right now. However, he forgets that the administration has admitted the following: That for a period of six months (from November, 2008 – May, 2009), against attorney advice, while a hotly contested mayoral election was occurring, the CAO for the City of Burlington, knowingly and intentionally broke the law, by transferring millions of dollars of taxpayer money, into a less-than-sure investment, in violation of the City’s CPG AND FAILED TO TELL THE CITY COUNCIL THE CORPORATE BOARD FOR BT about his ongoing violation for the entire period.
These facts are undisputed and anyone can watch the CAO declare these uncontested facts by going to http://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/m…
In respect to the Council knowing about this in May (like that washes away the serious offense of the CAO), the only councilors who seem to remember crystal clearly as to what was told in a 2 1/2 hour executive session are the Progressive Councilors.
It does not matter who knew about it in the administration, the Council did not know about it.
As far as the CAO coming clean. “Needed to be more clear in his reporting” is not going to cut it. The CAO said that the majority of the Council and the Board of Finance could not “connect the dots” – http://www.burlingtonfreepress… Gee I should have taken that connect the dot and paint by numbers class when I was attending UVM and Vermont Law School. I never knew open government required elected officials to be code breakers.
Best,
Ed
233-2131
Aren’t there minutes from that May meeting? Those should reflect the conversation and what was said, no?
that “we’ve” woken up from a national trend of “executive privilege” and are “discovering” how this trend is effecting our local politics… from Burlington to Montpelier to Winooski to Williston to Northfield to…
Too many secrets. Too much politics getting in the way of dealing with issues openly.
Odum, your post spreads the politicking, IMHO. Instead of pointing fingers at party labels, perhaps provide some context into the bigger picture. Coz it really doesn’t matter which party is “in charge” if the results are the same.
I can tell that there is resentment towars the Progressives here. Had it been a democratically controlled council and damage control was enacted the arguments would not be as harsh. The real discussion lies in the actual numbers and actions that resulted from those numbers.
There was a breach in public transparency and that is clear. I think the brouhaha is completely overblown as everyone loves to make a bigger deal about local politics than its really worth.
There should be a third party audit and investigations from every local media outlet. And 7 Days shouldn’t play up the importance of the situation just because they broke the story.
City finances can be complicated and beyond the realm of politics. To force them to be subjugated as such is to demean the civil governance process. Let’s be sensible about the matter and not fall victim to party feuds and political positioning. BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT THIS IS…